Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Sandstorm Metals & Energy Ltd STTYF



GREY:STTYF - Post by User

Comment by pictgroupon Mar 11, 2013 2:43pm
110 Views
Post# 21111842

RE: RE: PDAC re: SND

RE: RE: PDAC re: SND

gwalker-  to clarify, NW did not say they would exclusively target producing mines.  emphasis was on the low cost aspect, not the notion of producing vs not producing.  for a producing mine it would likely be a matter of identifying a byproduct stream opportunity eg a silver mine producing some zinc or gold mine producing some copper with the notable benefit that stream revenues could commence immediately.  no reason the terms of a streaming deal in this scenario wouldn't be favourable if the stream is contracted on the mine's secondary product.  the low cost common denominator implies larger assets (to amortize the capex) and/or a partner with a multi-layered capital stack ie equity, debt, and stream components such that Sandstorm would not be the only dance partner.  i think the donner (xstrata) deal must obviously suit their profile going forward as well.  bottom line message was bigger resource + developer/partner = lower cost= better. 

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>