Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-10

Just for a bit of fun, and with too much time on my hands....I've just been looking at the numbers on all relevant recorded intersections at Eloise over the last year. For ease, not accuracy, I have averaged widths and grade, and also location and then mapped this onto the 'quarterly outlook' projections for the forward quarters based on location and the %'s announced ore production from each location for the next quarter. I have only gone back 12 months so these numbers may be wildly wrong, and perhaps not representative at all, but i think they can be used as a guide....i may be missing plenty of variables, well I 100% know I am (!) but I'm just wildly speculating not for the quarter we are in but the next one, the June quarter. Really I'm looking for a comparison for Lens 6.

So nameplate capacity at Eloise is 725,000t pa. Last quarter they processed 65,000t (at a run rate of 780,000t per annum, significantly above nameplate) producing 3,759t which is Cu at 5.79% on the 65,000t of processed ore.
The average grade from the areas announced to be mined in the last quarter (announced by percentages in October presentation) by my above numbers was 2.6%. And yet the result was 5.79% in yesterdays report. Now I get you probably mine the higher grade ore and perhaps tip the rubbish away etc but my point is about Lens 6.

The published average reserve grade of Eloise is around 2% Cu. But this quarter it produced at 5.79%.
The published average reserve grade of Lens 6 (22,000t of Cu) is 3%. Using the same maths i did for Eloise drill results i came in at 4.6% for Lens 6 based on 12 months of drill results (my methodology was the same but might be very wrong / inaccurate or plain dodgy!) Forgetting this quarter where 11% will come from Lens 6, and perhaps lower grade, and i appreciate Lens 6 is 11.6km to the ROM, but having gone through the results and the recent 'Eloise' quarter i think its possible that from April if AIC were to be able to access a higher % of ore from Lens 6, say 30 - 50% (? really not sure this is possible) then working at 65,000t output and the difference between 2.6% and 4.6% (Eloise general v Lens 6) and then applying the 2% and 3% stated in reserves one comes out with some pretty interesting numbers.

In summary, and using my pretty awful maths, if they even manage to source 30% of their ore from Lens 6 in the next (June) quarter they might hit 4,000 - 4,500t of Cu that quarter. Possibly a little higher even.

What might this mean? A fall in cash from $26.7m now to $25m end of this quarter (no regional drilling hence less $ spent?) to $34-36m end of June. Just wild numbers so please don't believe or rely on them but they are roughly based on the above. Not massive but would be pretty reassuring and positive in this environment. A significant Cu price fall would clearly affect this.

I also wonder how much recent selling has been from the previous acquisitions shareholders selling, very hard to know. Just googled on this and it said on average it settles like a bell curve over two years in resources, with a higher starting point by volume. Might mean that if this has been a factor recently then it might fall away soon?

Could be tasty. I must be bored, and i am purely speculating on the back of the last few quarters of management under promising and over delivering. And to be clear I'm speculating about next quarter not the one we are in.

Perhaps my main motivation is in October guidance was from 3,000 - 3,200t this last quarter. They beat this by over 20% using 2% 'published' ore....I'm just speculating what AC might under promise and over deliver on Lens 6 ore.

The above is probably just rubbish. Don't believe it, but i do like under promising CEO's and reports mentioning fingers.