Posted on

PDAC 2018 Takeaways

PDAC logo

The 2018 edition of PDAC did not disappoint! Attendance was up from last year and, overall, the mood from most was cautiously optimistic. In my view, this is a good place to be, considering the current overall market dynamics. In my opinion, there’s definitely interest and money waiting to be deployed into the sector.  The criteria for that money to enter the resource market must be understood before being able to answer or hypothesize when the direction of the resource market as a whole will change.

PDAC introduced me to a few stories that, I think, have a lot of upside potential even if the next leg up in the resource bull market is still months away.

 

Is 2018 the Year for Mergers and Acquisitions in the Base Metals Sectors?

Before attending any investment conference, I always write out a list of goals or takeaways that I want to achieve by the end of the conference; presentations I’d like to watch, companies I’d like to speak with, people I’d like to meet, and things I’d like to learn or better understand.

For PDAC this year, I had a clear set of goals that was headlined by speaking to the major mining companies about the current base metals markets and what might be the catalyst for mergers and acquisitions (M&A). For those who are not familiar, major companies are not usually present at most resource investment conferences, making PDAC very unique in this regard.

What are the catalysts for M&A in the base metals markets? None of the major companies would come right out and give me a straight answer or list any criteria for an increase in M&A activity in the base metals market. While I figured this would be the case, going into the conference, I asked the question anyway; it’s complex enough that it leads to a lot of good discussion.

Here’s a short list of commonalities from their answers:

  • Profits – with the currently strong base metal spot price, most companies are generating good cash flow and believe prices will be higher in the future. My inference from this statement is ‘my balance sheet looks great, I’m in no rush to put any wrinkles on it by way of M&A. Additionally, by not developing any further supply, the price will remain high and we will continue to make profits.’
  • Risk – Greenfield/brownfield development projects have a lot of risk. This sentiment may have been the most pronounced with all of the major companies. ‘Why should I invest in a Greenfield/brownfield development project when I can put the same amount of money into an asset I already own and understand?’
  • Lack of quality acquisition targets – Each major company said that they are always looking for possible acquisition targets, but don’t see a lot of high quality projects out there. I view this comment in a number of different ways. First, I don’t disagree, the picking of truly world-class projects is small, and most likely only getting smaller in the future, until we change our criteria for what is world-class. Second, rising metal prices bring a lot of the 2nd tier projects into profitability, and may be the rose coloured glasses that are needed to spur M&A.

Although the major companies appear to be very confident that M&A isn’t a priority at this point, it’s my thought that it will only take one company to make a move and acquire one of the tier 1 projects and the flood gates will open as everyone else scrambles to buy up what’s left.

For me, I’m willing to wait and am looking to buy quality companies whose value is greater than their price, giving me the best possible odds of success. “When” questions pay, it’s just a matter of time.

 

Concluding Remarks

While I remain bullish on all metal prices, I’m increasingly becoming more selective in the junior companies with which I invest my money. The last year has proven to me, once again, that even though market fundamentals of a given commodity can be screaming for bull market, it doesn’t have to happen right away. Being a linear thinker is a good thing, but can be fraught with frustration and losses if mixed with a short-term view; the market can remain irrational longer than most of us can remain solvent! Therefore, for me, being highly selective in the companies with which I invest gives me the confidence to ride out the short waves of volatility and, ultimately, profit when the market confirms my bullish thesis.

One last thing, there’s nothing wrong with taking profit when it’s there!!

 

 

Don’t want to miss a new investment idea, interview or financial product review? Become a Junior Stock Review VIP now – it’s FREE!

 

 

Until next time,

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

 

Disclaimer – The following is not a recommendation, it is an idea. I am not a certified investment professional, nor do I know you and your individual investment needs. Please perform your own due diligence to decide whether attending an investment conference is suited for your personal investment needs. Junior Stock Review does not guarantee success from attending PDAC or any other investment conference. I have not been compensated to write this article, however Junior Stock Review is a media partner of PDAC International Convention 2018.

Posted on

FPX Nickel Closes Over-Subscribed Private Placement for $1,470,000

FPX Nickel Corp.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 19, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FPX Nickel Corp. (TSX.V:FPX) (“FPX” or the “Company”) is pleased to report that it has closed its previously announced non-brokered private placement for gross proceeds of $1,470,000 (the “Offering”). The Company expanded the originally announced private placement from 5,416,666 shares to 12,250,000 shares for gross proceeds of $1,470,000 (see FPX’s news releases dated February 26 and March 14, 2018).

The proceeds raised from the Offering will be used for the Company’s ongoing internal trade-off studies on the Baptiste Deposit at its flagship Decar Nickel District in central British Columbia, and for general working capital purposes.

The closing follows receipt of Conditional Acceptance of the Offering from the TSX Venture Exchange (“Exchange”).  Within the next several days, FPX will be submitting the documentation needed the enable the Exchange to issue its Final Acceptance of the Offering.  The Company anticipates receiving Final Acceptance shortly thereafter.

In closing the financing, the Company has issued 12,250,000 shares priced at $0.12 per share.  Finder’s fees of $33,181 were paid on a portion of the proceeds.  Officers and directors of the Company subscribed for 2,535,667 shares for gross proceeds of $304,280.

All securities issued under this Offering are subject to a hold period of four months and a day from the closing date.

About FPX Nickel Corp.

FPX Nickel Corp. is focused on the exploration and development of the Decar Nickel-Iron Alloy Project, located in central British Columbia, and other occurrences of the same unique style of naturally occurring nickel-iron alloy mineralization known as awaruite. For more information, please view the Company’s website at www.fpxnickel.com or contact Martin Turenne, President and CEO, at (604) 681-8600.

On behalf of FPX Nickel Corp.

Martin Turenne
Martin Turenne, President, CEO and Director

Forward-Looking Statements
Certain of the statements made and information contained herein is considered “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. These statements address future events and conditions and so involve inherent risks and uncertainties, as disclosed in the Company’s periodic filings with Canadian securities regulators. Actual results could differ from those currently projected. The Company does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statement.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Suite 725 – 1155 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 2P4
Tel: 604.681.8600
e-mail: info@fpxnickel.com

Posted on

CANSTAR RESOURCES, ADVENTUS ZINC AND ALTIUS MINERALS ANNOUNCE THE CONSOLIDATION OF NEWFOUNDLAND ZINC EXPLORATION PROJECTS, FOCUSED ON THE BUCHANS CAMP

Toronto, February 21, 2018 – Canstar Resources Ltd. (“Canstar”) (TSX-V: ROX), Adventus Zinc Corporation (“Adventus”) (TSX-V: ADZN) and Altius Minerals Limited (“Altius”) (TSX: ALS) are pleased to announce that they have entered into a three-way definitive agreement (the “Transaction”) dated February 20, 2018 whereby Canstar will acquire the Newfoundland base metal exploration assets of Adventus and the Daniel’s Harbour Zinc Project from Altius in exchange for: (i) the issuance of common shares of Canstar to Adventus and Altius; and (ii) a funding commitment from Altius of $500,000 as part of a $750,000 private placement (as further described below). The Transaction will allow Canstar to consolidate the majority of the Buchans Camp and adds three high quality Newfoundland zinc exploration projects to Canstar’s portfolio. Upon closing of the Transaction (the “Closing”), Canstar’s Newfoundland exploration team will initiate a comprehensive 2018 exploration program focused on the Buchans Camp, with a minimum 3,000 m of diamond drilling campaign anticipated in 2018 to be completed in phases (with full details of this program to follow from Canstar upon Closing).

Following the Closing, Canstar will focus its attention on polymetallic exploration in Newfoundland, in particular the Buchans Camp, where it will own the majority of the district’s mineral rights. The Buchans Mine was one of the highestgrade polymetallic mines globally, producing a historical 16.2 million tonnes averaging approximately 14.50% Zn, 7.56% Pb, 1.33% Cu, 126 g/t Ag and 1.37 g/t Au over its 56-year mine life (Kirkham, 1986). The southeast corner of the region also hosted Teck Resources Limited’s Duck Pond Mine, which operated between 2007 and 2015 with an initial reserve of 4.08 million tonnes averaging approximately 3.3% Cu, 5.7% Zn, 59 g/t Ag and 0.86 g/t Au (Guy Belleau & Petr Pelz, 2005). The Duck Pond 1,800 tpd flotation mill is currently on care and maintenance.

 

Highlights of Canstar Assets

 The Mary March Project, located 20 km east of Buchans and next to a provincial highway, which is a joint venture between Canstar (56%) and Glencore (44%). Canstar has first right-of-refusal to acquire the remaining interest from Glencore; and

 In 1999 and 2000, previous owners Phelps Dodge intersected 10.33% Zn, 118.1g/t Ag, 1.62% Pb, 4.1 g/t Au, 0.66% Cu over 9.23 m; 16.8% Zn, 660 g/t Ag, 12.2 g/t Au, 5.44% Pb, 0.18% Cu over 0.91 m; and 3.02% Zn, 1.08% Pb, 72.4 g/t Ag, 0.13% Cu over 20.6 m. These remain the best drill holes in the Buchans camp, outside of the historic Buchans mine.

 

Highlights of Adventus’ Newfoundland Assets

 Adventus is vending its 100% interest in its approximately 39,000 hectare land package located in the Buchans camp, which represents the largest land position in the camp;

 A heliborne time domain electro-magnetic (TDEM) survey flown in 2017 over the entire Buchans land package resulting in the identification of approximately 35 drill-ready targets, with some of the most exciting targets contiguous to Canstar’s Mary March and Nancy April projects; and

 Adventus is also vending its 100% ownership interest in the Katie and La Poile base metal projects, both having prospective volcanic massive sulphide targets supported by historic trenching and drilling results. Highlights of Altius’ Involvement and the Daniel’s Harbour Zinc Project

 Altius is vending its 100% owned Daniel’s Harbour Zinc Project, approximately 9,000 hectares of prospective lands surrounding the former high-grade zinc mine operated by Teck Resources Limited from 1975 to 1990. During this period, Teck reported production of approximately 7 million tonnes at an av Date: Ticker Symbols: 21-February-2018 ROX-V, ADZN–V and ALS-T — 2 —

 Altius and Canstar will enter into a 12-month technical services agreement with Altius to carry out the 2018 exploration program for the consolidated Newfoundland projects subject to TSX Venture Exchange (“TSX-V”) approval; and

 Canstar will complete a $750,000 non-brokered private placement the proceeds of which will be applied to a first phase Newfoundland exploration program, G&A, corporate activities as well as working capital. The financing will consist of the sale of 4,166,667 common shares issued at $0.06 per share on a hard dollar basis for gross proceeds of $250,000, and 6,250,000 common shares issued on a flow-through basis at $0.08 per share for gross proceeds of $500,000. Altius is subscribing for the flow-through shares for a total investment of $500,000 and will have pro-rata equity participation rights going forward. Altius will also receive a right of first refusal on any future royalty and/or streaming financing related the Mary March property.

Dr. David Palmer, Director of Canstar, commented, “We are pleased to enter into this transaction with Adventus and Altius. Canstar has long been a champion of the Mary March Project and the consolidation of these Buchans properties into a district-scale exploration project is a great opportunity for all Shareholders. We are pleased that Adventus and Altius share our enthusiasm for its potential and with the combined technical experience of all three companies and a new management team we will be able to advance exploration programs very effectively. We look forward to completing this transaction and commencing exploration.

Christian Kargl-Simard, President and CEO of Adventus, commented, “Adventus is excited to become involved in such a prospective suite of exploration assets in one of the best jurisdictions globally to operate. This Transaction provides synergies for all three parties, and a focused vehicle to unlock the value in the Buchans Camp and Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe the timing is right to commit modern exploration in this storied Canadian base metals camp. With the local infrastructure and high grades, new discoveries will create very significant value for all shareholders.”

 

Transaction Summary

Under the Transaction, Canstar will issue 86.7 million shares to Adventus for its portfolio of assets and Altius will receive 12.1 million shares for its Daniel’s Harbour Zinc Project. Upon Closing, including completion of the private placement, the current shareholders of Canstar will own approximately 49% of the consolidated company, while Adventus and Altius will own approximately 40% and 9%, respectively, and other investors in the private placement will own 2%. Following completion of the Transaction, Canstar will use commercially reasonable efforts to complete a minimum two million dollar flow-through private placement financing.

