Precious Metals Forum

Go Back   Precious Metals Forum > Precious Metals and Economic News > PM Bug

Like Tree99Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-26-2012, 08:37 AM   #21
Predaceous stink bug
 
HCA1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 143
Liked: 68 times
Very interesting information, Gentlemen. Thank you very much!
HCA1961 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 04:54 PM   #22
Yellow Jacket
 
rblong2us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: off world
Posts: 1,988
Liked: 880 times
good thread.

Just wanted to suggest that rather than worry about reprocessing the same bit of sea water too many times, a better approach might be to set up at a river mouth with a directional flow of higher gold content water
__________________
if it cant be done with a digger .... it cant be done
rblong2us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 09:30 AM   #23
Ground Beetle
 
bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
Hi,

Just came across that curiosity re: some of the costs erlated to mining (I cannot post the source nor more content here, it is on the paid report I am subscribed to, I believe it would violate their copyrights - but as I post it below, it is completely out of context, and doesn't not infringe on their copyrights, I believe):

Quote :
For example, one of the most popular mining trucks today costs a whopping $2.7 MILLION. Each tire costs $30,000... and the annual fuel costs run more than $1 million per truck!
so here we go - some of the costs of stuff that goes as "input" for miners. This stuff is very likely to only go up in price in case of shrinking supply (resource depletion), pushing either required ore quality OR price/OZ upwards, for miners to stay profitable.

So the stories of "we have plenty of X on that planet, it is just that it is not commercially viable to mine for it, today, because price is too low", are fairy tales, without any real footing.
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 09:49 AM   #24
Yellow Jacket
 
ancona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Waaay south
Posts: 3,370
Liked: 2046 times
Bushi,
With gold around 15,000 dollars an ounce, it becomes economically viable to "mine" it from seawater. I read somewhere that the ocean contains a huge amount of gold, only it is too costly to extract. Given a high enough return on investment, it is economically viable to mine even tiny fractions of an ounce per ton of spoil.
__________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is quite often the correct answer - Occam
ancona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 09:53 AM   #25
Super Moderator
 
benjamen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Migratory
Posts: 1,620
Liked: 685 times
Originally Posted by ancona View Post:
Bushi,
With gold around 15,000 dollars an ounce, it becomes economically viable to "mine" it from seawater. I read somewhere that the ocean contains a huge amount of gold, only it is too costly to extract. Given a high enough return on investment, it is economically viable to mine even tiny fractions of an ounce per ton of spoil.
Unfortunately, most of those estimates assume only gold skyrocketed in USD price. In reality, if gold is that high it most likely means high inflation. Therefore, how much would oil, wages, and other mining expenses also skyrocket?

If under current conditions it cost $14,000 to "mine" seawater for gold, how much would it cost to do so in the situation of high inflation?

__________________
I drive men mad
For love of me,
Easily beaten,
Never free.

PMBug 101 *** Forum Rules
benjamen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 10:01 AM   #26
Yellow Jacket
 
ancona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Waaay south
Posts: 3,370
Liked: 2046 times
Naturally Benjamen, this hypothetical number is merely a guess. If one presumes that there is no inflation, and that the manipulation of metals has been corraled, and that the free market and popular demand are determining the price, and that paper derivatives and ETF's have been banned, ano on and on and on.

In the real world, gold will never be "mined" from seawater because it is simply too prohibitive and will always be so.
__________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is quite often the correct answer - Occam
ancona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 11:22 AM   #27
Ground Beetle
 
bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
yeah that's my whole point - if "inputs" costs for miners are rising alongside (or quicker, as I presume might be the case for oil) with gold spot, it doesn't necessarily mean that lower grade deposits become economically viable, in fact, it might very well mean quite the opposite - because of increased input costs, even the current grade ores might become unprofitable.

Basically, I think people doing this quick mental exercise 'there is X times more resources in earth crust, that we ever mined - we "only" need the technology to effectively mine the lower (in fact, diminishing) grade ore - and higher commodity prices, will make that new technology economically viable', are falling short of considering parallel effects to their own reasoning, not to mention the hard reality "in the trenches".

