Become a Member

“Alaska’s Secret Gold Mine: Biggest Gold Discovery of last 20 years”

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, March 18, 2009

So … if you’re breathing, and you can read, and you’ve ever subscribed to any investment service or resource of any kind, you’ve probably seen this ad. My readers have wildly varying opinions of Stansberry & Associates and their newsletters, but one thing is certain: They know how to get the word out.

And the word, this time, is a teaser about a huge new gold discovery — aptly timed, with gold up here around $900 and many investors still manic for gold coins in the great “flight to safety.”

But it’s not just a gold discovery, it’s a gold discovery in the United States — so no worrying about South American arm-twisting, Russian government “partners”, or South African mines gone dark for lack of electricity. Of course, plenty of worry still about NIMBYs, and complaints about the environmental devastation that gold mining can bring, and other complications, I’m sure … but still, let’s see if we can figure this out.

The ad is for Matt Badiali’s S&A Oil Report (which, despite the name, seems to be their general “all commodities” newsletter now — I think they used to have an “S&A Gold Report” too, but it must not have been very popular). Matt says he offers “The world’s best–kept mining secrets—REVEALED,” and it will cost you about $50 a year. I don’t much care whether you wish to subscribe or not (you can see the opinions of a couple subscribers here, if you’re interested, or add your own if you’ve tried the service), but don’t subscribe just to find the name of this “secret Alaska gold mine” — for that, you’ve got your friendly neighborhood Stock Gumshoe on the case …

So what is the teaser today? Well, we know it’s a gold discovery in Alaska. Badiali throws in a nice quote at the top to get us excited:

“Mining journalist Mary Pemberton says, ‘the value of the minerals are worth hundreds of billions of dollars if they’re mined'”

Not bad! Except as far as I can tell, Mary Pemberton isn’t a mining journalist so much as she is an AP reporter in Alaska — she covers mining sometimes, but at the moment she’s covering the Iditarod, and last year she wrote plenty about Sarah Palin and Ted Stevens. And she really broke open the Snowzilla story for us lower 48 folks. Doesn’t mean a generalist reporter can’t impart the facts about a mine, of course … so what else do we hear?

“On October 13, 2007 this small firm published the results from its exploration in an area known as ‘Bristol Bay.’

“The results: This deposit holds 39 MILLION ounces of gold… absolutely huge in the mining business.

“To put that into perspective, that would make it the single largest gold deposit in America today, far exceeding the two largest existing mines – the Carlin and Goldstrike gold mines of Nevada. ”

OK, so that’s a whole mess of gold. And yes, if 39 million ounces were somehow to be removed from that mine, it would be worth, well 39 million times $900, carry the one, OK, I don’t want to complain, but it looks to me like that’s only $35 billion. Where’s my hundreds of billions?

So if we’re willing to settle for $35 billion, what is it we’re looking for?

We get some more clues:

“* The mining industry’s leading audit firm, Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., has independently reviewed and verified the drill results.

“* The value of the deposit has also been independently verified at more than $300 BILLION (at today’s prices). That means even if it earns just 2% profits, this company’s value could grow by a factor of 13… or a potential 1,300% increase in the current share price. [Gumshoe note: really? Did I do my math wrong? Gold is less than a thousand bucks an ounce, right? And a billion is a thousand millions … why is this deposit worth almost $10,000 an ounce?)

“* Three of the world’s top 10 gold producers have signed partnership deals with this small mining firm.”

OK, so just to keep you from pulling your hair out, those “hundreds of billions” and $300 billion numbers are for all the minerals estimated to be in this potential resource, not just the gold. So we can toss that out for the moment. What else do we learn?

“just a few months ago – on December 4, 2008 this small firm completed a second round of drill holes.

“And it’s these new results that are causing the industry to ‘sit up and take notice.’

“The updated results: This deposit actually holds more than 94 MILLION ounces of gold.”

OK, so we’re getting closer to $100 billion just on the gold value … not that it’s worth more than a tiny fraction of that while it’s sitting underground, of course.

Other clues?

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


This resource is situated just outside a major city.

