Michael Fowler is a senior mining analyst with Loewen,
Ondaatje, McCutcheon in Toronto and he was more than willing to
speculate on potential takeovers in this exclusive interview
The Gold Report.
"All of these gold producers are going to be active in the
mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market. They are going to
acquire because there's a huge amount of cash on their balance
sheets," he says. Michael also talks about some undervalued names
in his coverage universe, including one junior he thinks could
climb 210% before year-end.
The Gold Report:
Michael, please tell us a little bit about Loewen, Ondaatje,
LOM Ltd. is the oldest independent research boutique on Bay
Street. It's been around for 40 years or so. What we are today is
an institutional broker that focuses on small- to mid-cap mining
issues. We also do high tech and biotech.
There is certainly a lot of room for growth in those sectors.
Today, we're focusing on potential takeovers and mergers among
Canadian junior gold companies. Last week,
Goldcorp Inc. (TSX:G; NYSE:GG)
sold its 10% stake in
Osisko Mining Corp. (
for $530 million. What did you make of that deal?
I think it was telegraphed by Goldcorp to some degree, but what
interests me is the timing of that transaction. I suspect that
Goldcorp probably didn't want to wait until Osisko's Canadian
Malartic mine in Quebec went into production. Mines that go into
production have huge amounts of risk. Also, I would speculate
that Goldcorp is certainly in the market for other assets. It's
an interesting transaction.
Well, it's not like Goldcorp is cash-poor. Have you heard
anything on Bay Street about potential targets?
Goldcorp is reviewing targets all the time. I wouldn't be
surprised to see the company pop its head up and look at
Ventana Gold Corp. (TSX:VEN)
, for example, even at this late stage. There are other targets
that it also might go after, which might suit its portfolio. I
haven't heard of anything specific.
One common tack of majors like Goldcorp or mid-tier producers
Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. (TSX:AEM; NYSE:AEM)
is to take a stake in a junior, get a look at the drill core and
the deposit models and get a seat on the board. Do you know if
Goldcorp has any seats on junior boards?
I'm not aware of any particular boards on which the company sits.
I wouldn't be surprised if it had stakes under the 5% threshold,
which it doesn't have to report. The company took an equity
interest in Gold Eagle Mines, which it took over a couple of
years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it had equity stakes all
around the industry actually.
Despite about a 30% upswing in the gold price over last year,
Goldcorp shares traded between $37 and $49. Over the same period,
it's a similar story with
Barrick Gold Corporation (TSX:ABX; NYSE:ABX)
with its shares roughly trading from $37-$56. Those aren't bad
gains but if Goldcorp were to take over something substantial,
would that dramatically move the needle with those majors? Or are
we going to need a merger of a couple of those large gold
companies for that to happen?
First of all, let's talk about mergers of big gold companies. In
my opinion, that really doesn't create any value. You can look at
Barrick Gold as an example. Since 1993, Barrick really hasn't
created much in terms of shareholder value, despite several large
takeovers. Although mergers may occur, I think the big gold
companies realize that getting too big is not all that
Secondly, a gold company would be more likely to take over a
deposit, because there's great value enhancement from taking an
undeveloped, or developed, project through to production.
Companies gain accretion from that; they just can't pay too much
for those assets. Some big gold companies have been paying a high
price for some of those assets and may not benefit much from the
acquisitions. Goldcorp's Andean Resources acquisition is a good
example. Gold producers are going to be active in the mergers and
acquisitions market. They're going to acquire because there's a
huge amount of cash on their balance sheets.
You mentioned Goldcorp buying Gold Eagle, but there have been
some other transactions in Canada's junior gold space. In 2011,
Osisko took out Brett Resources, and
Kinross Gold Corp. (TSX:K; NYSE:KGC)
bought Underworld Resources. In 2007, Agnico acquired Cumberland
Resources and its Meadowbank gold project, which is now a gold
mine in Nunavut. The latter deals involved mid-tier producers
buying some promising gold projects in mining-friendly
jurisdictions. Do you see more of these deals happening in 2011?
Is that part of your investment thesis in terms of your coverage
Not really. I do see some potential takeovers by those sorts of
Detour Gold Corporation (
might be an example. Its shares are very highly priced;
therefore, it may take over lower-priced or lower-valued shares
of another company in an all-share takeover.
I see the Osisko-Brett takeover as being a weak transaction.
You don't tend to get a non-producer taking over another
non-producer unless it has some risks associated with its own
deposit being brought into production. The biggest upside for
Osisko, in my view, would've been just to get its mine into
production and not bother taking over other producers. I see that
type of transaction as being rather sporadic. If there are
takeovers, we're more likely to see a big gold producer or a
mid-sized gold producer taking over a company that has a gold
project close to the feasibility-study stage.
That's twice you've alluded to potential problems with Osisko's
Canadian Malartic Mine. Do you believe there could be issues
It's not that I believe there are fundamental problems for Osisko
at Malartic. It's just that the company is mining a very
low-grade deposit. If it's wrong on the grade that goes through
the mill by 10%, then there's a lot of risk associated with it.
