Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Maybe we can see who's gonna stay up later then? I have an 8 week old baby so I'm betting I can kick your butt during one of the diaper changes.
Priced for 500 gold, but it's not like market is very rational in the ST. Maybe the market has decided, somewhat belatedly, that Precter was right and that gold is promptly going to new lows. Now that would be a nice buying op. :)
Good night.
Asia doing ok this evening. Too much anticipation leading up the CPI. Should be baked into the cake already regardless of the number (at least ST). I think even a bad number will get bought by days end or by Thurs at the latest. Most of this inflation data is manipulated anyway and it's a lagging indicator just like the Fed rate hikes. Won't be too long if this continues before the markets start to worry about deflation again.
http://finance.yahoo.com/intlindices?e=asia
Just a swag. No money currently long or short the gen market other than modest PM exposure.
Yea, you've done very well staying away until now. I don't always post here, but I read most of your stuff. I didn't think you were going to sell what you just bought, just clarifying my position.
My two bellweathers in the big cap PM area are both down much less than GLD (GG, NEM). Both got even at one pt in the day even w/gold down $30 at that pt. We've since had another $10+ down in GLD and more broad market weakness. With the exception of a true crash I'd say the action is pretty good and this does look like capitulation.
More importantly Bernake has achieved a big selloff in commodities w/just talk so far. He's not going to intentionally kill the market so I don't think this goes much further ST. This fall/winter of course is another matter.
We've got silver below $10, gold getting close to $500 again, HUI getting close to major breakout area (255-260). I'm a buyer and will continue to scale in here.
CI - Very much inline w/my current thinking on the Fed/inflation:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22538664
From today's CI:
A few very last comments. First, we need to keep firmly in mind that inflation shows up in headline economic statistics with a lag. Much of what we see in current numbers was born six to nine months ago. The importance to us as investors is where the effects of current real world inflationary pressures are heading, not necessarily where they have been. Although we believe these pressures are real, we also believe the macro US economy will slow ahead, which should theoretically be a breaking mechanism for macro inflationary tendencies. Of course these current anecdotal inflationary numbers are appearing just as many a Fed member over the past week or two has been talking up their fear of inflation. Pretty nice timing in terms of being a double hitter message to the markets. But what will matter most ahead is not what the Fed says, but rather what they do. C'mon, let's face it, if the Fed were really scared of inflation, wouldn't they have thrown a 50 basis point interest rate increase or two into the monetary tightening mix by this point? Have we simply been watching a heavy dose of Fed jawboning about inflationary pressures over the recent past? Jawboning aimed at bolstering Fed credibility as vigilant inflation fighters (although they are nothing of the sort over the long run) in an attempt to perhaps ding commodity, energy and precious metals prices? So far, the dinging, if you will, has been working. If the Fed were truly serious about attacking the near term inflationary trends you see in the charts above, they'd spring for 50 basis points at the June month end meeting. We'd assign that about a zero probability at this point. And here's the reason why.
As always the shares bottom first. Can't argue w/this action. Of course I'm going to keep some firepower for tomorrow morn. The Fed is all talk here w/respect to fighting inflation, but I'm gonna respect the CPI tomorrow and not try to get pigish. The 'D' word will become far more prevelent once the economy turns down in earnest.
Still seems that the gen markets still have anywhere from 2-5% downside left ST though so gold shares could go lower still, but this does look to be a very good entry spot ST.
Around 25% PMs in largest account now (was about 15% prior to today). Could get back to 50-60% maybe if we continue to head lower, but I doubt much higher until we actually turn.
I would have probably bought more this morn had the gen markets opened down another 1-2%. Usually these morning pops in a bear trend get sold down during the day. Still too much optimism there. Many gold stocks are already priced for 500-525 again, but that doesn't mean they can't go lower.
We're on the same page. Doing some buying myself, but will scale in today. Bought a batch this morn. Want to wait till noon before I consider adding more. Not trying to call a bottom here, just feel it's relatively low risk for a bounce. If not here than not much lower.
Those are legitimate points, but the outcome or potential benefits does not mean there was/is intention to do so from the beginning.
