How Mining Companies Improve Share Price by Destroying Shareholder Value Or - How the Junior Geologist and Engineer Determine the CEO?s Bonus

For some years, the mining industry has been consistently delivering returns below the market average. One of the causes is a disconnect between what is perceived to drive value creation by many industry analysts and senior corporate executives, and what actually drives the intrinsic value of mining operations. The perverse effect is that strategies that should increase value are perceived to have the potential to drive share prices down, and vice versa. This paper challenges common perceptions of what drives a mining company?s value. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the key drivers of value in the market, and hence in many boardrooms, are such things as increasing the reserves and production rate, and reducing unit operating cost. However, while the quoted reserves may satisfy ore reserves reporting code requirements to be economic, this does not imply that they are optimal. Often, a proportion of the quoted reserve reduces the potential value of the operation. Metal price increases, increased production rates, and operating cost reductions are all seen as conditions or actions that can improve value, and lead to cutoff grade reductions, thereby increasing ore reserves. However, modern cutoff theory and studies conducted by the author and his colleagues show clearly that, while breakeven cutoff grades will fall in these circumstances, optimum cutoffs may be much less volatile, and may even increase. Results from case studies indicate that value is maximised by right-sizing, not maximising, the production capacities, and by optimising the cutoff strategy. Values of many existing underground mining operations can be increased significantly by a substantial cutoff grade increase. Also, an increase in downside risk, and hence reduced returns, can occur using typical life-of-mine planning strategies if prices received are lower than predicted. Since this is often the case, low industry returns may be a direct result of typical strategic mine planning processes. Relatively simple cost-effective techniques are available to provide senior decision makers with information needed to assess the tradeoffs between their many conflicting corporate goals, and the balance between risk and reward. Often this information is not being generated at all. If it is, decisions affecting the value of the company are occurring by default at relatively low levels within the hierarchy, with senior executives apparently unaware of them or their potential impact. The paper concludes that without a re-evaluation of the way mining projects are valued, to demand proven value optimisation from mining plans by boards and mining analysts, the industry will continue to deliver below average returns.