By The Gold Report, on February 9th, 2012
  Preserving wealth in a volatile political and financial world is a job for gold. Greg Weldon, publisher of Weldon’s Money Monitor newsletter and Grant Williams, a portfolio advisor at Vulpes Investment Management in Singapore, will share their insights at the Cambridge House California Investment Conference Feb. 11–12. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, they answer the question: How low and high can gold go?
The Gold Report: Recent headlines continue to focus on the debt crisis in Europe as more countries are having their debt downgraded. Greg, you have diagnosed the problem as credit addiction and said that the European Union won’t be able to recover until leaders take painful measures necessary to kick their addiction. What does this mean for commodities and commodity equities?
Greg Weldon: It’s critical for asset prices across the globe. It is a debt addiction, debt refinancing and deficit financing problem, not only in Europe, but also in the U.S. and Japan. Austerity is the real answer to the fact that there is too much debt, and austerity measures in an economic sense are not positive.
My fear is that it’s going to be very difficult to see how economies in Europe, the U.S. and Japan can stand on their own two feet without the assistance of central banks debasing currency through debt monetization. I liken it to filling the sink halfway up with water and pulling the plug out of the drain. Of course, the water level will recede unless you turn the faucet on and start more water pouring into the sink. The level of water represents asset prices, the water flowing out of the faucet represents liquidity provided by global central banks and the drain represents the real macro economy, which has not been fixed.
At the end of the second round of qualitative easing, when the Fed shut off the faucet, the water level (asset prices) started to go down. But now the water is running again—particularly with some of the measures instituted by the European Central Bank, with its three-year loan program, the federal liquidity swaps and the back-ended way that it’s managed to involve the International Monetary Fund.
The problem with all of this is it does nothing to fix the underlying problem, which is too much debt. This is not sustainable. Central banks turning on the water faucet is good for asset prices. The real solutions of fiscal austerity, which are probably not palatable to most politicians in Europe, are the real struggle as we go forward. This problem is not going to go away.
TGR: Grant, in your Things That Make You Go Hmmm…. newsletter, you painted a picture of the final implosion of the euro and U.S. municipal bond meltdown. What would this mean for resource stocks?
Grant Williams: That was part of a prediction piece that I wrote at the end of 2011. It was semi-tongue-in-cheek. My contention was that as volatile as 2011 played out, we didn’t actually get any resolution. And it feels like 2012 will be the year those resolutions start to take place. One of the primary ones is the European situation. A Greek deal to solve the crisis seems to constantly be on the horizon, but they can’t seem to come up with an absolute solution to the public sector involvement haircut issue. When they do, I think it’s going to be the start of a whole slew of legal action to try and either trigger credit default swaps or negate any haircut from those who don’t want to sign up. Greece has a big refinancing coming up in March. It has to raise a little over €14 billion (B), and between now and then it somehow has to get a $130B loan package approved from the Troika. It is very hard to see how Europe can just keep pumping money into Greece. It’s very likely we’ll see Greece exit the Eurozone then, and that’s going to focus everyone’s attention on Portugal. I think Italy will be OK. Spain worries me more than Italy because the economy there structurally is in far worse shape. But if a bunch of countries pull out, that leaves the question of how people unwind any obligations they have in the current euro construct.
What this means for commodities is that the money-printing presses are going to be turned up to the max again. Despite adamant claims from politicians to the contrary, money printing—even if by another name—will have to be implemented at a magnitude much, much higher than ever before to meet current demands. Cash is being given to banks basically for free through the long-term refinancing operation on the quid pro quo that the money finds its way back into the government bond market. The problem is that a lot of this money is going to leak out somewhere other than where it is intended and I suspect it’s going to leak into commodities and equities. We are going to see stock markets float higher, not necessarily on particularly good numbers from corporates, but from the simple dynamic of a lot of freshly printed money looking for a home. We have already seen it in gold and silver this year. They both had big corrections in December, but they are two of the best performing assets of the year so far and I suspect the more money they print this year, the faster these things are going to go up.
People are starting to understand that deflation is not an option for the central banks. Once people realize that if we get a brief period of deflation, it will be fought aggressively with inflation, they will start to look past any deflationary period and position themselves for inflation. That is going to mean higher prices in commodities.
TGR: How high could gold and silver go in 2012?
GWilliams: I think gold trades at $2,200 an ounce (oz) this year. I think silver trades at possibly $60/oz this year, but they’re really just stepping stones on the way to higher ground. This 11-year ascent in both precious metals is only going to change when central bank policy surrounding it changes. I just don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future until they get this debt problem under control.
We are going to see periods with crazy spikes. We are going to see corrections. Some will view this as a collapse but the difference between a correction and a collapse is your entry price. If you bought gold at $700/oz a few years ago and you watched it go from $1,900/oz to $1,500/oz in December, that’s a correction. If you bought it at $1,900/oz, it’s a collapse. I think it’s important to try and take a longer view. The rationale for owning gold and silver is still in place. In a world of printing presses and fiat currencies, no one can manufacture gold and silver out of thin air. I think they are both going to go a lot higher.
TGR: Greg, what are your predictions for 2012?
GWeldon: There is a disconnect in the markets. Currencies really aren’t moving much either. The dollar hasn’t appreciated much. This is why gold is stuck in this range, capped just above $1,700/oz, with potential downside toward $1,300/oz. People are liquidating commodities. My sense is that there is more weakness to come in H112. Commodity prices in Q411 have already come down significantly, pumping some relief into margins. There is a little window of opportunity here where equities and some of the commodities markets could have some upside.
Debt could become an issue again in H212 depending on how central banks deal with that and whether we have a big downturn again in the stock and commodity markets. My longer term view is that when push comes to shove and central banks are staring into the abyss of a potential debt deflation, they will choose to reflate at whatever cost. That is bullish for gold long term. If banks can find the political will to do it, there will be significantly higher prices for commodities across the board in the long term.
China, in particular, has a bullish dynamic. Certain commodities, such as copper, have their own supply-demand dynamics that are detached from the dollar and monetary policies. The Chinese imported copper at a record high in December. Copper stocks on the London Metal Exchange have fallen by close to 30% since October. Copper is one of these commodities that has upside potential regardless of what the dollar is doing.
TGR: Grant, you are based in Singapore. There was a lot of talk at the last Cambridge House Conference in Vancouver about whether China is growing, shrinking, landing hard or soft. What impact will China have on commodities and equities around the world?
GWilliams: China faces a lot of problems. A lot of people think it is in for a hard landing. It is always difficult to believe official Chinese statistics, but the message that the Chinese government is sending through those numbers can be useful. For example, the Chinese growth numbers last week showed an 8.9% increase in gross domestic product. In a world of basically zero growth, that’s a pretty good number, but it’s not the double-digit number we’ve been conditioned to expect from China. Whether it was true or not, it shows that the government is saying: things are OK. We are on top of this, we’re in control. We are not going to slow to zero; we’re just going to grow a little bit slower. The big problem China has is inflation. Roaring food inflation in a society in which half the population lives in relative poverty in rural areas would be a big issue. A lot of people talk about property bubbles—and there are definitely bubbles in Chinese property—but as long as the government can keep people fed, it is going to find a way to get through this—at least for now.
China also has vast currency reserves. The Chinese absolutely understand that paper currency is being devalued incredibly quickly. So, until someone puts a sell-by date on copper and iron ore, it will keep stockpiling the stuff because it will need these commodities to continue growing. China will continue to swap paper money for commodities. The Chinese are bringing gold into the country as fast as they possibly can. Gold is in the DNA here in Asia. It doesn’t take an awful lot to persuade the public to own gold.
TGR: Greg, in your book, Gold Trading Boot Camp, you said gold is at the top of the macro-monetary pyramid. Why does it hold such an important position?
GWeldon: It is a rare and unique mineral that has provided a store of value for centuries that is not backed by any government. It is not subject to anyone’s IOU. Gold stands alone in the level of security it creates in people’s minds as a way to store wealth and protect it from governments that are continually debasing the value of paper money.
TGR: You put the dollar second on the pyramid, but said that could change soon. What will be the catalyst for change and what will be the result for investors?
GWeldon: I don’t know what the catalyst for change could potentially be. For me, the dollar stays as No. 2. There’s been an interesting little sequence recently where the dollar has rallied and gold has declined. But gold has not declined to the same degree that the dollar has rallied. Gold is appreciating in a lot of currencies outside of the dollar where it’s actually outperforming dollar-based gold.
Investors have a greater degree of confidence that the Fed will do what it has to do to circumvent a bigger issue. Next to gold, the dollar still is the second place that people feel comfortable.
TGR: Mining equities haven’t been able to keep pace with the price of gold. Do you see that changing?
GWilliams: It continues to surprise me, frankly, that these stocks are on such crazy valuations against the metal. I think once we start to get wider acceptance that inflation is going to be the outcome rather than deflation, people will start to look at these companies in a different way. Mining companies will instantly become some of the most attractive companies in the world.
I think there’s going to be a tremendous wave of consolidation in the mining sector. When it comes is a tough one to call, though. We’re going to see a lot of junior miners get taken out because it’s going to become a battle for ounces in the ground. If you have proven reserves, the majors are going to come looking for you—particularly if you are in a safe political jurisdiction—and they can afford to pay very, very good multiples of where the stocks are trading now.
In the last 10 years, we have seen some tremendous finds. We’ve seen some tremendous small companies that are very, very well run with incredibly experienced geologists. It requires a lot of due diligence to go through the sheer number of gold mining companies and find the very valuable ones, but I think having ounces in the ground and a good, proven management team are the two fundamental criteria that you have to look for in these stocks. Once the consolidation starts to take place and once the scramble for ounces of gold in the ground begins, I think the resulting valuations will be quite spectacular.
TGR: You are both speaking at the Cambridge House California Investment Conference Feb. 11–12. Based on all of these trends that you’ve laid out, how can investors preserve wealth or even profit during volatile times like these?
GWeldon: Investors who are focused on preserving wealth are best served by buying gold on the dip that is currently taking place. The gold price has a chance to reach $1,450/oz—that’s a sizable move downward.
There’s a chance that monetary authorities would take gold coming off that hard as a sign that they need to be more aggressive. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. However, being long gold and silver is clearly the best play in my mind to preserve wealth.
For investors who are looking to appreciate wealth, the commodities markets offer tremendous upcoming opportunities. That is because there is one thing that I can be certain about: Volatility will remain high. We are not going back to a low-volatility environment. It’s treacherous for individual investors trying to do it themselves. We run a long-short commodity program that’s non-leveraged. But there is a lot of talent in the commodities space for individual investors looking to profit from this market environment.
GWilliams: Preserving your wealth is absolutely the right way to look at it at the moment. Trying to make a profit in markets when there is so much uncertainty is a very dangerous thing to do because things change midgame. So I think for the next several years, using gold, silver and the platinum-palladium group metals as a store of wealth fundamentally makes a lot of sense. I suspect you are going to see outsized gains as a byproduct of using that strategy because I think the prices will go materially higher despite low headline inflation numbers. Using gold and precious metals to hedge yourself as a safety trade is the smart thing to do. By doing that, you will not only protect your existing wealth but you can also generate increased wealth through price appreciation in excess of inflation.
TGR: When you say gold and precious metals, how would an individual investor protect wealth using gold? Are you talking about holding the bullion, buying gold exchange-traded funds (ETF) or buying equities?
GWilliams: It depends. I think protecting wealth using highly geared gold mining companies is a dangerous thing to do. Yes, if gold goes crazy, you are going to make some outsize returns, assuming the asset in the ground is good, assuming the management is good and assuming you don’t get any collapsed mines or any other geological anomalies that sometimes are part and parcel of owning gold mining stocks. Holding the bullion itself is absolutely the safest way to do it. You have an asset free and clear with no claims on it. It’s yours. But that’s not necessarily an easy thing to do from a logistical perspective. A lot of people look at the ETFs as a good vehicle, and they are a perfectly good gold proxy. You have a claim on some physical metal there. But for pure safety’s sake, owning the bullion itself or as close to pure bullion as you possibly can is the smartest way to go.
If you’re looking for any kind of leverage or any kind of gearing, then you need to start looking into the mining companies. But outside the major miners, it’s a very dangerous place to be unless you have someone very smart holding your hand, and you need to do an awful lot of work on researching the particular stocks you buy. While the returns can be extremely good, particularly at these low valuations, gold is a very, very tricky thing to dig for and mines are very tricky things to operate and to run. So you have to be aware of that.
Most important, try to steer clear of government bonds. In a world of increasing inflation, and a world where central banks have promised to try and generate MORE inflation, to lend money to irresponsible governments at 0.23% for two years in the case of the U.S is just crazy to me. Over the long term, you are absolutely guaranteed to lose money in real terms by doing that.
TGR: Thank you for your advice.
Greg Weldon started his Wall Street career working in the Comex Gold and Silver Pits after graduating Colgate University. He progressed as an institutional sales broker at Lehman and Prudential before joining Moore Capital as a proprietary trader. At Moore, Weldon honed his systematic trading methodology and risk management discipline before joining Commodity Corporation where he became one of its top risk-adjusted money managers. Today, he publishes Weldon’s Money Monitor, The Metal Monitor and The ETF Playbook in addition to operating his Managed Futures Account Program as a CTA. He has a unique ability to define and forecast the market’s direction through his proprietary dissection of fundamental and technical market data. Weldon Financial is now a highly regarded and profitable publishing company, having garnered some of the world’s most respected fund managers as loyal and daily readers.
Weldon published Gold Trading Boot Camp: How to Master the Basics and Become a Successful Commodities Investor, in late 2006 in which he predicted the current global credit crisis and discussed the impact on golf from intensified central bank debt monetization. You are invited to participate in a “one-time” free trial of Weldon’s research @ www.weldononline.com.
Grant Williams is a portfolio and strategy advisor to Vulpes Investment Management in Singapore—a hedge fund running $200 million of largely partners’ capital across multiple strategies. Williams has 26 years of experience in finance on the Asian, Australian, European and U.S. markets and has held senior positions at several international investment houses. Williams also writes the popular investment letter Things That Make You Go Hmmm….., which is available to subscribers.
By The Energy Report, on February 8th, 2012
 Despite depressed natural gas prices, investors in master limited partnerships (MLPs) leveraged to natural gas liquids can expect both excellent income and share price appreciation, says Credit Suisse Senior Analyst Yves Siegel. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Siegel discusses his favorite MLPs and their winning formula for double-digit returns.
The Energy Report: Yves, what can investors expect out of MLPs between now and the end of 2013?
Yves Siegel: Steady as she goes. The yields for our group now are around 6%, and we expect distribution growth to be about 7%. If Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is true to his word, we’ll continue to expect an environment of low interest rates for the next two years. So if you combine the yield and the distribution growth, we think investors could see low double-digit returns.
TER: How do distributions grow?
YS: When contracts roll over on terminal assets, they typically roll over at higher rates because they’re competing with new facilities. In order for companies to get a return on their facilities, they need a certain price. Storage at Cushing, Oklahoma, for example, is relatively expensive to build. When contracts roll over for those existing storage assets, typically those rates can move up to the prevailing rate for new construction. Distribution growth results not only from contract rollover but largely from new builds and investments that come online, either through greenfield projects or through acquisitions. The MLPs as a group have been able to grow distributions by investing capital in excess of the cost of capital. That’s been a winning formula for quite some time.
TER: Do you see real estate partnership investors shifting their attention to energy MLPs?
YS: I would suggest that retail investors who are searching for yield and invested in real estate investment trusts (REITs) are now looking at MLPs. I would also include investors who have historically invested in utilities. I think MLPs have been around long enough now that investors are feeling more comfortable with investing in the security.
