| helmut - Dienstag, 4. September 2007 - 18:40 |
| Heute mal ein Wert der für meine Verhältnisse sehr riskant ist aber auch hohe Chancen bietet. Seabridge ist eine Art Hedge mit großer Hebelwirkung auf den Goldpreis. Der Firma gehören einige der größten noch nicht erschlossenen Goldvorkommen in Nordamerika. Die Strategie ist darauf ausgelegt diese Vorkommen entsprechend nachzuweisen (derzeit wird viel gebohrt, um die Ausmasse wirklich einschätzten zu können) - aber nicht um diese selber abzubauen, sondern um diese Vorkommen zu verkaufen oder um als Firma übernommen zu werden. Mit Seabridge kauft man sich also einen Goldwert ohne operatives Risiko, dafür aber mit voller Gold-Exposure. Abgefedert wird dieses Risiko nach unten durch die Menge des Goldes das schon nachgewiesen ist bzw. was (hoffentlich) noch dazu kommt. Heute Morgen sind wieder Bohrergebnisse veröffentlicht worden, die aus meiner Sicht sehr vielversprechend sind - sie könnten bedeuten, dass dass die Goldreserven der Firma (im Boden) um über 50% ansteigen. Aber alles natürlich noch unsicher und mit entsprechenden Risiken behaftet. Dieses Investment ist zum Teil sicher auch Spekulation, nicht nur Investition. (Und es ist ein komisches Gefühl, wenn man einen Wert kauft, den man selber schon zu einem Einstandspreis von 25% des jetzt bezahlten Preises im Depot hat). Mal sehen was daraus wird. Wer das detaillierter und fundierter nachlesen will - http://www.seabridgegold.net/FraserMackenzie-Aug13-07.pdf - ist zu empfehlen. Helmut |
| helmut - Dienstag, 4. September 2007 - 18:43 |
| Und noch die Meldung von heute: September 4, 2007 Seabridge Gold’s Mitchell Deposit Expands in Three Directions Toronto (Canada) — Assay results from the first eight holes drilled this summer at the Mitchell zone have confirmed northern, southern and depth extensions of the deposit. Mitchell is one of three gold-copper porphyry deposits located on Seabridge’s 100% owned Kerr-Sulphurets project near Stewart, British Columbia, Canada. In June, Seabridge commenced a 15,000 meter core program at Mitchell designed to upgrade the existing inferred resource and to test for extensions of the deposit (SEE news release dated June 27, 2007). To date, results have been received and analyzed for the first eight holes of the 2007 program with assays reported as follows: Drill Hole Target Depth (m) From (m) To (m) Intercept (m) Gold (gpt) Copper (%) M-07-24 Depth 597.3 356.8 597.3 240.5 0.83 0.25 M-07-25 Depth and Northern 478.6 9.0 478.6 469.6 0.83 0.26 M-07-26 Infill 472.7 0.0 472.7 472.7 0.79 0.19 M-07-27 Southern 356.0 180.4 223.0 42.6 0.73 0.18 M-07-28 Southern 398.4 5.2 incl. 5.2 398.4 213.1 393.2 207.9 0.59 0.86 0.14 0.18 M-07-29 Southern 336.5 6.7 336.5 329.8 0.75 0.19 M-07-30 Southern 194.5 Did not reach target M-07-31 Southern 233.2 58.0 233.2 175.2 0.68 0.20 Drill hole M-07-24 was a deepening of 2006 drill hole M-06-24 which yielded continuous mineralization of 256.8 meters averaging 0.66 grams per tonne gold and 0.19% copper commencing at 100.0 meters to the bottom of the hole which terminated at 356.8 meters. Results from M-07-24 confirm the potential for at least a 200 meter depth extension of the Mitchell deposit with the hole still ending in typical Mitchell grades. The hole was terminated in mineralization as the drill’s maximum capacity had been reached. Holes M-07-25 and M-07-26 demonstrate the remarkable consistency of mineralization and continuity of grades in the down-dip direction to the north. Both holes terminated in mineralization. Drill holes M-07-27 and M-07-31 were collared above the Mitchell thrust fault. The Mitchell zone was intercepted immediately below the thrust fault at 180.4 meters and 58.0 meters respectively. Drill hole M-07-30 was also collared above the Mitchell thrust fault but was abandoned in rocks above the thrust fault prior to reaching its target due to hole conditions. Note that the entire 194.5 meters drilled above the target zone were hydrothermally altered and averaged 0.31 grams of gold per tonne and 0.08% copper, demonstrating that rocks above the fault are still contained within the mineralizing system. Drill hole M-07-27 is believed to be approaching the southeastern limit of the Mitchell zone as mineralization is thinning in this direction. Based on drilling conducted by Seabridge in 2006, a National Instrument 43-101 compliant resource estimate for Mitchell yielded an initial inferred resource of 564 million tonnes grading 0.72 grams per tonne gold (13.1 million ounces) and 0.18% copper (2.23 billion pounds) at an equivalent gold cut-off grade of 0.50 grams per tonne gold (SEE news release dated February 20, 2007). Equivalent grades