Saint01 there is no mention of one off costs being incurred in...

Saint01 there is no mention of one off costs being incurred in the March recent quarter is there? Yet they still generated no cash as far I can tell. Is that what you expected? How does that match with the sustaining costs numbers?

If this is the situation, then its a base of no cash flow with benefits to come from restructuring. Reducing head count is the most obvious way to cut costs. Is it really that simple though? Maybe, but seems strange to me that Barrick sell Plutonic for $25m and the NST turn it profitable just by laying of a third of the workforce. Does that mean that Plutonic is then worth $350m like Paulsens was pre acquisitions. Paulsens and Plutonic are comparable in terms of resources and production but Paulsens is a new mine and Plutonic old. I have my doubts that Plutonic was such a bargain. Its not just that Barrick let it go for $25m but also it was sold via a very public process and no one else was prepared to pay more than that.

I thought your post was a good one Saint and I don't mean to be argumentative. I can see how the story works in theory and your words added to my understanding. However, until they generate decent cash or at least give some guidance on it, I will be pretty skeptical of the sustaining cost numbers and the valuation.