TER: Returns on your MLPs coverage universe have been excellent in recent months, some experiencing double-digital total returns. With more demand and buying, do you expect yields to grow in addition to distributions?
YS: No; I think yields will compress. The current average yield is around 6%. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that reduced to 5.5%, the rationale being that stock prices move higher once the market sees healthy returns. Demand for income-oriented securities remains pretty robust. In a low interest rate environment, people continue to look for places where they can safely park cash as opposed to keeping it under their mattresses. I expect a combination of increased distributions and continued higher stock prices. The result would probably be net-net compressed yields.
TER: Do you expect to see initial public offerings (IPOs) for these types of MLPs this year?
YS: Yes, I expect to see new MLPs come to the market.
TER: Everything you’ve covered suggests good health in this sector. What is your investment thesis right now?
YS: The themes have been threefold: One, invest in MLPs that are well situated to participate in burgeoning shale plays, because as producers pursue these plays, they need the infrastructure to support further production.
Two, we think natural gas liquids (NGL) fundamentals are strong and will remain strong for the foreseeable future because NGL prices correlate with crude oil prices. NGLs are a byproduct of a natural gas production, and current low prices for natural gas are part of the cost of producing NGL. But crude oil prices are high, and that determines the revenue stream NGLs will produce. This all speaks to a very favorable margin opportunity. We would suggest that MLPs that have exposure to NGL fundamentals should continue to do well.
Three, we like this notion that MLPs can buy assets from their sponsors at attractive valuations that enable them to grow distributions. These dropdown stories will continue to perform well over the next couple years.
TER: Are extraction products from natural gas the most profitable part of natural gas production?
YS: Yes. As we speak, natural gas prices have fallen below $2.50/thousand cubic feet (Mcf). Natural gas is very depressed, but what’s keeping the economics favorable is the fact that some of these plays, such as the Marcellus shale play, produce NGLs along with the gas. The NGLs triple the actual realization on the commodity because of the liquids content. So that is a very, very powerful thematic right now.
TER: What are your preferred standards for MLP growth and income?
YS: Our approach focuses more on total return. Simplistically, an investor can buy a stock that’s yielding 8% but has 3–4% distribution growth, and he or she would probably have an 11–12% return. Conversely, an investor could buy a stock that’s yielding 5% and is growing 7–8%, and wind up with a 12–13% total return. Balancing total return with calibrated risk is the right approach. Don’t try to capture total return and take undue risk. Overall, the market pays for growth.
MLPs with more growth typically have much lower yields, so it’s not inconsistent for us to recommend Western Gas Partners, L.P. (WES:NYSE), for example, which is yielding below 5% but which we think will have double-digit distribution growth over the next couple of years. At the same time, we could recommend Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, L.P. (BWP:NYSE), which is yielding around 8% and is going to have much more modest distribution growth of 3–4%.
TER: Let’s segue into your top MLP picks.
YS: Well, what we like about Boardwalk Pipeline Partners is that it has a very steady revenue stream tied to its interstate pipelines. With new management in place, we think 2011 was perhaps an inflection point for the company to try to focus more on growth. It has done so by buying storage assets from Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. (EPD:NYSE) and signing a gathering agreement with Southwestern Energy Co. (SWN:NYSE) in the Marcellus. We think there is an opportunity to accelerate the growth in distributions if management is successful. If management falls short of that goal, I think investors would still be happy with the safety of the yield.
The other company that’s within that interstate pipeline business model is El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB:NYSE). That stock came under a little pressure when Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP:NYSE) announced that it was buying El Paso Corporation (EP:NYSE) last year. I think El Paso Pipeline Partners was unduly punished because investors felt the distribution growth would slow. It is going to slow, because instead of having all of El Paso’s pipeline assets migrate into the MLP, now some of those assets will be migrating into Kinder Morgan. It’s almost a truism that the growth at El Paso Pipeline Partners is not going to be as robust because those pipelines will be moving into a different entity. However, we still think El Paso Pipeline Partners will be able to grow its distributions at 9%, and in fact, Kinder suggested as much. So we think a 5.5% yield and 9% distribution growth over the next couple of years is a good formula for success and a good formula for total return potential.
When you think about the other theme we spoke about, the strength of the NGLs, Targa Resources Partners, L.P. (NGLS:NYSE) fits into that. We like Targa because of the investment opportunities, the integrated model it’s pursuing within its midstream business and its very good management team.
We also like DCP Midstream Partners, L.P. (DPM:NYSE), which is another NGL story, but it’s also a dropdown story. There is the MLP, DCP Midstream Partners, and its sponsor, DCP Midstream LLC (DPM:NYSE), which is 50% owned by Spectra Energy Corp. (SE:NYSE) and 50% owned by ConocoPhillips (COP:NYSE). DCP Midstream Partners will continue to see assets migrate to it from DCP Midstream, helping to finance its growth while it pursues its own organic growth.
Then, within the dropdown stories and also in the midstream space, it’s hard not to mention Chesapeake Midstream Partners, L.P. (CHKM:NYSE) and Western Gas Partners, which I mentioned earlier. Both of these MLPs are owned by exploration and production (E&P) companies—Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK:NYSE) for Chesapeake and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC:NYSE) for Western. The upstream parents are investing millions of dollars on building infrastructure to connect their wells, and the MLPs are helping to finance that via the dropdown. In the case of Western, it is having some good organic growth in the DJ Basin on top of what it can expect to acquire from its parent. We think Western and Chesapeake give investors nice, double-digit growth.
For investors who are looking for more safety, or simply more mature MLPs, Enterprise Products Partners LP probably represents the best in class, being the largest MLP and having a vast footprint within the U.S. spanning NGL, crude oil and refined petroleum products. It covers the whole spectrum, and it has an excellent management team. It has an excellent balance sheet and a great formula for 5% steady distribution growth as far as the eye can see. Enterprise is a real core holding and one that we would like to have in any MLP portfolio.
TER: Over the past 52 weeks Enterprise is up 15%, and it’s up 2% over the past four weeks. With a $43B market cap, what are its growth prospects?
YS: Well, it is investing $3–4B annually in organic growth projects. Let’s not forget that it will cost billions of dollars to build U.S. energy infrastructure that supports shale play development. We think that a majority of that spending is being done by MLPs and Enterprise is a good case in point. That runway is probably pretty long, meaning infrastructure spending should last several years. That bodes well for the MLPs that are investing the capital and should be generating returns that support distribution growth.
It’s not only the size of the company that matters, but the ability to execute projects efficiently and cost effectively, using existing assets in some cases that provide leverage. For example, Enterprise will be using some of its existing pipeline and its right-of-way in order to realize its planned ethane line, stretching from the Marcellus to the Gulf Coast. The joint venture crude pipeline that it is doing with Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (EEP:NYSE) from Cushing to the Gulf Coast makes use of an existing pipeline there. It is reversing the Seaway pipeline at an extremely reasonable cost, which speaks to your point that there are not many companies out there that have the infrastructure or the entrepreneurial spirit to go after these projects.
TER: Are there any other companies that exhibit this entrepreneurial spirit?
YS: ONEOK Partners, L.P. (OKS:NYSE) has an excellent management team, and it is also a play on the burgeoning NGL market. I would also mention Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. (MMP:NYSE), which is focused on crude and refined products pipelines.
TER: Both of those companies have had tremendous runs recently; ONEOK is up 39% over the past 52 weeks, while Magellan is up 21% or so.
YS: Both of those stocks have good growth characteristics and excellent management teams, but investors might want to wait for a better entry point before buying. They’ve certainly had really terrific runs.
Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P. (SXL:NYSE) is also doing its bit to take advantage of getting ethane out of the Marcellus. It is also helping to de-bottleneck the amount of crude oil that’s trapped at Cushing by moving crude production from the Permian Basin down to the Gulf Coast instead of north to Cushing. I put it in the same sort of category, as it has a good management team, strong balance sheet and very good growth prospects. All those good things are reflected in the stock price, so a better entry point might be worth waiting for.
TER: Sunoco Logistics has pulled back a bit over the past four weeks, but not much.
YS: I’d just like to stress the fact that the companies in the MLP class are very transparent because of cash flow. It’s a very good pass-through structure for getting cash back to shareholders in a tax-efficient manner.
TER: If you had to pick one of these MLPs as a very favorite, what would it be? Or should investors choose a basket of MLPs?
YS: My thought is that investors are best served by diversifying within a basket of MLPs. I don’t think MLPs are mispriced securities, so you’re not necessarily going to have outsized returns, nor do I think investors who are looking at the bond and stock markets could really expect outsized returns. For the equity market, if investors could see a 6–8% type of total return, they should be pretty happy.
TER: Yves, we haven’t seen any large gains in the price of crude over the past six months, and we have certainly seen the price of gas depressed. If energy commodities began to strengthen, what kind of an effect would that have on these MLPs?
YS: It would affect different sectors in different ways. With the gathering and processing companies, most of the contracts are for a percentage of proceeds. The MLPs do a pretty good job of hedging their commodity risk out one to three years. But in a strong NGL- and crude oil-pricing environment, net-net they would benefit. Low natural gas prices are positive for gas processing margins. However, some intrastate pipelines would see diminished volumes if drilling slows down in dry gas areas. If crude and gasoline prices were to get too high and gasoline prices get too high, refined petroleum product pipelines might experience some negative pushback because of declining volumes in their pipelines.
TER: Thank you for sharing your knowledge and time today.
YS: You bet. Thank you.
Yves Siegel joined the Credit Suisse Energy Research Team in June 2009 to cover the MLP and natural gas pipeline sectors. Immediately prior to joining Credit Suisse, Siegel was a senior portfolio manager at a New York hedge fund focused on MLPs. Prior to his buyside experience, Siegel had established a leading sellside MLP franchise, having spent more than 10 years at Wachovia Securities after prior sellside engagements at Smith Barney and Lehman Brothers. He has received both a BA and an MBA from New York University and is a CFA charterholder.
By The Gold Report, on February 7th, 2012
 The market isn’t rewarding fundamentals just yet for precious metal miners, according to Byron King, editor of Daily Resource Hunter, Outstanding Investments and Energy & Scarcity Investor. But in this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, King maps out when rising gold prices will actually lead to rising stock prices for companies with quality projects and solid treasuries.
The Gold Report: Byron, anyone who reads your reports knows two things: you like to tell stories and you like precious metals. The gold price has spent the last 11 years trending higher. Do you see it continuing upward?
Byron King: I anticipate that gold, silver and platinum will all continue to rise in price. There are currency-driven reasons why metal prices are going to keep rising, as well as other issues with overall supply and falling production.
In terms of production, the gold and the platinum production spaces are very precarious. A few very bad things could happen at random and knock global production for a loop and seriously impact supply. Think in terms of a major mine accident in, say, South Africa. Supply could fall off a cliff overnight.
In terms of politics and monetary issues, precious metals create an outside limit on people’s political power. Thus I expect massive amounts of manipulation as we roll along, too. The dollar value of gold, silver or platinum will tend to rise over time, but we could see price spikes up and down due to that manipulation.
TGR: The junior precious metals sector fell hard in 2011. You tend to stick toward the midtier and major precious metals producers with strong cash flow. Those names often have lower risk, but risk can rear its head in that space, too. Major gold producer Kinross Gold Corp. (K:TSX; KGC:NYSE) watched about $3.1 billion (B) of its market cap get buzz sawed off in mid-January after it announced that it would take a $4.6B write-down on its Tasiast gold mine in Mauritania. Kinross spent $7.1B acquiring Tasiast and other assets in the September 2010 takeover of Red Back Mining. Does this serve as a warning to the other majors?
BK: It might be 15 years past the Bre-X scandal, but when it comes to buying and selling gold mines, no amount of due diligence is too much. It gets back to Mark Twain’s comment about how to define the term gold mine. It’s a hole in the ground with a liar standing at the opening of the shaft.
The Kinross writeoff is scary. They’re supposed to be better than that. So when you own physical gold, you can go to bed and close both your eyes. With gold mining shares, you still need to keep one eye open.
TGR: Were you recommending Kinross?
BK: Kinross has been in the Outstanding Investments portfolio for over four years. I’m hanging on to it in the hopes that it will go higher, but it’s been disappointing. It’s not been able to get the share price up and keep it up despite a gold price that has quadrupled.
TGR: Its strategy was to grow through acquiring assets. Apart from buying Red Back Mining, Kinross bought Underworld Resources in the Yukon and Aurelian Resources in Ecuador. Do you believe that was the wrong strategy?
BK: Much of the gold mining investing business is about takeovers. The large companies with, say, 10 million ounces (Moz) a year of output couldn’t discover that much just by sending out their own geologists with rock picks. Gold mining requires an entire process of prospect developers, generators and joint ventures. The better assets get picked up by the larger companies. In fact, Pan American Silver Corp. (PAA:TSX; PAAS:NASDAQ) just announced a takeover of Minefinders Corp. (MFL:TSX; MFN:NYSE). Minefinders is a one-trick pony, but it’s one heck of a pony. It’s the Dolores play in Mexico.
TGR: Sure, acquisitions are key, but many analysts believe that Kinross paid too much for Red Back and it’s now writing down three-quarters of what it paid. Will companies be more loath to spend big dollars in takeovers now?
BK: The acquiring companies have to be smarter and cheaper about takeovers. They have to pay less. Then again, you’re lucky if you get what you pay for, and you never get what you don’t pay for.
The news from Kinross could serve as a wet blanket for the rest of the intermediate and junior mining space. Future takeout plays might see more lowball offers.
It gets back to the idea that an allegedly savvy company like Kinross could make as bad a mistake as it did—at least in retrospect. It’s a wakeup call to the industry. I suppose in the boardrooms of the big mining companies they’re sitting around saying, “We’re much smarter than those guys at Kinross.” All I can say is to be careful of admiring yourself too much in the mirror because I’m sure Kinross thought it was doing the right thing, too.
TGR: In an ironic twist, some analysts are now speculating that Kinross could become a takeover target. Keith Wirtz, chief investment officer at Fifth Third Asset Management, said, “Every dollar lower pushes the stock higher up the list of potential takeovers. That will attract the sharks in the water.” Do you think Kinross will be taken out in 2012?
BK: Kinross has made a big mistake. Now the company has a big bull’s eye pinned on its back. Kinross has some very strong assets. I’m sure other companies are looking at these assets and thinking they could do a much better job at managing them than the guys running the show right now.
TGR: Something else of note in the large-cap gold space is the increase in dividends as gold companies jockey for investor attention with other instruments like real estate investment trusts, exchange-traded funds and even master limited partnerships. One company in particular, Goldcorp Inc. (G:TSX; GG:NYSE), recently raised its dividend again. Do you prefer gold companies with a significant dividend or are other factors more important?
BK: All things considered, I like companies that pay dividends. I like the idea that they bring the shareholders into the equation by sharing some of the wealth. There’s a certain capital discipline in running a company that comes with the knowledge that it has to write a check to the shareholders as well.
TGR: What are some of the major gold producers that are running a dividend that you like?
BK: Newmont Mining Corp. (NEM:NYSE), Barrick Gold Corp. (ABX:TSX; ABX:NYSE), IAMGOLD Corp. (IMG:TSX; IAG:NYSE) and Goldcorp are nice dividend players.
TGR: Which one has the strongest growth profile?
BK: Goldcorp. Five years from now, it could be the best overall return.
TGR: Are you following any midtiers?
