Welcome to the Century Mining Blog.
This blog is open for viewing to the general public, but posting is restricted to Blog Members. If you wish to become a Blog Member send an email request to centurycarib@gmail.com.
Comments by the viewing public has been reinstated.
Check out the Information Links down the right-hand side.
I don't understand why it appears as if so few shareholders withheld their votes for Margaret Kent as a Director of this company.
I don't understand the lack of action by this company's BOD.
I don't understand why this company's institutional shareholders are not smarter with their actions for change.
I don't understand how they could plan for such poor results while expecting the injection of the $70M from Fortis. If the $70M is needed just to deliver these low numbers then what were they selling us before, with those much higher numbers and saying that the operation will be self sustainable after the original injection of $9M (combination of debt and leased equipment).
This is what they had showed for tpd for Lamaque (on the previous graph:
*q1 - 300 *q2 - 450 *q3 - 750 *q4 - 1,200
This appears to be what they are now showing (tpd):
*q1 - 250 *q2 - 350 *q3 - 600 *q4 - 750
This is what they have published as their expected production ounces from Lamaque:
*2008 - 27,000 *2009 - 110,000 *2010 - 150,000
This is what they now show:
*2008 - 22,000 *2009 - 66,000 *2010 - 96,000
It seems like they now max out at 1,800 tpd. What happened to the 3,000 tpd? What happened to the West Plug operation?
Can't they find even a semi-REAL mine planner somewhere in the world?
roxy14, the lowered guidance for 2008 wasn't a surprise since that was already disclosed in the year-end financials.
But on April 24 Century filed a revised 43-101 Technical Report on Lamaque which showed 112,430 oz for Lamaque in 2009. 2 months later, that forecast is cut by 50% to 66,000 oz. Does anyone there have a clue about what they are doing?
San Juan has also been cut from 33,000 oz in 2009 to 25,000 oz.
The spin will be that this is under-promise and over-deliver, but we've heard that before.
I don't really care about the revised estimates because the new numbers although low are still a very nice number at $900 gold. (100K ounces at $400 gross profit = $40M gross profit).
The problem is we do not have a clear path to get there. The main hurdle ahead of us is financing and earning back credibility.
We constantly miss dates, filing deadlines, promises, low targets, even lower revised targets.
I am hanging on because the value of the current assets is higher than the current market cap. Unfortunately, management's value is a negative $20M and credibility another -$20M and past track record -$20M.
Let's get the bridge otherwise it's better to sell the assets.
My only hope now is that the new guidance was set by our new, hopefully, CEO. Hopefully brought in from outside the organization and hopefully with an impeccable background. Dare to dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You make a very good point. The new CEO will be responsible for the results, and M. Kent (as Chairman) will not hesitate to blame and fire the new CEO if things don't go quite right (even though it amazes me the comfort level she receives from this very incompetent and totally useless BOD, IMO). As a result, it only makes sense that the new CEO would be conservative with the targets, knowing what he/she is getting into. At least this person is smart enough to watch his/her own back.
Having said all that, I wouldn't really expect a CEO with an "impeccable background" as it would be hard to recruit high quality CEO's into this situation (especially if a BOD is not willing to do a wide enough search to locate hidden quality, IMO) - it's just a reality we have to live with. Regardless, I think most of us on this blog would agree that anyone they hire (flaws and all) would be a DRASTIC improvement from what we have today!!!!!!!!!!
Sure would like to here what transpired at the agm. The suspence is killing me. Guess I shouldn't expect too much anyway after all this is Century Mining.
I can't believe this new guidance from SL either, but they gave us a hint in the M&D and now we have it confirmed. I hope they just want to fool some takeover candidates to misvalue the property. But, if we have close to 5M O and a 5000 t/pd plant, why only run it at 1800 t/pd? Hopefully the infrastructure runs ok, and later on they will reconsider the guidance and run it at an higher rate. It's important because if they for example set out a guidance at 150k p/y and "only" reach 125k, it's still much better then to set out a guidance of 100k p/y and reach it. I am very disapointed by this and this may cut down the potential of the stock, and if we on top of this dilute even more we will not see any good SP again.
Also about the working capital defiecency, maybe this bridge loan will go to pay of this credit? If so, they must go after a second loan or in worst case another PP. Anyway, i am very supicious of "only" ~100k O rate per year from 4-5M ounces in resources and pretty much of these ounces already defined. If they can't come up with a better rate, why don't they sell the company right away, because we will never get any fair value from this kind of production rate anyway.. On another note, these capital cost figures of $25 milion in -09 and $20 milion -10, i really hope it will come alot cheaper then that, now when we now that the production rate will decrease, but i doubt it. I may see only one small positive thing, and that is if they don't plan to mine the West Plug, we will probably reduce the cashcost by some, but on the other hand it will be just about the same i guess because of the reduced tonnage rate underground. I hope the CMM managment will explain all this and reassure us, that if everyting runs ok, that they will reconsider to run the mine at a higher rate then 1800 t/pd.
10 comments:
What a surprise. Lowered guidance
again.
