$10M in a Week: What Investors Want From Junior Mining

Stephen Burega: You might be the Titanic. You’re missing the point here. The point is that we’re supposed to be spending that money on the communities.

We were able to raise close to $10 million in a week. It happened so quickly. The first $6 million happened in 24 hours.

North American investors can see less risk in operating in Mexico than in an African environment. If you talk to a European investor, they may see great opportunity in Africa and see the converse in Mexico or South America.

The average investor right now is looking at ten stories, not one. How are you going to differentiate yourself as the one out of ten or twenty?

Host: Today I’m speaking with Stephen Burega, President of Oreterra Metals. Stephen, thank you so much for joining the conversation. I’m particularly excited about this podcast because we’ve been talking on and off for a few years at this point.

Stephen Burega: That’s right. I really appreciate you having me here today. Thanks very much.

Host: When we initially spoke, you were still with Appia Rare Earths & Uranium. Can you tell us more about your background and how you got to where you are today?

Stephen Burega: That’s a big question.

I’ve been in the junior resource sector for close to 20 years now, around 18 years. Early in my career, I started in finance, moved into politics, and then became involved in government relations and communications.

Later, I moved to Vancouver and discovered this really interesting world of junior finance and the junior resource sector. I became a partner in an early-stage private merchant bank model where we were investing our own capital primarily into African projects.

I was the youngest partner by a number of years. I didn’t have kids at the time, I had a valid passport, and I quickly ended up on planes to Mali, Burkina Faso and, over the following years, probably 15 or 20 different African countries.

Eventually I ended up in Uganda and started a small exploration company called Rakai Resources.

The model at Rakai Resources was very different. The idea was that if we were fortunate enough to find something valuable, we wanted to build a structure that would make the project more sustainable and more likely to become mineable.

We gifted 50% of the company to a Canadian non-profit organization called the Salama Shield Foundation, which was operating in Uganda.

When I went to Karamoja for the first time, the team included me, a geologist, local Ugandan support and Ugandan social-development professionals.

That was unusual. Communities were accustomed to exploration teams arriving, making demands and not necessarily listening. We arrived with development workers on the front line.

Geologists are often the first people to arrive in remote areas. They climb the mountain no one else has climbed. In many cases, they literally become the first point of contact.

I was very conscious that, as a Canadian arriving in small villages in northern Uganda where outside contact might be limited, it was better to have Ugandan colleagues at my side.

That approach created interesting momentum.

We later developed a structure where 2% from our side and another 2% from the Salama Shield side went into a trust intended to create direct ownership for local communities.

We were also able to work with UNICEF. You had this enormous organization working with a very small private company called Rakai Resources to explore ways of communicating with communities using relatively simple technology. Rather than depending on smartphones, the system could work through basic text messaging.

Suddenly Rakai began attracting attention.

I eventually found myself presenting in Geneva on a panel with major corporations and major mining companies.

I took a very different approach.

I looked at some of the community-development models being used by major organizations. The work itself was important, but they were spending millions of dollars on tools.

I said, quite frankly, “You might be the Titanic. You’re missing the point here.”

The point was that the money was supposed to be reaching communities.

Our model was different. The audience at that conference included representatives from many developing countries, and the response became one of the highlights of my career.

At one point, members of the Ugandan delegation came to the microphone and essentially said, “You’re officially Ugandan to us. We’re proud that you have this model. Come sit with us.”

That was an extraordinary moment for me because it demonstrated that things could be done differently.

I’ve tried to apply different versions of that principle to the businesses I’ve been involved with ever since.

I think innovative models will continue to come to the forefront, including work with small-scale miners to improve practices and reduce environmental impacts from poor gold-recovery methods.

Changes at a very local scale can eventually have a much larger impact on the people surrounding those operations.

That was how I became involved in the industry.

Since then, it has taken me to Cambodia and other parts of Southeast Asia, Brazil and numerous other jurisdictions.

Today my main focus is Oreterra Metals, formerly known as Romios Gold Resources.

Our projects are North American. We’re working in the Golden Triangle in British Columbia on an exciting copper-gold porphyry target. We also have projects in Ontario and Nevada.

Across all of these areas, there are First Nations or Indigenous communities that need to be part of the process.

I really value that aspect of the business because I think innovative models can be built around those relationships. It isn’t something to ignore. It’s something to embrace.

That approach has been fundamental throughout my career.

Host: You’re also part of the Critical Minerals Institute. How has that work shaped the way you think about the future of mining, critical minerals and global supply chains?

Stephen Burega: First and foremost, it’s humbling to be part of a board with people who are experts in their fields.