BK: I’ve been following Minefinders, but it just got bought. I’m waiting for the development at Donlin Creek, Alaska, to come through for NovaGold Resources Inc. (NG:TSX; NG:NYSE.A). Investors are going to have to be patient with this one. It’s over 30 Moz of gold. It’s partnered up with Barrick, but the development has been slower, longer and more painful than I expected. However, over enough time, NovaGold could be quite rewarding to a patient resource investor.
TGR: What undervalued junior or midtier producers could rebound in 2012?
BK: Carlisle Goldfields Ltd. (CGJ:CNSX) at Lynn Lake, Manitoba. It’s an old copper-nickel producing area, but it has had a very aggressive drilling program. I am waiting for an updated NI 43-101 to come out, which could show an expanded resource base.
Reservoir Minerals Inc. (RMC:TSX.V), a spinout of Reservoir Capital Corp. (REO:TSX.V), is a play on mineralization in Serbia. Reservoir Capital was a hydropower and geothermal company with some mining assets as well. Last fall, it spun out the mining assets into Reservoir Minerals.
It’s now a copper project that is joint ventured with Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (FCX:NYSE). It has had extremely good drilling results in a historic gold producing area in Serbia that was one of the richest gold mines in Europe in its day. It was sealed up just before World War II and not unsealed until about two years ago.
Reservoir also controls numerous other mineralized areas in Serbia, which is a very well-run, mining-friendly jurisdiction. That is, we’re not dealing with the Serbia of the 1990s. This isn’t the Serbia that NATO bombed in 1999. This is a modern, European country that is looking desperately for investment. Reservoir Minerals is a key part of the future of Serbia.
TGR: Carlisle has the historic MacLellan mine. What stood out when you visited that project?
BK: It’s in Precambrian greenstone in a shear zone, in a known mineralized district. The greenstone and the shearing outcrop at the surface. Carlisle has great land position in terms of following the strike. It has a very aggressive drilling program, and while results aren’t out officially, from what I can gather from my own examination of the cores, there is a very nice consistency of mineralization all along the strike. I think that when Carlisle gets done with its analysis we’re going to see a very nice resource number at very respectable, mineable grades.
TGR: What investment themes do you expect will be prevalent in the gold space this year?
BK: The gold price should continue the 11-year trend of increasing nearly every year with the possibility of a big jump if a one-off type of event, such as a mine accident, chokes off a large amount of the world’s gold supply. I know accidents aren’t ever supposed to happen—nuclear plants in Japan and cruise ships in Italy are failsafe, right? We have to watch that.
TGR: What about increasing tension in the Middle East?
BK: Tension in the Middle East always seems to drive up the price of oil and the price of gold. People move their resources from one jurisdiction to another, from one form of investment to another. I went to one of the gold souks at the grand bazaar in Istanbul about two years ago. I was astonished that people were mobbing the gold souks, throwing money down and grabbing all the gold coins that they could get their hands on. I saw Russians and people from across Europe just peeling out these €500 notes and buying as much gold as they could take. It was fascinating.
TGR: Surreal.
BK: It was surreal to literally watch people scoop up gold, put it in their pockets and walk out of the stores. People were trying to get rid of cash and buy gold. There’s an entire gold-buying culture that a lot of people in the West are not used to seeing.
TGR: What about the protests, violence and economic sanctions being brought to bear on certain Middle Eastern countries? It seems like the tensions there are certainly hotter than they have been since the early ’80s.
BK: War is bad for business, but the rumors of war are sometimes good for business. I think if the Strait of Hormuz closed or if there was a shooting war in the Middle East, it would drive the price of gold upward. As the price of gold goes up, it’s going to lift the share price for the miners that have good fundamentals.
Right now the stock market is barely paying for fundamentals. It really doesn’t respect stories, let alone blue sky. But if the price of gold keeps going up, the companies with decent fundamentals will also rise.
TGR: Thanks for your insight, Byron.
Byron King is the resident energy and natural resource expert at Agora Financial, LLC. A geologist by training, he worked for the former Gulf Oil Co. and has followed oil industry developments for over 30 years. King’s career path also took him into the U.S. Navy, both in active duty and reserve. In the 1990s and 2000s, King engaged in a vigorous private law practice. For the past five years, King has been writing about energy and natural resource issues for an international audience. Currently, King writes and edits Daily Resource Hunter, Outstanding Investments and Energy & Scarcity Investor. He holds degrees from Harvard, the U.S. Naval War College and the University of Pittsburgh.
By The Gold Report, on February 6th, 2012
 Economics and politics. Accretion and repletion. Mergers and acquisitions. Joe Mazumdar, senior mining analyst with Haywood Securities, sees all of these as catalysts for a rebound in the junior gold space in 2012. In this exclusive Gold Report interview, he reveals the names of companies he expects to take off.
The Gold Report: What is the consensus among Haywood analysts on what 2012 will bring for mine commodities, particularly precious metals?
Joe Mazumdar: Last year, risk aversion was a common market theme. In 2012, some of the same global economic concerns, such as the ongoing Eurozone crisis and the future of the euro, will continue to draw attention. But we also believe there is potential for positive economic indicators, primarily from the U.S., where there have been upticks in manufacturing and GDP growth. Also, unemployment in the U.S. is down to 8.5%, generating some consumer confidence. Recently, GDP growth for Q411 came in at 2.8%, which was slower than consensus forecasts—3%—but still the strongest in over a year.
Political factors will play a role in 2012. There could be a change in leadership among four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The presidential election will be a key focus of the U.S. and global market. There are also presidential elections in Russia, France and Mexico. There also may be a changing of the guard in China in the latter part of 2012. The potential for changes in leadership in these key nations will generate a bid to market volatility in 2012.
Beyond gold and silver, our preferred commodity sectors include copper, iron ore and coal. Gold continues to be adversely affected by its own volatility, which continues to tarnish its reputation as a safe-haven asset. We note that during 2011, U.S. Treasury securities, the most liquid safe-haven asset, was a preferred recipient of capital investment, providing a ~10% return, its highest annual return since 2008 when it was 14%.
TGR: Will the strengthening American economy have an adverse effect on the gold price?
JM: Yes, the gold price quoted in U.S. dollars will be hindered by any U.S. dollar strength based on economic growth and increasing consumer confidence. In the current environment, gold, quoted in U.S. dollars, is still holding up well at price levels over $1,700/ounce (oz).
We note that the Federal Reserve said recently that it remains concerned about the “vigor” of U.S. economic growth and pledged to maintain low interest rates until at least 2014. The latter is a positive for gold prices.
In the medium to long term, increasing confidence levels in U.S. economic growth we believe will drive higher capital investments domestically and potentially raise inflation expectations, which would be a positive for gold.
TGR: What about silver and copper?
JM: We see copper on the brink of a rebound in 2012. The London Metals Exchange inventories are at low levels and Chinese imports of refined copper accelerated in the latter part of 2011. Copper is covered by Stefan Ioannou/Kerry Smith of Haywood Securities and they highlight a structural tightness in the copper market as supply growth remains constrained while a portion of future production growth resides in higher geopolitical risk jurisdictions. They note that the GFMS has estimated a deficit of 372 Kt copper in 2011 and forecast yet another deficit for 2012, 101 Kt.
Chris Thompson covers the silver sector for Haywood Securities and has commented that despite the growth in investment demand over the past five years, silver is still very much an industrial metal. Volatility, he believes, will be underpinned by potential contradictory moves by those who see silver as an industrial metal and others who seek it as an investment asset.
TGR: Did the junior mining sector hit bottom in 2011?
JM: Within the current cycle, I think it has hit bottom. For me, the question remains: What are the catalysts that will move individual stocks up within the sector?
For a number of the majors, growth has been increasingly difficult to achieve given the higher amounts of reserves they must replete on an annual basis. Companies such as Newmont Mining Corp. (NEM:NYSE) have been offering higher and more levered dividend payout structures to attract investors.
In 2012, we see the potential for more merger and acquisition (M&A) activity, specifically in the junior to intermediate sector, given the plethora of small-cap stories in the gold sector. Producers have performed better with respect to their paper in 2011, compared to development stocks, and boast healthier balance sheets. M&A activity will be driven not only by a desire for growth but also motivated by financing risk to capture any synergistic opportunities such as sharing infrastructure and the potential to merge critical skill sets. There is a paucity of people who can bring projects into production and operate them. Merging structures and management is very important right now in the junior and intermediate sector. Without it, a lot of these companies with development assets may continue to struggle.
TGR: Do you expect the Kinross Gold Corp. (K:TSX; KGC:NYSE, Not Rated) write-down to have an adverse effect on M&A?
JM: Large projects that are required to move the needle in the growth strategy of a large gold producer have a scale and scope that naturally expose them to significant execution risk. So, in a nutshell, escalating capital costs for projects of this magnitude are nothing new.
The M&A opportunities I refer to are at a scale that would be accretive to a junior to intermediate company from a growth perspective and offer opportunities to capture synergistic value. From a valuation perspective, many companies with development stage assets are trading well below their underlying asset valuations. M&A activity allows also for some consolidation in the junior sector given the plethora of small-cap gold plays.
TGR: Did you make any adjustments to your investment thesis following the dip in precious metals equities late in 2011?
JM: In our top picks, which we put out on Jan. 9, we focused on producers generating cash flow and developers with permitted or on a clear path-to-permitted projects in low geopolitical risk jurisdictions.
One pick was Midas Gold Corp. (MAX:TSX, Not Rated), whose flagship asset, the Golden Meadows project, hosts a global resource of 5.8 million ounce (Moz) in the Yellow Pine Stibnite area on a large land package (11,600 hectares) in west-central Idaho, a re-emerging gold district. The company is working toward an updated gold resource estimate before the end of Q112, leading to a preliminary economic assessment (PEA) by Q312.
TGR: Can you give us another name on your list?
JM: Yes, Midway Gold Corp. (MDW:TSX.V; MDW:NYSE.A, Sector Outperform, CA$3.25 Target Price). It has the Spring Valley gold project, an intrusive-hosted gold deposit with a global resource, we estimate at over 5 Moz, in a district close to Lovelock, Nevada, where Barrick Gold Corp. (ABX:TSX; ABX:NYSE, Sector Outperform, CA$61 Target Price), is earning in up to 70% by 2013 by cumulatively spending US$38M.
From a metallurgic perspective, the gold is free, not occluded in pyrite and potentially amenable to be economically extracted via a heap-leach process. Barrick, the joint-venture operator, is currently drilling the edges of the deposit to find out how big it could be. This means the near-term news flow will be linked to drilling results and less about a resource update in 2012.
Midway has a portfolio of projects that it is capable of bringing on-line. Its Pan project, a low strip open-pit, heap-leach gold project in Nevada, has submitted a completed bankable feasibility study and a plan of operations. Its Gold Rock project, only 8 kilometers from Pan, is in an earlier stage where we anticipate a resource by Q112 with additional drilling in Q2–Q312, leading to another resource update by Q412 and a PEA by 2013. Additionally, Midway is working a low-sulphidation, high-grade gold project in the Tonopah District.
Midway has a portfolio of projects and is assembling a team to build and operate them. Its COO, Ken Brunk, formerly with Newmont and Romarco, is very familiar with the permitting process and developing/operating projects in Nevada. I believe the company can manage this project pipeline of financeable projects in the low geopolitical risk jurisdiction of Nevada.
TGR: Your target price for Midway is $3.25, up $0.25 from your last report. With that many projects in the development stage, it seems that Midway would be a prime takeover target, especially given its joint venture with Barrick.
JM: Barrick is looking at a number of projects in Nevada, some of which are billion-dollar-plus projects that would add significant ounces to its production profile including Spring Valley, Goldstrike and an expansion at Turquoise Ridge. I believe that Spring Valley may be a target for Barrick going forward as it has potential to contain a +5 Moz global resource and lies in Nevada where Barrick has a significant infrastructure and asset base.
However, the other components of the company’s portfolio, which include smaller open-pit, heap-leach projects, such as Pan and Gold Rock, that could potentially produce between 70–90 thousand ounces (Koz)/year, would not move the needle for most majors. These smaller projects do generate cash flow and are more readily financeable by a company the size of Midway. They could also be attractive to an intermediate operating group looking at accretive transactions with junior developers.
TGR: You cover Orvana Minerals Corp. (ORV:TSX, Sector Outperform, CA$2.25 Target Price), which is in production at its Don Mario mine in Bolivia and its El Valle-Boinás/Carlés (EVBC) mine in Spain. From June to October 2011, gold grades there increased incrementally from 1.4 to 2.17 grams per tonne (g/t). Nevertheless, Orvana’s throughput at EVBC is below your forecast. Results at Don Mario in Bolivia also were below estimates. Is this a make-or-break year for Orvana?
JM: It is a critical year for the company. Bill Williams, formerly Orvana’s vice president of corporate development, is now the CEO. He is an ex-Phelps Dodge vice president and has been instrumental in generating the revised technical reports on both operations, EVBC and Don Mario Upper Mineralized Zone (UMZ), while advancing the Copperwood project. We believe his appointment reflects the company’s focus on getting the operations back on track.
Orvana is currently in the process of re-benchmarking both EVBC and Don Mario UMZ. For Don Mario—an open-pit mine with an upper mineralized zone containing a lot of copper, as well as gold and silver—Orvana has delivered a new life-of-mine forecast that addresses the difficulty of getting copper out using a leach precipitation flotation circuit on a much bigger scale than has been used before. The Don Mario operation also has been troubled by high costs of reagents for the circuit, which has raised the processing costs.
We had originally forecast an annual production profile of 10–15 Koz per year of gold and 10–15 million pounds (Mlb) of copper. We are now looking at a production profile of 9–10 Mlb copper and 8–9 Koz of gold, whereas Orvana is still signaling 13 Mlb of copper and 12 Koz of gold. In Q411, the Don Mario UMZ operation produced 2.5 Mlb of copper and 2.3 Koz of gold, which is a positive. Now, it has to consistently achieve its new benchmarks over the next few quarters so the market can gain confidence in its operational abilities.
At Orvana’s flagship, the EVBC gold-copper project in northwest Spain, the operational issues have been related to head grades. Underground bottlenecks have hindered the company’s ability to blend higher grade feed to the processing plant. We anticipate that a shaft will be in place by April/May 2012, which should alleviate some of the bottlenecks. We had originally forecast that the feed grade, at steady state levels, would be in the area of 5 g/t. However, revised guidance indicated that it would be lower, 3–3.5 g/t gold, which also conspired to lower our target. We anticipate a revised technical report for EVBC prior to March 2012 with updated life-of-mine forecasts.
Orvana’s Copperwood project in upper Michigan is a 50 Mlb/year copper project, now in bankable feasibility study, and Orvana is seeking to permit this year. Even with up to 800 Mlb of copper reserves, we believe that the Copperwood asset is not being valued at its current price levels as Orvana has been heavily discounted in the market due to poor operational performance.
TGR: Given the lower recoveries and production estimates at Don Mario UMZ released in late January, you lowered your target price by $0.15 to $2.25. Yet you still give it a sector outperform rating. Why?
JM: Due to the heavy market discounting related to disappointing results from both operations over the past few quarters, Orvana still provides about a 100% return to our target from where it is trading right now. I continue to believe that management can redeem themselves by achieving the revised benchmarks consistently over the next few quarters. As Orvana meets its goals, I believe the market will appreciate the cash flow being generated, worry less about its working capital position and give the company credit for its advancement of the Copperwood project.
TGR: Prodigy Gold Inc. (PDG:TSX.V, Sector Outperform, CA$1.20 Target Price) recently published an updated PEA on its flagship Magino gold project in northern Ontario. Your model for Prodigy, using the updated PEA, projects a 20,000-ton/day operation, producing 222 Koz of gold per year over 13 years at total cash cost of roughly $775/oz. That would generate annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization margin of more than 50%. Yet, your target price of $1.20 is only about 40% above where Prodigy is trading. Why so conservative?
