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.
GBU...
GBU needs to raise cash, look for PP..., IMO.
Wheaton Mexico Acquisition-paid $29.52/oz??
US$87M paid
Less: $20M estimate for El Limon/other?, seems conservative?
Equals US$67M for Los Filos
Los Filos Measured=1.77M ounces
Los Filos Inferred=.50M ounces
Total Resource ounces = 2.27M ounces
US$67M/2.27M ounces = $29.52 paid per ounce...
Alamos selling at $12.88 per ounce per prior post...
______________________________________
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Sep 4, 2003 (BUSINESS WIRE) --
Wheaton River Minerals Ltd. ("Wheaton River") is pleased to announce that it has entered into agreements with Teck Cominco Limited ("Teck Cominco") and Miranda Mining Corporation ("Miranda") to acquire a 100% interest in the Los Filos Gold Deposit, together with a 21.2% interest (of which 14% is a carried interest) in the El Limon Gold Deposits, both located in Guerrero State, Mexico, for US$87 million in cash.
Ian Telfer, Chairman & CEO said, "Wheaton River is very excited about the growth potential of the projects and our ability to utilize the existing Luismin infrastructure we have in Mexico. Los Filos and El Limon will be another step forward in the growth of Wheaton River as a dynamic global gold producer. We are confident we can bring Los Filos into production by 2006, which should increase our projected annual production to over 700,000 ounces at cash costs of less than US$140 per ounce. Wheaton currently produces over 500,000 gold equivalent ounces at a cash cost of approximately US$100 per ounce and has over 4 million ounces of in proven and probable reserves. This acquisition will add significantly to both production and reserves going forward."
Conference Call Details
There will be a conference call to discuss this acquisition on Thursday, September 4th at 11:00 a.m. Toronto time. You may participate in the call by dialing 1-877-323-2093, or for those outside of Canada and the United States, by dialing (416) 695-9707.
Los Filos Gold Deposit
Wheaton River is acquiring a 100% interest in the open pittable heap leach Los Filos Gold Deposit. Teck Cominco has explored Los Filos with over 400 drillholes totaling 90,000 metres of drilling and using a cutoff of 0.5 grams of gold per tonne ("g Au/t"), estimated a measured and indicated resource of 38.4 million tonnes grading 1.44 g Au/t (1.77 million ounces) and inferred resources of 11.0 million tonnes grading 1.35 g Au/t. Column testwork to date on Los Filos samples has indicated heap leach recoveries in excess of 70%, and Wheaton River will be investigating the potential benefits of fine-grinding a higher grade portion of the ore feed.
On several satellite zones within one kilometre of Los Filos, early stage exploration indicates potential to expand the resource base.
Wheaton River plans to complete a feasibility study on the Los Filos deposit during 2004, and commence construction immediately thereafter. Capital costs are expected to be in the order of US$80 million, which Wheaton intends to fund through a combination of project debt and internally generated cash. This mine will start production in late 2005.
El Limon Gold Deposits
Wheaton River is also acquiring a 21.2% interest in the El Limon Gold Deposits, (of which 14% is a carried interest) with Teck Cominco owning the remaining 78.8%. The El Limon Gold Deposits are a series of skarn related deposits located 15 kilometres north of Los Filos. In September 2002, Teck Cominco completed a resource estimate based on 35 reverse circulation drill holes and 25 diamond drill holes totalling approximately 10,000 metres of drilling. Using a cut off grade of 0.8 g Au/t, inferred resources totalled 15.9 million tonnes grading 3.35 g Au/t.
Subsequent drilling by Teck Cominco has focused on expanding the resources of the El Limon Gold Deposits, and several new zones have been identified. Teck Cominco has only recently completed the latest drilling campaign, and is currently updating the resource estimate for El Limon. The updated resource estimate is expected by the end of September 2003. Wheaton River is excited to partner with Teck Cominco in advancing the El Limon deposits towards production.
Nukay Mine
Wheaton River is also acquiring the Nukay Mine situated in Guerrero State, Mexico, which has been in operation for almost 20 years. The Nukay operation has produced approximately 90,000 ounces of gold over the last five years at an average cash cost of US$164 per ounce. Wheaton River intends to conduct a thorough review of mining operations upon completion of the acquisition.
Summary of the Acquisition
The Los Filos Gold Deposit is owned by Minera Nuteck S.A. de C.V. ("Nuteck") which is owned 70% by Teck Cominco and 30% by Miranda. Miranda is also the indirect owner of 21.2% of Minera Media Luna S.A. de C.V. ("MML") which owns 100% of the El Limon Gold Deposit. The remaining 78.8% of MML is indirectly owned by Teck Cominco. Miranda is also the indirect owner of a small producing gold mine known as the Nukay Mine.
Wheaton River has entered into a letter agreement with Teck Cominco pursuant to which Wheaton River will acquire all of the shares of Nuteck indirectly held by Teck Cominco for US$48.4 million payable in cash. The purchase of the Nuteck shares by Wheaton River is subject to a number of conditions, including entering into a definitive agreement of purchase and sale and Wheaton River completing the acquisition of Miranda as detailed below.
Wheaton River has also entered into an agreement with Miranda pursuant to which Wheaton River has agreed to make an all cash take-over bid to acquire all of Miranda's common shares for a total cash consideration of US$38.6 million.