Fact is, record high oil prices, for example, haven't helped to pump out more oil since 2004, I believe - world crude production remains pretty much flat, despite "unthinkable" a decade ago prices. Why, I ask myself, are people not willing to cash on these historically high prices? Or maybe they are pumping flat out and cashing in as much as they can, but simply cannot increase the production any more. Which seems to be the case.
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 11:23 AM   #28
Fly on the wall
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 52
Liked: 6 times
Why Mine?

So a couple of points here.

First is says one of the factors for why costs have spiked is tariffs, taxes, etc from governments. OK, so if the government makes it too expensive to do, they won't do it. Then the government has to back off if they want the income. This will always be an ongoing push/pull scenario.

Second, we stop mining? What does that due to supply/demand. Supply stays fixed, demand increases, therefore....price increases. Since about 2000 when gold started to sky rocket the demand to mine has been increased quite a bit, this mining has kept up supply and thereby actually probably kept the cost down. W/o mining the price will only go up, yes?
bushi likes this.
kjansen1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 11:28 AM   #29
Ground Beetle
 
bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
...yes I agree, any way I try to look at this, it is bullish long term for gold that has been MINED already (like the one in my stack ) - unless the banksters succeed in making everyone so scared to even touch it, so the retail demand would die. I do not think it is possible, long term. Try as they might.
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 11:35 AM   #30
Golden Cockroach
 
PMBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In Scrooge McDuck's vault
Posts: 7,064
Liked: 2454 times
Originally Posted by kjansen1969 View Post:
...
Second, we stop mining? What does that due to supply/demand. ...
I would guess that as production falls off, price will rise and then some production will resume. Net-net, production will likely diminish, but not stop altogether.
__________________
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. - Lao Tzu

Important stuff: PMBug 101 * Forum Guidelines * Support PMBug
PMBug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 10:42 AM   #31
Fly on the wall
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 52
Liked: 6 times
Under the Sea!!!

So I just published this little blurb, thought it was relavent to what we were talking about here. However, I couldn't find anything on how much they'd expect it to cost per oz for undersea mining. If anyone can find numbers on this, I'd greatly appreciate it and add it to the article.


Quote :
NEW GOLD SUPPLY FROM UNDER THE SEA
When the mention of recovering gold from the sea comes up, most people think of ancient lost treasures and sunken boats. While businesses do try to find and recover such lost amounts of old gold, it has now become risky business. A number of countries have exercised original ownership rights on found treasure by salvagers, with the U.S. government honoring the claims, seizing the lost gold, and turning it over to claimants (http://www.coinnews.net/2012/02/27/o...ands-in-spain/).
However, another form of sea-borne recovery is now taking place with the high price of gold: actual sea-bed mining. Found in crags and clefts of the sea bed, natural gold deposits are the new gold miner’s frontier, as much as two miles under the sea surface. Countries, companies and well-funded private parties are now chasing underwater gold, particularly because of the current high price making the venture profitable (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/sc...ed-miners.html). With new technology and equipment depths previous untouchable are now ripe for the picking.
A good portion of potential deposits are found along the South Pacific zone ranging from New Zealand and Tonga to Fiji and the Solomon Islands. This of course has attracted the national attention of countries like China and Japan. That said, deposits exist in many locations and in every ocean. The regulator of all this activity is a small United Nations outfit called the International Seabed Authority, which doles out permits for mineral rights and extraction.
Gold fans shouldn’t expect prices to suddenly fall from a new sea supply, however. It takes a lot of expense to get down that deep in the ocean, so miners will be looking for profit on the gold brought back up and sold.
http://goldtrustfinancial.com/my_new...under-the-sea/
kjansen1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 11:20 AM   #32
Ground Beetle
 
bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
...yeah, apparently there is a lot of gold and other valuable stuff in the asteroids belt as well.. to me it is still in the same realm of fantasy, getting actual hold on any of these..
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 07:21 PM   #33
Big-eyed bug
 
