So Baa Baa, you taking your $15,000 at 0.7c?
Printable View
So Baa Baa, you taking your $15,000 at 0.7c?
Oh Baa_Baa, why throw away your credibility with posts like this? You have to be careful with the comments you make...
Interesting, Snapiti, thanks for that info, there's so many profitable mines it's not easy keeping up with it all. Seems you prefer investing in mines that make money for their shareholders, not wannabe miners spending shareholders capital.
Point is, there are mines already making money, lots of money. A $ invested in a producing mine with proven and probable resources selling profitably is a much better investment than NTL
Snapiti is shorting producing mines that are making a loss. Snapiti is smart. Let's take TRY for instance (as posted here): (The $59,000,000 loss for the '14 FY seems something to consider first up... EPS of negative 34 cents... Total liabilities of $100m... I don't claim to be an accountant but NTL, in its small scale endeavour, seems to be in a different position from TRY at least...). That doesn't seem very profitable to me. TRY is losing money. TRY is not selling profitably. You have not done your homework.
NTL, which has sucked untold years of investors capital to get to where? A permit to spend more investors money on a feasibility study. NTL is a sinkhole for investors money, with no guarantee of a profitable return in any reasonable timeframe (but a nice setup for clever share traders to scalp the vulnerable).
NTL has been getting up and running for 2-3 years in its current form. NTL has resource consent to remove and process 600 tonnes a month. Nothing has a guarantee of profitability, but NTL is highly like to be as such in a short time frame.
The Aug 2013 report is an interesting read, it sounds like a tourist destination. Karangahape are so lucky to have NTL driving their economy. Then, lucky NTL scores a permit to do some feasibility testing, and the patronising CEO sucks up to the council who are probably in his pocket, then flips the bird to shareholders with the summary "NTL is currently completing an offer to its shareholders to raise further funds", oh heck share price drops 12.5% on the 'great news'.
NTL just got a relatively large investor in at 0.8 cents. Existing shareholders get to top up at 0.7 cents. Seems good for holders to me. A 14%+ discount to the big boy. Seems like a very good deal. Such a small shareholder base too, good guy NTL.
Flip to page.30 of the report, the numbers are so far out of date it's not funny. Worse though is the projected AU/AG prices which are around 35-45% down, though some think that is sustainably mitigated by a weaker NZD. Good luck with that one. Oh, and when does year 1 even start? Investors will fund the bulk of getting to the start line, whenever that is. Assuming it ever does start, and even a modicum of credibility in the forecasts, investors can enjoy a further projected 2 years of massive losses (probably more as the income will be overstated and the expenses understated), yep you know whose going to be funding that too.
Consensus gold price of $1500USD in the report at a .80 NZDUSD exchange rate = $1875NZD
Current gold price circa $1200USD at .69 NZDUSD exchange rate = $1740NZD
Well below C3 cost - go NTL :D
To conclude: I enjoyed your comment but it seems to be more emotional than analytical or factual. Good luck out there Baa_Baa, hope you do well in the Arty Bra competition (or are you the model? :D)
Thanks for the credibility boost, though I have no care for what you think of my comments. I will just point out how neatly you skirt the debate:
Point is, there are mines already making money, lots of money. A $ invested in a producing mine with proven and probable resources selling profitably is a much better investment than NTL
Your reply focuses on TRY. "TRY is losing money. TRY is not selling profitably. You have not done your homework."
I am not advocating any mine in particular. Read the point. NTL is a poor investment, it is a punt on another feasibility report, which the shareholders pay for, by an explorer with no timeframe to ROI.
NTL, which has sucked untold years of investors capital to get to where? A permit to spend more investors money on a feasibility study. NTL is a sinkhole for investors money, with no guarantee of a profitable return in any reasonable timeframe (but a nice setup for clever share traders to scalp the vulnerable).
Your reply "NTL has been getting up and running for 2-3 years in its current form. NTL has resource consent to remove and process 600 tonnes a month. Nothing has a guarantee of profitability, but NTL is highly like to be as such in a short time frame."
Again skirts the point and purports that NTL will move to profit "in a short timeframe". Explain that one again. There is no timeframe to move to profit at all. There is no timeframe to even move to production. NTL may never move to production.
