|
I’ve been listening and reading a whole bunch
lately about rumors and still more rumors [they abound in the main
stream press, ehh?] – that the I.M.F. is considering either revaluing
or selling their gold bullion stocks to allegedly use the proceeds to
help the poor people in Africa. I wonder, every now and then, if anyone
has stopped to consider just who is doing all this considering? I mean,
isn’t policy relating to humanitarian aid and efforts as such
generally handled at the Presidential, Prime Ministerial or even Foreign
Relations type of departments? Stated differently, as a Canadian –
Whenever someone mentions the name of Canada’s esteemed finance
minister, the first thing that comes to my mind is not always helping
the poor in Africa or humanitarian aid, ehh? As a Canadian and with
Canada having a Parliamentary system, I would–quite logically in my
mind–expect such a directive to emanate from the Prime Minister’s
Office or possibly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since Canada’s
Parliamentary system was inherited or transplanted from Great Britain,
being a member of the Commonwealth, wouldn’t it logically stem that
such reasoning apply in the British model?
So, you see folks, when headlines like this one:
“UK
Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has voiced his support
for plans for International Monetary Fund (IMF) gold reserves to
be used to finance debt relief for the world's 70 poorest
countries.”
are broadcast around the world; silly guys like me
start thinking someone is speaking out of turn and start
questioning their motives. That’s because, in places like
Canada – with our Parliamentary traditions – there is quite
simply no precedent for the Canadian Finance Minister to
spearhead humanitarian efforts of any kind whatsoever. His job
happens to be largely budgetary or defending the currency [one
might wish to say the fiat system – but that would admittedly
be a stretch, or would it?], which strangely enough, is exactly
what gold sales would have the effect of doing.
The
Conspiracy Theory
Forgetting the notion - for a minute - that the
above looks to me like a square peg in a round hole; instead, let’s look at the argument and judge it on
its own merits. Brown claims that his intentioned IMF gold sales
are primarily supposed to help poor countries in Africa. Well
the guys over at GATA,
like Bill Murphy, generally believe that, if anyone were truly
concerned about the welfare of impoverished Africans they would
discontinue their [alleged] covert gold sales allowing the price
to rise to a level commensurate with natural supply and demand.
A gold price two or three hundred dollars higher would go a long
way to opening new mines in sub-Saharan Africa [where a
substantial amount of the world’s known gold reserves are
located]. A significantly higher gold price would lead to substantially higher gold
producer profitability. Some pundits have estimated this could
put as many as 100,000 miners back to work. Each miner supports
10 to 12 dependents. Then, you have the economic multiplier
effect from this increased gold mining activity and so on. I
ask you, is this, or is it not a compelling argument.
| The GATA people then go on to add: Stories like
this are not new and regularly appear in the mainstream
financial press. It has been widely speculated by GATA
that these ubiquitous stories about “special
gold sales” quite likely pose as cover for
central bank reconciliation of gold that has already
left the vaults, so to speak, whose return is
impractical without creating a short squeeze in gold –
imperiling the bullion banks, their clients and the
global financial system at large. As usual, clarity from
official sources on this front is NEVER forthcoming. So
what do you think now?
Well, here’s what I had the presence of mind to
think and do in response to the above argument: At the
recent international mining convention [PDAC], held in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada [which I reported on for FinancialSense.com]
– I decided to pay a visit to the South African
Department of Minerals and Energy booth, to speak with
someone there, on the record, regarding this issue.
There I met Abe Mngomezulu, Ms. Bansi and spoke at length with
Mr. Harding regarding the situation of proposed IMF gold
sales.
Let it be known that I’m most concerned and
sensitive to the fact that Trevor
Manuel [S.A. Finance Minister] has recently come out in
favor of, shall we say, “responsible dishoarding of IMF gold
stocks” to help the poor. It is not the intention of this
article to find someone within the government of South Africa to
‘drive a wedge’ or directly contradict what the esteemed
minister is on the record supporting to score a political point. |

