Silver Bullet Mines Corp.

Notable vs. Peers

• Financials score of 5.2/10 is weaker than the peer average of 7.6/10.
• Jurisdiction risk score of 9/10 is meaningfully safer than the peer average of 6.9/10.

Lifecycle Milestones

1. Permit granted

   Reached — date not disclosed · Same fact already documented on this miner's own existing CONSTRUCTION_DECISION row: King Tut is 'a previously-operated, already-permitted small mine bolted onto existing milling infrastructure, not a from-scratch build.' Silver Bullet's own July 23, 2025 acquisition release confirms King Tut 'comprises approximately 80 acres... located on BLM land' and states the company's own VP Mining, Ron Murphy, and his brother Dan Murphy 'mined King Tut as part of a team during the 1980's' -- but the same release states the company 'has not been able to find any documentation with respect to production at King Tut, which is part of the reason for the low acquisition cost.' Whatever BLM-claim-level authorization underlies the small-scale mining and immediate ore-shipping activity announced in that same release was therefore reused from the pre-existing 1980s-era claims, not a newly dated grant to Silver Bullet -- genuinely undocumented pre-history (honestly disclosed by the company itself), not an invented date. No dated 'permit granted' event was found nor is expected to exist given this small-scale BLM-claim structure. · Source
2. Construction decision (FID)

   Jul 2025 · Silver Bullet Mines announced acquisition of the King Tut Gold Mine in Arizona, with the same release stating the plan to 'commence the processing of King Tut material immediately' at the company's existing 125 tpd Arizona mill -- the acquisition itself is the company's real decision-equivalent event (a previously-operated, already-permitted small mine bolted onto existing milling infrastructure, not a from-scratch build). · Source
3. Construction start

   Jul 2025 · No separately dated 'construction/mining start' release distinct from the acquisition announcement -- the same July 23, 2025 release states the initial plan was to 'mine and ship 50 tons per day from King Tut to the mill for processing' immediately. Dated to that release rather than inventing a distinct later date (same convention as the EDR/EQX rows in the Task #430 batch3 script). · Source
4. First pour / production

   Oct 2025 · Silver Bullet Mines announced shipment of its first commercial quantity of high-grade gold/silver concentrate from the KT (King Tut) Mine -- concentrate grade had been climbing through September (23.6 oz/ton Sept 18) and October (27 oz/ton Oct 1) ahead of this commercial shipment. · Source
5. Commercial production

   Sep 2024 · Genuinely reached with a clean, single, well-documented date: Silver Bullet's own press release is explicitly titled 'Silver Bullet Mines Commences Commercial Production of Third Party Mineralized Material,' dated 2024-09-24 -- the company's own first-ever declared commercial-production milestone. DIFFERENT ASSET AND REVENUE STREAM FROM THIS MINER'S OTHER MILESTONE ROWS -- READ THIS BEFORE 'CORRECTING' THE DATE. This row predates SBMI's own FIRST_PRODUCTION row (2025-10-24) by about thirteen months, which looks like a CONSTRUCTION_MILESTONE_ORDER contradiction and is not one. The two chains describe two distinct businesses SBMI runs under one ticker: (a) THIS ROW, 2024-09-24, is the MERCHANT / TOLL-PROCESSING stream -- per the release SBMI 'entered into an agreement (the "Agreement") to process high grade mineralized material from a past producing silver mine proximate to SBMI's Buckeye Silver Mine in Arizona,' a private property 'owned by an arm's length third party,' and 'has begun processing the material into saleable product, whether by way of concentrate or dore bar, thereby generating revenue,' with SBMI 'responsible for all logistics and [having] decision-making authority over the material' at an intended 50 tons per day. Processing runs through SBMI's '100%-owned mill and assay facility in Globe, Arizona.' Structurally similar to Dynacor's merchant-processing model (see the MERCHANT_PROCESSOR BusinessModel doc comment in prisma/schema.prisma), though SBMI itself is correctly classified OPERATOR because it also mines its own ore. (b) The CONSTRUCTION_DECISION and CONSTRUCTION_START rows (both 2025-07-23) and the FIRST_PRODUCTION row (2025-10-24) are SBMI's OWN King Tut (KT) gold mine in Arizona -- acquired 2025-07-23, first own-ore commercial concentrate shipped 2025-10-24. That chain is about ore SBMI mines itself; this row is about ore it buys and processes for a third party. Neither date is derived from the other and both are correct as recorded. MinerConstructionMilestone has no per-asset scoping (every row hangs off minerId alone), so this prose is the only place the distinction can live. CORRECTION (Task #662, verified against the primary source): this note previously stated the 2024 processing ran 'via its Nevada mill under a Mining and Milling Agreement.' Both details were wrong. SBMI has no Nevada mill -- its only mill is the 100%-owned Globe, ARIZONA facility named above, and the third-party material came from a past-producing silver mine in ARIZONA proximate to the Buckeye Silver Mine, not from Nevada. SBMI does hold Nevada ground (two early-stage exploration projects in the Tonopah silver-gold camp), which is the likely origin of the error, but none of it is a mill, none of it is producing, and none of it relates to this milestone. The release also never uses the capitalized term 'Mining and Milling Agreement' -- it calls it only 'the Agreement' -- so the mining-and-milling substance is quoted directly above instead. Not flagged `disputed`: research confirms the 2024-09-24 commercial production genuinely happened, so there is no doubt about the milestone itself to record (see the `disputed` doc comment on MinerConstructionMilestone). The out-of-order date is a schema-expressiveness limit, not a doubt. Since 2024-09-24 the company has added its own KT Mine / SC (Super Champ) Mine production in Arizona (first own-ore shipment October 2025) and two further past-producing Arizona mines (February 2026) -- continuation and expansion of the same growing business, not a reset of the original 2024-09-24 milestone. This row was missing entirely prior to 2026-08-21 -- a genuine data gap, not a stage error; Miner.stage was already correctly PRODUCTION. · Source

Milestones are recorded only from a company's own dated disclosure. A milestone with no date shown is one we can confirm was reached but for which no date was disclosed — we don't estimate one. "Not yet reached" means exactly that, not that a date is missing. An "Expected" line likewise only ever reflects the company's own guidance (e.g. a study or permit decision targeted for a stated quarter) — most not-yet-reached milestones have none, and that absence means no such guidance has been disclosed, not that one is overdue.

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 the underlying research identifies — whether a major already holds a JV, earn-in, or 5–19.9% strategic stake — isn't tracked yet and is absent from this score.