When you sit across the table from people such as Mel Sanderson, Jack Lifton, Peter Clausi, Tracy Hughes and the rest of the board, you quickly realize how much there is to learn.

It has had a major impact on my understanding of how different the situation can be depending on whether you’re operating in Canada, the United States, South America or Southeast Asia.

The minerals that governments and investors are focused on also change.

Critical minerals have become a major focal point for investors. We are seeing a level of interest that this industry hasn’t experienced for a long time.

The last decade has often been feast or famine. The current critical-minerals dialogue, and the importance governments are placing on developing domestic sources of critical minerals, has renewed investor interest in the sector.

It’s fascinating to watch.

Host: The momentum is there, but the industry is still relatively small. How do you see the global market evolving?

Stephen Burega: It’s interesting because we are also seeing governments and the automotive industry pulling back from some earlier expectations.

Five or eight years ago, there were many promises about what percentage of vehicles would be electrified by 2027 or 2028.

Those targets didn’t always fully consider the infrastructure required to support them or the realities of different operating environments. Canada is one example, where cold-weather performance can affect electric vehicles.

The clean-energy transition also requires enormous amounts of capital and raw materials.

Rare earths are a good example. They can be difficult to produce and process economically.

The numbers throughout these supply chains don’t always line up easily.

At the same time, there is enormous excitement around critical minerals. Many early-stage projects are coming forward with limited data and plans to collect much more.

Even if many of those projects succeed geologically, processing becomes another bottleneck.

Rare earth processing capacity outside Chinese control remains limited. That means the question isn’t simply whether an operation can produce high-grade material. You also need to ask where that material is going and who can process or purchase it.

Look at the broader rare earth supply chain.

Why are we looking for these materials? One major use is magnets. Those magnets are needed for electric motors and many other technologies.

But a large share of magnet manufacturing is concentrated in China.

Building an alternative system requires processing infrastructure, manufacturing capacity and an educated workforce. That takes time.

As individual critical minerals become more strategically important or a shortage becomes apparent, early-stage projects that could potentially become sources of those materials may attract increased attention.

But it doesn’t happen equally across every commodity or every company.

We aren’t in a market where every project automatically rises just because the price or strategic importance of NdPr, niobium, copper, silver or another mineral increases.

The geopolitical discussion, particularly in the United States, increasingly focuses on domestic supply and manufacturing capacity.

But there is going to be a lag.

Creating production capacity today and building the downstream infrastructure required to use those materials domestically are two different timelines.

How long that takes will depend heavily on how much capital is committed.

China has been developing its system for decades. Education is part of that system as well. Large numbers of students are being directed into rare earth technology and related disciplines.

Other countries need to build similar systems, educate young people and convince them that there will be a market for their skills.

There is a great deal of work to do.

At the same time, finding a property with merit, completing exploration, reaching a feasibility study, demonstrating that a project is mineable and finally putting a mine into production takes years.

In Canada, that can easily be a ten-year process.

In Brazil, depending on the project and permitting environment, I think that timeline can potentially be reduced substantially.

That gives jurisdictions with strong geological potential and a system capable of moving projects forward an important advantage.

Brazil has enormous exploration potential across many of the commodities we’re discussing.

Canada is another jurisdiction with many of the elements the industry needs. We’re now seeing efforts to support continued mining development and streamline parts of that process.

That is welcome after what has been a difficult decade for the sector.

Host: When you look at junior companies, most stories don’t make it. What gives you the green light that a company or project actually has potential?

Stephen Burega: If I’m considering consulting for a company or investing my own time, energy and money, the quality of the asset is everything.

Then I look at the amount of data that has been collected, the quality of that data and whether the data tells a coherent story.

Those elements can make or break a project.

There are companies revisiting older assets from a different geological perspective. Sometimes they get it right. They realize that historical drilling was oriented in the wrong direction, drill differently and make a discovery.

But many reinterpretations of older projects do not work.

Personally, I’m attracted to new stories and untested targets that have potential merit based on multiple layers of data.

Trek South is an example.

At Trek South, we have the baseline information we want. The geophysics has been completed, including IP and MT work.

At surface, we see strong epidote alteration and stockwork veining associated with the kind of large porphyry target we want to investigate.

The different datasets line up.

That is a check mark for me.

Mining exploration is not inexpensive. You can go through $10 million very quickly, and investors may not always realize that.

Over the past several months, companies have been able to raise $10 million or $15 million on a fairly regular basis.

That means we are going to see a significant number of drill programs. Some projects will succeed and others simply won’t hit.

There are no guarantees.

But companies are finally being financed well enough to test many of these targets properly.

