Fair point, sion, except that CTO has been unloved for longer than I care to remember. Have a look at a three year chart for a sense of this!
I've toyed with the idea occasionally but havn't been prepared to have a punt, so far.
CTO - Citigold Corporation
- Thread starter Wilson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- citigold corporation cto
Fair point, sion, except that CTO has been unloved for longer than I care to remember. Have a look at a three year chart for a sense of this!
I've toyed with the idea occasionally but havn't been prepared to have a punt, so far.
They say they have a self-sustaining operation but they have yet to prove this. They need to produce more gold before they can expect to get further funding for expanding their operation. Possibly they are beginning to get on the right track by reducing dilution at the mill, reducing the size of the ore drives and carrying out development in ore. We shall see. By now it is clear that this deposit, although large, is only marginally commercially viable.
In the 2010 annual report John Foley wrote "It appears that dilution of the stopping ore with zero grade waste ore of between 100% and 200% has been occurring". If City Gold can relatively easily increase the mine processing plant surface grades this would significantly change the outlook for City Gold Corp.
Hey Maya, I'm shaking in my boots along with every other share holder I imagine, over what will be in their quarterly report due out tomorrow. I'm into them to the tune of 10k and I guess that is what I stand to lose. Still they are nothing if not a resilient bunch and they do seem to be very close to having a sustainable gold mining operation. I find a little consolation in the fact that there are over a thousand other share holders with holdings of over 100k shares. So I'm not alone. 
. Lets hope like those gold miners from Chile there is a rescue operation at work.
. Lets hope like those gold miners from Chile there is a rescue operation at work.- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 293
- Reactions
- 1
If you're clinging to hope (no managements past achievements, no significant asset base above SP), it's not fundamental investing. If you're not trading via indicators and crosses and patterns, it's not technical trading, so why the hell are you in CTO? (if you're in there from a past mistake my condolences, management can mislead with overly enthusiastic predictions only to under deliever, however there are) MANY better companies out there with proven track records and production beginning soon.
Why cling to hope when there are companies out there right now that are hitting technical indicators, or are deep value plays with rerating catalysts approaching soon.
Not meant to be personal towards anyone who owns/has bought into CTO, I have no past buying or selling, it just seems to be such an underperformed for so long, stop getting suckered in people. It breaks my heart hearing people getting sucked into buying into companies with little to no future, which all could be avoided by some simple research.
Why cling to hope when there are companies out there right now that are hitting technical indicators, or are deep value plays with rerating catalysts approaching soon.
Not meant to be personal towards anyone who owns/has bought into CTO, I have no past buying or selling, it just seems to be such an underperformed for so long, stop getting suckered in people. It breaks my heart hearing people getting sucked into buying into companies with little to no future, which all could be avoided by some simple research.
PVF You are in theory quite correct. And of course I am regretting that I got so deeply into CTO. Never The Less CTO remains an interesting prospect. They have not died a natural death yet and they have enough working capital for at perhaps one more quarter assuming they are able to maintain current production levels. As retarded as their production growth has been it is growing. My guess is that just as they say they have not been able to adequately define the high grade areas of their resource. The net result being that the grades achieved are much lower than estimated. The reason they need more working faces is two fold. One is simply to extract more essentially low grade ore and two is that a larger number of faces will reduced the volatility of the production levels achieved. The problem with the ore body is that, just as they say, it is only 30% payable. Only 30% of the reef has grades above 14g/tonne. So if you cant define those bits of the reef you have to mine the whole lot. That gives an average ore grade of between 14*0.3=4.2 grams/tonne or more optimistically 14*0.3 + 7*0.3=6.3 grams/tonne. Their average surface grade for 2010 was a bit over 4 grams per tonne which, according to Chris Townsey, was diluted between 100% and 200%. From what I've been reading 4 grams/tonne is actually not such a terrible number for surface grades.
Well that tears it! Quarterly report filed after closing shows only 2500 mined. So much for 50,000 ounces this year. So much for additional capital raising that'll be pretty hard to accomplish. It must be pretty near the end of the road for CityGold corp. I'm more than a bit sad I have to say.:crap::crap:
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,134
- Reactions
- 11,243
Yep, pretty ordinary, again.
At this rate they might make 3/4 of last year's production.
I wonder where the 14 g/t gold is in these deposits?
I'm still not sure how they can get away with saying this type of BS in the June Qtly:
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 293
- Reactions
- 1
Other gold companies don't seem to have the same problem, (GDO being an example) would this be down to the geological uniqueness of every deposit (genuinely don't know and you seem to know more about geology then I do, so I'd like to learn a bit). Is CTO's deposit hard to predict? As in the big payloads of gold are scattered around?
Yes 4 grams a tonne is usually economic, but then again every single mine is unique in regards to infrastructure and structure of resources in the ground, and a host of other things. What I don't understand is the continued production that is so immensely small. I'm not a big fan of over promising and under delivering, and this management seems to be doing this constantly. Predictions of production of 100,000 ounces per year dependent on "ramping up" production and that inevitable just one more capital raising and we'll hit the payloads spring to mind.
Never been associated/bought into/traded CTO, just didn't like the smell of it.
Yes 4 grams a tonne is usually economic, but then again every single mine is unique in regards to infrastructure and structure of resources in the ground, and a host of other things. What I don't understand is the continued production that is so immensely small. I'm not a big fan of over promising and under delivering, and this management seems to be doing this constantly. Predictions of production of 100,000 ounces per year dependent on "ramping up" production and that inevitable just one more capital raising and we'll hit the payloads spring to mind.
