Of particular interest is the forecast of 1.6 million ozs. in 2007 and beyond from existing properties.
I feel that is a very conservative number. I strongly suspect that a decision was made to put out conservative targets so as to easily meet them if there is an unforseen contingency and, of course, easily beat them if there is not. That is not out of character for this management team from past history from what I have seen.
One reason I say this is the very conservative forecast they now have for Red Lake after the new shaft is in full operation. They are only forecasting Red Lake to increase to 700,000 ozs per year (which is only 150,000 ozs more than is predicted in 2005). That is very conservative in light of previous information we have gotten about the Red Lake area and the reserves expected to be accessed from the new mine shaft.
Also interesting is that most of the info on Red Lake and its exploration is no longer on the site (or I could not find it) other than to list the junior partners in the area. There is virtually no mention of the ongoing drill program and other prospective information we get updates on regularly as new results come in. Since every report has been very positive, I found it interesting that information is no longer on the site.
In combination with the above, please take a look at the reserves tab on the new site. A total of 24 million ounces of gold (all categories added up) is shown with over 8 million at Red Lake. And we know that extensive exploration is underway proving up more reserves on many sites.
All the above makes me think there is some sandbagging taking place on these forward production estimates which is fine with me. It's a smart management technique as long as it is kept within reason. The market always likes to see targets beaten. And, when you are ready, you can always come with an upside surprise in reserves and/or production which keeps those who might want to unreasonably short your stock off balance.
Do you know how much they might get for the Na sulfite operation?
I think it's good that Telfer is concentrating on gold; but old-time GG folks are hurting, to see the periperhal stuff disposed of, the JV closed out or cherry-picked, the gold sold off and added to earnings and the money used to expand production.
And I would assume that they took off the proprietary info about the shafts; I cannot believe that was left on so long! It might have made sense when GG was trying to prove that its discoveries were legitimate; to get other qualified viewpoints; and to publicize the mine. But it is, of course, company proprietary, and very, very unusual to publish it. Why let skunks (not mentioning GLG and CDE, note, at all) get into your business?
I suppose it's growing up, and perhaps the dividend will be cut, too. I note that AEM pays .03, maybe GG should pay .05 once a year.