RE: What a steal.If they are mining about 3000 tonnes per day at a combined grade of 16.65% for R-190 they are mining about a million pounds of metals per day. They have operating costs of about $160,000 per day.
P-499, O-556 and X-25 at 3000 tonnes per day are going to give about 550,000 to 600,000 pounds of metals per day with operating costs of $150,000 to $160,000 per day.
G-03 at 3000 tonnes per day is going to give about 450,000 pounds of metals per day but does not give operating costs per ton.
They say "Operating cash costs per payable pound of metal (total lead and zinc) for R-190 mining operations are $0.20/lb." If I take 160,000/1,000,000 I get 16c/pounds for metals payable, so I assume about an 80% recovery rate to get the 20c they say.
Looking at the other deposits, 160,000/(600,000*.8) is 33c/pound for metals payable.
For simplicity, say average revenue per pound of metals is $1.
At a million pounds per day, 80% recovery and 20c per pound costs, you get $640,000 cash flow after operating costs.
At 600,000 pounds per day with 33c per pound costs, 80% recovery, you get $320,000 cash flow after operating costs.
At 160,000/(450,000*.8) you get 44c per pound costs, with 80% recovery you get $200,000 cash flow after operating costs.
I included the G-03 when I said production is half on the rest of the deposits, but I just noticed they did not include operating costs for G-03. If you exclude the G-03 deposit then the overall production of the other deposits is 55-60% of the R-190 deposit.
I notice in all of your calculations you consistently use the R-190 deposit numbers as if they are what TAM will be forever and that simply isn't true. The R-190 deposit is an exceptional deposit, with an order of magnitude about twice as good as the other deposits to be considered after it is mined.
TAM does not become more profitable because the amount of metals being mined declines to almost half with identical operating costs, right out of table 11-2.
Table 1-1 and 1-2 show the vast difference in ore grade.
For christ sakes, why say such UTTER RUBBISH!
You've got it ALL wrong. Your understanding (I'm being charitable) is totally screwed up. NET cash flow is $595MM, with R-190 only contributing $115MM.
Contrary to your statements about "a complete implosion" of cash flow after R-190, TAM becomes MORE profitable. Why? Because operating costs remain stable (plain as day in Table 11-2.) yet capex declines significantly per lb of production. That means TAM's profitability INCREASES beyond R-190 even though grades decline.
Christ. I can't believe you could get it so friggin backwards. Your comments shows you are totally clueless and have no IDEA what you are talking about.