Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Lower mining costs are offset by higher depreciation from the spend for the dragline and powerlines as AISC includes depreciation. Grades could be higher than expected but the grades they have mined in recent years have been lower than previous years.
It would be expected for a mining company to give a costs breakdown, EUA don't give any.
That's kind of you.
5/12/17 Indicative cash costs below $400/ounce. Cash cost is different to AISC. Nice to see them using a 6 year old indicative cost because they have never given any actual costs since that RNS to my knowledge.
To have any meaning you need to know the grade being mined that gave the $400/ounce. If the grade being mined to work those costs was 1g/t and you are now mining at 0.5g/t then the AISC have increased by a large amount.
Hi Summit,
You are saying WK can be profitable due to AISC and mentioned $400 AISC just now on another thread.
Can I ask where this figure comes from and what it relates to, per tonne ore, per ounce. Without relating to anything it's meaningless.
Dickie88, RNS 30 Sept 22, when you read the grades bear in mind the average grade of proven reserves at WK are 325mgms/m3.
The anticipated 40% increase over booked reserves hasn't been happening though, the 40% increase was mainly due to one years past production where they were getting 3 to 5 times higher grades than anticipated. 2022 expected 454mgms/m3 actual 363mgms/m3, 2021 expected 332mgms/m3 actual 244mgms/m3.
The inferred 21.6t is precisely that, inferred. The inferred 10t from the original area came back to 4.4t. The drill results from the flanks so far show low grades whith only 2 results being potentially economic, the other results not being economic get removed from the potential 21.6t. That's the difference between inferred resources and proven reserves which I have been raising continually for years.
There has been only one year where a breakdown of the metals at WK has been given.
By weight of raw Pt Rhodium was 0.65%, Iridium 3.3%, Pd 0.25% and Gold 0.6%.
Your future PGM prices are very different from ones I've seen, Pd especially doesn't look good.
64000oz/year is 1814kg/year. Current booked reserves 4400kg (minus 2 years of production) gives a mine life of 2 and a bit years. Current drill results from the flanks areas don't look promising for adding to booked reserves.
As you have no idea of production costs as the company doesn't give any your conservative figure of £10m costs on £30m revenue is somewhat questionable to be polite.
It doesn't change that EUA are looking to employ people at WK which suggests mining may start again but I believe there are only 4 jobs on offer. 4 surveyors 3 mechanics and 3 electricians makes no sense for a small mine.
If you click on the link in the tweet and scroll down the page and click on Surveyors (4) it lists to the right 4 different towns, Serov, Nizhny Tagil, Krasnoturinsk and Ekarterinborg, so same job advertised in 4 different towns.
Google longforecast.com/palladium and it gives estimated future prices, also for Platinum. Pt doesn't look to be doing much but Pd looks worse than now.
Currently though Iridium is going well which I hadn't noticed, around $6000/oz. Good thing for WK because it has some Iridium, around 3.3% of the raw Platinum by weight, also lower amounts of Gold and Rhodium. So revisiting my value of contained metals at WK, up from $4.7/t of ore to $5.44.
Hi Trowtech,
DS bought 60m for £3m so 5p a share, held by Deloan, 17/6/2008.
Queeld bought 288.5m for £2.885m so 1p a share, 4/4/12.
Update 26/5/16 had Queeld at 307m and DS via Deloan at 281.5m, don't know what they paid though to get to these holdings.
MAB,
What embarrassed silence? I have a life outside of this discussion board, hope that's ok by you as I wasn't aware I needed your permission or was contractually bound to be present or to answer your questions, especially those I have already answered.
Need to get onto admin Stretchy, clearly your green bin isn't working.
If you are a serious investor and I am full of sheet as I constantly prove then go ahead and prove it, show how serious an investor you are and post something that shows some substance because just proving you are a seriously unpleasant person who can shoot your gob off shows you are the pathetic loser.
MAB, you seem to suffer from projection, accusing others of things you are guilty of. You claim I'm a disengenuous charlatan and yet continue to claim I say things I haven't.
It is all about grades at WK but I haven't made that claim against MT or NKT. I have never said the goods at Kola are substandard. I have said that it's very hard to know any value for MT when drill results and DFS are being witheld and what amount of reserves/resources are in the open pits at L and WN because clearly not all of them are.
friendsps, why do you post if you have no agenda? and I am invested.