Upon completion of the Transaction, the Board of Directors of Canstar (the “Board”) will initially be comprised of four members, with three members appointed by Canstar and one member appointed by Adventus (and Adventus retaining the right to appoint a second member at a later date). The Board will initially consist of David Palmer, Dennis Peterson and Patrick Reid, existing directors of Canstar, and Sam Leung, the Vice President of Corporate Development for Adventus. Mr. Jack Hurley, an existing director of Canstar is thanked for his years of service and will continue as CFO. Dennis Peterson is acting as Chairman and interim CEO, while a CEO search is underway. A technical steering committee of Qualified Persons as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, consisting of Dr. David Palmer, Jason Dunning and Dr. Lawrence Winter will assist with the direction of Canstar’s exploration programs.

The Transaction will be subject to TSX-V approval for both Canstar and Adventus. Canstar is arm’s length to both Adventus and Altius. Adventus and Altius are “non-arm’s length parties” as Altius is an “insider” of Adventus as such term is defined under securities laws. Canstar will require shareholder approval pursuant to the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange as Adventus will become a “control person” of Canstar on closing and the Transaction is viewed as a “reverse take-over”. Canstar will apply to the TSX-V for a waiver from the requirement to engage a sponsor with respect Date: Ticker Symbols: 21-February-2018 ROX-V, ADZN–V and ALS-T — 3 — to the Transaction; however, there is no assurance that a waiver will be granted. Canstar intends to include any additional information regarding sponsorship in a subsequent press release. The Transaction is also subject to satisfaction of certain other closing conditions customary in transactions of this nature. Directors and officers of Canstar, representing 6.3% of the Canstar common shares, have entered into voting support agreements with Adventus and Altius, pursuant to which they will vote their common shares in favour of the Transaction. It is also anticipated, assuming the Transaction is approved that Canstar will complete a 5 for 1 share consolidation and all shares will be issued on a post-consolidated basis. As a result, upon completion of the Transaction, there will be issued and outstanding approximately 212,025,189 shares on a pre-consolidation basis and 42,405,038 shares on a post-consolidation basis. The effective price of the private placement will be $0.30 per hard dollar common share and $0.40 per flow-through common share.

Full details of the Transaction will be included in the management information circular of Canstar to be mailed to their shareholders and posted on www.sedar.com. It is anticipated that the meeting of Canstar shareholders and the closing will take place by May 2018. Lawrence Winter, Ph.D., P.Geo., Vice‐President of Exploration for Altius, a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, is responsible for the scientific and technical data presented herein and has reviewed, prepared and approved this release.

About Canstar Canstar Resources is a Canadian mineral exploration and development company. Canstar’s objective is to discover and develop economic mineral deposits primarily in North America. Currently, Canstar’s focus is on its mineral exploration properties in Newfoundland. About Adventus Adventus is a well-financed and unique company focused on zinc-related exploration and project development globally. Its strategic shareholders include Altius Minerals Corporation, Greenstone Resources LP, and Resource Capital Funds; as well as other highly respected investors in the mining business. Adventus owns large prospective land packages in both Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and is earning a 75% ownership interest in the Curipamba coppergold-zinc project in Ecuador. In addition, Adventus has a country-wide generative exploration alliance with its partners in Ecuador.

Adventus is based in Toronto, Canada, and is listed on the TSX-V under the symbol ADZN. About Altius Altius’ directly and indirectly held diversified royalties and streams generate revenue from 15 operating mines. These are located in Canada and Brazil and produce copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, iron ore, potash and thermal (electrical) and metallurgical coal. The portfolio also includes numerous pre-development stage royalties covering a wide spectrum of mineral commodities and jurisdictions. It also holds a large portfolio of exploration stage projects which it has generated for deal making with industry partners that results in newly created royalties and equity and minority interests. The Altius exploration team was recently awarded the 2017 Prospector/Explorer Award from the Newfoundland Branch of the CIMM for its recent work on project generation.

 

Completion of the transaction is subject to a number of conditions, including but not limited to, TSX-V acceptance and shareholder approval. Where applicable, the transaction cannot close until the required shareholder approval is obtained. There can be no assurance that the transaction will be completed as proposed or at all.

Investors are cautioned that, except as disclosed in the management information circular or filing statement to be prepared in connection with the transaction, any information released or received with respect to the transaction may Date: Ticker Symbols: 21-February-2018 ROX-V, ADZN–V and ALS-T — 4 — not be accurate or complete and should not be relied upon. Trading in the securities of Canstar should be considered highly speculative.

The TSX Venture Exchange Inc. has in no way passed upon the merits of the proposed transaction and has neither approved nor disapproved the contents of this news release.

 

Forward-looking Statement

This press release contains “forward -looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, identified by words or phrases such as “believes”, “anticipates”, “expects”, “is expected”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “pending”, “intends”, “plans”, “forecasts”, “targets”, or “hopes”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “will”, “should” “might”, “will be taken”, or “occur” and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking information in this news release includes, but is not limited to, the closing of the Transaction, anticipated drilling at Buchans Camp, satisfaction of closing conditions, approval of the TSX-V, approval by the shareholders of Canstar and the potential for exploration.

Forward-looking information herein includes, but is not limited to, statements that address activities, events or developments that Canstar, Adventus and Altius expect or anticipate will or may occur in the future. Although Canstar, Adventus and Altius has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Canstar, Adventus and Altius do not undertake to update any forward-looking information except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

All monetary figures referenced in this press release are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise stated.

For further information from Canstar, please contact: Karen Willoughby, Director Corporate Communications, at 1-866- 936-6766 or kwilloughby@canstarresources.com.

For further information from Adventus, please contact Christian Kargl-Simard, Chief Executive Officer, at 1-416-230-3440 or christian@adventuszinc.com.

For further information from Altius, please contact Chad Wells cwells@altiusminerals.com or Flora Wood at 1-877-576- 2209.

Posted on

A Conversation with Trey Reik, Senior Portfolio Manager with Sprott USA

Trey Reik

Whether it be financial, political or social, there’s the potential for any decision we make to be fueled by emotion. In particular, when participating in a high risk, high reward area of the market, like the junior resource sector, it can be lethal to your odds of success.

In my experience, those who can use arithmetic as their primary “truth” are the best at eliminating bias and reducing the amount of emotion contained in an investment. Today, I have for you an interview with a man who uses arithmetic to construct, what I believe, is the most compelling argument for gold that I have ever heard.

This man is Trey Reik, a Senior Portfolio Manager with Sprott USA. Reik is a commentator on gold markets and monetary policy, including policies and actions of global central banks, global conditions for money and credit, and factors affecting supply/demand conditions for gold bullion.

I first heard Reik speak at the 2015 Sprott Natural Resources Symposium in Vancouver, British Columbia. From then on, I’ve always paid attention when I’ve heard or seen the name, ‘Trey Reik;’ there’s a lot you can learn from him, especially when it comes to his commentary on gold.

Without further ado, a conversation with Trey Reik.

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

Brian: In my view, we live in a society of paradigms or bias that lock us into thought patterns that keep many of us blind to other alternatives – alternatives that may be more efficient or beneficial.

 In reference to financial markets and in particular gold, in your opinion, how does one keep an open mind and see through paradigms and their own inherent bias?

 

Trey Reik: I think that a lot of what’s been going on, at least in markets since the turn of the millennium, so the 2000s, is that we’ve hit a period in which central banking has become probably the most important variable on the investment landscape, and I would add much more important than it should be. This has really cast a prism or a rose-coloured glasses view of what’s really going on in the world. It has, I think, relieved people and investors from reality, to a great degree.

Let me just back up a teeny bit, and talk about it from the perspective of gold. Number one, I’ve given probably 1,000 presentations about gold over the 15 years in which I have been covering it, and I’ve never once convinced anybody to buy gold. I don’t expect to change people’s views today any more than I did yesterday or last month. Number two, gold’s a funny topic because almost everybody has an opinion, generally unburdened by a real strong command of any relevant underlying fundamentals or facts. Third, gold has more investment queues than any other asset with which I’ve been involved over my career.

Some people think it’s an inflation hedge, some people think it’s a deflation hedge. Some people think gold is a risk-on trade, other people would look at it as a risk-off investment. When we have stress in the financial system, some people would view gold as a safe harbour. Other people would still favour the US dollar, although far fewer than would have made that determination say, in 2008. Given the negative reflexive relationship between the dollar and the US gold price, you could actually have a situation where stress in the financial system has a reflexively negative impact on gold.

Now, I went through all of that because my gold thesis is a little different than most. I don’t really think gold has much to do with CPI-type inflation. The way I would pose this is  that if the price of hedonically adjusted hot dogs in Houston goes up, why would you buy gold? I don’t really see a strong connection there. Another way to look at inflation is if the prices of goods and services go up for healthy reasons, like a strengthening economy, I’m not really sure the price of gold should go up any faster than say, thumbtacks. If the inflation is of the monetary sort or variety, then I think gold should logically do a lot better.

Now, over the last 17 years, gold is up in 14 of those 17 years and has amassed a compound annual return since year end 2000 through year end 2017 of just about 9.5%. Actually, 9.65%. Over the same 17 years, the compound annual return of the S&P 500, including reinvestment of dividends was 6.32%. Gold has significantly outperformed the S&P with reinvestment of dividends for 17 years and is up in 14 of the 17. Now, if gold is up in 14 of the 17 years, it proves my point that it’s not related to some of these knee-jerk reactions that get ascribed in the press all the time to gold investors. In other words, we’ve had periods of inflation and periods of deflation over that timeframe. We’ve had round trips in equities and commodities. We’ve had yields on both the short end and the long end, largely falling over the timeframe, but we even had periods like June of ’04 to June of ’06 where the Fed raised rates at 17 consecutive FOMC meetings and quintupled the Fed funds rates from one-percent to five-and-a-quarter-percent, and gold went up during that timeframe by as much as 86%.

My point is, for gold to do as well as it has for so long, posting the best performance of any global asset, there’s obviously something more going on. I think what that is, is that at the margin, we have about $280 trillion now in global financial assets, and each year, in my opinion, my thought experiment, if you will, is that a very small portion of that global wealth seeks a home in hard assets, things that can’t be debased or defaulted upon, things that can’t be printed. That’s why fine art, in my opinion, has done so well over a period that has not exactly been exhibiting breakneck growth, but nonetheless, the art market’s been on fire. Things like Honus Wagner baseball cards, fine Bordeaux wines, all that kind of stuff has done really, really well.

Gold has benefited, I think from that migration. Each year, we have a different rate of migration from the financial asset pile to things like gold, and in certain years, that migration may have even reversed, like 2013, for example. The whole gold thesis is about that rate of migration going from say 1/10th of 1% to say, 1/2 of 1% ’cause 1/2 of 1% of $290 trillion is $1.45 trillion. The available gold stock is about $2.8 trillion. $1.5 trillion isn’t going to get into $2.8 trillion without a serious price dislocation.

When you talk about paradigms or things being misleading or that type of thing, although that’s a leading, almost political kind of question, I think the biggest misdirection, I think, of markets is the degree to which certainly over the past three years especially, but over the last 17 years, how big a part of financial asset valuations has become central bank policy.

Now, to back this up to two weeks ago, I think most of the market still believes that this disturbance that we had is–just as when we had the crisis of 2007, ’08, and ’09—the  first words out of people’s mouths are always, “It’s contained.” Just as we thought in 2007 that the disturbance was limited to subprime mortgages, we are currently, I think, a large percentage of folks would say that the current disturbance is limited to a very small group of perhaps leverage, but certainly a short bet on the VIX. I look at it very differently. I would suggest that after nine years of ZIRP and QE, but 17 years of egregious central policy and interventions really starting with Mr. Greenspan, the entire financial system has been imbued with this short-volatility way of looking at the world. I’m sure given your situation, that you’ve read Chris Cole’s stuff from Artemis, but he’s the Michael Burry of this trade. You remember Burry was the guy that figured out the subprime-short trade for Scion Capital in the movie The Big Short. Coles is, I think, the Michael Barry of this trade. If you’ve read his stuff, he estimates that there’s about $2 trillion-worth of short-volatility exposures.