And that’s probably enough to put you out of your misery, so let’s feed this into the Thinkolator … this company is …

Northern Dynasty Minerals (NAK in New York, NDM in Toronto)

Their planned big Alaska mine is to be developed by the “Pebble Partnership,” which is jointly owned by Northern Dynasty and Anglo American (AAUK). It’s generally been described as a copper mine, not a gold mine, but that designation might well flip back and forth depending on which metal is performing better. It is a major “copper-gold porphyry system,” with reserves of 94 million ounces of gold, as teased, but also 72 million pounds of copper and 4.8 million pounds of molybdenum.

The site is about 200 miles from Anchorage, and near a couple villages, and some folks there seem quite worried about salmon being nearby … it’s apparently close enough to the headwaters that serve the Bristol Bay fishery that there is substantial concern, at least among environmentalists and fishermen.

They’re in pre-permitting now, according to the company’s website, and it looks like they’re working with a really massive environmental study of the area. Probably a good thing, given the fact that it’s near an important fishery and includes a lot of, you know, nature and stuff. This is still very much an exploratory project, though they have already identified those massive reserves and done a lot of drilling to define the potential. They now say that they’ll be completing a “prefeasibility study” in 2010, and initiating permitting then after reporting to stakeholders, with the goal of permitting in 2013 and production in 2016. So we’re a ways from actual earnings or anything of the sort unless Northern Dynasty sells off more of their rights, and it seems, from an outsiders perspective, like they’ve intentionally tapped on the brakes for mine development in order to beef up the environmental study and PR campaign to get buy-in from Alaskans. If you want to see the updated reserves, and view the PR film and the timeline, they’ve got a pretty good corporate website with all that info here.

I won’t wade into the debate that Alaskans are undoubtedly having about this project, except to say that there does seem to be a debate — Mary Pemberton has written several articles about this project, including one here about jewelers opposing it on environmental grounds, and one here (the one that Badiali quotes) that’s a broader look at the project but also mentions the possible environmental impact. That second article, by the way, is only about 18 months old, and it tells us that they had planned to be done with permitting by now and into mining in 2009, which just goes to show you how quickly timelines can change for mining companies.

For more on the environmentalists side you could visit any number of sites, but here are a couple: a blog from an Alaskan environmental writer, and the website of what appears to be one of the main opponent groups, and the local news and Anchorage newspaper both cover this quite frequently. Whether or not you have an opinion on the environmental issues, it helps to know that there is a debate, and what it’s about.

According to Anglo American, “if the mine cannot be planned in a way that provides proper protections, it will not be built” … but then again, they are putting billions of dollars into this, so it could be just PR talk, I have no idea.

Badiali goes on in some detail to talk about why this stock, which does not have permits yet, will be the same kind of huge winner as other big gold mines would have been if you had invested in their owners before they got mining permits (Goldstrike, the Carlin Trend, etc., which helped to turn their miners into huge companies) …

“The multi–million dollar question: How do we know the permits will get approved?

“I have about 250 pages of research and reports sitting in my office, which I’d like to show you, regarding this massive gold deposit.

“All the research I’ve done over the past 8 months leads me to believe the State of Alaska will, in fact, issue the necessary permits.

“And the #1 reason I believe this is an absolute slam–dunk: Alaska has NEVER turned down a mining permit.”

I’ll assume that he’s right about that — I certainly know less about mining than he does, and I don’t know of any mining permits that have been rejected in Alaska … but of course, that doesn’t guarantee success with the next mine, or mean that environmental concerns couldn’t bring the dispute to the courts and derail mines that have been permitted, this is all pretty far outside my area of expertise.

There was an interesting article a couple weeks ago about regulatory changes and their impact on mine waste rules in Alaska under Bush’s EPA, and we might read into that what could happen under a potentially less mining-friendly EPA. Here’s the article, you can draw your own conclusions (it also has some general info about the “new gold rush” in Alaska, FYI).

And with such a large potential mine, it’s no surprise that there are plenty of folks in the investing punditry world who are interested — Peter Grandich has written about them many times, and it’s been covered by seekingalpha bloggers from time to time, just to note a couple resources for you.

