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.
hard to believe, isn't it? I went back to the timeframe when management tried to reprice some of their options (which recall they cancelled, and btw also recall the interview of CD by the NYC firm some months back in which CD said he didn't think regulations allowed repricing of options - ha)
So anyway, I went back for a peek, in the time between the repeated placements and the late 2011 release of the initial resource estimate,
and there we all are, with the same discussion, need to real business savy in mgmt, on BoD, all eggs in one basket, deep holes and shallow pockets, placements, placements, placements . . .
and remember the voice of clarity elcaribes brought to the board back then?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68611591
(in reference to attempt to reprice mgmt options about a dima on the buck)
That's not four months, but more like 18 plus months, and nothing has changed . . . except the share price.
Big Drop Ahead . . . could be right. But I don't see what that has to do with the spread between the Toronto ticker and the OTC version. OTC shares did not trade at all today, and are at 0.045 only because toward end of day Wednesday someone spent a whopping $11.25 plus commissions to buy 250 shares, taking it up from the 0.0275 where the one other trade earlier Wednesday of 6,000 shares had taken the price.
The point seems to be that the tickers trade so thinly especially the OTC that one needs to look at a larger timeframe instead of just one day's close.
Welcome back. Rough duty to have to vacation in the spring also
I am also expecting the market will wake up to BRD having turned the corner, as long as gold prices hold up that is.
I am seeing the profits as very slim, very slim indeed, but that is if one does not look at the large amount invested in capital improvements at Black and Grey Fox. I am not understanding the $2M each quarter you indicate it will be paying off as the gold stream is now fixed and the company no longer has any rights to buy it off, but it is not a loan. BRD sold a gold stream, received money, had until earlier this year to buy back part of the stream, and did buy back in total half of what it could. But now it is a fix deal, with no interest as there never was, only the obligation to sell a portion of gold production at set price.
The guidance for 2013 shows that they project to have $6M in interest expense, but that this is expected to be $5.2M in 2014, so there must be some payoff of debt planned (or rates reduce?).
If analysts look into the numbers, provided the gold price holds up (as most except the banksters and their mouthpieces and coattail riders seem to think) then a solid growth in operational cash flow will be seen, as will the sizable amount of capital improvement and the increasing production, etc.. Quarter by quarter more will recognize what many here believe/know.
News: Excellon extends gold zone to depth on Beschefer Project
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=57319245&symbol=TSX:EXN
While not excited over the intervals reported in this NR it is worth pulling forward the following announcing completion of the the option to acquire full control over the Timmmins camp DeSantis property.
Based on these promising results the Company elected to exercise its option to earn the remaining 49% of the DeSantis property and has issued 540,000 common shares of Excellon to International Prospectors and Explorers Inc. ("IEP"). This was the final obligation under the terms of the 2010 option agreement between Lateegra Gold Corp. and IEP. The Company now holds a 100% interest, subject to a Net Smelter Returns ("NSR") royalty ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% by portion of the original DeSantis property. In addition in mid-April the Company issued 48,600 shares and made a payment of C$20,000 to a group of three Timmins area prospectors and thereby earned a 100% interest, subject to a 2% NSR royalty, in the contiguous DeSantis West property. The Company has the option to buyout portions of each of the NSRs.
Thanks for noticing . . . no surprises, except we still do not know why the company's stock has been showing the strength it has lately.
Also, thanks for the morning gold info links. The physical situation is obviously not new, but is likely now new information for a slowly growing number of people. If I recall, having lived through the Nixon to Carter administrations involved with precious metals, once it became legal to own gold interest picked up, but it was not until it started to appear that silver was in such short supply (i.e. height of the Hunt brothers cornering the market, plus the recent cessation of its use in US coinage and very visible end to seeing any in circulation around that time) that the public attitude became one of "if one wants some one needs to act" before its price spiraled even higher. And it was then that the bubble part of the price escalation came into force, as the general public got involved.
Whether we are looking at the potential for a similar event, but this time with gold leading the way, is to be seen. If so, or perhaps better said when, and a similar event happens the increase will be amazingly fast, if it is similar, fast and dramatic. Back then gold rose from the time it became legal, fairly steadily, but once silver took off (combined with the increasing interest rates reaching never seen highs helping people see the value of the dollar shrink), gold tagged along (to a then new all time high). Bottom line for sharing this, once it appeared that there was a shortage and that the price was only going to go up, and the belief was that the dollar was only going down in value, it was then that people who otherwise would never have been aware of the precious metals market "had to" get in, and they did, however large or small their position. That final few months, the height of the bubble, was an eye-opener, into which I was a seller.
