Member Info for Daisan

There is always a bit of head scratching around AISC. For SHG I could work it out with a bit of number shuffling and come up with the right answer for cash generation/burn but I am not sure I can from the information here. What is and isn't included in AISC is quite often debatable. I think it is fair enough that the water treatment plant and Ugur development are not but it is not clear enough what the $3.4m is used for other than 'deferred stripping' and I don't know to which ore body that relates. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt - they don't appear to be an outfit that tries to hide things.

There seem to be one too many trades listed there and you wonder why this could not have been done off market. Still, it is a decent commitment by the CEO and with any other company this would be a buy signal. However, here it is still difficult to believe that this is anything other than a lifestyle company and the money spent on the shares here will easily find its way back into his pocket from the company. Difficult to oust the board here as well and the fact that this trades at a 60% discount to liquid assets is testament to what the market thinks about the situation. You still keep your fingers crossed that they will actually do something one day but considering they were cash rich at a time when we were going through the worst commodities downturn in living memory, it is hard to believe that they will do something now when they haven't for the last few years.

Are out and show nothing we didn't already know or have extrapolated (as usual). Highlights are: Gold production down a lot Silver production down Copper production up AISC down a lot (20%!) Loss for the year Cash generation down substantially but still positive Debt reduced to just under $30m Cash on hand about the same So, nothing too surprising. But this is history. The quarterlies are much more significant and they have already indicated that production from Ugur will be significant from September.

Not just the martians buying then sparky. :-)

Because it reduces geopolitical risk kenj and, hence, makes it more likely that development will progress.

What a bizarre situation. Nothing like open and honest communication eh?

Excellent news.

Not sure there is a need to shout and I am not sure I have a clue what you are talking about. Who are these technical traders? I sold a few months ago because they failed to meet production targets and were shifting operations to a deposit that they didn't even have a resource defined for. The fact that they have proved up and started producing at Ugur in such quick time is a credit to the company but you could hardly say that it wasn't an operational risk and it wasn't one I was willing to go along with. Many years of investing in gold miners has taught me to be cautious at times like that.

I think that Visitor's assessment is correct here. Not sure why this should be contentious. Everyone agrees that, if AAZ fulfils the plans and the gold price remains positive, this should perform very well. Historically the issue has been that they did not meet their targets, the gold price was weak, debts were high and, unfortunately there was a substantial seller. I am ambivalent about stating production as GEO. It seemed to me at the time that it was seeking to hide under performance. However, if copper, in particular, becomes a more significant part of production then it starts to make sense. But Visitor is correct - the AISC would have been calculated using copper credits so if you move to GEO these would have to removed in calculating AISC. In terms of profit the AIC (all in costs) is a better guide. There is a calculation on A D V F N which gives this for many gold miners, including, AAZ but I can't vouch for how accurate it is. It is stated as $898. I do not know whether this is per ounce or per GEO. If it is the former then the latter will be higher. Remember when utilising PE ratios this is a post tax profit having removed depreciation, amortisation and interest payments, so I would say the figures suggested are somewhat too high. One further point, Ugur currently has resources/reserves that cover less years of production that they would like (7 is usually a good minimum guide) so it would be good to see these increase. All this aside, AAZ seems to be positioned well to take advantage of any gold price rise. As an added bonus, AAZ has none of the geopolitical issues that other gold miners, such as ACA and SHG, are currently experiencing

At a time when gold prices are relatively strong. Resolution of the funding requirement would likely transform the situation, assuming that it is largely debt. With the resources they have this must be one of the cheapest gold miners on the market.

Incredible performance on bringing Ugur on line so quickly. This is likely to be the main component of production for some time so I would caution on the 100k+ oz estimates, the company isn't forecasting that although this may be achievable on an equivalence basis. At those levels the company should be generating significant amounts of cash. The company is to be commended on their achievement here. Given their recent success in hitting production targets, I confess that I did not expect this to be the case!

This may well be the case in the future but there are a couple of errors in his arguments. Firstly, you cannot overlook withholding the VAT when considering the cost cutting. This is by far a bigger factor than the royalties although the long term effect for Shanta may perversely be positive as the cost cuts flow through to the bottom line. Secondly, he explicitly states that Shanta has not cut back on growth. Really? Singida and exploration have been cut. Helios takeover has been shelved. If he is referring to development underground, this can't be cut otherwise you are undermining current operations. So, whilst I suspect that he is right in the longer term, the short term impact is significant and negative for both Shanta and Tanzania. By the way, somebody asked if I had got back in. I never got out. I was looking to extend my holding but have held off until this has blown over. I confess that I am not convinced by the divers for gold either currently - North Korea is not sufficient to permanently shift the gold price unless it comes to war which I suspect that it won't. And if it did, the last thing I will be thinking about is my personal wealth!

Just to avoid confusion, those figures related to the Tulkubash heap leach project so any extrapolation of resource size should be based on the current Tulkubash resource of 800k oz (I exclude inferred).

No problem. It was all in the RNS or on their website after all.

Being ramped on Twitter.

Gorsuch, It's not exactly shooting ahead on that news (wrongly in my opinion) so I wouldn't expect you to have to pay much more.

Just to put this into context, the existing resource is based on an 1100m strike length. This has now been doubled to 2200m and the indications are that the mineralisation extends at least a further 1000m. However, the mineralisation has been traced for a length of 10km. Clearly this has not been drill tested and the language used suggests that it hasn't gone through any modelling process. But the implication is that there is significantly more to go for here and the operation could be significantly larger with a longer life than originally planned. Given a strong gold price and the continuation of these results, I suspect that we are looking at a deposit that will be larger than 10m is gold. That is major league and will definitely attract considerable interest. Just need to get the thing going.

That is actually a stunning update, expressed in rather understated way (which I like). The implication is a very significant increase in resources for the first project. Consider that this project, at 900k oz with 500k+ in the measured category, is as large as most company's total resource and that it is only 13% of the total resource. That should indicate just what a significant ore body this is. I wonder whether the market will appreciate it or whether it is now just looking for cash related news items.

Possibly but I suspect that there will be some sort of out of court arrangement before it gets to that. I think Shanta are in a pretty strong position on this but you would rather these things not go to court.

Unfortunately this seems to be heading towards a dispute. The company is looking slightly accident prone at the moment and this is masking the excellent operational and financial performance. This is actually pretty small beer and to be honest if they just reinstated the deal it wouldn't impact enormously. Just one more irritant I'm afraid. Sadly some dumped immediately on the news which would appear to be a somewhat knee jerk reaction.