This is the producer out of the world's top ten with the lowest production costs. Reserves will increase even further just with the addition of the wits gold reserves. The current figure if all deals go through is 30 mio ozs + Burnstone. Compared to Anglogold the ADR should be at least at $20 even with the SA discount. Current p/e is 6. How many gold producers do you know that did make a profit in Q4 2013?
19 mio for the old Sibanye reserves. Add in Cooke + Wits Gold and you have just short 30. Plus Burnstone, but as Great Basin Gold got the resource model wrong reserves will have to be calculated in the future. So the current +46% is only half of the reserve adjustment.
Keep in mind I did not know the sample tower results before the NI43-101 release. Pretium stated they were to process from lowest to highest grade. 585E had 4 g/t, last known results of individual cross-cut to us. Now it turns out 555E had only 4.4 g/t and 645E 2.3 g/t. Based on Pretium's previous announcements I had expected something like 5-6 g/t for one of the crosscuts and somewhat higher, 7-8 g/t for the other. I did even have hopes for one of the cross-cuts to be of economic grade. Maybe it is not something one should worry too much about as we can only make educated guesses while the Snowden model is based on much more data. I guess one of the reasons we see such variation (3 cross-cuts = waste, 1 ore, 1 lateral ore) is not only the Cleo vein (open to interpretation if it should be included, I say yes), but direction of mineralization. Unfortunately they opted not to do the other lateral drifts...
That's true, sample tower is not exact, can be 30-50% lower or 80-100% higher in some cases. Pretium was smart to get multiple sample tower probes for each round. I don't know what makes you think sample tower results are so important? They did quite well what they were intented for. Nothing more nothing less.
Sample tower results are in the same ballpark as mill results. Overall they gave a pretty good estimate of what to expect from the final bulk sample results. Sometimes they were better than mill results. What's the advantage of a tower? Reduce material in order to be able to ship the material to being assayed in a lab. Brucejack does not need a sample tower as they have access to a mill. I think the sample tower estimate was 6400-6500 ozs for the complete bulk sample.
That's why you buy the old Gold Fields. It's now called Sibanye. March dividend at lest 17 cents. P/E below 5.
Yes I know, it should be very extreme high grades distributed randomly. What I don't like is that extreme high grades are clustered all in a subsection of 615E. The other cross-cuts do not have the problem of low grade alone. They should have nearly only have 1-2 g/t 100t parts with the odd high or extreme-high grade 100t part. Yet what you get is a 10 g/t or a 20g/t part in a cross-cut and that's it. In fact I don't like the feeling that one can make predictions about the 100t parts of each cross-cut. Hope this turns out well as we are in need of a good deposit to show the viability of gold mining. Right now Brucejack is the flagship of gold projects, if the flagship sinks the battle is lost for the remainder of the fleet.
Yes, I reevaluated if I should buy back my shares. But as the 60% of bulk sample that are not Cleopatra influenced have only 3.5 g/t grade I will pass. I had hoped for 5-8 g/t.
now debt free, did you know that they have - if you use the 2008 gold fields resource figures for their mines which still included below infrastructure resources, deduct production since 2008, add 74% Cooke resources and only the m+i resources of Wits Gold and then the Burnstone resources - that they have now have 263.7 mio ozs in m+i resources?
Makes no sense, Brucejack is far superior to Snowfield. Snowfield is just #$%$, you have to spend 3.5 billion and only have a marginal mine that can bankrupt the company anytime.
Snowfield is a great option for higher gold prices. Not for now.
had expected worse data. Only problem seems to be Cleo now. 60000 t at 38 g/t?
1/3 of my position still in the portfolio. I would have expected a nice bump here. What a shame, what a broken market.
It's all in there.
If you go from 5 g/t to 10 g/t the grade is higher, but not orders of magnitude. The characteristics of the ore are the same. When you get to 500 g/t the nature of the ore changes, you will have much more coarse gold particles. At 500 g/t probably most of the ore will be captured in the gravity concentrate. So please read the the more grade the more Cleo as 10-30 g/t vs 100-500 g/t.
It's all in there already... there might be a lot of micro super-high grade anomalies outside of Cleo, but that changes the figures by just a few percentage points as the volume is just miniscule compared to the 200-300t from Cleo.
At least it means Brucejack is bulk mineable! I guess the Snowden report could be a disappointment, even if including data from new locations the resource could stagnate as Snowden could be forced to lower the grade somewhat.
Maybe I am wrong and it would be safer to wait, data is limited.
1. Cleo ore in last 2000t
2. Cleo ore was already in middle 6000t
3. Probably 40-45% of bulk sample ozs from Cleo
You can calculate it by using the silver ozs. Silver is most probably bound to the lower graded 1-2 g/t gold distribution, Cleo will mainly increase gold ozs.
And you can use flotation vs. gravity concentrate results. The higher grade, the more Cleo ore, the more gold from gravity.
9.5-10 g/t without Cleo ore.
Sold the second third of my holdings. I will wait for the new resource estimate from Snowden and then buy back 2/3. 1/3 for keeps no matter what.
I would look at the grade the model would have predicted for the high-grade area and issue a second result with the ozs from these areas capped at the grade the model predicted. Then everyone could make his own decision.
Is a 500 g/t vein an anomaly or not? I don't know.
Worst case (assuming 50m in 615E and 500 g/t) is 4350 ozs from Cleo, 1500 ozs from remainder. If I replace the Cleo ore with a capped 100 g/t value I get 1500 ozs from non-Cleo, 870 from high-grade, 2370 ozs or 7.1 g/t. Though I don't know the exact figures that scenario is a very real possibility. Brucejack validated? In that case not. PVG has to issue details or else we can't say that the model is validated.
I thought the first 4000 ozs were all from non-Cleo. Seems not to be the case.
I hold and bet an another 80%+ jump once PVG announces the details.
No, there are several others with higher grade and more reserves/resources. AU (50 mio ozs reserves 20 g/t), SBGL ( 20 g/t, 70 mio ozs in Resources). Head grade will be lower though due to dilution.
I think most mining investors commit a serious mistake by mentally excluding the whole South African mining scene. 50% of all gold is from South Africa and probably will be in the future.
Ovsenek stated in a presentation they had 1000t of Cleo ore grading 400-500 g/t in bags to be shipped to Montana in January. He stated they are allowed to mine 1000t per claim without further permits. Investors- Webcasts- Nov 12, 2013, the Cowen conference. It's from minute 20 or so.
Yes, I figured that out already. Yet it still does not fit: if the material from 615E would have been somewhat richer than that from the previous 6000t we should have expected something like 900 ozs. But that fits the data still much better. I guess the mistake lays with me making too many assumptions, flawed calculations on incomplete data.
If Cleo "only" has 100-200 g/t I don't see what that high-grading talk was all about.
Does anybody know what's in the Cleo ore bags? Cleo can't be mined invividually as it is too small, 0.5m. So did they do cherry picking or do these bags contain 20% Cleo ore + 80% waste? If they expect 200000 ozs overall from Cleo I expect the content to be cherry picked as grade would fit perfectly then.