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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brian N L who wrote (947)	3/3/1998 9:42:00 PM
From: Michel Grenier	Respond to of 34075

Hi, Brian. Thanks for your explanation on the slow but steady price drop. My point about cost per ounce being tied to total reserves is that, when you look at Guido's report, you see wide variation in concentration. That is why further sampling work was needed to get a more accurate estimate. Moreover, the geologist errs on the optimistic side for results yet to come. I suspect that reality will be good, but not fantastically so. The sampling done so far and its results ( as published so far) make both reserves and average concentrations difficult to estimate, making in turn cost per ounce hard to evaluate. I would prefer to see a cost of extraction and treatment per ton or cubic meter of material, especially for an open pit operation. That way, we would know the cost of getting the stuff out, and the uncertainty would be strictly on the revenue side of the equation (i.e. how many ounces of gold on average can we expect per ton or cubic meter treated). However, I agree with you that starting production before getting really excited is a good approach, especially after the Bre-X fiasco. That is why I invested in Golden Eagle. It is a risk worth taking and, at the current prices, even if as you mentioned the number of shares rose to 250M, $2.5M a month would result in $.01 a month per share or $.12 a year, which is great when you buy at $.07 or $.08. Thanks again Michel

To: Brian N L who wrote (947)	3/5/1998 11:10:00 PM
From: Michel Grenier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Hi, Brian. The more I think about it and the more it seems that, at current prices, Golden eagle is valued properly... at the moment. Just think about it that way. Let us say that proven reserves can be established at 130M ounces, which is not as high as the most optimistic predictions but still very large. Now, let us say that operation costs are indeed at around $170 per ounce recovered. Let us also assume that the price of gold continues to hover around $300/ounce in the long run, assuming low inflation and no major economic crisis to throw anything off. Then, net revenues would be roughly $130/ounce. Now, if they are correct in estimating $2.5M per month in net revenue, that translates into $30M per year, meaning that they would extract 231 000 ounces a year. At that rate, they would mine for 562 years. The meaning of this is that the size of the deposit becomes meaningless for investors, since the time horizon for its complete depletion is so long. It leaves only the revenue stream to value the stock. The revenue stream per share would be at best $0.34 (for 88M shares) and at worst $0.12 for three times that number of shares in circulation. Now, the Bolivian company is, I believe, 100% owned by golden eagle. That leaves us, after taxes paid on profits by the subsidiary and by Golden Eagle, (assuming total taxes of 33%, but they could be higher) a profit per share for Golden Eagle investors of $0.23 per year in the best case scenario (88M shares) and $0.08 in the worst case scenario (264M shares). Assuming a conservative but reasonable P/E ratio of 12 in the long run, that would place the long term value at $2.76 for the best case scenario and $0.96 for the worst case scenario. That does not take into account what percentage of profits are sunk into all kinds of stuff that does not interest shareholders, but rather assumes that all after tax profit goes to shareholders. That was for the potential. Now, if you add the fact that, at present, proven reserves are at 0, and that, if you err on the pessimistic side, they could remain at that; if you add that this is Bolivia; if you add all the things that could upset the figures, such as a higher average operation cost than anticipated, the POG getting lower, etc... the current price seems like a fair assessment. What do you think? Does it make any sense? Michel