There aren't that many open-pit gold deposits in Canada. I just
find Goldcorp's timing in disposing of its shares
I would suspect that people like Osisko CEO Sean Roosen were none
too happy with Goldcorp selling at this point, but let's move on
to your coverage area and some small- and micro-cap names. You
have a Speculative Buy rating on
Fire River Gold Corp. (TSX.V:FAU; OTCQX:FVGCF)
with a 12-month target price of $1.40. Considering the company is
currently trading at around $0.53, that would be a gain of more
than 210%. FAU is scheduled to relaunch production at the Nixon
Fork Gold Mine in Alaska later this year. It bought the property
Saint Andrews Goldfields (
was forced to close the mine in 2007 due to production problems.
What makes you think Fire River has solved those problems?
First of all, let's talk a little bit about St. Andrew. These
comments are not really about today's St. Andrew because it's a
different company now than in the past. But previously, St.
Andrew had a pretty poor mining record. It also had problems with
another project in the Timmins area of Ontario. I think that in
those days St. Andrew's management was heavily weighted toward
miners and less so toward geological engineers. The real problem
at Nixon Fork was the lack of understanding of the deposit's
geology. By the way, St. Andrew wasn't the only operator of the
Nixon Fork Mine. Consolidated Nevada Goldfields Corporation (now
Real del Monte Mining Corporation, a private company) operated
the mine in the 1990s and actually made profits.
Moving forward to today, what can Fire River do differently
from St. Andrew? One point is that it has a little bit of time.
Financial obligations forced the company to produce, but Fire
River actually has time to do some drilling. It's currently doing
28,000 meters of drilling in order to really understand the Nixon
Fork ore body-that is the key to that operation. It's a very
low-tonnage mine, so the company needs to have good control over
the geology. That's the focus that Fire River is taking and I'm
betting that it's going to get that right. The mere fact that
there are very high-grade resources is going to give Fire River
some leeway if it has any problems associated with the grade.
In your discounted cash flow (DCF) model for Fire River, you used
a 5% discount rate and a $1,400/oz. gold price. I would say,
generally, that the discount rate is a little bit low and the
gold price is probably a little high. Why did you choose those
The discount rate has always been a topic of conversation in the
industry. What discount rate does one use? Traditionally,
analysts use 5% discount rates for gold companies; and, actually,
some use 0% as a discount rate. The reason is that the DCF method
is very inflexible. It doesn't really tell you the potential for
increases in reserves or resources or the potential for rises in
the gold price. Therefore, if you do a DCF of 5% on a lot of
producers, you'll find that they actually trade at premiums to
that discount rate. In fact, I use 5% on just about every company
What about the $1,400/oz. gold price?
I don't think that's a bad gold price to use. I think we're going
to soon see gold closer to $1,400/oz., and then a year later, it
will be over $1,400/oz. I'm bullish on gold. I don't see any
reason to change that view. I guess the biggest risk on gold is
interest rate hikes. I just don't think that's going to happen. I
think that $1,400/oz. is a very good price to use; but, even if
gold went to $900/oz., I still believe Fire River would make a
small but reasonable profit.
Fire River released its Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) of
the Nixon Fork Project on February 17. We can also expect to see
drill results from that 28,000m drill program you mentioned. What
are you expecting from that scoping study?
I'm expecting a robust scoping study. It may not show the same
level of net asset value (
) that we calculated because the NAV that we calculated assumes
some additions to the resource. So I think the scoping study will
be a little bit less than the NAV we've used. The other thing is
that the scoping study will use $1,200/oz. gold, not $1,400/oz.
gold. Nevertheless, I think we're going to see a fairly robust
situation. I do have to warn people that we may not see the same
level of value that we calculated because we used a higher gold
price. We also assumed that Fire River would find extra resources
through the drilling that's taking place.
You're projecting $36 million in cash flow in 2012 once Nixon
Fork reaches production. Do you believe Fire River could become a
takeover target at that point, or is that scenario is more likely
before Fire River reaches production?
No, I don't think it's going to happen before the company reaches
production. I want to point out that there's a lot of skepticism
out there about this story. We're banking on it working out. That
is probably one of the most fundamental reasons to buy the stock
right now. It could be a takeover target if it's successful in
production. But I have a feeling that it might be the acquirer
down the road rather than the acquired. Fire River will be a
relatively small producer; if it works out as we expect, the
company may be in the market for a merger with another small
That's certainly not the only company you cover. You have
Speculative Buy ratings on
Richfield Ventures Corp. (TSX.V:RVC)
Clifton Star Resources Inc. (TSX.V:CFO)
Fortune Minerals Limited (
. Why do you like those stories?
Let's start with Richfield, which has drilled about 100 holes in
Blackwater Gold Project-a low-grade, bulk-tonnage target. It's
had consistently good results and I it looks to me as though
we're heading toward 4 million ounces (Moz.) or more in the
ground for that deposit. We haven't had a resource estimate from
the company, but the company is planning a PEA in the fall. I
suspect that we're going to get some very good numbers from that
study. Richfield is trading at a fairly low valuation, and with
further drilling I expect to see that increase.
