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.

Metanor Resources MEAOD

Metanor Resources Inc is engaged in the production and sale of gold as well as acquisition, exploration, and development of mining properties. It projects include the Moroy Project and Barry project among others.


OTCPK:MEAOD - Post by User

Comment by mstettleron Aug 25, 2016 12:19pm
102 Views
Post# 25176369

RE:To be fair - cash cost. vs. all in cost

RE:To be fair - cash cost. vs. all in cost
Wangotango67 wrote: When I calculate my estimations to mine  the Barry Pit,  I'm using a - cash cost - and not the - all in cost.
I guess I prefer the cash cost method,  all because it provides s clear picture as to what it actually costs to mine a singular project - aside of the carry forward baggage the company drags along the way.

Why do I like this method ?
Well, the all in cost - in my opinion, and in my limited knoeledge of min(ng, just may include management wages, former debts from previous projects, etc... Which, in my opinion is valid and must be recognized, after sll, such expenditures are nessisary, to make the whole project happen, but...what if the other expenditures - management wages, running debts, initial costs to spark the project, and over all run costs are - hmmm what's that word I'm looking for - I don't want to say inflated - but you know what I mean... (Tease) yes... There are some companies that do like to ride high...

So,  aside of the all in cost, I do think the cash cost has its place, to give the investor a clear picture to what it actually costs per each project,  and hope like hell, the company keeps all other expenditures in check. 

Heres an article - explaining the two stances...
I thought it was a great read.  Enjoy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/how-much-does-it-really-cost-to-mine-an-ounce-of-gold/article20709844/


At the end of the day it is the all-in sustaining cost that represents the true picture.  That is why every mining company has switched to reporting in this way.

As you say the all in cost is inflated due to executive compensation, debts, capex, cost overruns etc. then that is still part of what it costs to mine an oz.  In the case of MTO this is precisely why all in costs are so high.
 

Wanting to look at only cash cost is the same as saying 'I don't want to know the real story, let me play make believe that the company can survive when they are losing money quarter after quarter in a high gold price environment'.

Which is pretty typical on this board.


<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>

USER FEEDBACK SURVEY ×

Be the voice that helps shape the content on site!

At Stockhouse, we’re committed to delivering content that matters to you. Your insights are key in shaping our strategy. Take a few minutes to share your feedback and help influence what you see on our site!

The Market Online in partnership with Stockhouse