Ann: Corporate Presentation - Riverina Underground Commenced, page-3

Based on the page priorities of presentation, I think Luke may be hinting to us that he now thinks the second underground development may most likely materialise from a separate decline at Riverina (slide 14) which could tackle either Northern or Southern extensions, depending on next assays.

This must surely be the most cost efficient.

That modest historical underground mining previously undertaken at Riverina to a depth of only 150 metres surprisingly yielded 99500 tonnes x 15.8 g/t = 50,000 ounces. (nice grades)
The blue (not mined) intersections adjacent to that mined block indicates to me that this same style of mineralisation is highly likely to extend right into our proposed underground plans.
(which also suggests to me that our existing underground ore reserve grade of 4.3 g/t may prove to be ultra conservative)

The Northern (or Southern) extensions could be easily accessed by way of another decline started at the base of the same pit.

Mined volumes from each of these 2 declines could potentially yield 600,000 x 4 g/t plus each (i.e.1.2 mtpa)

I then wonder … could we ever have 3 declines??
I now suspect that average head grade may prove to be closer to a 6 g/t than 4 g/t? (based on adjacent historical mined results)
I also wonder if our plant could ever be tweaked up further to 1.6 mtpa without any great drama?

If our great saviour could ever deliver on that, then I think we would be looking at a 300,000 + ounce per annum gold producer … with only another ~ 120 kilometres of genuine mineralised strike to explore for repetitions.

what a pleasant ambition to put under our pillows