Ann: Production Update and FY 2019 Guidance, page-99

Eshmun, that figure is a great illustration of the problem as I see it. The blue stopes are Ore Reserves and the green possible extensions. I note that there may be along-strike extensions at Allanson but only shorter strike extent extensions at depth at Beresford. From the Feasibility Study announcement:

Beresford:
Ore Reserve: 331,000 ounces
Reserve grade: 4.2g/t
(Taken from graphics below and text) Vertical mining: ~440m
Average orebody width: 2.7m
(Calculated) Average ounces per vertical metre: 752ozpvm
Declines: 2
Average ounces per vertical metre per decline: 376ozpvm

Allanson:
Ore Reserve: 162,000 ounces
Reserve grade: 5.7g/t
(Taken from graphics below and text) Vertical mining: ~440m
Average orebody width: 1.7m (comment - no wonder they struggle to get the tonnage out!)
(Calculated) Average ounces per vertical metre: 368ozpvm
Declines: 1
Average ounces per vertical metre per decline: 368ozpvm

Also, they have unrealistic mining dilution and mining recovery assumptions of 0.2m dilution shell and 95% orebody recovery (including pillars!) respectively.

I can't see this underground being a sub-$1,000/oz producer!

In my experience, a single decline UG operation needs >1,000ozpvm to be robust and able to make a healthy profit for the capital invested to push a decline down and pay for ore access development.

I think the numbers above show that with 3 declines, these underground developments will struggle to repay capital (unless you intend using balance sheet 'smoke and mirrors' to write it off) and also, given the narrow average widths, it will struggle to achieve 1.2Mtpa of ore production not to mention the impacts of overly optimistic mining dilution as it impacts head grade and orebody mining recovery as it impacts the critical ounces per vertical metre metric.

DYOR