- Joined
- 30 January 2013
- Posts
- 224
- Reactions
- 456
Wasn't the raise at about 92c and they still have a hedge book that is causing some concern
BGL - Belleview Gold
- Thread starter System
- Start date
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
Closed hedge book to Dec but then have a pile of gold hedged at almost half the price of spot to 2028. Morons. The price of financing the mill I suppose. In retrospect, a very poor outcome.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
I'm thinking that might have been a bottom down at 80c, but not convinced BGL have overcome their inability to dig where they're supposed to be digging. Not sure how they've cocked it up. Maybe the ex-COO knows. Maybe a lack of infill drilling, and/or the ore body just isn't as consistent as they expected.
They are now operating at their production forecast for 2026, but not at the 250m oz pa that they were aiming for initially. That's now factored into the SP.
Hedging is still a problem but it averages about 15m oz pa @ $2700-3000 from next year. So a small portion of their overall production. Still a lot to be given up. Maybe they do another CR to pay it off early, if possible? Or, whoever buys them can pay it off to reap the spot price benefits.
Tempted to roll the dice on the potential bottom and gold likely breakout to the north of this 4-month POG consolidation. But, would prefer to see $1.00 resistance cracked. By then will have only missed 10% potential gain from here I guess.
They are now operating at their production forecast for 2026, but not at the 250m oz pa that they were aiming for initially. That's now factored into the SP.
Hedging is still a problem but it averages about 15m oz pa @ $2700-3000 from next year. So a small portion of their overall production. Still a lot to be given up. Maybe they do another CR to pay it off early, if possible? Or, whoever buys them can pay it off to reap the spot price benefits.
Tempted to roll the dice on the potential bottom and gold likely breakout to the north of this 4-month POG consolidation. But, would prefer to see $1.00 resistance cracked. By then will have only missed 10% potential gain from here I guess.
- Joined
- 19 February 2016
- Posts
- 1,065
- Reactions
- 1,711
Two very separate issues - but philosophically tied to "poor management" and the WA mantra of over promise underdeliver and get golden parachutes in the takeover.
1) Hedging as you say... Rarely works out. Other than a few of the iron miners who managed an extra few $$$ a few years ago - when does hedging work out for anyone other than the financiers?
2) Not performing to schedules and plans. I'd have to take a look at my old posts - but from memory I called BS when the first feasibility or PFS came out and the resource was something around 10g/t and the actual projected mined ore grade was around 6g/t - This at the time indicated they had some very complicated mining and geology. Now gold has gone up - so one would expect they drop the grade to increase the life of the mine - but.... Have they done that? No. They have sh*t the bed and simply cannot achieve their grades (Who knows what they are anymore)- or costs (ASIC of $2500 v <$1000!!!!!!) - or production levels (First 5 years @ 200koz)?
Wondering if this is SBM 2.0.... 15? 20 years ago it was supposed the be the next best thing - go back in to an old mine - smash out the 150-200koz dirt cheap...ugh...
Anyways. I sold 3,4,5 years ago when gold was half what it is today and the SP is lower than when I sold it. That's all I need to know.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
The grade's they are actually getting are between 3-5%, which is pretty good compared to the pack.
Depending on where they're digging, it might be close to the MRE. Getting 6 g/t would be nice.
Total indicated resource at 9.7 g/t?
Their 'net zero gold mine' claim still puts me off. Who cares? You're a f'ing gold miner.
- Joined
- 19 February 2016
- Posts
- 1,065
- Reactions
- 1,711
Goal posts keep moving. From 4 years ago the feasibility had an inferred recovered grade of ~ 6g/t (1.1ozx31g/oz) 34Mg/5.6Mt
So a processed grade of 3.9 = 3.7g/t recovered for FY25... That is awful. Now - with todays gold price - it might be fine.
But - is that 3.7g/t ore coming from what they originally stated was 6g/t or is it coming from different areas which they added to adjust for an increase in gold price? We don't have that information.
From FY 22,23,24 and 25 - I'm getting roughly $850 million in capital costs, $315 in operating costs, vs $730 million in revenue. By no means terrible. Capital *should* but dramatically lower moving forward - but its about 2-3 x the original feasibility. And were they taking the best and easiest parts early on? Again....Who knows??? Zero trust. I trust what CEL says over these clowns.
I have zero faith in that board or management team. They all need to go - if they all go - I might be interested again. Clean house - re-start with integrity. They're all a bunch of suits - reminds me a bit of the company who ended up with golden grove who I've forgotten at the moment. m34 or s42, or q83, 71p, h7p whatever the trendy name is now (letter plus number).
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
best I steer clean then. I didn't think that could be possible in this lifetime or the next.
- Joined
- 3 May 2019
- Posts
- 6,839
- Reactions
- 11,065
29M, the mob with more water than copper.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
Nearly fell off my chair when I read this.
400K 'performance' rights.
I do wonder what the performance was.
I also do think that Darren is mining the market here.
400K 'performance' rights.
I do wonder what the performance was.
I also do think that Darren is mining the market here.
- Joined
- 30 January 2013
- Posts
- 224
- Reactions
- 456
Great work if you can get it
- Joined
- 19 October 2005
- Posts
- 6,235
- Reactions
- 9,579
Performance shares are a racket imo, like so much in listed mining companies. You've got executives pretty much deciding their own remuneration despite the facade of a independent board. This is why I don't subscribe to Beament, ex Northern Star, being a shareholders' hero. Performance shares seem to have edged out options as the lurk in recent years, presumably because now they don't even have to pay an exercise price. And like here with BGL, the vesting conditions are usually pathetic. It's not like they are not paid munificently apart from this and aren't in a position to stand with shareholders and buy their own f'g shares. They are not in a dangerous profession and they mostly seem to enjoy their prestigious jobs as a big adventure without personal risk. As a profession they are just about on society's leading edge of greed.
- Joined
- 19 October 2005
- Posts
- 6,235
- Reactions
- 9,579
The originating M.D set the tone for this company. Everyone thought he was great. He's the main reason I never bought shares in this company. I read how he was rewarding himself in this one as well as in previous ventures. The company wan't even making money yet and was loaded with execution risk. Why wouldn't those who succeeded him carry on the same?
Not Held
Not Held
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
I know this has been a dog with fleas but it's potentially found a bottom across 85c ish and it's now poking its head through a dollar.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 23,382
- Reactions
- 13,828
(edit 18 Sep - still poking its head up)
Last edited:
Similar threads