were determined using a gold price of US$475 per ounce and a copper price of US$1.50 per pound. The 2006 drill program did not find the limits of the deposit which remained open to the north, to the south (toward the Sulphurets deposit a distance of two kilometers), to the west and at depth. All of the reported holes contained herein were drilled from north to south at an incline of approximately minus 60 degrees. The true thickness of the Mitchell zone, based on initial drill results from the current program, is estimated to be 500 to 600 meters but could be more as the deepest hole drilled to date (M-07-24) ended in material that was consistent with the grades of the overall hole. Seabridge President and CEO Rudi Fronk noted that “the 24 holes drilled at Mitchell during 2006 confirmed a continuously mineralized gold-copper deposit measuring 1,600 meters long, 800 meters wide and at least 300 to 400 meters thick. The new drilling to date suggests that we may have added at least 200 meters of thickness and 400 meters of width due to extensions to the south and north. We anticipate further extensions from this year’s program, particularly to the south.” Exploration activities at Kerr-Sulphurets are being conducted by Seabridge personnel under the supervision of William E. Threlkeld, Senior Vice President of Seabridge and a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101. An ongoing and rigorous quality control/quality assurance protocol is being employed during the 2007 program including blank and reference standards in every batch of assays. Cross-check analyses are being conducted at a second laboratory on 10% of the samples. Samples are being assayed at Eco Tech Laboratory Ltd., Kamloops, B.C., using fire assay atomic adsorption methods for gold and total digestion ICP methods for other elements. Seabridge has acquired a 100% interest in nine North American gold resource projects. For a breakdown of the Company’s mineral resources by project and resource category please visit the Company’s website at http://www.seabridgegold.net/Resource.htm. |
| chinaman - Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 - 05:05 |
| Hallo Helmut, ich kenne Seabridge gut. Die Entwicklung zeigt, welche Performance erfolgreiche Explorer erreichen können. Für mein Musterdepot ist mir Seabridge aber sowohl von der Kursentwicklung als auch von der Entwicklung der Projekte her schon zu weit davongelaufen ... Interessant ist der Wert aber durchaus ! Gruß Chinaman |
| helmut - Mittwoch, 24. März 2010 - 22:06 |
| Die nächsten 2 Wochen werden spannend - da könnte es einen echten Short-Squeeze geben. Heute gemeldet 3 Mio. Aktien short. Dazu die Erwartung, dass bis Ende März die Reserve-Schätzung für KSM veröffentlicht wird. Ich poste noch zwei Artikel: 1) Citron Reports: Die stellen Seabridge als reine Märchen-Bude hin - deshalb auch der Verkaufsdruck und Short-Interest in letzter Zeit. 2) sehr positver Analystenreport von Matt Badiali von Stansberry Bin gespannt, was daraus wird. Ich persönlich bin aber sehr optimistisch, dass sich da jetzt was in die richtige Richtung tut. Helmut |
| helmut - Mittwoch, 24. März 2010 - 22:12 |
| Seabridge Gold (Amex:SA) –Why the Majors are saying ‘No’ while Wall St. is saying ‘Yes’. Original unter folgendem Link: http://www.citronresearch.com/index.php/2010/03/01/ und 2. Teil: http://www.citronresearch.com/index.php/2010/03/10/ There are now hundreds of junior gold mining companies throughout the world, doing extensive drilling. It is really getting challenging to look at every project. Best practices for investors are to stick to companies that have partnerships, earn-ins and drilling agreements with major mining companies. However, there aren’t many with zero gold reserves and a billion dollar market cap. And then there’s Seabridge Gold. (AMEX:SA) Seabridge claims that its KSM prospect is sitting on “one of the five largest undeveloped gold projects in the world”…. sound good? [ http://www.seabridgegold.net/projects.php ] In this report, Citron will explore why no major mining companies have partnered with them and test the credibility of their claims. Seabridge is a junior mining company whose stock has been jacked up since 2005 on a series of clever promotions and hype. In the opinion of Citron it is all based upon a premise that is fraudulent to US investors. While much has been published on Seabridge over the years, in a series of articles Citron will put forward the definitive piece of research that will prove what the major companies already know about Seabridge: it is a bridge to nowhere. The Big Kahuna - KSM Seabridge acquired KSM from Placer Dome for just hundreds of thousand of