As the price of gold rose upward, junior miners chased ounces at all costs. This was a huge mistake, says Eric Coffin, because it resulted in unexciting projects, low margins and a depressed market. In this interview with The Gold Report, the publisher of Hard Rock Analyst explains that new discoveries with high margins are the essence of the junior, and he considers explorers with blue-sky potential and one producer with excellent prospects for expansion.
The Gold Report: Federal Reserve of Dallas President Richard Fisher gave a speech in Australia declaring that quantitative easing [QE] must end or it would "fuel the kind of reckless market behavior that started the global financial crisis." If the Fed isn't going to end QE until employment improves, how will this end?
Eric Coffin: Fisher gets to voice his opinion at Federal Open Market Committee [FOMC] meetings, but he won't be a voting member until January. He hasn't been comfortable with QE from the start and has said so repeatedly. There isn't any news in that quote.
I don't think you'll see much change when the FOMC gets four different members next year. Janet Yellen, who will become chairman, is more dovish than Ben Bernanke. I think she was the right choice, not because she loves creating money from nothing but because she's probably been the most accurate forecaster of the bunch.
TGR: What about the bubble that Fisher fears?
EC: If you want to be cynical, you can make the argument that a bubble is exactly what the Fed has been trying to create. It wanted to get equity markets to go up because that increases wealth and raises consumer confidence. About half of the Fed's QE program is buying mortgage bonds. It is trying to keep mortgage rates down and resuscitate the housing sector.
Fisher is right in a sense, but I don't think we're at the point where I'd be terribly concerned about things running out of control. I have to admit, though, that based on the growth of the economy, the U.S. equity markets are probably getting a little bit ahead of themselves. Most consumer inflation measures have been trending down, not up. Personally, I'm more worried about deflation, which is far harder for a central bank to fight than inflation.
TGR: The Q3/13 gross domestic product [GDP] report shows 2.8% growth.
EC: Right now, I'm kind of neutral on the economy. The data quality is going to be crappy for a month or two because of the government shutdown. The economy grew 2.8% because there was big growth in inventories, which is not the reason you want. Without that it came in at 2%, which was the expected number. You're probably going to see production cut a little bit this quarter because more stuff was made than could be sold.
TGR: Karl Denninger pointed out that the gross change in GDP from Q2/13 to Q3/13 was $196.6 billion [$196.6B], but the Fed's QE program injected $255B. So the economy actually shrank during Q3/13.
EC: I think he's oversimplifying a little bit. QE is really swapping paper, creating money out of thin air and using that to buy bonds that inject money into the economy. But the velocity of money has been very low since the crash. It's not as if the banks are taking that $85B/month and lending it all. That's where the real multiplier effect is. Right now a lot of the money created through QE has ended up in bank's excess reserves, not in the wider economy. Karl is a bit of a permabear, but I would agree with him that it wasn't that great a report.
TGR: Let's assume that QE continues at its present rate until June 2014. How will that affect gold and silver?
EC: When the Fed starts tapering, we have to assume gold and silver prices will get hit. Of course, if it doesn't actually start tapering until well into next year, we could see gold and silver go up for two or three months before that. That doesn't preclude later increases in the gold price based on physical demand, but the short term traders are completely fixated on QE [or lack thereof] and will be sellers once the taper starts, and the market will have to get past that before recovering.
TGR: What if it becomes clear we are going to get QE forever?
EC: Then I think gold goes to $2,000/ounce [$2,000/oz].
TGR: At the Subscriber Investment Summit in Vancouver last month, you compared the 10-year chart for gold to the 10-year chart for junior resources. The first chart looks good, but the second looks terrible. Why?
EC: For all the money thrown at exploration-and, of course, that number has been tumbling dramatically for the past two years-not many good discoveries resulted, especially in the last couple years. That's one reason. The chart below shows the amount of gold discovered each year since 1990, counting only new gold discoveries above 2 million ounces [2 Moz]. You can see how few discoveries there have been in the past couple years. Compared to the 1990s the numbers are tiny.
The other reason is that when the gold price was rising continuously many companies were looking for what I referred to in Vancouver as "crappy ounces." Their intentions were good. They weren't trying to hoodwink anybody. They made the reasonable assumption that with gold going up and up, economic cutoff grades would keep dropping. But you can't produce gold at ever-lower grades with difficult metallurgy and infrastructure and make more money.
As it turned out, costs rose almost in lockstep with the gold price. A lot of the ounces that were marginal at $500 or $700 or $900/oz haven't been salvaged by the gold price going to $1,300/oz. Many of those resources are still uneconomic and would require more capital expenditures with longer payback periods than larger producers are willing to accept.
TGR: You said that juniors have a major credibility issue, specifically, that preliminary economic assessments [PEAs] and feasibility studies do not match production realities.
EC: There are a couple reasons for that. I've already mentioned costs. And when the sector recovered after 2000, there was a real capacity issue. There weren't enough geologists or engineers. There weren't even enough people who make truck tires.
