wshaw14
11 años hace
Fortune Assets
" means (i) all mining claims (whether patented or unpatented), concessions,leases, licenses, surface rights or other mineral rights in respect of the Fortune Exploration Properties, (ii) the office leases (and any subleases) of Brigus and/or its subsidiaries relating to Brigus’ existing offices located at 1969 Upper Water Street, Suite 2001, Purdy's Wharf, Tower II, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, (iii) office furniture, office equipment or office supplies located at the office locations referred to in clause (ii) above, (iv) all fixed assets of Brigus and/or its
subsidiaries relating exclusively to the Fortune Exploration Properties or located within the boundaries of the Fortune Exploration Properties or at the office locations referred to above in paragraph (ii) above, (v) all of the shares of Brigus Gold ULC that holds the Fortune Exploration Properties, and the related subsidiaries of Brigus Gold ULC (vi) all joint venture, earn-in, other Contracts entered into by Brigus and/or its subsidiaries, and royalties or other similar rights that
relate exclusively to the Fortune Exploration Properties; (vii) the following marketable securities: 14
common shares of Cangold Limited and Everton Resources Inc., and (vii) all exploration information, data reports and studies including all geological, geophysical and geochemical
information and data (including all drill, sample and assay results and all maps) and all technical reports, feasibility studies and other similar reports and studies concerning the Fortune Exploration Properties in Brigus’ possession or control relating to the Fortune Exploration Properties.
gharma
11 años hace
The rough figure of 90 is not for taxes, it is for increase in taxes, per Q3 MD&A. I have to assume that is net of all consideration, deduction and whatever. Project all-in sustaining cost is with/withour Black For ? Actual was reported at 1077. Add the taxes plus anticipated increase, plus interest expense, plus obligated payments on properties, and then look at growth activities.
Bottom line is that they need to add $75 million credit facility to make sure the have financial flexibility to execute on plan.
wshaw14
11 años hace
As I said in my last post,Bottom line, Assets verses liabilities improved by $89,352,000 from 2012 to 2013 In a very challenging environment. I think there is a lot to be said for that. They are projecting 950-1050 All in cost for 2014. Lets take the middle and then add your 90.00 figure. 1090.00 (including 90 per ounce tax) per ounce is not too shabby. Of course that is assuming they will be paying 14,850,000 in additional taxes.
gharma
11 años hace
We will see some more clearly soon with the next report.
I am not a fan of the PPP offer for the part of BRD they want to keep and see it as selling to them at a discount, even after taking the $CA 10 million they contribute to SpinCo into account. JMO.
Even using projected production the new tax is estimated by PPP to increase their tax expense over $100 per ounce over what is already on top of that $974 AISC. Whatever is and isn't deductible seems already taken into account in that $14 million estimate, and as far as I have yet seen is still waiting on the final implementation rules/regulations to some extent.
Through 2015 PPP has significant cash outflow, considering the note and the recent 20% purchase. Excess for cap development, explore/expand looks slim.
Of course all of above assumes gold stays where it has been held, against physical pressures, the better part of the past year. The odds that we see gold stuck at an even lower price before 2015 end is IMO not nil.
wshaw14
11 años hace
I could be wrong on the following and feel free to correct me if I am, but:
In reference to the Note (purchase)
5M 01/03/12 Payment
5M 12/31/12 Payment
7.8M 02/21/13 Payment
5M 01/??/14 Payment
? 02/??/14 Payment
The most the balance being carried is $27.2M
The interest on that would be approx 1.6M
On the New Tax issue, I believe the 14M impact mentioned is inclusive of the 5M you mentioned, The way I figure it, they would have to make HUGE strides to have enough taxable income to owe 14M additional tax, especially considering the new tax is deduct able.
I have seen places that say it is 5% and places that say it is 8%. I figured it at 8%. Do you know for sure which it is?
wshaw14
11 años hace
Thaks Gharma. I am well aware of that, but a good idea to make sure all are. AISC "it does not include capital expenditures attributable to development projects or mine expansions, exploration and evaluation costs attributable to growth projects, income tax payments and financing costs. In addition, the calculation of all-in sustaining costs does not include depreciation and depletion expense as it does not reflect the impact of expenditures incurred in prior
periods.". AISC does give one the ability to compare apples to apples though.
Also, the increase in production projected should decrease the effect of the additional items that you mention, and the increase is probably already figured in on the increase in tax estimate.
As for the financing. It is a good idea to have as much cash available as possible in todays market if it is on good terms.
My thinking is they will fast track Grey Fox to production.
gharma
11 años hace
Primeros Incurred ... all-in sustaining costs of $974 per ounce in the third quarter
Let's flesh that out a little. AISC does not include, among other things, taxes and interest expenses.
The discussion in the most recent quarterly financials says the company estimates $14 million increase in taxes due to the Mexican law changes. It is somewhat "iffy" to say over and above what this amount applies due to the credits recovery in 2012 compared to the lack of this in 2013, and the impact of foreign exchange, etc. All the same the report states $5.4M year to date in the taxes for the recent year, so I will just say taxes of at least $5M plus $14M = $19M taxes in Mexico 2014. A couple years remain on the note for San Dimas which will be fully repaid Dec 2015. As at end of Sept 2013 the balance was $32.2M which, given the 6% annual rate appears to indicate approx $2M interest for 2014
So, using 110,000 production for 2014 from San Dimas and at least $23M beyond what is accounted for in AISC it looks like there is at least $200/ounce more expense above that $974 AISC. When that is combined with current gold pricing and fact that half of the free cash flow from San Dimas is paid out as part of the promissory note agreement until that is extinguished (end of 2015) it becomes clear why the MD&A says Primeros is looking to enhance its liquidity flexibility
The Company expects its current cash resources, as well as ongoing cash flow from the San Dimas mine, will be sufficient to fund its operations and certain potential acquisition opportunities for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, in order to enhance its financial flexibility, the Company is in negotiations with a major financial institution to secure a revolving line of credit of $75 million, which it expects to complete in Q4 2013, and is also considering other financing initiatives
Things will be more clear, hopefully, mid-Feb after we see the new quarterly report.