Re: GBM - Greater Bendigo Gold Mines
Hi Firdy
Sorry to butt into this discussion but I just want to point out that your equivalent of a real estate agent also owns over 50% of the house he's selling.
Good luck with GBM. I also got slightly burnt in Bendigo Mining and Perseverance so I'm a bit wary of Vic goldminers!
Good to have some other input oldblue.
Maybe an even more acurate analogy might be the "real estate agent" retained a fraction of a percent shareholding of the house - Cahill is .2/10th of a percent. But what the real estate agent really got was one of the other buildings on the property for removal = Greater Bendigo and its 9 projects. If you accept this analogy, then we could agree that Lombard is irrelevant to GBM's Gold production.
I'd have to agree with you though that Vic miners are generally higher risk. I think the market de-values them accordingly, and then over-rates them when they start production??????
I like the maths. Looking at 1.EV/Resource 2.EV/Discounted-In-Sit-Gold 3. Mkt Cap/next yrs pdtn 4. cash cost per oz
PSV sp 0.20 1. $86/oz 2. $119/oz 3. $ 961/oz $ 4. $587/oz
BDG sp 0.28 1. no resource 2. $20/oz 3. no pdtn 4. $ 570/oz
GBM sp 0.20 1. $135/oz 2. $ 88/oz 3. $ 1007/oz 4. $ 460/oz
(EV = Enterprise value = Market cap adjusted for balance sheet items).
The average price for gold in the ground in Australia is $ 135/oz for a producer.
The difficulty in Vic is it's hugely expensive to measure the resource to JORC standard. BDG will used this as an excuse to estimate and overstate, which meant when they did have ratios, they were wrong.
GBM appears to be conservative, so I am expecting their ratios to be conservative as they find more Gold.
Looking at the BGM's Inglewood history, the field produced 6 million oz, is about the same size as Bendigo, but only a small percentage explored and untouched below 150 meters (compared with 1 km. for Bendigo). The 650,000 oz resource and potential estimate for Inglewood must be conservative.
So comparing these three Vic miners:
- write BDG off for the time being as their infrastructure is wrong, making their cost of production high.
- PSV's costs is also too high - but still worth a look.
- GBM's ratios are high, on what they have announced? but are they being conservative enough having learnt the lesson from Bendigo down the road?
The strategy of setting up a small plant (50Mt per hour) (when they finish it that is ....
) and then increasing resource/exploration on the surplus cash flow seems logical.
It is a totally different strategy than that which failed at BGD.
Another thing I checked .... On GBM's resource statement, and the "Inglewood project update" from yesterday, they have a PE of 3 (still) but seven years production of existing resource, and 25 years production of potential.
All this tells me that the future has to be good for GBM, for those who can wait...