Ultimately, you can collect all the surface information you want, but the drill bit is the only way to determine whether you are actually sitting on something significant.

It was difficult to secure drillers in the Golden Triangle this year. That itself is a sign of how active the market has become.

Host: Tell me more about how Oreterra is approaching Trek South in the Golden Triangle and why this first drill target is so exciting.

Stephen Burega: This has been a transformational year for the company.

As the previous CEO and President, I had to think through several major issues: how to deal with debt, how to raise capital in a weak market and how to address an excessively large outstanding share structure.

A major change came through meeting Kevin Keough, who had been closely involved with GT Gold, another successful Golden Triangle story.

That company carried out a significant drill program and eventually its Saddle project became part of a transaction worth close to half a billion dollars.

It demonstrates the hockey-stick effect that can sometimes occur in exploration. You can complete very valuable early-stage work and potentially create tremendous returns.

Kevin was very interested in Trek South, as I had been since we began working there in 2021.

I convinced him to join the team. I stepped back as CEO, Kevin became CEO, and I remained President.

The goal was to increase bench strength, knowledge and market penetration while creating the ability to tell the story under a new corporate identity.

Before the share consolidation, we eliminated the company’s accumulated debt, which was north of a million dollars.

We converted that debt into shares before completing a ten-for-one consolidation.

That changed everything.

Oreterra entered the market with approximately 32 million shares outstanding after the consolidation.

Then we were able to raise close to $10 million in about a week.

It happened extremely quickly.

The first $6 million came together within roughly 24 hours. We kept expanding the financing and eventually stopped at approximately $9.7 million.

We probably could have raised more because the level of interest was so strong.

That interest was supported by the assets.

We have Trek South in the Golden Triangle.

We also have the Lundmark-Akow Lake project in Ontario, north of the Musselwhite Mine, as well as projects in Nevada.

Our primary focus, however, is Trek South because we believe it represents the straightest line toward developing a resource.

Again, it comes back to layered data.

The geophysical datasets line up with extensive surface expression.

The mineralized and altered area is approximately a kilometre and a half across, and the exposure continues to change as the glacier recedes.

We continue to see evidence that the mineralized system extends beneath the ice.

The geophysics also indicate significant depth potential.

The induced polarization anomaly extends to the depth limits of the IP survey, approximately 600 to 700 metres.

The magnetotelluric response suggests the system continues to depths of roughly two kilometres.

The target has many of the characteristics we would hope to see in a substantial porphyry system, with mineralization beginning at surface.

There are also additional targets at Trek South that require more work, raising the possibility of multiple porphyry centres.

We think that positions Oreterra for a very interesting exploration season.

Our initial drilling program is ready to move forward, and we’ll continue as long as weather and results allow.

But it always comes back to the same thing: exploration stories are made by the drill bit.

You can have extraordinary datasets, but if you can’t demonstrate the geology in drill core, you don’t have a discovery.

If you do, you may have something extraordinary.

Our Nevada portfolio is also interesting.

One project is Kinkaid in the Walker Lane trend. It is very early stage and has never been drill tested. We have been completing geophysical work to get a better understanding of where drilling should eventually be focused.

Then there is Lundmark-Akow Lake in Ontario, which we have held for many years.

The project includes an extension of a BIF, or banded iron formation, associated with the broader geological setting around the Musselwhite area.

That diversification matters.

Oreterra is not a one-target company.

We believe Trek South is an extraordinary target with real discovery potential. But we also have Nevada and Ontario projects.

There is also a strategic reason for prioritizing porphyry systems.

Developing a resource around a large, continuous porphyry-style system can require fewer drill holes than demonstrating continuity across a narrow-vein system.

Lower-grade porphyry systems do not necessarily produce the dramatic precious-metal grades people sometimes associate with narrow veins.

But continuity across a large volume can allow a company to move toward a resource faster and, potentially, in a more cost-effective way.

Host: Many factors determine how expensive a project will ultimately be. What project characteristics make you think something is worth pursuing?

Stephen Burega: Infrastructure and accessibility are major factors.

You can have the most beautiful geological target in the world, but if you have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just building a road to reach it, that affects the economics.

It isn’t necessarily insurmountable, but it changes what grades can potentially be mined economically.

If the deposit is in an inaccessible mountain range, access becomes a major consideration.

There are examples where companies are prepared to build kilometres of tunnels through mountains to access a project, so nothing is impossible.

But infrastructure cost must be understood from the beginning.

Another extremely important consideration in British Columbia is support from First Nations.

In our case, we work with the Tahltan Nation.

They are a forward-looking, business-minded group, and there is a clear dialogue with operators around areas that may be appropriate for development and areas where development is not acceptable because of heritage, wildlife or other concerns.