dollar in stock in 2001. This prospect had been owned and poked by many of the majors going back to 1961. Enter Seabridge, which then enlists the following players, ups its estimates, pays some promoters and off to the races it goes. Michael Lechner: The Billion Dollar Man The resource analysis of the Seabridge Gold’s KSM project is headed by Michael Lechner of Resource Modeling Inc (RMI) of Tucson Arizona. It is important to note that Seabridge has increased KSM’s resource “estimates” by over 1300% during Lechner’s engagement, even though they have only drilled only 40% of the holes on the project, which has been poked by many of the majors as early as 1961. So who is RMI? A picture is worth a 1000 words. The address for Mr. Lechner’s operation on filings was 1960 W. Muirhead Loop, Tucson AZ. We encourage shareholders to look at the office of RMI and see where these billion dollar claims are coming from. http://www.zillow.com/homes/1960-W.-Muirhead-Loop,-Tucson-AZ.—_rb/ Yes, this is the world headquarters of Resource Modeling Inc. When analyzing a potential gold find, the feasibility study is as important as the resource estimate in determining the economic value of the resource. There’s lots of gold and other minerals in places where the cost of extraction simply renders it uneconomical. Seabridge’s reassuring message to investors describes how KSM is located in safe and predictable Canada, not some foreign country. What it doesn’t state is that the property is extremely remote and largely located under a glacier. The capital investment needed to extract any gold from the site is daunting indeed – the price tag is in the billions. Extraction would require them to drill miles-long underground tunnels just to gain access the site, plus hydroelectric dams and roads…and that’s before establishing the mining and milling facilities. The feasibility study for KSM was produced by a company named Moose Mountain. There is not much record of Moose Mountain before 2007, as they went by their old name: GR Technical Services. GR was involved in one of the largest feasibility study flops ever in the gross underestimate of a notorious project called Galore Creek. After shareholder lawsuits and serious damage to its reputation, GR did the obvious thing….they changed their name. In May of 2007, Novagold partnered with a Teck Cominco on a potentially huge mine – Galore Creek — based on work done by GR Technical. In August of 07, GR Technical changed its operating name to Moose Mountain and in November of 07, the new feasibility study done by the big-business partner found that GR grossly underestimated costs at Galore Creek – so much so that the project was cancelled. Shares of Novagold tanked — but who cares? By then, they were already Moose Mountain……needless to say Lechner’s estimates were also involved in this debacle. The possible reason Seabridge has not found a partners is that the majors are becoming a lot more skeptical of feasibility studies by juniors and their one-man shop consultants, as many large projects have been misrepresented during the recent gold rush. Abullah Arik- Is this kosher?? In their most recent offering, Seabridge stated that it was raising money in order to develop their project at Courageous Lake (easier than going back to the KSM story). The study at Courageous Lake was done according to filings by “Michael Lechner and Abdullah Arik who are both independent of Seabridge.” http://edgar.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingOrig1?SessionID=jhWQjmmKL9Jga2Z&ID=3953926 But wait …we have never seen Arik work with Lechner before — only on this project. So who does he really work for?? Concurrently in other SEC filings we see that Arik’s real employer is Mintec, where he still works. Mintec’s CEO is none other than Fred Banfield — a director and a significant shareholder of Seabridge. This type of shenanigan is normally reserved for OTC stocks … but if you don’t get caught, that makes it legal? The National Instrument 43-101 is a strict guideline for how public companies can disclose scientific and technical information about mineral projects on bourses supervised by the Canadian Securities Administrators. NI 43-101 clearly describes independent qualified persons and when they are required. Here is the link to the regulations: http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/uploadedFiles/NI43-101(1).pdf The Promotion Seabridge claims that it is has more gold ownership per share than any listed company. This claim is at the basis of their whole promotion of Seabridge’s stock. This claim is ILLEGAL. US Securities law strictly specifies the rules under which companies can claim