JM: Given that gold indices provided a negative return in 2011 ranging from 13% to 20%, I think that a positive 40% return to target is probably not conservative in the current market environment. With respect to the valuation, I have adjusted for the technical and execution risk of the study level (PEA) and the fact that I have modeled a larger mineable resource base than that used in the December 2011 PEA. As a company derisks the project from PEA to a feasibility study, I revise the multiples applied to the asset valuation.
Prodigy is planning a significant drill program of 60,000m in 2012 to infill/upgrade and expand the resource base while condemning areas for locating site facilities. We also anticipate an updated resource by Q312 leading to a feasibility study by Q412.
TGR: Do you expect a takeover offer for Prodigy?
JM: I try not to work off the takeover model because it is highly uncertain but focus on the underlying valuation. While I do believe that the Magino asset would be a good takeover candidate for an intermediate, I think that there are opportunities for consolidation and capturing some synergies with Richmont Mines Inc. (RIC:TSX; RIC:NYSE.A), which has an underground operation that abuts Prodigy’s land package. Consolidation would probably be a good idea, given that Prodigy could have underground targets within the same host rocks as Richmont, which has a fully permitted and functional process plant.
TGR: In your last interview with The Gold Report, you talked about Revolution Resources Corp. (RV:TSX; RVRCF:OTCQX, Not Rated). You said it was looking for analogs of Romarco Minerals Inc.’s (R:TSX, Not Rated) Haile Deposit in the Carolina Slate Belt. What’s happening with Revolution now?
JM: Revolution still occupies a significant land package of 7,500 acres along a 25-kilometer corridor within the Carolina Slate Belt at its Champion Hills Gold project in North Carolina. It drilled 19,150m in 2011 and is working on a resource estimate in 2012. Currently, gold equity plays exploring in the Carolina Slate Belt are strongly tied to news flow from Romarco’s multimillion-ounce Haile gold development project in South Carolina and its ability to permit it. In an effort to diversify its portfolio, Revolution acquired a significant land package (~400,000 hectares) in two prospective regions in Mexico from Lake Shore Gold (LSG:TSX, Sector Outperform, CA$3.50 Target Price) in 2011. These assets host high-level low-sulphidation epithermal, gold and silver mineralization and we anticipate news flow from drilling results by Q1–Q212. The company wanted to present the market with multiple catalysts from a diversified asset base and this project has allowed it to achieve that goal.
TGR: In late December 2011, Eldorado Gold Corp. (ELD:TSX; EGO:NYSE, Sector Outperform, CA$19.00 Target Price), made a takeover bid for European Goldfields Ltd. (EGU:TSX; EGU:AIM), which has gold exploration and development properties in Greece, Turkey and Romania. Last year, you discussed Carpathian Gold Inc. (CPN:TSX, Sector Outperform, CA$0.90 Target Price) and its Rovina Valley copper-gold-porphyry project, which contains about 10.7 Moz gold equivalent in Romania’s Golden Quadrilateral. Does the proposed European Goldfields takeover make Carpathian Gold more attractive to larger suitors?
JM: Barrick’s private placement in August 2011 into Carpathian to fund additional drilling at Rovina Valley already speaks to the attractiveness of these gold rich porphyry systems to larger suitors. Mining activity in Romania is heavily linked to news flow on the permitting activities at Rosia Montana operated by Gabriel Resources Ltd. (GBU:TSX, Not Rated).
Eldorado Gold’s proposed takeover bid for European Goldfields does put in a bid for assets in Europe, however, the majority of European Goldfields’ assets are located in Greece (Olympias/Skouries) and less so in Romania (Certej). For me, the takeover trigger was related to the receipt of permits to develop its Greek projects in July 2011. Permitting of those projects took an extended period of time. A positive permitting environment in Europe bodes well for Carpathian at Rovina Valley and it will benefit from any positive news flow from Gabriel. The risks include royalty increases and potential free carried interest that the government wants to negotiate.
TGR: Royalties are going from 4% to 8%. That certainly is not positive, but to get those revenues the government has to permit the mines.
JM: Herein lies the rub. On Jan. 3, we lowered our target by $0.10 on Carpathian to $0.90 to accommodate an increase in the gold and copper royalties to 8% at Rovina Valley. However, on the positive side, by defining the mining royalty rates and the tax structure and negotiating a free carried interest, the Romanian government has shown its desire to have these companies invest in these projects and generate the revenue streams within a restructured rent-sharing framework. We note that the local government is also looking to privatize some state-owned mining assets to raise revenue.
TGR: What do analysts, investors and companies need to look out for in terms of geopolitical risk?
JM: I would highlight countries—emerging or developed—that are in economic dire straits with prospective geology whose mining sector is underdeveloped and has untested mining laws and poor infrastructure. Geopolitical risk carries a few facets including outright expropriation to creeping nationalism, which is linked inextricably to a company’s ability to develop/permit the project. These countries will continue to seek foreign direct investment to explore/develop these assets. Outright expropriation is difficult in countries where there is no mining history and a paucity of critical skill sets locally, unless of course it is looking to sell the asset to another bidder. Alternatively, the country may alter its mining laws to increase its share of resource rents derived from the exploitation of these assets. We have observed higher rent sharing globally via increased royalty payments, higher taxes and/or the introduction of windfall tax structures in countries such as Peru, Argentina and Romania, to name a few.
Assets in higher geopolitical risk jurisdictions must provide the investor a high return and quick payback commensurate with the elevated risk profile. Note that assets within higher geopolitical risk jurisdictions may be more difficult to finance and there may be a limit on potential takeover suitors, depending on their risk appetite. To properly risk adjust and quantify these uncertainties remains a challenge.
TGR: Is that because it is not going away?
JM: Let’s not forget that mining is a great way to get an injection of direct investment into an economy and generate employment. For example, high rates of unemployment in developed countries such as the U.S. and European countries are driving mining activity in places where permits have historically been difficult to attain.
TGR: Joe, thank you for your time and your insights.
Joe Mazumdar is a senior mining analyst with Haywood Securities in Vancouver. Previously, he served as director of strategic planning at Newmont Mining and was the senior market analyst for Phelps Dodge. He has held a variety of geologist positions with other mining companies including RTZ, MIM, North and IAMGold working in South America, Australia and Canada, rounding out ~20 years industry experience. He holds a Bachelor of Science in geology from the University of Alberta, Canada, a Master of Science in exploration and mining from James Cook University, Australia, and a Master of Science in mineral economics from the Colorado School of Mines, U.S.
Want to read more exclusive Gold Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Exclusive Interviews page.
By The Energy Report, on February 3rd, 2012
With the winter warmer and drier than previous years, natural gas companies are suffering from depressed prices. However, Raymond James Analyst Luc Mageau identifies liquids-rich companies that can create profits with or without a natural gas price rally. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Mageau explains how to use well payout rates to evaluate a company’s longer-term cash flow.
The Energy Report: With Brent Crude trading at about US$110 per barrel (bbl) and natural gas futures trading at 10-year lows, are you leaning more heavily toward oily names than you did in 2011?
Luc Mageau: Absolutely. In fact, although gas prices have been reduced to around the $2.50 level, it still seems like the picture could get worse before it gets better. Current natural gas storage is at ~3.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf); that’s a full 0.4 Tcf fuller than an average winter. The reason we have such a glut of gas is the winter has not been co-operating. Basically, we rely on winter to post the bulk of the withdrawals throughout any given year—in the last few years, we have truly been relying on a cold winter to bail us out of the storage glut and we’ve been lucky. On average we normally see ~150-200 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas withdrawn per week. With the warm weather we’ve been getting, our average withdrawals from storage have been closer to 80-100 Bcf during the 2011/2012 winter season—that translates to a lot of excess gas. Making matters worse, the weather is not expected to get colder. This means we could be in store for several more weeks of warmer-than-average winter, and given we only have a handful of weeks left in the official “withdrawal season,” we’re running out of time to get back to normal storage.
Historically, when weather fails to bail us out of the glut we have seen production shut-ins to curtail the problem. This time, I think we could be in a slightly different boat—and we can blame the price of oil for that. You see, over the last several years, low natural gas prices have forced gas producers to derive cash flow from other sources. One major source has been incremental extraction of natural gas liquids (NGLs). NGLs are heavier hydrocarbons that are produced in conjunction with natural gas. These products typically trade closer to the oil price. Given the wide discrepancy of oil:gas pricing, NGLs can account for a good chunk of the effective price a gas producer receives. What this means is that even when gas prices are below $2.50, the NGL component now being realized from produced gas is allowing a lot of gas that would have historically been shut in to remain marginally economic, and as such, still on production. So we are seeing less shut-in production than historically, and even if we were to begin shutting in production now we would need nearly 6 Bcf/d to be shut-in for the bulk of 2012 just to get back to normal storage levels—a situation that seems unlikely.
The bottom line is that we continue to expect gas prices will stay depressed and oil prices to continue to thrive and as a result, oil stocks should continue to outperform in general.
TER: Should investors stay away from the gas-heavy names or simply gas-heavy names with liquids-poor content?
LM: Some companies are certainly offering good value today and just because gas prices are low right now doesn’t mean that there are no investable ideas. This being said, dry gas companies (i.e. those with liquids infused plays below 20 bbl/MMcf) are really having their cash flows squeezed right now. Netbacks for companies in this camp have been compressed to mid-single digits and even keeping production levels flat without adding a significant amount of debt is hard. On the other hand, companies with liquids rich gas plays that generate 50 bbl/MMcf or more can boost the realized price of their gas by $4.00/mcf. In fact, given the price of liquids, these companies were already generating in excess of 80% of cash flow from the liquids anyway, so the price of gas does not make that much of an impact on the overall value of the company. So if you are looking for gas exposure, it would probably be safer to look at companies that have exposure to these types of plays. In our coverage universe, Crocotta Energy Inc. (CTA:TSX) is probably the best positioned in this camp.
TER: Let’s talk some more about your coverage universe. Crocotta Energy relies heavily on its liquids-rich assets. Please tell us about how one of those assets, Edson Bluesky, is insulating Crocotta from low gas prices.
LM: Crocotta has been working this asset up for the bulk of 2011 and it has been having very good success. In all it holds ~36,000 acres of land here and the key play so far has been the Bluesky formation. The reason that this play is exciting is because it truly is liquids rich—getting anywhere from 50-100 bbl/MMcf of NGLs. What this means is that even though Crocotta is a gas-weighted producer, at $2.00/mcf gas prices the company can generate netbacks in the mid-$20/barrel oil equivalent (boe) range (compared to low- to mid-single digits for most gas companies). The wells typically cost ~$5.8M, so they are expensive, but considering the amount of wells already drilled on the land base, they are low risk and generate an NPV of over $4M even at $2.00/mcf gas (compared to drier gas wells that would be posting closer to $0-1M NPVs). So the company is still making plenty of money even at these gas prices and it still offers the option on gas prices for the future.
TER: Crocotta exited 2011 with production of about 6,500 boe/day, well ahead of both the company’s exit guidance range and your expectation of about 6,000 boe/day. In fact, those fourth-quarter results brought Crocotta’s 2011 average production up to 3,725 boe/day. What sort of production are you expecting in 2012? And will that be enough to reach your 12-month target of $4.75?
LM: Our numbers have the company exiting 2012 north of 8,000 boe/d—one-third of that production is expected to be oil and liquids. The growth is primarily expected to come from Bluesky liquids rich wells, but we’ve also built in some wells for the company’s Cardium lands at Edson. Late in 2011 the company announced its first Cardium well in the Edson area had an initial production rate of 1,000 boe/d (60% oil). This was previously a formation that we were not anticipating much growth from so there is a significant opportunity for the company to build an oil-weighted portfolio of wells if it can show that this is repeatable—and based on what we’ve seen, we think that’s possible. So our $4.75 target price is premised on the production profile through 2012 and 2013. In fact, for 2013, even at $2.00/mcf gas the company could post cash flow of $0.90/share so it is currently trading at just 3.8x, lower than its gas-weighted peers.
TER: You cover Cequence Energy Ltd. (CQE:TSX), which recently conducted some tests on several new wells at Simonette, Alberta, which is part of the Montney Shale play. One new well tested at 4.8 MMcf/d and 216 bbl/day of condensate over 15 days, which would correspond to a liquids yield of about 45 bbl/MMcf. That means that these wells would be economic even at $2.50 natural gas. What’s your outlook for Cequence given these testing results versus lower than expected oil-equivalent production in 2011?
LM: We believe the recent Montney well results continue to prove that the Simonette area is highly prospective for natural gas production growth. This combined with the additional take-away capacity from the pending Alliance Pipeline connection adds comfort that growth will continue through 2012. You are certainly correct; at 45 bbl/MMcf the company’s Montney wells continue to be economic at $2.50/mcf gas. The unfortunate take-away, however, is that the payout ratios on these wells are expected to be approaching three years. This means that it essentially takes three years for the company to re-coup the money it put into the ground to drill the well, and for a junior company, this makes sustained growth at current prices difficult.
TER: Cequence says that once it connects to the Alliance Pipeline and the Aux Sables liquids extraction facility, which is slated to happen in April 2012, its operating netbacks from Simonette production would reach $30.31/boe. Do those numbers line up with yours and, if so, do you expect that to significantly move the share price?
LM: It all comes down to your view of natural gas prices. We are currently forecasting $3.25/mcf gas for 2012—which sounds more bullish than it actually is. Based on that, we have netbacks in the $18/boe range. If current prices were used instead, i.e. $2.25/mcf gas, netbacks would go to $10/boe.
TER: What’s your 12-month target on Cequence?
LM: We are at $3.50—but again that is premised on $3.25/mcf gas for 2012.
TER: A smaller name that you cover is Renegade Petroleum Ltd. (RPL:TSX.V). Renegade exited 2011 with higher-than-expected average production of 3,625 boe/day, which resulted in year over year growth of 73%. Renegade has set its 2012 production guidance at between 4,000 and 4,200 boe/day and that should result in another year of significant growth. Please tell our readers about why you believe Renegade will reach its production guidance and why you raised your 12-month target to $5.00.
LM: Renegade certainly did have a great year in 2011. After it rolled up its JV partner in the Viking (Petro Uno), it went to work post-breakup and its production growth number definitely reflects that. For 2012 we expect the company is going to put a bit more emphasis on southeast Saskatchewan, though, and we had previously been a bit more conservative on our view of the potential there. We were previously forecasting another break-up season similar to what we saw in 2011—wet and prolonged. But the very unseasonably warm summer, combined with the almost nil snow accumulation in the region is making things look much better than originally expected. Now anything can change—especially the weather—but with a slightly longer drilling season than originally expected, we were able to bring up our production estimate a bit to an average of 4,070 boe/d for 2012, about the midpoint of guidance. With our oil price deck at $100 WTI for 2012, our cash flow estimates and target followed suit.
TER: Things don’t look quite so rosy for Open Range Energy Corp. (ONR:TSX). Most of Open Range’s production base is from natural gas and its production is slated to contract in 2012. Nonetheless, you still have a C$2.00 target on that name. Tell us about that one.