In this case I feel this is one conspiracy too much. The simplest explanation is often correct imho. Bush only thought about the war and not the occupation. He's a stubborn simpleton who mixes religion w/policy decisions. Completely incompetent. From there is easy to explain most of what has happened.
I guess what I find most amazing is that there are still intelligent people (who think they're informed) that still support this clown and this adminstration after everything that's happened. I know some of them personally unfortunately.
>> Indeed I still suspect Zarqawi may have been "used" by Western intelligence to ignite an Iraq civil war and was liquidated when he outlived his usefulness. <<
And what did/does the US have to gain by such a civil war?
CWPC - Reason it's down this morn?
No position in this hype job. Just enjoying watching the air deflate.
----------------------
Casey Research Special Bulletin: Collateral Damage
May 17, 2006
CanWest is having a bad day. Here’s what we know.
Last Friday we received a call from a reporter from Forbes working on a story that, reading between the lines, seems to question whether or not the CanWest concession is, in fact, a legitimate oil sands play.
The nub of the issue, as we interpret it, has to do with one of the early investors in the company, back when it was early stage with a dream and a prayer of finding bitumen in Saskatchewan. (An entity owned by us, DCDG, LLC., was also an investor at that stage, but only with an inconsequential position -- view the company's SB-2 Registration Statement by clicking on this link: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096791/000114420406014740/v040271_424b3.txt).
While it is only conjecture at this point, our interpretation is that Forbes is about to do one of its famous attack pieces on this particular financier (who has nothing to do with the day to day running of CanWest, by the way) and by extension CanWest. Looking at today’s price action, we can only surmise that word of the pending article is getting around and those in know are trying to get out while the getting is good. In the same way that CWPC has risen in near meteoric fashion, it now looks set to come off substantially. Remember, the reverse side of a hockey stick is just as steep as the front.
What’s the smart move here? Run for cover, or view the sell-off as a buying opportunity?
After listening to the reporter, we believe his initial understanding of the CanWest property is a misunderstanding. Starting with the fact that the financier in question is simply just another investor in the company, and has nothing to do with its management. While many reporters write their stories in their minds before setting a word to paper, then ignore everything except confirming facts – and that well may be the case here – our sense is that this particular reporter is doing his homework. Hopefully between now and press time he’ll get the data he needs to clear up his concerns. If not, and if CWPC is painted with the same negative brush as the companies actually managed by this individual, then the fall-off in CWPC that began today could continue until after the full impact of the article is felt, which will be after it hits the stands in a week or so.
While the prudent thing to do is to pull your original investment out of the stock, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, after double-checking our original work, we remain confident in the company’s new management team and the merits of its underlying assets. As a result, we’re holding on to our shares, and will look upon any continued fall out from the Forbes article to create an excellent speculative opportunity for a second bite at the apple.
Let me stress again that this is still largely in the realm of conjecture. At press time the reporter was still very much in research mode, so there is a good chance he’ll discover the CanWest story, as attention-grabbing as it has been, is completely legitimate and will leave it out of his broader story. In which case, we would expect to the stock to rebound, high and fast.
If you sell now, and some newer subscribers may even be selling at a loss, and there is no story, then you could well miss the turnaround and have to buy back in at higher prices. If he persists in putting CanWest into his story, and the stock takes a further hit as a result – possibly sending it below the $6.00 mark -- then buying more makes a lot of sense to us.
As with all investments, whether you stay, go, or buy more will be more a function of your psychology and personal financial situation than anything else. As just mentioned, we are confident enough in our work that we are holding, and will look to buy with both hands once it looks like CWPC has bottomed.
We’ll keep you posted on this drama as it unfolds.
David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC"
CWPC article
Gaps down 10% this morn on this? What a hype job w/no institional support.
--------------------------------------
Casey Research Special Bulletin: Collateral Damage
May 17, 2006
CanWest is having a bad day. Here’s what we know.
Last Friday we received a call from a reporter from Forbes working on a story that, reading between the lines, seems to question whether or not the CanWest concession is, in fact, a legitimate oil sands play.