NTL is currently completing an offer to its shareholders to raise further funds", oh heck share price drops 12.5% on the 'great news'.
Your reply: "NTL just got a relatively large investor in at 0.8 cents. Existing shareholders get to top up at 0.7 cents. Seems good for holders to me. A 14%+ discount to the big boy. Seems like a very good deal. Such a small shareholder base too, good guy NTL
Again skirts the point. Some existing shareholders lost money on the great news of a cap raising and are about to be further diluted. The difference is 12.5%, not 14%. Calculate the capital dilution as well.
Flip to page.30 of the report, the numbers are so far out of date it's not funny. Worse though is the projected AU/AG prices which are around 35-45% down, though some think that is sustainably mitigated by a weaker NZD. Good luck with that one. Oh, and when does year 1 even start?
In this reply "Consensus gold price of $1500USD in the report" you understate the consensus gold price in the report (actually consensus average US$1635) and overstate the current gold price "Current gold price circa $1200USD" which is actually $1172 or about 28% lower than the consensus average which is the basis of the income for the business case, beginning Year 1 which is somewhere in the never never assuming a feasible mine report.
And you question my credibility, and conclude with an insult. Good grief.
:D
Interesting discussion about gold: http://www.lumopolis.org/In%20Gold%2...%20%28e%29.pdf
Their lowest predictions are above NTL C3 cost - good :D
Edit:I also point out that page 123 onwards has an interesting discussion about gold stocks :D
You have nfi baa.
I think you will find it was a MARCH 2013 report.
Such appears to have been independently reviewed by hatch goba a global company.
A reserve is clearly defined and like any nimby you don't appear to comprehend the bulk sampling plan they are doing now is not the PFS. Ntl have clearly stated such.
Extraction consents appear to be for 20000 cubic metres per annum. That's a heap of gold where did you get the 600t per month as their consent. You just made it up?
Certainly looks like your either a sad bitter and twisted trader who has lost money (we have all seen this type before) or a nimby playing down ramp games having withdrawn from the judicial review.
Either way you are clearly not paying any attention to the facts. Robbo has patiently tried to step you through it but your focussed on the down ramp.
If you can't factually back up your dialogue stop wasting our time as this is a forum for intelligent discussion on one of the highest grade lowest entry cost of any mining project in NZ.
NTL would be one. at a 10 gram per ton head grade that over 7.5M revenue per annum at a gold cost of sub 700 per oz. FOR BULK SAMPLING. Show me on other bulk sampling project anywhere delivering that!! :)
At 10,000 grams a ton grades snapiti tonnage is not important in these high grade epithermal deposits and they have assayed grades that high as per previous information provided by the company. Now if you were talking low grade mines I would agree. But in the case of NTL their grades are phenomenal.
I think you are a little confused as you don't know this company and havent taken the time to look. The company is simply bulk sampling (small scale mining to open up the mine) for which their consents allow 20,000 cubic metres per annum. I think they costed that at sub 700 per ounce.
The Prefeas they did suggested their plan is to extract the first phase of mining for which they had a 5 year mine life peaking at 12,000 oz focussed on their RESERVE. If they simply convert during that period a further 25% of their resource of 205K oz that would be 78K oz total @ sub 700 per ounce. For those of us who get mining that would not be difficult to achieve.
Quite a nice little mine actually. That is ignoring their upside in the tenement Rahu for which they have made an exciting new discovery
Show me one other company that can get into production for 1.6M NZD. This is a walk up play. No shafts no drives simply mine the known and proven targets in one of the richest vein zones in NZ.
Sadly looks like no costs will be forthcoming (from the annual report)
"Post the date under review the opponents to the mine requested that Talisman and Hauraki District Council allow them the ability
to stop proceedings without seeking costs and following both
NTL and HDC agreement, withdrew their requests for a Judicial
Review"
[QUOTE=Baa_Baa;577961]Thanks for the credibility boost, though I have no care for what you think of my comments. I will just point out how neatly you skirt the debate: What exact debate.
