RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Buy ARTEMIS instead of I80.....TomWicken wrote: the autoclave figure was out last week.. it was below consensus...max its 300 million
30 million dollars is a lot of contingency? you realize the warrants are the exercise price not the current price right? no 40 million is not a lot of contingency.. assume that all contingency will be used.. it is at all other projects. cote went $1 billion over and that include using up 120 million contingency.. magino went 400 million over.. including its 50 million contingency
you dont seem to understand greenfields vs refurbishments.. when building from scratch and especially TMF and major earth moving.. costs can quickly get ahead of plans and those estimates are from 2021.. both i80 figure are 2023 and late 2022
I like Greenfield Projects. Though all new site infrastructure is needed, you are mining virgin land. If the Feasibility Study for the first project is impressive and future ounces may be added upon further exploration / gold and silver prices given the land has never been mined before, that's what I like to see in a gold mining company.
Fair points about ARTG's dated Feasibility Study. However:
1) The P&P gold and silver reserves and strip ratios aren't going anywhere.
Further:
ARTG's feasibility study caclulated:
1) An average AISC of 732 CAD (586 USD at $1.00 CAD = $0.80 USD) and a strip ratio of 1.74 for the first 5 years of the mine life.
2) An average AISC of 850 CAD (680 USD) and strip ratio of 2.01 for the entire 22 years (life of the mine).
These are spectacular numbers, so even if the actual AISC numbers end up being say, 15% higher, they'd still be outstanding.
Thus, while I agree that the the existing Feasibility Study will likely prove too optimistic and addtional costs will probably exceed both the 33M ARTG will receive from the warrants as well as the 40M cost overrun facility ARTG alrady has in place while taking into account the silver stream, I highly doubt this will cause the Blackwater project to go from an outstanding operation to an average one. Also, there are not many current projects like Blackwater that are fully permitted with the numbers it has and at its current stage of development, and I think both the gold mining investment community in general and large producers looking to add ounces to their annual production will find ARTG very appealing as time goes on and they compare ARTG's assets, progress, and politically safer jurisdiction with those of other young mine developers.
Conversely, with Brownfield Projects, all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked by previous mining companies. That's why I suspect IAU holds such large land claims and is spending money exploring multiple Brownfield projects - they don't know as of yet which if any they will actually be able to mineable profitably with a decent margin of safety as there's been no feasibility studies conducted to date on any of the new projects, right...? Also, lots of money will need to be spent to simply determine whether the economics of any of the new projects work, and that will be in the midst of the American interest rate and inflationary environment going forward just as ARTG will be influenced by conditions in the Canadian economy. In other words, how many more equity raises and/or debt financings will IAU have to engage in before they extract the gold, silver, and other metals/materials from their target site(s), and how much will this dilute existing shareholders or affect the economics of any given project...? Thus the reasons why I find ARTG far more attractive than IAU both from a risk perspective as well as a potential total return standpoint.