Most mineral asset valuations are signed off by practitioners with dangerous gaps in at least one of three critical disciplines: 👉 Resource estimation science 👉 Commodity economics 👉 Financial management The codes permit it. The markets absorb the consequences. It’s time more is demanded from the profession. 🫵 Rigorous, integrated understanding is not optional — it is the baseline of competence. Defensible mineral resource estimation and valuation requires mastery across three distinct but inseparable disciplines: 👉 Geostatistical estimation and its inherent limitations 👉 The distinction between geological confidence, grade continuity, and grade uncertainty 👉 The economics and financial management that underpin mineral asset valuation 🫵 This is not just a technical problem — it is a systemic weakness in the global framework for mineral asset governance. How confidence limits are established, why estimated grade parameters differ from global sample statistics, why classical statistics form the inviolable ceiling of estimation certainty, and why the dangerous conflation of geological confidence with grade estimation uncertainty persists — all of it points to the same conclusion: The separation of mineral resource reporting codes from valuation codes, combined with the absence of formal economic and financial competency requirements, is a risk the profession can no longer afford to ignore. 📄 Full essay below.