Sehr gründliche und interessante Arbeit, in der einiges u.a. klargestellt wird: Selbst die inzwischen bekannten AISC werden sehr unterschiedlich von den Minen ausgelegt; die meisten Seniores arbeiten weitaus unwirtschaftlicher als offiziell gezeigt.
Es werden einige Beispiele großer Produzenten berechnet. Die großen Produzenten haben seit 2003 überwiegend relativ unwirtschaftlich gearbeitet, Details im Artikel...
"...Based on these three examples, we submit that current standards remain non-universal, confusing, and inadequate to determine the real cost of mining gold....
The problem with all-in sustaining cost as a universal measure is that the individual companies have great latitude in classifying what are sustaining costs and what are project capital expenditures. Basically, accountants can legally “cook the books” to make a company appear more profitable than it really is. Also, if a mine is “high-graded” to increase production for a short period, reported costs can be temporarily skewed....“
Der Autor mit (m.E. zutreffender) Schlußfolgerung insgesamt:
„Mining is a value industry. It is not and it has never been a growth industry.
In order to reach sustainable profitability, gold miners must adopt a core philosophy of producing only those ounces that return robust cost margins and cease trying to grow production and reserves in order to placate analysts and investors for the next earnings statement.
Given this new paradigm, gold production would increase when gold prices are higher and decrease when gold prices are lower. In that scenario and no matter where we are in the commodity price cycle, companies would remain profitable throughout.
Gold miners must focus on quality of ounces verses quantity of ounces produced...“
http://www.mining.com/web/the-real-cost-of-mining-gold/
Grüsse
Edel