America's Next Top Gold Mine

This week, we've seen two exploration-stage miners release preliminary economic assessments (PEAs) for their respective gold projects. On Monday, International Tower Hill Mines (AMEX: THM  ) unveiled the numbers for its large Livengood project in Alaska. The following day, Fronteer Development Group (AMEX: FRG  ) did the same for its 51%-owned Long Canyon property in Nevada.

While both operators are busily expanding their respective resource bases, these PEA numbers still hint at the profitability we might expect from a future mine. Let's step through several key questions to ask of such assessments -- which, I should mention, are prepared by independent consultants -- and see how the two projects stack up.

What is the base case IRR?
For those who skipped Corporate Finance 101, internal rate of return (IRR) is an estimate of the annualized return a company can earn on capital invested in a given project. Looking at some mines recently put into production, Goldcorp's (NYSE: GG  ) Penasquito project showed a 17% IRR in its December 2007 technical report, and the main ore body at Yamana Gold's (NYSE: AUY  ) Gualcamayo project sported a 32.3% IRR in previous owner Viceroy's PEA dated January 2005.

Some companies provide both a pre-tax and an after-tax number, but the difference shouldn't be significant. Agnico-Eagle Mines (NYSE: AEM  ) sported an IRR of 14.3% pre-tax and 15% after-tax on its Goldex property, according to an assessment issued in September 2005.

International Tower Hill reports Livengood's IRR at 14.6%, while Fronteer's project is a much fatter 64%. While both PEAs envision heap-leach, open-pit operations, there's quite a big gap here. Let's dig deeper before we jump to conclusions, though.

What are the gold price assumptions underlying these IRRs?
A mine's IRR is driven in part by metal price assumptions. That's why PEAs typically present a sensitivity analysis, showing how the IRR varies at different commodity prices.

Based on the IRRs above, you might assume that Fronteer has an aggressive base case, but the PEA actually models gold at $800 per ounce, versus International Tower Hill's $850 per ounce. Long Canyon boasts of both a higher average gold grade and metallurgical recovery rate. These sorts of factors, rather than gold price assumptions, drive its superior IRR.

Interestingly, International Tower Hill's report only shows Livengood's sensitivity to higher gold prices; the IRR pushes north of 30% at $1,050 gold. Fronteer's PEA, meanwhile, provides IRR calculations at both higher and lower prices, with $700 gold bringing the IRR down to a still-impressive 45%.

Would Livengood be built in a $700 gold environment? I have my doubts. International Tower Hill underlined its project's "considerable leverage" to the gold price. Leverage cuts both ways, though.

What are the start-up/sustaining capital costs?
Livengood's initial capital costs are pegged at $665 million -- 10 times those of Long Canyon. I guess that's fair, given that expected life-of-mine production at the Alaskan project (5.8 million ounces) is a bit over 10 times higher as well.

Still, this is a heavy load anyway you slice it. Livengood's capital expenditures stand at more than 150% of the project's pre-tax net present value (NPV). This $665 million figure is also bigger than International Tower Hill's entire market cap. Long Canyon's start-up costs come in at less than half of the project's pre-tax NPV of $145 million, and at a fraction of the company's market cap.

Livengood's sustaining capital costs are also significant, at $297 million, or 45% of initial costs. That's quite high, even compared to a big mine like Penasquito. At Long Canyon, sustaining capital comes in at 9% of initial capital expenditures.

When's payback time?
As you might guess, the payback period tells you how fast a mine's cash flow will pay back initial capital expenditures.

The Livengood PEA is silent on this matter, with no mention of payback or cash flow in the 144-page report. With a mine life of 12.6 years, I would hope to see payback achieved by year six or so. That would line up with Agnico's Goldex figures.

Long Canyon's payback is pegged at 1.3 years, versus a six-year mine life. That is super speedy.

Adding it up
Many of my concerns about Livengood's seemingly less-than-robust economics are mooted if you accept the argument put forth by investing guru Marc Faber, who believes we've got a new floor established at $1,000 per ounce of gold. Economist David Rosenberg makes a similar case, pointing to the Reserve Bank of India's recent purchase of 200 metric tons of gold at $1,045 per ounce.

As to Livengood's unwieldy size relative to International Tower Hill's modest financial capabilities, this issue would best be alleviated by a takeover. Maybe investors are counting on a larger player like Gold Fields (NYSE: GFI  ) or Harmony Gold (NYSE: HMY  ) to swoop in and do the heavy lifting. This is how the industry generally operates, so it's not an unreasonable expectation.