The nub of the issue, as we interpret it, has to do with one of the early investors in the company, back when it was early stage with a dream and a prayer of finding bitumen in Saskatchewan. (An entity owned by us, DCDG, LLC., was also an investor at that stage, but only with an inconsequential position -- view the company's SB-2 Registration Statement by clicking on this link: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096791/000114420406014740/v040271_424b3.txt).
While it is only conjecture at this point, our interpretation is that Forbes is about to do one of its famous attack pieces on this particular financier (who has nothing to do with the day to day running of CanWest, by the way) and by extension CanWest. Looking at today’s price action, we can only surmise that word of the pending article is getting around and those in know are trying to get out while the getting is good. In the same way that CWPC has risen in near meteoric fashion, it now looks set to come off substantially. Remember, the reverse side of a hockey stick is just as steep as the front.
What’s the smart move here? Run for cover, or view the sell-off as a buying opportunity?
After listening to the reporter, we believe his initial understanding of the CanWest property is a misunderstanding. Starting with the fact that the financier in question is simply just another investor in the company, and has nothing to do with its management. While many reporters write their stories in their minds before setting a word to paper, then ignore everything except confirming facts – and that well may be the case here – our sense is that this particular reporter is doing his homework. Hopefully between now and press time he’ll get the data he needs to clear up his concerns. If not, and if CWPC is painted with the same negative brush as the companies actually managed by this individual, then the fall-off in CWPC that began today could continue until after the full impact of the article is felt, which will be after it hits the stands in a week or so.
While the prudent thing to do is to pull your original investment out of the stock, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, after double-checking our original work, we remain confident in the company’s new management team and the merits of its underlying assets. As a result, we’re holding on to our shares, and will look upon any continued fall out from the Forbes article to create an excellent speculative opportunity for a second bite at the apple.
Let me stress again that this is still largely in the realm of conjecture. At press time the reporter was still very much in research mode, so there is a good chance he’ll discover the CanWest story, as attention-grabbing as it has been, is completely legitimate and will leave it out of his broader story. In which case, we would expect to the stock to rebound, high and fast.
If you sell now, and some newer subscribers may even be selling at a loss, and there is no story, then you could well miss the turnaround and have to buy back in at higher prices. If he persists in putting CanWest into his story, and the stock takes a further hit as a result – possibly sending it below the $6.00 mark -- then buying more makes a lot of sense to us.
As with all investments, whether you stay, go, or buy more will be more a function of your psychology and personal financial situation than anything else. As just mentioned, we are confident enough in our work that we are holding, and will look to buy with both hands once it looks like CWPC has bottomed.
We’ll keep you posted on this drama as it unfolds.
David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC"
CWPC breaking down again
Not a pretty chart.
In terms of energy I still hold ECA bought back around $50. Playing the NG side, but mostly their very large exposure to oil sands which they're looking at spinning off. Overall one of the cheaper plays especially considering it's size.
(Edit) Reasonable assumption. Keep in mind the Gold/Oil ratio is just starting to recover and a ratio of 15/1 to is more par for the course. We're still around 10. Also you're a better ST trader than myself so you can get in/out easier. I do a mix of ST/IT/LT, but right now I want some LT exposure due to gains built up and I'm looking out just 1.5 to 2 years and still see 150-300% upside in my specific plays w/600-650 POG (NG and GSS mostly w/some GRZ and DROOY, NG by far the biggest). Right now I think $1000 gold will be easy so I obviously see even more upside by 2010 and beyond. Seems like a long time, but not really considering the returns possible. I find it too hard to be out completely as it becomes hard to get back in emotionally.
I disagree on gold being page 1. With 700 gold to a degree, but Heinz has made a number of good posts regarding sentiment w/respect to open interest on puts and calls as well as Rydex flows. I think I'm more in his camp. If you haven't read it I can try to dig it up and post here if you like.
PMs - As usual I can still find plenty of laggards that I still find cheap at sustained 550+ gold prices let alone 650-700. The problem usually becomes that the leaders get too pricey as most of the funds plow into the same 15-20 names. The leaders become more than fully priced and the entire sector stalls as the momo traders take over. We could see a bigger correction, but at this point I'd be surprised if we see 550 or lower prior to 800+. I'm about 30% PMs currently as long term plays mostly, but will probably get back up around 50-75% at the next IT bottom again.