I am not advocating any mine in particular. Read the point. NTL is a poor investment, it is a punt on another feasibility report, which the shareholders pay for, by an explorer with no timeframe to ROI.
Your absolutely wrong here baa. The ROI are clearly set out in their project plan and run through at AGM. Had it not been for the failed legal action they would be going for it earlier. Your measure of investment is baseless. All mines start from exploration. Prove up the resources and then follow the process from Scoping study to Gap analysis to PFS. This company formally heritage gold has passed those stages. The question as to whether such has been of value comes down to Cost of total exploration. That work has enabled the co to gain 3 highly prospective tenements and prove up 200,000 ounces of gold, complete a comprehensive PFS (which you seem to miss such has not been released only the technical summary) and complete all consenting requirements for a new mine. NZ is very difficult for any mining company let alone new mines and yet this company has traversed all the required consenting. To such an extent that the anti miners recently accepted the effects would be no more than minor and withdrew their action stating they were satisfied with the company plans. Clearly this doesn't suit your investment criteria but may suit others. What may be a poor investment in your opinion may be a significant opportunity to another. At least put some meat in your sandwich. Analysis of any kind would be a good start, other comparable mines at same level given JORC allows such quite easily, similar grade and geological settings etc etc. All you have put forward really is a bit of wool.
NTL, which has sucked untold years of investors capital to get to where? To gain 200,000 ounces of JORC compliant resources and 30,000 ounces of JORC compliant reserves and a ready to go mine plan and 2 whopping tenements for longer term upside. You talk about skirting points to others you have yet to make any rationale argument about the company the project or the extraction plans.
NTL is currently completing an offer to its shareholders to raise further funds", oh heck share price drops 12.5% on the 'great news'. Im not sure how much you have had to do with share offers but any CP is a red flag to the price the fact its traded above the offer price during the entire offer period is a good sign they priced this well. Immediately preceding the issue such was trading at 1 which it has for a year.
Some existing shareholders lost money on the great news of a cap raising and are about to be further diluted. The difference is 12.5%, not 14%. Calculate the capital dilution as well. Which shareholders were these the shares traded at 1 up until offer opened so all shareholders could sell if they wished and 1 is the highest raising these guys have done for years. To be of value such needs to be measured after allotment as a fully funded mine plan may well be worth much more to the company than the effective dilution price.
Flip to page.30 of the report, the numbers are so far out of date it's not funny. Worse though is the projected AU/AG prices which are around 35-45% down, though some think that is sustainably mitigated by a weaker NZD. Good luck with that one. Oh, and when does year 1 even start? Your looking at a PFS technical report and trying to understand a totally separate phase being bulk sampling which is the consents currently held. It shows how shallow your research has been on this Baa. Given you take a view gold is down forever actually its well up for NZ miners to higher than what they were getting at 1350.
In this reply "Consensus gold price of $1500USD in the report" you understate the consensus gold price in the report (actually consensus average US$1635) and overstate the current gold price "Current gold price circa $1200USD" which is actually $1172 or about 28% lower than the consensus average which is the basis of the income for the business case, beginning Year 1 which is somewhere in the never never assuming a feasible mine report.
Again your so confused. Their PFS states prices as they were at the time YET the project currently being undertaken for small scale mining has been outlined at 1200 per ounce. They are mining off the PFS and subsequent PROJECT PLAN for bulk sampling provides the data from what they have put out for a FS. Im not questioning your credibility I just think your going to lose some toes if you keep firing off before pulling your gun out of its holster. Actually have a good read as its an interesting company it cant be compared with Newcrest or Oceana and the play here is both the returns from longer term mining, rerating which will come with consistent production and uncovering the upside in Rahu (for which they have teamed with a major) and the mystery vein which is graded at 2 oz per ton.
And you question my credibility, and conclude with an insult. Good grief.
NZResources have this article on the report.
Quote:
1/7/2015 — Gold
NTL now sees itself at the production road
Aspiring North Island gold miner New Talisman Gold Mines Ltd (NZX & ASX: NTL) has told shareholders it now sees itself on a course towards production.