Richfield has had some impressive drill results at Blackwater.
One was 72 meters of 1.6 grams per ton (g/t) gold; another
returned 183m of just a little over 1 g/t gold. Those results
would indicate a bulk-tonnage target, but what is the ownership
Silver Quest Resources Ltd. (TSX.V:SQI)
? Richfield optioned that property from Silver Quest, but it's
not quite that clear-cut, is it?
Well, it's pretty clear-cut. The northern half of the project is
actually part of a 75/25 joint venture (JV) with Silver Quest.
But the bottom half of the project is 100% owned by Richfield
Ventures and most of the drilling has been on the ground that
Richfield owns. Now, I suspect that the two parties are talking
to try to get the best value for their shareholders from that
deposit. In the future, I think you may well see some news
regarding a revised deal with Silver Quest for the northern half
of the deposit.
Please tell us about Clifton Star.
Clifton Star Resources is working on the Destor Porcupine fault
zone on the Quebec side of the border with Ontario. The Destor
Porcupine fault has produced more than 100 Moz. gold, so we're
onto a great location. The infrastructure is there and it's in
Quebec, the best location in the world for finding a mine.
Osisko is actually earning a 50% interest in this project.
Clifton Star is trying to find a large, bulk-tonnage deposit. At
the moment, it has close to 3 Moz. gold in terms of NI 43-101
reports. But, quite frankly, I think we could be well over 5 Moz.
as a result of the drilling done with Osisko. Again, this is an
undervalued situation. I see some upside potential in Clifton
Maybe one more for our readers?
I'd just like to mention Fortune Minerals, which is a different
type of story. Fortune has two deposits. One is a
gold-cobalt-bismuth deposit in the Northwest Territories, which
has about 1 Moz. gold. The other is a coal project in BC. The
coal project is interesting because coal is very hot right now.
The price of metallurgical coal is about $250/ton. Fortune's coal
contracts are being written as we speak, so that coal deposit is
very valuable. Fortune's NICO Deposit in the Northwest
Territories is totally undervalued in terms of our DCF model. I
would say there's about $5 of value in those two projects, and
that's not even using today's prices of coal, cobalt or gold. We
are really excited about that company.
Most of the companies you like have projects in Canada, as you
said, it's one of the most mining-friendly places in the
I like Canada. Richfield is in a good spot; it's close to
infrastructure. Clifton Star is close to infrastructure.
Infrastructure at Fortune Minerals, however, is not as good;
though it is in Canada. I'm very bullish on Canada.
What can our readers expect in terms of the number, or size, of
deals that could happen this year? Of course, it's pure
speculation but what do you think will happen?
I think there are going to be a lot of deals in the $1-$10
billion range and maybe even down to the $500 million range. I
expect a lot of activity. The big gold producers are looking for
good deposits with some upside potential, but one of the best
ways of generating shareholder value is through exploration, not
acquisition-resource expansion by the drill bit. So, look for
bigger exploration budgets from these gold producers. It makes a
lot of sense economically; it just takes time to generate a
Thank you for talking with us today, Michael.
Michael Fowler, senior mining analyst with
Ondaatje, McCutcheon Ltd.
, has worked in the investment industry since 1987 as a base
and precious metals mining analyst for numerous high-profile
firms. His coverage list includes the major North American gold
mining companies. Previously, Michael worked as a geophysicist
involved in mineral exploration for 10 years. He was involved
in the discovery of the high-grade Cigar Lake uranium mine in
Northern Saskatchewan in the early 1980s. Michael holds an MBA
from Cranfield University, UK, an M.Sc in mineral exploration
from Leicester University, UK, as well as a B.Sc in geology
with geophysics from Liverpool University, UK. He is a member
of the Institution of Materials in the UK and a member of the
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Want to read more exclusive
interviews like this?
for our free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles
have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with
industry analysts and commentators, visit our
1) Brian Sylvester of
The Gold Report
conducted this interview. He personally and/or his family own
shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview:
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are
The Gold Report:
Goldcorp, Detour Gold, Fire River Gold and Richfield Ventures.
3) Michael Fowler: I personally and/or my family own shares of
the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I
personally and/or my family am not paid by the following
companies mentioned in this interview: None. LOM has acted as a
financial advisor to: Fire River Gold, Richfield Ventures Corp.
and Fortune Minerals and has received a fee for services
is Copyright © 2011 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are
reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted
license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only
in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never
The GOLD Report does not render general or specific investment
advice and does not endorse or recommend the business, products,
services or securities of any industry or company mentioned in
From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its
directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as
well as persons interviewed for articles on the site, may have a
long or short position in securities mentioned and may make
purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or
Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or
thoroughness of the information reported.
Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are
listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their
sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1734.
Participating companies provide the logos used in The Gold
Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the
Streetwise Reports LLC
P.O. Box 1099
Kenwood, CA 95452
Tel.: (707) 282-5593
Fax: (707) 282-5592