LM: Open Range is coming off of a stellar year in 2011. It successfully launched the spin-out of its Poseidon division, which continues to be a strong performer. However, with that division gone, the bulk of the company’s opportunities are in dry gas, meaning NGLs under 20 bbl/MMcf. The company also has ~$50M of debt on a $75M line and is planning six gross wells for this year. So facing the current commodity price environment, the company is really in cash-conservation mode and as a result has forecasted production to shrink through this year—a stark contrast to the massive growth it was leading investors to believe for most of 2011 (its presentation projected a 2012 exit rate of ~10,000 boe/d). Now the assets that the company has are actually quite good—as far as gas assets go. The company has primarily one consolidated land block in the deep basin, an area that characteristically has large gas reserves and low operating costs, but it also has very low liquids yields so the netbacks are at $2.25/mcf gas. Our $2.00 target is premised on a $3.25/mcf gas price and to be fair, for gas investors looking at options on the commodity, Open Range is certainly a good candidate, however we believe gas markets will remain weak for some time, likely putting more near-term pressure on the name—we’ve had the company rated market perform since the spin-out, which really reflects our neutral-to-negative outlook on natural gas prices.
TER: And, finally, Strategic Oil & Gas Ltd. (SOG:TSX), which completed a $40M equity financing in December to give the junior a total of C$42 million in the bank. How is Strategic planning to use that cash?
LM: Strategic has two core light oil assets; the Maxhamish Chinkeh sand horizontal play in northeast BC, where Legacy is the operator, and its Steen River lands in northern Alberta. At Steen River, the company is the operator and has a 100% working interest in 70,000 net acres, so it has a lot of flexibility to accelerate the program here as well as a significant amount of running room for future drilling. There are at least three different oil-prone zones being targeted at Steen, so this is where we see the company getting the leverage for growing production in 2012. With that in mind, the company has provided a $60M capital program for 2012 that focuses on Steen. It has two rigs running there now, and plans to drill 20 (17 net) wells in 2012. Although the focus is still on the high-impact vertical Keg River wells, which get initial production rates of about 200 bbl/d for $1.5M, the company is also going to continue to advance its more “resource-style” horizontal play in the Sulphur point formation, and test out some new zones and play concepts in the area. Given that this program is pretty front-end weighted (there are nine wells planned for Q112), we think the company could use its balance sheet to expand this program through the back half of the year if it continues to achieve results like it has been.
TER: Despite the equity dilution in December, over the course of 2012 you expect Strategic’s share price to almost double to C$1.50. How is that going to happen?
LM: Strategic spent a lot of time on its Steen River assets in 2011. A lot of this was laying the technical foundation on which to build a strong portfolio of oil drill prospects. It successfully tested the horizontal Sulphur Point oil play, and it built out and de-risked its Keg River locations. With its balance sheet now all cashed up, we see 2012 really as a year where it focuses on aggressive drilling at Steen River. Since these wells can get IP rates of 100—200 bbl/d of oil and the capital costs of drilling them are low, it is able to really step on the accelerator pedal quickly. So we think that both cash flow and production will grow substantially through the year and into 2013. Right now we have it spending its guidance of $60M in 2012 and exiting the year with production of ~3,000 boe/d, a pretty strong growth profile when you compare it to 2011 exit production of 1,880 boe/d.
TER: Do you have some parting wisdom to impart to investors looking to enter this space for the first time in 2012?
LM: We are still constructive on oil prices, and with our view on NGL pricing and yields, we remain very cautious on the outlook for gas prices, so obviously we would overweight oil-focused names. That said, there are gas-weighted names that have currently good liquids yields with the ability to weather low gas prices and reallocate capital away from dry gas. Crocotta Energy is an exceptional example of this—the company is getting a liquids yield of 50-80 bbl/MMcf, which means that not only can it weather low natural gas prices, the bulk of cash flow is already coming from the liquids so the wells are very economic even at gas prices with a $1-handle. Second, we would certainly look to invest in companies that have the financial resources (balance sheet and cash flow) to fund an oil- or liquids-focused drilling program in order to take advantage of current oil prices. To put this in perspective—a typical oil well will pay-out in ~1.5 years, which means that all the money a producer puts in the ground they get back in 1.5 years—everything else after that is profit. Gas wells on the flip side can have pay-outs longer than three years. For a junior company, the ability to recycle cash by putting it in the ground, getting it out and repeating the process is paramount—particularly given that the amount they have is very limited. So to that end, junior companies with high oil weightings that we especially like include companies like Renegade Petroleum, Strategic, and Twin Butte Energy for their growth profiles and valuation. However, the top pick in our space right now is Twin Butte Energy, which recently closed the acquisition of Emerge. It pays a healthy dividend of 7%, has the potential to outperform its guidance, and has a very conservative payout ratio for 2012 if light-heavy differentials and oil prices remain within reason of current levels.
TER: Thanks for sharing your insights with us.
LM: My pleasure.
Luc Mageau joined Raymond James in March 2006. He is responsible for covering junior and intermediate oil and gas producers. Prior to joining the firm, Luc was employed as a commercial lender at a major bank and as a research analyst at a U.S.-based equity research firm. He has a bachelor of commerce degree from the University of Alberta (2001) and holds the CFA designation.
By The Gold Report, on February 2nd, 2012
 GoldMoney Founder and Chairman James Turk knows how to find great deals on gold and silver. He claims that the 2012 bottom for gold came during the first week in January. If the year’s low is already history and if his projection that gold will hit the $2,000/oz mark within three months is on target, you do the math. “Gold is way too cheap,” he tells The Gold Report in this exclusive interview.
The Gold Report: Given the volatile 2011 market and the fact that gold trades at seasonally lower prices in the summer, James, what led you to say you believe we’ve already hit the low for the gold price in 2012?
James Turk: We started this year in an unusual position. Normally, we see seasonal strength in the last quarter. We didn’t get it. We’d been in a correction since the high in silver back in April 2011. The high in gold came during the summer, which was very unusual, but basically both metals have been moving sideways. Starting from the end of a correction, value is more important than seasonality. Clearly, gold and silver both represent good, undervalued assets at the moment.
The other factor is continuing problems in the financial system. The European banks are still on the brink and many American banks are in a similar situation. Questions about the currency—whether the euro will survive—and the ongoing sovereign debt issue will cause people to look at the precious metals. I’ve said we saw the low in the gold price the first week of January, and the further into the year we get without going lower, the greater the probability that it was, in fact, the low for the year.
TGR: Considering all the issues you mentioned that existed last summer as well, why didn’t that seasonal strength return late in 2011?
JT: An interesting thing about markets is that nothing works all of the time. You just have to respond accordingly in looking at how things are going to unfold. That’s why I think the low has been made already.
TGR: You also mentioned in a recent interview that you thought gold could get above $2,000/ounce (oz) in the next three months. With all the monetary issues on the table, not to mention a few new wrinkles, what will make the gold price pop up so much in such a short period of time? What’s the catalyst?
JT: I can’t tell you what the event will be, but I look at charts and things of that nature to give me an indication as to when something’s ready to move. The fact that we’ve been in a correction for several months is one indication that something will happen. Whether it’s a bank failure or a problem with the euro or some European bank, you can’t really tell. But whatever is coming, the markets reflect it. It’s like following footprints in the sand on the beach, leading a certain way. The charts and the circumstances are telling me to expect a big pop in the gold price this year.
TGR: And would it correct immediately afterward?
JT: Not necessarily, because at some point, the currencies will collapse. When they do, gold won’t correct. It will just keep going up.
TGR: So are you projecting currency collapses within the next few months?
JT: No, I’m not, but they will at some point. It could happen in the next several months; it could happen in the next several years. We are in a bubble, not a gold bubble but a fiat currency bubble. The belief that fiat currencies have value will be tested. I think fiat currencies, which are backed by nothing but government promises, will collapse, and gold will return to center stage in global commerce. When it does, expect a straight shot up. It may be three months or three years. Take it month by month and see how it goes. Don’t try to trade the gold market. Continue to build your gold and/or silver holdings, and when all is said and done, you’ll be very, very happy.
TGR: You’ve also indicated that you expect the U.S. to get into hyperinflation, citing examples of currencies in the Weimar Republic, Argentina and Zimbabwe. None of those currencies was world reserve currencies as the U.S. dollar is. Would the world allow the U.S. dollar to go into hyperinflation?
JT: The world can’t do anything to stop it. President Nixon’s Treasury secretary, John Connally, captured it perfectly when he told one of his European counterparts, “The dollar is our currency but your problem.” That’s still true 40 years later.
The dollar continues to be the world’s problem, and the U.S. government isn’t doing anything to make the dollar worthy of the esteemed position of being the world’s reserve currency. There is no pressure that can be brought to bear on the dollar that would cause the U.S. government to reverse course and go in the right direction.
We are seeing countries around the world accumulating more gold in case the dollar collapses, which is what individuals should be doing as well. Countries around the world are also taking other steps to protect themselves. For instance, they’re entering bilateral trade agreements that don’t involve U.S. dollars. China has been doing a lot of bilateral trade agreements that completely exclude the dollar. India and Iran, of all places, just recently announced an agreement whereby they’re going to use gold for transacting.
TGR: In King World News in October you wowed the world with the Gold Money Index discussion and how it shows that the fair price of gold is really $11,000/oz. You based your calculation on the combined total of central banks’ foreign exchange reserves divided by their gold holdings. Why do you use only foreign-exchange reserves in that calculation and not total reserves?
JT: Because gold is international money, and I’m trying to focus solely on the monetary component. Instead of moving gold around as they did under the classical gold standard, the central banks have been using foreign currencies as a money substitute. If you’re using a money substitute, the money itself should be equivalent to gold. The real factor underlying all of this is that gold is way too cheap, and accepting paper currencies instead of gold is the wrong thing to do, which is what the Gold Money Index shows.
So it’s basically reestablishing gold’s role in the international monetary system and what its value would be based on historical evidence, particularly from the 1960s and 1970s, when the index was working much more clearly. Over the last 20 years, the gap between the fair value of gold and its actual price has become huge.
TGR: Have you gone back to 1900 with that calculation?
JT: It’s hard to get all the data, but the logic is basically there. I’ve gone back prior to 1900, not with the Gold Money Index, but with my Fear Index, looking at domestic money supplies. The Fear Index is at about 3% now, so gold today backs about 3% of the domestic money supply. When Sir Isaac Newton devised the classical gold standard, an average of 40% of the monetary system’s value was based on gold and 60% on paper. That we’re so far below the guideline he established is an indication to how undervalued gold is relative to all the paper money systems out there.
TGR: You mentioned using foreign-exchange reserves because they mimic the way gold was transferred under the gold standard. But wasn’t it part of being on the gold standard that each currency unit reflected a gold component?
JT: Yes. But, the Fear Index and the Gold Money Index distinguish between domestic and international money supplies. That’s why I was saying this 40% on the Fear Index is the historical norm.
TGR: Your Gold Money Index is interesting, and the $11,000/oz number grabs a lot of attention, but maybe the real underlying question is whether this ratio is really relevant.
JT: What makes the ratio relevant is that it had relevance up until the last 20 years. The fair price and the actual price have separated so far due to government intervention—attempts to cap the price of gold. Governments intervene in the gold market for the same reason they intervene in any market. When they don’t like the outcome, they try to change things around. This index gives people an opportunity to understand how undervalued gold is.
The index is relevant, too, in that it makes it very clear that we’re living in a bubble. How can something work for so many years and then all of a sudden not work? It’s because we’re in a bubble.
TGR: Didn’t it work for so many years because we were on a gold standard?
JT: Exactly, but we went off the gold standard in 1971, and even in the 1970s, that ratio worked. It continued to work in the early 1980s. Then it stopped working.
TGR: So it wasn’t until they started printing money, and expanding the M1—increasing the money supply—that the imbalance grew.
JT: Yes. The attributes that gave gold value and made it money in the first place did not disappear, but they were ignored or forgotten. Gold was marginalized. Then in recent years, people started to rediscover those attributes and realized that gold is very, very useful.
At some point the price of gold will just keep rising and not stop. That’s when the currency collapses. And while we can’t predict when it will happen, people have to reach one of two conclusions. Either 1) monetary history is not relevant and the fiat currency system will survive, or 2) monetary history is relevant, this is a bubble, the fiat currency system will collapse and gold is much undervalued.
TGR: There’s no doubt about which conclusion you’ve reached. You’ve also made it clear that while you can’t predict when the fiat currency will collapse or when hyperinflation will kick in, you recognize where the path we’re going down leads. Still, as an astute historian of the currencies, could you tell us how long it took from the tipping point to all-out hyperinflation in the countries that experienced it?
JT: Once you hit the tipping point, it’s usually six months before the currency is finished. To give you an example, I went to Argentina in 1991 to study what was happening there. Hyperinflation appeared to be brewing. The currency, the austral, was linked to the U.S. dollar at 14:1 in January, and the link was broken. During the first week of May, when I arrived, the austral had already devalued to 64:1 against the dollar. When I left at the end of the week, it was 96:1 and by December, it was 10,000:1. So I was right there at the tipping point.
But here’s the interesting thing. Hyperinflation is first recognized outside the country before it’s recognized within, because foreigners own another country’s currency by choice. If they don’t like what’s going on, they sell that currency and move into something else. Where we are with the U.S. dollar, so many indications suggest that internationally we’ve hit the tipping point, but not yet within the U.S., where people are still getting paid in dollars and still spending dollars. Once the domestic tipping point is reached, it’s six months before the currency collapses.
TGR: Considering that you’re based in London now and presumably have greater insight into what’s happening with the euro and in the European Union than most of us, how do you see the situation in Europe vis-à-vis the U.S.?
JT: Last year, the euro was in the doghouse and the dollar was relatively strong. A couple of years ago, the dollar was in the doghouse and the euro was relatively strong. As a famous hedge fund manager in New York said, trying to pick between the currencies today is like trying to choose the best-looking horse in the glue factory. You really can’t say that the dollar is a good choice just because the euro is weak this year. It’s not. All fiat currencies have serious problems.
The problems differ to a certain extent, and at any moment in time—depending upon what different central banks are doing or how investor sentiment is moving—you could have relative strength in one or the other. But they’re all sinking relative to gold, so when deciding how to hold your liquidity, you have to consider gold bullion as one of the best choices simply because it’s done so well against all of the world’s major currencies for the past decade.
TGR: You’ve said many times that anyone who gets into precious metals needs to know why. You’ve suggested it’s either exposure to the silver and gold prices—in which case people can opt for instruments such as exchange-traded funds—or elimination of counterparty risk, which means they need tangible assets. Most of the rationale for people getting into precious metals these days is the insurance factor. Does protection against currency devaluation fall into either of those two categories?
JT: It falls into the tangible asset category. If you’re holding gold or silver for insurance, you’re holding bedrock assets with thousands of years of history. Come what may, they’re going to have value in the future.
TGR: The typical advice for people holding gold as insurance is to have 10% of your assets in gold. Maybe now that things are so volatile, 20% would be a better idea. But you’re even more aggressive on that.
JT: I am, but everybody has unique circumstances, so it’s hard to make sweeping generalizations. My basic view, though, is the older you are the more conservative you should be and, therefore, the more gold you should own. As a rule of thumb, use your age as a guide. If you’re 20, you may want 20% of your portfolio in gold and the rest in higher risk assets because you still have time to generate wealth as you get older. But once you’re older, you want to be conservative, and the way to be conservative in this environment is to own physical bullion. If you’re 60, you should have 60% of your portfolio in gold.
TGR: People look at gold now and see the wonderful returns—17% annually on average, in the U.S. alone. What about an investor who says, “Hey, I’m just going to invest in gold because it will give me a better return than equities”? Is that a bad way to look at it?
