Are gold miners really “high grading” their mines?

POSTED ON May 06, 2014 BY CEO Technician
CATEGORY Barrick Gold, Gold, Mining, Stories,

By Uncle Kick-Kick (Patrick Huber) (Round Mountain gold mine Uploaded by PDTillman) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Round Mountain gold mine via Wikimedia Commons

Tommy here... The gold mining industry has heard a lot about companies "high grading" their deposits to target the highest margin ores, thus sterilizing the lower grade material, as a defensive measure amid the past three year bear market in gold and mining stocks.

Adam Simmons, Ph.D. Geology and Investment Advisor at PI Financial, who co-author's the Digging Through The Dirt newsletter with fellow IA's Bill Whitehead and Justin Hayek, has done a simple comparison of reserve grades to mined grades and found little variation.

"Simply put the mine plan dictates the grade produced and not the commodity prices or market conditions."

Mr. Simmons suspects cost saving measures are coming in other places such as cuts to exploration and development expenditures as well as staff.

Here's an excerpt from the latest Digging Through The Dirt newsletter:

Random Thoughts

Based on a colleague’s suggestion that producing gold companies are high grading their mines to make their mines more profitable, he suggested it would be interesting to look at the reserve grades of the gold mines vs their mill head grades. I thought this would be an interesting exercise that may establish if this was indeed taking place. Since I currently maintain a database of resources and reserves for over 130 producing gold mines globally it should be very easy to input the mill head grades from the last quarter for all of the companies I track. While I will admit that the list of companies is not complete, it does contain the most of the world’s top 10 gold miners (by ounces produced) and provides a good cross-section of the industry. Included in this list is( in no particular order): Kinross, Osisko, IAMGold, Agnico Eagle, Newmont, Barrick, Goldcorp, Anglogold, Eldorado, Yamana, Polyus, Randgold, Goldfields and Centerra. There are a few holes in the data.

Firstly, the reserve numbers for about 75% of the mines are about one year out of date, but realistically these probably haven’t changed significantly in terms of grade. Secondly, some companies when reporting their mill head grades batch a region together as opposed to breaking down into individual mines, for example, Newmont batches their entire Nevada operations together, so they were not included in this dataset. With that said lets have a look at the data.

Based on this plot I see little to no high grading actually happening on a global basis. Though there is variation in the dataset it remains more or less one to one. When going into great detail within the dataset, I noted that Barrick and Newmont are the only companies consistently producing higher grades than their reserve grades. Note again that Newmont’s Nevada operations are not included in this. Additionally, there was a regional emphasis for mines located in Africa and Australia to produce higher grades than their reserve grades, though this is not a great correlation. Now, lets take the data set one step further and produce a quantile plot, which should eliminate mine by mine bias and look at the validity of the above statements on a broader data set scale.

This plot shows that for the most part there is little variation in the mined grades vs reserve grades, but does break down in the high grade mines beyond about 7/g/t. After eliminating mine by mine bias this again shows very little to no high grading is actually happening.

Although I don’t readily have the numbers together, I suspect where the “cost savings” may be coming from is by boosting production at more profitable mines and scaling back production at less profitable mines. In addition to “cutting out the fat” by scaling back exploration budgets, laying off staff that are not critical to their operations and perhaps scaling back compensation to executives and directors.

Simply put the mine plan dictates the grade produced and not the commodity prices or market conditions. That is once a mine plan is put in place there may not be an option to high grade the deposit any any given time, so the producers, for the most part have to remain committed to the mine plan.

That’s what I see from the data! An interesting exercise that I may be able to expand on in the future.

The April 2014 edition of Digging Through The Dirt PDF can be downloaded here.

Contact the gentlemen at PI Financial to subscribe.

CEO Technician

10 year veteran trader & portfolio manager focused on US/Canadian equities, precious metals futures, US Treasury bond futures, and foreign currency utilizing a technical approach with a deep macro-market understanding. More →

ceotech@ceo.ca

CEO Technician

ceotech@ceo.ca

Disclaimer:

Readers are advised that the material contained herein is solely for information purposes. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and due diligence, and/or obtain professional advice. Nothing contained herein constitutes a representation by the publisher, nor a solicitation for the purchase or sale of securities. The information contained herein is based on sources which the publisher believes to be reliable, but is not guaranteed to be accurate, and does not purport to be a complete statement or summary of the available data. Any opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. The owner, editor, writer and publisher and their associates are not responsible for errors or omissions. They may from time to time have a position in the securities of the companies mentioned herein, and may change their positions without notice. (Any significant positions will be disclosed explicitly. This article is not intended to meet your specific individual investment needs and it is not tailored to your personal financial situation. Nothing contained herein constitutes, is intended, or deemed to be — either implied or otherwise — investment advice. Thomas Humphreys, Pacific Website Company Inc., and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. We reserve the right to buy and sell such securities or commodities without notice to readers. While the information herein is believed to be accurate and reliable it is not guaranteed or implied to be so. The information herein may not be complete or correct; it is provided in good faith but without any legal responsibility or obligation to provide future updates. Neither Thomas Humphreys, nor anyone else, accepts any responsibility, or assumes any liability, whatsoever, for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from the use of the information in these publications or web site.

Forward-Looking Statements: This article may include certain "forward-looking information" within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include predictions, projections and forecasts and are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek", "anticipate", "believe", "plan", "estimate", "forecast", "expect", "potential", "project", "target", "schedule", budget" and "intend" and statements that an event or result "may", "will", "should", "could" or "might" occur or be achieved and other similar expressions and includes the negatives thereof. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding the potential of the Company's properties are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Company's expectations include actual exploration results, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future metal prices, availability of capital and financing on acceptable terms, general economic, market or business conditions, uninsured risks, regulatory changes, delays or inability to receive required approvals, and other exploration or other risks detailed herein and from time to time in the filings made by the Company with securities regulators. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause such actions, events or results to differ materially from those anticipated. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate and accordingly readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements which speak only as of the date of this article. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation, except to the extent required by law, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Always do your own due diligence. We seek safe harbor.