Further to my previous post. Let's say we get the last three...

Further to my previous post.

Let's say we get the last three updates which give us to end of Jun,Aug and Sep.

Assume all production before this FY happened in June (actually the plant probably cranked into gear in May but close enough). Assume Jul and Aug were identical given lack of better info. Here's what we get: as a monthly breakdown

month tonnes (equivalent days) ounces g/t

jun 10000 16 1562 7.4
jul 9200 15 1836 7.3
aug 9200 15 1836 7.3
sep 12600 21 3047 8.0

Now things may be better than that (the previous ann mentions reconciling to 9g/t) but without better information I can't see that.

SO we can see that September was a better month where the plant looks to have run for the right number of days. The grade seems to be creeping up too. That may be why they now feel they can call production.

As others have pointed out, they list 8281oz sold at $1568 which gives $13m. But the last 2 quarterlies only give $10.75m so that's $2.25m unnacounted for. I suspect there's a typo and they've extracted 8281oz but sold less.

So how are we looking? Well the plant looks to be running properly so naively this quarter we should run for 60 days. At 8g/t we get 9390oz. At $12m operating costs fot the quarter thats $1291 per ounce in costs. To put that in perspective, that's as bad as SBM's 1g/t Simberi mine in PNG. they'll want to get that down. Anyway, if they can sell at $1550, say, then they should be cash flow positive to the tune of 2.4m for the quarter. But that's before admin and exploration costs.

To put things in perspective, something like 7g/t is about breakeven if we want to run cash positive across the whole company (including admin and exploration). So they need to get costs down and grades up.

Just like every other gold company ever.