He’s got it all broken out in the stuff that he’s written. If you have about $2 trillion of exposures left, we haven’t even really started to scratch the surface of re-pricing things back to reality. I would say that in an environment of 0% interest rates and QE, we’ve lost the ability to assess the demand for anything.

People who laugh or criticize gold, like Warren Buffett–here’s a guy, he’s got more financial assets, paper assets than any other human being on the planet, or I guess Jeff Bezos might be up there with him now.Warren Buffett, who has more to lose from gold doing well than any other person on the planet, and ask him what he thinks about gold? But yet we do. When we do, he says, “Well, if you take all the gold in the world and you fit it on a tennis court, you got this big lump of gold and then in the other, box B, you could have five General Motors or GEs, and all the farmland in America, and you’d still have a trillion dollars leftover. Who wouldn’t pick box B?” The answer is anybody who thinks box A, which is all the gold in the world, is going to go up faster than box B.

We have a system where people think they have these franchises and these moats and all the stuff that Buffett writes about, and impenetrable franchises, but in fact, the denominator of all of these things, the unit of account, even if you’re talking about cash flow, is dollars. The one thing that is not stable as a unit of account is dollars, so no one really has any idea what the value of any of these franchises are.

If we normalized rates, and we took say, Fed funds to, well what’s normal anymore? We took them from 1% to 5.25% as recently as 2006, but if we took them to 4-5%, and we took the 10-year Treasury yield to eight percent, would the financial systems still be intact? I think the answer is no.

Until we can normalize rates, we don’t know what the list of Buffett’s companies–the Nebraska Furniture Mart and Wells Fargo and he just sold his IBMno one knows what the demand for anything is at these companies with this much monetary debasement.

 

 

Brian: Since 2008, I have personally suffered from being too pessimistic on paper currencies, mainly the U.S. dollar and risk in the broader market.  Depending on perspective, this view both made me and cost me money.

Now, 10 years later, I have taken time to reflect on my investment choices and believe that bias or the so called “gold bug” in me prevented me from having a clearer picture of what was actually happening in the world.

However, I still believe that there is a price to pay for the massive amounts of money printing and low interest rates we have seen over the last 10 years. To me it is a “when” not “if” question.

My question for you is, has the “when” already occurred in the gold market? Meaning, realistically, should investors view the current gold price around $1300 USD/oz as the payback for the QE and low interest rates, or is the “when” still to come?

 

 

Trey Reik: I do believe there is no empirical equation that could generate a gold price that really means anything. The gold price is the reciprocal of your comfort with the financial system, the dollar, and central-bank stewardship. If you’re of the opinion as an investor that those three are fine, gold really serves no purpose. If you are like me, of the opinion that all three of those are deeply in doubt, meaning the value of the US dollar, debt levels, central bank stewardship, etc., then gold is a mandatory investment.

It doesn’t really matter if the price is $1,200 or $2,300, if those three issues are still a problem, you need to have gold in your portfolio. That’s what I was saying earlier; I have three litmus tests for when gold is a mandatory portfolio investment. I was sharing the first with you, which is whether you could normalize rates and then you have to decide what normalizing means. Let’s even call it 3% on Fed funds. I don’t think we can get there without a financial calamity or 6-8% on the 10-year Treasury. If you could normalize rates without big impact, gold’s role may have diminished.

The second litmus test would be if we take the ratio of debt-to-GDP, for the last 100 years the ratio of debt-to-GDP in this country has averaged 140-170%, except for two events. The depression and the Alan Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen era. In the first example, we had GDP fall 50%, the debt remained constant, so the ratio got up to like 260%. FDR had to devalue the dollar and confiscate gold in the US and make it illegal, for what turned out to be 41 years. In the current environment, which is a numerator event, we’re just piling all this debt on top of relatively stable GDP. If we don’t get that debt-to-GDP ratio back to say, 200% from its current level of about 370%, goldwill remain a mandatory investment.

The reason is, that in order to get that ratio back into balance, the only two options are default or debasement. Each time the markets try to choose default, the Fed steps with QE1, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist, etc., and they will again. We’re either going to have 20 trillion or so of credit in the United States go away, or the other way to look at this is household net worth.

In March of 2009, household net worth, which is the Fed’s measure from Z1; basically it’s stocks, bonds, real estate, minus debt. Household net worth in March of 2009 was $54.79 trillion, GDP was $14.09 trillion. Today, household net worth is $96.94 trillion and GDP is $19.5 trillion. GDP has gone up $5.4 trillion from $14.09 trillion to $19.5 trillion, and household net worth over the same time period has gone up $42 trillion from $54 trillion to $96.94 trillion.

This means that over the past—let’s see, March of ’09, and now we’re in March of ’18, so the past nine years, household net worth has grown 7.77 times, or call it eight times faster than GDP growth. Now, the one thing I know for certain is you can’t grow wealth eight times faster than output forever. Once again, is gold necessary? Have we had the ‘when’ yet? Absolutely not. In the household net worth type of multiple to GDP, if you look at the 40’s, the 50’s, the 60’s, the 70’s, everything really through the 80’s, we used to have about a 3.5 times multiple to GDP and savings, is what household net worth should be.

Probably 30, 35, 40 trillion dollars worth of household net worth has to go away to get the system back in balance. This is like litmus test number two. We either need $20 trillion in credit, or $30-35 trillion in the combination of real estate, stocks, and bonds, (minus debt) to go away to bring the system back in balance. Until that happens, I think gold is a mandatory portfolio component because, once again, the only two options are default or debasement.

Then the third litmus test would be if we could get back to some sort of normalized GDP growth, and once again, we’re debating these days what “normal” is. Trends, capability, normal, say 3%, used to be 3.5%. We used to accomplish 3.5% growth with a savings rate, very importantly, in the 8-10% area. That would be healthy growth. It wouldn’t require the non-financial credit expansion that is now necessary to keep the debt pyramid from toppling, which is on the order of $2 trillion a year. Again, to review the three litmus tests would be normalizing rates without crashing the financial system, rationalizing the excess paper claims in the economy, whether it’s debt or the household net worth, and the third would be normalize GDP supported by savings as opposed to non-financial credit creation.

Unless you have basically all of those, or even two out of three, gold is still a mandatory portfolio investment, in my opinion. Which is, by the way, why even though it never gets any accolades, it is the best performing asset and is up in 14 of the past 17 years. That’s going to continue until we get the system in better balance between claims on future output and the future output itself.

 

 

Brian: Is there an event or series of events that would have to occur for you to change your mind about the long-term fundamentals of gold?

 

Trey Reik: One of the reasons that I’m as confident as I am is I’ve spent more time thinking about the underlying fundamentals than most human beings. There’s a lot of people that invest in gold for lots of different reasons, as we already discussed, but I’m not in that group. I’m investing in gold for a very specific tenant, which has to do with monetary variables and the claim on future output. There’s just too much paper claim out there. Until those imbalances are solved, one way or another, and I’m suggesting the only two solutions are default or debasement, there isn’t any other solution.

Well, the third solution would be we grow into it, but in order to grow into it, even if we had GDP at 10% for each of the next eight quarters, it would take GDP from $19.5 trillion to maybe $22 or $23 trillion, and that can’t support $66 trillion of debt any more than $19.5 trillion. Further, if the variables that I just gave you in the last 17 years hold anywhere remotely true, when we get GDP up to $22 or $24 trillion, the debt won’t have remained constant. It would  probably be up seven times faster than the GDP growth. You can’t grow out of it, you’ve got to have default or debasement. These imbalances are so profound that I’m not swayed to change my mind at all, even by periods like September 2011 to December 2015, when the high tick for gold was 1911 down to 1050 because these imbalances are still there.

Over the past 17 years, by the way, people always ask when’s gold gonna do its thing? Or why isn’t it doing better?… My response is always, It’s the best performing asset on the planet for 17 friggin’ years. I’ll be fine if gold keeps performing just like this, you know what I mean?

 

 

Brian: Yes, absolutely.

 

Trey Reik: Now, you mentioned the currency thing. I believe all fiat currencies have become an extension of the US dollar. Currency people have to pick one of the seven or five, or however many you want to say there are. That’s a shell game, and that’s all fine. It has gone on much longer than I would have thought possible. It is amazing that 2008 was 10 years ago, and here we are, but things are starting to change.

People talk a lot about the dollar and this is just an interesting thing, if you take the 10 worst market days in each year and you look at those 10 worst market days, you’d have 50 if you looked at five years. From 2008 to 2012, the 50 days when the DOW dropped at least 100 points, the dollar tended to rally on those days. During those days, dollar index rallied 80% of the time and an average 0.6% on these bad days.

Now, if you look at the next five years, from ’13 to ’17, and we look at the 10 worst days for the DOW, the dollar fell on those 50 days an average of .3 and it only rose 26% of the time. What I’m saying here is we are and, by the way, what happened on those 2,000 point days, I think fiat currencies are starting to fail. That’s a bench-clearing statement, but I think it’s true. We are in the early stages of a potential currency collapse, and so we may be getting “there.”

 

 

Brian: In your opinion, is the investment thesis for only gold the same as the thesis for only gold mining companies?

 

Trey Reik: The thesis is the same, but the deployment or the execution is obviously tricky. Gold is the best performing asset on the planet, as I mentioned, since 2000. Gold equities have had three big runs. The three big runs in gold equities were November 2000 to December 2003, , May 2005 to March 2008 and then November 2008 to September 2011.

Now, ironically, each one of the three was within a month or two of exactly three years. I believe that gold equities provide unparalelled alpha when the faith in US financial assets is being recalibrated. We never want to say stocks could go down, so I’ve come up with that phrase.

If we look at November 17th, 2000, through December 2, ’03, the GDX was up 342%, the S&P was down 22%. The next three year period, the GDX was up 185% and the S&P was up 10%. Then, in the third, it was 309% versus 39.70%. Now, if we compound the advance of the GDX in those three periods, which by the way, is nine years out of the past 16 years, it’s a little over 55% of the time you get a compound performance of 5,081.61%. The coincident performance of the S&P, to the day, was 20.39%, which means that gold equities outperformed the S&P by a factor of 249-to-one in nine of the past 16.5 years.

Now, the problem is the corrections between those advances measured negative 36%, negative 76%, and then after the last advance, negative 86%. If you compound those declines, you get basically 98%. That’s why gold equities in December of 2015 were trading below where they were at the end of the first of those three advances, where they were in December of 2003. The GDM in December of 2003 was at 799 and we got down below, I can’t remember the number, but it was much lower than by the end of ’15. Are they motivated by the same investment thesis? Loosely, but the key with gold equities is, as I think you learned after 2016, neither gold nor gold equities are a permanent investment. They serve different roles.

With what we call the jaws-of- life of the inverse correlation between the S&Ps, since October of 2012 through to today, never having been wider. The last time it was this inversely correlated, gold stocks was like 1996 to 2000, and we all know what was happening then. When people get dumb about US financial assets, gold stocks have a tendency to get left for dead. Then, when the inevitable correction comes, and there were two since 2000. The first was 50.5%, second was 57%. As I’ve proved in the prior example, gold stocks have a tendency to provide among the best alpha available in any asset class.

While I think it’s been necessary to have a good bullion allocation consistently in the last several years, I think that now would be an example of the time period where it’s also incumbent to have a representation in the equities themselves. It’s because of the alpha provided if we have one of these recalibrations of faith in US financial assets, and secondly, simply because of the inverse correlation, which has opened to such an egregious degree between the S&P and gold equities.

 

Brian: It has been a pleasure Trey, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions!

 

 

Concluding Remarks

The world’s politicians and a good portion of the mainstream media would have you believe that the actions carried out by the world’s central banks, mainly QE and low interest rates, saved us from the depths of what could have been a much worse situation in 2008. In my opinion, this couldn’t be further from the truth. While, it has taken longer than I have expected, there will be a price to pay for this poor monetary policy and, unfortunately, for those who are blissfully unaware, they will be rudely awakened, one day, when the market re-adjusts.

In my discussion with Reik, he cited three Litmus tests which can be used to gauge whether gold is currently a mandatory investment within your portfolio. Ask yourself:

  • First, is it possible to normalize interest rates?
  • Second, can the debt to GDP ratio be reduced back to historical norms?
  • Third, is it possible to get back to normalized GDP growth?

