Couple of points to muse on from the annual report and most...

Couple of points to muse on from the annual report and most recent quarterly;

1) The language from the chairman in the annual report has changed. His last paragraph under the title 'growth' is 90% the same words and in the same order as last year. But 4 words have changed from the same spot in last years. Why change 4 words, and the title, when you have copied and pasted the other 90% of words...?

2) In the quarterly on pages 7 and 9 they are clearly referencing a larger plant than 1.1mtpa. On page 9 it is actually referenced TWICE in the same paragraph. Its clearly happening.

3) In the Quarterly there is a map / pic of the new plant. This seems to have moved / changed a fair bit in the last 6 months. ALSO at different points they talk either about an expanded plant OR new plant. This could just be grammatical? Or could they be looking at running both or in some kind of tandem?

In summary, i'm quite convinced we aren't going for a 1.1mtpa plant. My best guess is that in line with the confirmation of funding of the plant in the next few months, and more drill results from Sandy Creek in November and the promised Jericho / Eloise resource upgrade in the next few months we will be committing to a larger plant and output.

And lastly, but to be considered, i don't think the Eloise mine is that desirable from an M&A perspective. Its deep, hot and perhaps limited. BUT Jericho to me looks like it might end up being rather large, and much larger than AC and others first realized, as they have clearly stated several times. Currently going down to 500m its relatively shallow and high grade. Might it already be on other miners radars?

DYOR