Worldwide Nonferrous Exploration Budgets Rise to $12 billion
Metals Economics Group’s 21st Corporate Exploration Strategies study
RESPONDING TO RISING prices and more stable market conditions, most companies increased their exploration budgets in 2010*, resulting in a 44% rise in the estimated worldwide exploration total for 2010 according to Metals Economics Group’s (MEG) 21st
edition of Corporate Exploration Strategies
(CES). The estimated total 2010 budget for nonferrous
metals exploration reached US$12.1 billion, reinstating almost two-thirds of the industry’s US$6 billion in cuts to exploration in 2009. After rising for six straight years to an all-time high
of US$14.4 billion in 2008, nonferrous exploration budgets dropped 42% in 2009 as the global economic crisis and declining prices for almost all commodities took their toll on the industry. Metals prices – the primary driver of exploration spending – have improved markedly since bottoming in early 2009, and have traded well above their long- term trends throughout 2010. In response, major, intermediate, and junior companies have all increased their aggregate exploration allocations in 2010. In particular, the significant improvement in the availability of equity financings for the juniors over the past 12-18 months has allowed this group to account for the largest share of the overall increase in exploration spending this year. As one would expect in a
year in which exploration spending jumped 44%, most countries saw year-on-year increases in allocations (2010 CES documents exploration allocations in 125 individual countries). However, the industry’s overall appetite for risk has not returned to levels prior to the economic downturn. Companies continue to face the threat of resource nationalism, as more countries openly consider or enact windfall and resource rent taxes, increase royalties, or impose other controls on foreign companies such as revoking or freezing licenses for “review.” As a result, exploration in a number of countries considered to be higher risk continued to fall in 2010, despite the sharp rise in overall exploration, while other countries with elevated risk profiles showed only modest increases far below the global average. In addition, early-stage exploration,
Estimated Global Nonferrous Exploration Budgets & Indexed Metals Price*, 1996-2010**
* The indexed metals price represents a blend of the relative changes in a basket of
metals prices weighted by the percentage of exploration expenditures dedicated to each metal by the industry as reported in MEG’s CES studies. This weighting acts as a proxy
for the relative importance of each metal within the mining and exploration industry at a given time. **Relative prices for 2010 are based on the average through September.
Source: Metals Economics Group MEG’s 2010 exploration estimate is based on information collected from more
than 3,200 mining and exploration companies worldwide, of which more than 2,200 had exploration budgets in 2010. These 2,200 companies (each budgeting at least US$100,000) have together budgeted US$11.51 billion for nonferrous exploration in 2010, which we estimate covers about 95% of worldwide commercially oriented nonferrous exploration budgets. Including our estimates
for all budgets that we could not obtain, the 2010 worldwide exploration budget total reaches more than US$12.1 billion.
which is the most mobile and tends to be cut first when risk levels rise (or tolerance for risk declines), has all but dried up in many of these countries, with explorers remaining focused on advanced projects and mines that are much harder to abandon. •
Corporate Exploration Strategies: 2010 report. US dollars used throughout.
* (Nonferrous exploration refers to expenditures related to precious and base metals, diamonds, uranium, and some industrial minerals; it specifically excludes iron ore, aluminium, coal, and oil and gas.)
Details about CES can be found at:
www.metalseconomics.com
December 2010 77
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96