Gold Stocks Information and Comparison

[Spaghetti]

Dioro Exploration

Market cap 106 million
Shares on issue 68 million
Jorc resources

Frogs legs, 49% owned 723,000 ounces at 5.6g/t (undergound mining) (rest owned by tsx listed la mancha).

South Kal 1.8Moz avg grade 2g/t

s/p 1.57

On mill in Soth Kal included in acquisition from Harmony (everyone being buying Harmony?)

I believe there will be an update of resource from frog leg early this year.

Do not hold.

 

[jman2007]

Update attached.

Any ideas why MON looks so 'cheap' on a peer comparison?

Kennas,

Been wondering about this myself tbh. On the surface, the prospects of the company appear very good. Targeting 500,00oz/pa by 2009, impressive global resource base of 2.8Moz at a head grade of 5.3g/t. Significant exploration upside in remaining unexplored tenements, and a proposed expl budget of $11M for 2008.

As of 30 Spet 07, net operating cash flow of -$11,092,000 and cash on hand at bank of $428,000. Of course not unusal for a company to run at a loss during commissioning period etc. Recent share issue consolidation at a 3:1 ratio probably placed down pressure on sp, in adition proposed TSX listing may cause further dilution to current holders, unless spin-off occurs under separate listing???? Proposed expansions and ramp-up during 2008 may also place undue financial strain on MON.

Imo, a further key for MON will also be it's ability or otherwise in retaining key fifo personnel for its rapidly expanding operations in the goldfields, a real challenge in the WA labour market at the moment.

Just my
jman

Disclaimer: DNH

 

[Sean K]

Kennas,

Been wondering about this myself tbh. On the surface, the prospects of the company appear very good. Targeting 500,00oz/pa by 2009, impressive global resource base of 2.8Moz at a head grade of 5.3g/t. Significant exploration upside in remaining unexplored tenements, and a proposed expl budget of $11M for 2008.

As of 30 Spet 07, net operating cash flow of ($11,092,000) and cash on hand at bank of $428,000. Of course not unusal for a company to run at a loss during commissioning period etc. Recent share issue consolidation at a 3:1 ratio probably placed down pressure on sp, in adition proposed TSX listing may cause further dilution to current holders, unless spin-off occurs under separate listing????

A key for MON will also be it's ability or otherwise in retaining key fifo personnel for its rapidly expanding operations in the goldfields, a real challenge in the WA labour market at the moment.

Just my
jman

Disclaimer: DNH

I also think because the total resource is spread over several deposits that this adds significantly to the cash costs. They'd be much more attractive with the 5m oz in an open pit from surface...of course. They have quite a significant tenament package there, so there's a chance they could find a super pit....maybe. Definately food for thought though.

Actually, same goes for CTO. Big resource spread over several deposits and a very low MC to resource comparison....

 

[jman2007]

I also think because the total resource is spread over several deposits that this adds significantly to the cash costs. They'd be much more attractive with the 5m oz in an open pit from surface...of course. They have quite a significant tenament package there, so there's a chance they could find a super pit....maybe. Definately food for thought though.

Actually, same goes for CTO. Big resource spread over several deposits and a very low MC to resource comparison....

Yes good point,

I imagine with 2 (?) current pocessing facilities at Dayyhurst and Minjar, their strategy would to be to mine several satellite pits simultaneously, or perhaps in a stepwise manner (anyone know of a production schedule for MON?) and haul the ore by road. This could have significantly to operating costs.

jman

 

[Sean K]

Yes good point,

I imagine with 2 (?) current pocessing facilities at Dayyhurst and Minjar, their strategy would to be to mine several satellite pits simultaneously, or perhaps in a stepwise manner (anyone know of a production schedule for MON?) and haul the ore by road. This could have significantly to operating costs.

jman

Well, their aim is to be producing 500K oz a year from 09, so that's the schedule. There's more detail on their web site. I hope they are not been too optomistic in that regard. They had some big ramp up issues last year with a deposit that was not conforming as expected.

One thing that I have found recently with gold miners is that they CONTINUALLY come out with downgrades (usually due to grades) as opposed to upgrades. LGL and NCM are classic examples.

 

[Spaghetti]

I see Monarch as being better able to overcome any problem in the short term as opposed to CTO. CTO cannot increase reserves from resorces for some geological reason. The nuggety effect is hard to measure it seems. Have read quite a bit about it but hard to fully understand unless you are a geologist. I cannot see enough geologists investing in CTO to prop up the price though. If they do find a jorc compliant way to measure (and confirm) the resource the s.p will go through the roof. I recall projected cash costs for CTO to be very low though, thought I had them written down somewhere but seems not ! Sure they were under $400 an ounce, will confirm later.