Ghana article...
Reuters reported yesterday that Mines Minister Cecilia Bannerman briefed the media on plans to grant five licenses to companies wanting to extend operations into areas currently off-limits. The beneficiary companies are Newmont [NEM], Ashanti [ASL] & Nevsun [NSU], Birim [BGI] & Golden Star [GSS], and Red Back [RBK].
Ghana mine operators roll their eyes at the “reserve” designations because locals have already plundered them. In that vein, the minister stated that the “Many of these [forest] reserves are reserves only on paper."
That should make exploitation permits a foregone and sensible conclusion, but environmental activists have been mobilizing to oppose the move for months.
MiningWatch Canada, an Ottawa lobbying crew that starts from the premise that miners get their way to easily, too often, published a report on Ghana in early July. Breathlessly titled ‘Canadian Mining Companies Destroy Environment and Community Resources in Ghana’, the report accuses a clutch of companies of human rights abuses, land grabs and contamination – without any evidence in support.
more at:
http://www.mips1.net/mgan.nsf/UNID/TWOD-5R33LM
Marcos, how about an opinion on the recent ejido decision...
http://www.alamosgold.com/s/News.asp?ReportID=67597&_Title=Judgment-on-the-Ejido-Lawsuit
Surely you have finished reading that tiny 425 page decision by now... We're all ready for the your Cliffs Notes version of it!
NatGas-Raymond James
from the Yahoo board...
May 5, “...we now believe that US natural gas prices could see significant late summer price spikes...”
June 16, “We continue to believe that higher average natural gas prices (ie. in the $6/MCF range) must prevail over the remainder of the summer...”
July 7, “Don’t believe the short-term hype-gas prices must go higher!”
July 7, “Recent gas storage injections are not as bearish as they seem.”
July 21, “Our bullishness probably doesn’t surprise any of our dedicated readers.”
July 28, “The stage is set for a potential spike in summer gas demand”.
July 28, “...many sell-side analysts have thrown in the towel on US natural gas..... By now, you should know that we view things very differently”.
Today-- “Brace yourself for possible rough patch in the road ahead......”
Correction to CBD valuation... (using 4.688 million ounces)
originally posted here: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1387378
CBD is $18.07 per fully diluted reserve ounce.
AGI is $12.88
MFN is $44.81
AGI valuation vs. GAM and MFN
GAM valued at $146 undiluted per miningweb.
GAM likely over $100 fully diluted...
from miningweb, appears these calcs are not fully diluted...
"Based on current measured and indicated resources only, Gammon is richly valued at around $146 per gold gold equivalent resource ounce compared with Minefinders’s $58/oz."
http://www.mips1.net/mgjr.nsf/UNID/TWOD-5QZU53?OpenDocument
FWIW, both MFN and GAM have a gold/silver deposit and it could well be the silver portion is being more highly valued by investors... whereas the AGI reserve appears to be near 100% gold without any silver...
Nonetheless, AGI appears to be a bargain compared to GAM and MFN...
AGI Valuation Update = $12.88/oz
Using today's closing prices
Market Cap Per Measured & Inferred Ounce (fully diluted):
AGI: $12.88
GBN: $9.85
MFN: $44.81
CBD: $24.04
Note the over 3:1 discount of AGI vs. MFN. Similar resource and similar location yet AGI appears undervalued. If anyone sees a mistake in the calcs below, please post. Thanks!
__________________________
Market Cap Per Measured & Inferred Ounce (fully diluted):
AGI...GBN...MFN...CBD
Share Price-US$.... $1.14..$1.40..$7.20..$2.66
Shares-F Diluted..57,772,878..94,850,179..34,221,841..50,380,619
Market Cap-F Diluted..65,722,426..132,790,251..246,397,255..134,213,969
WorkCap+Exer..20,891,520..34,261,885..23,144,255..49,518,000
Market Cap-W/C..44,830,906..98,528,365..223,253,000..84,695,969
Gold Ozs/Meas&Infr..3,480,000..10,000,000..4,982,000..3,523,000
Market Cap/Resource.... $12.88..$9.85.. $44.81..$24.04
Judgment on the Ejido Lawsuit
_____________________________
Okay Marcos, how about an opinion...
On first glance appears that AGI lost, but on second glance appears that annual payment can be brought down to $53K beginning in 2004 so AGI won, and on third glance appears that parties are now "more actively" talking (given this split decision?) and this whole thing can get successfully resolved out of court on mutually beneficial terms??..., and the whole process only took a mere 425 pages...
_____________________________
Judgment on the Ejido Lawsuit
Vancouver, B.C. - Alamos Gold Inc. announces that a judgment was rendered by the Agrarian Court concerning two disputes between the Company and the Mulatos Ejido in Hermosillo, Mexico. The Ejido (the surface rights holders), disputed the validity of the 1995 Surface Agreement and the Company’s right to reduce the amount of land under its lease to develop the Mulatos, Escondida and El Victor deposits and its annual lease payments.
The Court found in favour of the Mulatos Ejido on the payment issue on the basis that the Company did not correctly notify the Mulatos Ejido of the area and price reductions notwithstanding the notices and tender of a reduced lease payment by the Company. The Court ruled that the Mulatos Ejido were entitled to be paid US$336,972 in the year 2002 and US$334,375 in the year 2003.