The company, which has had stockpiled parcels of ore from the Talisman gold mine at Karangahake treated at the nearby Newmont Waihi Gold plant in Waihi, said in its annual report that it now welcomes OceanaGold Corporation (TSX, NZX & ASX: OGC) which has just acquired the Newmont Waihi operations and exploration interests.
Another company it welcomed was Australian gold major Newcrest Mining Ltd (ASX: NCM) which has taken up a joint venture on ground surrounding New Talisman’s Talisman mine and Rahu tenements.
NTL said in its just-released 2015 annual report for the year to March 31 that the company was “further shaping itself into a producer from the company it was 12 short months ago.”
The difference, NTL said, was observable both at the mine site where tonnes of ore have been removed and processed and in the surrounding exploration landscape with new exploration programmes underway by major companies.
NTL said that with all legal hurdles now overcome the quest was now to raise funds, finalise a traffic management plan and accelerate the bulk sampling.
NTL said that under the resource consents it was allowed to extract 20,000 cubic metres per annum for two years. This represents up to 50,000 tonnes per annum which – based on average head grades could see up to 15,500 contained ounces of gold and 60,000 oz of contained silver achieved.
A start to bulk sampling would be dependent on installation of surface facilities and underground infrastructure – water, compressed air, electricity, roof support and a ventilation system.
“Assuming the current capital raising initiatives with both our partners and our current shareholders this is the next immediate focus prior to initiating underground works.”
NTL has a binding term sheet, subject to entering into satisfactory documentation, with a Chinese investor for development of Talisman.
NTL annual report. (1.6 megabytes)
Ok so from my reading of the ann report last night i wasn't quite clear on the bulk sampling, do they mean they would be able to continue the bulk sampling and processing ore WHILE they are completing the site work on the mine, the ventalation system et all?
More waiting but nothing we're not used to by now! 2 long years of holding I guess I am happy there is an approx date for the construction to begin (Nov) and they have all the money they need to complete this, so correct me if I am wrong but unless there is a major catastrophe it's all go from here? All the pieces of the puzzle are in place (waiting on the final confirmation for the land transport stuff?)
So, they didn't know about this delay yesterday before shareholders paid for their 7c shares...?
Yeah, right....!!
I wonder how many insiders are putting up $15k....
Chinese Investor Update
11:53am, 1 Jul 2015 | GENERAL
1 July 2015
CHINESE INVESTOR UPDATE
New Talisman Gold Mines (NTL or the Company) today announces it has received a request by the Chinese investor group to extend the settlement date for their investment into New Talisman for a period of 45 days. The Group is currently finalising discussions with a co-investment partner in China having completed satisfactory Due Diligence on the Talisman project.
Matthew Hill said “We continue to work closely with our partner on this investment into one of the most historically productive gold mines in NZ. This investment coupled with funds raised from the SPP will allow for the full funding of the Talisman bulk sampling project.
Matthew Hill
CEO
New Talisman Gold Mines Limited
Direct +64 27 5557737
Matt@newtalisman.co.nz
That was my reading of it too. Somewhat ambiguous but seemingly what they were getting at.
I agree - although look at the likes of MEL and NZAS. They were in discussions over the course of the night and sought an extension by agreement.
I do agree that if they knew beforehand then the content of the annual report should have been amended, however I find it more likely that NTL wouldn't have known until today.
I guess I'll see what Mr Hill has to say :D
Crackity
They already have all the consents. Tailings don't exist as there is no tailings dam it is all offsite. Even the greenies recently agreed that the project plan for their small scale mining has no effect on the environment and subsequently withdrew any opposition. Even though its small scale tonnage wise it doesn't take many tonnes at the very high grades they have to return great value. 20,000 cubic metres for 2 years is over 30,000 tonnes approx per year. At their foretasted head grade that's 300,000 grams per annum yet if they hit the areas they have targeted which have proven resources at 50g/t that could be huge. If you look at the history this was last mining in the 90s and they had ridiculous grades in the kgs per tonne range. As thsi is in one of the most modified areas in NZ there is no doubt they will get all consents. They already do. The Rahu deposit is private land so no problems there as such is simply a case of accessing from underground. You sound very similar to a previous poster goodasgold.
Amazed to hear you havent lost money, you obviously didnt invest in Glass earth and CRP which lost millions?