 

[jman2007]

Well, their aim is to be producing 500K oz a year from 09, so that's the schedule. There's more detail on their web site. I hope they are not been too optomistic in that regard. They had some big ramp up issues last year with a deposit that was not conforming as expected.

One thing that I have found recently with gold miners is that they CONTINUALLY come out with downgrades (usually due to grades) as opposed to upgrades. LGL and NCM are classic examples.

Well I guess it depends on the planning and objectives for mine development,

There are two obejctives that can be achieved. If high quality (more Measured and Indicated) resources are required, any additional deposit specific drilling would need to be targeted to infill the current drilling in order to meet this ojective.

If additional global resources are required, i.e. to meet an economic hurdle, infilling the current drilling may not yield the required increase in global resources. Step out drilling would be required and only good geological understanding of the controls on gold mineralisation will help enure that the drilling is well placed to achieve best results.

Potentially, step out drilling could achieve an increase in the global inventory, but at a reduced grade since the drilling may well extend to/or outside the periphery of the ore body. Infill drilling may not yield an increase in global inventory, but may result in an increased level of confidence, eg. resource elevated from Inferred to Indicated.

I think this is what you are getting at....

jman

 

[Spaghetti]

Couple more

Centamin Egypt

Producer

Market cap 1,080.00 (however cashed up due to options conversion)

Shares on issue 763 million

Last s/p $1.415

Cash costs USD290/oz

Grades average 1.8 g/t

Jorc resource 11 Moz 7.4Moz Measured and indicated and 3.7 Moz inferred. However the Egyptian government gets 50% of profit I believe, anyone confirm this?

Norton Goldfields

Market cap 191 million

Shares on issue 324 million

Last s/p .59c

cash costs $500

jorc resource 3.17 Moz avg grade 1.8g/t

 

[jman2007]

I see Monarch as being better able to overcome any problem in the short term as opposed to CTO. CTO cannot increase reserves from resorces for some geological reason. The nuggety effect is hard to measure it seems. Have read quite a bit about it but hard to fully understand unless you are a geologist. I cannot see enough geologists investing in CTO to prop up the price though. If they do find a jorc compliant way to measure (and confirm) the resource the s.p will go through the roof. I recall projected cash costs for CTO to be very low though, thought I had them written down somewhere but seems not ! Sure they were under $400 an ounce, will confirm later.

Hehe,

As a Expl Geo in gold myself, as opposed to a Mine Geo I haven't come across the "nuggety effect" myself Spag. Would seem like it would have some kind of impact on resource modelling however, and could impede the search criteria used in the resource model itself. It is possible to get nugget formation in the regolith (basically weathered cover rock) which I suspect could be what this term is getting at. Might do a bit of swot 2day and find out... Btw, I don't hold CTO atm, but more due to the fact that I simply haven't researched them

jman

 

[Spaghetti]

Hehe,

As a Expl Geo in gold myself, as opposed to a Mine Geo I haven't come across the "nuggety effect" myself Spag. Would seem like it would have some kind of impact on resource modelling however, and could impede the search criteria used in the resource model itself. It is possible to get nugget formation in the regolith (basically weathered cover rock) which I suspect could be what this term is getting at. Might do a bit of swot 2day and find out... Btw, I don't hold CTO atm, but more due to the fact that I simply haven't researched them

jman

I may have added a little window dressing adding a "y" lol, nugget effect .. it was Bendigo that started this fear of quartz vein systems

here is a summary of a publication just so you know my imagination is not that inventive ..

http://www.ausimm.com.au/publications/epublication.aspx?ID=1284

The Bendigo Goldfield is located in the state of Victoria, Australia, and is one of a number of fields that make up the Central Victorian Goldfield. Since 1993, Bendigo Mining NL has been carrying out an extensive re-evaluation of the goldfield and is currently well advanced in developing an underground mine. The sediment-hosted auriferous quartz reefs are structurally complex and closely associated with anticlinal axes and reverse faulting. The gold within the quartz reefs is characterised by both its coarse nature (100 up to >5000 µm) and its erratic distribution; as a result, the Bendigo Goldfield is classed as an extreme nugget effect system. This characteristic ensures that the Bendigo mineralisation is very challenging to sample and evaluate. In this case, diamond drilling is a good measure of structure and geological continuity, but a poor measure of grade and grade distribution. Drilling, combined with on-reef development, bulk sampling and detailed geological studies are required for resource evaluation. For grade control a balance has to be sought between sample representativness, cost, turn around time and practicality. Extreme nugget effect deposits like Bendigo, require the use of bulk samples in order to be representative. However, the cost and turn around time is significant. As a result, a micro-bulk sampling system has been introduced that attempts to overcome these problems by providing a fast, practical method that can define ore from waste. Bulk sampling and on-vein development are still necessary for resource and reserve estimation.