Most likely any major would have its own internal view and estimates under a range of assumptions.
Most likely any major would have to "officially" adhere to vaild NI 43-101 numbers in order to present and justify any actions to its shareholders.
Most likely any major would only take notice when the valid NI 43-101 brings a project to their threshold to trigger a closer look.
It appears to me that while drill holes not being included could certainly be a cause, that in itself is not the only cause since once one looks at the original and two updates at the same cut-off grade one sees that this estimate lost ground. Perhaps some previously allowed drill holes had to be excluded under the new modelling. However, I believe that the new upper grade cut (20 g/t) and especially the new block size in the model both contributed to reducing the ounce total.
JMO
Agree, $5,400 CA is pretty small, but it is the only insider buy this year ! Isn't that something ? Also, this purchase, plus the 300,000 shares CD bought in the public market (for $20,500) in mid December 2012
ARE THE ONLY INSIDER PURCHASES in the public market SINCE DEC 2009 !
AFAIK the annual is not available yet, but I expect it in about a week (last day of April last year, May 2 in 2011)
Seeing the interest from Agnico-Eagle is a major step for KTN, however I regret that it took place at shortly after the 52-week low, at price reflecting avg of that low (no premium for the warrants?). I also would have preferred some structuring with Promontorio structured as a private subsidiary and the investment being in that. Instead approx 11% increase in issued shares and 53% increase in warrants (which at least were priced more toward the recent share prices and above the 200 day avg and for only 2 years) for the whole company. Contrary to some views KTN does have more going on than Promontorio after all.
All in all it is great to see a strong hand buying in.
CD bought 100,000 shares Apr 19 in the public market
EXN has been busy buying shares in open market per its share purchase plan, including 273,000 last week, 491,500 since the buying started May 6
Also, news/update out yesterday
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=57273578&symbol=TSX:EXN
Excellon provides update on La Platosa property
TORONTO, April 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ - Excellon Resources Inc. (TSX:EXN) ("Excellon" or the "Company"), Mexico's highest grade silver producer, is pleased to provide an update on the status of its agrarian legal suit against the Ejido La Sierrita (the "Ejido"), which was filed in August 2012 . Excellon sued the Ejido to terminate the surface rights agreement ("SRA") in respect of the surface rights to 1,100 hectares of exploration ground west of the La Platosa Mine and for various damages relating to the illegal blockade of the mine last year. The Ejido also sued for termination of the SRA one week after being advised of Excellon's suit.
At a hearing of the Agrarian Court last week, the Court advised that as both parties wished to terminate the SRA, Excellon would formally return the surface rights effective May 9, 2013 pending further resolutions in respect of ten particular hectares.
"The pending outcome of the Agrarian Court hearing is as we intended and expected when we filed a suit for termination of the SRA in August 2012," stated Brendan Cahill, President and CEO. "This is the best path forward for our La Platosa Mine, our employees, the residents of Bermejillo, Mapimi and La Sierrita, our stakeholders and our shareholders. Every day, we operate with the full support of our employees, the communities of Bermejillo and Mapimi and all levels of Mexican government. The number one priority of our community programs is to ensure that our actions and investments provide value over the long-term."
The decision to terminate the SRA (refer to press release dated September 10, 2012) was driven by the need to limit the risk exposure of the SRA on La Platosa production capabilities. This decision has since been solidified by current capital markets conditions and has become an element of Excellon's business strategy. As the Company focuses on optimizing high-grade, low-cost production, increasing cash flow and expanding high-grade and near term mineable resources at the La Platosa Mine, the termination of the SRA will result in reduced expenditures of over US$600,000 annually and immediate savings of approximately US$600,000 during 2013. Excellon also intends to continue its suit against the Ejido for damages relating to the illegal blockade of the mine.
Excellon holds approximately 41,000 hectares of mineral and mining rights at La Platosa. These rights entitle the Company to explore for and mine minerals at La Platosa and in an extensive surrounding area. Excellon also owns all surface rights needed to produce silver from the La Platosa Mine and conduct further surface and underground exploration for further high-grade manto mineralization and the CRD/Source of the La Platosa mantos.