So … this is a truly huge gold and copper resource, with potential for a very long-lived mine, and probably plenty of controversy to go along with it. I don’t know what might happen to this stock in the next ten years or so as they try to develop the site and begin mining, or what might happen to commodity prices that could alter the project, but if you’ve got some ideas, well, feel free to share them below.

guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Timo
Guest
Timo
April 21, 2009 5:32 pm

Hey, I am really interested in this discorey, I made research about it and found this company ( Hemis Corporation). Please if you have any more information about either this company or the Northern Dynasty Minerals please contact me on, tamim_attar@hotmail.com

jim turano
Guest
jim turano
April 22, 2009 10:15 am

Biggest Gold find in Alaska, and bigger than Nevada’s gold mine of Barrick? But since its so spectacular a find, and no one knows about yet, all you have to do is pay one years subscription price of $50 dollars to get the name. With all the technology we have today, it would be easy to find out the name very simply for free. The catch is the permits, and when and if it produces.
Otherwise this is a typical Hype Stock situation that is not new on Wall street, and the only ones who jump at this immediately are the novice investors who do not know any better.

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
372
JT
Guest
JT
April 22, 2009 11:51 am

I am a 33 year veteran of the mining industry. This deposit is pretty typical of the copper porphyries that contain such large quantities of metal, they usually comprise vast tonnages with modest grades.

The first sign that a deposit falls into this catagory is when the promoters always quote the amount of contained metal and never quote the in-situ grades which is the case with NAK and the Pebble Partnership. When you drill down, pardon the pun, to get at the underlying actual data you find that the grades are indeed modest to low. At say a 0.4% copper equivalent cut-off grade, the average grades per tonne for the “mineable” material above this economic cut-off are 0.46% copper, 0,37 grams (0.011 ounces) gold. By copper mining standards this copper grade is modest at best and by gold mining standards the gold grade is very low.

These super sized but low grade systems require enormous throughputs to become economic which results in very large environmental footprints. This deposit is set in a very environmentally sensitive area and it is clear that the greenies are already mobilised at a very early stage to fight this tooth and nail.

Although the Alaskan administration is pro-mining, it is clear that the Obama administration is not. In addition one must also recall the previous investment disasters when jurisdictions that had also never refused a major company’s mining application as in the case of Meridian’s Esquel Project and Barrick’s Mexican project in Argentina, Newmont’s application to exploit the Mt Quilish deposit adjacent to its existing gian Yanacocha operation, as well as Gabriel Resources’ Rosia Montana project in Romania and Crystallex’s Las Cristinas project in Venezuela that currently seem sterilised.

NAK may worth a punt but only by those who have done a real risk reward analysis.

Add a Topic
1576
Add a Topic
1576
Add a Topic
1576
M. Elizabeth Theron
Guest
April 28, 2009 1:37 pm

Thanks for your wonder insights every day, Gumshoe. You seem to be extremely knowledgeable and on top of that, you know how to write! Always a pleasure to read your aricles… Pity I cannot say the same about the people who reply or participate in the discussions. About one out of five seem to have a literacy level of above Gr. 6. One may hope they know more about stocks than about the English language – that is to say, the grammar and spelling of our poor language.

SageNot
Member
Helena
Guest
Helena
May 29, 2009 10:28 am

I agree that this would have been a great buy at $2 when it was undervalued, but now it’s over $8? Mining and drilling operations are so precarious. I’ve put it on my watchlist, but the risk, to me, seems to outweigh the potential reward.

Jim
Guest
Jim
May 29, 2009 10:35 am

Just wanted to point out that the x-vessel value of the Bristol Bay Fishery in 2008 was approximately $113,000,000. There is more than just “greenies” at stake here.

Dave
Guest
Dave
May 29, 2009 11:23 am

Until a full feasibility study is done (likely 2 years away still), I would not touch this, especially at $8. Probably not at $2.00. There are much better places to put your money in a producing gold stock like NXG or GSS that is around $2.

Disclosure: I own both of these stocks along with several other miners like AUY, HL, NG, MFN, SSRI and EGI. Obviously, I think the $1 stock of EGI is a better buy right now compared to NAK. And Rio Tinto owns a huge amount of EGI, so they likely agree with me. And there are other good miners out there, too. Buy from some of all these, not NAK.

