JUNIORMETRICS

Fredonia Mining Inc.

FREDF·FRED·US$0.45 (CAD 0.63)·US$29.1M cap
Goldalso:El Dorado-Monserrat (flagship), Santa Cruz Province, Argentina Map

Fredonia Mining Inc. (TSXV/OTC: FRED) is a gold and silver developer whose flagship asset is the El Dorado-Monserrat project in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. A Preliminary Economic Assessment (31 Aug 2026), built on an updated Mineral Resource Estimate (effective 17 Aug 2026; Geoinvest Limitada, QPs Sergio Alvarado Casas, Ricardo Munoz Gonzalez and Carlos Puga Gomez) of 126.45 Mt Measured+Indicated (0.47 g/t Au, 12.66 g/t Ag, 0.68 g/t AuEq; ~1.93 Moz Au) plus 73.89 Mt Inferred (0.31 g/t Au, 8.98 g/t Ag; ~0.74 Moz Au), envisions a low-capex open-pit heap-leach operation averaging ~146,000 oz AuEq/yr over 17+ years. Post-tax NPV10 US$1,494 million, IRR 65%, initial capex US$345.7 million (base case US$3,800/oz Au, US$45/oz Ag).

Notable vs. Peers

  • Jurisdiction risk score of 6/10 is meaningfully riskier than the peer average of 7.8/10.

Lifecycle Milestones

Grassroots
Resource Def.
PEACurrent
PFS
Feasibility
Permitting
Construction
Production
5.4/10
Weak track recordStrong track record
5.4/10 vs.
Not yet researched
Thin runwayWell-capitalized
How this is calculated
5.4/10
Weaker depositStronger deposit
5.4/10 vs.
How this is calculated
5.4/10
Harder place to buildEasier place to build
5.4/10 vs.
What goes into it
  • Jurisdiction (40%)6/10

    Santa Cruz, Argentina: Fraser PPI 2025 is 73.35 of 100 (rank 36 of 68), which maps to 9 on this site's scale, less 3 for Argentina's national currency, capital-control and export-duty risk, so 6. TSXV/OTC-listed with its sole project in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina -- a recognized mining province (host to several producing gold/silver mines) but with the currency-controls, inflation, and federal/provincial-permitting variability typical of Argentina generally.

  • Infrastructure (40%)No verified figure

    Researched with nothing found: no source we could cite confirms or rules out an existing mill, road access, grid power, or tailings facility at El Dorado-Monserrat Gold Project, Deseado Massif, Santa Cruz Province, Argentina (checked Sep 26, 2026; recheck due Mar 25, 2027). Counts at a neutral 5/10 until one does.

  • Nearby producing mine (20%)Not yet researched

    No project coordinates on file yet, so distance to a producing mine can't be measured.

5.3/10
Weaker profileStronger profile
5.3/10 vs.
Price Chart
$0.309$0.334$0.33$0.323$0.448AugDecMarJulOct6
Aug 12, 2025 – Oct 20, 2026
Stage changeNews
$0.45
+106%from low-39.2%from high
$0.22$0.74
$29.1M
Far belowFar above
$29.1M vs. $21.9M peer median
Price (USD - Local)
US$0.45 (CAD 0.63)
Cash Position (USD)
Debt (USD)
$0
Far aboveFar below
$0 vs. $0 peer median
$29.1MEstimated: no verified cash figure (counted as $0)
Far belowFar above
$29.1M vs. $19.4M peer median
64.9M
Far aboveFar below
64.9M vs. 154.2M peer median
Jurisdiction
Argentina
1,932,700 oz
Feeds Deposit Quality score
Measured + Indicated1,932,700 oz
Inferrednot scored739,600 oz
Total resource2,672,300 oz
Far belowFar above
1.9M oz vs. 1.3M oz peer median
Compares M&I only — Inferred isn't compared or scored.
$15.04/oz
M&I
Total resource (incl. Inferred)$10.87/oz
Peer median $68.74/oz
Far aboveFar below
$15.04/oz vs. $132.67/oz peer median
Cut-off: 0.10 g/t Au (base case; La Herradura, Main Veins and Monserrat West)
Grassroots-stage explorer, no resource estimate
17 yrs2026 study
Far belowFar above
17 yrs vs. 11.1 yrs peer median
$1.5B2026 study · gold deck US$3,800 vs spot US$4,114/oz
Far belowFar above
$1.5B vs. $602M peer median
0.02x2026 study · gold deck US$3,800 vs spot US$4,114/oz
Far aboveFar below
0.02x vs. 0.32x peer median
0.02xEstimated: no verified cash figure (counted as $0)2026 study · gold deck US$3,800 vs spot US$4,114/oz
Far aboveFar below
0.02x vs. 0.30x peer median
$345.7M2026 study
Far aboveFar below
$345.7M vs. $276.5M peer median
4.3xClears Durrett's 2:1 bar2026 study · gold deck US$3,800 vs spot US$4,114/oz
Far belowFar above
4.3x vs. 2.3x peer median
$3,800/oz8% below spot ($4,114/oz)2026 study
65%Clears Durrett's 25% developer bar
Far belowFar above
65% vs. 43% peer median
15.1%
0%100%
15.1% vs. 12.1% peer median

Acquisition Susceptibility

How this is calculated
6.7/10
Unlikely bolt-onFits the takeout profile

A relative ranking of how closely this company matches the profile of juniors that have actually been acquired — not a probability, and not a reason to buy. Acquisitions are rare: only a few dozen significant deals happen a year across a universe of thousands of juniors, so even a high score here describes a long shot. The strongest signal in the research, a producer that already owns part of the company, is scored from its disclosed strategic shareholders. A producer that is a joint-venture or earn-in partner on the project, rather than a shareholder, isn't captured yet.