the asset value of in-the-ground resources Yet, on its website, and promotional TV advertisements produced for the company and broadcast on US investors, it has flaunted the law in the most misleading way imaginable, without any disclaimer whatsoever. Seabridge’s “proven reserves”, the only term legal to claim value of an in-ground resource to US investors, is zero. This is not a technicality! The company has never done sufficient work either on the resource (asset) or feasibility (cost) side to claim extractable resources with certainty to meet the legal standard. The company has been so blatant in committing this deception on investors that they even took a commercial on CNBC (so typical of a stock promotion) making that misleading and fraudulent claim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7UugsDIBNI Due to the lack of independent analyst coverage, Seabridge has been largely dependent on promotional companies to get stock sold to investors. One of their largest promoters has been Stansberry Investment Research, who has written a multitude of promotions on Seabridge for the past 4 years. http://www.google.com/search?q=stansberry+research+seabridge&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rlz=1D1GGLD_enUS366US366 It should be noted that the SEC has sued Porter Stansberry, and its parent Agora for engaging and an “ongoing scheme to defraud public investors by disseminating false information in several internet newsletters…” http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18090.htm Seabridge’s promotional claim extends to EVERY single piece of marketing material put forward by the company which reiterates that one line so prevalent that it is the company’s tag line “More Gold Ownership Per Share”. This line is false and fraudulent by its very nature. Ever since people were selling shares in the Brooklyn Bridge, securities laws have required companies to demonstrate that an asset is monetizable to claim an asset value. Seabridge’s corporate presentation of itself has gone for years in laughing in the regulators faces as they claim ownership in something that is nothing more than an inferred resource. CEO Rudi Fronk knows what the company is doing is wrong as he told Forbes Magazine in 2007 that the SEC has “forced” the company to state that they have no knows reserves. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0813/034.html With that, we ask Wall St. and the SEC, ”How many companies do you know whose corporate slogan is an illegal claim to investors?” As of now, no one has “bought” this story except shareholders as they still don’t have a JV, buyout, or any respectable Wall St. coverage. Is the gig finally up? Seabridge CEO Rudi Fronk and the company’s mouthpieces have for years talked about a partnership or buyout. It goes back to as far as 2006 when gold was in the $600s per ounce and Agora touted Seabridge in June of 2006: “It plans to partner with a major mining firm, who will take the financial risk. Seabridge Gold couldn’t identify who that partner is, but it said it has confidentiality agreements with four majors for this project (sic) The major mining firms wouldn’t be interested unless this is potentially a major gold mine.” http://www.dailywealth.com/archive/2006/jun/seabridge-gold.asp Fronk also told Bloomberg in 2008 that he seeks a sale or a partnership with another gold company. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a0oBONaTFZnw&refer=canada And in a last ditch effort before he had to go to the street for more money, Fronk begs in TheStreet.com in 2009 “Somebody Take Us Out” http://www.thestreet.com/story/10666360/seabridge-gold-ceo-take-us-out.html We are now in 2010 — and still no partner or buyout. This leads us to believe that the majors think the same thing as Citron — that the resource at KSM is uneconomical regardless of what the claims company might tell shareholders. Please, there is no reason for the company or any of their mouth pieces to go into the various media outlets and defend the company….all they have to do is get a partner….we won’t be holding our breaths. We’ll have more to say about this story at is unfolds. Dreams of Gold vs Reality of Share Prices Seabridge’s explicitly advertised and promoted investment premise is that it is a “call option” on the future price of gold. Citron believes this premise is utterly false. Aside from all the background noise about stock promotions, Seabridge investors invest in the stock because they hope it will rise in value as the price of gold rises. As the company has told them, it is a levered play on gold. But the price of Seabridge stock is not tied to the price of gold, it is tied