To clarify, the MCMHU is a finished prototype which is being used to obtain performance efficiency results and to
demonstrate the heat engine technology. A finished product will use the technology in the MCMHU but will hopefully
be built by a manufacturer on our behalf in a strategic alliance.
Some people awaken more slowly than others.
Argentina certainly does not get it. As per Vale, and the article, the project is not economic.
The Labor Ministry started the process to protect Vale’s employees and contract workers involved in the failed project to develop the Rio Colorado mine,
and if I recall correctly the other patent is similarly unpaid, with them both headed toward ending without requests for review ever being filed.
PVG does look very inviting at these levels. Not sure but after reducing market cap by $28 MM or so for cash on hand it appears to work out to something like $20 +/- per oz for estimated reserve and resource in the ground (depending on what Snowfield cut one uses), and obviously no risk on Valley of the Kings proving feasible.
??? I see 0.055 and 71,325
Usually, or bridge loans for other needs. The buy back was at an amount that was respectable profit to SAND on money fronted. Having reached production with reduced dilution and debt is the return for BRD having sold a stream. Comitted to sell 8% of production from specified area for $500/oz forever, at less than cost of production, is a drawback, but there is production and it is 92% unhedged.
but if I am mining it I would rather sell it at market than at $500
Yep, enough so I would have liked to see them afford getting out from under all of it. Luckily well-timed placements and exercises let BRD extinguish a second chunk. The markets seem to punish juniors in a leveraged way based on size and terms of stream obligations; but, the companies did manage into production in time of heightened PM prices while others without the stream financing didn't get into production and may be gone.
One thing with BRD is the pipeline guidance getting to production w/o stream, reducing SAND cost to a much smaller % of gross, over not too many years as this stream covers only Black Fox and a little nearer extension
Effectively, by buying 1/3 back BRD showed its actual IRR on the cap ex of getting Black Fox up and running, fudging on that IRR some by placement money on the rising pps from reaching and growing production. On the toss between buydown or larger effective ogligation/debt, it was smart to get out from under the nonterminating stream.
I think were we are not connecting on the 1450 +/- figure is you seem to be saying/thinking profit whereas I am looking at expenditures to stay on track with growth of Black Fox production and to keep Grey Fox preparations, but not new exploration, happening.
As I understand the company's meaning for the per ounce cash cost of operations at Black Fox is production costs. met with cash, for operating BF and I assume producing the ore to point of sale. This seems to be a bit more than half of revenue expenditures.
I am more interested in ( BRD, shareholders, myself as estimator ) getting at the levels where funding the next planned open pit operations is not put off schedule when done only by internal funding. To estimate that based on reported financials with sensitivity to PM market range isn't easy. What all costs/expenses get cooked into the reported values by then? Besides I hold no fondness for accountancy. So, I cop out and look at net profit per oz produced. It would be nice for BRD to build funds for opportunistic hunting or cushion for timelines stability, but can't net profits go to zero without BRD becoming unprofitable? So I use net profit per oz to see how low the per oz could go without timeline adjustment (on stable projected costs).
If they get to Grey Fox development, get to deeper levels in current BF footprint, to producing from higher grades, newer findings, and expansion zones then projected increased production seems able to lower the needed AU per Oz price significantly, and there is also that "eventual" upward adjustment of Au prices.
IMO it all paints at improving profitability and growth. At what rate as/if metals dive too far does seem an issue, but there also seems to be a lot of spending that could be deferred with adjustment of guidance.
I have to agree. Between the current price, strength of holders, the known project pipeline and potential at depth just getting scratched, and future of gold values there appears to be a lot of upside.
Although some might see negatives in the numbers of my last few posts, if one factors out cap ex and looks at other possible cash conservation measures it seems BRD would get through a deeper hit to gold prices than we have yet seen, unlike many newer producing juniors.
No problem. I also should learn more, and also apply more of what I have come to have some awareness about. In this case I really should dig into the filings since going with the numbers in those couple NRs does not give clarity whether the numbers leading to the 1450 +/- result are after taxes, and it would be good to refine the number to get a look at only the cap ex on Black Fox to maintain operations and only the drilling on Black Fox to maintain mining plan/staging (i.e. infill and delineation). That would give an avg sales price to maintain income but not grow production, which I would take as an interesting number.
Here is my notes on figuring needed market price of gold, with some added comments:
production = P oz
avg AU price = G $/oz i. e. avg sales price on non-stream sales
This number should be approx market price of gold avg'd over period's (non-stream) sales
sales gross revenue S = $500*0.08P + G*0.92P
This accounts for stream, selling 8% at fixed $500/oz
So at what G does "all in" cost of production C equal sales revenue?
i.e. C = S at what G?