Congrat on making some nice ST coin on WFMI. I've only shorted it in the past and made money thankfully, but no position currently. At some pt when they've saturated the market and the economy turns down they should be a ripe short, but for now you have to be very nimble.
OK, TA wise only CWPC breaking out on 30 min chart. Added w/overall basis at 7.18.
KGC breakout - cup-n-handle as well as trendline meassure to $15+ likely getting hit on this move.
OT - Thanks, yea I've had this thread bookmarked since Joe started it. So much easier on my simple mind though if you use the same alias on both. :)
A very good read. That's basically what Russ W. has been saying on SI for a while now. I still think gold has to hold up better relatively speaking since the Fed is so far being the curve, but when things get liquidated it's the selling at the margin that determines price. Maybe at first gold bulls will hold tough, but when you have numerous investors/funds that only hold 1-5% of their portfolio (at most) in gold or gold shares and they sell everything across the board you end up w/some ugly action. I think gold is likely to touch close to 700 prior to 500 again, but who knows. You may see me over here a bit more often as I've gone and done it. <g>
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/viewbans.aspx?subjectid=54268
It's a pretty good list of which I'm proud to be a part.
Sadly this is all it took.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22393461
Of course this probably lit the fire.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22385441
CWPC more points of view...
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22370198&srchtxt=cwpc
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22390775&srchtxt=cwpc
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22384752&srchtxt=cwpc
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22374095&srchtxt=cwpc
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22362279&srchtxt=cwpc
If you want the real dirt on oil sands plays this is the thread.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=55547
I suspect that if CWPC was Canadian listed as well it'd be far lower in market cap most likely as there would be more competition for investment funds. If you want value open a Penntrade account and trade the Canadian issues directly of which there are far more choices in the small/mid cap area.
I'm not short CWPC for the record. Just find the "promotion" surrounding this stock to be very interesting.
CWPC good stock or good story?
For now this momo favorite still has a constructive chart, but a bit lower and it should break hard to the downside.
This should be a red flag for anyone who is long.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CWPC.OB
New figures should be out soon. Will be interesting to see if this changes at all.
Rather surprised they haven't issued more shares at these lofty prices considering the company is bleeding cash and is expect to do so for a long time to come.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060322/cwpc.ob10qsb.html
>> In total the Company experienced a net loss of $19,725,307 or $0.27 per share for the nine months ended January 31, 2006, compared to a net loss of $3,916,775 or $0.14 per share for the nine months ended January 31, 2005. The Company expects to continue to incur operating losses and will continue to be dependent on additional equity or debt sales and or property joint ventures to fund its activities in the future.
We have no revenues, and our operating results, profitability and future rate of growth depend solely on our ability to successfully implement our business plan and our ability to raise further funding, as well as OQIs ability to raise funding for its projects. We currently have approximately $20,700,000in cash on hand which we plan to utilize for current and or upcoming exploration programs and general working capital purposes. It is expected that the Company will continue to need further funding and we plan to fund future operations by way of joint venture agreements and or other forms of financing, including the public offering or private placement of equity or debt securities. However, we cannot assure you that joint venture partners, debt or equity financing will be available to us on acceptable terms to meet these requirements. The Company has no revenues. <<
Hard to find anyone to talk about this stock in terms of real numbers. So far it's just a story, but of course those are the best kind of stocks to pump to the public. Remind anyone of 1999? Stocks w/no revenues were able to run the furthest since there was nothing to meassure them by.
There may be something to this company, but right now it's hard for anyone to really know.
As an example you get comments like this:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22378335&srchtxt=cwpc
>> Just got back. See another CWPC add filled @ $6.88. Now a
250% position. Largest in my entire career which goes back to 1973. <<
But there's no substance. If the story is so good where's the details. Instead you get post after post of buying the dips. Always buying the dips. 30+ years of investing experience and this is really as good as it gets? A BB stock that can't be valued on a true fundamental basis and is losing money? Surely there's got to be better stocks on a risk/reward basis.
Will be an interesting story to watch how it unfolds. I can't say for sure that's it's overvalued as there simply isn't enough information out in the public, but it sure looks speculative with a market cap near $500 million.
