There is a close relationship between the mining industry, economic growth, and technological and social development. Mining activities benefit all economic agents, but only during a timespan determined by available reserves, primarily driven by internal factors such as production rate, technology and costs, and external factors such as prices determined by the market and taxes and royalties controlled by governments (Gordon and Tilton, 2008; Henckens, 2021; Tapia Cortez et al, 2018). The intense use of Mineral Commodities (MC) needed to maintain the current lifestyle has placed ore depletion as one of the main threats to sustainable economic, social and technological development. However, ore depletion does not only arise due to the finite nature of MC, price fluctuations or technological challenges. It is also triggered by the ‘economic limits of extraction’, determined by the optimisation of financial factors and technical restrictions within the regulatory framework (Henckens, 2021). Most reporting standards – if not all – define ore reserves as ‘the economically mineable part of a Measured and/or Indicated Mineral Resources’ determined by the technical and economic viability of extracting, processing and commercialising MC having the NPV as the fundamental decision – making tool (JORC, 2012; Krzemień et al, 2016). However, is the NVP an ‘economically’ basis index able to capture the complexity of economic phenomena? No, it is not, and it is crucial to define what is economic and financial. Although related, they are different disciplines. Economics studies the behaviour of the different market agents, including human behaviour and policies and explains the factors involved in the scarcity (or surplus) of goods and services. Finance focuses on financial systems and managing funds considering the time, cash available, and risk. It involves banks, loans, investments, and savings and can be considered a small subset of economics (Simon, 1959; Tapia Cortez et al, 2018). Given the economic nature of ore Reserves, endorsed by governments (Figure 1), NPV is an incomplete tool to determine ore Reserves as it limits the problem to simply maximising cash flows instead of optimising the economic benefits for all economic agents. In addition, using the rigid scheme of controlling taxation – unable to adapt to new market or economic conditions and systematically increasing – within the NPV framework only increases the sub-optimisation of ore reserves, mainly due to the systematic taxation rise. Short-term benefits of higher taxes and royalties are unlikely to offset the impacts of reducing exploration and project development in the long-term, which not only boosts ore depletion concerns but also reduces competitiveness, threatening economic and social welfare (Fisher, Cootner and Baily, 1972; Gordon, Bertram and Graedel, 2007; Lilford, 2017; Mardones, Silva and Martínez, 1985; Radetzki, 2009; Rodrik, 1982; Tan, 1987; World Bank, 2000). Holistic methods and collaborative tools, able to dynamically simulate and assess how changes in the technical settings, regulatory framework (taxes and royalties), and financial factors affect the availability of ore reserves and the impact for all economic agents, should be incorporated into the evaluation process to fill the gap.