Richard98, they can't be genuine investors then, just gambling and hoping for a good outcome with no understanding of what they have invested in.
MAB, you do provide some comedy gold here.
I don't think the goods at WK or Kola are substandard, I'm sure all the PGM's etc are just as good a standard as anyone elses. I have queried the profitability at WK because of the very low grades being mined there.
The contained metal values in a ton of ore at WK are under $5/t which I would say are not close to profitable because that figure doesn't allow for mineral tax, refining fees and is based on LSE prices. It allows for the other metals being priced at twice PT prices but doesn't include the free Au (to give you the opportunity to come back and claim I am a serial charlatan for not including the free Au). Tonne of ore contains 0.325g/m3 raw Pt, assume 80% by weight pure Pt, Pt price $28.92/g, a m3 of ore is 1.6t of gravel = $4.7/t of ore.
I have no wish to add to my holding here, I would rather not have it but there is a small chance the BOD may get a low value sale away at a higher price than the current sp.
I look forward to your final post here where the fact you talk utter rubbish is clear to all.
Hi Makeafoolofyourself,
Go you, 37 tick ups, you must be pleased as you post to please the majority, all that utter bobbins suggesting you know how CS is thinking and what offers he will accept, you pretend to know how many bidders are at the table, that you know Potanin and NN will be waiting to bite CS's hand off to get what EUA has to offer. Total and utter fantasy nonesense of course and suggests the one people need to be warry of is you. Why didn't you post the negatives surrounding WK, suggests you have an agenda to me.
Why didn't I mention the potential of the flanks areas at WK? Because EUA explored the flanks and settled on the area they are mining as the best area, so the flanks were considered less interesting and the recently released drill results don't look very good. With the current mined area the 10t of potential from inferred resources came down to 4.5t when properly drilled, so the potential 20t of inferred resources will likely come down to 9t or less, hardly a lot.
Why didn't I mention the possible 40% uplift in declared reserves/resources? I did, since the RNS they have mined less than expected, not 40% more. The first year of production saw 3 to 5 times the expected grades being mined, for that figure to come down to 40% above expected suggests it was only the first year when they mined more than expected.
Why didn't I mention the ESG credentials? Because if WK isn't profitable the ESG credentials add nothing.
Why didn't I mention the very low AISC at WK? Because on their own the AISC are meaningless.
You can have very high AISC and still have a far more profitable mine than one with the lowest AISC in the world, grades being mined are the important bit and that is why I mentioned them because they have never been discussed before.
EUA have never published the detail of the DFS at WK, that detail would show what the AISC were and how profitable the mine might be, without that detail we don't have an idea how profitable, or not, WK is. EUA don't provide a year end break down of costs at WK, nor do they detail how profitable it is or give guidance to expected production for the coming year, all pretty normal and expected for a mining company.
Whilst you may imagine having very low AISC should point to WK being profitable in fact, on it's own, it tells you nothing really. Because EUA refuse to provide any figures for profitability at WK you need to combine the mined grades with the AISC to suggest profitability.
Mined grades at WK are very low so, despite the low AISC, profit margins will be very slim and very sensitive to metal price changes (that is, if it has ever made an actual profit).
No agenda from me, just me doing what I have always done, pointing to the reality of what you are all invested in. Doesn't make me popular but I'm not here to be popular unlike Makeafoolofyourself.
Hi Makeafoolofyourself,
"Every serious investor should reread the RNS on WK (and then his post) just to see how red his face is or ought to be"
But you haven't explained why I should be red faced have you? What substance have you added to show what I said was wrong, none, just a load of useless bluster attacking the poster not the post, standard rampers response. Any serious investor should have interest in the grades being mined at WK, clearly you (and all that tick you up) are nothing close to serious investors, just chancers hoping to get lucky.
Then there's Leno, call him out to add anything of substance and he runs off with his tail between his legs because he is incapable.
All these people bemoaning nothing of value being added and wanting to debate the company and just add nothing but childish insults when things of relevance are brought up.
Grades being mined at WK bore you, might explain why you're underwater here.