Homebuilders
[j45557639,y]&r=5368>
For some reason trendlines not showing. Continues to flirt w/H&S top. Right at neckline.
DROOY update
Hard to believe it's still 1.7 with 640 gold, but there it is. Should accelerate once 1.75 taken out with min target of 2 and likely target around 2.25+ ST.
Looks dirt cheap here.
Fuel cell sector has been pretty hot of late
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10716192
Niche player MCEL looks interesting here TA/FA wise. Looked at about 10 plays in the sector and so far I like this the best, but open to suggestions.
Renewed interest in Fuel cell sector
Took position in MCEL at 1.6 and 1.75. Been buying heavy the past 2 days. I like what I see in terms of their products, road to commercial viability, managment, and business partners.
Technicals and short interest look nice too. I suspect we'll ramp up to 2.5 or higher sometime in the next 6 months. I'll probably sell some and then hold the rest a few years as this looks intersting LT.
Update on gold/oil ratio
GSS relative to gold ETF
HUI - Latest trends
Already at a new high. A break back above this trend for more than 2 days should lead to an acceleration of the existing trend.
GSS relative to gold - 3 yr chart
Knowing the FA this chart screams great risk/reward for patient investors.
1 year target 5-6
2 year target 8-10+
Downside potential of 2.5 ish if gold goes sub 520-500 again.
Downside to 2 ish if gold goes to 425-450 (unlike now imho).
Ultimately gold is going above 800 again (minimum by 2010) so just wait.
Ok, thanks for the reply. Shouldn't happen based on FA, but it does seem like the stock is heavily shorted. Quite possible if gold continues to spike vs gradually climb that PMs will soon ignore the advances. Not happening yet, but people will get skittish around an HUI double top. In that event I could see the possibility if POG drops $50-75 from whatever top we make soon. It'd be a hell of a gift FA wise.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22310886
Another neglected gold dog bumping up against multi-year restistance.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10383278
Not quite a compelling FA wise as GSS imho, but still very cheap. Gold in Rand terms looking good as well.
GSS TA - Do you still feel this one needs to revisit the mid 2's or is it finally out of the woods w/respect to your methods?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9965305
By my read I think it looks very good here. Take your pick whether it's a potential inverse H&S or a potenial cup-n-handle forming. Either way playing more from an FA side, but I respect your TA opinion if you have the time.
My 1-year target is 5-6 range.
On the Canadian side.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10230826
Gold ETF trends
Another $5-10 higher and things could get explosive again.
GSS put/call info from latest 10-K
Put and Call Options
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/060329/gss10-k.html
We purchased gold put options ("puts") during 2005 to provide down-side gold price protection for a portion of our expected gold sales spread equally over the Bogoso sulfide expansion project construction period. This action reduced the risk of reduced cash flow from operations during the construction period that would otherwise have occurred as a result of a drop in gold prices. We sold call options ("calls") to offset the cost of a portion of the puts.
Each put gives us the right, but not the obligation, to sell an ounce of gold to a counter party on a specified future date at a contractually agreed upon strike price. Each put has a specified expiry date. The strike price of the put is set at a point below the spot market price on the date the put is established. The closer the put strike price is to the spot market price, the higher the cost of the put. We paid an average of $7.10 per ounce for the puts purchased in the second quarter of 2005 locking in an average strike price of $409.75 per ounce when the spot market price was between $427 and $429 per ounce.
A put, in effect, becomes an insurance policy that guarantees us a minimum gold price on ounces covered by the puts. Through our puts we have guaranteed that we will receive at least $409.75 per ounce for 140,000 ounces to be sold during 2006 and early 2007. If, on the expiry date, the spot market price is above the put strike price we will allow the put to expire unused. We are not required to deliver gold to cover a put.
Each call obligates us to sell an ounce of gold at a specified future date to a counter party at a contractually agreed upon price. If the spot market gold price exceeds the call strike price we will receive only the lower call strike price on ounces covered by the calls. We sell calls to and receive payment from a counterparty. If the counterparty declines to exercise the call on its expiry date (i.e. the spot market price of gold is below the calls strike price) the calls expire unused with no additional financial impact.