If you can honestly answer even one of these questions with a ‘yes,’ first, I’m surprised and, second, maybe gold isn’t a good investment choice for you.  In my mind, Reik presents a compelling thesis for the investment in gold and gold equities, making it a “when” not “if” investment choice for your portfolio.

For those interested in purchasing the physical metal, yet would prefer the convenience of purchasing it through the stock market, I highly suggest checking out the Sprott Physical Gold Trust, which is traded on the NYSE under the ticker PHYS, or the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust on the TSX under the ticker CEF.

The Sprott Trusts offer a few advantages. First, they differ from bullion funds, in that all of the bullion owned by the trusts is held in the trusts’ allocated accounts in physical form. Second, all of the Trusts’ bullion is stored at the Royal Canadian Mint, a Federal Crown Corporation of the Government of Canada. Thirdly, for U.S. non-corporate investors who hold units for more than one year and make a timely Qualified Election Form submission, gains realized on the sale of the Trust’s units are currently taxed at the long-term capital gains rate versus the maximum applied to most precious metals ETFs and physical gold coins.

Additionally, I highly suggest following Reik’s market commentary by subscribing to Sprott’s Thoughts, one of the best sources of financial commentary in the resource sector. Also, I highly suggest attending the Sprott Natural Resource Symposium in July, where you will be able to see and listen to Reik in person, along with a fantastic group of speakers which includes Rick Rule, Doug Casey, and James Grant, to just name a few. I hope to see you there!

 

 

Don’t want to miss a new investment idea, interview or financial product review? Become a Junior Stock Review VIP now – it’s FREE!

 

 

Until next time,

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

 

Disclaimer: The following is not an investment recommendation, it is an investment idea. I am not a certified investment professional, nor do I know you and your individual investment needs. Please perform your own due diligence to decide whether this is a company(s) and sector that is best suited for your personal investment criteria. Junior Stock Review does not guarantee the accuracy of any of the analytics used in this report.

Posted on

FPX Nickel Announces Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for Baptiste Deposit at Decar Nickel District

FPX Nickel Corp.

Vancouver, February 26, 2018 – FPX Nickel Corp. (FPX-TSX.V) (“FPX Nickel” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce an updated National Instrument (“NI”) 43-101 mineral resource estimate on the Company’s Baptiste Deposit at its 100%-owned Decar Nickel District in central British Columbia.  The updated estimate includes additional drilling and assays from work completed during 2017 (see news release dated November 20, 2017), with considerable updates and modifications to geologic interpretation, block model wireframes and grade estimation strategy.

Table 1: 2018 Baptiste Deposit Pit-Constrained Mineral Resource Estimate *

Category Tonnes Davis Tube Recoverable (“DTR”) Nickel Content
(% Ni) (Tonnes Ni) (Pounds Ni)
Indicated 1,842,645,000 0.123 2,271,000 5,007,133,000
Inferred 390,788,000 0.115 448,000 988,111,000

* See Notes for Tables 1 and 2 below.

“The updated Baptiste mineral resource estimate incorporates the results of our successful 2017 drilling program, which confirmed a significant extension of higher-grade, near-surface nickel mineralization to the southeast of the previous resource outline,” said Martin Turenne, FPX Nickel’s President & CEO.  “The new resource estimate incorporates important new geologic interpretation and an updated estimation strategy and will provide an improved basis for future development studies.  This resource estimate, which was completed using a modest nickel price assumption of US$6.00/lb, will be incorporated into the Company’s ongoing internal trade-off studies, which aim to optimize the components of a mine plan for Baptiste.”

The block model tonnage and grade for each of the indicated and inferred resource categories were calculated at various cut-off grades as shown in Table 2.

 Table 2: 2018 Baptiste Deposit Block Model Tonnage and Grades Reported at a Range of Cut-off Grades (Base Case 0.06% DTR Ni) *

Cut-off Grade (DTR Ni %) Indicated Inferred
Tonnes DTR Ni Grade (%) Tonnes DTR Ni Grade (%)
0.02 1,906,630,000 0.121 504,880,000 0.097
0.04 1,889,612,000 0.121 434,287,000 0.108
0.06 1,842,645,000 0.123 390,788,000 0.115
0.08 1,746,351,000 0.126 334,757,000 0.122
0.10 1,526,532,000 0.131 272,280,000 0.130

* Notes for Tables 1 and 2

  1. The 2018 mineral resource estimate was prepared by GeoSim Services Inc. (“GeoSim”) using composited drill hole assay data and a geological model produced by Equity Exploration Consultants (“Equity”).
  2. The effective date of the 2018 mineral resource estimate is February 26, 2018.
  3. The 2018 mineral resource estimate is reported in compliance with current Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) standards, definitions and guidelines.
  4. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability but are required to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
  5. Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell, at a cut-off grade of 0.06% DTR nickel inside a resource shell based on an exchange rate of C$1 = US$0.80 and a nickel price of US$6.00/lb. The cut-off grade represents an in-situ metal value of approximately US$7.00/tonne which is believed to provide a reasonable margin over operating and sustaining costs for open-pit mining and processing.
  6. Block size used was 10x10x10 metres. A total of 978 specific gravity (“SG”) measurements were used to assign median bulk density values to the separate lithologic domains.  DTR Ni grades were interpolated using ordinary kriging in three passes.
  7. The mineralized serpentinized peridotite host rocks at Baptiste are cut by 34 steeply-dipping, non-mineralized dikes, which in total comprise approximately 3% of the rock mass in the classified resource blocks. These dikes are all greater than 5 metres thick and were identified as rock units that could be selectively mined as waste; these rock units were subtracted from the mineralized domain in order to eliminate the zero-grade assays.  Dikes less than 5 metres thick were identified as rock units that are internally dilutive and account for approximately 1% of the rock mass in the classified resource blocks.
  8. Tonnes and pounds have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and grade has been rounded to three significant digits.

Figure 1 highlights the 2018 resource model grades, with reference to the ultimate pit outline in the Baptiste Deposit 2013 Preliminary Economic Assessment (“2013 PEA”) (see 2013 PEA filed under the Company’s SEDAR profile on August 21, 2013).

Figure 1: Map of 2018 Baptiste Mineral Resource Area, 2013 PEA Ultimate Pit Shell and Area of 2017 Drilling

Mr. Turenne commented: “As can be seen in Figure 1, the updated resource model incorporates the results of the 2017 stepout drilling program, demonstrating the potential to improve the development plan for Baptiste by allowing for the incorporation of additional near-surface tonnage to the southeast of the 2013 PEA pit outline.”

In comparison to the 2013 resource estimate, the 2018 resource estimate incorporates an additional eight diamond drill holes (totalling 1,917 metres) completed during the summer of 2017, one hole drilled during the 2012 drilling campaign (which was not included in the 2013 resource estimate), and an additional 2,053 samples from infill core re-sampling completed in 2012.  The total number of diamond drill holes used for the 2018 resource estimate is 82, representing 30,839 metres of drilling.  A total of 10,387 drill samples of core were used for the 2018 resource estimate.  The average drill hole spacing in the Baptiste Deposit is 150 metres.

The 2018 resource model consists of a large, delta shaped volume, measuring 3.0 kilometres long and ranges from 150 to more than 1,080 metres wide and extends 540 metres below surface.  The Baptiste Deposit remains open at depth over the entire system, and it is covered by an average of 12 metres of overburden.

Davis Tube magnetically-recovered (“DTR”) nickel is the nickel content recovered by magnetic separation using a Davis Tube, followed by fusion XRF to determine the nickel content of the magnetic fraction; in effect a mini-scale metallurgical test.  The Davis tube method is the global, industry standard metallurgical testing apparatus for recovery of magnetic minerals.

An NI 43-101 Technical Report describing the details of the 2018 mineral resource estimate will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days of this news release.

Qualified Persons

Ronald G. Simpson, P.Geo., of GeoSim Services Inc., is independent of FPX Nickel Corp. and a ‘Qualified Person’ as defined under Canadian NI 43-101.  Mr. Simpson is responsible for the 2018 mineral resource estimate and directly related information in this news release.  Dr. Peter Bradshaw, P. Eng., FPX Nickel’s Qualified Person under NI 43-101, is responsible for the other technical information (information not directly related to the 2018 mineral resource estimate) in this news release.

About FPX Nickel Corp.

FPX Nickel Corp. is focused on the exploration and development of the Decar Nickel-Iron Alloy Project, located in central British Columbia, and other occurrences of the same unique style of naturally occurring nickel-iron alloy mineralization known as awaruite. For more information, please view the Company’s website at www.fpxnickel.comor contact Martin Turenne, President and CEO, at (604) 681-8600.

On behalf of FPX Nickel Corp.
“Martin Turenne”
Martin Turenne, President, CEO and Director

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain of the statements made and information contained herein is considered “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. These statements address future events and conditions and so involve inherent risks and uncertainties, as disclosed in the Company’s periodic filings with Canadian securities regulators. Actual results could differ from those currently projected. The Company does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statement.

 Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Posted on

Anaconda Mining – Positive Preliminary Economic Assessment on its Goldboro Gold Project

As I have discussed numerous times, people are the most important part of a junior mining company. The reason for this, in my opinion, is because the vision and execution of that vision is what propels these junior mining companies forward. While great properties can be found accidentally, it does happen, most are sought out via a plan of action, which is specifically designed to identify the property or project with the highest potential, given the management teams criteria.

Today I have for you an example of how a bold vision, along with great execution is propelling a junior gold mining company into a mid tier gold producer on Canada’s east coast. This company is Anaconda Mining and the leader with the vision, is CEO Dustin Angelo.

In one of the first discussion I had with Angelo last summer, he explained that his goal for the company was to expand its production and eventually become a 100,000 of Au/year producer. He said Anaconda will achieve this by the developing its currently owned projects and will be looking to grow through the acquisition of gold projects on Canada’s east coast, which have an existing 43-101 resource estimate.

Angelo has an aggressive vision given the fact that their current production sits at roughly 15,000 oz of Au/year.  However, fortune favours the bold, and given Anaconda’s pedigree for success it comes as no surprise to me, that they have taken a couple giant steps towards the goal in the first month of 2018.

First, their Argyle Gold Deposit, which is a part of the Point Rousse Project near Baie Verte, Newfoundland announced its maiden resource, including some fantastic high grade drill results. Second this month, and the big game changer announcement for Anaconda, is positive Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for its Goldboro Gold Project.

Let’s take a look!

 

 

Goldboro Gold Project

Anaconda’s Goldboro Gold Project is located on the north east coast of Nova Scotia, roughly 250 km northeast of Halifax. Goldboro consists of 37 mineral claims on 600 hectares and is accessible year- round via Highway 316 on a 2.5 km gravel road, with the other more obscure parts of the property having access via logging roads.

Anaconda acquired the Goldboro Gold Project from Orex Exploration early last year (2017), in all shares deal.  From many perspectives, this was a transformative acquisition for Anaconda, as it became their first property outside of Newfoundland and by far, their largest gold project, in terms of 43-101 resources.

The Goldboro Gold Project was acquired with a 43-101 complaint Measured and Indicated Resource of 2,556,000 tonnes at 5.48 g/t for 457,400 oz Au, and an Inferred Resource of 2,669,000 tonnes at 4.35 g/t for 372,000 oz Au.

Goldboro is entirely underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Goldenville Group, which are made up of greywacke, arenite and slate. Gold mineralization is found in quartz veins and within disseminated sulphides in the wall rock. Currently, the deposit known strike length is 1.6 km and can broken down into three main areas, the Boston-Richardson gold system and the East and West Goldbrook gold systems.

 

Positive PEA Results

The Goldboro Gold Project PEA results are in and in my opinion, are very positive. The PEA base case scenario, sees Goldboro being mined by both an open pit and underground workings, with on-site concentration through gravity and flotation circuits. Further leaching of the concentrate and recovery of the gold will be done at Anaconda’s fully permitted and operational Pine Cove Mill in Newfoundland.

To note, Anaconda’s PEA on Goldboro, does not include any of the 6000 metre drill program which they are currently completing. This PEA is truly a base case scenario,  which in my opinion, makes its results that much more impressive, as there is still a lot of upside potential given the high grade drill results which were released last summer.