Unobtanium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 451
Liked: 344 times
Global Gold Mines and Deposits 2012 report:

http://www.nrh.co.il/i/pdf/NRH_Resea...d_Deposits.pdf
Unobtanium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 08:39 AM   #34
KMS
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Cheesehead Land
Posts: 374
Liked: 119 times
I don't know if it has been said in this thread already, but I distinctly remember a link I made to a USGS survey done of Afghanistan Rare Earth Minerals estimated at $4 Trillion. And that survey was done with some pretty fancy equipment. If I'm repeating myself or anyone else, sorry. I'm tired and hungover.
__________________
“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war.
Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin.
But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”
– Ernest Hemingway

If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it - Mark Twain
KMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 09:18 AM   #35
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,059
Liked: 459 times
I think we need to be careful with blanket statements. Mining costs depend greatly on the specific project. I know of one project up in alaska that costs 600 per ounce currently. However there are other projects in brazil that cost north of 1700 so theu mothballed their mines. I also know of some poorly managed companies that made a 600 per ounce project into a 1200 per ounce project.

My advice is to look for growth in reserves and margin expansion. Also, don't be afraid of the toronto exchange
DSAbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 09:21 AM   #36
Big-eyed bug
 
Unobtanium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 451
Liked: 344 times
Here is a bit more about PM mining in China, with respect for the demand for gold in China:

Quote :
King World News
Aug 7, 2012

We’re Headed Into Massive Inflation & A Major Gold Spike
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne...old_Spike.html

.......
The Chinese accumulation of gold has been described as ‘relentless.’ But it was just reported that China has started shutting down a lot of their unsafe mines. They have just been mined out. The fact that China is shutting down a lot of mines just supports the reporting by KWN that the Chinese demand for gold is ‘insatiable.’

The Chinese are beginning to have problems procuring gold through their current mining activities, so this is highly supportive that they are in fact buying large amounts of gold in the open market. The fact is that the Chinese imports of gold have been going ballistic for some time now.

We can see they have been importing up to 100 tons of gold per month into China. Now we know why, because they are having trouble with production. We have seen an exponential increase in the amount of gold China has been importing.

So when you look at the fact that virtually no one in the West likes gold, but China is importing as much gold as they possibly can, you realize that gold is set up for a major spike at some point. .......
Unobtanium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 09:23 AM   #37
Yellow Jacket
 
ancona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Waaay south
Posts: 3,370
Liked: 2046 times
I believe China is slowly building their reserves to ultimately back their currency. They see the end of another era of fiat and are planning appropriately. I further believe they now have the largest gold reserves in the world, irrespective of what the pundits say.
__________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is quite often the correct answer - Occam
ancona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 09:32 PM   #38
Big-eyed bug
 
Unobtanium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 451
Liked: 344 times
Below are some excerpts from the article.

Quote :

Gold mining healthy?
Scott Wright - Zeal Intelligence | August 3, 2012

http://www.zealllc.com/2012/gmhlth.htm


Interestingly mine production had actually been on a pretty alarming decline for a large portion of our current secular bull. Many folks forget that it was just in 2008 that production volume had fallen to a 12-year low, and that the miners were producing a full 10m ounces less than what they were at this bull’s 2001 beginning.


Finally after many years of increased capex towards exploration, development, and overall upgrades to this industry’s infrastructure, 2009 delivered the first production increase in years. And a now-three-year-running increase is something to behold.


Since 2008 gold-mine production has experienced an average annual growth rate of a staggering 6%. And this is especially impressive considering the relatively static nature of mine production. Increasing output is not as simple as turning a dial on a factory floor, as it takes many years of development to build a new mine and/or increase capacity at an existing mine. And when you take the natural depletion cycle into account, this 6% growth rate is all the more impressive.


But though impressive, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that this recent production growth rate is unsustainable. In fact, some recent fundamental unveilings raise questions as to whether even the existing rate of production is sustainable over time.


One major tell on the inner workings of the gold-mining industry is exploration spending. Exploration spending is essential in feeding the pipeline of next-generation mines, those that will be built to replace the ones that are depleting. And depletion is of course accelerated on higher production volume like we are seeing today. Faster-depleting reserves lead to more pressure on the replenishment front, which naturally leads to the need for more exploration spending. It’s a simple formula!