JT: No, but understand that gold doesn’t create wealth. It doesn’t have cash flow, it doesn’t have a management team and it doesn’t have a price/earnings ratio. It’s just a sterile, tangible asset. Gold doesn’t even really generate a return. When you talk about returns in gold, you’re actually talking about the lost purchasing power of the dollar. An ounce of gold today buys the same amount of crude oil it did 60 years ago. It didn’t increase your wealth. It basically just preserved your purchasing power over that period of time.
Even when the gold price rises, even at 17.7%/year on average over the last 11 years against the U.S. dollar, it’s not creating wealth. It’s taking wealth that already exists and is being held by people who own fiat currencies. That wealth is being moved from them to people who own gold. But gold is not a wealth-generating asset. It doesn’t grow anything.
TGR: A lot of vehicles that people put in their portfolios mimic stock indices, which also don’t create wealth, but they do create returns.
JT: If they mimic stock indices, they create wealth. Ultimately, if the shares themselves go up, what mimics those shares goes up. If the stock in these indices goes up, the wealth in the world expands because it generates cash flow. A company generates some goods or services that benefit people, and people are willing to use their hard-earned cash to buy those goods or services. Ultimately, the firm grows and, as a consequence, creates wealth.
TGR: Now that we’re talking about stocks, what’s the role of gold equities? You said that people should use their age when they think about what percentage of their portfolio should be in gold. Let’s say someone is 50. Would that 50% be in physical gold, or could it also include gold equities?
JT: Gold equities are different than gold. Gold equities are investments. Gold bullion is money. A portfolio has two components. The investment component focuses on risk versus return. The monetary component provides liquidity. When you sell an investment, you have liquidity, whether gold, a national currency or some mix. You hold that liquidity until you’re ready to use some of it to make your next investment or to buy goods or services.
But, mining stocks are fundamentally different than gold. A company you invest in has a balance sheet. It has a management team. Acts of God can destroy a mine. There are political risks and other considerations involved in owning mining stocks. Of course, that’s also how you actually create wealth—if you choose the right stock, you get a return. It’s also true that these stocks have exposure to the gold price in the sense that if the gold price goes up, the mining stocks probably will go up also. But even then, there’s no guarantee that the mining stocks will go up.
And remember, gold mining stocks are investments. Gold is money. Do you want liquidity or do you want an investment?
TGR: For those who want an investment, how do you feel about the gold equities? They do carry the additional risks you outlined but not so much the counterparty risk.
JT: I happen to be bullish on mining stocks because I think their bear market ended a few years ago. We’re just now retesting lows that had been made previously, and with the rise in gold and silver I expect this year, I think we’ll see the mining stocks go up as well.
In fact, if you choose the right mining stock and the gold price increases, the mining stock should rise by a higher percentage than gold itself. This has to do with the fact that a rising gold price improves the bottom line, increases the profit margin and ultimately results in a higher price/earnings ratio because the market senses that this is a major bull market, and the earnings and cash flow generated will lead the company to possibly increase dividends or something like that down the road.
As I indicated at the start of our conversation, though, an interesting thing about markets is that nothing works all the time. So while generally speaking, mining stocks rise by a higher percentage in a rising gold price environment, it doesn’t always work that way. For the last 10 years, gold has done very well, but the mining stocks have basically gone nowhere.
TGR: One of the themes of the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference seemed to be that gold stocks are a really good deal for that very reason, and that they’re on sale at bargain prices right now.
JT: I agree completely.
TGR: You’re also bullish on silver and apparently expect the silver/gold ratio to return to historic levels.
JT: I am very bullish on silver, but not because of that ratio. The ratio is basically just the outward measure used to show how silver is undervalued relative to gold. The underlying fundamentals suggest to me that the silver price is very cheap relative to how I sense the supply and demand characteristics.
TGR: We have minimal economic growth in Europe and the U.S., if any, and everyone seems to agree that China’s growth is slowing. With the world economy in slow motion, and silver being an industrial metal, what makes you so bullish on this commodity? What underlying fundamentals will drive the silver price up?
JT: It’s a good substitute for gold. Fifty-one ounces of silver do the same thing as one ounce of gold. Silver is a monetary asset that preserves and protects purchasing power. It’s the combination of the monetary and industrial demands that creates so much volatility in silver relative to gold. With gold, you have only the monetary demand. Economists call that demand inelastic, because people want to own gold regardless of the price. With silver, the demand is very elastic, meaning it’s very sensitive to changes in price.
TGR: If people want both metals in their portfolio, what kind of balance do you recommend?
JT: Two-thirds gold and one-third silver.
TGR: You’ve suggested that silver prices are going to rise faster than gold. Should that carry over to silver equities? Do you expect them to outperform gold equities?
JT: Yes, I do. Again, it’s difficult to make a sweeping generalization, but the odds are that silver stocks will do better than gold stocks in the foreseeable future.
TGR: You’ve covered some of the same points here that you made in your presentation at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference. What would you consider the key takeaways from that presentation?
JT: First of all, I hope people understand more clearly that gold is money, and that they view it from that perspective in order to properly assess whether it makes sense in their portfolios. Secondly, I hope people realize that despite the fact that the gold price has risen, it’s important to distinguish between price and value—they’re different things. The gold price has risen because the dollar is being debased, but gold remains very undervalued and it’s well worth it for you to continue to accumulate it. Work it into your family budget, and every month or two, buy more gold—and silver, if you’re so inclined. That leads to the third point. Don’t try to trade gold; save it. When you’re doing that, you’re saving sound money, and that’s a good thing.
TGR: When you started GoldMoney, you talked about a vision that at some point people would use GoldMoney units as currency to trade for services—a bit like using PayPal or an online bank but using your digital gold currency (DGC) instead. Do you still see that coming?
JT: Yes, it seems inevitable to me. In fact we’ve used the DGC payment feature, but recently stopped for a variety of reasons. It had not been used very actively anyway because of Gresham’s law—that bad money drives out good. In today’s world, people would rather spend fiat currency as a form of payment and save their gold and silver. That’s a good thing, for now, but that will change as fiat currency itself becomes less trusted and ultimately collapses.
James Turk, a renowned authority on gold and the precious metals markets, is founder and chairman of GoldMoney®, patented gold-based electronic money—digital gold currency (DGC)—that’s transferred over the Internet. In vaults in London, Zurich and Hong Kong, GoldMoney.com stores more than $2 billion worth of precious metals bullion, including platinum and palladium as well as gold and silver, for customers located in more than 100 countries. In August 2009, Turk’s Freemarket Gold & Money Report, which began in 1987 as a subscription-based investment newsletter, completed a transformation to become a free, web-based commentary. Accordingly, its name changed to the Free Gold Money Report (FGMR).
Turk is also a director of the GoldMoney Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to providing information on the role of gold and silver as money and currency and their importance to society. Co-author of The Collapse of the Dollar, Turk has specialized in international banking, finance and investments since his 1969 graduation from George Washington University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in international economics. He began his business career with The Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase), which included assignments in Thailand, the Philippines and Hong Kong, followed by several years with a prominent precious metals trader’s private investment and trading company, and, based in the United Arab Emirates, several more years managing the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority’s Commodity Department.
By The Energy Report, on February 1st, 2012
 Powers Energy Investor Editor Bill Powers doesn’t shy away from microcaps; he embraces them. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, he explains why triple-digit oil is here to stay and how the best-positioned companies will be sitting pretty when natural gas prices rise—as will investors who time the rebound right.
The Energy Report: Is it fair to say that you are a value investor?
Bill Powers: Absolutely. I’m very much a value investor focused on fundamentals and finding companies that can grow reserves, production and cash flow without taking on too much debt and/or diluting shares. Those are the companies that can have very strong long-term outperformance. That is my theme, and I think it is really powerful right now. The companies I’ve identified do not currently reflect future prices that their stocks will be receiving.
TER: Clean balance sheets, steady cash flow and a depressed market price: would that sum it up?
BP: Yes. The Canadian junior market has changed in the last 10 years markedly. It’s matured greatly. Many companies have proven management teams and very good cash flow but are trading below their net asset value.
TER: Do you try to stay away from micro-cap stocks?
BP: Absolutely not; I very much embrace micro-cap stocks. As a newsletter writer, my commentary is largely directed at investors who want information on companies that are below Wall Street or Bay Street’s radar screen. I try to find the company that I feel is best positioned in a certain play and that have the chance for the best share price appreciation. Usually, it’s not the large-cap producers who have acreage in the play.
TER: How do you define a micro-cap?
BP: I consider a micro-cap as $250 million (M) on down.
TER: You recently wrote in the Powers Energy Investor that foreign investors are paying too much for joint venture (JV) agreements with large North American companies. If foreign companies are overpaying, why is that depressing the price of gas?
BP: I’ll give an example: Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK:NYSE) made a deal with Total Energy Services (TOT:TSX) to farm out its Utica shale acreage in Ohio. To put this into perspective, there have only been a handful of wells drilled in Ohio into the Utica shale, primarily within one county. This is a speculative play and I am very skeptical of how productive the Utica shale could really be.
That being said, the way these deals are structured is that Total, the foreign company in this case, pays $600M up front to Chesapeake, which will be drilling wells funded completely by Total. So between now and the end of 2014, it will be spending $1.5B on drilling. There are other companies that have done similar deals totaling maybe $20B from largely foreign companies farming into U.S. acreage. This is important because the foreign company will fund drilling for usually two years irrespective of gas price, and when companies drill with somebody else’s money, they are not sensitive to the fact that gas right now is under $2.50/thousand cubic feet (Mcf). It’s a good deal for the American companies, but it’s usually a very, very poor deal for the foreign firms.
TER: Classic economic theory says that if you keep producing like this and prices get very low, people will quit producing. Then, eventually, prices will go back up. When does that happen?
BP: I think it’s going to be happening fairly soon. Right now we have a glut of gas. Part of this is due to Haynesville and Marcellus operators’ drilling acreage to keep leases from expiring. The rig count is really starting to fall, especially in the Haynesville, which is producing 6 billion cubic feet (Bcf)/day right now and is the largest-producing field in the U.S. But that rate has already flattened out, and production will probably start to fall as rigs continue to get dropped. These are very high-decline wells. Texas production is beginning to decrease because the Eagle Ford is not offsetting production declines elsewhere in Texas. Gulf of Mexico production continues to go down. Basically, with gas under $3/Mcf, virtually every field in North America is uneconomic, and we will see a big slowdown in drilling. Very few companies have attractive hedges in place because we’ve had low gas prices for a couple of years. We will see a rebound in gas prices, and it will be quite violent. The challenge is finding the right timing of it. It is not so much a function of when the economics make sense as it is about when other people’s money runs out. We’re seeing that happen right now.
TER: Have we reached the point of maximum pessimism yet?
BP: That’s hard to say. I do think there is a lot of pessimism, but that doesn’t mean a reversal is imminent. I do think that at some time in 2012 we will see that reverse itself, and when that happens we will see gas prices increase substantially.
TER: It sounds like you are playing a very bullish scenario for natural gas. One of the first things I noted in your model portfolio from your Powers Energy Investor is that you have significant personal exposure to natural gas.
BP: Yes, absolutely. From an investor’s standpoint, being a contrarian is easy when your stocks are going up or when your ideas are being recognized by other market participants. What I’m doing in my newsletter is finding gas producers that have been beaten bloody by the marketplace but are low-cost producers that will make it to the other side to see the rebound in gas prices. I’ve identified about five companies that are leaders in certain plays or that have very good leverage to what I think are some of the best North American unconventional resource plays. Those are all places that will continue to produce into the future because they have the better acreage that will become economic once gas prices go back to $4/Mcf. Right now, you’re getting a lot of upside for free because the marketplace doesn’t believe that gas prices will eventually rebound.
TER: Could you talk about those companies you just referenced?
BP: Sure. One of the companies is Ultra Petroleum Corp. (UPL:NYSE), which is a slightly bigger company than I usually cover. It is very active in Wyoming on the Pinedale Anticline, and it’s also very active in the Marcellus. It is a very low-cost producer. This company was a penny stock about a decade ago.
Another I really like, a smaller company, is Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. (AAV:NYSE; AAV:TSX). It has a great project in the Montney in Canada. It is an extremely well-run company that I think is doing very good work up there.
There are other companies that offer a lot of value and have seen their share prices decline, such as Fairborne Energy Ltd. (FEL:TSX) in the Willrich. It’s a very exciting play in Alberta’s Deep Basin.
This is just a preview of companies that I think have good acreage and that are very leveraged to rising gas prices.
TER: Those were three of your five favored gas companies. What were the other two?
BP: One is Quicksilver Resources Inc. (KWK:NYSE). It’s a U.S.-based company that has a fair amount of debt on its balance sheet. However, for a small-cap company, it has fantastic acreage in the Horn River Basin, where it is very early stage, but this may turn out to be the best shale gas play in North America. Time will tell. This company has been around for more than 50 years, and it has a very good management team. It has been a leader in a number of shale plays. It had the Antrim shale in Michigan and the Barnett shale in Texas. It was one of the early players in those plays.
The other one I like is a bigger company that continues to produce very good results, and that is Southwestern Energy Co. (SWN:NYSE) in the Fayetteville shale as well as in the Marcellus. The company has a dominant acreage position in the Fayetteville and has really been able to grow its production quickly in the Marcellus. It is a very well-run company by Steve Mueller.
So those are just some companies that I try to find. Each is unique. Each of them has different catalysts that will help its share prices more than double once gas prices start to move up. I think these stocks could go up three- or four-fold from here without any problem.
TER: Ok, you love natural gas. What about oil?
BP: I’m very bullish on oil. I think there are some very good factors that will keep the price of oil over $100/barrel (bbl) almost irrespective of how the economy does. With the natural declines from the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea as well as Venezuela and Mexico, a lot of countries are struggling to keep up production. I think the U.S. has been able to increase its production materially over the last five or six years due to breakthroughs in technology, but that does not change the long-term trajectory of oil production in the U.S. We will see declines from California and the Gulf of Mexico, and we will see further production declines in Alaska, which will largely offset some of the very exciting production growth in unconventional plays, such as the Bakken in North Dakota or the Permian Basin in Texas. I do think triple-digit oil prices are here to stay, and I think we could see $150/bbl before too long, especially if there is a disruption in the Middle East. I think the leverage available to investors with small-cap companies is really mindboggling when you look at what oil prices mean to these companies.
TER: What oil-based companies are we looking at?
BP: Arsenal Energy Inc. (AEI:TSX), a very exciting play in the Bakken. It also has acreage in the Willrich and a very good management team. It is growing its production, and it just did an acquisition that grew its production to around 4 thousand barrels (Mbbl)/day. It has a very strong future as far as production growth that’s high net back, high cash flow and reasonable balance sheets. That’s one company that I am very high on. It has a market cap of only about $109M. It is one of my favorites.
As far as other companies that have great leverage that will go up, I’m becoming very keen on oil sands companies. I think companies like Connacher Oil & Gas (CLL:TSX) are going to rebound and continue to rebound. PetroBakken Energy Ltd. (PBN:TSX), Petrobank Energy & Resources Ltd. (PBG:TSX) and Petrominerales Ltd. (PMG:TSE) are all very oil-weighted companies that will be able to really ramp up cash flow in 2012 as oil prices maintain the $100-level.
Then we do see some U.S.-based companies like SM Energy Co. (SM:NYSE) in the Eagle Ford. This is along my theme of trying to find companies with the best leverage to a certain play. I think SM Energy has the best acreage in the Eagle Ford.
A couple of companies are involved in secondary oil recovery are Evolution Petroleum Corporation (EPM:NYSE) and Denbury Resources Inc. (DNR:NYSE). I think both of those companies are very well-leveraged to oil prices.
So those are some ideas that I think will provide shareholders great returns in the next two years.