Let’s take a look at the PEA base case scenario highlights:

 

Goldboro PEA Financial Figures

Long Term Gold Price Assumption for the PEA – $1550 CAD (roughly $1250 USD depending on the exchange rate)

After-Tax NPV @ 7% – $61 million CAD

IRR % – 26%

Pre-Production CAPEX Cost – $47 million CAD / additional $42 million CAD in years 1 and 2

Payback – 3.4 years

NOTE:  Anaconda has provided Net Present Value (NPV) – gold price sensitivity tables within the news release for those that would like to take closer look at how the project’s NPV changes with different gold prices and varying discount rates. I am not going to cover every scenario listed, but will instead talk about the extreme highs and lows of the project NPV.

 

Goldboro PEA Operating Figures

LOM average operating cash cost – $654 CAD/oz or $525 USD/oz

LOM average all-in sustaining cost – $797 CAD/oz or $640 USD/oz

Mining Rate – 600 tpd at an average open pit grade of 2.99 g/t and underground grade of 6.83 g/t. Translating into an average annual gold production of 41,770 ounces with up to 62,000 ounces in year 5.

LOM – 8.8 years, with 2.4 million tonnes of potential mill feed at an average grade of 5.13 g/t and recovery of 93.6% resulting in gold production of 375,900 ounces.

 

The strength of Goldboro’s operating figures are expressed in the NPV calculation of the project, as the base case scenario of $1550 CAD/oz is well above the average all-in sustaining cost of $797 CAD/oz.  Viewing Goldboro’s operating figures from the perspective of downside risk, I would say with respect to just the gold price, there is a lot of room for volatility. In reality, what would the world look like if gold were below $1000 CAD/oz? To be honest, I have no idea what that world looks, and believe it is unlikely we will see it.

Additionally, as I spoke about it in the introduction to the article, Angelo’s goal of reaching 100,000 oz of gold production per year is becoming more of a reality.  Anaconda’s current production, plus Goldboro’s projected average of 41,770 oz, put the Anaconda team more than half way to their aggressive goal!

 

 

NPV – Gold Price Scenario Comparison

Low Case – $1450 CAD/oz Gold

The low case scenario covered in the tables considers a gold price of $1450 CAD/oz, which is roughly $1160 USD/oz. The low case price is around $200 USD less than the current gold price. I am very bullish on gold and think that while there is always a possibility for it to fall to this level, I think given the current political and economic environment it is unlikely.

Never the less, at $1450/oz CAD and a 7% discount rate, the after-tax NPV for Goldboro is $44 million CAD. At the time of writing, Anaconda’s MCAP is roughly $46 million CAD, therefore at $1450/oz CAD or $1160/oz USD, Goldboro alone is estimated to be worth what the entire company is currently being valued at.

In my opinion, the infrastructure (Pine Cove Mill, Tailings Facility, Port, Roads, etc) and in-situ gold ounces of the the Point Rousse are easily worth the current MCAP, making the Goldboro Gold Project, at this point, icing on the cake, which has yet to be fully recognized.

 

 

High Case – $1700 CAD/oz Gold

The high case scenario covered in the table considers a gold price of $1700 CAD/oz, which is currently around $1360 USD/oz. Consider that the high case is around what the current gold price is sitting at, I believe this a conservative high price scenario.

The after-tax NPV at $1450 CAD/oz at a 7% discount rate is $86 million CAD, and gives us a clear picture what Goldboro is currently worth.  Given the fact that I see the gold price going much higher in the years ahead, I see tremendous value in the Goldboro Gold Project.

 

PUSH: Anaconda began a 6,000 metre drill program near the end of 2017. Watch for drill results in the coming weeks, as Anaconda completes both infill and step-out drilling on Goldboro, in an attempt to strength confidence in its inferred resource, and expand the overall size of the deposit.

 

 

The Point Rousse Project – Argyle Gold Deposit

On January 8th, 2018 Anaconda announced its maiden resource estimate of its Argyle Gold Deposit, which is a part of the Point Rousse Project, near Baie Verte Newfoundland.  Using the image below for reference, Argyle sits approximately 4.5 km from the Pine Cove Mill and 1.5 km from the Stog’er Tight Mine.

 

Scrape Trend

 

 

The Argyle Gold Deposit is defined over a strike length of 600 metres and to a down-dip depth of 225 metres and is open in all directions. Using a 0.5 g/t Au cut-off, Argyle’s maiden resource estimate is the following: Indicated Resource – 543,000 tonnes @ 2.19 g/t for 38,300 oz of gold, Inferred Resource – 517,000 tonnes @ 1.82 g/t for 30.300 oz of gold.

These are very encouraging results, given Argyle’s close proximity to the Pine Cove Mill and the fact that the Scrape Trend, the green area in the image above, has produced yet another gold deposit. Further, Anaconda has identified 4 other exploration targets within the Scrape Trend, which are identified in the image above.

Further economic discoveries in this area would be highly advantageous for Anaconda, as their proximity to existing infrastructure should prove to their development to be much easier than a Greenfield discovery.

 

 

 

Concluding Remarks

Anaconda has gotten off to a running start in 2018 with positive PEA results from the Goldboro Gold Project and the announcement of the Argyle Gold Deposit’s maiden resource estimate. The results of Goldboro’s PEA give us a glimpse at how transformative this project will be for Anaconda’s future as it represents an almost tripling of Anaconda’s annual gold production.

As is laid out in the Goldboro PEA news release, there are risks associated with any developmental mining project, such as environmental concerns, resource estimate reliability or reductions in metal prices. However, Anaconda’s team has proven themselves competent in the economic development of mining projects and I believe is well suited to navigate the potential pitfalls that may come with the development of Goldboro, Stog’er Tight or Argyle.

Drill results from the 6,000 metre drill program at Goldboro are upcoming and should provide some PUSH to the share price, as I believe we will see some high grade gold assays, as Anaconda further defines the existing mineralization and begins to step-out and expand the deposit.

In conclusion, I believe Anaconda is undervalued given their assets, the Point Rousse Project and Goldboro Gold Project. With the release of further drill results from Goldboro and Anaconda’s development of the Project, I believe Anaconda is due for a re-rating. Help in this regard should come from institutional level organizations which I believe will have interest in this burgeoning 100,000 oz/year gold producer, which is located one of the best jurisdictions in the world, Canada.

 

Don’t want to miss a new investment idea, interview or financial product review? Become a Junior Stock Review VIP now – it’s FREE!

 

 

Until next time,

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

 

Disclaimer: All statements in this report, other than statements of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or future performance. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always identified by the use of words such as “seek”, “anticipate”, “plan”, “continue”, “estimate”, “expect”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “predict”, “potential”, “targeting”, “intend”, “could”, “might”, “should”, “believe” and similar expressions. Much of this report is comprised of statements of projection. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements.  Risks and uncertainties respecting mineral exploration companies are generally disclosed in the annual financial or other filing documents of those and similar companies as filed with the relevant securities commissions, and should be reviewed by any reader of this newsletter.

Brian Leni is an online financial newsletter writer. He is focused on researching and marketing resource and other public companies. Nothing in this article should be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities mentioned anywhere in this newsletter. This article is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only!

Be advised, Brian Leni is not a registered broker-dealer or financial advisor. Before investing in any securities, you should consult with your financial advisor and a registered broker-dealer.

Never, ever, make an investment based solely on what you read in an online newsletter, including Junior Stock Review, especially if the investment involves a small, thinly-traded company that isn’t well known.

Brian Leni’s past performance is not indicative of future results and should not be used as a reason to purchase any stocks mentioned in his newsletters or on this website.

In many cases Brian Leni owns shares in the companies he features. For those reasons, please be aware that Brian Leni can be considered extremely biased in regards to the companies he writes about and features in his newsletters.  You should conduct extensive due diligence as well as seek the advice of your financial advisor and a registered broker-dealer before investing in any securities. Brian Leni may buy or sell at any time without notice to anyone, including readers of this newsletter.

Brian Leni shall not be liable for any damages, losses, or costs of any kind or type arising out of or in any way connected with the use of this newsletter. You should independently investigate and fully understand all risks before investing. When investing in speculative stocks, it is possible to lose your entire investment.

Any decision to purchase or sell as a result of the opinions expressed in this report will be the full responsibility of the person authorizing such transaction, and should only be made after such person has consulted a registered financial advisor and conducted thorough due diligence. Information in this report has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that they are accurate or complete. Our views and opinions in this newsletter are our own views and are based on information that we have received, which we assumed to be reliable. We do not guarantee that any of the companies mentioned in this newsletter will perform as we expect, and any comparisons we have made to other companies may not be valid or come into effect.

Junior Stock Review does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any statements made in this newsletter.

Brian Leni does own shares in Anaconda Mining. Anaconda Mining is a sponsor of Junior Stock Review.

 

 

Posted on

Trump’s Executive Order on Critical Minerals & a Cypress Development Corp Drill Program Update

Dean and Glory Drill Hole Map

On December 20th, the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, signed Executive Order 13817, which calls for an end to the United States’ reliance on foreign imports of “critical” minerals. Before getting into the details of this Executive Order, I would like to discuss what an Executive Order is.

A U.S. Presidential Executive Order (EO) is legally binding and does not require Congressional approval to take effect, but has the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.  Interestingly, EOs have occurred much more often than I would have expected, throughout the history of the United States. Examining Wikipedia’s EO page, you can see many Presidents have evoked this power during their terms, most notably Franklin D. Roosevelt who executed 3,522 EOs over the course of his presidency.

The basis of the EO is laid out in Section 1 of the report,

“The United States is heavily reliant on imports of certain mineral commodities that are vital to the Nation’s security and economic prosperity… An increase in private-sector domestic exploration, production, recycling, and reprocessing of critical minerals, and support for efforts to identify more commonly available technological alternatives to these minerals, will reduce our dependence on imports,…support job creation, improve our national security and balance of trade, and enhance the technological superiority and readiness of our Armed Forces, which are among the Nation’s most significant consumers of critical minerals.”

Interestingly, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Department of the Interior released a report entitled, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2017, just a day before the EO was signed. I believe the report is important; the graph on page 6 is particularly revealing, as it lists all of the minerals and their net import reliance.

In Section 4 of the EO, it states that within 180 days of the date that Secretary of the Interior publishes a list of critical minerals, a report will be submitted to the President, outlining a strategy to reduce the dependence on imported minerals. I have paraphrased what the report will cover, please review the EO for further details:

  • An assessment of the country’s ability to produce critical minerals through recycling.
  • Plans for improving the topographical, geologic and geophysical mapping of the U.S. and make it available to the private sector for improved minerals exploration.
  • Recommendations on how to streamline the permitting and review processes related to critical mineral resources. Therefore, enhancing access to critical mineral resources and increasing discovery, production and domestic refining of critical materials.

The economic and security merits of this EO can debated, however, putting it into the perspective of a resource investor, I think that this will translate into great things for mining companies with projects located in the U.S. that are exploring, developing or producing one of the deemed “critical” minerals.

I believe lithium will be a part of this “critical” minerals list, as the U.S. currently imports more than 50% of its lithium and looks to import far more, as Elon Musk’s Giga Factory, located in Nevada, is expected to have an annual capacity of 35 Gigawatt-hours, which is equivalent to the entire world’s current battery production.

This brings me to the subject of today’s article, an update on Cypress Development Corp.’s fall drill program on its contiguous Dean and Glory Lithium Projects in Clayton Valley, Nevada.

 

Cypress Development Corp. Update

In my last update, Cypress had just received their first round of drill results from its Dean Lithium Project.  Overall, the results were great and supported the case for the continuity of the deposit. In that update, I mentioned the potential for some PUSH in the share price based on the results from holes DCH-13 and DCH-14, which were upcoming. Based on the news released this morning (January 9th), I was right; the stock is up on over a million shares of volume!

The latest results are highlighted by DCH-13’s intersection of 107 metres of 1134 ppm Li. This average grade is across the entire interval, which started just 5.5 metres below surface and reached a depth of 112.2 metres. The depth is in line with the results from the first round of drilling and DCH-13 remains open at depth.

Finally, DCH-14 intersected 76 metres of 733 ppm Li. While the grade is a little lower than the previous results, it is still very robust and is consistent with the other results in terms of being shallow, with mineralization being intersected just 2.9 metres from surface and stretching down to 78.6 metres.

Overall, these are terrific results and, as you can see in the drill hole map below, both holes extend the Dean Project mineralization to almost the full extent of the northeast portion of the property. With the results from Glory on the horizon, I think it is easy to see that this has all the makings of a very large deposit.