So not about CTO but the market has lumped poor old CTO into the same bucket. perhaps you maybe able to make some sense from it, will be pleased to hear back.

Cheers.

 

[jman2007]

I may have added a little window dressing adding a "y" lol, nugget effect .. it was Bendigo that started this fear of quartz vein systems

here is a summary of a publication just so you know my imagination is not that inventive ..

http://www.ausimm.com.au/publications/epublication.aspx?ID=1284

The Bendigo Goldfield is located in the state of Victoria, Australia, and is one of a number of fields that make up the Central Victorian Goldfield. Since 1993, Bendigo Mining NL has been carrying out an extensive re-evaluation of the goldfield and is currently well advanced in developing an underground mine. The sediment-hosted auriferous quartz reefs are structurally complex and closely associated with anticlinal axes and reverse faulting. The gold within the quartz reefs is characterised by both its coarse nature (100 up to >5000 µm) and its erratic distribution; as a result, the Bendigo Goldfield is classed as an extreme nugget effect system. This characteristic ensures that the Bendigo mineralisation is very challenging to sample and evaluate. In this case, diamond drilling is a good measure of structure and geological continuity, but a poor measure of grade and grade distribution. Drilling, combined with on-reef development, bulk sampling and detailed geological studies are required for resource evaluation. For grade control a balance has to be sought between sample representativness, cost, turn around time and practicality. Extreme nugget effect deposits like Bendigo, require the use of bulk samples in order to be representative. However, the cost and turn around time is significant. As a result, a micro-bulk sampling system has been introduced that attempts to overcome these problems by providing a fast, practical method that can define ore from waste. Bulk sampling and on-vein development are still necessary for resource and reserve estimation.

So not about CTO but the market has lumped poor old CTO into the same bucket. perhaps you maybe able to make some sense from it, will be pleased to hear back.

Cheers.

Thanks for the info,

I can certainly see how this type of mineralisation could be very difficult to interpret and produce a resource model for. Quite different from the area I work in where a lot of the gold is pyrite or BIF hosted, and dominantly structurally controlled.

One way to produce a resource model is by the "Indicator Kriging Block Model" method, the basic unit of the block model is a panel that normally has the dimensions of the average drill hole spacing, eg. 15 meters (east) by 20 meters (north). The selected panel should be large enough to contain a reasonable number of blocks or mining units (at least 15). The mining block is the smallest volume of rock that could be mined separately as ore or waste, and usually is defined by a minimum mining width.

Indicator Kriging was developed to address some of the problems associated with estimation of resources in mineral deposits where sample grades show the properties of extreme variation and where estimates of grade show senisitivity to a small number of very high grades. In this case Spag, if CTO are grappling with a similar problem, there is a fair chance they would be using this, or a similar method for their modelling.

The goal of Indicator Kriging is to esimate tonnage and grade of ore that would be recovered from each panel if the panel were mined using the block as the minimum selection criteria to distinguish between ore and waste. Usually the resource modellers would separate out the resource composites (data supplied by the mining company) into mineralized zones and work out the proportion of each mineralized zone within each panel, and the proportion of each panel which exceeds a selected cut-off grade.

Within each panel, a search radii would work out how far the kriging program would look in any direction to find composites to include in the resource estimation for that panel. Obviously the greater the number of composites, the more reliable the estimate. Usually the input data would be entirely supplied by the mining company, ie. drill hole intercepts.

You can probably already guess the difficulty in achieving reliable grade distribution controls and effective bulk sampling from these types of deposits, bear in mind that poorly distributed composite samples and huge variations in grade would have a detrimental effect on the model. Also, the competent person under JORC who has to verify the validity of the data has to be satisfied in the quality of sampling and assaying, the geological interp etc is up to JORC quality. A very tricky job indeed!

Sorry for rambling on a bit, I'm probably miles of topic now and get growled at by Kennas

jman

PS I thought for a minute the "nuggety effect" might be some wiry, nuggety old prospector who refuses to get the hell of your tenement

 

[Spaghetti]

thanks Jman !

I think it important information when doing stock comparisons so we know why some stocks seem undervalued and also so we know when they could be re-rated due to solutions to these problems. I do not think Kennas will mind too much as it is in context.

Cheers

 

[jman2007]

thanks Jman !

