Medusa Share Discussion Threads

[arja] 01/9/2015 00:00

atlantic- I confess I do not study the fundamentals but I just showed it as it appears to be what the aussie punters are thinking . But I take your point . I took a loss recently when I ventured into MML for first time for ages and I thought it might have bottomed and ready to edge gradually up . Good luck .

[richie496] 31/8/2015 17:31

For those interested in mining companies check this Interview with Charles Gibson: Head of Mining at Edison Research

[bluelynx] 31/8/2015 16:10

Yes Chip, thank you for clarifying that was indeed misinformation from Osblue.

[garrymorrow] 31/8/2015 16:05

Chip you're a star!

[deka1] 31/8/2015 14:42

Chip cheers again, this ozblue guy says he sold out of MML a long time ago ,there is the reason for his post imo,he don't hold.

[chipperfrd] 31/8/2015 14:14

For clarity - here is my answer to the (very) misleading post by 'ozblue' on Hot Copper:

Ozblue

You are incorrect regarding AISC!

The figures published in the quarterlies are clear - you just need to take the trouble of checking it yourself.

December quarter 2014 outflows (all in US$):
Exploration = 2.9m
Capital works = 2.1m
Development = 9.6m
Corporate = 1.7m
Totals = 16.3m

Production = 26,859 oz
Therefore outflows/oz = US$607
Plus cash costs of US$380 = US$987/oz (reported AISC was US$989/oz)

March quarter 2015 outflows (all in US$):
Exploration = 3.1m
Capital works = 2.2m
Development = 9.3m
Corporate = 1.8m
Totals = 16.4m

Production = 23,940 oz
Therefore outflows/oz = US$685
Plus cash costs of US$391 = US$1,076/oz (reported AISC was US$1,073/oz)

June quarter 2015 outflows (all in US$):
Exploration = 2.6m
Capital works = 2.2m
Development = 9.6m
Corporate = 2.0
Totals = 16.4m

Production = 26,542 oz
Therefore outflows/oz = US$618
Plus cash costs of US$390 = US$1,008/oz (reported AISC was US$1,076/oz)

I don't know why MML reported their AISC some US$68 higher - but it certainly contained Development outlays!

[atlantic57] 31/8/2015 12:59

Arja this article appears to be factually incorrect as all in costs would be just that.

It is good to have healthy discussion but if the basic premise is inaccurate then you can't use it in a discussion.

[bluelynx] 31/8/2015 12:53

Certainly is Atlantic, especially as at first I thought it was your thoughts!

[atlantic57] 31/8/2015 12:49

Blue thanks it is disturbing that someone can post an article like this as fact when it is clearly very misleading.

cheers

[bluelynx] 31/8/2015 12:46

Atlan

I have just read the Hot copper BB and I believe chip has already corrected the assumption made by Osblue. Chips nick name on the Hot copper bulletin boards being CPDLC.

[atlantic57] 31/8/2015 12:34

Blue thank you.

yes i did cut and paste this from the other thread .

i agree logically all in costs must include capital expenditure.

[bluelynx] 31/8/2015 12:16

Atlantic

I would have thought development cost (stopes development) would be certain to be included in the AISC. I am sure that would not have been missed by chips forensic eye.




------view on aussie thread .

Unless gold does a reversal of trend, this company will not perform any better. They continually put mine development costs, that are always in the range of $9m/qtr in as a capital spend when it should be in AISC and operating expenditure.
If they didn't spend the money on it they can't get to the next stopes. This is an expense that will continue until the mine runs out of economic gold and closes.

Adding this expense to AISC and it is easy to see why they consistently don't make any money. With all the book entries that are for accounting and tax purposes, the cash at the end of the year, was about the same as the prior year.


Medusa is just a bet on the price of gold with the life of mine rapidly falling, the mining is happening at deeper levels, so more expense, and the exploration is finding nothing of value for the company to continue with.

I bailed at $1.64 minutes before the disastrous June quarterly came out last year, as the writing was on the wall with falling share price below crucial support levels just before the quarterly. Despite everything that has been stated with reducing costs less capital expenditure etc, they just cannot turn a profit to pay a dividend to shareholders and I cannot see this changing unless we get a rise of a couple of hundred dollars an ounce. Even then unless they find more high grade gold somewhere, then the shortening mine life will continue to see the price under pressure.

As it only took a little bit of selling to push the price back to one of the lowest prices for years, then that tells all loud and clear there is not support for it by anyone big yet. How low before buying pressure starts? No idea, but this could continue to go down to 40 or 30 cents before buying starts with any conviction, but is more likely to follow the price of gold.------

My guess is that this poster on the Aussie BB is just trying to create fear.

[atlantic57] 31/8/2015 11:53

This article has been posted on the other mml thread ( not my thoughts)

Unless gold does a reversal of trend, this company will not perform any better. They continually put mine development costs, that are always in the range of $9m/qtr in as a capital spend when it should be in AISC and operating expenditure.
If they didn't spend the money on it they can't get to the next stopes. This is an expense that will continue until the mine runs out of economic gold and closes.

Adding this expense to AISC and it is easy to see why they consistently don't make any money. With all the book entries that are for accounting and tax purposes, the cash at the end of the year, was about the same as the prior year.

Is this factually correct as it is a very fundamental point. If all in costs incude capital expenditure or exlude capital expenditure.

thank you

[arja] 31/8/2015 11:22

view on aussie thread .

