@Tradeahead LMAO - bashers want real earnings, and when they got 10x what one would have expected they scoff at the real earnings. How could anyone take such talk seriously. It is a GREAT EPS. Anybody not understanding this has either a mental malfunction or is in a business function with a job description which actually includes bashing NVO.
@marsy Of course you would go look for something ;o). Now a test package giving 1.83 g/t by no means imply that there is not higher g/t in the fresh. It could be a matter of dilution, or have had many other reasons.
The reason I think it is great, is that while 1.34 g/t is economic, it is just economic, and preferably need a bit of improvement in g/t going forward. (I consider the first 1 g/t to approximate costs). Actually 0.5 g/t extra would be enough in the short term to throw a much better profit.
That said what I am really looking for is Genie, Parnell/Vulture and now Margie, with likely 4 g/t mineralisation to throw of MAJOR JUICY profit in the intermediate term. Longer term something like Talga Talga with up to 25 g/t would be that much better if we have continuity there.
It is just not true what you say about only positive due NFG. It is still positive, EX-NFG, you need to figure the tax charge of 7884 only happens due NFG. On that level we have 9.387M in FREE CASH FLOW from NLP. That is a nice number for the quarter.
For NVO as a whole we have 2,925M from operations for the qtr. (Financing costs can be retired at will, from balance of cash and marketable securities).
Look at cash flows too, we have 12M from operations, and 11M of these used for investment (which creates assets, and are thus not simply "costs", at least not tall of them).
What any serious analyst needs to focus on, is that a good deal of the exploration costs (I dont have an exact number) is not just infill drilling- but rather exploring for new assets which add real value and new assets to NVO balance sheet at a date in the future. These exploration costs are listed as costs, but are not in real economic terms costs- they represent GROWTH and future additions to the asset base.
Hence the growth part of explorations needs to be subtracted from the "cost of goods sold", and say they are 3M for the quarter, we suddenly have 6M and not 3M as the REAL profit from operations. (that is not to say they are 3M, just an example, I dont have the exact number).
These numbers are decidedly better than even I with a bullish forecast, had expected. @Tradeahead @marsy No it would not. If NFG had been recognized in Q2, it would sit at this value, until a revaluation event took place. And you cannot take a POSITIVE event such as NFG, and imply it would be negative in theory, because it would have been even more positive a month ago. Sorry, but that is simply nuts.
And even in that weird construct, this quarter would still be positive!!
Fine that 1.83 gpt does not excite you. It is very economic, but it is not King Salomons mines, I will give you that. But look to Genie, look to Parnell/Vulture, look to Margie's. 4g/t over 15M there that is GREAT. And 275M of potential mineralization spells a lot. Then Talga Talga.
Much higher grades abound all around NLP. We are in the middle of a gold DISTRICT. Oh yeah, we own it too. :O))) - so do not get too hung up on 1.83gpt.
Also, in a relatively short while you will see a gold price of 2300-2500 US - and that will make the 1.83 g/t rather exciting, coming to think of it, because the real margin explodes. Actually, the largest valuation increase in that situation will come from mines that are not "King Salomons mines", because the relative margin expansion compared to pre-price rise, is just much larger.
@marsy Yes, that is what I am saying, although I cannot state it as a certainty. But under typical conditions it would not be marked to market through the income statement at least. It happens this time around because of a change in the STATUS of the item in question, from a "subsidiary" basically to an "external company/marketable security"
So a change in the value would generally come about if the status changes, the holding is sold, or well, potentially under circumstances.