Update attached.
Any ideas why MON looks so 'cheap' on a peer comparison?
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.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....
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.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.
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
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 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
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
]
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?
Absolutely way off topic jman.Sorry for rambling on a bit, I'm probably miles of topic now and get growled at by Kennas
I think its important to make clear distinctions between producers
(cash flow positive) and explorers (cash flow negative)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?