Using per oz values, c = C/P and s = S/P
s = 0.92G + 40 i.e. ($500*0.08P + G*0.92P)/P
so for c=s then G = (c-40)/0.92
And here is example of using this G = (c-40)/0.92 result:
The Mar 27 NR had a couple data points on income, and I take the "net" to be the closest to an "all in" number. Take these and divide by ounces reported for the period, and subtract this from the reported avg sales price for non-stream sales, i.e.
1712 - 194 = 1518 using $4.39 million net income
1712 - 409 = 1303 using $9.276 million income from mining operations
on 22,672 produced, 1712 avg realized oz price (non-stream)
so with
c = 1303 then G = 1372
c = 1518 then G = 1606
Again, I really should dig into the filings and determine if and/or how much of exploration is deducted when they come up with the two income numbers, how much of the deducted capital expenses is continuing operations maintenance and how much for enhancement of future capacity, etc.
alternate view, using numbers from the Mar 27 NR
http://www.brigusgold.com/Cache/1001174214.PDF?Y=&O=PDF&D=&FID=1001174214&T=&IID=4288058
Net income and comprehensive income $4,390,000
Gold ounces produced 22,672
so divide, net income per ox produced $194/oz
Average realized gold price – including Goldstream $1,649
so subtract $1,649 - $194 = $1,455
point 1 - center had posted the projected 2013 info, so comment worked off of that also, and reference was not clear (late night) that it was to the projection slides in the latest corp presentation, and the fact that I misspoke in the post by saying "slide 11 of the deck for Q1 and 2013 guidance" likely caused much of the confusion.
http://www.brigusgold.com/Cache/1500047257.PDF?Y=&O=PDF&D=&FID=1500047257&T=&IID=4288058
point 2 - "total cash cost of production" is not a standard accounting measure, and some places where used makes it seem this is the cash spent on ore extraction and processing in the operation of the Black Fox mine.
That number is way short of the costs of running the company, extracting and producing salable result, selling, covering business/admin expenses, paying interest, paying taxes, etc.
Slide 11 seems to show that if BRD continues on strategy with mine development and extraction at Black Fox, and also undertakes the cap improvement but not the exploration expenditures at Grey Fox then the company needs a gold price at 1470 to be even.
Keep in mind that this cash cost of production on per ounce basis in only a part of the extraction to sales costs. The number I considered was for BRD to continue as previously contemplated except for one cash conservation measure, delaying Grey Fox exploration.
That is a little (very little - cap ex on Grey Fox only item) more than the projected outflow could be carved dwon to before impacting future production (or current) at Black Fox.
(I don't think the one-time charge for stream buy-back enter into this; the double star ** footnote on slide 11 really should not be on the entire "Operating Cash Flow" line but only the box of that line for the Q4 2012 results.)
Yes, projected cash costs (of mining operations) is projected for 2013 at $700 - $750 per oz of production. But from slide 11 of the deck for Q1 and 2013 guidance it looks to me like after stopping exploration at Grey Fox but not the cap ex, and not slowing the cap ex at Black Fox, then break even falls somewhere around 1600 - 130 (div 95k into Black Fox net cashflow reduced by corporate expenses and Grey Fox cap ex = 131)
Do I miss something ?
Thanks for posting the link.
VERY up-to-date slides.
Did anyone have an easy to understand way to clue me on slide 42 ? specifically why equity funding of El Gallo 2 has such a high percentage cost ? or for that matter why it has a percentage cost ? which I take to be annual rate of cost (interest) since the 7 or 7.5% given for debt financing is likely a statement of annual rate.
The main thing I found lacking in the presentation that could have made financial appear better would have been a line for revenue from San Jose on slide 40 to show the gap repatriation of revenue from Argentina could fill.
Also I was hoping to see something showing rate of completion of El Gallo phase 2 if funded only by revenue from El Gallo phase 1 (or is that what the gold line on slide 40 is addressing, that by doing nothing outside of Argentina except El Gallo 1 production the company would consume from rather than build treasury?
It does seem it's time for an explanation, NR or CC or best both in order, to help promote an understanding of how the new NI 43-101 update is a pleasing announcement, and show why a year's drilling reduced the resource (apples to apples, cut to cut).
