No easy ride for world's top 10 gold miners
Author: Lawrence Williams
Posted: Tuesday , 02 Oct 2012
Posted: Tuesday , 02 Oct 2012
LONDON
(MINEWEB) -
Nobody ever said mining was
easy - all kinds of things can, and probably will, go wrong with an operating
mine. And the world's top 10 gold miners, despite their years of mine-building
expertise, are no exception, with most of them experiencing significant
difficulties with one aspect or another of their operations over the past year
or so. Indeed they have, as a group, come in for a significant amount of
flak over their poor stock price performances vis a vis the gold price.
In part this is because of a perception that ever rising production costs are
eating into the profit potential generated by high gold prices, but, in truth,
most of them have seen other factors coming into play which have also led to
sometimes significant underperformance against the metal price - and even
against their own past growth patterns.
But how does one categorise
the top 10 gold miners? A common practice is to define them by
market capitalisation - see Table 1. below, but this creates some anomalies in
the pecking order - notably with companies which produce significant quantities
of other metals or minerals. Most, in fact, do so either through co- or
by-products which are very significant in some cases. Indeed in our
listing by market capitalisation we have included Freeport McMoran in second
place (a year ago it would have been top on the basis of the tabulation) which
is actually primarily a copper miner, but, as can be seen in Table 2, which
lists the major miners by annual gold output, it still classifies as one of the
world's top gold producers under any categorisation so has been included
nonetheless. In fact, of the global top 10 there are virtually none which
could nowadays be classified as a 'pure' gold miner, except perhaps Randgold Resources which has come into the top 10 by
market cap through a great growth performance and development pipeline,
although remains well out of the listing of top gold miners by gold output.
If one goes through the
individual companies in the listings one comes up with a chapter of problems
for virtually all - from delayed new project developments (Barrick Gold), major labour disputes/difficulties - Freeport, AngloGold, Gold Fields (which has slipped out of the top 10 by
market capitalisation but ranks fourth by mine output), Existing project
expansion setbacks (Goldcorp, Newcrest), Geopolitical difficulties (Newmont), Significant underperformance of major strategic
asset (Kinross). Indeed the perceived problems are such that so
far two CEO heads have rolled (Barrick Gold and Kinross) and there are rumours
that others may yet follow.
Table 1: Top 10 Gold
Mining Companies by Market Capitalisation
|
||
Rank
2012
|
Company
|
Market
Cap ($billion)
|
1
|
Barrick Gold
|
41.10
|
2
|
Freeport-McMoRan
|
37.57
|
3
|
Goldcorp
|
36.56
|
4
|
Newmont Mining
|
27.79
|
5
|
Newcrest Mining
|
22.28
|
6
|
Yamana Gold
|
14.27
|
7
|
Anglogold Ashanti
|
13.44
|
8
|
Kinross Gold
|
11.46
|
9
|
Randgold Resources
|
11.30
|
10
|
Eldorado Gold
|
10.87
|
The bigger the producer,
the more pressure there is to develop new output just to maintain production,
let alone to expand it, which has been the past pattern. With production
from older mines declining through falling grades and/or ore reserve depletion,
the pressure for replacement is enormous which means that deposits which would
not have been seen as targets, due to grade or location, only a few years ago,
are now being brought to production, so it's not surprising there are more
problems coming to the fore. Developing a mega-deposit - like Barrick's
Pascua Lama for example - creates a host of development and logistical problems
that have to be worked through.
These problems of output
maintenance through greenfield expansions in more hostile geographical, and
sometimes political, environments are at last gaining recognition and it was
noticeable that at this year's Denver Gold Forum last month, the CEOs of
virtually all the major gold miners emphasised that their companies would not
be looking at growth for growth's sake and would be closely examining all their
new and existing capital projects.
Table 2.: Top 10 Gold
Mining Companies by Gold Output
|
||
Rank
2012
|
Company
|
Gold
production (tonnes)
|
1
|
Barrick Gold
|
239.50
|
2
|
Newmont Mining
|
161.74
|
3
|
Anglogold Ashanti
|
122.75
|
4
|
Gold Fields
|
98.80
|
5
|
Goldcorp
|
78.20
|
6
|
Kinross Gold
|
74.00
|
7
|
Newcrest Mining
|
71.10
|
8
|
Polyus Gold
|
46.66
|
9
|
Freeport-McMoRan
|
42.86
|
10
|
Harmony Gold
|
40.43
|
If one compares the two
listings for the Top 10 gold miners it is particularly noticeable that the
volume of output does not necessarily correspond with the company's ranking by
market capitalisation and much of this difference, on closer examination, relates
to the perceived political risk element.
It's not for nothing that
the three top gold primary producers by market capitalisation (i.e. ignoring
Freeport) all generate the vast bulk of their production from areas that are
deemed politically safe - mostly North America and Mexico, although Newmont
drops down the list a bit because of significant output from Peru and
Indonesia. The company has been running into some problems in both these
jurisdictions.
But the political risk
element really comes to the fore with the South African gold miners - AngloGold
Ashanti, Gold Fields and Harmony. All three appear in the gold production top 10, but
only AngloGold remains in the top 10 by market cap and at a relatively low 7th place
despite it being the world's third largest gold producer after Barrick and
Newmont. Gold Fields, the fourth largest gold producer by output, fell
out of the top 10 by market cap this year due to its share price being knocked
back sharply by the South African labour disputes, which have been taking a
really ugly turn, and nationalisation debate, while Harmony - Number
10 in the gold output table - would be well down the list in market
cap. Unlike AngloGold and Gold Fields, it currently has no significant
production outside South Africa, although is looking to gold mining at Wafi and
Golpu in Papua New Guinea to provide this - but significant output there is
still a few years off. Indeed, Harmony is probably the most vulnerable of
the South African miners to gold price weakness as it has the highest cost base
given it was built through the consolidation of the assets of mostly lower
grade marginal producers. Conversely, it has perhaps the highest upside
potential should the gold price really take off.
Interestingly, developing
miners Eldorado Gold and Randgold Resources squeeze their way
into the top 10 miners by market capitalisation, although both would fall well
down the listing of gold miners by output. Both have pretensions to grow
into significant producers - and despite their main growth operations being in
areas which some would consider as having a significant political risk element,
they have strong followings among gold investors.
As for the big producers
themselves they have been stung by criticisms from the financial community
regarding their performance and their treatment of shareholders. As a
result they have virtually all become more transparent in their reporting and
have also implemented more generous dividend policies to try and improve their
appeal to investors. There is thus a good chance that in the months
ahead, assuming the gold price remains relatively strong and they follow the
policies their CEOs are promoting, that they could once again outperform the
gold price rise. They should be generating good cashflow at current gold
prices, and dividends should continue to rise as a result. They may not
offer the share price growth prospects of the better juniors in a rising gold
market, but remain a much safer investment in a flat or declining one - and
offer a yield that is comparable with that of many banks and other financial
institutions nowadays.
No comments:
Post a Comment