The Court denied the claim to void the 1995 Surface Agreement. Accordingly, the Company is of the view that it is entitled to reduce the area and yearly payments by providing proper notice. The Company intends to reduce the lease area and bring its yearly payments down to approximately US$53,000 annually.
The Company and its counsel are in the process of reviewing the 425 page judgment in detail and intend to lodge an appeal. Notwithstanding the results of the lawsuit, the Mulatos Ejido officials and the Company have been conducting meetings and are working toward improving communications to establish a baseline of information for negotiation and increased cooperation.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD For further information, please contact:
/s/ Chester F. Millar John A. McCluskey
Sold 50% of my MVG today at US$3.44
Share price has been increasing on declining volume..., and those C$5.00 warrants may suppress the stock price from here although not exerciseable anytime soon...
Will look to re-buy on a pullback below C$4 (i.e. around the PP cost), if it ever gets that low again...
Sold GFI at $.01 gain but a loss via commission, SA Rand price of gold not behaving like I thought it would...
SAR Gold vs. US$ Gold
The SA Rand still showing strength to US$, thus SARGold not keeping pace with US$Gold...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1385113
US$Gold vs SA Rand Gold Price
Gold ounce in SAR
Gold ounce in US$
SAR per USD
I am hoping and thinking we will see natgas stocks get hammered in the next 4-5 weeks with natgas prices going below $4.40 as storage gets above 3tcf, should be less demand with fall coming and cooling degree days down, and 90+ bcf builds would be normal...
http://www.amarks.homestead.com/robryngmodel.html
Hope of all hopes is that gold stocks continue to outperform for next 4-5 weeks and then we can move gold stock proceeds into natgas stocks... That's my game plan...
Michael, could you update the iBox data for this link:
http://www.sedar.com/command_servlet?cmd=DisplayCompanyDocuments&issuerNo=00018190&lang=EN
also this ownership link please:
http://www.lionshares.com/details.cfm?SEARCH=symbol&CUSIP=165184102&SID=DSUD001%208906037087...
2Q03 financials now out.
http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data40/filings/00570275/00000001/a%3A%5C0603sdsa.pdf
Wish Chesapeake would finally get their website up and running..., underconstruction is not my cup of tea...
http://www.chesapeakegold.com/
FWIW, own a few thousand shares from the Francisco merger, bought more at C$3.43, and recently bought a bunch more at C$2.60 level. Looking to sell those I bought at C$3.43 at a bit higher price and hold onto the rest...
CyclePro update, always a good read...
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Exchange/9807/Charts/SP500/Outlook.htm#now
Well, I am a CPA, but that does not mean I handled those PAAS and PAAS warrants in exchange for BAY.to correctly... Guess I did not read the fine print, if any, stating this was taxable as a ST gain... But do not present me with any facts in this regard, ignorance is bliss, and I do not want to amend the return...
What I do know is that I covered my PAAS short position with the BAY.to PAAS shares received (recognized this gain) and kept the warrants with under a US$1 basis (using post distribution pricing), and still have them... This remains my only exposure to silver shares and I will likely keep them for another 3 years (1 year before expiration), the IRS will get their gain then...
I also know that my gross proceeds reported agrees to the penny with the IRS 1099 for all my share sells, including PAAS/BAY.to. My experience as a CPA is that if your 1099 proceeds reported exactly match your tax return, you are less likely to get audited on Sched D transactions. If I was audited and if you were correct on the STCG treatment, even then it is nigh impossible the IRS agent would whip out the prospectus on BAY.to showing me this was a STCG (plus it is not a huge $ amount relative to other positions)..., the IRS agent would simply confirm the price that I paid for it and the price I sold it, and determine I reported accurately, IMO. FWIW, I reconcile my total share purchases and sales to the penny each year, and given the 200+ transactions each year I believe the IRS would be favorably impressed with this record keeping...
Just my opinion...
Thanks for the info, if cash instead of shares, then I will have to re-evaluate holding...
Jackc & Russ... Am I mis-interpreting this deal or are you?
My un-substantiated belief is I will receive NEM shares and no Canadian cash. What leads you to believe that MOY shareholders will receive cash rather than NEM shares?
If in fact MOY shareholders receive NEM shares, then US investor basis in the NEM shares distributed will be around 70% of the money you have invested in MOY. Exact ratio will be determined by the MOY share price post-distribution.
My MOY purchases have ranged from US$.52 to US$.91 with a US$.63 average. Using 70% as ratio, I own NEM at a $20.76 per share basis and my basis in the post-distribution MOY shares will be US$.19. Have held for under 1 year, so have the chance to wait until 2004 to realize LTCG.
All the above is moot, however, if MOY shareholders receive cash rather than NEM stock. Please advise facts on why you believe MOY shareholders will receive cash rather than NEM stock as the distribution. Thanks!
Russ, you may well be right... No doubt that HUI and gold shares have had a parabolic run (and I have sold 40% of Cumberland, all of CBR, 25% of Endeavour Mining, have a GTC sell order for 25% of Alamos at higher prices, and will likely hedge MOY via short sell of NEM).