In the third quarter of 2005, we bought an additional 90,000 puts and at the same time sold 90,000 calls. The strike prices of the calls and the puts were set so that the revenue on the sale of the calls exactly offsets the cost of the puts, and thus no cash was required for the transactions. The strike price of the puts was set at $400 per ounce and the calls at $525 per ounce. At the time that these puts and calls were acquired the spot price of gold was between $424 and $440 per ounce.
Puts acquired in the second quarter of 2005 and outstanding at December 31, 2005 expire as follows: 90,000 in 2006 and 22,500 in 2007. Puts and calls acquired in the third quarter of 2005 expire at a rate of 5,000 per month between October 2005 and March 2007. In December 2005 we repurchased calls on 15,000 ounces at an average price of $4.13 per covered ounce. The repurchased calls were for December 2005 and January and February 2006.
Derivative accounting rules require that at the end of each period, the remaining unexpired puts and calls be revalued to their mark-to-market fair value (the price at which we could sell the puts or the price at which we could buy back the call options). The initial mark-to-market value of the puts was equal to the price we paid for them. The mark-to-market values at December 31, 2005 decreased because gold prices rose after we bought the puts thereby making it less likely that the floor price established by the puts would provide a future benefit. The $0.9 million decrease in the mark-to-market value of the puts as of December 31, 2005, has been recorded in our Consolidated Statement of Operations. The remaining fair value of the puts at December 31, 2005 was $0.1 million.
If the gold price were to fall in the future, the mark-to-market value of the puts would increase since it would be more likely that the floor price mechanism in the puts would provide an economic benefit. In such a case we would recognize a gain equal to the increase in the mark-to-market value of the puts.
The value of the call options is also marked to market each period in a manner similar to the put options. The only difference is that the mark-to-market value would be based on the price we would have to pay to the counter party to buy back the call options. As gold prices increase, the value of calls increase. The fair value of calls (the price we would have to pay to buy back the calls) was $2.3 million as of December 31, 2005 and we recognized a non-cash expense of this amount in our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the increase in the buy-back cost. It is noted that the mark-to-market fair value will be brought back into revenue in the statement of operations over the next 15 months.
GSS 2006 guidance
Looks pretty good. Any dilution should be relatively small.
---------------------------
2006 GUIDANCE
Looking forward, the forecast for 2006 total production is approximately 300,000 ounces at an average cash operating cost of about $335 an ounce, benefiting from a full year's production at Wassa and the first production from the Bogoso sulfide expansion project. The 2007 forecast of approximately 500,000 ounces at an average cash operating cost of about $335 an ounce is based on a full year's production from the Bogoso sulfide expansion project.
Production at Bogoso/Prestea in the first quarter is expected to be about 20,000 ounces and is expected to gradually increase in the second and third quarters and to substantially increase in the fourth quarter as a result of the commencement of new production from the Bogoso expansion project. Cash operating costs at Bogoso/Prestea are expected to be high in the first quarter and to gradually improve through the subsequent quarters, averaging about $330 per ounce for the year.
Production from Wassa is expected to be about 24,000 ounces in the first quarter and is expected to gradually increase through the year as a result of increasing throughput and grade. Costs are expected to be high in the first quarter and to reduce in subsequent quarters as a result of lower strip ratios and higher gold production.
We anticipate total capital spending of approximately $155 million during 2006, with approximately $89 million of this expected to be used to complete the Bogoso sulfide expansion project. Cash on hand stood at approximately $89.7 million at December 31, 2005. At current gold prices (approximately $550 per ounce) we expect both Bogoso/Prestea and Wassa to generate positive operating cash flows in 2006. In March 2006, we sold our shares in Moto Goldmines which resulted in net proceeds of $38.9 million.
We are currently negotiating with banks to set up a $30 million revolving line of credit that could be drawn on if needed.
DROOY bumping up against LT resistance. Could set the stage for a retest of the 2 area if it can close above 1.55 again. Good hold for a 2+ year time frame.
GSS Canadian side - Clearer picture of current action
Gold daily trends
Suggests that if we break 535-540 area on a closing basis that we'll probably see 510-500 retest. NEM already priced for those levels (or lower)
Commodities starting to break down?