 

Dean and Glory Drill Hole Map

Dean & Glory Lithium Projects, Clayton Valley, Nevada Drill Hole Map

 

PUSH: Later this month, look for drill results from the Glory Lithium Project to show similar grade and shallow interval thickness.

 

Dean and Glory Lithium Project Metallurgy

In my introductory article for Cypress Development Corp., I commented that I felt the ability to economically extract the lithium from the claystones would be the largest hurdle for the company in the future.

Well, the company has taken some great strides toward proving out an economic process for extraction, as they have started some bench-scale test work on a sample of Dean Project sourced lithium claystone.

The results, thus far, have revealed moderate extractions of lithium in sulfuric acid solution rising to 74% in both sample types as temperature increases. Additionally, it should be noted that the extractions were achieved with relatively low additions of sulfuric acid for lithium-bearing claystone deposits, with rates of 140 kg to 170 kg per tonne of material. They will continue to optimize the extraction process by refining the leach conditions, checking for any mineralogical variability across the properties and determining methods of recovery of the lithium from the leach solutions.

 

Concluding Remarks

The latest drill results confirm the continuity of the deposit and its extension out to the northeast boundaries of the Dean Project. If Glory’s drill results follow in a similar fashion, Cypress could be in possession of what looks to be a very large deposit of lithium claystone.  As stated in the news release, Cypress will attempt to follow up the drill program with a resource estimate, giving us a clear path toward a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA).

Further, the progress made in the extraction of lithium from the Dean Project claystone is positive and, in my mind, a key point to the entire story. Further work to optimize the extraction process along with a resource estimate should provide the necessary inputs for what I think can be a very healthy PEA.

Putting it all together, Cypress Development Corp. is the 100% owner of what looks to be a large lithium claystone deposit in the heart of Nevada. Given the direction of the U.S. government and their push toward developing domestic sources of “critical” minerals, I believe the Dean and Glory Lithium Projects could become very valuable in the years ahead!

 

 

Don’t want to miss a new investment idea, interview or financial product review? Become a Junior Stock Review VIP now – it’s FREE!

 

Until next time,

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

Disclaimer: The following is not an investment recommendation, it is an investment idea. I am not a certified investment professional, nor do I know you and your individual investment needs. Please perform your own due diligence to decide whether this is a company(s) and sector that is best suited for your personal investment criteria. Junior Stock Review does not guarantee the accuracy of any of the analytics used in this report. I do own Cypress Development Corporation shares. Cypress Development Corporation is a Sponsor of Junior Stock Review.

 

 

Posted on

FPX Nickel Corp. – An Undervalued Pure Nickel Play

FPX Nickel Corp.

Investing in high quality companies can bring you gains in any segment of the market cycle. But, when you’re buying a high quality company at the bottom of a commodity cycle, the result can be truly spectacular.

When I bought the best junior gold companies in 2014 and 2015, near the bottom of the last bear cycle, it turned out to be a fantastic contrarian decision, giving me incredible gains in 2016 as sentiment changed.

Today, I feel the same could be said for investing in the nickel market, which, up until 2016, has been decimated by over-supply. This change in the supply dynamic is just one of the reasons why I’m bullish on nickel. In August of this year (2017), I wrote a two-part series on the nickel market and why I’m bullish on its future. For those who would like a closer look at my analysis, check out my series on nickel, Part 1 and Part 2.

So, how do I look to profit from my bullish nickel thesis? For me, the key is FPX Nickel Corp. FPX is the 100% owner of its flagship Decar Nickel District, which is located in central British Columbia, just 80 km west of the Mount Milligan open-pit Cu-Au mine.

Let’s take a look.

 

 

FPX Nickel Corp (FPX:TSXV)

MCAP – $13.4 million (at the time of writing)

 

As of November, 2017

Shares – 133,770,339

Fully Diluted – 141,920,339 (no warrants outstanding)

Management & Directors – 19.3%

Cash – $750K

 

FPX Nickel’s People

If you have invested in the resource sector long enough, you have most likely heard the adage that people are the most important part of a company. It’s absolutely true. The fact is, however, like everything else in life, most people fall within the average moniker. Besides being average, you, of course, have the bottom feeders – the people you really want to avoid – and conversely, you have the cream of the crop at the top. Without a doubt, you want to be invested with the best people, as they give you the best chance of being right in the mining sector.

Peter Bradshaw is the co-founder and Chairman of the Board of FPX Nickel and, to me, is one of those outliers at the top of the industry . Bradshaw was inducted into the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame in 2015 for his achievements in what has been, thus far, a 40+ year career.

Bradshaw is best known for his involvement with Placer Development and their discovery of the high-grade zone VII at Porgera in Papua New Guinea, as well as co-founding the Mineral Deposit Research Unit (MDRU) at the University of British Columbia. Bradshaw has also worked or contributed to a few other companies, such as Barringer Research and Orvana Minerals. Today, he is Chairman of the Board for FPX and a Director with Aquila Resources.

Here’s a list of Bradshaw’s key discoveries and projects: Porgera Gold Mine, Kidston Gold Mine, Misima Gold Mine, Big Bell Gold Mine, Omai Gold Mine and Decar Nickel Project. As you can see, Bradshaw is a minefinder, and I think Decar will be his next mine. Here’s a link to Bradshaw’s must-see Canadian Mining Hall of Fame Tribute Video.

 

FPX is led by President and CEO, Martin Turenne. Turenne, a Chartered Accountant by trade, has worked in the commodities industry for over 15 years. Five of those years have been spent with FPX, where he was first the CFO from 2012 to 2015.

I have spoken to Turenne on a few occasions and am always impressed by his knowledge of the nickel market and, of course, the level of detail with which he answers my questions regarding FPX. Turenne is a major reason why I’m confident in investing in FPX and believe that their future is very bright given the quality of his leadership and vision.

FPX’s team is rounded out by consulting geologist and formerly FPX’s (formerly, First Point Minerals) VP of exploration, Trevor Rabb. Rabb has been busy this summer with FPX’s step-out drill program, which tested the southeast extension of the Baptiste deposit at Decar.

Last, but not least, is FPX’s CFO, J. Christopher Mitchell, who has more than 40 years of experience in the mineral industry. Mitchell has held senior roles with Viceroy Resource Corp. and Orvana Minerals Corp.

 

Board of Directors

Over the last few months, FPX has added two key pieces to its Board of Directors, with the appointment of Robert Pease and Peter Marshall. For those who aren’t familiar, both Pease and Marshall have extensive experience within the mining industry, more specifically, with the development and construction of mining projects in central British Columbia.

Both Pease and Marshall were a part of Terrane Metals; Pease as the founder and Marshall as the Senior VP of Project Development.  Terrane owned the Mt. Milligan copper-gold project, which they developed from the PEA stage through to final feasibility and the commencement of project construction. To note, Terrane was later acquired by Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc. for $650 million in 2010.

Clearly, both Pease and Marshall have great knowledge and experience to draw on as they move toward the development of Decar with the rest of the FPX team.

 

Turenne’s comments with regards to his Board of Directors and how FPX will conduct themselves, moving forward;

Turenne: “We have begun to assemble a team of world-class mine builders and operators. The recent additions of Peter Marshall and Rob Pease are very important, as they have significant experience in developing and building mines in our region in central British Columbia.

Peter and Rob were the team behind Terrane Metals, which developed the similar scale, open-pit, bulk-tonnage Mt. Milligan project from the resource stage to construction in five years before selling the company for $650 million.

 One of our other board members is Bill Myckatyn, who has built and operated several large-scale base metal mines in his career, most notably as the CEO of Quadra-FNX (acquired by KGHM for $3 billion in 2011). We will continue to add new team members with deep experience in mine development, construction and operation. This is a major company-style asset; our ongoing development of Decar will continue to be performed to major-company standards.”

 

 

 

The Decar Nickel District

 

Central British Columbia

The Decar Nickel District consists of 4 main targets, Baptiste (the focus of the 2013 PEA), Van, Sid and Target B. They total 60 mineral claims and encompass a total area over 245 square kilometres. The Decar Nickel District is located in central BC within 5 km of an existing railroad and is accessible by 4WD on logging roads.Decar sits roughly 90 km northwest of the town of Fort St. James, which is well equipped with most services, including accommodation, stores, private airbase, a bank and medical services.

Decar is expected to require 106 MW of power for its production, which can be accessed via a connection to BC Hydro’s Glenannan Substation (GLN). Accessibility and power are two of the major needs for a developing mine.

BC Map Decar

 

BC and its NDP Provincial Government

I have written about BC’s NDP government in a previous article, so I won’t take up space repeating myself here. The long and short of it is that while I believe there is risk with any political party, I feel the most risk comes from the far left, which, in Canada’s political world, is represented by the NDP.

I had a great discussion about the BC political situation with Turenne. Here’s what he had to say;

British Columbia has a long history as one of the most mining-friendly jurisdictions in the world. In fact, in a 2017 ranking of safest places to invest resource capital, the Mining Journal rated British Columbia as the second-most attractive jurisdiction in the world, second only to Saskatchewan. An Executive Summary of the report can be accessed on the Mining Journal website.

During this year’s election campaign and since taking office, the NDP government has expressed its support for safe and responsible mining in B.C.  Mining will remain a key driver of economic growth in the province, regardless of changes in the governing party. As with most jurisdictions, there are some profound regional differences in the ability to develop mining projects in B.C.; in the case of our Decar nickel project, it’s located in north-central British Columbia, which has several active mines and projects. For example, Decar sits just 80 km from Mt. Milligan, a similar-scale operation which was permitted and put into production in the last five years, demonstrating that north-central B.C. is an attractive setting for bulk-tonnage, open-pit mining operations like Decar.“

In the end, besides the political risk, BC has one of the richest mineral endowments in the world, let alone Canada.  Whether it be gold exploration in the Golden Triangle or the copper mines throughout the north and central part of the province, BC is a top tier destination for mining and exploration.

While I do see risk in the NDP, when I have the chance to invest in what I believe is a great company, like FPX Nickel Corp., I think it’s worth the associated risk and have been a buyer since the summer of 2017.

 

History of Decar District Ownership

In a 2009 option agreement, what was then First Point Minerals (now FPX) granted Cliffs Natural Resources Exploration Inc. the option to acquire a 75% interest in the Decar property contingent on a number of criteria being met over the coming years.

From 2010 to 2013, Cliffs went on to spend roughly $22 million USD leading up to the completion of a PEA in 2013, giving them a 60% ownership of the project. In August of 2014, however, following a proxy battle, Cliffs’ Board of Directors and management were replaced, and the new management initiated a fire sale of all of the company’s non-core assets, including Decar.

In September of 2015, FPX purchased Cliffs’ 60% ownership of Decar for $4.75 million USD, giving FPX 100% ownership of the project.

 

 

Decar Nickel-Iron Alloy Project PEA 2013

Decar’s nickel is found in a mineral called Awaruite.  Awaruite is a dense and highly magnetic nickel-iron alloy, Ni₃Fe, which is commonly referred to as a ‘ naturally occurring stainless steel.’  Awaruite’s physical properties make it perfect for conventional processing and extraction techniques such as grinding, magnetic separation and gravity concentration.

FPX nickel-iron sample

 

Additionally, in the case of the Baptise Deposit mineralization, there are little to no sulphides present, meaning that both the host rock and tailings are non-acid generating, which is a huge plus when it comes time to permit the project.

 

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

In 2012, SGS Minerals Services conducted “A Bench-Scale Investigation into the Recovery of Nickel from the Decar Awaruite Deposit.” From their tests, SGS selected a process which uses a grind size of 600 µm for the magnetic concentration stage, and 70 µm for the gravity concentration stage. This process results in an 84.7% recovery of DTR nickel, resulting in a concentrate with a grade between 12% and 15% total nickel.

The concentrate produced by FPX should be highly desirable in the stainless steel market, as steel producers, particularly in China, shift toward using higher grade sources of feedstockl to supply their steel making operations. For your information, lower grade concentrates or pellets have higher amounts of impurities, which, if not properly captured by a Bag House (essentially a massive vacuum), are exhausted into the atmosphere.

