What are you talking about? You asked me to view the results and have an opinion which i have done. I have explained to you in detail that i think they are fine. Do i need to count the gram-meter intercepts for you so you can prove a mute point? As I have outlined it's not a problem and the results will materially extend mine life.
"You may want to consider that they planned for AISC of $2,025 (mid-point) but are delivering $2,600 and production being about 9% below planned."Yes they ran into issues of delays to planned upgrades which i alluded to above and this was clearly communicated to market.
"That is, plans mean nothing if they miss them by a wide margin."A plan is a plan, things do not go to plan in junior mining, is this your first time in junior mininig?
"I would not be concerned about missing production but the AISC is a huge miss and is the elephant in the room ie why production is about 9% below guidance but AISC is 28% above guidance noting the higher mined grade than reserve grade should have reduced planned AISC offsetting the other processing issues they have encountered, which increased AISC, but it did no go anywhere towards offsetting."You realize that that is not a direct comparison? In fact, let me ask you a question. Did you do the exact maths in a model where you modelled out a scenario for every 0.1g/t change in grade and impact on production ounces and cost? What's your sensitivity analysis or are you literally just saying "high grade = low cost, if high grade happened why not low cost?" if that is your argument which i think it is you need to understand what feeds into AISC
"Why then is AISC about nearly 20% above plan above guidance (net after the production miss)?"As per their multiple public anouncements on this which you can go back and read at your convenience.
"You have missed that stockpiles only have a grade of 2.8 g/t less than the head grade mined to date this year."Clearly they are prioritizing putting the high grade ore through the mill. If you are not going to meet your production target why would you stockpile the high grade and produce less ounces?
"You ignore the words 'possible' and are not focused on facts.They may have had blow outs and the head grade mined grade at Riverina is 25% above ore reserve grade but the head grade has still only been 3.05 g/t in the last 6 months which is one reason the AISC is high."The blow outs I refer to are at SK, not Riverina. The feed into the mill has not been purely Riverina - this is the reason for the grade being lesser which is expected to improve. They have repeatedly stated they have processed the lower grade Missouri stockpiles in the December quarter, Riverina will continue to outperform now it's finished and SK fills the mill with lower than Riverina grade ore (through the March quarter but mostly through the June Q). The AISC is because of the mill shutdown.
"I have looked through all the detailed drill results at the back of each announcement since June 2024. They are not very exciting - again I will ask my question what proportion have a gram/metre over 25 and over 50?. Have you looked through all the detail assays?OBM had a reserve of 142k Oz @ 3.7 g/t in the areas being mined a year ago and that will have reduced a lot well below 75k oz now - what upgrade will they have next month when the assay results have not been very exciting?"This is where it really starts to unravel for you as i have already explained this. Just because YOU don't find them "Very exciting" doesn't mean they are bad results - you clearly did not understand my first post nor do you have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to this type of deposit. They are processing 850m of diamond core a day, 5950m a week, 23,800m a month - do you have any idea how many data points that is? So the answer is yes I have looked through it and given i actually understand what I am talking about i see a material mine life extension.
"142k oz is not even at 2026 planned production level. The M&I MRE from a year ago for the current mining areas are 336k Oz at a grade of 3.2g/t or a bit more than 2 years of 150k Oz pa production. These compare very unfavourable for other producers producing 100 Oz or more per year. "You're focusing on the past and you cannot see what they are drilling and as a result you have made no money on this.
"They need to spend a lot on drilling to increase resources to produce beyond 2 years and much more grade control drilling than other producers which is not going to be cheap and will cause costs to be higher than other producers."Yeah, we know, it's an exploration play as much as it is a production play.
"I do not know what their guidance for 2026 will be and its not production that is an issue instead it is AISC guidance and more to the point what AISC will actually be in 2026 (ie will it meet guidance or be worse or better). All I know is that if AISC is 10% or 20% higher than the existing 2026 guidance then the stock will drop from current levels and significantly so if its 20% higher. A higher AISC is a risk that should not be ignored and it may be a significant risk which do not seem to be recognising."You are hyperfocused on mineral inventory and AISC, you are saying "its not production that is an issue" when production and processing is part of the reason costs go up. In fact they have added a third jumbo which is excellent at Riv.
What I think you would benefit from is a model where you actually look at the cash flows the company will produce should the June run rate hold then extrapolate that over FY26 and do some peer comparisons.
Before you go on to tell me "but June is just a possiblity" well guess what, nobody knows what tomorrow holds.
Reference snippet below.
(20min delay)