As for GBN, please identify another gold company selling at $13.20/oz. (Measured & Inferred) and I will be more than happy to lighten GBN and switch to that company. I have patience with such a low valuation per ounce. Further, my belief is Burnstone Area 2 will surprise on the upside in terms of both measured & inferred ounces identified and grade. Would not be surprised to see a GBN Burnstone joint venture with a major (or sold outright) within 12 months IF over 7M ounces can be identified using 100cm width.
What will irritate the heck out of me is GBN management conducting another PP anytime soon, and the fact that they have not has led to my decision not to sell yet. I certainly would not be surprised to see GBN as dead money for the next few months until this warrant/option overhang has passed, but the Ivanhoe permit approval could change investor sentiment quickly. Also, the Burnstone Area 1 bankable feasibility study is due out in Jan 04 and I anticipate favorable cash cost per ounce (even with SA royalty bill and higher wage bill, but SA politics may well be potential problem). Finally, am hopeful with Rob Still (Southgold's largest shareholder and thus GBN) now on the board of directors, management decision making will be different going forward in regard to PP. If Rob Still starts to sell, I will re-evaluate quickly...
GBN Analysis...
Fully diluted shares are now 95 million
GBN share price = $1.39
Market Cap = US$132 million
Gold ounce reserves = 10 million ounces (of which 6M are proven to my satisfaction - 1M Ivanhoe and 5M Burnstone #1 using 300 cutoff, Area 2 will be at least another 4M minimum, IMO)
Market Cap/Gold ounces = $132M/10M = $13.20 per ounce
There is no other junior out there (I know of) selling for $13.20 per inferred ounce. Believe GBN can be sold for $30 minimum per reserve ounce, and that would be a fire sale. One has to discount S African ounces somewhat, but not this low, i.e. $13.20/oz.
If and when the POG goes up relative to the SA Rand (i.e. over R100,000 per kg; now at R88,500), GBN may well become the new DROOY... (without as much mismangement)
IMO, traders can sell 1/3 of their GBN shares, this warrant and option overhang is very real. GBN shares may be dead money for the next few months...
But come late December or early January (especially if you see large volume and share crosses on GBG.v indicating exercise), you should be buying and substantially increasing your GBN position (given $350 POG), even if GBN is trading at a higher price than today.
Upside factors and risk:
1) Ivanhoe getting its mine permit is substantial upside factor, and this likely to be granted by December if not sooner.
2) Jan 2004 Burnstone feasibility study will be released, speculation is cash cost will be under $200/ounce, very cheap because these ounces are closer to surface than Harmony, and this would be very positive.
3) SA Rand price per gold, gold needs to appreciate vs. all currencies, esp the Rand.
4) Risk - Ivanhoe not getting mine permit approved by Nevada, unlikely IMO, Ivanhoe is critical to GBN obtaining internal cash flow so GBN no longer has to rely upon private placment financings...
Just my opinion...
GBN 2Q03 Financials
http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data40/filings/00569027/00000001/m%3A%5CBETTYC%5CSEDARFile%5CGBG%5C200....
Potential warrant/option exercise will likely continue to pressure the stock (see page 21):
125,715 expire 12/27/03 @ C$1.85
2,109,300 expire 12/30/03 @ C$1.70
626,000 expire 12/30/03 @ C$1.17
2,800,000 expire 1/31/04 @ C$1.80
There are 62.7M issues shares, so the shares above are about a 9% increase in the shares outstanding... That is a fairly substantial number of shares for the market to digest...
It it critical that GBN get the BLM permit approval on Ivanhoe very soon, so this warrant overhang can be digested. Positive Burnstone#2 results would also be helpful. More importantly, the Rand price of gold is extremely critical to GBN's valuation, IMO, to get all these warrants/options exercised.
We also have those Southgold warrants, but these represent less of a problem, IMO, substantially in the money now and Burnstone Jan 04 feasibility report and other results should make exercise relatively easy:
5,000,000 expire 4/30/04 @ US$.75
However, please note if GBN share price exceeds US$1.50 for 20 days, these warrants expire sooner.
After those 2,800,000 warrant expiry 1/31/04 @ C$1.80 have been digested, I believe GBN will be off to the races again, assuming POG over $350.
Valuation estimate on 2% NSR=US$8M
or about US$.29 per share
Ntotoroso is the larger of the two (Lassonde said initial work suggested $500 million would be spent on developing two mines, which together would produce 700,000 ounces), so let's say 400,000 ounces per year. Royalty would not begin until 3 years plus 1 year of construction.
To make it easy, $375 gold 400K ounces * 2% NSR = US$3.0M
$3.0M/28.4M shares = US$.105 per share per year starting 2008
Further assuming 3.2M total ounces and 8% discount (5 years royalty received 2008-2012 of $3.0M), the net present value = US$9.3M or US$.33 per share
Assuming 2.8M total ounces and 8% discount (4 years royalty received 2008-2011 of $3.0M), the net present value = US$7.8M or US$.27 per share
Assuming 2.8M total ounces, $425 gold, and 8% discount (4 years royalty received 2008-2011 of $3.4M), the net present value = US$8.2M or US$.29 per share
Assuming 1 year construction delay on above, NPV=$7.5M
FWIW, using an 8% discount on a gold royalty (i.e. realy money) seems high, but market analysts would likely use 8% or more.
Based on above, US$8M seems fully valued. To realize cash today MOY would likely have to sell at a 10% discount, or more...