For those who aren’t familiar, nickel pig iron (“NPI”) is a major additive in the stainless steel making process, as it contains both nickel and iron, two of the main constituents in stainless steel. The FPX concentrate or pellet, as mentioned earlier, will have a nickel grade of around 13.5% and iron content around 50%, which compares favourably to the specs of high-grade NPI.

I had the chance to ask Turenne about the metallurgy of the Decar Project and the outlook for the concentrate. Here’s what he had to say;

 Turenne: “Decar will produce a premium nickel-iron product in the form of either a concentrate or a pellet with a nickel grade in the range of 12-15% and containing 40-50% iron. The closest market analogues to the Decar pellet are high-grade Chinese nickel pig iron (which typically grades 10-12% nickel with iron making up the balance) and ferronickel (grading 30% nickel, 70% iron). The significant iron content in ferronickel and Chinese NPI makes these products highly desirable for the production of stainless steel, which requires nickel and iron as key inputs; these products, therefore, attract premium pricing in the range of 102 to 110% of the LME nickel per contained nickel unit, as compared to typical nickel sulphide concentrate, which yields 70-75% of the LME nickel price when it is sold to a smelter.

In 2014, FPX conducted market testing of Decar product samples with six of the largest ferronickel and stainless steel producers in the world. The results of this program confirmed the potential for Decar product to bypass smelting and be injected as direct feed for the production of either ferronickel or stainless steel. The commercial feedback provided by the market test participants indicated that Decar product may achieve payability up to 95% or more of the LME nickel price, which is a material improvement over the 75% payability assumed in the 2013 Decar PEA. This improvement will be a key driver underpinning potentially robust economics in an upcoming updated PEA.”

From Turenne’s comments, I think the comment about the potential difference in payability, 20%, is a big deal and should be realized in an updated PEA in the future.

 

Metallurgical Comparison to RNC Nickel

For a better perspective of FPX’s metallurgical advantage, I have a comparison of Process Plant Schematic’s or Flow Sheets of RNC Nickel and FPX.  First, let’s take a look at RNC Nickel’s Dumont Feasibility Study Technical Report, which shows the following flowsheet for the Dumont nickel sulphide deposit:

RNC Flow Sheet

Source: RNC Nickel’s Dumont Feasibility Study Technical Report – pg.1-10

 

I am not showing RNC’s flow sheet to be critical of their process, but more to point out its complexity versus FPX’s flow sheet. FPX’s process is simple and widely used in the iron ore industry, and, in my opinion, presents fewer risks for economic production in the future.

 

FPX Flow Sheet

Source: FPX Nickel’s Decar PEA Technical Report – pg.13-12

 

You be the judge. In my mind, metallurgical processing is arguably the most important part of a mine and, therefore, for me, FPX is clearly the better place for my investment dollars.

 

 

 

Summer Step-Out Drill Program

On September 25th , FPX completed their step-out drill program on the Baptiste Deposit.  Eight diamond drill holes were completed, totalling 1,917 metres.  The drill program area was 500 metres along strike from historical drilling, and covered a width of 500 metres.

FPX Summer Drill Step out Drilling

 

On October 18 and November 20th, the results of the 8 hole program were released. The highlights from the program are as follows:

  • Hole 63 had an interval containing 104 m of 0.163% Davis Tube magnetically-recovered (DTR) nickel at a vertical depth of 66 metres below surface.
  • Hole 65 had an interval containing 132 m of 0.147% DTR nickel at a vertical depth of 32 m below surface.
  • Hole 67 had an interval containing 96 m of 0.167% DTR nickel at a vertical depth of 42 m below surface.
  • Hole 68 had an interval containing 124 m of 0.133% DTR nickel at a vertical depth of 20m below surface.

In my opinion, these results are excellent. To understand, let’s put it into perspective; the Baptiste deposit’s indicated DTR nickel resource estimate has a grade of 0.124%, and its inferred DTR nickel resource estimate has a grade of 0.125%.

The highlighted drill results are significantly higher-grade than the existing indicated and inferred resource estimate grades, they are large intervals and they are shallow. These are very positive signs that an updated PEA on the project should have better economics.

The question is how much of an impact can the step-out drill results have on the project’s economics? Well, the historically identified strike length totals 2.5 km in length, the summer drill program stepped out a further 500 m or a roughly 25% extension of the strike length. Given that the mineralization is shallow and higher grade than the existing resource estimates, I think this is going to have a very positive effect on the PEA update.

 

2013 PEA Results

The Baptiste Deposit will be mined via an open pit which is estimated to contain an Indicated Resource of 1.1 billion tonnes of 0.124% DTR Ni, and an Inferred Resource of 0.87 billion tonnes of 0.125% DTR Ni. Based on this, Tetra Tech calculated the following 2013 PEA results:

  • Post-Tax NPV @8% – $579 million CAD
  • Post –Tax IRR – 12.8%
  • Pre-Production CAPEX Cost – $1.3 billion CAD
  • Total CAPEX Cost over life-of-mine –k $2.1 billion CAD
  • Post-Tax Payback – 6.4 years
  • Nickel Price – $9.39 USD/lb.
  • Mining Rate – 114,000 t/day or roughly 40 million t/year
  • Exchange Rate – $0.97 CAD/ USD

Nickel Price Assumption

As you can see, the Decar project has some robust economics, with a post-tax NPV @8% of $579 million and an IRR of 12.8%. The downside to these numbers is that they were calculated using a nickel price of $9.39 USD/lbs.

For those who have been following the nickel price, you will know that nickel currently trades at roughly $5.50 USD/lbs, with most industry experts using $7.50 USD/lbs as their long-term target price.

At face value, the nickel price assumption is a troubling aspect of the 2013 PEA. A lot, however, has changed in the last 4 years, since the PEA was conducted.

  • Firstly, as outlined in the previous section of the report, FPX’s 2017 step-out drill program, completed this past fall, intercepted large intervals of shallow, high-grade DTR nickel, which appears to have extended the existing deposit by another 500 metres or roughly 25%.
  • Secondly, as outlined in the metallurgical section of this report, the PEA considered a conservative concentrate payback of 75%. However, FPX’s latest market testing suggests that a payback of 85 to 95% is more realistic due to the product’s high quality.
  • Thirdly, the CAD to USD exchange rate was almost 1 for 1 back in 2013. Today, in 2017, according to the Bank of Canada website, for every Canadian dollar we would receive 0.7911 American dollars, making the difference between the two exchange rates almost 20%.

It is my contention that given the 3 outlined changes since the original PEA was conducted, that a new PEA at a lower nickel price will again show robust economics.

 

CAPEX Cost

With a pre-production CAPEX cost of roughly $1.3 billion CAD, you may be thinking, ‘how are they going to pay for this?’ Well, in actuality, for those who aren’t familiar with base metals project development costs, US$1.3 billion is relatively cheap.

FPX’s most current corporate presentation, on slide 23, has a great graph depicting the capital cost (USD) per tonne annual nickel production of the largest nickel mines built   around the world since 2010.

Nickel CAPEX Cost per Tonne

 

As you can see, Decar has the lowest capital cost (USD) per tonne of annual nickel production of all the listed nickel mines.  The key take away from this graph, in my opinion, is two-fold; First, CAPEX costs in the billions of dollars won’t be the reason why this project isn’t developed. As you can see, the average CAPEX cost of the listed comparisons is close to $4 billion, making Decar’s current US$1.3 billion look quite low. Second, if FPX were to complete an updated PEA on Decar, they could potentially lower the throughput rate, which would have an effecton the overall CAPEX value.

Here are Turenne’s comments surrounding the $1.3 billion pre-production CAPEX cost;

Turenne: “The estimated pre-production capital cost in the 2013 PEA was C$1.3 billion for a 114,000 tonne-per-day operation, or approximately US$1.1 million at today’s exchange rate. We are looking at a potential smaller-scale operation, which could potentially reduce capital costs.

We believe that Decar is the most attractive undeveloped nickel asset in the world, truly a tier-1 asset due to the size of the ore body (supporting a top-15 annual nickel producer over a 25+ year mine life) and bottom-quartile operating costs (C$3.23 on-site operating costs in the 2013 PEA).

Due largely to the somewhat depressed state of the nickel market, and due to the modest headline economics in the 2013 PEA (resulting mostly from the low assumed nickel payability and high Canadian dollar assumption), FPX’s current valuation is absurdly low. Our strategy is to continue to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of the project, and to commence the permitting process, so that as the nickel price continues to rise, the market will begin to value us more appropriately. As and when this occurs, this will give us a better basis on which to raise funds to advance the project on our own, or to advance the asset with a senior partner. “

 

 

FPX’s Plans for 2018

In my opinion, it’s important to have a long-term outlook when it comes to your investment within the resource sector, as it gives you the best chance for your thesis to be right and helps you manage the ebbs and flows of a volatile sector.

In saying this, I asked Turenne about 2018 and what they had planned. Here’s what he had to say;

TurenneWe will continue to advance the Decar project, likely with the release of an updated resource estimate for the Baptiste deposit which will incorporate the results of our very successful 2017 step-out drilling program. The 2017 drilling defined the Southeast Zone, which is the highest-grading portion of Baptiste.

There are a couple of key features of the Southeast Zone: first, it’s a very large zone measuring 1,000 metres long east-west and up to 600 metres north-south; second, long, near-surface drill intercepts in the Southeast Zone have returned grades in a range between 0.14% to 0.16% Davis Tube recoverable nickel. These results compare very favourably with the undiluted head grade in the first five years of the 2013 PEA mine plan, which ranged from 0.105% to 0.116% DTR nickel.  The incorporation of this near-surface, higher-grade tonnage in the early years of a new mine plan has the potential to significantly improve project economics.

Once we have completed an updated Baptiste resource estimate, the next major step is the completion of an updated PEA. Since early 2017, we have been evaluating a number of parameters to optimize project economics, including the development of an optimized mine schedule and process flowsheet, an evaluation of various alternatives for minimizingupfront capital, and incorporation of the results of market testing on payability for our nickel product.

The point on payability is particularly important to understand the upside in a new PEA. We have conducted market testing of Decar nickel product with some of the largest ferronickel and stainless steel producers in the world to confirm the technical and commercial viability of Decar product. The response received from those potential offtakers have demonstrated the potential to achieve nickel payability in the range of 85% to 95% of the LME nickel price, as compared to the 75% LME payability assumed in the 2013 PEA. This implies a significant potential for increased revenue over the life-of-mine, with obvious positive implications for overall project economics.”

 

 

Nickel Company Comparables

For perspective on the value of FPX, I have put together a comparison with another junior nickel company which has a development project in BC.

 

Giga Metals

MCAP – $27.4 million (at the time of writing) based on the current share price of $0.70/share, with 41.4 million shares and 26 million warrants outstanding at exercise prices ranging from $0.07 to $0.70/share

Giga Metals owns the Turnagain Nickel-Cobalt Project in northern BC. Turnagain is a large, low-grade sulphide deposit containing nickel and cobalt-bearing pentlandite and pyrrhotite. The project’s main economic value is found in its nickel, with a much smaller portion being derived from its cobalt credits.

As you will see below, many of Giga’s Turnagain Project economic valuations are very similar to FPX’s Baptiste Deposit. However, I see some areas in which, I believe, FPX is stronger than Giga – let’s take a look:

  • Metallurgy – Complex mineralization, which, if successfully processed into a concentrate, will not fetch a premium price in the market, meaning payability of 75% of the LME price, at best. Please read the section of the PEA regarding metallurgy.
  • Location – remote location in northern BC with higher hydro power access and concentrate shipment costs
  • Limited Upside – The 2012 PEA has a high nickel price assumption ($8.50/lb.) and GIGA has not defined a clear path to making Turnagain an economic project below $8.50 USD/lb nickel.
  • Share structure – while the shares outstanding is lower than FPX, this is only after a couple of recent share roll backs, and keep in mind that GIGA’s share count will almost double if all the outstanding warrants and options are exercised.

Here are a few of the highlights from the PEA:

  • Measured and Indicated Resource – 865 Mt @0.21% Ni and 0.013% Co and an Inferred Resource – 976 Mt @0.20% and 0.013% Co.

