Ann: Operational Update, page-47

I'm really not attempting to preach to you but I think you need to understand the difference between "sustainable" (in AISC) and "non sustainable" - its a lot in the eye of the beholder. AISC is NOT "overall cost to produce the ounce" its the cost of producing an ounce establish reserve - there is a difference - it does NOT include green fields exploration and a number of other non sustaining costs and subject to interpretation.

The other major issue is that AISC is a World Gold Council definition and since it's not audited is a moving feast. OBM use (or at least say they do) the official definition of "gold sold" however others sneek in "gold produced" usually (but not always) with footnote admitting that - that's NOT the World Gold Council standard but it looks better and (since it's NOT audited) they get away with it. IMO OBM with operational updates in February and currently have been very transparent (more than most) and consequently us retail shareholder have been able to make an "informed" decision; that clearly doesn't please everyone. As I understand it it costs around $20,000 to put an ad in the West Australian - I really can't understand the motivation of an anonymous body to do this both now and in November - IMO this is NOT benign and someone doesn't spend that kind of money without an alternative motive - a cheap 1.2MT/yr plant and very prospective tenements (for gold and Lithium) are a big motive when the enterprise value (market cap less cash and bullion) is $12.76m (Mt Ida sold for $11m). It's also very unlikely to have any impact without the support of Hawkes Point - an attempt to spill the BoD and resulting uncertainty would be highly counter productive to prospects for a smooth recovery.

The Western Australian ad of today is below (IMO a trap) but I would like to know who is behind it (the theme is the same as in November 2021)