Many NI 43-101s, PEAs and feasibility studies have been written by people who lacked experience. To be fair to the engineering companies, miners can have cost overruns of 20% and still be within the stated margin of error, but people never read the fine print. They just look at the production cost, so when it comes in $100-200/oz higher, everybody freaks out.
TGR: Juniors chased lousy projects because gold was soaring, and money flooded into the market. Now that gold has fallen 30%, will this engender the return of old-fashioned values?
EC: I think it already has. The large mining companies, having spent huge amounts of money on capital expenses [capexes] that didn't add to their bottom line, are now saying, "Show me margin." Large and medium companies will now pick up deposits smaller than what they would have touched 10 years ago because they have the grades, the geometry and the metallurgy to enable low-cost production.
TGR: So is margin now more important than grade?
EC: Grade is king, but margin is the key. Majors are focused on margin per ounce produced. You can get high margins with a lower-grade deposit if everything goes right but, by and large, the higher grade the better the margin should be. It comes down to net present value [NPV] and internal rate of return [IRR]. Companies now want gold projects that can be built for $100-150 million [$100-150M] with NPVs of $300M or $400M and all-in cash costs of $600-800/oz-assuming they're big enough. They don't want to go too small because they can spread themselves only so thin. I don't see majors like Barrick Gold Corp. [ABX:TSX; ABX:NYSE] picking up 50,000-ounce-per-year [50 Koz/year] deposits, but we might see them picking up 100-150 Koz/year projects, when a few years ago few majors would look at a deposit unless it was capable of generating 250 Koz/year or more.
In Sonora, Mexico, half a dozen mines that began production in the last five years don't have grade. They're 0.8, 0.7 or 0.6 grams per ton [0.6 g/t], but they have fantastic combinations of logistics, costs, workforces, metallurgy and geometry, and they produce at $500-700/oz cash costs.
TGR: Why are new discoveries so important to the junior sector?
EC: That's what the juniors exist for. The market wants something new, with blue-sky potential. The companies with really big runs in the last year or two are, almost without exception, companies that made discoveries. They don't always work out, but that's the risk you take.
If you go back to the pretty spectacular bull market in the mid-1990s, it was driven by companies going international for the first time in a long time, juniors going to South America and Africa and finding 3, 5 and 10 Moz deposits. Gold prices rose in the mid-1990s, but discoveries drove the bull market.
TGR: You called Reservoir Minerals Inc. (OTCPK:RVRLF) [RMC:TSX.V] a "classic discovery story." Why?
EC: Most of its exciting concessions surround the Bor mine in Serbia. It's a big camp. Reservoir has a joint venture with Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (NYSE:FCX), with Freeport holding 55% of the Timok project and Reservoir 45%. It's a high-sulfidation epithermal system. One of the first holes was 5.13% copper and 3.4 g/t gold over 291 meters [291m].
A real back-of-the-envelope calculation [because the holes are still pretty widely spaced] is that Timok has 30-40 million tons [30-40 Mt] of quite strong-grade gold-copper material. Freeport is a great partner. It has lots of money, and it has direct experience operating bulk tonnage and also block-cave underground mines, which Timok would probably end up being.
TGR: Reservoir's Sept. 9 Timok press release announced 260m of 3.93% copper equivalent. Is the early promise being fulfilled?
EC: It's a fantastic discovery, definitely one of the best of the last few years. Assuming Freeport goes all the way to feasibility-and I'd be pretty shocked if it didn't now-Reservoir essentially gets carried until then at 25%, which would still be significant value, considering the deposit.
TGR: Eric, thank you for your time and your insights.
EC: You're welcome. I have a new report available for your readers that is free to download-it is actually an interview with one of the companies I have discussed above, which I think is a very worthwhile read. We also have a special subscription offer included in this report.
This interview was conducted by Kevin Michael Grace of The Gold Report and can be read in its entirety here.
Eric Coffin is the editor of the HRA [Hard Rock Analyst] family of publications. Coffin has a degree in corporate and investment finance and has extensive experience in merger and acquisitions and small-company financing and promotion. For many years, he tracked the financial performance and funding of all exchange-listed Canadian mining companies and has helped with the formation of several successful exploration ventures. Coffin was one of the first analysts to point out the disastrous effects of gold hedging and gold loan-capital financing in 1997. He also predicted the start of the current secular bull market in commodities based on the movement of the U.S. dollar in 2001 and the acceleration of growth in Asia and India. Coffin can be reached at email@example.com or the websitewww.hraadvisory.com.
1) Kevin Michael Grace conducted this interview for The Gold Report and provides services to The Gold Report as an independent contractor. He or his family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of The Gold Report: None. Goldcorp Inc. is not affiliated with The Gold Report. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.
3) Eric Coffin: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: Reservoir Minerals Inc. I personally am or my family is paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.
4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts' statements without their consent.
6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.