Ann: Operational Update, page-44

As I understand it with AISC there is both a numerator (the "sustaining"costs) and a quotient (the number of ounces sold) - both are important.

Taking the numerator it does not include "non sustaining costs" such as exploration on "green field" locations but does include amortized costs in "brown" fields areas such as existing mining. ASIC's biggest weakness is that it doesn't clearly demarcate the difference between growth costs and sustaining costs - it's in the eye of the beholder. For example, a mining company can consider the cost incurred in finding additional reserves in the pre-existing mining area as a sustaining cost (I think OBM does) as it increases the mine life, which can be confused and challenged as growth cost. AISC also doesn’t clearly address controversial co-product reporting. An issue is moving what are really "sustaining" costs into "green field" allocation which are not "sustaining" and thus not in the AISC.

In the quotient - some miners use gold sold (this is the World Gold Council standard used by OBM) but others don't (they use gold produced) but put in a footnote to that effect which is often missed

The biggest issue is that the World Gold Council is not a regulatory agency and the number is not audited.

I also think that many on HC do not also know the difference between profit (which uses depreciation) and cash generation (which doesn't) - right now OBM need cash to use to open up higher grade resources to increase the mill head grade and reserves that give a good recovery. That's probably why they are not opening up Sand King (estimated as 85% recovery) and Riverina has a pit wall collapse (which they are remediating but (at least for now) not mining).