Copper Fox Metals Inc V.CUU

A False Comparison

[cbew]

I see the pumpers on the Agora board are making another false comparison of SC to the Corvus Gold (KOR) buyout offer of 500M for their gold properties ( which works out to be approx. $100 US/oz for their in situ gold ounces )  By MoneyK's logic therefore SC should be bought out for approx.  3.75B since SC contains 30M oz. eq. Au !  

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the level of stupidity of MK's post.   First of all, you are comparing  two different assets.  One asset contains a resource of 1.5 g/ton gold grade and the other ( SC ) contains a resource of .73 g/ton Au  equivalent,  less than half the grades of Corvus gold deposit.  One is a high grade gold asset which does command a premium and the other (SC) is considered a low grade asset that does not. 

Major's are willing to pay those premiums for high grade assets because they carry far less risk in developing and operating than lower grade assets especially in years where metal prices remain low for several years.  Show me a low grade deposit like SC where any Major has paid over $100 per eq Au oz for any deposit averaging less than 1g/ton Au eq.?  You won't find any as Major's are not that stupid!

[MoneyK]

Cbew, I'm sure majors don't only care about grades.  What's important is how much money you can make with what's available.  Nothing else! MoneyK

[cbew]

MK, you are a bigger fool than I though if you believe Majors don't care about grades!  Grades are the ONE thing Majors do care about.  Why?  Because grades will mitigate the UNKNOWNs.  It will cushion the stream of positive cash flows of a mine during down cycles of lower metal prices which are inevitable in a mines life.  It will mitigate the unknown cost overruns

[MoneyK]

You could have the best grades close to the center of the earth, no major would want it. Stop spitting everything you hear from Rick Rules etc and try to understand how economics work. MoneyK

[cbew]

LOL I think I understand economics far better than you MK and no I don't need to listen to Rick Rule to make my own decisions but I would take his advice over yours any day.  My advice to you is to quit listening to the pie in the sky pumpers that tell you a large low grade deposit is worth multi-billions.  It simply isn't true and not based on any historic precident.  Show

[MoneyK]

Like for the capex, you guys will be wrong again. LOL. MoneyK

[MoneyK]

To answer your easy challenge, Sumitomo paid 1.2B for 30% of QB2. MoneyK

[cbew]

LOL nice try MK.  QB2 has average grades of 0.58 % Cu Eq.  Same grades as Galore and 25% higher than Shaft Creek.   0.58% Cu eq. is not consider low grade but average for a Cu mine.  You'll have to do better than than MK.  

[MoneyK]

Can't even accept defeat like a man.  Schaft Creek is half the QB2 capex and half the C1 cost even with 0.15% less grades.  Wake up buddy!  LOL MoneyK

[cbew]

You can throw up all the numbers you want here but the reality is no Major has ever or will ever put up billions of dollars to buy a low grade deposit.  I predict that SC will remain unsold this year and Elmer will find another way to do another study or more drilling to justify diliuting the stock further and further to keep this story alive and drain the pockets of all bag holders yet again

[Whynottoday2]

The reality of Peru must be starting to weigh a little on Lindsay and the BOD of Teck.  750kms north of HQ is a ESG friendly Green mining jurisdiction with a Govt (Fed\Prov) that requires a lot of Green building materials to Build Back Better.  Guessing the BOD is reconsidering all options!  Betting on 90 cents before 30 cents! 

[MoneyK]

Now that I broke all your arguments with facts, your back to incoherent assumptions?  Pathetic.  LOL MoneyK

[cbew]

LOL what facts have you presented MK?  The capex No. and costs you presented are merely management's projections and estimates and we know how reliable those numbers can be hmmm.  ie remember the negative cost credits to produce copper? LOL.  Do you think Teck is going to just rely on these projections to make their decision?  They are going to look at real world costs to

[MoneyK]

What changed in terms of the negative cash cost? Enlight me. MoneyK

[cbew]

Surprising you don't remember that before the 2013 FS came out they were promoting their estimate that the cost to produce Cu was going to be around negative 0.50 to .75 cents per pound with the other metal credits counted in.  They had an article by  some analyst that  touted this estimate and was featured on their website.  I also remember asking Elmer personally about

[MoneyK]

I recall seeing negative 0.32$, but the cost to produce a pound of copper net of by-products if not the same concept as C1 cost or AISC or total cost. You are confusing different concepts. MoneyK

[cbew]

MK there is no confusion in what I asked Elmer.  I understood what I asked and my understanding from what he told me was that when all the byproducts where netted out the copper was essentially going to be free  or better than free to produce.  How can there be any confusion about that?  Nevertheless, when the results came out the difference was night and day way off the mark.&

[MoneyK]

Again, you are confusing concepts.  The new PEA should be close to 0$ to produce a pound of copper (net of by-products), the C1 cost should still be around $0.60 to $0.70 US per pound, the AISC about $0.10 more and the total cost probably between $1 and $1.25 US. I don't think you really understand what you were told. IMO MoneyK

[MoneyK]

Per my calculation, the cost to produce a pound of copper (net of by products) in the 2013 FS was around $0.50. I'm with you that it's far from negative $0.32, but it's also far from the $1.50 you are mentioning. IMO. MoneyK

[cbew]

In their 2013 FS they state that SC would produce 232 M lbs of copper annually.  Furthermore annual free cash flow before taxes and  interest expenses according to the FS were 371M.  If the copper produced was indeed at no cost or free as I was led to believe the cash flow generated should be $3.25 ( using the base case price for copper used in the FS ) times 232 M lbs = 232 x 3.25

[MoneyK]

Your logic does not make any sense. In the 2008 PFS: annual copper production:  211Mlbs @ $3.12 cash flow before taxes:  $11.73B over 22.6 years or $519M per year That would mean: 211Mlbs x ($3.12 + $0.32) = $725M of cash flow. $725M - $519M = $206M / 211Mlbs Result:   $0,97 per pound when the final number should be -$0.32. MoneyK

[MoneyK]

Here's how I think it should be calculated with 2008 PFS numbers. Operating cost: $12.49/t Tonnage: 100 000 tpd Availability: 365 days, 100% 100 000tpd x $12.49/t x 365 = $455.9M per year.  This is the cost to extract all the metal. From that number, you need to remove revenues from by-products: Gold: 199 000oz x $692.90 = $137.9M Silver: 1.4Moz x $13.09 = $18.3M Moly: 11.3Mlbs x $33 =

[cbew]

MK your numbers would have no relevance in 2012 when the FS was being prepared and when I talked to Elmer about the upcoming 2013 FS that was being worked on.   At the time,  prior to its release he was telling me and others this nonsense.  Furthermore your calculations do not account for other costs such as administrative costs, labour etc. ( the all in costs needed to run a

[MoneyK]

Im just explaining you were the famous negative $0.32 is coming from. I do have that 2011 corporate presentation right in front of me advertising it. Rest assured, I also understand the other costs involved. MoneyK

[Nicksonsnowboar]

Like your enthusiasm, but it a spec stock run by a dysfunctional management team . You shouldn't be making up numbers it is what it is. ..39  cent stock. on no volume.  Quit fantasying it does not make it real.  

[MoneyK]

Yes, it's down about 30% like the rest of the copper stocks.  You're not going to fool anyone here.  Come back in 1 month see where we are with copper rising again. MoneyK

[alkyd]

nice call numb nuts,pumping on the other board you are a pathetic piece of poo

[Nicksonsnowboar]

Well you got the month wrong better be picking what year. You are being taken by snake oil salesman.