TER: Speaking of oil sands, the Obama Administration nixed, at least temporarily, the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada down to the Gulf Coast. Are the concerns valid? Aside from the developer TransCanada Corp. (TRP:TSX), who does this hurt?
BP: I think this really hurts American consumers. I don’t believe the concerns over the environmental aspects of the XL Pipeline were valid whatsoever. I think this was almost entirely a political maneuver. Right now, the U.S. still imports a substantial amount of production from overseas, and I don’t think some of these overseas suppliers are nearly as reliable as Canada. We import a lot from countries such as Venezuela and Mexico, which are struggling to maintain their production levels and are increasing internal consumption. So I think it is unlikely we will see material imports from either of those countries 10 years from now. Given the growth profiles of many Canadian oil sands producers such as Imperial Oil (IMO:TSX; IMO:NYSE.A) and Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE:TSX; CVE:NYSE), I think we will see material growth in the Canadian oil sands from about 1.2 million barrels (MMbbl)/day to maybe 4 MMbbl by 2022, obviously depending on permitting issues and the price of oil. I think the Keystone would have been a very good supply. Eventually, I think the Canadians will get fed up and build a pipeline to Port Rupert and send the oil sands production to Asia if the U.S. cannot find some solution to get the XL Pipeline moving forward.
TER: The differential in price for what Asians are paying could pay for shipping that oil to Asia.
BP: Yes, absolutely. And one of the things we’re seeing in Asia is that some of the biggest producers such as Indonesia are seeing flat to declining production. And China has really struggled to keep its production flat. There have been some very good offshore finds in Malaysia and Vietnam that will replace some of the declines from places like Indonesia, but on an overall basis, those are not keeping up with the growing regional demand. Numerous Asian countries, especially China, would love to tap into the Canadian oil sands. A pipeline will get built. It’s just a matter of whether it leads to the U.S. or to the west coast of Canada.
TER: You have reviewed Energy XXI (EXXI:NASDAQ) recently.
BP: It’s not in my model portfolio right now, but I was very impressed that it has been able to grow production and that the company has a material oil weighting. It has a very good mix of exploration prospects as well as development prospects. Right now, the market has really turned its back on the Gulf of Mexico producers such as Energy XXI, and it is trading at lower valuations than its onshore peers, but it is able to generate material cash flow. In the case of Energy XXI’s balance sheet, I think some investors were a little scared off by its debt levels, which I see as very manageable given the cash flows it will be receiving over the next two years and its significant material reserves that it can borrow against. I think Energy XXI has a pretty bright future. I’m going to continue to monitor the company and see how it continues to execute over the next six months or so. It has a very good mix of high-impact exploration and lower-risk development.
TER: Bill, you are writing a book now?
BP: I’m currently working on a book that looks at shale gas and what I consider to be the myth of a 100-year supply. While there is a significant amount of shale gas that will be recovered in the next decade, it is nowhere close to a 100-year supply. Shale gas is not the game changer that a lot of people think it is.
TER: What thought would you leave us with?
BP: I think the perceived risks in energy investing have been somewhat overblown given where oil prices are. The space is very volatile, but for investors who can take a longer-term approach and who can identify companies that are well-run and that have legitimate projects, there are fantastic returns available. The energy sector has been out of favor, but the fundamentals are very strong. I think investors who can position themselves in gas-weighted firms ahead of the coming rebound will be richly rewarded, but there are also fantastic returns in oil-weighted companies that will benefit mightily from triple-digit oil prices.
TER: Bill, I’ve enjoyed speaking with you.
BP: Thank you for having me.
Bill Powers is the editor of Powers Energy Investor and previously the editor of the Canadian Energy Viewpoint and US Energy Investor. He is a former money manager and has been an active investor for over 25 years. Powers has devoted the last 15 years to studying and analyzing the energy sector, driven by his desire to uncover unrecognized trends in the industry and identify outstanding opportunities for retail and institutional investors.
By The Gold Report, on January 31st, 2012
 After a tough year in 2011, there is definitely a good selection of underpriced junior resource stocks available for astute investors to focus on before the rest of the herd finally wakes up and smells the gold. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, Matthew Zylstra, mining analyst at Northern Securities, reviews the gold, silver and PGM markets and tells us why he believes that better times are ahead for junior miners in 2012 and which ones he particularly likes at current price levels.
The Gold Report: When you last spoke with The Gold Report in early March of last year, gold was trading around $1,420/ounce (oz) and silver was around $36/oz. Silver peaked about $49/oz in late April and then gold hit around $1,900/oz in September. Now we’re back up above $1,700/oz on gold and about $33/oz on silver. Where do you see these prices going this year, after it appears that they have likely bottomed out?
Matthew Zylstra: We’re long-term bulls on both metals. Gold has been correcting since September and it looks like it bottomed out around $1,500/oz. We believe the recent decline is a normal pullback in a longer-term uptrend where nothing has really changed to the outlook. We see a perfect environment for the metal—concerns over our currency debasement, negative real interest rates, geopolitical friction, etc. I expect gold will reclaim the 2011 highs and could reach $2,000/oz.
For silver, the picture is less clear. Silver is, in part, an industrial metal accounting for around 50% of demand and less of a currency. Silver peaked at almost $50/oz in April 2011 and the price has been very volatile. We think the move is a correction, again, in a longer uptrend going back to 2003. I expect silver will trade around the mid-$30/oz range this year.
We actually feel platinum has a lot of potential. South Africa, Zimbabwe and Russia account for about 90% of platinum production and there’s a scarcity of good platinum metals group (PMG) projects outside those countries. We expect increased investment demand and believe that supply disruptions, as well as resource nationalization concerns, will drive the price higher. We note that Sprott Asset Management has formed a physical platinum and palladium trust, which could boost investment demand.
TGR: So, what really happened to the platinum market? Historically, platinum traded at a 30–40% premium over gold. Does it have to do with industrial demand or what happened to cause it to trade below gold?
MZ: The main industrial use for platinum/palladium is automotive catalysts. With fears of a global slowdown, their prices came off. But our view is that supply is not going to be able to meet the demand going forward. And, as you mentioned, platinum has historically traded at a significant premium to gold but the value is now only about 95% of the price of gold.
TGR: Getting to the actual equities, the gold and silver stocks certainly didn’t track the metals prices very well the last year. What’s been the problem?
MZ: Gold stocks have performed poorly compared to the metals. We believe this has to do with investors being leery about another period similar to what occurred in 2008 when credit markets froze. Exploration and development companies, in particular, are sensitive to what’s going on in the capital markets since they require capital to continue exploration. Take, for example, Trade Winds Ventures Inc., which was acquired last year by Detour Gold Corp. (DGC:TSX). Shares of Trade Winds traded down to $0.03 in the 2008 crisis. Trade Wind shares were later bought for cash and stock, which at the time amounted to about $0.45 a share. My point is that people are nervous but that creates opportunity especially with what I believe will be a catch-up in equity prices.
TGR: I hope with metals prices staying up, the credit markets will be a little more optimistic and will loosen up a bit.
MZ: We certainly don’t expect another period like 2008. I think that was an aberration.
TGR: So, I hope the stocks start picking up here and not continue acting like gold is $800/oz and silver is $15/oz.
MZ: That is what we expect and the precious metals stocks could really get a boost on QE3 or other stimulus programs.
TGR: So, what do you think is going to be some sort of catalyst to get people more excited faster? Or is this just going to have to be a gradual progression and we are going to have to wait for $2,000/oz gold and $50/oz silver for people to really get into this market?
MZ: The disconnect between gold/silver prices and mining company equities has grown considerably. The sector is cheap by historical standards when you consider the price of gold miners’ shares relative to the price of gold. The Philadelphia Gold and Silver Index (XAU), which is an index of 16 precious metals and mining companies, is close to the lowest level it has been since the 2008 crisis relative to gold. We expect this ratio to gradually work its way back to the average. If we see gold mining stocks move up to even the low end of their historical range versus gold, it will mean a significant gain for many of these companies.
Increased merger and acquisition (M&A) activity in the sector will get people interested in a lot of these companies. As the price of gold and silver continues to rise, the economics become very compelling, especially for large- and mid-cap companies to acquire smaller players.
More interest in precious metals will help too. With what I see as a developing currency war—a race to devalue—I think more investors are going to turn to precious metals and related equities.
TGR: It certainly seems like there are a lot of smaller companies out there with some interesting looking projects that may be sitting ducks for being taken over. If they have to keep going back to the market to raise more money and create more dilution, that could be a problem. What’s your thinking on that?
MZ: Small exploration companies are going to continue to need funds to advance their projects, and costs have been increasing. That’s a major problem. The need to raise capital isn’t going to change but we are seeing alternative ways of financing such as gold and silver streams, alternative debt arrangements and joint ventures, which mean less dilution.
TGR: A lot of companies that were able to load up with plenty of cash at reasonable prices are obviously happy in this market. Do you think they’re going to get pushed to go out and do acquisitions?
MZ: I think what we’re seeing now are mining companies with the ability to acquire languishing juniors taking advantage of the environment. The seniors and intermediates, which have filled up their treasuries with robust gold and silver prices, certainly have the ability to do the same. At the end of the year we saw companies like Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. (AEM:TSX; AEM:NYSE) acquiring Grayd Resource Corp, AuRico Gold Inc. (AUQ:TSX; AUQ:NYSE) acquiring Northgate Minerals, and New Gold Inc. (NGD:TSX; NGD:NYSE.A) acquiring Richfield Ventures Corp. and Silver Quest Resources Ltd. We see this trend intensifying, especially if mining company valuations don’t keep pace with rising metals prices.
TGR: That brings us to a little follow-up on some of the companies that you talked about last time. A couple of the junior producers you talked about were Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd. (BGM:TSX.V) and Orvana Minerals Corp. (ORV:TSX). Can you tell us what’s going on with them?
MZ: The market has been disappointed with production from both companies. Barkerville recently got a boost after receiving a permit for its Bonanza Ledge property, which is a high-grade open-pittable gold resource. The delay in getting that permit meant that production was not what we had originally expected. Updated resource calculations for the company’s Bonanza Ledge, Cariboo Quartz and B.C. vein zone in the first half of 2012 could be a positive there.
Orvana has two properties that were both put into production in 2011. In Spain, the company’s El Valle-Boinás/Carlés is an operating gold mine, which is not seeing the head grade we had expected. Grades are slowly increasing from around 2 grams per tonne (g/t) to an expected 3.5 g/t. Its other project in Bolivia, the Don Mario mine, has a different problem. It’s an open-pit, copper-gold mine where recoveries have been less than expected—around 50% versus 70–80% for copper. We look for recoveries to improve and think a lot of the bad news has been priced into the shares. We’re also encouraged by the fact that Bill Williams has now taken the helm of the company. Bill has exceptional operational technical expertise.
TGR: So you feel both of those are reasonable values at this point?
MZ: On Barkerville we’re taking a wait-and-see approach and have the stock rated as a hold. On Orvana we believe the negative news has been priced into the shares and valuation looks compelling.
TGR: So, how about some of the near-term producers that you follow, such as Canadian Zinc Corporation (CZN:TSX; CZICF:OTCBB)?
MZ: Canadian Zinc is a situation where the valuation has not kept up with the project. The company recently passed the major hurdle for environmental approval of its Prairie Creek mine. It’s a really interesting story—an old Hunt Brothers mine that could be in production in 2014 or maybe even as early as 2013. For readers who don’t know the history of the Prairie Creek mine, it is in the Northwest Territories and was just a few months away from going into production when silver prices collapsed in the early 1980s and the Hunt Brothers went bankrupt. It’s a high-grade silver-lead-zinc mine with much of the infrastructure in place that we think has a lot of potential. We actually believe this is an ideal time to own shares of the company since fundamentals have improved and the share price has drifted lower with the sector.
TGR: So that’s another one to watch closely and this may be a good time to be picking some up. What about some of the other junior explorers that you like and have talked about in the past?
MZ: For very near-term production I have followed but do not cover Armistice Resources Corp. (AZ:TSX). The company expects to produce 25,000 oz gold in 2012. At around $0.22/share, which is about 50% less than last year, valuation looks interesting. Two that I cover, which are exploration stories, are NioGold Mining Corp. (NOX:TSX.V; NOXGF:OTCPK) and Prophecy Platinum Corp. (NKL:TSX.V; PNIKD:OTCPK; P94P:FSE). NioGold continues to drill at its Marban project in Val-d’Or, Québec. This is a joint venture with Aurizon Mines Ltd. (ARZ:TSX; AZK:NYSE.A) where Aurizon is funding $20 million for exploration. We think the resource could grow fairly significantly from the current 960,000 oz to 1.4–1.5 million ounces (Moz). We actually think Marban could give Aurizon’s other project, Joanna, some competition. I think the valuation looks fairly attractive here, trading at about 60% lower than our calculated net asset value.
We’re also excited about the potential of Prophecy Platinum. Prophecy has the Wellgreen deposit in the Yukon, which contains 12 Moz of combined PGMs and gold plus 2.4 billion pounds (Blb) of nickel and 2.2 Blb of copper. The in-situ value is around $50 billion and we think a preliminary economic assessment due out in Q112 will show some strong economics for an optimized open-pit. The company is carrying out other work to derisk the project, including metallurgical studies and additional infill drilling for which we’ll start seeing results early this year.
TGR: So, that one is well priced at this point and a buy as far as you’re concerned.
MZ: Absolutely. The price drifted down after the excitement over the updated resource estimate, but it’s come down to a level where we think it offers very good value. We have a $6.40 target price.
TGR: So then, let’s look at some silver juniors. One that you follow is Cream Minerals Ltd. (CMA:TSX.V; CRMXF:OTCBB; DFL:FSE). What’s going on with that one?
MZ: Cream is a company I cover and which I visited late last year. It’s an exploration company with a 41 Moz silver deposit called Nuevo Milenio. It also has about 300,000 oz gold. We believe the company has the potential to really expand the current resource. Cream completed about 20,000 meters (m) of drilling in 2011 and we expect an updated resource out late Q112. This should actually upgrade a fair amount of the Inferred resource to Indicated and could add about 30% to that resource. We also see it doing another round of drilling of 20,000–30,000m in 2012, which we think has the potential to more than double the current resource.
TGR: That sounds promising.
MZ: Another one I don’t cover but I think is very interesting is Oremex Silver Inc. (OAG:TSX.V; OARGF:OTCBB; OSI:FSE). This is a small-cap silver exploration company with assets in Mexico. The company recently moved up on good initial results on its Chalchihuites project. The project is in the same area as First Majestic Silver Corp.’s (FR:TSX; AG:NYSE; FMV:FSE) Del Toro project, and we understand First Majestic is aggressively acquiring property in the area. The company’s flagship property, Tejamen, has a defined 51 Moz silver deposit. We think the president and CEO is also a real asset for a company with a market cap of around $20M. He’s been manager of exploration and development for Barrick Gold Corp. (ABX:TSX; ABX:NYSE) in South America.
TGR: So, are you expecting that 2012 is going to be the year that mining stock investors finally wake up and smell the gold and realize it’s time to get into this market?
MZ: I think this is the year! Investors have been cautious and focusing just on the downside, holding their money in cash. I think investors should be opportunistic and look for well-run companies with strong management and great assets.
TGR: Well, we’re certainly hoping for that also. We appreciate your joining us today and look forward to talking with you again.
MZ: Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity.
Analyst Matthew Zylstra joined Northern Securities in 2010 after having worked at Sprott Resource Corp. and investment counsel firm Foyston, Gordon and Payne Inc., a unit of Affiliated Managers Group Inc. He is focused primarily on junior precious metals producers and also follows some base metals miners. Zylstra has worked in the finance sector since 1999.