Russwinter: question for you
Can you explain why you sold MOY today rather than shorting .021 or .028 shares of NEM for every share of MOY you owned? Did you consider this NEM short option to lock in profits? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this strategy?
Each MOY shareholder will receive .021 shares of NEM (75% of 800,000 shares) and MOY will retain .007 or 200,000 shares = .0028 total.
FWIW, this is likely the strategy I will use to lock in MOY profit. Another option would be to sell NEM $30 Dec covered calls for the .21 shares you would receive. The likelihood of this deal not closing appears very remote? Please share your opinion on the cost vs. benefit of a short of NEM (or covered calls) rather than an outright sale of MOY.
Thanks!
Fully Diluted Shares updated...
Issued and Outstanding Share Capital:...45,295,341
Warrants Outstanding:...................... 9,830,156
Options Outstanding:....................... 2,647,381
___________________
Fully Diluted Share Capital:.............57,772,878
http://www.alamosgold.com/s/ShareStructure.asp?ReportID=61356&_Title=Share-Capital-Information-a....
Comparing to 6/30/03 quarterly, appears management has granted themselves 682,343 additional stock options??, or otherwise someone was granted these options if not management?? Wonder who and how...
2,647,381 - 1,964,898 = 682,343
Plugging in the difference between the 6/30/03 warrant share data and the current 8/27/03 warrant share data (including the 4.25M new 1/2 warrants from the placement), it appears that only 270,000 warrants have been exercised in the interim... There are about 3M warrants that will need to be exercised before October 11 as follows:
487,663 Sept 21, 03
2,562,500 Oct 11, 03
I was hoping a few more would have been exercised by now, i.e. more than the 270K of the 3M total..., as this may pressure the stock... However C$2.7M may be chump change for AGI warrant holders..., and they may have sold shares recently and can thus use their proceeds to exercise their $.90 warrants rather easily... Likely not a problem.
Am wondering about those stock options though, do not see anything about stock option grants being approved at the annual meeting,...?? Maybe it was part of the latest private placement somehow... Not implying AGI management does not deserve additional options, but am implying that full disclosure is needed if this is in fact the case...
Quarterly Report now out...
http://www.sedar.com/csfsprod/data40/filings/00568270/00000001/s%3A%5Calamos%5C063003a.pdf
Bought GFI (Goldfields) @ $13.47 , sold my small position of CBR
Large crosses of 700K shares by Loewen
10:54 1.410 500,000 +0.020 Loewen Loewen
10:40 1.410 200,000 +0.020 Loewen Loewen
Okay, who wants to take a stab at analyzing the HUI and its components...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1374037
Some comments:
1) Interesting that NEM not keeping up with the HUI, and NEM is the largest component...
2) Gold Fields and Harmony have performed the worse because of the SA Rand price of Gold... Maybe we should watch this closely for reversion back to the mean if and when Gold goes up against all currencies or otherwise goes up against the Rand...
3) FCX has been a star performer..., and third largest HUI component at 9.7%
4) Silver stocks such as CDE and HL have now reverted back to mean... (i.e. from Sept last year to Sept this year)
5) Goldcorp has underperformed likely because it is not as leveraged to the POG, i.e. its gold mining cash costs are the lowest...
Think we should closely watch the SA Golds such as Gold Fields and Harmony... That is, watch closely the Rand price per gold and also maybe the 50 day moving average... Looking at the silver stocks CDE and HL, when these started reverting back to the mean buying at the 50 day moving average would have been smart...
Comments please!
HUI components vs. HUI
What's leading and lagging in the HUI index...
Newmont = 13.9%
>
Glamis = 4.9%
&pref=G>
Goldcorp = 4.3%
&pref=G>
Gold Fields = 12.8%
&pref=G>
Coeur d'alene = 8.4%
&pref=G>
Bema = 6.7%
&pref=G>
Hecla = 6.5%
&pref=G>
Freeport = 9.7%
>
Golden Star = 5.6%
>
Randgold = 5.2%
>
Harmony = 4.0%
>
Gold
&pref=G>
See: http://www.amex.com/?href=/othProd/prodInf/OpPiIndComp.jsp?Product_Symbol=HUI
okay, updated the Alamos board...
you can delete me as an assistant and/or make additional changes to the i-Box data...
Take a peek at the 30 Year Treasury (also 10 year)...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1333466
yep had some short term pain, about 30 minutes... :)
Thanks, I will follow your instructions/preferences... Only on the GBN board do I over enforce deletions..., hate the board clutter, likely will never delete AGI posts since this board is already way too cluttered....
Is the Cumberland board iBox a satisfactory format? If so, then I will make changes accordingly. Please advise. Also, feel free to add or delete whatever you like, you won't hurt my feelings if you do, but keep the SEC/SEDAR links...
sample format:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1213
Corner Bay did not follow PAAS
Francisco did not follow GLG
Thus, Moydow will not follow NEM..., IMO.
There will be arbitrage opportunities, up until its very last trading day if Corner Bay is any guide... I will not buy more MOY unless the discount exceeds 20% or so..., and will likely hedge that by shorting NEM.
FWIW, am now short SPY and QQQ in afterhours. 10% of my trading portfolio.
