Eshmun, I believe you are correct on the 3 declines being adequate for the volume of material coming to surface - 1.2Mtpa. I also agree that the issue is more likely the number of working faces required at any given time to produce that volume of UG production. Given the ore is BIF hosted, and not a typical eastern goldfields bulk-mineable granophyric dolerite - the narrower BIF-style of mineralisation would require a very large number of working faces to provide that UG tonnage, not to mention the larger volume of ore access development required for the narrower BIF-hosted mineralisation.
I thought the 3 declines were required because otherwise the working face could be too far from the decline and the tramming times in narrower development drives would not provide anywhere near the volume of production required.
I do not think they have the ounces per vertical metre payback to justify the development cost of 3 declines.
They have supersized this UG and will write-off the capitalised decline / developement costs while in the same breath say they are producing at $1,000 per ounce - which is simply financial smoke and mirrors.
Don't forget that management have form in this respect having sold Avoca to Anatolia for $1B - who 2-years later sold it back to WestGold for $150m - that was an $850m haircut for Anatolia / Alacer shareholders in two years.
So that is the context of the 'one mine' / merger talk as I see it - pump it up by capitalising and writing off excessive development costs to make a largish operation look attractive and sell it on before the market wakes up.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?