Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Copper Fox -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: explorationguy who wrote (9046)	1/4/2015 6:24:19 PM
From: mudguy	1 Recommendation Recommended By CUUallin Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

That is a brutal chart: 11 years to see positive cash flow. I think they ramped up the capex so years -5--4 are small expenditures. Have you compared the block models? That is where the meat and potatoes differences probably lie.

To: explorationguy who wrote (9046)	1/4/2015 9:38:54 PM
From: minder	2 Recommendations Recommended By explorationguy Theotokos Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

where annual cash flows remain the same but begin two years earlier, an approximation of the improvement to npv8 can be calculated by multiplying the npv by 1.08 twice. or npv5 times 1,05 twice. iirc it was noted in the 2012FS that opportunities existed to significantly reduce the 5yr build time for the 130ktpd mine. as you pointed out the big opportunity at the SC district is the potential from economies of scale, 171 MT of waste-not-waste notwithstanding... so many variables affect npv that improvements in only a handful of variables make the numbers go crazily better or on the other hand deterioration in only a handful of variables the numbers can go horribly worse. the 171 MT waste "oopsie" alone dramatically kicks the NPV and IRR in the nuts. intention or incompetence is my question...can't make up my mind yet.

To: explorationguy who wrote (9046)	1/5/2015 3:16:20 AM
From: ElephantAnalytics	2 Recommendations Recommended By explorationguy minder Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10654

I think the area to focus on is operating costs. I haven't looked at it extremely closely, but what stands out to me is: 2008: 812 million tonnes to mill 2012: 941 million tonnes to mill 2008: $12.49 operating cost per tonne 2012: $13.60 operating cost per tonne 2008: 4.76 billion pounds of copper, 255.2 million pounds of molybdenum, 4.5 million ounces of gold and 32.5 million ounces of silver. 2012: 4.875 billion pounds of copper, 214.9 million pounds of molybdenum, 4.21 million ounces of gold and 25.1 million ounces of silver. So there's increased operating costs of around $2.7 billion. At the same time, the recovered metal actually seems to have gone down slightly (more copper, less of the higher value other metals). Plus initial capex and sustaining capex went up something like $700 million between two studies. Exchange rate differences probably offset a few hundred million in costs, but basically there was an increase of $3 billion in costs for the same (or less) metal.