That clarity is important.

At Trek South, we are in a positive position because the area has been identified as compatible with potential development.

Elsewhere in the broader region, including areas farther north toward the Toodoggone, circumstances can be different from one zone to another.

Investors need to consider this.

They should ask management teams whether they understand the go and no-go zones within their operating region.

Not every project is straightforward.

This may be one of the most important aspects of risk mitigation.

You need to ask not only whether an asset is geologically investable, but whether it is developable.

Can you realistically imagine a mine being developed there?

Then you add the other questions.

Does the geological data make sense?

Is access possible?

Does the resource have the grade and scale required?

Can the project gain community support?

Mining is difficult because many factors have to align before a deposit becomes a successful mine.

Relationships with Indigenous and local communities can become one of the most important of those factors.

That principle applies far beyond Canada.

I can apply it to my experiences in Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mali, Brazil and Cambodia.

Those jurisdictions span everything from highly developed to developing economies.

In every one of them, the local community has significant power over the future of a project.

The relationship can be extremely positive or extremely confrontational.

Obviously, you want the former.

Host: Given your experience in Africa, how do you evaluate whether a project there is investable beyond the mineral resource itself? We’ve seen examples where political instability stopped project development.

Stephen Burega: It is a major concern.

The reality of the mining industry is that you have to go where the deposit is. You can’t move a gold mine.

I’ve always found investor perceptions of jurisdictional risk interesting.

North American investors may perceive less risk in Mexico than in Africa.

A European investor may see substantial opportunity in an African jurisdiction while viewing Mexico or South America as comparatively risky.

Risk perception depends heavily on experience.

Nationalization, political instability, insurgencies and violence are all real risks in certain jurisdictions.

My own risk tolerance today is very different from what it was 15 years ago.

I have wonderful stories to tell my son from the years when I was operating in Africa, but I’m not sure I would make all of the same decisions today.

People with experience in developing countries may have a higher tolerance for operating risk than the average investor.

They understand what it means to travel from village to village and how to operate safely and comfortably in those environments.

There was a time when I never expected Burkina Faso to become exposed to the level of insurgency and security risk we see today.

West Africa changed.

That has to be incorporated into project evaluation.

Host: Sometimes very promising projects struggle to raise money, while projects with weaker data still manage to move forward. Why does that happen? If you were raising capital for an early exploration project today, what would your workflow be?

Stephen Burega: In the Canadian market, investors have often participated in private placements and then sold opportunistically while retaining warrants.

That has been a common model over roughly the past decade.

The traditional long-term investor has not always been as visible as in previous market cycles.

That made financing difficult.

But the last eight to twelve months have been very different.

Access to capital has been extraordinary compared with much of the previous decade.

We’re seeing freer capital flows and stronger shareholder interest.

The quality of investors that participated in Oreterra’s approximately $9.7 million financing was exceptional.

We are fortunate to have investors with deep knowledge of the industry and a willingness to hold for the longer term.

That matters.

Of course, you can still see projects with apparently weaker potential raising capital.

A model of “raise money, spend money, raise money, spend money” has existed in the sector for years.

But in a market as active as this one, an inability to raise capital can be informative.

I haven’t seen a market this active in a very long time.

That doesn’t mean the answer is simply, “If you can’t raise money, move on.”

Who is telling the story matters enormously.

The management team and its previous successes can significantly influence investors.

A management team or promotional group with a strong record may have access to capital that another company doesn’t.

If we had not made major structural changes at the former Romios, we would not have been able to complete the financing we did.

With hundreds of millions of shares outstanding and substantial debt, the company needed a major reset.

We completed the changes we believed were necessary and created a clearer path around Trek South.

It required energy, commitment and decisions that not every company is willing to make.

If you have a large asset and a strong story, this market can provide access to levels of capital we haven’t seen for years.

But there is still a tried-and-tested workflow.

Gather the data.

Build the geological case.

Get to drilling.

And get there quickly enough to show real results.

Investors can be fickle. If you cannot demonstrate progress, their willingness to support the story over the long term may disappear.

Host: If you had to rank geology, story and timing in terms of raising capital, what would the hierarchy be?

Stephen Burega: Timing is extremely important.

But the story is everything, and the data is everything.

You have to demonstrate a credible path toward a resource.

How are you going to create value for shareholders by developing a viable resource?

How long will it take?

What work needs to be completed?

Who tells that story also matters.

Kevin joining the team brought the credibility of his past experience. Investors who had experienced previous success with him understood that history.

That can be just as important as the story itself.

And then there is timing.

We hit the market at the right moment.