How this score is built

  • Disclosed pending deal
    Sub-score: Not scored

    No pending acquisition or merger disclosed (checked)

    Not scored: having no deal in flight isn't held against a company.

    Weight 26.25%
  • Producer's strategic stake
    Sub-score: Not scored

    No producer holds a disclosed stake on file (holder register researched) See holders

    Not scored: most juniors that do get bought had no prior toehold, so a missing stake says little either way.

    Weight 25%
  • Distance to a producing mine
    Sub-score: Not yet researched

    Distance not yet researched: no project coordinates on file

    Distance can't be measured without coordinates, so excluded rather than counted as far.

    Weight 22.5%
  • Lifecycle stage
    Sub-score:
    6/10

    Stage: Preliminary Economic Assessment

    Feasibility and permitting score 10, where deals cluster, and production 5.5; earlier stages score less, down to 1 at grassroots.

    Weight 15% · 57% here
  • Jurisdiction
    Sub-score:
    6/10

    Argentina: jurisdiction score 6/10

    Our jurisdiction score, used as is: higher means lower political and permitting risk.

    Weight 6.75% · 26% here
  • Commodity
    Sub-score:
    10/10

    Primary commodity: Gold

    Gold 10, copper 8, silver 5, nickel and uranium 4, others 2: most majors' deals are for gold.

    Weight 4.5% · 17% here

Weight is each input's share of the full score. “Here” is its share of this company's score: inputs that aren't scored are left out and the rest re-weighted, never counted as zero.

Risk/Reward Asymmetry
0.02x EV/NPV2026 study· 2nd percentile of 42 stage+commodity peers· Unexplained

Cash not yet researched (counted as $0)

EV/NPV of 0.02x sits in the 2nd percentile among 42 pea-stage gold peers ranked on EV/NPV, despite a jurisdiction score of 6/10 -- high enough that jurisdiction risk alone doesn't obviously explain the discount. Not explained by this mechanical screen: either a mispricing, or a risk the screen can't see (a jurisdiction issue this score doesn't capture, or some other factor entirely) -- a separate, more speculative case with no identified resolution catalyst, not the jurisdiction-risk pattern. See this company's own profile page for any completed, cited research into why it trades at a discount, where that research exists. Its cash figure is not yet researched, so it is counted as $0 in the EV, as on the Enterprise Value card.

No researched, cited finding on file yet for what specifically makes this company cheap vs. its peers. Flagged by the mechanical screen above; a real research pass hasn't reached this company yet.

A relative screen, not a probability and not a reason to buy. This flags companies trading unusually cheap on EV/NPV (market cap plus debt minus cash, per dollar of attributable study NPV) vs. peers of the same lifecycle stage and commodity, for a real, identifiable reason (a jurisdiction risk, a specific dispute, an incident, a financing gap) that may or may not ever resolve favorably. "Unexplained" candidates carry no identified driver at all -- a more speculative bucket than a named catalyst. The year chip is the study behind the NPV; amber means it is more than 5 years old (still the study on file, so it stays in this screen).

Overall Score Trend
-33.8% since 2026-08-26 · -33.8% from peak

Your Rankings

Community Sentiment
—SELLINGBUYING
CategoryCommunityYour Ranking
Overall— (0) 
Management— (0) 
Financials— (0) 
Jurisdiction— (0) 
Project Quality— (0) 

Management Team

Chief Executive Officer and Director of Fredonia Mining Inc. Joined Grupo Minero Aconcagua in 1996, progressing through various positions, and led Samco Gold S.A. from 2011 to 2015. Currently also a director of Neo Lithium Corp.

President and Director of Fredonia Mining Inc. Holds a PhD in Natural Sciences from Universidad Nacional de La Plata; cofounder of Northern Orion Explorations Ltd. and has led Grupo Minero Aconcagua since 2001.

Chairman and Director of Fredonia Mining Inc. Founded Spinnaker Capital Markets Inc., a Toronto-based advisory firm; previously held senior capital-markets and M&A roles at CIBC and Bank of Nova Scotia.

Chief Financial Officer of Fredonia Mining Inc. Over 25 years in natural-resources finance; previously CFO for Lithium Americas and Rusoro Mining. Holds an MBA from McGill University and CPA/CMA designations. Also President and a Director of Monarca Minerals.

Recently retired as Executive Vice President and CFO of Neo Performance Materials. Over 35 years' experience in all aspects of financial management, including international transactions.

Director of Grid Metals Corp.; also a director of Fredonia Mining Inc. Professional Engineer. Served as President, CEO and Director of Neo Material Technologies before its 2012 acquisition for C$1.3 billion. Co-founded and chaired Neo Lithium Corp. (2016-2022), acquired for C$960 million. Advises on rare earth and critical minerals matters, including via Lithium Royalty Corp.'s advisory board. Engineering degrees, University of Toronto.

Insiders, Investors & Smart Money

Notable shareholders and insiders whose involvement is worth knowing about, plus what we're seeing from institutional/large-investor activity.

Smart money
1/10

Checked thoroughly and found little: one unnamed institution holds a small stake, and the only insider activity on record is placement participation and warrant exercises by four directors on the same day -- no genuine open-market buying or selling.

No notable insiders tracked for this miner yet.

Reports, Presentations & Documents

Technical Report Takeaways

A plain-language summary of this company's technical-report findings isn't written yet. See the cited figures on this page and the documents below.

Recent News