As one can imagine, gold’s secular bull has spawned a huge increase in exploration spending. According to prominent research house Metals Economics Group (MEG), gold exploration spending had seen a whopping 400%+ increase from its 2002 low to 2008 (~$3.2b). And though there was a huge dip in 2009 as a ripple effect of the global economic crisis, spending has been strong and on the rise ever since. But has it been enough?


Provocatively there’s an alarming trend unfolding on the exploration-spending front that is likely to have a major fundamental effect on the gold market. MEG points out that while exploration spending hasn’t declined, there’s an interesting shift in the types of projects attracting the capex.


It notes that over the last few years only about a third of exploration spending has been directed towards greenfield (early-stage/generative) exploration, with the majority going towards brownfield (near-mine) exploration. Even more troubling than this historically-low ratio is the fact that this industry-wide shift hasn’t resulted in a proportionate increase in assets advancing through the development pipeline. Typically in brownfield work the availability of infrastructure allows for fast-track development, yet we aren’t seeing this.


On one hand I can see why the miners have become more risk-averse considering the state of the global economy. It’s definitely less risky to prove up reserves where positive mining economics are known to exist. But this trend will have consequences on the reserve-renewal front.


While miners will occasionally make big discoveries via brownfield efforts, for the most part the biggest discovery in a brownfield zone has already been made. In general the major multi-million-ounce discoveries that this industry needs in order to effectively renew reserves are a product of greenfield exploration. And this brownfield bias has led to a lack of major discoveries.


Interestingly there are a couple different ways we can put this lack of major discoveries into context. First is some fascinating intelligence from MEG’s latest study on gold-reserves replacement. According to this study, there have been 99 gold discoveries of significance (deposits containing 2m+ ounces) since 1997. MEG added up all the reserves, resources, and production from these discoveries as of the end of 2011. And assuming a 75% resource conversion rate and 90% production recovery rate, the total sum only had the potential to replace 56% of the gold mined during this timeframe.


As MEG’s data clearly implies, gold discoveries are not even close to keeping pace with mine production. There are of course numerous factors contributing to this revelation. But the one that likely trumps them all is the simple fact that large gold deposits are getting harder and harder to find.


As gold’s scarcity rears its face, miners must expand their exploration efforts. They must drill deeper, venture to places with rougher terrains, and enter borders that may be hostile to their endeavors. These conditions are characteristic of greenfield exploration, and are obviously much more costly than brownfield work. And this cost differential perhaps explains why spending is not where it needs to be on the greenfield front.


Drilling down on MEG’s study even more, this 56% replacement rate is likely well on the high side considering some very liberal assumptions. Even MEG acknowledges that the viability of this discovered gold is subject to a lot of variables that could hamper its mineability.


Economics is of course the biggest variable. Many of these deposits are of low-enough grade or high-enough geological complexity that their higher extraction and/or processing costs require a much higher gold price to be economical. If the price of gold retreats much, these reserves/resources would quickly lose their economic viability.


Geopolitical risk is also a major variable. There are numerous amazing deposits that have been discovered over the last decade that will likely never be mined due to their location. Miners are constantly thwarted by deep-pocketed environmentalists, unruly locals, over-regulation, and greedy governments.


So you see even though 99 major discoveries seems like a lot over a period of 15 years, in actuality it is nowhere near what is needed to replace the gold that is being mined. And if the major deposits at best are only able to replace just over half of production, I can only imagine how many smaller deposits need to be discovered to fill the gap.


Speaking of gap fillers, this MEG research got me wondering more about the world’s gold deposits. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a better understanding of the asset base that supports current and future production? And wouldn’t it be nice to have some intelligence on the biggest tier of gap fillers, those in the 1m- to 2m-ounce range?


Thankfully our friends at Natural Resource Holdings were in this same wonderment. So CEO Roy Sebag and his team actually took to the task of compiling this information! After painstaking research that likely took thousands of hours, NRH now has the most comprehensive database of the world’s large gold mines and deposits that I have ever seen. And its 2012 ranking offers an invaluable fundamental read on the world’s asset base of gold deposits.