Form 20-F - Ejido & Water
Marcos has pretty well covered all these facts, but here are the relevant sections in the recently filed Form 20-F... Also, annual rainfall appears to be 32.4", and not 40" as estimated earlier by a Marcos link... (However, it may be the Mulatos area gets only 32.4" but the Sahuaripa town area gets 40"; Alamos will get its water from the township).
full filing @ http://www.secinfo.com/d1z47p.24q.htm
Ejido:
Surface Rights
Surface rights to the land required for mine development belong to the Ejido Mulatos. The ejido system is a system where rural communities (the “ejido”) collectively own agricultural lands, which have been acquired from the federal government for the purposes of agricultural development and/or cattle ranching. Based on the Agrarian Law of 1992, an ejido has the right to lease the property under its control and in some cases, can sell the land.
Each resident of the community belongs to the ejido, however only one delegate or ejidatorio per household (usually the male head of the household) can belong to the Asamblea de Ejidatarios, the governing body of the ejido. In the Ejido Mulatos, the Asamblea de Ejidatarios consists of 76 members, meaning that there are 76 households in the ejido (the village of Mulatos and surrounding area).
Pursuant to an agreement (the “1995 Surface Agreement”) between Minera San Augusto and the Ejido Mulatos, Minera San Augusto obtained a lease of all land required for the development of the Mulatos, Escondida and El Victor deposits. Minera San Augusto assigned its rights to the 1995 Surface Agreement to Minas de Oro Nacional. The Asamblea de Ejidatarios ratified the 1995 Surface Agreement by a simple majority vote on November 26, 1995. The 1995 Surface Agreement supersedes two previous agreements dated November 26, 1992 and January 16, 1994.
The 1995 Surface Agreement defines areas to be used for exploration and exploitation, and covered 2,630.5 hectares of land, of which 630 hectares are designated for exploitation and 2,005.5 hectares for exploration. Minas de Oro Nacional is now responsible for the lease payments and surface rights land boundaries can be adjusted as required to suit the project’s requirements. Annual lease payments were initially set at US$225/ha for exploitation and US$75/ha for exploration. These rates are adjusted annually for the inflation rate in the United States. The exploitation lease payments for the year 2002 were based on 352 hectares for a total cost of Cdn$84,525. The Company anticipates that the 352 hectares area will be sufficient for the next 2 to 3 years.
According to the 1995 Surface Agreement, Minas de Oro Nacional is also obligated to:
*Provide basic health care for the village of Mulatos during the exploration period;
*Build and operate a medical clinic during the time in which the mine is operating;
*Ensure that Mexico’s educational standards are met by the local schools (pre-primary, primary and secondary);
*Provide an electrical power distribution system and sewage collection and treatment system for the village of Mulatos;
*Provide free electrical power during the mine operating period for the village of up to 800 people; and
*Upon mine closure, ensure that the village of Mulatos has a reliable power supply.
Currently, these additional obligations cost are approximately US$5,000 per month, over and above the lease payments.
The 1995 Surface Agreement was submitted to the Direccion General del Minas, under the Mexican Mining Law, to obtain a federal government document called an Ocupación Temporal. An Ocupación Temporal is analogous to a surface easement in that the area agreed upon with the surface rights holder is registered with the government and as such, the surface owner must allow the mining concession owner access and use. The 1995 Surface Agreement has been accepted and registered in the Registro Agrario Nacional, the government land registry.
In January 1995, a lawsuit was filed by a group of Mulatos ejidatarios, seeking a renegotiation of the November 26, 1992 and January 16, 1994 agreements. While the earlier agreements were superseded by the 1995 Surface Agreement, the group refused to withdraw the lawsuit on the basis that a group of 13 ejidatarios were not in agreement with the 1995 Surface Agreement. The Agrarian Tribunal found in favour of Minera San Augusto regarding the lawsuit in 1999. This decision was appealed to the Circuit Court, which subsequently rendered a decision confirming the decision of the lower level court. The plaintiffs had the right to object to the decision on March 30, 2000 of the Circuit court by June 19th of 2000, but failed to do so. The relationship between Minera San Augusto and the group of 13 ejidatarios was complicated. Select individuals from the group of 13 had denied Minera San Augusto access to select areas away from the Mulatos deposit but covered by the lease agreement. The actions had minor impact on exploration efforts and did not affect the Mulatos deposit area.
There are provisions under the 1995 Surface Agreement that allows for the reduction of the amount of land to be utilized under the lease after the fifth anniversary of the agreement upon Minas de Oro Nacional giving notice to the Ejido Mulatos. The effect of the election will be to reduce the annual lease payments to the Ejido Mulatos from approximately US$330,000 to US$53,000.
In early January 2002, National Gold attempted to deliver the notice and the reduced payment to the president of the Ejido Mulatos, but the president did not accept such delivery. On January 15, 2002, after having failed to find another member of the Ejido Mulatos on whom the payment and notice could be given, National Gold deposited the payment and notice with the Agrarian Tribunal. On January 25, 2002, a new board was appointed to represent the Ejido Mulatos. On National Gold’s motion, the Agrarian Tribunal held a hearing on March 18, 2002, for the Ejido Mulatos to either accept the payment reduction or to show cause why it should not accept it. At the hearing, the Ejido acknowledged that the 1995 Surface Agreement was in good standing, but rejected National Gold’s right to make the reduced payment on the basis that such a reduction could only be effected by mutual agreement. In August 2002, the Agrarian Tribunal declined to decide the issue and declared that such matter would have to be decided through the court process. Shortly thereafter, the Ejido Mulatos commenced a legal action in Hermosillo, Mexico disputing the annual lease payments due to them and claiming that they are owed US$337,000 for the year 2002 plus interest and costs. The Company and Minas de Oro Nacional are defending the action and believe that the claim is without merit.
