Member Info for aprogerson

@Max Possibly but from memory Sturec was 'stick' in seemingly interminable issues around the mining licence including part of the town so everyone was against it or some such. Clearly this looks to have been resolved and MetalTech are cracking on.

@Ash. Okay I'm with you now I was looking at oz produced not oz sold ... so the comparative picture:
Q3 produced = 24,722oz & Sold = 23,794oz @$1,919/oz or $45.66m gold sold where AISC = $1,283 so $30.5m 'AISC costs'
Q2 produced = 25,054oz & Sold = 31,520oz @$1,663/oz or $52.4m gold sold where AISC = $983 so $31.0m 'AISC costs'
Q1 produced = 30,282oz & Sold = 24,575oz @$1,568/oz or $38.53m gold sold where AISC = $875 so $21.5m 'AISC costs'

Commentary: So assuming I've now 'got it' the AISC related cost in Q2 & Q3 are very similar, but each around 50% higher than Q1 everything else being equal. The 'kicker' then is that the SP rose after Q2 results as gold sales were well above Q1 but fell back in Q3 as oz produced dropped even as the gold price rose.

However you look at it gold sold or produced for Q1 to Q3 is around 79/80koz leaving Q4 to produce and sell around 31koz to meet or (just) exceed minimum BoD guidance. Also since Q1 end AISC related costs are running at +$10m so it will be interesting to see what has been driving that and if it can be brought back down or is now 'baked in'?
APR

@Ash Interesting as Q2 and Q3 production was very similar but AISC was $300/oz higher in Q3 than Q2 implying a massive change in costs between quarters. Q3 report talks about $5m spent in Q3 on exploration so that seems the likely culprit. As we are awaiting eth Kourossa licence and Dugbe is being progressed via Earn-In how much more exploration costs are likely in Q4?

To put investors minds at ease HUM could easily have highlighted the additional costs as in-quarter one-offs and outlined forecast costs but chose not so.

Sorry chaps AISC has nothing to do with sales, but everything to do with direct costs, so that various miners cost bases can be compared on a like-for-like basis without any accompanying spin. It was introduced by the World Gold Council in 2013.
All-In Sustaining Costs = Cash Costs (incl. by-product credits) +Sustaining Capital +Exploration expenses + G & A expenses.

Commentary: Q3 AISC was not good news but 'free cash' before other costs has been consistent
Q3 AISC = $1,283 & Realised Gold price = $1,919 so 'free cash' before other expenditure = $636/oz
Q2 AISC = $983 & Realised Gold price = $1,663 so 'free cash' before other expenditure = $680/oz
Q1 AISC = $875 & Realised Gold price = $1,568 so 'free cash' before other expenditure = $693/oz

The real issue is the drop in production where Q1 = 30.3koz, Q2 = 24.1koz and Q3 = 24.7koz so if Q4 production is similar to Q3 then full year production will be 103.8koz vs. 110koz lower end of guidance.

Q3 Results maintained 2020 production guidance @110koz - 125koz implying Q4 production of minimum 41koz which seems IMHO somewhere between quite a stretch and fanciful.

Note: AISC excludes indirect costs of mining such as dividends, tax, financing or interest payments and gives no view of LOM or the BoDs delivery track record.
APR

@yezzerr Direct link to ASX update http://www.metalstech.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/02301113.pdf
Looks like more Jam tomorrow ... oh yes we are explorers that is what we do and so do MetalTech!

From RNS 30-Dec-19:
"The Resource Upgrade Royalty
If, within 2 years of the disposal, the Šturec JORC Indicated and Measured Resource exceeds 1.5 million ounces gold at a grade greater than 2.5g/t (inclusive of recoverable Ag equivalent), MTC will pay Arc a further A$2 royalty per additional ounce of gold. This royalty is capped at 7 million ounces of gold. "

Current JORC is 1026Koz and ASX announcement is for significant additional intercepts at grades much higher than 2.5g/t so it looks likes there is a very good chance that the additional 473Koz or more will be declared in due course triggering a Royalty Payment to ARCM.
AIMHO APR

@hitman Thanks, do you have a link please?

Following a nice bounce it looks like the bottom is in as long as we close above 3.65p (established 14-Aug-20) today which will become support. Prior uptrend channel support now resistance has been retested already @3.95p. A close above 3.95p would be very welcome!
IMHO APR

Deadline for transaction close for £260k sale to GUN closes today for a balance of £240k cash ..... fingers crossed for a positive result and neat Exit!

@Rich agreed ... the market has beaten HUM with their own awful quarterly reported AISC. Still on the plus side the likelihood of much better results next quarter have risen significantly!

@Rich I have it at 28-Oct-20 open @35.5p below daily open/close and close @34.51p below interday low trend line from 17/18-Mar-20. Take your pick it broke both in one day and close below the lower one.
Semantics really, it's broken support and unhappy
AIMHO APR

@Trek Having now read the report the Forecast cash of 6.9 quarters includes current Mt Oxide drill programme and London listing costs, so a very healthy cash position indeed implying at least 6.9 quarters of this level of exploration. Nice!

Is it me but 20m to 30m intercepts at or above 0.5% at relatively shallow depth indicate strong possibility of an open pit operation being feasible? Throw in shallow higher grade intercepts will boosts overall likely head grades.
... and much higher grade sulphides at depth of 150-200m again point to an viable open pit operation
AIMHO APR

Very nice RNS ... continuity over 1000m and grades in excess of 0.51%. Sentinel would be happy with those grades and scale!

@kainos (doffs cap)

@kainos

Unfortunately HUM Price broke down below uptrend support @34.5p yesterday & has headed lower today. Next support is 32.75p or just below 30p if the sell-off continues.

@Anselmo Whilst I struggle to disagree with the general thrust of what you are saying the other PGM price drivers are:
(1) real interest rates - low or negative real rates support PGM
(2) Dollar strength - inverse relationship. Likely multi-$trillion post-election 'deal' unlikely to help dollar
(3) negative rates bonds - negative real returns make gold an increasingly attractive alternative
(4) Pensions - starting to move into gold and gold miners in very small way ... likely to accelerate
(5) Miner valuation relatively low - so Apple MCap will buy all Global gold/silver miners 2 or 3 times over!
(6) Gold/silver miner/metal ETFs - used as cash proxy so if stocks tank ETFs draw down to release cash to meet margin calls, ETFs shed real metal and forces metal price down
(7) Increase in global money supply - tends to increase inflation affecting real interest rate as central banks suppress their interest rates
(8) Global monetary reset - if it happens will it be backed by gold, global crypto, SDPRs or something else?
... need I go on, but these things do not move in a straight line?
AIMHO APR

I think given the 'Delays' in publishing drill and assay results via RNS that these must fall under remit of the Exclusivity Agreement, the associated NDA and/or they have been paid for by AAL. From AALs perspective this makes sense as it shuts out any potential 3rd party until they have tabled what they want to in a timeframe that suits them.

Easy to forget that the Gold : Silver ratio of 1:80 is historically very high and likely to drop back towards long term average of 1:20 implying a potential 4x uplift in silver price even if Gold stays static. As silver has been found in very large quantities relative to gold at numerous of GWMO licences this is VERY positive.

@ballio you're not wrong as everything has moved in the right direction and is massively better but the SP has not gone anywhere .. go figure!