Giga’s Results:

  • Post-Tax NPV @8% – $724 million
  • Post-Tax IRR – 13.5%
  • Initial CAPEX – $1.357 billion
  • Year 5 Expansion CAPEX – $492 million
  • Total CAPEX Cost over life-of-mine – $1.849 billion
  • Post-Tax Payback – 7.3 years
  • Nickel Price – $8.50 USD/lb. and Cobalt Price – $14.00 USD/lb.
  • Mining Rate – 28.1 Mt/year (average LOM)
  • Exchange Rate – $0.95 USD/CAD

 

Currently, Giga Metals trades more than double the MCAP of FPX, which I don’t think is justified. Giga’s Turnagain has a lot of positive aspects, however, when it comes down to valuations, I don’t believe it’s more valuable than FPX’s Decar Nickel District, given the reasons I outlined.

 

 

Concluding Remarks

I’m very bullish on the future of nickel and am investing my money into what, I believe, are the best investments to capitalize on a rising nickel price.

Even if you agree with my bullish nickel outlook, you may have a different risk tolerance when it comes to investing. For me, I prefer the junior portion of the resource sector, as I believe it gives the investor the best risk to reward ratio.

In saying this, I will continue to buy shares in FPX Nickel Corp. because, in my opinion, their Decar Nickel District is among the best undeveloped nickel projects in the world.

As I outlined in the report, there’s some risk associated with FPX, mainly in the nickel price assumption from its 2013 PEA and the NDP political party which currently leads the BC provincial government. I do believe, however, that given the step-out drill results, the expected 85-95% payability on the concentrate and a change in the exchange rate, the Decar Nickel District will be economic at sub $8 USD/lb. nickel.

In my opinion, there’s more upside potential than downside, especially at its current MCAP. Here’s a list of the reasons I’m investing in FPX Nickel:

  • Great leadership from CEO, Martin Turenne, and a group of proven mine builders, beginning with Peter Bradshaw and Board members, Robert Pease, Peter Marshall and Bill Myckatyn. This team is being assembled with the successful development of Decar in mind.
  • A desirable concentrate or pellet which is made via a simple metallurgical process. Market research carried out by FPX suggests that the concentrate could sell for around 85-95% of the LME price, which is 20% higher than the 75% used in the 2013 PEA.
  • The Baptise Deposit mineralization has little to no sulphides present, meaning that both the host rock and tailings are non-acid generating, which is a huge plus when it comes time to permit the project.
  • Low Pre-Production CAPEX cost of $1.3 billion – World-class nickel projects come with large price tags, making Decar look very reasonable, if not cheap.
  • Low on-site operating costs of C$3.23/lb, which would position Decar in the lowest quartile of the nickel industry cost curve.
  • Given the PEA nickel production rate of 82 million lbs. per year, at today’s nickel price of US$5.75/lb, Decar would yield around US$250 million in annual pre-tax operating cash flows.
  • Large resource containing over 5.5 billion pounds of nickel in the combined indicated and inferred categories, making Decar one of the five-largest undeveloped nickel deposits in the world
  • Successful step-out drill program results from the Southeast Zone, which has increased the strike length by 500 metres or roughly 25%.
  • PUSH – An update to the Baptiste Deposit’s resource estimate should come in 2018, setting the stage for an updated PEA.
  • FPX is trading for less than half (in terms of MCAP) the value of a comparable junior nickel company which, I believe, doesn’t have as high quality an asset as FPX.

In my opinion, all of these points make a great investment proposition. One that I think will be very hard for a major mining company to ignore in the future. With the completion of an updated PEA, a rising nickel price, and the overall lack of comparably great projects in the world, I believe FPX is HIGHLY undervalued and am looking forward to its re-rating in the market.

 

Don’t want to miss a new investment idea, interview or financial product review? Become a Junior Stock Review VIP now – it’s FREE!

 

Until next time,

 

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

 

Disclaimer: All statements in this report, other than statements of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or future performance. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always identified by the use of words such as “seek”, “anticipate”, “plan”, “continue”, “estimate”, “expect”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “predict”, “potential”, “targeting”, “intend”, “could”, “might”, “should”, “believe” and similar expressions. Much of this report is comprised of statements of projection. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements.  Risks and uncertainties respecting mineral exploration companies are generally disclosed in the annual financial or other filing documents of those and similar companies as filed with the relevant securities commissions, and should be reviewed by any reader of this newsletter.

Brian Leni is an online financial newsletter writer. He is focused on researching and marketing resource and other public companies. Nothing in this article should be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities mentioned anywhere in this newsletter. This article is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only!

Be advised, Brian Leni is not a registered broker-dealer or financial advisor. Before investing in any securities, you should consult with your financial advisor and a registered broker-dealer.

Never, ever, make an investment based solely on what you read in an online newsletter, including Junior Stock Review, especially if the investment involves a small, thinly-traded company that isn’t well known.

Brian Leni’s past performance is not indicative of future results and should not be used as a reason to purchase any stocks mentioned in his newsletters or on this website.

In many cases Brian Leni owns shares in the companies he features. For those reasons, please be aware that Brian Leni can be considered extremely biased in regards to the companies he writes about and features in his newsletters.  You should conduct extensive due diligence as well as seek the advice of your financial advisor and a registered broker-dealer before investing in any securities. Brian Leni may buy or sell at any time without notice to anyone, including readers of this newsletter.

Brian Leni shall not be liable for any damages, losses, or costs of any kind or type arising out of or in any way connected with the use of this newsletter. You should independently investigate and fully understand all risks before investing. When investing in speculative stocks, it is possible to lose your entire investment.

Any decision to purchase or sell as a result of the opinions expressed in this report will be the full responsibility of the person authorizing such transaction, and should only be made after such person has consulted a registered financial advisor and conducted thorough due diligence. Information in this report has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that they are accurate or complete. Our views and opinions in this newsletter are our own views and are based on information that we have received, which we assumed to be reliable. We do not guarantee that any of the companies mentioned in this newsletter will perform as we expect, and any comparisons we have made to other companies may not be valid or come into effect.

Junior Stock Review does NOT have any business relationship with FPX Nickel Corp.
Junior Stock Review does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any statements made in this newsletter.

Brian Leni does own shares in FPX Nickel Corp.

Posted on

PDAC 2018 International Convention, Trade Show & Investors Exchange

PDAC logo

In the past, I’ve written about how beneficial it is to attend investment conferences. For those who may not have read that article, I will give a quick refresher. In my opinion, the premise for attending conferences is 3-fold.

First and foremost, it allows you to meet the people running the companies in which you are invested.  For me, personally, this is a big deal and something that’s on my list of requirements for positions that I intend to hold for the long-term.  How the company representatives carry themselves and how they treat you, I believe, can tell you a lot about how the company is run and, therefore, provides further insight into what the probability of success may be.

Second, conferences typically have a great list of speakers, such as Rick Rule, Brent Cook or Jayant Bhandari, to name just a few. Listening to their speeches at the conference gives you a chance to hear their current thoughts on the market and, typically, how they’re positioning their investments.  Not only that, but many of these top minds make themselves available for questions, allowing you to ask that question that has been on your mind for some time.

Third, conferences give you a chance to expand your network of acquaintances or, potentially, future friends. One thing you can almost guarantee is that the people who attend these conferences are looking to make money and are interested in, what I think is for the most part, a niche portion of the investment world. The junior resource sector is fraught with risk and, therefore, having a network of acquaintances to throw your ideas around with can be very advantageous.

 

PDAC

One conference in particular that should be on every resource investor’s list of must-attends is the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s (PDAC) International Convention . The PDAC Convention is held in Toronto every March and brings together more than 1,000 exhibitors, 3,800 investors and 24,000 attendees from 130 countries.

This is a huge event. I can remember walking out onto the Investors Exchange floor for the first time and being amazed by the number of companies that were there. It can be overwhelming, but by the same token, it’s a tremendous opportunity to seek out new ideas and find some hidden, undervalued gems.

Speaking from personal experience, the most value I’ve gleaned from PDAC or any other conference is by examining the list of companies that are exhibiting and then choosing the ones that I want to speak to, beforehand. Then, by creating a set of specific questions for each company, I can, depending on their answers, quickly determine if I want to research them further, saving me a ton of time both at the conference and at home. I think this method of research works particularly well for those who only have one day to attend the conference, as you can be extremely efficient with your time.

 

Concluding Remarks

PDAC is fast approaching;  March 4th to 7th at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. Registration is FREE for those who just want to see the Investors Exchange and the Letter Writer Presentations, or there are paid options that give you further access to the entire show, plus PDAC offers a few short courses to further expand your knowledge of the mining business.

I think the 2018 edition of the PDAC Convention is going to be fantastic and I really hope to see you there!

 

Until next time,

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

 

Disclaimer – The following is not a recommendation, it is an idea. I am not a certified investment professional, nor do I know you and your individual investment needs. Please perform your own due diligence to decide whether attending an investment conference is suited for your personal investment needs. Junior Stock Review does not guarantee success from attending PDAC or any other investment conference. I have not been compensated to write this article, however Junior Stock Review is a media partner of PDAC International Convention 2018.

Posted on

Trade Stocks like a Professional with CEO.ca PRO

CEO.ca PRO Visual Bid and Asks

I don’t know about you, but I’m always looking for ways to tilt the odds of success in my favour when it comes to investing. Creating a list of rules to invest by, or completing a thorough analysis of a prospective company are just a couple of things that I do to ensure I have the best chance of making a profit.

Recently, I added a service which, in my opinion, has made a HUGE difference in how I buy and sell shares in the stock market. This service is CEO.ca PRO, which allows you to view and interact with Level 2 Market Data from the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE), TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX).

If you’re wondering what Level 2 Market Data is, don’t be embarrassed. I had the same question. First, let’s discuss Level 1 Market Data, which encompasses basic information on how a stock is trading. These are things like the bid price, bid size, ask price, ask size, etc. Using this information, an investor can see approximately where they need to place a buy or sell order if they are looking to have it executed at that moment.

Level 2 Market Data goes a step further and allows you to see more than just the highest bid price or lowest ask price. With CEO.ca PRO, you can see the top 10 bid and ask prices along with their sizes. This gives you a glimpse at how the stock is currently trading and where the potential price action is headed.

Now that I’ve used the level 2 data, I can say without a doubt that you’re missing a massive piece of the puzzle, when it comes to buying and selling in the junior resource sector, if you don’t have this data. This is especially true with the thinly traded companies, because they have a wide range of buy and sell orders and seeing them allows you to make a more informed decision about the price at which you should set your order.

NOTE: Never ever put a MARKET BUY or SELL ORDER in on a junior resource stock. I was told this very early on in my investing career, but never thought twice about it. Now, having seen the Level 2 Data, I can see just how dangerous a MARKET ORDER can be!

In particular, the CEO.ca PRO service gives you both a visual and a tabular display of the bids and asks, allowing you to quickly go through your portfolio or watchlist and decide what you want to buy or sell. The following images are screenshots; Beginning at the top left, there’s a stock chart followed by a visual display of the bids and asks, then a list of orders by price, a list by order and, finally, a list of recent trades.

Stock Chart

CEO.ca PRO Stock Chart

CEO.ca PRO Visual Bid and Asks

CEO.ca PRO Visual Bid & Ask Chart

Tabular Bid and Asks

CEO.ca PRO Tabular Display

Recent trades

CEO.ca PRO Recent Trades

Level 2 data has been invaluable to me over the last few weeks and I would feel truly blind buying or selling in the market knowing that others were able to see a clearer picture of how people were attempting to buy or sell a stock. Level 2 data may not be the most important part of investing, but it’s a service that more than pays for itself.

Additionally, CEO.ca PRO comes with access to the PRO channel on CEO.ca, where many of its top minds hangout and chat about their best ideas for investing in the junior resource sector. This is a great bonus to a valuable tool, which I believe can help tilt the playing field further in your favour.

Check out CEO.ca PRO, I know you won’t be disappointed!

 

NOTE: For those who don’t know, CEO.ca is a website or cell phone application which acts like an investment conference in your pocket. It connects you to some of the top minds in the resource sector at the touch of a button.

 

Until next time,

 

Brian Leni  P.Eng

Founder – Junior Stock Review

 

Disclaimer – The following is not a recommendation, it is an idea. I am not a certified investment professional, nor do I know you and your individual investment needs. Please perform your own due diligence to decide whether this is a service that is best suited for your personal investment needs. Junior Stock Review does not guarantee success from the use of the CEO.ca PRO service, use at your own risk. I have not been compensated to write this review of CEO.ca PRO.