Anyone here attend the AGM? Please post highlights and lowlights..... any news of the closure of the bridge or not?
I don't understand why it appears as if so few shareholders withheld their votes for Margaret Kent as a Director of this company.
I don't understand the lack of action by this company's BOD.
I don't understand why this company's institutional shareholders are not smarter with their actions for change.
I don't understand how they could plan for such poor results while expecting the injection of the $70M from Fortis. If the $70M is needed just to deliver these low numbers then what were they selling us before, with those much higher numbers and saying that the operation will be self sustainable after the original injection of $9M (combination of debt and leased equipment).
This is what they had showed for tpd for Lamaque (on the previous graph:
*q1 - 300
*q2 - 450
*q3 - 750
*q4 - 1,200
This appears to be what they are now showing (tpd):
*q1 - 250
*q2 - 350
*q3 - 600
*q4 - 750
This is what they have published as their expected production ounces from Lamaque:
*2008 - 27,000
*2009 - 110,000
*2010 - 150,000
This is what they now show:
*2008 - 22,000
*2009 - 66,000
*2010 - 96,000
It seems like they now max out at 1,800 tpd. What happened to the 3,000 tpd? What happened to the West Plug operation?
Can't they find even a semi-REAL mine planner somewhere in the world?
Unreal! Wow!!!
roxy14, the lowered guidance for 2008 wasn't a surprise since that was already disclosed in the year-end financials.
But on April 24 Century filed a revised 43-101 Technical Report on Lamaque which showed 112,430 oz for Lamaque in 2009. 2 months later, that forecast is cut by 50% to 66,000 oz. Does anyone there have a clue about what they are doing?
San Juan has also been cut from 33,000 oz in 2009 to 25,000 oz.
The spin will be that this is under-promise and over-deliver, but we've heard that before.
I don't really care about the revised estimates because the new numbers although low are still a very nice number at $900 gold. (100K ounces at $400 gross profit = $40M gross profit).
The problem is we do not have a clear path to get there. The main hurdle ahead of us is financing and earning back credibility.
We constantly miss dates, filing deadlines, promises, low targets, even lower revised targets.
I am hanging on because the value of the current assets is higher than the current market cap. Unfortunately, management's value is a negative $20M and credibility another -$20M and past track record -$20M.
Let's get the bridge otherwise it's better to sell the assets.
I don't know why they even bother
providing guidance anymore.
Seems like they just throw darts
at a board to get their numbers anyway.
My only hope now is that the new guidance was set by our new, hopefully, CEO. Hopefully brought
in from outside the organization and
hopefully with an impeccable background.
Dare to dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Roxy14,
You make a very good point. The new CEO will be responsible for the results, and M. Kent (as Chairman) will not hesitate to blame and fire the new CEO if things don't go quite right (even though it amazes me the comfort level she receives from this very incompetent and totally useless BOD, IMO). As a result, it only makes sense that the new CEO would be conservative with the targets, knowing what he/she is getting into. At least this person is smart enough to watch his/her own back.
Having said all that, I wouldn't really expect a CEO with an "impeccable background" as it would be hard to recruit high quality CEO's into this situation (especially if a BOD is not willing to do a wide enough search to locate hidden quality, IMO) - it's just a reality we have to live with. Regardless, I think most of us on this blog would agree that anyone they hire (flaws and all) would be a DRASTIC improvement from what we have today!!!!!!!!!!
Production.
Your probably right on all points.
Sure would like to here what transpired at the agm. The suspence
is killing me.
Guess I shouldn't expect too much
anyway after all this is Century
Mining.
I can't believe this new guidance from SL either, but they gave us a hint in the M&D and now we have it confirmed. I hope they just want to fool some takeover candidates to misvalue the property. But, if we have close to 5M O and a 5000 t/pd plant, why only run it at 1800 t/pd? Hopefully the infrastructure runs ok, and later on they will reconsider the guidance and run it at an higher rate. It's important because if they for example set out a guidance at 150k p/y and "only" reach 125k, it's still much better then to set out a guidance of 100k p/y and reach it. I am very disapointed by this and this may cut down the potential of the stock, and if we on top of this dilute even more we will not see any good SP again.
Also about the working capital defiecency, maybe this bridge loan will go to pay of this credit? If so, they must go after a second loan or in worst case another PP. Anyway, i am very supicious of "only" ~100k O rate per year from 4-5M ounces in resources and pretty much of these ounces already defined. If they can't come up with a better rate, why don't they sell the company right away, because we will never get any fair value from this kind of production rate anyway.. On another note, these capital cost figures of $25 milion in -09 and $20 milion -10, i really hope it will come alot cheaper then that, now when we now that the production rate will decrease, but i doubt it. I may see only one small positive thing, and that is if they don't plan to mine the West Plug, we will probably reduce the cashcost by some, but on the other hand it will be just about the same i guess because of the reduced tonnage rate underground. I hope the CMM managment will explain all this and reassure us, that if everyting runs ok, that they will reconsider to run the mine at a higher rate then 1800 t/pd.
Post a Comment