RE: Historic Use of the Mining Names Bonanza and Morocota28 Oct 2025 17:35
The statement you quoted came from a 2014 review commissioned by St. Elias Mines Ltd., the former operator and owner of the Tesoro gold property in southern Peru.
At that time:
• Gold was roughly $1,200–$1,300/oz,
• The operation was manual, small-scale, and
• No modern infrastructure (roads, power, or water access) had been developed.
So when the report said “not currently economically viable,” it meant at that time, with their setup and gold price, it wasn’t worth pursuing production — not that the deposit was worthless.
⸻
⚒️ 2️⃣ Fast Forward to NTVO’s Position
NTVO (through its local subsidiaries) now controls the Tesoro/Bonanza vein system — the same district — but the circumstances are completely different:
Essentially, the conditions that made it uneconomic in 2014 have been flipped on their head.
⸻
💡 3️⃣ Key Economic Changes That Matter
1. Gold Price Doubled → Revenue Potential Doubled
The same ounce that was marginal at $1,200 /oz now generates nearly twice the revenue, which massively changes the economics of narrow-vein mining.
2. In-House Processing → Margin Capture
NTVO’s La Patona plant (once operational) means they keep the processing margin instead of paying a third-party mill — exactly the issue St. Elias identified in 2014.
3. Smaller, Focused Scale → Lower Capex Requirement
NTVO is targeting a small, cash-flow-positive start-up rather than a huge capital-intensive build.
That means they can prove up the project without multi-million-dollar upfront costs.
4. Improved Infrastructure in Southern Peru
Since 2014, access roads, power, and services in Arequipa/Tacna regions have expanded, reducing logistical hurdles.
5. Fresh Technical Study (Bonanza Vein Study)
The October 2025 RNS explicitly said the current on-site work will “provide the technical basis to recommence small-scale mining.”
Sign In
Follow the stocks