only to the supply and demand for Seabridge shares. That places shareholder returns squarely dependent not upon the price of gold, but upon the actions of management and insiders. This is precisely why the past activities of Seabridge’s insiders are so troubling. However, the proof is in the pricing. If we look at the price of Seabridge stock over the last five years, we can see a huge run-up coincident with the bull market in 2007 when gold went from 700 an ounce to 1000, and also with Agoracom’s paid promotion of Seabridge stock. But for the vast majority of current Seabridge investors who purchased the stock since 2007, their returns are negative relative to gold. Citron believes the real factors behind these negative returns are the increasing dilution the stock experiences over time as insiders liquidate positions they acquired at very low prices, and more stock enters the public float. Gold is up 15% - 20% over the last two years … … but SA is down 20% or more. (charts by http://www.stockcharts.com/ ) Gold Fever? Or just a cold stock promotion? Much has been said about the history of Seabridge’s CEO/President Rudi Fronk and the gold company bankruptcies that lurk in his background. Citron does not indulge in dredging up management background unless it is relevant to the issue at hand. In this case, we find the information to be compelling because the only thing we can base this company on is the credibility of management. There is neither revenue nor objective external data points that would allow investors to draw an independent conclusion about its value. It is widely known that Rudi Fronk’s and James Anthony’s predecessor company to Seabridge was Greenstone Resources. Big promises, but went bankrupt. Who cares? Please read on. Fronk and Anthony were put into Greenstone by an operator named Ian Park. Mr. Park was the founder of Greenstone and seems to be the Third Musketeer in a group of deals that are unmentioned in the resumes of both Fronk and Anthony. Prior companies of the Fronk and Anthony cadre: Company Participants and roles Link I LOV TV Entertainment Ian Park, President Rudi Fronk and James Anthony directors I Lov TV Link Inlet Resources Ian Park, President James Anthony director Inlet Resources Link Masuparia Gold Corp Ian Park, President James Anthony director Masapuria Gold Link New Global Ventures Ian Park, President Rudi Fronk and James Anthony directors New Global Ventures Link Borneo Gold Corp. * Ian Park, President Rudi Fronk early stage investor. Borneo Gold Link * Borneo was particularly notorious because of the involvement of banned in BC stock promoter Wayne Wile. http://www.capitalstool.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=961&mode=threaded “Wayne Wile, banned for three years in B.C. and jailed six months in Ontario over a decade ago, caught the attention of Canadian regulators when he worked at Mr. Park’s Borneo Gold in 1996 amid a massive stock run as Borneo made its debut on the Asian board of the TSX Venture Exchange’s predecessor, the Vancouver Stock Exchange.” That’s five public companies … all gone. And lastly, Mr. Ian Park was one of the earliest investors in Seabridge right before they bought the rights to the KSM project. Link to Park’s early stage convertible shares in SA What makes Mr. Park so interesting is that he holds the dubious distinction of being the only man in Citron’s archives who has been implicated in two separate and distinct companies … BOTH of which were halted by the SEC. The first of these is Sedona Software (Rennaisance Mining), which claimed to have one of the biggest gold finds in the world back in 2003. We later find out that Mr. Park was involved in one elaborate stock scam… and that he and his partners were ultimately sued by the SEC. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2007/comp20407-park.pdf Mr. Park later headed a company call Sino Silver which was halted by the SEC in 2005 for accuracy of information and unlawful distribution of stock. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/34-51698.pdf The one company that Seabridge’s management can claim to be a “success” is Arizona Star. This was bought in October of 2007, during the height of the recent gold rush. The company was sold mainly for its Cerro Casale project. Arizona took advantage of the window of opportunity that was given to them by panic in the gold markets. Both Fronk and Anthony were on the board. Yet, readers should note the following chilling outcome. The initial feasibility study for Cerro Casale pegged development costs at $1.65 billion; it has now ballooned to over $4 billion. That does not prove the mine is unfeasible, it just tips the risk/reward scale enormously, demonstrating the huge risks that exist in metals mining between “estimates” and reality. This is a likely reason that the M&A frenzy in Canadian junior miners has chilled. This troubling track record should bring into clear focus the concerns Citron published regarding Seabridge’s aggressive paid stock promotion to retail investors, including television commercials touting “more gold ownership per share” as it states on the tagline of its website. (Note: Citron reiterates its belief that this claim is not legal under US Securites laws.) Citron is wrong- we issue a mea culpa In Citron’s initial report we mentioned that only Wall St. has been fooled by the Seabridge story. We must correct that statement. It seems like only a handful of investors (and those who bought the private placement) have been fooled. For a company that says they one of the largest gold deposits in the world that is sitting right in North America – why is there no independent analyst coverage of them? Consider the state of their analyst coverage. Bloomberg lists 2 firms. One is Dahlman Rose & Co,, who just picked up coverage on them 3 weeks ago, just 2 weeks before they did a placement for them …Chinese Wall anyone??? The other analyst listed is Singular Research??? Singular? They are not even members of FINRA — they are more of a paid promo firm. So is this unusual? We studied all 5 comparable dual listed Canadian/US Mining Firms by market capitalization. This is what we found: Company Market Cap Analysts Gammon Gold 1.34 Billion 17 Northgate Minerals 904 Million 10 Aurizon Mines 729 Million 12 Frontier Dev Group 574 Million 6 Seabridge 869 Million Zero, none, nada The bottom line here: If SA owns a feasible mine, despite Rudi Fronk’s loudly and publicly peddling his prospects since 2007, then where is its partner? It’s no secret in the industry, which is a very small community. There simply is not any other valid data point investors can rely upon to value that prospect. For you media fans, here is another view of those commercials…the shoots that ended up on the cutting room floor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6N7peOjbUs&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXsOKzeVbpw&feature=related Conclusion It is the opinion of Citron research that Seabridge is a clear example of a mature stock promo: the overt manipulation of public perception to sell shares of dubious value. Its claim of leverage to the price of gold was never true; now that it has diluted and run its story, its share price is leveraged only to its ability to promote its shares. With regard to selling or partnering its heavily touted mega-prospect KSM, there’s an old gambler’s cliché. “Look around the table. If you don’t’ see a sucker, get up, because you’re the sucker.” Cautious investing to all |
| helmut - Mittwoch, 24. März 2010 - 22:20 |
| Seabridge Gold – Sleeping Giant I've only talked about the resource of KSM so far. That's just the volume of the rock that holds the good stuff. The resource categories (measured, indicated, and inferred), in decreasing order, refer to the accuracy of the volume measurement. Engineers calculate the resource from assays (which tell us the amount of gold and other metals) along drill cores. The more drill holes, the higher the accuracy. More valuable than resources are reserves. A reserve is the portion of the resource that a mining engineer says can be mined economically. That requires a whole lot of study and expense to figure out. It's important to understand the difference, because the market values the two assets differently. The average price for resources is about $150 per ounce. The average price for reserves is $266 per ounce. Today, KSM only has a resource... but within the next few weeks it will have a reserve estimate. This will represent a crucial milestone for Seabridge... and as I'll explain, it will send its share price rocketing. The company owns 100% of KSM, along with the 10.2 million-ounce Courageous Lake (located north of Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories) and a handful of other, smaller projects. If you just consider the measured and indicated resources at KSM and Courageous Lake, we're buying 43.1 million ounces of gold for just $19.75 per ounce. That number is going to get a whole lot more expensive soon, so we need to buy now. We're mainly interested in KSM because it sits at the southern end of the Golden Triangle. This giant project is just 18 months away from the start of mine construction. The prefeasibility study should come out sometime in the next few weeks. In it we will find the details of the mine – cost of construction, size and shape of the mine, and the reserve calculation. Once the prefeasibility comes out, there is just 12 to 18 months of permitting necessary before mine construction. That will change Seabridge's value considerably. Before we get into its value, let's take a look at its business. The company recently added $61 million in cash from a financing, which means it has plenty of money to do its work and keep the lights on for at least two years. It has 40.5 million shares outstanding, 42.3 million fully diluted. That means the company owns more than an ounce of gold for every outstanding share. This year will be pivotal for Seabridge. It plans to drill both KSM and Courageous Lake this summer. The goal is to increase both the reserves at KSM and the quality of the resource at Courageous Lake. I think they are both important, but let's focus on KSM, because that's where our immediate gains will come from. Let's do a quick comparison to Kinross Gold's Cerro Casale project in Chile. Cerro Casale is a similar low-grade gold and copper deposit. Here are the details of the two, side by side: Cerro Casale KSM M&I Gold Resource (Oz) 25.4 million 38.9 million M&I Copper Resource (Pounds) 6.4 billion 10 billion Gold Reserves (Oz) 21 million None Yet Gold Grade (grams per ton) 0.59 0.57 Copper Grade (%) 0.22% 0.21% You can see KSM is about 50% larger than Cerro Casale. Barrick Gold recently paid $475 million for 25% of the project. That implies a $1.9 billion value for Cerro Casale. That puts KSM's value at $2.9 billion. That's 235% more than Seabridge's current market value. The most important point on that table is KSM doesn't have reserves yet. As I mentioned earlier, those will be published soon. So we should see gradual appreciation of Seabridge's shares. However, it could also skyrocket up towards the industry average...which would value those ounces around $12 billion. Here's the way Seabridge's net asset value breaks down right now: Asset Value KSM $2.9 billion Courageous Lake $190 million Other Projects $25 million Cash $62.5 million Total $3.2 billion As you can see, at $850 million market cap, Seabridge trades for a fraction of its asset value, mainly because the market doesn't believe KSM is mineable. That's about to change. Seabridge will release its prefeasibility study for KSM within the next few weeks. With that will come a reserve calculation that proves KSM can be mined profitably. That will stun the market. I'll be disappointed if Seabridge shares don't double this year, based on that report alone. Recommendation: Buy Seabridge Gold (AMEX: SA) up to $35 per share and use a 50% trailing stop. |
| helmut - Samstag, 15. Januar 2011 - 12:23 |
| Die Ausgangslage bei Seabridge hat sich nicht grundlegend geändert. Seabridge ist und bleibt eine Spekulation auf einen hohen Goldpreis. Für mich ist es so was wie ein Absicherungswert für starke Unsicherheit - obwohl diese Qualitäten sich bisher nur begrenzt gezeigt haben. Inhaltlich hat sich das Unternehmen ja eigentlich gut entwickelt. - Die Bohrungen haben weitere sehr hohe Goldvorkommen identifiziert. - Der Anteil der tatsächlich als Reserven anerkannten Goldvorkommen wurde signifikant gesteigert. - Kleinere Randbereiche wurden abgegeben, so dass jetzt nur noch die Kern-Gebiete im Porfolio sind. Dadurch dass die Gold-Grade relativ gering sind bleibt ein erhebliches Explorationsrisiko. Oder anders ausgedrückt - Seabridge hat einen enormen Hebel auf den Goldpreis. Wenn dieser langfristig so bleibt wie jetzt kann sich Seabridge locker verdreifachen. Wenn nicht, dann kann es auch massiv abwärts gehen. Seabridge ist deshalb auch ein sehr volatiler Wert. Dass über 4 Mio. Aktien (ca. 20% des Free-Float) short verkauft sind bringt auch einige Brisanz in das Thema. Was ist negativ: neben dem grundsätzlichen Problem, dass die Kosten für die Förderung relativ hoch sind, gibt es immer wieder Spekulationen über die Genehmigungen, die Zufahrtswege, ökologische Bedenken etc. Zusätzlich scheinen die handelnden Personen eine nicht ganz blütenweiße Vergangenheit zu haben. Der Wert bleibt sehr spekulativ – ich bleibe vorerst dabei. Für Januar 2011 sind weitere Bohrergebnisse angekündigt, dann könnte sich wieder was tun. |
| helmut - Montag, 13. Juni 2011 - 19:58 |
| Die zuletzt veröffentlichten Feasibility Studien waren leider nciht sehr positiv. Extreme Anstiege der notwendigen Capex haben trotz des hohen Goldpreises den IRR absacken lassen. Da habe ich die Reissleine gezogen - leider erst jetzt. Die letzte Studie ist ja schon am 1. Juni rausgekommen - bin leider erst jetzt dazu gekommen mir die anzusehen. Das hätte einen Verkauf über 20 Euro möglich gemacht :-( Helmut |