Miners will need $3,000 gold price to be profitable, WGC head says

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!


I should have probably re-read and posted more of the original post:


This is interesting, because demand has not really been a driver in the POG over the past decade or more because supply has approximately kept up with demand.

So either an unusual increase in demand, or steep increases in mining costs, would be the upcoming POG drivers.
 
To sell now and take the loss makes logical sense but then thats what the shakeouts are supposed achieve.
Confucius say, "Never buy PM high and sell low".

But to simply ignore this logic and say 'fook em one day my stash will buy my dream' is where a lot of us sit.
Fook the banksters.

Perhaps we need to start reassuring each other that we really should hold on.
If we were all honest, most of us have had those times, like during this period, where we say to ourselves, "Do I really know what the hell I am doing?".

Possibly one of the more important functions of this site ?
Here, here!
 
It's interesting to see the relationship over time like that. I wonder how the price of silver and gold compare to food on the same timeline?

Here you go, my friend. A graph of the price of white bread as compared to the price of gold. In general, they both rise, but not with the same shape vs time. Bread data is from the US U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for what it's worth.

Maybe I will post a few other consumer commodities vs gold a little later.

 
The cost of making bread has fallen due to innovations over the timescale of the graph and because the price of wheat is artificially suppressed by subsidys given to farmers.

So as a % of avg earnings, bread is at a low.

These graphs need to be used carefully.
 
Advances in technology is actually pushing the cost of food down.

http://pricedingold.com/food/

"The UN Food and Agriculture Office tracks prices of food around the world, converts local prices to US Dollars, and calculates an index with 100 being the average for 2002-2004. Prices for meats, cereals, oils/fats, dairy and sugar make up the components of the index, which is updated monthly."

 
Someone will have to pump up gold's price heavily in order to make it profitable.
Maybe Rickards is right about 3,500 $ gold.

But Bitcoin still brings more profits!
 
The following article states that China is mining some of their gold at a cost of $2500/oz. I am posting this article because it perked my interest, but I post it with some reservation because I don't particularly care when words like "stunned", "stunning", "staggering", etc are used in the article. But this is typical of KWN articles. Secondly, there are no references given for the 2500/oz claim other than "incredibly well-informed from his sources inside China".

Nonetheless, it does make for an interesting read and an interesting data point.

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldn...me_Gold_For_A_Staggering_$2,500_An_Ounce.html

 
Wouldn't that necessarily be the case for brand new mines? I don't know the economics of mining, but it seems to me that efficiencies wouldn't be realized until a certain maturity is reached in the operations. I also don't know how the accounting works for infrastructure (equipment, etc.) costs.
 
PMBug,
If they treat equipment as we do for accounting purposes, then they write it off over it's lifetime. In general industry [construction/demolition] we depreciate at either three or five years, depending upon the durability of the equipment. Trucks, large powered equipment and so forth we cost out over five years, while smaller equipment and shop tools are three years. Uncle sugar has pretty hard and fast rules about loading on the front end.

I would think that a mine owner makes a conservative assessment of the ultimate resources in the rock and spreads the cost of a lot of the major infrastructure across a number of years, based upon anticipated recoveries and initial investments/pay-out assumptions.

We got a Cat 349E large excavator and will have to completely depreciate in five years, even though it will be digging and demolishing well past that time frame. That kind of sucks for us since Uncle Sam doesn't like to pay any more than fuel/oil/grease for owned equipment. In fact, the USACE has a pretty complex spread sheet we have to use to determine what we can charge, irrespective of actual cost.

Tax rules are a lot like "Chinese Arithmetic."
 

Today a report came out where Goldcorp is acuiring Osisko Mining:


Will the ongoing low POG cause a string of acquisitions? According to the article the answer is no, but my spidey-senses tell me it could be otherwise. Time will tell.

West does not see the Goldcorp proposal kicking off a wave of consolidation in the industry, in part because other large gold producers' share prices are depressed, and many are busy shoring up their existing operations.
 
They found one to buy that China didn't own? /sarc
 
Yeah, they also doing stuff called "low-grading" "high-grading", depending on the current price of gold. Basically, mine will have different ore grades on their inventory. When the price of gold is high, they would concentrate on lower-grade ore mining, because they can still economically mine it, turning some assumed profit-supplied by the relatively high gold price.
Opposite, when the price of gold falls, mine operator will focus on high-grading; leaving lower grade ores dormant.

So there is some flexibility, to maintain profits/stay afloat for a period of time, when price of gold falls. Of course, since high-grading lowers REMAINING average ore grade for a mine, there's a risk, that high-grading, while keeping the mine open for a while, ultimately, will make MORE of mine's reserves economically non viable - simply, because normally, they mix high-grade and low-grade ores, to achieve perfect "mix", allowing to mine economically maximum amount of mine's reserves -that including lower grade ores, otherwise impossible to tap on.