Rob Kirby
with Anthony Harding at PDAC 2005

Mr. Abe Mngomezulu, Deputy Director General
Dept. Of Minerals & Energy, South Africa |
What I was seeking, was some input from someone with their feet
on the ground, who interacts with the mining industry and
government, who can see and feel the real effects of
oscillations in the gold price first hand – and more
importantly, what effects its having on the population. Instead
of theorizing about the effects of a lower gold price or what
more gold sales might do to the market, I decided to ask Anthony
Harding, Deputy Director in the Mineral Economics Directorate of
South Africa's Department of Minerals and Energy. Here’s the
unedited version of what he had to say:
|
The
Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth
Whichever
way you look at it, the sale of approximately 900 tons
of gold from IMF reserves is bound to have some negative
influence on the gold market. This would be unfortunate
for producers of the metal worldwide as the gold price
is currently in a rising bull trend after spending about
a decade in the doldrums; but miners based in South
Africa and elsewhere in Africa are likely to feel the
pinch the most.
The
South African gold mining industry is more than a
century old. Gold has played a pivotal role in
developing the South African economy both directly
through monetary earnings from bullion sales, which at
one stage supplied the international banking system with
the bulk of its reserve of last resort, and indirectly
through spin-off effects which generated the birth of
other important domestic sectors in the economy, such as
financial services and manufacturing.
Although
statistics show that South Africa has produced well over
40 000 tons of gold since the beginning of gold mining
in the country and some 35 000 tons still remain in the
ground to be exploited, the mining of most of these
resources has been put at risk by a domestic rand
currency that has strengthened against the US dollar by
over 40% during the course of 2004.
As
it is symptomatic of increased foreign investment in the
country, the stronger rand is generally believed by most
experts to be good for the economy. It has curbed
inflation, generated much needed economic growth through
higher levels of domestic investment and raised the
level of optimism in most non-export sectors of the
economy. Unfortunately, it has become very unpopular
with the export sector, especially gold mining.
Profitability on the gold mines has been squeezed from
both sides: by falling rand revenues and rising costs,
and the marginal operations in particular have suffered
badly.
The Economics of Mining Deep
Gold
Given
the recent performance of the gold price, which appears
to have run out of steam in its latest bull trend and
assuming that a stronger rand has come to stay, the
future of gold mining in South Africa faces an uncertain
future as most of the higher grade resources of gold
remaining in the ground will have to be mined from
depths greater than 4 kilometers below the surface.
Under this scenario these resources are unlikely to be
developed unless the gold price increases to above $500
per ounce and stays there, underground mining costs are
reduced considerably by the introduction of new, less
expensive technology and finally, an important change
occurs in the domestic economy over which the mining
industry has no control, namely: the monopolies in
certain key sectors supplying services to the mining
industry disappear and make way for a more open and
competitive domestic economy.
If
the current and previous bull trends in the gold price
are anything to go by, a steady price for gold of over
$500 per ounce is not on the cards. Furthermore, most of
the research and development conducted during the
previous 20 years that has borne any fruit has been
focused on opencast mining and metallurgy. The prospects
of ever mining gold at ultra-deep levels (depths greater
than 4 kilometers below surface) are thus becoming ever
more remote. Clearly then, IMF sales of bullion from
their reserves could be another negative event adding to
the unlikelihood of a major recovery in South Africa’s
gold mining industry ever occurring in the long-term
future. Under this scenario it is extremely likely that
within 20 years the country’s newly mined production
could be contributing less than 100 tons of gold per
annum to world coffers.
If
the role played by gold in the South African economy is
crucial, its importance as an exploited mineral resource
to many other emerging economies elsewhere on the
African continent is even more critical: Sub Saharan
Africa (including South Africa) which has already
produced over 40% of all the gold mined in the world to
date and contains more than 50% of the world’s
identified gold resources also accounts for about a
third of current global gold output per annum.
The
new mines that have sprung up on the African continent
during the last 10 years or more are usually at shallow
depths and of an open pit nature These mines, which are
spread throughout sub-Saharan Africa, from west to east,
have received a much needed boost in earnings from gold
sales as a result of the higher gold price without the
deleterious effects of a strengthening local currency to
erode the revenue streams.
A Delicate Balance
Many
sub-Saharan countries fall into the heavily indebted
category and thus intervention in the gold market
through an event, such as IMF bullion sales, could have
unintended consequences for those countries at the
critical juncture of relying on the performance of their
gold mining industries to encourage sustainable economic
growth. Released from an inextricable debt burden or
not, under a falling gold price scenario they would be
unable to reap the hard won fruits of their economical
aspirations in the future.
The
most progressive of Africa’s newly liberated
economies, most of which are also the most democratic in
outlook depend a great deal on gold to advance the cause
of their economic development. That these economies
should be seriously thwarted in attempting to elevate
their economical and political performances to ever
higher levels in an era favouring rampant globalization
is therefore definitely not a desideratum.
It
seems to me that Africa’s developing economies having
exploitable gold resources in the ground to call upon
would benefit more by extracting and selling this gold
in a market characterized by a rising gold price than
from handouts received as a result of central bank gold
sales, which may well restrict further upward mobility
in the price. African countries should be allowed to
develop their economies independently depending on their
own new found strengths rather than be expected to rely
on the largesse of the IMF which is mainly controlled by
first world countries that have long neglected the
economic problems plaguing the African continent.
Altruism
appears to be behind proposals to sell gold from IMF
reserves in the current gold bull market. But, one
wonders how altruistic would these proponents of sales
be about selling their bullion in a gold bear market |
So there you
have it folks, right from the horse's mouth – or at least
someone who is ‘there’ – on the scene with his feet on the
ground. Now you may all play the part of judge and jury as to
who’s delivering the straight goods on this subject.

©
2005 Rob Kirby
Editorial Archive
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Rob Kirby
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Email
|