The Company is devoting management time in an effort to resolve the dispute through increased communication and co-ordination. The Company has hired a Mexican ejido co-ordinator to assist with improving the Company’s relationship with the Ejido Mulatos. The Company continues to supply medical and education benefits to the community as required under the 1995 Surface Agreement and is hopeful that all issues with the Ejido Mulatos can be resolved amicably.
______________
under Contingency: (implied as not "material")
The Company has reduced the surface area of the Salamandra Projet that is leased from the local Ejido of the village of Mulatos as allowed under the lease. The reduction in the surface area under lease is being challenged by the Ejido in the Agrarian Court. The Company is continuing with certain of its obligations under the lease and does not anticipate a material unfavourable outcome.
______________
The Company holds surface rights pursuant to the terms of the 1995 Surface Agreement, which contained a provisions that permitted the Company to reduce the annual lease payments to the Ejido Mulatos from approximately US$330,000 to US$53,000 with proper notice. The Company attempted to reduce the annual lease payment by providing notice to the president of the Ejido Mulatos and the notice was rejected. The Ejido Mulatos has commenced a legal action in Hermosillo, Mexico disputing the annual surface rights lease payments due to them in respect of the Salamandra Property and are claiming that they are owed US$337,000 plus interest and costs for the year 2002. The Company is defending against the action and is awaiting a decision from the courts. If the Ejido Mulatos is successful in the action, the Company would be required to incur additional expenses to maintain the surface rights to the Salamandra Property.
Water:
Average annual rainfall for the area is 809 mm [32.4"] , with the heaviest rainfall occurring from July to September and the driest months being from March to May. Occasional snow may fall at the highest elevations within the project area...
In Mexico, water rights are managed by the Comisión National del Aqua (“CNA”). According to Mexican water rights legislation, all users, whether individuals or companies, must pay for the right to use national waters regardless of how the rights were obtained, with the rates being determined by the availability of water and the method of extraction.
The project’s main water consumer will be the heap leach facility. The Feasibility Study envisioned using an estimated average annual consumption of 45.6 litres/second (723 US gallons/minute) due to evaporation and water retained within the heap as a result of heap irrigation. In addition to make-up water used for the heap leach facility, the Feasibility Study called for the open-pit will consume water for dust control with the camp consuming water for domestic purposes. Average annual consumption for all purposes was estimated at 58.8 litres/second (932 US gallons/minute), with maximum estimated consumption being in the month of June at 100.2 litres/second (1,588 US gallons/minute).
The project’s source of water was to be the Rio Mulatos with water withdrawn east of the proposed open-pit and pumped to a water storage reservoir on the Arroyo Mulatos, above the proposed open pit. A dam was to have been built across the Arroyo Mulatos to create this reservoir, which needs to have a storage capacity of about three months to ensure water supply during the driest months of the year when the Rio Mulatos would not be able to supply sufficient water for the project as proposed by the Feasibility Study. The rights to the water have not as yet been established. Discussions are continuing with the Mayor of Sahuaripa to rent or lease the town’s unused water supply.
Current work of the planned heap leach test is designed as the first step in evaluating the feasibility of operating initially at a smaller scale than planned by the Feasibility Study. The purpose is to test the higher grade core of the deposit and evaluate if a profitable mining operation can be started in the core. Prior to the results of the heap leach test and the probable need for more testing it is not possible to say what the water needs of a smaller scale mining operation may be or if such an operation is profitable.
MOY arbitrage value @ NEM=$39
fully diluted MOY shares, cash per share only
C$1.61
US$1.15
MOY trading at about a 15% discount to cash per share, fully diluted...
_______________
1st column is value of 75% MOY distribtion to shareholders
2nd column is 100% value NEM distribution, plus MOY cash on hand after warrant exercise.
800,000 total NEM shares to MOY 800,000 800,000
% distribution to MOY shareholders 75% 100%
Share distribution to MOY shareholders 600,000 800,000
26,414,014 MOY shares o/s 26,414,014 26,414,014
Warrant & Option Exercise 1,961,250 1,961,250
Diluted MOY shares o/s 28,375,264 28,375,264
NEM shares per MOY share 0.02114518 0.02819357
NEM share price $39.00 $39.00
Value of NEM Distribution US$ $0.825 $1.100
Value of NEM Distribution C$ $1.158 $1.544
Value of NEM Distribtuion + Exercise C$ $1.616
Value of NEM Distribtuion + Exercise US$ $1.151
______________
Would not be purchasing MOY right now, appears we have distribution from folks without patience to wait until the NEM distribution..., and
the real easy money has been made, but I will likely wait to take profits until the distribution...
I vote for Chinese capital flight into gold... Gold is the most likely choice to put that "steal it or lose it" money...??