As part of its research NRH identified 439 deposits throughout the world that currently contain over 1m ounces of resources (all categories). And in looking at this data, I was smacked by the reality of how scarce this precious metal really is. Of the tens of billions of dollars being spent just to find gold, there are only 439 deposits of meaningful size on the planet to show for it!


Interestingly in scrubbing up with MEG’s data NRH identifies 312 deposits that hold 2m ounces or more, which tells us that over two-thirds of the world’s largest deposits had been discovered more than 15 years ago. And of these 312 deposits, provocatively only 150 are currently being mined.


On one hand it can be seen as encouraging that there is a large pipeline of undeveloped major deposits for future use. But on the other hand it can be seen as disturbing that there are so many deposits, especially numerous over 15 years old, that haven’t found their way to production in the current market environment. The fact is many of these deposits will never see the bottom side of a shovel, for reasons discussed above and more.


Of the world’s 127 gold deposits in the 1m- to 2m-ounce range, 39 are currently being mined. Again it is encouraging to see so much potential for the next generation of mines. But I’m afraid the same variables of uncertainty will again prevent many of these deposits from ever coming online.


This NRH data also allows me to put into perspective the relevance of deposits in this 1m- to 2m-ounce range. Interestingly these 127 deposits hold a combined 181m ounces of resources. If all of these resources were converted to mineable reserves with a 100% recovery rate, this would only be enough to cover just over two years’ worth of mine production.


And to put deposits of this size into even more perspective, consider their average annual run rates. To be very conservative, let’s assume that these deposits are able to produce an average of 150k ounces per year. In such a case the 39 operating mines would combine to contribute only 5.9m ounces, which is less that 7% of total mined volume each year. While this next tier of deposit size seems large, in the grand scheme of things they collectively only make a small dent in the total supply. And this realization clearly shows the need for major deposits.


Per NRH, of the major deposits 33 hold greater than 20m ounces (19 in production), 41 hold between 10m to 20m ounces (24 in production), 74 hold between 5m to 10m ounces (40 in production), and 164 hold between 2m to 5m ounces (68 in production). Though this provides the gold-mining industry with an inventory of 162 major undeveloped deposits that have the potential to replace production and reserves, it’s just not enough.


And to make matters worse, there’s another prevailing trend that doesn’t bode well for the structural integrity of the mined gold supply. With much higher input costs and uncertainty with the global economy, many miners have been holding off on the development of their major deposits. Even if these deposits are economically viable with high rates of return, lenders and investors are hesitant to fund the $1b+ it would take to build a decent-sized mine.


So circling back around, is the gold-mining industry healthy? Unfortunately if you peel away the excitement of record production in recent years, I’d say no. Gold discoveries are not keeping pace with mine production, exploration spending trends are not conducive to finding major deposits, the inventory of large-sized deposits is thin, and development capex is harder to come by. The future looks bleak for reserve renewal and ultimately sustaining current production levels.

bushi and benjamen like this.
Unobtanium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 05:53 PM   #39
Big-eyed bug
 
Unobtanium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 451
Liked: 344 times
Chart: Global gold production vs demand

Here is the complete article
http://bmgbullion.com/doc_bin/Chart%...k_10.08.12.pdf

And here are two charts from the article, showing an every-increasing gold deficit:

Global gold production, demand and deficit (by year):






Global gold production, demand and deficit (CUMULATIVE):




And here is an excerpt from the article addressing problems with overcoming the growing deficit:
Quote :
So how is this deficit made up? Deficits are made up from central bank sales, stockpiles and scrap. Except
there is now a growing problem. First central bank sales have stopped and central banks have become
once again net buyers of gold. Central bank net sales largely came to an end in 2009. Since then central
banks have been net buyers of gold. In 2011 central banks purchased net 392 tonnes. In the first two
quarters of 2012 central bank net purchases totalled 162 tonnes. The prime buyers have been Russia,
Turkey, the Phillipines and Mexico. China is suspected to also have been a net buyer but their figures had
to be reported.

