Simplistically SAR is a fully funded, larger project at lower...

Simplistically SAR is a fully funded, larger project at lower grade and similar cost (post power supply) vs IGR which is smaller, higher grade, but has not secured funding yet and requires more capital to get the mine going. SAR's lower grade is offset by greater volume processed and much lower strip so operating costs are similar overall. SAR's EV (net of cash) is $38m vs $97m for IGR. SAR has more reserves, both have similar resources. Exploration upside for both. The graph's in IGR's quarterly tell the story. In slightly more detail (first SAR then IGR):

Market cap: $70m (SAR) vs $115m (IGR)

Cash: $32m vs $18m

EV: $38m vs $97m

Plant size: 2.4mt vs 1.1mt

Capital cost: $37-42m (incl power) vs $64m

Debt facility: $20m vs nil

Cash cost: $640oz but c.$570oz once power supplied reflected in capital cost above vs $575oz

Annual production: 100-120K vs 75K

Initial production: March 2010 vs TBC

Mine status: Previous mine vs new development

Hedging: nil vs nil

Reserves: 580K oz at 1.7g/t vs 320K oz at 3.1g

Gold price assumption: $1,250/oz vs $1,250/oz

Strip ratio (incl pre-strip): 5.5x vs 7x

Strip ration (excl pre-strip): 1.5x vs 5x

Resources: 2.0m oz at 1.8g vs 1.8m oz at 2.7g/t

Mine life Stage 1: 3-5 years vs 4 years

Stage 2 target: Additional 3-5years vs 6 years

My opinion (and it is only that) is SAR is significantly better long term value. IGR still needs to raise the capital to build the mine/plant. SAR is at least 6 months ahead in timing. However, both use A1,250/oz in their reserve estimates which is $100 above spot. I expect overhang in SAR for a while yet, and IGR still needs to raise more capital. In my view short term downside exists for both, but assuming gold holds around current prices both represent good long term value, with SAR offering better upside but slightly higher risk due to the lower grades (offset by higher volume, low strip and recent production history)

Just my opinion
Monty