...there's no free lunch

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 

My apologies for bad forum etiquette of replying to my own post, but here goes:

http://sprottglobal.com/thoughts/articles/will-your-gold-juniors-make-it-to-summer/



http://sprottglobal.com/thoughts/ar...nes-will-close-within-6-months-steve-todoruk/

 
Henry Bonner is the son of Bill Bonner, whose Daily Reckoning is something I always look forward to reading.

Bill has always been quietly keen on gold but reckons patience is required.
I and many others have a lot of respect for Bill.

I hope Henry is able to wear the boots when the time comes.
 

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/16369

 
These low prices don't appear to be sustainable. Physical is a bargain right now. If the miners do start folding, it's going to take a good while for production to ramp up when new miners come on the scene after prices return that offer a positive ROI.
 
Aren't they killing the golden goose?

If the lower prices make metals un-mineable [is that a word?] then the miners stop producing, and that necessarily must force prices to rise to levels that would sustain profitable operations. And remember this as well, when you close down a mine, it is very, very expensive to do, then re-starting is another problem. There are massive regulatory hurdles to overcome, along with labor issues. When you lay off all the miners, the talent pool disperses to other jobs, leaving you to scramble for competent people. This can only end badly.
 
They do have some flexibility by mothballing / maintenance only or going after the reserves that give the greatest cash return but this will only buy time and at some point its game over. As Ancona says, when you loose your skilled workers its very hard to replace them in an upturn. On the other hand getting rid of the less good operatives and reducing to a core of good ops is ie downsizing, can keep a mine going for a while.

Miners do not give up easily. They have invested too much of themselves in that hole in the ground to shrug and walk away.
 
Rblong2us,
When we went through the massive downturn in '08, '09, '10, I lost over ninety well trained remediation and demolition workers. Some had worked here for over twenty years. Replacing them has taken three painful years and a shitload of money. For example, to give a guy the basic stuff, it costs me around 5 large, and that is without the learning curve in the field, just the basic classes, physicals and blood work. Now, I have to have a competent person teach that guy how shit is done in real time. That process can take from one to three years, depending upon how many disciplines he has been trained in. When I have to do a massive layoff, it costs me more than just my bottom line getting smaller, I lose that entire investment of training and time. When a fully trained guy is tasked with bringing four or five others up to speed, productivity is far less than a crew of well trained men simply hitting the site and blasting out some work.

We are currently facing the end of a huge year for our firm, one that is starting to look like an outlier in terms of workload, since I have not netted a whale for first quarter. With no anchor job in place, I will have to lay off over half my workforce sometime in January or early February.

The mines will have the same problem, only an order of magnitude more expensive. Those guys go through extensive MSHA classes and all sorts of PPE training, along with emergency training, mine collapse training, escape module [ELSA] training and much more. I imagine it costs somewhere north of 20 large to properly train a miner. When we're talking about explosive mining, it's a whole other world in terms of competency, training and direct costs. Never mind the lost revenue from a shut-down mine, there are a lot of basic costs that are expended before that guy digs a single shovel of dirt, or for that matter, before he ever enters a mine in the first place.

Millions upon millions are lost to the winds of fate that can never be recovered. Mothballing a mine is an option of course, but now you don't have all those trained workers that had to be laid off because some bankster needed to scrape another vig off of the shares before Christmas so he could afford that trip to Barbados he promised the kids.
 
Last edited:

http://www.goldcore.com/us/gold-blo...sachs-research-warns-of-peak-gold-production/
 
As mines close down and experienced miners are lost to unemployment, there will be problems with any future production as a result. When the world came apart in '08, we lost a hell of a lot of cross trained employees.
These employees cost several thousand each to train, yet when we laid them off because of a lack of work, they went elsewhere. When work picked back up last year, we had to train a whole new crop of people and did so at no small expense.

These mines, once closed down, will be extraordinarily expensive to re-open.
 
Sucks for them. China needs it's gold so the G20 can start the NWO in monetary policy. (apparently)
 

More (incl. charts): http://srsroccoreport.com/u-s-gold-...production-finally-hit-hard-due-to-low-price/
 

http://gata.org/node/16096
 
Interesting tidbit about recent lack of gold mining deposit discoveries due to lack of exploration budgets:


https://www.sovereignman.com/intern...s/yet-another-major-reason-to-buy-gold-24421/

Yet another MAJOR reason to buy gold
Simon Black January 14, 2019


 
It could be argued that after 7 years of the gold market not really doing anything, selling up while theres still a few big players to sell to might make some sense ?

Mainstream thinking seems to be that gold is now an irrelevance. Its only those who watch more closely, see how the price is held down and ask why, who can agree with Simon Black.
 
Thanks Unobtanium, that was timely. We're seeing stage 2 of the fallout from the economic stress in the mining sector with the mergers/consolidations. They are struggling to stay viable.

With central banks starting to buy again, gold is really poised for a supply shock in the near future.
 
Another miner likely to see lower production ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...uth-african-dilemma-as-m-a-gold-rush-quickens
 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ys-gold-for-first-time-in-bet-on-tight-supply
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…