As for CEO changes, history is no guarantee of the future, even if one can isolate out events of only similar causes and avoids the pitfall of only limited, select comparisons as a sample for prediction.
It seems to me it's the preceding, steep but smaller, plunge, in 2008, slightly ahead of and continuing on through along with the drop in general equities, that would be were we are in the pattern if there is to be a repeat of the pattern. If that is the case the March '09 bottoming's parallel is yet ahead, after the general equities find a reality. However, in this case things would be different as such a collapse would guarantee massive QE as it would guarantee higher unemployment, economic slowdown, etc. so gold would return to favor.
Is some company in particular, in the revenue/royalty steam, highly sensitive to metals price drop to/near-below current metal prices ?
This seems a disproportionately high penalty inflicted on EMXX in recent days. Reason ? (other than its the markets / Toronto)
Sorry Bronco but I have to disagree. EXS is not in feasibility stage. It is more like EXS is in discovery stage, but the upslope petered out and fell back to the level at early exploration. B Cooke's lifecycle chart is for a junior that has a successful discovery that is shown feasible and makes it to mining production. EXS is a long way from feasibility study stage of the game.
I am a bit surprised at the location, another commonwealth property, but not at all surprised to see there has been a change of venue.
Nice communication SlimMoney. Let us hope it is heard.
Although the company likely has the report in hand currently, they do have 45 days, roughly the end of May, before it must be uploaded to Sedar.
I also would love to be looking over what is said within.
Are both approaches acceptable in the regulator's eyes and do the regulators even have such a stipulation
In my mind the question is whether there was malfeasance in practice
See note 4 to the estimate.
The change to a lower g/t cutoff (20 from 35) and a much smaller block in the modelling calculation, both of which are contrary to the move to 1650/oz from 1500/oz on gold. The increased avg price on gold used should have allowed the same or higher cut, and should not have necessitated a quartering in block size.
IMO it is the reduced block size that forces the reverse cubed extrapolation to extinguish much sooner, significantly reducing the amount added to the resource by each assay intercept, particularly with the inferred resource.
In my mind the question is whether there was malfeasance in practice by the NI qualified professionals involved in the initial two resource estimates, i. e. the use of an inappropriate block model for the size of intercepts, type of veining.
So May Day may be quite some day. Thanks for the info.
Yep, the USD and oil have been close watches. USD hit above 83.0 for a bit about the time the metals started to get slammed, and the AUD to CAD spread reached 6.5 cents. Oil hasn't ducked down too far, but for now is pushed below what I consider the danger zone where the US economy chills.
MUX ? Not sure how to read the large drop in MUX . . . recent good news, perhaps great if that pans out into a resource between the pits; March 28 short interest report out shows up 1.2 million but within the range it has been at for some time; what is looking to be a major increase in the CU at Los Azules in the works; . . . All the same, set a new 52-week low during trading today . . . after hours today all across the board, ending unchanged but with a 2.0759 high on a 21,600 share trade. I have no doubt that some of the trouble for MUX these past days is the ETFs it is held within getting dumped and forced to liquidate.
Hey, and we aren't even at sell in May and split yet !
Or the miners could just follow Sinclair's call of a year ago about holding the excess in treasury in bullion instead of selling at sub-par prices and having a treasury that earns maybe 1% interest.
Then again, it has been said a fair percentage of new production is being sold direct to end buyer by miners, bypassing the exchanges.
Fact is that the disconnect between physical and paper markets for metals has been stretched of late, and if one believes the reports done in order to save the arses of the bankster bullion banks and the commmodity exchanges where depository inventories have been plummeting.
As facts are however we have witnessed the capability of the interventionists, as well as the blind eye of any supposed regulators, which lead to the obvious question "when is enough enough?".
link previously posted elsewhere:
http://goldtrends.net/FreeDailyBlog?mode=PostView&bmi=1267250
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/4/15_Maguire_-_LBMA_Default_Triggered_Gold_%26_Silver_Takedown.html
No, not the gold market. In my observation MUX is and has been tied tightly to the silver market. That is not new now. It seems it has been that way all along, although since El Gallo started production this may start to shift in some percentage.
But is the slam of precious metals over ? momentum yesterday would tend to indicate we are just seeing a bit of a settle-in rebound today
MUX chart may indicate 100% oversold, but if they convince the market that Ag is going to drift lower and gold see further decline it could very easily turn out 115% oversold.
These are abnormal conditions to be sure.