The other problem is that stockpiles are falling. Since 1950 the world has consumed some 110 thousand
tonnes. That is roughly 80% of all the gold ever found. Production has provided about 93 thousand
tonnes. The shortfall of 17,000 tonnes has come as noted from central bank sales, stockpiles and scrap.
However, that is now 17 thousand tonnes fewer available in the future to make up deficits. With central
bank sales having come to a stop it is left to dwindling stockpiles and hope that scrap makes up the
difference of over 1,600 tonnes annually. The 17,000 tonne shortfall since 1950 is equivalent at current
production rates to 7 years of production.

The question begs. Where is the additional supply going to come from? The conclusion is it appears to be
fairly straightforward that rising deficits requires higher gold prices in an attempt to attract more
production. Trouble is a major producer, South Africa, has been seeing declining production over the past
number of years including down 4% in 2011.
PMBug likes this.
Unobtanium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 08:08 PM   #40
Big-eyed bug
 
Unobtanium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 451
Liked: 344 times
Here is another excellent chart showing gold mining from 1850 to 2008, with commentary from two different sources. One commentary is quoted below, and a link to the second commentary is here:
http://jutiagroup.com/20090415-where...ld-mines-gone/





Quote :
Looking at Gold Price Trends
By Byron King Jul 17th, 2009

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/looki...-price-trends/

The first thing I do when I sit down at my desk in the morning is check the price of gold. The second thing I do is check the price of oil.

Sure, the price for gold and oil changes all the time. Prices go up and down, for good and bad reasons. Heck, sometimes prices fluctuate and the reasoning defies logic.

Still, I watch the price points. Deep down, I’m looking to see if the prices for gold and oil are following my long-term view of what ought to happen. That is, my long-term view is that both gold and oil prices are going to rise to astonishing heights.

Scarcity rules. That’s the foundation of my investment thesis. Today, I’ll explain my thinking about gold and leave oil for another time.

Reviewing the Gold Landscape

The first thing to understand, as an old geology professor at Harvard once told me, is that “gold is where you find it.” And the second thing to understand is that no matter where you look, gold is hard to find — and getting harder.

In the past decade, gold-related exploration efforts and expenditures have increased dramatically. I’ve seen numbers adding up to tens of billions of dollars poured by mining companies into gold exploration.

But despite the best efforts of the global mining industry, world gold production has DECREASED since early in this decade. Take a look at the chart below, depicting world gold production 1850-2008.

I Love This Chart

I love this chart. I could spend all day discussing it. For example, look at the very steep rise in gold output during the 1930s. That was during the depths of the worldwide Great Depression. In both the U.S./Canada (blue area), and the rest of the world (gray area), people were digging more and more gold. The Soviets (purple area) increased their gold output too, courtesy of Joseph Stalin and his Gulag. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose. Will that sort of history repeat this time around?

Falling Gold Output, Plus Monetary Inflation

Or look at that massive run-up in gold output from South Africa (green area) in the 1950s and 1960s. That was during a time when South Africa was instituting its post-World War II system of apartheid. Labor was cheap (sorrowfully cheap), and quite a lot of international investment poured into South Africa without moral qualm. The South Africans dug deep and just plain tore into those gold-bearing reef structures of the Witwatersrand Basin.

But notice how quickly the South African gold output declined in the 1970s, as the mines got REALLY deep and the rest of the world began to institute sanctions against South Africa over its apartheid system.

And then look at the gold price run-up that followed in the late 1970s. It was a time of inflation, mainly coming from the U.S. dollar. Yet world gold mine output was dropping as well. Falling output, plus monetary inflation? The gold price skyrocketed. Another bit of useful history, right?

Recent History — the Trend Is Down

Now let’s focus on more recent history, since about 1990. There were large increases in gold output from the U.S./Canada (blue), Australia (gold) and Asia (China orange, non-China open bar). By 2000 or so — the world production peak — gold prices were down toward $300 per ounce and below.

But as the chart shows, in the past 10 years, gold output has shown a marked DECLINE in the major historic gold mining regions. The prolific gold output from the U.S./Canada, Australia and South Africa has followed downward trends. Sure, these regions still lift a lot of ore and pour a lot of melt. But the production trend is DOWN.