A clear point in Livengood's favor is that it's of sufficient size to potentially attract such a buyer. If gold stays above that supposed $1,000 floor, then the economics may be sufficiently compelling as well. Long Canyon, at least at this early stage, is not big enough to tempt a major.

For my money (and I mean that quite literally), Fronteer's Long Canyon project looks far more compelling.

Fool contributor Toby Shute doesn't have a position in any company mentioned, but he does own shares of Fronteer's joint venture partner at Long Canyon. Check out his CAPS profile or follow his articles using Twitter or RSS. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (15)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Valuepro12 wrote:

    Livengood and Long Canyon are entirely different classes of property, and as such are not good comparisons one to the other. Size matters. Besides, ITH's PEA on Livengood is only on the 60 percent of the deposit amenable to open pit mining/heap leaching. In that sense, the report out yesterday was only the first part of a two part report. The full report will be out in Q1, to include both oxide and suflide ores (the hard rock, underground mining resources), PLUS results from another 70 drill holes. Further, resources at the project remain open laterally and at depth.

    In any case, Livengood holds 10 million ounces of gold as of September, while Long Canyon holds around 1/20th that amount. ...different markets, no?

    Also, when a project is attractive enough for purchase by a major corporation, as is the case with ITH, one can expect a premium over the then market price of the stock. Then, should a bidding war result, as may be possible given Livengood's size and comparatively low cost (based on project size),such a premium could be substantial.

    By the way, Fronteer is up 135 percent from it's 52-week low, while ITH has gained 817 percent. Further, Fronteer gained 0.22 percent on release of it's PEA, while ITH gained 9.0 percent. So, what's the market saying?

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Valuepro12 wrote:

    Livengood and Long Canyon are entirely different classes of property, and as such are not good comparisons one to the other. Size matters. Besides, ITH's PEA on Livengood is only on the 60 percent of the deposit amenable to open pit mining/heap leaching. In that sense, the report out yesterday was only the first part of a two part report. The full report will be out in Q1, to include both oxide and suflide ores (the hard rock, underground mining resources), PLUS results from another 70 drill holes. Further, resources at the project remain open laterally and at depth.

    In any case, Livengood holds 10 million ounces of gold as of September, while Long Canyon holds around 1/20th that amount. ...different markets, no?

    Also, when a project is attractive enough for purchase by a major corporation, as is the case with ITH, one can expect a premium over the then market price of the stock. Then, should a bidding war result, as may be possible given Livengood's size and comparatively low cost (based on project size),such a premium could be substantial.

    By the way, Fronteer is up 135 percent from it's 52-week low, while ITH has gained 817 percent. Further, Fronteer gained 0.22 percent on release of it's PEA, while ITH gained 9.0 percent. So, what's the market saying?

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2009, at 4:58 PM, silverminer wrote:

    Valuepro,

    I think the market is saying they have yet to do their homework on Long Canyon. While I agree that THM may yet enhance those economics through exploration, based upon a side-by-side comparison as they presently stand, Long Canyon does look extremely attractive.

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Valuepro12 wrote:

    "I think the market is saying they have yet to do their homework on Long Canyon."

    Maybe. However, there are still facts unaddressed. ITH/THM makes no bones that they are setting themselves up to be taken over, and the market understands this. Kinross is winding down at Ft. Knox right next door, and Anglo owns some 14 percent. Note that the PEA was addressed in a way so as to push total ounces to make this attractive to majors, forcing notice by those who have not been following this story yet. And, when the sulfide ores are added to the full PEA in Q1, yields and profitability along with IRR will be pushed up along with total ounces (ahead of a new drilling program).

    Without a takeover offer, which is much less likely compared to ITH/THM, Fronteer will have to wait into the 2nd or 3rd quarter of production for the shares to achieve full value. When is that going to happen?

    I see ITH/THM being taken over from at least 25 dollars per share - 4 times the present share price - next year (summer or fall), and having proven around 15-18 million ounces by then. 25 dollars+, in my opinion, is without considering the prospects for a bidding war.

    Forget IRR, what's your target for Fronteer's share price over the next 7-9 months?

  • Report this Comment On August 09, 2011, at 7:23 PM, XMFSmashy wrote:

    Aug 2011 update: International Tower Hill has gone nowhere and Fronteer was bought out by Newmont earlier this year for ~$15 versus its closing price of $4.40 the day this article ran.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1057192, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/26/2014 4:53:59 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement