Energy & Commodities

Is there Gold in Fort Knox?

u-s- bullion depository

Is there gold in Fort Knox? That question is completely irrelevant. Why? Will it really make a difference? The stories of no gold in the vault are just spun by people so desperate to support a gold bull market it is just crazy. I was given a tour of the NY Fed years ago and there was gold there. The US started going after the Swiss and threatening to seize their assets here in the USA for hiding Americans with assets. Without fanfare, the Swiss quietly took ALL their gold and moved it out of the USA. The stories spun around Germany were nonsense as well.

Try looking at this dispassionately. This is not the stuff that is going to make gold rise. We do not need this type of tin-foil hat nonsense to create a bull market and it really doesFAR MORE damage than the Goldbugs suspect. People who are not buying gold refrain from doing so because of stories like that. They do not take all these claims seriously and perceive the idea of buying gold as the lunatic fringe when based on stories that cannot be proved.

Gold will rise because it is the HEDGE against government. It is ONE investment that enables one to move their wealth from one medium of exchange (currency) to another when the new one comes down because of fiscal mismanagement. They also tout hyperinflation but both Germany and Zimbabwe could not sell debt so they printed. Advanced societies sell debt today. It is worse because it is printing money that pays interest. Real estate and shares in companies will provide that same mechanism as gold did in the case in Germany. In fact, the new currency to replace the hyperinflation was backed by real estate. But for shares and real estate to survive requires the society to survive or in other words blink BEFORE the Mad Max conclusion.\

….read more HERE

Special Report: How to Find Money in Any Market

Money: Mining companies need it and investors want to know that companies will use that money to make them money. An innovative conference sponsored by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), called “Current Trends in Mining Finance—An Executive’s Guide: What Are Lenders, Investors Looking For?”, brought together about 145 experts who were actively funding and running companies—and looking for answers. In this interview with The Gold Report, SME Executive Director David Kanagy and Conference Co-Chair Tim Alch share some insights about alternative funding that could help more companies survive the year.

Screen shot 2013-05-06 at 1.36.01 PMThe Gold Report: You put on a two-day conference last week in New York, “Current Trends in Mining Finance—An Executive’s Guide: What Are Lenders, Investors looking For?” Why this topic now?

David Kanagy: SME has held some financial conferences in the past, but it has been more than 10 years since the last one, so it was time. The program was intended for senior executives and mining industry specialists, bankers, analysts and investors. It covered project evaluation and executive decision making, mergers and acquisitions, tax and accounting issues, resources and reserve reporting, and other risk factors that are making the current financial market for the minerals industry a bit difficult right now.

TGR: What has changed in the market since 2008? Is this really the worst market you’ve seen or does it just feel like that?

Tim Alch: The market rebounded nicely immediately after the 2008 financial crisis largely as a result of China’s continued growth. However, in the last two years China has been perceived as slowing from an average of 10% gross domestic product (GDP) annual growth to something approximating 7–7.5%. This growth is on a larger GDP number, however, which is important to understand.

Today, we are also concerned about the European market and, most immediately, price support in the commodity sector. Over the last 10 years, costs of production have been steadily rising so there is considerable concern right now that the strong pricing environment the metals and minerals sectors enjoyed may be subject to pressure. The environment has become very selective and risk-off, particularly in the global mining finance space in the past 9–10 months.

The financial markets impact lending and investor appetite for risk. Luckily alternative sources of capital are stepping into the fray. Private equity, as well as sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises from Korea, Japan and China, are now investing in natural resources.

TGR: Are countries looking to secure access to coal, oil and base metals to fund future growth or are they looking at it purely from a return on investment standpoint?

TA: In certain sectors and geographies, stability and security of supply of raw materials is a concern and it is driving certain parties to invest with just more than internal rate of return concerns.

TGR: Where is this supply security showing itself to be most important? Base metals, rare earths, gold? Are they looking for short-term fixes or focusing on long-term security?

DK: All of the above. Every sector has its own challenges. It’s a difficult and a complex market right now. No one (with the exception of strategic long-term investors) is looking to long long-term greenfield investment projects. The ones that will get the best funding right now are more short-term opportunities that could get an immediate return or a greater return over the next few years.

TA: Some enterprises, including electronics companies or automobile manufacturing companies or even steel industry producers, have in the last several years made strategic investments in projects, properties and resources to ensure that they have a stable supply of various industrial minerals, including copper, iron ore, rare earths and the electronics metals, as a result of their need to ensure that they will have a steady supply.

TGR: If these alternative funding sources are looking for short-term needs rather than long-term payoffs, does that mean that the producers will recover faster than the explorers?

DK: I would say that that’s a true statement.

TA: What is of interest in the space today are brownfield expansion projects as opposed to the greenfield or exploration-oriented projects. Those projects that are adjacent to existing properties or operations and that are clearly identified as being low-cost are seeing money continued to be invested, but it is on a very selective basis.

TGR: Is that also true of gold and silver? Is there interest in precious metals exploration projects? And, if so, is there more interest in certain parts of the world?

TA: There is still interest in the precious metals sector as a store of wealth due in part to inflation concerns within the current monetary easing policy. But investment is going into jurisdictions with stable, secure political environments that are less subject to changes in rules and regulations to delay projects from advancing.

TGR: Previously, you listed the different alternative funding sources; did the conference cover streaming and royalty companies? Have they been a factor in keeping the lights on for mining companies?

TA: Yes, streaming, forward sales and alternative sources of capital were discussed along with private equity.

TGR: Crowd-sourcing is something new in the finance sector. Is it part of the mining sector or is it just talked about more than it is being done?

TA: My sense is that it’s too early in the mining and minerals space to say if it is actually having an impact. We are still largely dependent upon traditional sources, as well as the alternative sources, including forward sales, royalties, streaming, private equity and the sovereign wealth funds, as well as state-owned enterprises. Remember mining is a capital intensive sector.

TGR: On the royalty and streaming side, a number of new, smaller players doing small deals have joined the big royalty companies. Do you think that’s a sign of that market maturing? Will there be even more companies coming into the space or is there only so much room and we can look forward to consolidation in the royalty space?

DK: My sense is that there’s more interest in greater participation by a greater number of players in the royalty and streaming space because there’s opportunity and need for it. Where there’s opportunity and margins are still realizable, that’s where the capital is going. A lot of these are very one-off type of situations. But a few larger ones, including Royal Gold Inc. (RGLD:NASDAQ; RGL:TSX) and Silver Wheaton Corp. (SLW:TSX; SLW:NYSE), have been successful. They’re tapping an opportunity with their expertise, as well as the capital they have available. I think royalties and streaming are going to play a greater part down the road.

TGR: What about private equity? Is that becoming a more important source of funding?

TA: It is because certain informed, long-term or long-only investors perceive value in the space. The equity valuations in the mining and minerals space have become so depressed in the last year and certain private equity investors see an opportunity.

TGR: Are there things companies can accomplish with private equity that might be more difficult in the public market?

TA: Companies can tailor the relationship from the beginning between management and the private equity sponsor. The long-term support that comes with that relationship is also very important in an environment like this.

TGR: There has been quite a bit of debate about what’s going to happen to all the junior mining companies on the TSX. Some have said that as many as 500 companies listed on the Venture Exchange are going to go out of business in the next year. Will all these alternative sources of funding allow more companies to get through this difficult funding period?

DK: There will be some contraction, but I am hopeful and don’t think it will be on the massive scale you’ve just mentioned. People are very cautious right now. Companies seeking or in need of capital in the current environment will have to demonstrate that a project has possible returns in the next 2–3 years rather than 10–20 years out.

TA: Low-cost operations and production is paramount to attract investment. If a company can demonstrate high-grade quality of resources in the ground that can be produced at low costs within the first or second quartile of industry cost curves, those projects are better able to raise capital and find interest among the investment community.

TGR: Is that even more important with the institutional audience? Are institutions getting back into this market and, if so, what will it take to keep them there?

TA: The intermediate to long-term outlook—even the near-term outlook—for the mining sector is very favorable, but it needs to be carefully scrutinized and I don’t think the institutions have walked away. They are just sharpening their pencils like all investors today and making sure that they will see a return. The fundamental long-term story for raw materials, metals and minerals is intact on a macro basis worldwide. Growth in emerging markets—where demand for raw materials on a per capita or growth of GDP basis is greater than in the developed nations—is intact and likely will continue growing at above average rates.

DK: You started the conversation by asking whether these are the worst conditions the metals market has seen, and I would say they are not. It may not be as lucrative as it was two or three years ago. It’s more difficult now, but I don’t think it’s the worst we’ve seen. But it is changing and I think the investors and lenders are asking more questions. People are doing better due diligence, asking more questions—questions that probably should have been asked many years ago. Now that the need for a return is paramount, investors are asking more and better questions.

TGR: We have talked about a number of different funding trends. What answers do you hope attendees came away with from your conference?

DK: We featured about 50 speakers in 17 panels on topics ranging from lending and financing to political risk. The 145 people attending heard from leading experts from the banking, financial and technical advisory sectors, as well as accounting, legal, political risk and social and local economic development experts who all shared what they are seeing today and how they are managing opportunities for investing or financing in the global mining sector. Many attendees expressed thanks and walked away saying they learned from the experiences and observations of others. All of which has encouraged the SME to have this conference again next year.

TA: This was more than just an educational seminar—it was a chance for investors to get real answers from experts about what they are doing right now.

TGR: Thanks for your insights.

Tim Alch is a vice president and senior minerals business analyst at Behre Dolbear & Co. (USA) Inc. Alch is an international business, investment analyst and consultant with 25+ years of experience working within business units analyzing prospective, operating, management, strategy, technical, technology, valuation, transactions and investment issues for industrial and financial clients. He was a senior vice president of Anderson & Schwab Inc. and equity analyst at Dean Witter Reynolds, Prudential Securities, Paine Webber and senior consultant and industry analyst at World Steel Dynamics, Resource Strategies, Inc., CRU Inc. (London), covering global precious, base and industrial metals and minerals, mining, steel, coal, energy and related sectors. He is an honors graduate of Amherst College in geology and studied the economic and political impact of the Industrial Revolution and modern economy on the global mineral and energy resource Sectors. He continued his studies in the Master of Science mineral and energy economics program at Penn State. Alch has been on the Executive Committee of the New York Section of SME since 2008 and co-chaired the “Current Trends in Mining Finance—An Executive’s Guide: What Are Lenders, Investors Looking For?” conference.

Dave Kanagy is the executive director for the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, which is located in Englewood, Colorado; he joined SME in March 2004. Kanagy has worked over 29 years with nonprofit organizations. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial education from the University of Maryland and a Master of Science degree in technology education from Eastern Illinois University. Kanagy is also a certified association executive by the American Society of Association Executives. He has also completed a six-year association management-development program from the University of Delaware’s Institute of Organizational Management.

Want to read more Gold Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Streetwise Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:
1) JT Long conducted this interview for The Gold Report and provides services to The Gold Report as an employee. She or her 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: Royal Gold Inc. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services or as sponsorship payment.
3) Tim Alch: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. 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) David Kanagy: I or my family own shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. 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.
5) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.
6) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. 
7) 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.

 

THEIR LOSS IS YOUR PROFIT

If California bans hydraulic fracturing, Texans are going to make a fortune.

“How can they not see how huge fracking will be for them from here on out? That’s like telling someone 3,000 years ago that indoor plumbing is gonna be big,” he said, exasperated.

I understood why my colleague was so skeptical. But a bigger thought had come to mind…

If California bans hydraulic fracturing, Texans are going to make a fortune.

What an Astonishing Performance – Farmland Outstrips Gold During Crisis

“The World’s Most Valuable Asset in a Time of Crisis”

There’s one reliable, common and briliant investment that has proved to be even better than gold or silver in crisis. In fact, since 1970, a year before the U.S. went off the gold standard, this investment has easily outpaced both stocks and gold.

Farmland vs Gold - SP 500

Its certainly reasonable to expect a crisis with the troubles in the US and Europe alone

Its FARMLAND: Click on either chart or HERE to read the full report

 

What would end the Oil age?

My take is that oil is going to be replaced by something better at some point. It can’t be something like ethanol, where we end up using more water and increasing food costs. Ultimately, maybe we can shift to natural gas. From there we’ll have to look at some of the alternatives that right now are expensive, but in 20 years won’t be nearly as expensive. Politics always plays a role in energy policy.

Commodity Online
Whether the topic is peak oil, climate change or commodity bull markets, Jim Letourneau tends to take the contrarian position. He’s an unapologetic advocate of oil sands development and a shrewd analyst of the companies large and small that are active both in the Alberta oil sands and in the U.S. oil patch.

In this interview with The Energy Report, he shares his insights into one of Alberta’s largest oil sands players and one of its newest and smallest, as well as a well-positioned startup in the Texas Midland basin and northwestern Montana’s Williston basin. He also goes into new Technologies for Oil Extraction and other energy techologies

How was your presentation, “Is Peak Oil Dead?” received at the Calgary Energy and Resource Investment Conference on April 5?

It went really well. There are a lot of professional engineers and geologists there who work in the oil business, and most of them were agreeing that technology is a big factor that pushes out when peak oil is going to occur. For each pool or technology, there is going to be a peak, so peak oil is really the average of hundreds of different peaks, but I think my big-picture point was well received.

Screen shot 2013-05-02 at 7.18.40 AM

Your point is that the theory behind peak oil fails to factor in technological breakthroughs that produce new drilling and stimulation technologies and tame hostile environments, thus leading to increases in production. If an oil shortage doesn’t end the oil age, could Government’s focus on climate change alone threaten oil’s dominance?

My take is that oil is going to be replaced by something better at some point. It can’t be something like ethanol, where we end up using more water and increasing food costs. Ultimately, maybe we can shift to natural gas. From there we’ll have to look at some of the alternatives that right now are expensive, but in 20 years won’t be nearly as expensive. Politics always plays a role in energy policy. We just went through a renewable energy stock bubble created by government loan guarantees. Meanwhile, oil companies have lost the PR battle. This gives governments the option to punitively tax and regulate the industry as they see fit.

If the future solution is natural gas, what companies do you see well positioned to meet that need?

Right now, because we’ve found so much natural gas, the companies that produce it are in a pickle. I think the range of prices is going to be lower for a long time. We’re not going to have an extended bull market. But the companies that use natural gas are pretty interesting. There are companies likeWestport Innovations Inc. (WPT:TSX; WPRT:NASDAQ) that build natural gas engines for big trucks and transport units. Another company is called Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE:NASDAQ). But the actual producers are in a tough spot. If the price does get a little higher, a lot of supply can come onstream very quickly.

You recently explained your new interest in biotech to The Life Sciences Report by saying, “The mining and energy sectors have reached a state of dysfunctional excess.” What do you mean by that expression?

What I mean is that there are just too many exploration companies out there and not enough expertise. When I started writing my newsletter 10 years ago, it was near the beginning of a commodity bull market, so there weren’t excesses in anything. The first bull market was in uranium, and only a handful of companies were trying to find uranium. Then the price started to move up and pretty soon there were well over 500 uranium companies worldwide. What could possibly be gained by having 500 companies instead of maybe 50?

I like to use the concept of a hype cycle, where a big wave of money coming into a sector builds up to a peak of inflated expectations before we move down to a trough of disillusionment. Another recent hype cycle was graphite. Look at the TSX Venture chart and you’ll see what I’m talking about. There’s going to be a hangover as a lot of those companies disappear.

Let’s shift gears and discuss some oil companies. Big Sky Petroleum Corp. (BSP:TSX.V) just retained an investor relations consultant, and part of the consultant’s fee is in options exercisable at $0.25. What does that say about that corporation’s expectations for growth in share value?

I think everyone is expecting the share value to grow, but today the share price is $0.13. Something has to change to get the share price higher, and maybe the investor relations consultant can help them with that.

A map of Big Sky’s West Texas assets shows that large- and mid-cap companies surround Big Sky’s new acreage. If the first well drilled is successful, do you think the larger companies are potential joint venture or takeover partners?

Definitely. The challenge for Big Sky is that it doesn’t have enough cash to pay for a single horizontal well. Almost all juniors right now have a big issue just keeping their production up. Big Sky doesn’t really have any production yet and it has just under $4 million ($4M) in cash. A horizontal well in the Wolfcamp is at least $5M and can be as high as $8M, and it’s in the same in the Bakken. If Big Sky drills one well each in the Bakken and the Wolfcamp, that’s $10M, so the company has to be pretty strategic about how it manages its opportunity. But the first step in any resource play is acreage capture, and Big Sky has done that. Hopefully, the company can find a partner and work out some kind of deal.

Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. (SUO:TSX; 2012:HKEX) is new and small. How much does its success depend on the permitting of the Keystone Pipeline?

Sunshine Oilsands has heavy oil production that averaged 625 barrels per day for the first nine months of 2012. Its first 10-thousand barrels-per-day West Ells project is close to being turned on, but it’s not built yet. If the Keystone Pipeline was approved, people would probably put a higher value on Sunshine, but its ultimate success is going to be based more on its leases and production.

Is Sunshine threatened by the rapid rise in domestic U.S. oil production?

To a degree. The rise in U.S. oil production has changed the level of supply urgency and it’s affecting policy. If there were a real shortage of oil in the U.S. and nothing on the horizon, that would be different. The amount of Canadian oil that’s been imported into the U.S. has doubled over the last decade or so. Now that the U.S. has more domestic sources, that urgency seems to have diminished. That is a threat. Canadians are aware of it. That’s why we’re working hard in Canada to get pipelines built to the west coast so we have two potential markets instead of just the United States.

Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. (ATH:TSX; ATI:FSE) set a goal to increase its oil production to between 200 and 260 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2020. Half of that would be in thermal production—in-situ production—and half from light oil, which it has no production at all in right now. It expects the first oil from thermal by 2014, so what is the key to that plan’s success?

Athabasca Oil has a very large land position in a light-oil play called the Duvernay, which is in central Alberta. The Duvernay was the source rock for the big Leduc fields that were found in Alberta and really kicked off Alberta’s oil industry. It’s a great source rock, but the wells are very deep and expensive. Athabasca had raised enough money that it can play around in that play. It’s an exciting new play. It could be very big for them.

The company is gearing up for thermal-assisted gravity drainage production. Has it achieved proof of concept for that?

Most companies are using some version of steam-assisted gravity drainage. There have been a few notable failures and there’s always some technical risk. The thing about resource plays has always been that the geological risk of the resource being there is very low. We know the oil sands there. We know where they are, but the technology to extract them requires specialized knowledge.

We’ve had a few examples where things haven’t worked out as planned. It’s always a bit nerve-racking until the projects are up and running and successful. Statistically, a company that’s got lots of land and lots of money can spread out that risk. I think Athabasca will be up and running pretty close to plan. Athabasca Oil has raised enough money to weather a lot of storms. It’s got lots of other projects that are ready to go.

Historically, the company was an open-pit oil sands miner. Is it prepared to succeed in light oil development?

Oh, definitely. Most people working in oil sands have a background in light oil. When it comes to shale oil, very few companies have tons of expertise because that’s only been around for maybe five years, but it’s to Athabasca’s credit that it’s diversified and captured a big opportunity.

As you intimated earlier, oil sands production gets bad press and protests both in Canada and in the U.S. for its alleged environmental damage. How much does that threaten Athabasca’s prospects, or Sunshine’s?

These projects are going to go ahead and they will get built and the oil will find a market. The environmental press has been negative, but in some ways, it’s a positive in that we will have the world’s best environmental monitoring because we keep measuring contamination with better and better equipment.

You had spoken in the past about the opportunities and challenges for uranium producers. Are any of them viable at a $40.75 uranium price or do you think that is going up?

The ones that are going into production are trying to lock in some longer-term pricing so that they have stability. For example, Ur-Energy Inc. (URE:TSX; URG:NYSE.MKT) just closed a $5.1 million transaction that provides them with upfront cash in return for the sale of future uranium deliveries. Smaller producers don’t want to be at the mercy of the spot price; $40/lb doesn’t leave them a ton of room, but they’re going to keep producing because if you produce, at least you’ll have some money coming in. I don’t think any of these projects are going to be shuttered. Right now it’s a tough game, but there are a lot of things on the table that will lead to higher uranium prices.

I think Japan may turn on some of their reactors again. Meanwhile, some of the biggest uranium producers are cutting back on production. All of the factors that kicked off the uranium bull market 10 years ago are still in play. Uranium producers based in the United States have an advantage because the U.S. wants energy security. These producers have come too far to stop. If the price moves up even $10 or $20, then they’ll be in an amazing position.

Courtesy: http://www.theenergyreport.com/