I think it important information when doing stock comparisons so we know why some stocks seem undervalued and also so we know when they could be re-rated due to solutions to these problems. I do not think Kennas will mind too much as it is in context.

Cheers

No worries

glad you found it useful, sometimes when you make comparisons between stocks you need to use information from a variety of disciplines. I'm sure the more financially minded investors would also be able to give a good financial analysis as well. This thread could turn out to be very useful for people.

jman

 

[refined silver]

A couple of littlies with big resources: All in AUD

FNT - Frontier Resourses.

Shares (fully diluted) - 140m
Price - 11c
MC - $15m

JORC resources
Au - 2.7m oz
Ag - 15m oz
Cu - 1.7 billion pounds

- Resource is in PNG (One furthest part comes within a few hundred metres of Kokado Trail.
CAPEX - $824m

GCR - Golden Cross Resources-

Shares (fd) - 651m
Price - 3.3c
MC - $21m

JORC Resources: (NSW)
Au - 1.4m oz
Ag - 11.4moz
Cu - 1bp

CAPEX $330m
- Also 5 royalties received, many JV farm outs, with lots of $ being spent on their properties.
- undervalued cos a low grade resource - Pre Feas assumed $450 Au, $1.40 Cu, when factored with current prices should be due a serious re-rating.

PGM - Platina Resources

Shares (FD) - 41.2m
Price - 90c
MC - $37m

JORC res

- Has 6 PGM props in Aus, One with 2.1m oz @ 2.1g/t. CEO is geol with 30yr exp and major finds.
- Also has Skaergaard prop in Greenland with 50m oz PGM Eq (30m oz Pd, 10m oz Au, 4m oz Pt, plus 7.5% Van, 6.4% TiO2. Overall @10/2005 prices (Au470,Pt800,Pd180,15,150pig iron,400) is worth $83/t. Cost to mine $26/t (Galahad Gold relinquished after spending $150m cos prices of access metals V&Ti prices down ($26 to $9/kg for Van in 05, and forecast further decreases)
PGM doing Feas this year.



















Dislaimer: I have shares in all 3.

 

[So_Cynical]

I think its important to make clear distinctions between producers
(cash flow positive) and explorers (cash flow negative)

refined silver...FNT - Frontier Resourses.
seems way under value with a JORC resources Au - 2.7m oz
and a cap of 15mill.

can u elaborate on why there cap is so low?

 

[Miner]

Yes I also join with the same request and appreciate to get some further back up information.

Cheers

 

[Miner]

Dioro Exploration

Market cap 106 million
Shares on issue 68 million
Jorc resources

Frogs legs, 49% owned 723,000 ounces at 5.6g/t (undergound mining) (rest owned by tsx listed la mancha).

South Kal 1.8Moz avg grade 2g/t

s/p 1.57

On mill in Soth Kal included in acquisition from Harmony (everyone being buying Harmony?)


I believe there will be an update of resource from frog leg early this year.

Do not hold.[/QUOTE

Spaghetti


I understand now Loadstar resources is the spin off from Dio Exploration for gold only resources. Unfortunately the share price of LSR has dived down to 17 cents

Cheers
]

 

[Spaghetti]

I think its important to make clear distinctions between producers
(cash flow positive) and explorers (cash flow negative)

refined silver...FNT - Frontier Resourses.
seems way under value with a JORC resources Au - 2.7m oz
and a cap of 15mill.

can u elaborate on why there cap is so low?

Well I am not refined silver, just lowly spag lol but I understand the Australian government is trying to have the kokoda trail world heritage listed and for a halt to the mining. Plus they anticipate many years before production. So wait and see.

Miner

Thank you.

 

[Sean K]

Sorry for rambling on a bit, I'm probably miles of topic now and get growled at by Kennas

Absolutely way off topic jman. You should not be providing such information in relation to gold mining in a gold company comparison thread....oh, hang on.....

Cheers, I'm sure everyone here appreciates the knowledge, time and effort.

The overall comparison table I'm updating really is just scratching the surface, and it's this type of discussion that goes to show who may really be undervalued, in the detail.

And, as always, people need to DTOR to confirm all the numbers presented.

 

[Spaghetti]

I think its important to make clear distinctions between producers
(cash flow positive) and explorers (cash flow negative)

Strange situation atm. Since sub prime there has been mass return to fundamental analysis..ie first criteria a company must actually make money! So we have the gold producers increasing s/p and the gold explorers losing ground. There has to be at some point a correction to in ground values or else there will be no incentive to explore. Why invest in an exploration company only to see the resource sold of for a fraction it cost to larger miners? I wish I knew when this correction will happen because then we will see huge appreciation in s/p for explorers with known resources.