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
Dusty
Guest
Dusty
May 29, 2009 1:56 pm

With reference to commentary about misspellings and strange grammar, it took me a long time to realize that some of the respondents to these forums speak languages we cannot name that are written with alphabets we cannot even imagine. Then consider that since English is my native language and if I want I can do it very well, I use the ‘Spell Check’ and finally (usually) correct the spell check for the strange things it often does like missing many misspellings or changing words to something not even close to the intent. Those strange things vary also depending upon if I am writing in Explorer or Yahoo. (????). Now add more variables for automatic language translation software. Recently, I was adding titles to images and picked a font that put Japanese characters (?) on the image (Tokyo skyline). DIIK. Not my idea. Had to find another font. Wonder what a Japanese person would have thought of those titles?

Charles Bruce
Guest
Charles Bruce
July 2, 2009 4:50 pm

This is for Gumshoe:

I want to congratulate you for not just hinting at a stock but giving the name and details. I am sick to death of Agora and a dozen other publications who highline..”click here for the details on the best gold stock” (or whatever other stock they are promoting). When you do so, there is a long discourse about the qualifications of some “expert” who, for a nominal amount, will give you the inside scoop in return for subscribing to his newsletter. Thanks for your great service.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
6137
Add a Topic
210
Jenae
Jenae
July 4, 2009 5:01 pm

I still think you have the wrong mine, check out Tower Hill… THM

jeff
Guest
jeff
July 6, 2009 12:37 am

I believe its Tower Hill Mine as well. In the original email it says near Anchorage. If you google a few phrases in that same original email, you can get quotes from the Anchorage Daily Times… and that Mine is Tower Hill — THM… ???
Am I missing something?

Trade
Trade
July 9, 2009 8:56 am
riopiccolo
Guest
July 12, 2009 12:25 am

what about shandong gold
?
is any one can mail me information about this company?
regards
rio

Add a Topic
210
Niko
Guest
July 12, 2009 10:22 am

Hi,

Looks like a similar letter pumping up a 10.1 million oz find, the one you mentioned above seems to far outweigh that. Like Osisko, Suliden or Doest Terrane.

Regards

Polar40
Guest
Polar40
July 16, 2009 8:11 pm

I am a hard rock geologist and after reading all about this deposit, I would say even if this is a very rich deposit of copper, gold, silver and molybdenum, it should never be mined. The planned gold leaching method uses very poisonous cyanide with acid. The area is low lying with high water table and prone to earthquakes. Even the best methods of sludge containment are high risk and will destroy the salman spawning grounds for eternity. These are the best salman fishing areas and the source of food for local people for generations. Destroying their source of food for ever will be crimnal for the sake of making profit.
With regards,
Hope you support this.

Add a Topic
1576
Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
443
Smokin' Joe
Guest
July 29, 2009 1:44 am

I’m an Alaskan gold miner as was my grandfather. I’ve never read so much crap and misinformation and lies in all my life. By the way it’s salmon, not salman you phony.

Add a Topic
210
dave
Guest
dave
August 25, 2009 1:02 pm

yes, you did do the math wrong. 94 million oz. of gold at $900.00/oz would be $846,000,000,000

Add a Topic
210
Harris S.
Guest
Harris S.
August 31, 2009 4:25 pm

if you have a thousand million you have a billion, ergo: if you have 94 million times a thousand you have 94 billion.. You are using 900 per oz however so we must reduce that figure by 10% and we have only 84 billion point six. You would bankrupt oyur company if you paid ten times the correct price for the mine. Sorry, Pal but most people are not too good at arithmetic let alone math.

Steve Bell
Guest
Steve Bell
September 7, 2009 10:46 am

I love all the fuzzy math we Americans do. 94,000,000,000.00
at 1,000 an ounce in gold alone sounds about right to me. 94 billion is still a lot of money and is bigger than many of the largest U.S. corporations that sell stock in the markets. Well anyway this stock is worth taking a look at for future profits and who knows may be the next Barrick.Combined mineral extraction times three and that is where it begins to get interesting. Even if gold drops to 500.00 an ounce the other metals will be needed for world growth in the 21 century. This is a good hedge for the future if all goes well and I said if, a big two letter word. Who knows maybe in the not to distant future paper fiat money will need to be backed by the shiny metal again to install faith in our money again. Only time will tell. Happy investing to all.

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
9
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x