Analysis
Officials in Beijing recently announced plans to redouble efforts to weed out official corruption. Among other things, the Chinese government is sending some 45 inspectors to five provinces to determine whether local officials are adhering to central government policies on key issues, following the law when making appointments and fighting corruption in their regions, the People's Daily reports.
Anti-corruption drives in China are nothing new: Graft and embezzlement have become a severe problem since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms took hold, and Beijing has launched a series of crackdowns at various times during the past 20 years. However, President Hu Jintao's government likely is feeling a new sense of urgency to address the problem, which not only has led to disillusionment and cynicism among the populace, but also threatens the stability of the Communist Party and the financial health of the state. But that urgency also is coupled with a sense of futility: Corruption scandals in the past have implicated officials at the very pinnacle of the Communist system, and Hu's attempts to clean up the Party likely will be limited to half-measures -- such as the provincial investigations -- in order to avoid collapsing the system from within.
The timing of the latest move suggests the government was pushed to act by a wave of embezzlement and capital flight that has followed the creation of the new State Asset Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) -- a body tasked with overseeing the operations of China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) -- in May. SASAC has taken control of many of China's largest SOEs from dozens of government ministries and commissions, with a mandate to implement good corporate governance and restore the companies to profitability.
The SOEs -- which account for 368 of the country's top 500 companies -- and the state-controlled banks that fund them are a nexus point of big money and political power, creating opportunities for government-appointed company managers and local officials to skim millions of dollars. The People's Daily recently cited the examples of Liu Zuoqing, a former president of Heilongjiang Petroleum who reportedly made off with $12.08 million in company funds, and Xu Chaofan, the president of a Bank of China branch who, along with two of his predecessors, took $483 million in 2001.
It is possible, if ironic, that SASAC's creation generated a feeding frenzy among corrupt officials trying to enrich themselves before the loopholes in the system closed. Upon its creation, SASAC gained control of 196 of China's largest SOEs, with combined assets of approximately $834 billion. The ompanies include China's major telecommunications companies, steel and auto manufacturers, national air carrier Air China and the largest national oil companies. It is highly likely that several politicians and company managers pilfered what they could before state assets were transferred to SASAC. It wouldn't be the first such instance in Chinese history; the People's Liberation Army (PLA) gutted its vast business empire after former President Jiang Zemin, in response to extensive smuggling by the military, seized companies controlled by the armed forces.
In addition to fostering a "steal it or lose it" mentality, the creation of SASAC also might have triggered panic over what might come to light when new management began looking over SOE accounting records. Local officials and managers have had several years to build private fiefdoms within the SOE system, but now, for the first time in the country's history, echelons of bureaucracy between Beijing and the companies have been removed.
As part of the latest anti-corruption sweep, the Chinese Communist Party's watchdog organ -- the Central Discipline nspection Commission (CCDI) -- and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress have jointly established an inspection office to carry out probes in five provinces. One team launched inquiries in Guizhou and Hunan provinces during the past three months, and a second team is currently conducting investigations in Jilin, Jiangsu and Gansu.
The moves follow a series of media reports on the corruption issue. For instance, an Aug. 12 article in the People's Daily -"Capital Flight: Capture of Corrupt Officials a Long Drive" --cited State Administration of Foreign Exchange estimates that between 1997 and 1999, capital flight from China totaled $52 billion -- a large portion of which was transferred by crooked SOE managers who fled the country. According to the article, at least 4,000 people were being sought as of January 2002 in connection with embezzlement cases that totaled $604 million in siphoned corporate or government funds.
On Aug. 15, the China Daily News published "Disgraced Official
Highlights Chinks in System," lamenting the lack of public reaction when news surfaced that Cheng Weigao, former chairman of the Standing Committee of the Hebei Provincial People's Congress, was expelled from the CPC for violating party disciplines. The underwhelming response was viewed as a sign that corruption is now so common it no longer surprises citizens.
The Cheng case is among many corruption scandals involving high-ranking Chinese officials. For instance, former Yunan provincial governor Li Jiatong was sentenced to death for bribery in July, and Shanghai property tycoon Zhou Zhengyi, who was arrested in May, is being investigated over taking allegedly dubious loans from state-controlled banks. Rumors abound that Zhou's case implicates government officials affiliated with the super-powerful "Shanghai Gang" -- a clique of government officials that includes former President Jiang Zemin and former Premier Zhu Rongji -- an indication of how high corruption might run within the party and state.
Although Beijing recognizes the need to contain rampant corruption, it appears from the details of the latest crackdown that Hu's administration has been compelled to use mere half-measures for fear of triggering a Party backlash. The geography and timing of the roving inspections in the provinces suggest that the sweep was well-telegraphed, giving some of the most powerful officials a chance to cover their tracks or come clean before the hammer falls.
The first round of CCDI inspections began in the interior provinces of Guizhou and Hunan more than three months ago --only two months after SASAC was formed. Both are relatively poor, agriculture-dependent provinces compared to the country's booming eastern coast. If the central government was intent on tackling the worst and most powerful offenders in the five targeted provinces, it likely would have begun with Jiangsu, which surrounds thriving Shanghai and Jilin -- the heart of the state-owned heavy industry sector. The fact that the government chose two of the least dynamic provinces in its bid to contain official corruption implies that it fears to do so.
thanks for Embry post
HUI just hit new 52 week high...
XAU near 52 week high, but still a bit away...