The attractiveness of mineral investments across countries and regions worldwide can be judged through various measures, each with its strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of this paper is to scrutinize the Fraser Institute’s ranking of mining jurisdictions, which builds on eliciting the perceptions of industry representatives around the world through an annual survey. The analysis takes stock in the growing scholarship on country performance indicators and concludes that due to the low response rate and the lack of clear definitions of some of the underlying concepts (e.g., political stability), there are reasons to question both the reliability and the validity of this survey. There could also exist incentives among exploration companies to “game” the rankings. For these reasons, the ranking outcomes do not constitute a meaningful scorecard that countries can employ to improve their mining-related policies. However, despite these deficiencies, the Fraser Institute’s survey often enjoys relatively uncritical media attention. It even sets in motion a political “rankings game” in which the mining companies, governments, and other organized groups choose to participate. There is an urgent need for a more reliable and unbiased survey approach, including the consideration of alternative—complementing—measures for assessing investment attractiveness in the mining industry.