Never been associated/bought into/traded CTO, just didn't like the smell of it.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,134
- Reactions
- 11,243
It's immensely small because they haven't got a clue about the deposit, how to mine it, and I think are deceiving the market with false promises and forecasts.
The 50m ounce potential is just a joke. A blind pluck.
I genuinley think the 10m ounces at 14 g/t JORC needs to be investigated.
Supposed to be going to 85,000 oz this year, 160,000 next year. This is just plain out deceptive behaviour or gross incompetence.
From the MDs presentation this time last year:
Attachments
@ PVF & Kenna.
I'm an engineer but not a mining engineer or a geologist. I've just been doing the reading I should have done before buying gold mining stocks...
At this point my thinking about CTO is leading me to the conclusion that the problem is likely more with the management than with the deposit. My thinking is that their inability to come up with an effective mining plan is due to the fact that they do not have a competent mining engineer in a leadership role. Mark Lynch is NOT a mining engineer. Nor is John Foley. Chris Towsey is a geologist. Gary Foorde's resume includes roles "as a mining engineer developing and coordinating mining and exploration projects " and in addition "In his current role, he is responsible for the development and management of Citigold's engineering projects, including improving systems to increase output and reduce operating costs". This does not seem to include the development and optimization of large scale narrow vein hard rock underground mining.
The thing these guys do know how to do is run the mill. Hence the good recovery levels. And I think this could be partly behind the motivation to get into a joint venture with someone who has proven they can mine this type of deposit.
They won't admit that they do not know how to mine the deposit. They have no plan. Hence the outrageous production predictions that pass by the wayside and are replaced by miniscule production achievements.
My feeling is that Mark Lynch and Chris Towsey are a serious danger to the value of their own and the rest of the share holders share value. They need to hand over developing and running the underground mine to engineers experienced with this type of mining. If they cant find anyone to do it they need to stop wasting time and money with this mine. If they won't do that then they will flush investors 170 million down the toilet. :flush:
I'm an engineer but not a mining engineer or a geologist. I've just been doing the reading I should have done before buying gold mining stocks...
At this point my thinking about CTO is leading me to the conclusion that the problem is likely more with the management than with the deposit. My thinking is that their inability to come up with an effective mining plan is due to the fact that they do not have a competent mining engineer in a leadership role. Mark Lynch is NOT a mining engineer. Nor is John Foley. Chris Towsey is a geologist. Gary Foorde's resume includes roles "as a mining engineer developing and coordinating mining and exploration projects " and in addition "In his current role, he is responsible for the development and management of Citigold's engineering projects, including improving systems to increase output and reduce operating costs". This does not seem to include the development and optimization of large scale narrow vein hard rock underground mining.
The thing these guys do know how to do is run the mill. Hence the good recovery levels. And I think this could be partly behind the motivation to get into a joint venture with someone who has proven they can mine this type of deposit.
They won't admit that they do not know how to mine the deposit. They have no plan. Hence the outrageous production predictions that pass by the wayside and are replaced by miniscule production achievements.
My feeling is that Mark Lynch and Chris Towsey are a serious danger to the value of their own and the rest of the share holders share value. They need to hand over developing and running the underground mine to engineers experienced with this type of mining. If they cant find anyone to do it they need to stop wasting time and money with this mine. If they won't do that then they will flush investors 170 million down the toilet. :flush:
how hard can it b to run a mill, u buy one, install with water n power, throw in a mix of ore, and make sure no one walks off with the products.
hell they probably r so flash now u barely need to mix up ore.
the best option might b someone buy them out and ditch the hangers on.
but then the deposit estimates could b dodgy.
u really need to get to someone onsite or worked on previous drilling.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,134
- Reactions
- 11,243
Volume is up a little but nothing outstanding. 1-2m shares probably doesn't mean much when it's trading at 10c ish. Gold running away to record prices on a daily basis and this is still in the toilet. It walks and sounds like a turkey....
Having sold my stake...I'm happy that CTO is not running away on me. I don't think it has any chance of going ballistic until they can report 10,000 + ounces a quarter. As it is they are balanced on a knife edge in terms of working capital and their continued ability to raise additional capital. They have a very evasive style of reporting to share holders. It seems to be designed to reveal very little while maintaining a very up beat tone. IMOP having suffered as a holder for over a year I would be very cautious with this stock. Absolutely no need to fall for the hype when there are, as PVF above so aptly states, plenty of good gold and silver stokes performing very well at current gold prices and looking to perform even better as the price continues to rise. Having said that if there is anything that even stiffs like a coup at the New York Federal Reserve RAISE STOPS.
Cripes I'm glad not to be a holder of CTO! although i will keep it on my watch list.
Cripes I'm glad not to be a holder of CTO! although i will keep it on my watch list.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,134
- Reactions
- 11,243
Yes, I'll continue to watch. You just can't ignore 10m ounces at 14g/t. Supposedly.
Maybe someone will pick up the scraps and turn them around.
So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,466
- Reactions
- 1,468
Rest easy CTO will never run away from you
safe to delete from your watch list and never look back....i sold out back in April for 13.5 a share.Happy to take the loss and be rid of this utter disappointment.
-------------------------------
Your a worry...after reading your ASF blog posts about CTO its clear your spending way to much time thinking about this stock...CTO is really not worth a nano second of anyone's time.
