Op-Ed: NI 43-101 was necessary, not sufficient

Retail investors are debating your company right now. On X, CEO.CA, YouTube and Reddit, they dissect drill results, speculate on geology, question management motives, and reinterpret your latest press release. Some of the discussion is informed. Much of it is not. Misinformation spreads quickly, sometimes inflating potential, sometimes dismissing it unfairly.And under current social media guidance, the one voice most capable of correcting the record, the company itself, is effectively sidelined.That is the irony. The regulatory framework designed to protect investors from misleading disclosure has helped create an environment where online misinformation spreads while issuers remain silent out of legal caution.Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency works. But only if those with knowledge are allowed to speak. Junior mining still operates under communication guidance written when “online forums” meant anonymous message boards. The sector needs NI 43-101. But it also needs modern rules that allow responsible public engagement.The problem NI 43-101 solvedNational Instrument 43-101 was introduced in 2001 after Bre-X to impose discipline on mineral disclosure. It worked.Before NI 43-101, technical disclosure varied widely. Promotional language often blurred into geology. Investors struggled to compare projects on consistent terms. Bre-X exposed the worst-case outcome of that environment.NI 43-101 imposed structure. Qualified persons. Standardized reporting. Clearer boundaries around what could and could not be said. Investor confidence stabilized because disclosure became more reliable.But standardization had a side effect.When technical disclosure becomes uniform, appearance becomes easier to manufacture.Compliance as camouflageNI 43-101 did not create weak operators. Junior mining has always included promoters, capital recyclers, and projects that never advance. Exploration is inherently risky, and even strong teams can fail honestly.The issue is pattern.Some companies raise capital repeatedly without meaningful escalation of exploration activity. General and administrative costs remain high regardless of results. Management compensation stays stable while shareholder value erodes. Projects are rebranded rather than advanced.These companies are not committing fraud. They are operating within the rules. But they are not structured to discover and build mines. They are structured to sustain themselves.In a post-NI 43-101 world, standardized technical reports and uniform disclaimers create a surface of legitimacy. To a retail investor, most press releases look the same. Most investor decks follow the same template. Dense reports go unread. Compliance becomes an industry uniform.Uniforms build trust. They also make differentiation harder.Experienced investors rely on private networks, long track records, and pattern recognition to separate serious operators from chronic diluters. Retail investors do not have that access. They are left comparing documents that appear structurally identical.That informational flattening created a vacuum. Social media filled it.The real threat todayRegulation often fights the last crisis. In the 1990s, the threat was catastrophic fraud. NI 43-101 addressed that threat directly and appropriately.Today, the dominant risk is different. It is not large-scale fabrication. It is long-term capital erosion through repeated dilution and stalled progress.Op Ed: Canadians must match American urgency in the race for critical mineralsNI 43-101 protects investors from false technical claims. It does not protect them from companies that never meaningfully advance their projects. And it does not help investors assess intent.The market has responded by building its own informal oversight system online. Retail investors crowdsource analysis. They compare drill intervals. They scrutinize financing terms. They debate management credibility in public.Yet the companies at the center of these debates are advised not to participate.Analog rules for a digital marketCanadian guidance on electronic disclosure, National Policy 51-201, was introduced in 2002. It references chat rooms and bulletin boards. It warns against “sporadic” efforts by employees to correct rumors online.The message is clear. Engagement creates liability.Twenty-four years later, the digital environment is unrecognizable. Video platforms dominate. Real-time commentary shapes perception. Yet the regulatory posture remains cautious to the point of silence.The result is a chilling effect. Legal counsel often advises companies to avoid unscripted video, avoid online discussions, and avoid responding directly to misinformation.But discouraging public engagement does not eliminate communication. It shifts it.When management refuses to answer questions publicly but invites investors to call privately, the conversation moves into unrecorded phone calls. Those exchanges leave no public record and no shared benefit for the broader shareholder base.Public platforms, by contrast, create accountability. Statements are timestamped. They can be scrutinized. If a company crosses a line, it happens in view of regulators, investors, and the market.Silence does not eliminate risk. It removes transparency.A practical supplementThe solution is not weakening NI 43-101. Technical rigor remains essential.The solution is to supplement it with a clear safe harbor for voluntary process transparency and responsible online engagement.Regulators and exchanges could explicitly permit:Video documentation of exploration activity and operational workDiscussion of geological reasoning and field decisions, clearly framed as preliminaryPublic correction of misinformation, provided no material non-public information is disclosedProminent disclaimers clarifying that such content does not constitute formal technical disclosureClear identification of the speaker and their relationship to the issuerAt the same time, the boundaries should remain firm. A safe harbor should not allow:Disclosure of material results before formal releaseImplied resource estimates or economic claimsTarget grades, ounces, or valuations without proper technical supportUndisclosed promotional arrangements or paid influencer activityThe distinction is straightforward. Companies can show their work without making forward-looking promises.A serious explorer should be able to document drill progress, explain why a hole was stepped out, or clarify geological interpretation in plain language without triggering regulatory fear. Those communications would remain subject to existing prohibitions against misleading statements.This is not deregulation. It is modernization.Let sunlight back inNI 43-101 was a necessary response to a crisis. It remains necessary.But standardized technical disclosure alone cannot address today’s challenges. It cannot help investors distinguish disciplined explorers from companies that simply persist. And it cannot counter the speed at which misinformation now spreads online.If regulators are concerned about “finfluencers” and inaccurate commentary, the most effective countermeasure is not silence. It is informed participation.Allow companies to document their process. Allow them to correct the record publicly. Allow transparency in real time, within clear boundaries.Sunlight still works. But it requires visibility.NI 43-101 was necessary. It was not sufficient.* Erik Groves is Corporate Strategy and In-House Counsel at Morgan Companies.The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of MINING.COM or The Northern Miner Group.Weiter zum vollständigen Artikel bei Mining.com Weiter zum vollständigen Artikel bei Mining.com