Why the downward trend? I suppose you could call it “Peak Gold,” but that term really doesn’t convey the explanation. Let’s highlight some of the reasons for the decline.

In North America, Australia and South Africa, people have been kicking the rocks for 100-150 years. The large deposits and the high-grade good stuff have been discovered. The ore that’s “easy” to mine has been mined. The deeper ore is more expensive to dig, lift and process.

And I have to mention that over time, the culture in so-called “developed” parts of the world has gotten greener. People and policy have turned against mining in the developed world. So mining doesn’t happen where it’s not appreciated.

The flip side is that if mining is declining in the developed world, then the future of gold mining must be growing in the developing world, right? Well, yes and no. Of course, it’s true that there are more rocks to kick and ore bodies to uncover in the underexplored regions of the world. But this leads to another problem.

Development Issues in the Developing World

The U.S./Canada, Australia and South Africa all have well-established and (more or less) workable mining laws — despite the best efforts of many current politicians and regulators to screw it all up. These historically producing areas are politically stable. Overall, there’s good mining infrastructure, with road and rail networks, power systems, refining plants, a vendor base, mining personnel and access to capital.

But that’s not the case in many areas of the developing parts of the world. Political stability? Security? Infrastructure? Transport? Power? Refining? Vendors? Personnel? Capital? Everywhere is different, of course. But overall, the entire process is much more problematic. So there’s a lot more risk. When you move away from the traditional mining jurisdictions, the whole process of exploration, development and mining is more expensive.

Thus, the new gold discoveries of the future are going to lack some (if not most, or perhaps all) of the advantages of the developed mining world. That means that the ore deposits of the future will have to offer much higher profit margins, based on size and ore grade, to compensate for the increased risks. Too bad Mother Nature (or Saint Barbara, who looks after miners) doesn’t work that way.

It also means the timeline to develop the mines of the future will likely be stretched over many years while political, legal, bureaucratic, logistical and social issues are ironed out.

Future Gold Output on a Downward Trend

The key driver for the future of worldwide gold supply will be DECLINING output overall over time. Coupled with monetary inflation, you can expect to see MUCH HIGHER GOLD PRICES.

The gold that does come up will be from more distant locales, and deeper levels, or it will be more costly to process from lower-grade ores. The whole gold mining cycle will get more expensive and more risky.

Big Miners Scrambling

Some of the big gold miners — Newmont, for example — are already in a constant, squirrel cage scramble to replace their reserves lost to annual production. Newmont simply cannot grow organically. Newmont can’t “discover” enough new gold resources on its own every year. It doesn’t even try.

Newmont has a reputation within the mining business that it’s being run by accountants, not mining engineers. So the Newmont strategy is simply to go out and “mine gold on Wall Street,” so to speak. If Newmont needs reserves, the company buys a smaller miner. Indeed, Newmont has laid off most of its formerly world-class exploration department. Its in-house geologists spend much of their time looking at other peoples’ mines.

New Deposits Are Out There

There’s a strong exploration and development incentive built into all of this for smaller firms. The current business climate for gold mining has spurred the creation of many small companies that are generating prospects. The players within the industry are smart, hungry junior exploration companies.

The owners and operators of these companies, and their ilk, are bringing new ideas to the mining districts of the world. And despite the ups and downs of the daily gold price, the best of them will have their day. We just have to pick the sharpest, best-run firms… and be patient as history unfolds.

Until we meet again,
Byron W. King

July 17, 2009
bushi likes this.
Unobtanium is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dr Copper building potential head and shoulders formation swissaustrian STS 23 04-18-2013 07:48 AM
The price of dollars in gold Unobtanium PM Bug 2 05-07-2012 07:11 AM
Junior miners priced for $400 gold, Got Gold Report's Arensberg writes swissaustrian Mining 1 11-29-2011 02:18 PM
Tomorrow's Monster Outperformers: Miners of Gold and Silver PMBug Mining 1 11-10-2011 07:49 AM
Which Gold Miners Have Largest Upside? DSAbug Mining 0 11-03-2011 11:11 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® from Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Content of PMBug.com copyright © 2011 - 2019 Measuring Up. All Rights Reserved.