By The Gold Report, on January 30th, 2012
 Kwong-Mun Achong Low, an analyst with Northern Securities in Canada, thinks that copper and gold juniors are in for a better run this year. He’s ferreted out the juniors with the most promising management and assets that are on a path to production—not to mention rising stock prices. In this exclusive interview with The Gold Report, Achong Low discusses why copper may have a slight edge on gold in 2012 and what companies are the crown jewels of his coverage list.
The Gold Report: Kwong, what are some themes or common ground within your Buy recommendations in the junior mining space?
Kwong-Mun Achong Low: When I look to initiate coverage of a company, I go through a checklist of must-haves with emphasis on the management team and the assets. Excelsior Mining Corp. (MIN:TSX.V), Golden Predator Corp. (GPD:TSX), Probe Mines Ltd. (PRB:TSX.V) and Sunridge Gold Corp. (SGC:TSX.V) have solid management teams with proven track records and they’ve either built and sold companies before or they have tremendous experience in the countries that they operate in. All of those companies’ flagship assets are close to infrastructure, and they have a clear path to production. They’re not just speculative stories. They also have good streams of news to keep investors interested and are supported by the commodities that they are focused on, which are gold or copper.
TGR: Even very good news wasn’t really moving share prices a lot in the last half of 2011. Do you expect that to change in 2012? Will good drill results move share prices this year?
KAL: I think so, but a lot of the speculation has come out of the space. Really and truly, things were looking dire at the end of 2011, in part because of redemptions of funds and tax-loss selling. This year, investors will look at the quality projects and, when good drill results come out, they’ll say, “Okay, we’ll reward this company because it continues with good news.” I think share prices will respond to suit.
TGR: Are you more bullish on copper or gold in 2012?
KAL: The underlying fundamentals of both are still pretty good. Gold’s use as a store of value should be of real interest to investors because of the ongoing quantitative easing and the loose monetary policies by central banks that are devaluing major currencies. Historically, gold has responded well to that.
For copper, our bullish case comes from supply-demand fundamentals. Many commodity houses are forecasting a supply deficit for 2012. For instance, stockpiles in Asia as tracked by the London Metal Exchange (LME) are at a two-year low and heading lower, which is likely because China is buying and stockpiling copper again. The broader LME stocks are at a one-year low and also heading lower. That’s really good for copper and gives it an edge over gold this year.
TGR: But copper was down about 3.5% last year.
KAL: It just got caught up in all of the economic worries. When you go back to basics, which are supply-demand fundamentals, copper is still a really good story.
TGR: Northern Securities’ 2012 Top Picks List includes Golden Predator and Probe Mines, but not Sunridge or Excelsior. What factors put Golden Predator and Probe above the others?
KAL: At the time we chose those two names to highlight, the stock market was more volatile and investors were in a real risk-adverse mood.
Golden Predator stood out because it’s in the Yukon, which is a good mining jurisdiction. It has near-term production potential and current cash flow from its royalty portfolio. In a real cash crunch, it would come out OK.
Probe Mines, in Ontario, came on the scene with a really good resource update. It has a good opportunity for more resource growth, which puts it on a short list of takeover candidates.
TGR: Would it surprise you if the companies not on the top picks list outperformed those that are?
KAL: No, not at all. Both Sunridge and Excelsior are solid companies with robust assets. Sunridge has four polymetallic deposits in close proximity to one another. The biggest deposit, Emba Derho, is of world-class size by itself. It’s a 62 million tonne (Mt) volcanic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit with almost 0.6 million ounces (Moz) gold, nearly 1 billion pounds (Blb) copper and 2 Blb zinc. Something that size could attract takeover potential as well.
Excelsior’s preliminary economic assessment (PEA) on the Gunnison copper project in Arizona in December really impressed me. It could advance its project quickly to production and I would put it on a short list for potential acquirers given the project economics.
TGR: What in that PEA did you find particularly interesting?
KAL: It’s expecting annual production of 85 million pounds (Mlb) copper for a capital expenditure of $240 million (M). Not many companies could do that. If it builds a sulfuric acid plant for $85M, it could get its cash costs down from a projected $0.94/pound (lb) to about $0.68/lb. That could make it one of the lowest cash-cost producers in the copper space.
TGR: It plans to use in situ recovery, which involves drilling holes into a land mass, injecting liquid into those holes and then pumping it out and recovering the metals in those liquids. Given the recent concerns regarding fracking in the oil and gas space, do you expect getting environmental permits could pose a problem?
KAL: I’m not concerned with Excelsior getting its permits because the same process has been successfully permitted and used in the past in Arizona during the 1980s and 1990s. In situ recovery is often misunderstood because it’s not commonly used in the copper industry though it is quite common in the U.S. uranium industry. When at full operation, more of the dissolving liquid is removed than is pumped into the ground. That creates a cone of depression where the basic physics of high and low pressure prevents any fluid from traveling where it’s not supposed to go.
TGR: What catalysts are going to push Excelsior, which currently trades around $0.57/share, to your 12-month target of $2/share?
KAL: It intends to do a prefeasibility study by the end of this year. To do that, it will have to continue with its hydrology and metallurgical studies. Even though the initial tests came back positive and show a good case for in situ recovery, investors would be happy to see more detailed tests confirming those results. That should push this toward the target.
TGR: Golden Predator, which is the largest holder of active exploration properties in the Yukon, receives royalty payments from a property portfolio in Nevada. What sort of cash flows are those royalties creating and how is Golden Predator using that cash?
KAL: The land package and the royalty portfolio are two of the best things about Golden Predator. It already has cash flow coming in, which could be used for general and administrative expenses or to offset large financings. We expect about $1M in royalty payments this year, gradually increasing to about $8M by 2015. Also, as the company has done before, non-core segments in the royalty portfolio and land package could be monetized for additional gains.
TGR: Golden Predator released some results from the Sleeman zone on the Brewery Creek project in the Yukon recently. One hole returned 35.1 meters (m) of 1.63 grams per tonne (g/t) gold and 136.72 g/t silver. Within that intercept, there were 20m of an even higher grade intercept. What were your impressions of those results?
KAL: They were quite good. It’s not often that we see a sizable silver intercept at Brewery Creek, but that adds another dimension to go along with the gold. One of the holes on the westernmost part of Sleeman returned some decent results as well, showing that the zone is still open in all directions. That step out hole would not be included in the resource update at the end of January. Because of this, and the over 100 holes to be assayed, the company is planning another resource update for the middle of the year.
TGR: Golden Predator has a number of properties. Do you think as these sorts of results come back that it will begin to focus more on Brewery Creek than the others?
KAL: It already is focusing mostly on Brewery Creek given its near-term production potential possible because of its past-producer status. So Brewery Creek is both an exploration story with the good drill results it keeps returning and also a development story that could see itself in production by the end of the year. The other properties will also see some drilling this year and could add production growth a few years down the line, but they are not the focus now.
TGR: What other catalysts are you expecting to take Golden Predator to your 12-month target of $1.60/share?
KAL: It still needs to come out with some engineering tests on the existing heap-leach pad to see if a quick production start-up is possible. Those are due in the next few months and if they continue to show that it can start production sooner than most people think, that should really push the stock up.
TGR: Golden Predator has made some management changes. Do you think those are positive?
KAL: Definitely. It hired a chief operating officer and a chief mining engineer, which shows that it really is gearing up for production.
TGR: Probe Mines has gone from being primarily a chromite play to a gold play. The junior now sits with a resource of almost 5 Moz at the Borden Lake project in Northern Ontario. In 2009, Osisko Mining Corp. (OSK:TSX) bought out Brett Resources Inc. (BBR:TSX.V), which had a resource of similar size in Northern Ontario. It’s a distance away, but there are some similarities. Do you believe Probe is a takeover target?
KAL: I think so. Probe really has reinvented itself and capitalized on its grassroots Borden Lake gold discovery. It is expecting another resource update later on in this quarter, which should get it past the critical 5 Moz mark and put it on the radar for intermediate and senior producers. The orientation and structure of the ore body are close to ideal for mining a low-grade, bulk-tonnage deposit. A lot of that resource will end up mineable, and that’s what companies are looking for.
TGR: Have you visited that project?
KAL: I have. Dave Palmer, the chief executive officer, really keeps a close eye on what’s going on there and he regularly takes analysts and investors up to the property. What I really like about the project is that it’s about a 15-minute drive from the airstrip and the town of Chapleau, and you can walk straight from the road to the drill rig.
TGR: What are some catalysts we can expect in 2012 for Probe?
KAL: Apart from the updated resource, it also has some further metallurgical studies and drill results coming due. What I like about Borden Lake is that there are some really good geophysics in the northern part of the property that show that it could have another main Borden Lake deposit there. It’s drilling that now and if successful, that could easily double the resource.
TGR: Are you saying it could hit 10 Moz?
KAL: It could, but it may not this year. If it hits some good results up to the north, it could get really big.
TGR: If that’s the case, then it must be a takeover target.
KAL: For sure.
TGR: In a report, you suggest that Sunridge Gold is one of the more misunderstood stories in the junior gold sector. What misconceptions about Sunridge would you like to correct?
KAL: The biggest misconception is that Eritrea is a bad place to do business. I visited the property in November and saw firsthand that it is a very determined country working to put additional business-friendly policies in place. The people are very friendly and hard working. The United Nations Security Council clouded that view when it put further sanctions on the country in December after some neighboring countries accused it of supporting militant groups, but I think the accusations are politically motivated. Russia and China both abstained from the vote. Also, Russia went on record saying that the evidence of Eritrea’s link to the planned attacks in Addis Ababa was not conclusive.
TGR: But there is unrest in the region. Are you factoring that into a discount rate?
KAL: Definitely. Whether it’s true or not, the market does perceive additional risk in Eritrea. We only use a multiple of 0.4x our net asset value whereas other companies in our space could get from 0.5–1.0x.
TGR: What were your thoughts about the Asmara project when you visited?
KAL: It is very close to infrastructure. You can drive to the site in a matter of minutes. The topography is very supportive of open-pit mining as it is very flat with lots of room to put the mill facilities and tailings pond. It’s also very close to a willing workforce.
TGR: Are there any majors operating in Eritrea right now?
KAL: None that I know are active in the area. There are a number of Chinese companies with interest including the Shanghai Construction Group that recently bid for Chalice Gold Mines Ltd. (CXN:TSX; CHN:ASX), though the others have nothing as advanced as Sunridge or Nevsun Resources Ltd. (NSU:TSX; NSU:NYSE.A).
TGR: Does Nevsun have the cash flow to pull off a takeover?
KAL: For sure. It is producing a lot of gold at one of the lowest cash operating costs in the industry. Last year it produced about 380 thousand ounces of gold and the cash costs for the first three quarters were about $285/ounce (oz). However, I’m not sure that, if it were to expand, it would want to get another asset in Eritrea.
TGR: On the one hand, you’re saying there’s not as much risk as people think, but in this example, you are intimating that there is still a significant amount of risk there?
KAL: There is perceived risk. If a company like Nevsun has a main asset there and it’s not getting the full value that it should for it, then there’s no need to wait around for the market to clue in. It can just take its cash and go after something that the market will recognize.
TGR: What should move Sunridge stock to your 12-month target price of $1/share?
KAL: Of its four main deposits, it has combined three of them into one prefeasibility study due out in about four months. The fourth deposit, the Debarwa deposit to the south of Asmara, has a feasibility study due in the next couple of months. As the market sees that there is real economic benefit to these projects and there is a clear line to their production, Sunridge should get rewarded for that.
TGR: Debarwa is really the crown jewel here, right?
KAL: It’s the highest grade and it may be the closest to production, though I think the crown jewel is Emba Derho, with 62 Mt of VMS.
TGR: What’s the resource there?
KAL: It’s almost 600,000 oz gold, 1 Blb copper and 2 Blb zinc at Emba Derho.
TGR: What’s the estimated production timeline there?
KAL: It could be as early as 2015. After the feasibility is completed, it could start applying for its permits. Sunridge has already started talking with government officials, so I don’t think that will take as long as it has for other companies, like Nevsun.
TGR: Are there any other companies that you would like to discuss today?
KAL: It’s not one that I cover, but it is in a very stable country: Seafield Resources Ltd. (SFF:TSX.V:). It is advancing its Quinchia gold project in Colombia. It is expecting a resource update at its Miraflores deposit by the end of this month and a PEA in a few months. Quinchia currently has 2.5 Moz in global resource and with the new management appearing settled, the relative valuation and news flow makes this stock one to watch.
TGR: Do you have some parting thoughts for our readers?
KAL: Investors need to take the speculation out and do additional due diligence because it’s a stock-picking market. Investors need to look for companies that have good news flow, really good management and an asset that is good enough to put into production when they invest in it.
TGR: Thanks.
Kwong-Mun Achong Low is a mining analyst with Northern Securities with a focus on both precious and base metal equities. He previously worked at a Canadian bank owned dealer and at a U.S.-based brokerage. Achong Low obtained both his Master of Business Administration and Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Toronto.
By Bron Suchecki, on January 27th, 2012
Worth reading this response by Victor the Cleaner in FOFOA comments to this question: “At the moment, in order to influence the Gold price downwards, all that needs to be done by the authorities in LBMA and COMEX, is to raise the margin requirements.” This is complete and utter nonsense.
LBMA is a trade association and not an exchange and as such does not set any ‘margin requirement’. The LBMA member firms are typically those banks and other financial institutions that trade gold and silver OTC in London, but non-members around the world also trade OTC with these institutions.
When Newmont has some trucks on the road on the way to the refiner, they might want to sell that gold immediately to eliminate any further price volatility from their accounts, and so they might phone JPM and sell that stuff forward. None of the two counterparties is a speculator here. Newmont does have the real stuff, and JPM does have the cash. So even if they would require collateral, this would not influence the price.
Yes, there are probably some raw recruits who follow websites such as TF and who trade COMEX futures in under-capitalized accounts. Yes, CME occasionally raises the margin. Yes, they may just be checking who is the under-capitalized novice and who really has the cash in order to purchase the gold for the contracts they hold. Yes, they may just rip off the clueless novice for fun (and money). But to think this would set the spot price of gold is quite a hubris.
The OTC market is ten times bigger than COMEX, and so it pushes COMEX around in a way that most COMEX-fixated goldbugs don’t understand.
If you want to keep gold cheap in the long run, you need to create a huge volume of gold loans, expand the ‘money supply’. If you want to manage the price of gold intra-day (and yes, there is indeed statistical evidence for this), you need to sell a lot of gold at spot in a short period of time. But you can do this only if you are a credible financial institution and only as long as you can hand over the allocated whenever your counterparties request it. So you need to understand extremely well what you are doing and how much physical per paper you need to be able to show. Hiking the COMEX margin is a side show.
What I find rather disappointing is the extremely poor quality of the discussion that is presented on the typical precious metal websites. This is financial product pushing of the same quality as pre-1999 when they IPO’d the companies that sell dog-food online.
Here are FOFOA, people discuss a very good reason for owning gold. For some reason, the mainstream goldbug websites totally ignore the good reason and push gold with inconsistent nonsense instead.
Why is that? Want to scalp PSLV? Want to create a mania, sell them financial products (including GoldMoney which is no longer ‘money’ by the way) and then when the big blackout comes, grab the gold for cheap from those who sell in panic because they never understood why they owned it in the first place? Very sad. And when the Financial Times calls the goldbugs confused idiots, sadly, there is even some truth in this statement.
If Victor keeps this up I’ll be out of a blogging job.
|
|
Most Popular Posts