There continues to be significant investment interest in early-stage projects with the potential for large-scale upside.

That makes this an exciting time for exploration companies.

Host: How do you balance raising enough capital to move forward without diluting shareholders too much?

Stephen Burega: That was an important discussion throughout our financing.

Our financing included units priced around $0.45, with warrants at $0.60.

We wanted the pricing to be fair and not overly ambitious because reasonable pricing can help build momentum.

We also knew that we did not want to raise substantially more than $10 million.

That was a collective decision.

You have to look at the outstanding share structure, warrants and options together to understand the fully diluted position.

If the drill campaign is successful, we would expect stronger market support and appreciation.

That means future capital could potentially come from warrant and option exercises or through a later financing at a meaningfully higher valuation.

That is how you start managing the dilutive effect.

But ultimately, everything depends on results.

We need the drills turning.

Host: Some companies successfully reposition and rebrand themselves, while others don’t. What separates them?

Stephen Burega: Management, vision and timing all matter.

The management team needs to be the right team for that particular stage of the project.

Historical baggage can be very real. It can hold a company back if management refuses to acknowledge it.

Changing that situation takes work, and it doesn’t always succeed.

We have seen countless share consolidations where the stock opens at a new nominal high and then immediately falls.

We were fortunate to see appreciation after the restructuring and to maintain that market interest.

I think that reflects confidence in the management team, our focus and our willingness to make difficult changes rather than ignore legacy problems.

We wanted to create a new history for the company.

Host: What advice would you give an early-stage exploration company about storytelling? What do investors often overlook that companies should emphasize?

Stephen Burega: I’ve always tried to balance storytelling with a healthy amount of technical data rather than relying entirely on blue-sky potential.

The technical story may not always be easy for the average investor to understand.

But that is my job.

I need to take a complicated technical concept and communicate it at a level that allows the average investor to understand why it differentiates this project from other early-stage exploration opportunities.

Empirical data matters.

The importance of that data and the way the different datasets fit together need to be communicated concisely.

That can make or break a story.

At the same time, you have to be capable of answering difficult questions from highly technical investors.

Someone may challenge an interpretation and ask why the data means one thing rather than another.

You need to have an answer.

Whenever I speak about Oreterra, I assume I am telling the story to someone who is learning as we go.

I cannot expect the average investor to understand induced polarization.

So I need to explain the IP story in a way that makes sense.

But if I am speaking with someone who does understand it, I can go deeper.

I can explain why a chargeability response greater than roughly 40 mV/V matters and what it may indicate about sulphide content in the rock.

That technical depth is often missing from pure blue-sky storytelling.

Sometimes investors are shown an enormous conceptual target without enough discussion about whether it could realistically become a mine.

I tend to ask more technical questions.

If I cannot get satisfactory answers, that affects my willingness to invest.

The knowledge level of the average investor is increasing.

Companies need to be prepared for more difficult questions.

The average investor today may be looking at ten exploration stories, not one.

So how do you become the one company out of ten or twenty that they choose?

You have to articulate the story effectively.

You need to remove unnecessary complexity without removing the substance.

And you need to differentiate the project.

That is basic communications strategy, but historically the mining industry hasn’t always been particularly good at communication.

My cell phone number is at the bottom of every press release.

Call me.

That has always been my approach.

If you have invested your money in a company that I am responsible for running, I should be willing to answer your questions.

Call me or send me an email.

That level of accessibility is not universal.

Sometimes investors reach an anonymous information account or voicemail and struggle to get meaningful answers.

I’ve looked at companies and decided I could not invest because I wasn’t convinced management itself understood what it was asking investors to support.

Host: What do you consider a successful exit in mining today? Is success actually building the mine, or can it be something else?

Stephen Burega: It depends on the type of investment.

If you’re investing in a major producer, you may be looking for dividends, share-price appreciation and income.

If you are putting $50,000 or $100,000 into a private placement in an exploration company, your risk tolerance is completely different.

You are accepting the possibility of losing the investment because you are looking for asymmetric upside.

You may be hoping for a 10x or 20x return.

You might invest in ten exploration companies hoping that one or two achieve that level of success because certainly they will not all succeed.

For me, the successful outcome is ultimately capital appreciation.

The share price has to increase.

In an exploration company, that appreciation should happen because the story is resonating with investors and because real results are supporting it.

It cannot simply be a blue-sky message saying, “Invest with us because maybe something will happen.”

There needs to be a technical reason for investors to become involved.

That is what I expect when I invest my own money.

Host: I think that’s the perfect point to finish our conversation. Thank you so much for your time and for your insights. It was extremely interesting, and I hope you have great results this summer.

Stephen Burega: Thank you.