Unless gold does a reversal of trend, this company will not perform any better. They continually put mine development costs, that are always in the range of $9m/qtr in as a capital spend when it should be in AISC and operating expenditure.
If they didn't spend the money on it they can't get to the next stopes. This is an expense that will continue until the mine runs out of economic gold and closes.

Adding this expense to AISC and it is easy to see why they consistently don't make any money. With all the book entries that are for accounting and tax purposes, the cash at the end of the year, was about the same as the prior year.


Medusa is just a bet on the price of gold with the life of mine rapidly falling, the mining is happening at deeper levels, so more expense, and the exploration is finding nothing of value for the company to continue with.

I bailed at $1.64 minutes before the disastrous June quarterly came out last year, as the writing was on the wall with falling share price below crucial support levels just before the quarterly. Despite everything that has been stated with reducing costs less capital expenditure etc, they just cannot turn a profit to pay a dividend to shareholders and I cannot see this changing unless we get a rise of a couple of hundred dollars an ounce. Even then unless they find more high grade gold somewhere, then the shortening mine life will continue to see the price under pressure.

As it only took a little bit of selling to push the price back to one of the lowest prices for years, then that tells all loud and clear there is not support for it by anyone big yet. How low before buying pressure starts? No idea, but this could continue to go down to 40 or 30 cents before buying starts with any conviction, but is more likely to follow the price of gold.

[eintracht] 30/8/2015 12:47

Nor has Gold unfortunately.

[goodgrief] 29/8/2015 17:45

Well, Libor rates haven't spiked as a consequence... ?

[stevea171] 29/8/2015 16:19

Dooby Dave. link:
hxxp://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1906.htm

This site can be sensationalist but, like Atlantic, I think there could be some truth in the report. HSBC is not going to admit anything at this stage so we will have to see what transpires in the coming days and weeks ....

Equally the MSM will not be allowed to print such a story unless HSBC put out an official statement after a fix. Not in the middle of a crisis!

[atlantic57] 29/8/2015 09:47

Stevea I suspect the article is factually based and a sign of things to come or to use biblical language
Things which must surely come to pass.

The failure to separate ordinary commercial banking from casino banking must surely lead to this type of crisis
Unfolding.When the next financial crisis unfolds governments will not be able to step in.
So it will be every man and woman literally for themselves. I hope the 'guarantee' of £75000 holds.

[doobydave] 29/8/2015 09:29

Steve,

Where does this article come from please?

[deka1] 28/8/2015 14:01

LOOKS LIKE the deal not to sell US Tbills in exchange for a cheap gold price is over

From the silver thread via Hector on RUGT Jim Sinclair / thanks to Vanunyu

I wondered yesterday, how hyperinflation can evolve out of deflation. It is explained below. Monetisation by the FED, not simply printing " cash". We can now see what China is doing - it is force feeding a sick veal , stuffing it with its own guts. The US FED have, to buy them instead.. and that will lead inevitably to the rise in gold.

If that's a bit disgusting I agree, its meant to be. Dumping US Treasuries I have eagerly awaited for two years. Now the Emergers, are also forced to dump them to protect THEIR currncies in this process.. anyhow this is from Jim Sincleair's Mineset:

"....A total of $250 billion worth of Treasury bonds have been sold, what does this imply? The T-bond selling appears to indicate a number of things, with possible multiple ramifications. First and foremost it says “they are not buying”! Of course the next logical questions follows;….R21;who” will step in to fund the U.S. deficits now that China has turned from buying to selling…In China they call it a Yin Yang. Also, who will the buyers be if China keeps selling? The logical conclusion; after answering the two above questions is…. “the Federal Reserve.” The follow on question is; will the Federal reserve need to commence another round of stimulus, QE 4 and more?

No matter how you look at China’s current financial position and about face, they will clearly no longer fund U.S. budget deficits in the foreseeable future. This leaves us with the misunderstood truth “the Federal Reserve is THE Buyer of last resort.” Worse yet; the Emerging Markets have had to jump the gun and have already started to unload U.S. Treasury’s as their currency falls to reflect lower trade and China’s devaluation of the Yuan.

Apparently, the U.S. has now crossed the Rubicon of sorts and will be forced to “print” deficit spending as a last resort.
It is called MONETIZATION and has ALWAYS led to hyperinflation with existing “paper currency” becoming diluted and ever more worthless. The current situation is far more troubling and far reaching than any before it, because the entire world will be fearing a dilution of their “reserve base.” Dollar instruments (U.S. Treasury issues, etc.) are held by nearly ALL central banks and act as a foundation for all other fiat currencies, “infecting balance sheets all over the world.” For what ever reason; I would call a run from the Dollar “a plague,” but in fact, the situation is more like an infestation, the effects of a diluted dollar could well be… far more than any plague in history. ....." ( end of quote)

[deka1] 28/8/2015 09:29

Atlan , yes a pity for CEY ,the middle east / north Africa is a violent mess,
this imo is why a lot of the big instis are not investing,most weeks now we see police or soldiers being killed in the Sinai , the mine is a few hundred miles away I know, BUT !

[deka1] 28/8/2015 09:23

CP hi thanks , with regards to the NYSE, I get feeling the yanks are more prone to the big open pit operations rather than the underground guys , a lot more risk in the latter, and cant prove up a big enough resource for them ,just my opinion ,could be wide of the mark lol.