mainholm and worzel1 - It is understood that there is no cash...

mainholm and worzel1 -

It is understood that there is no cash being paid out for rehabilitation, just a provision and an acknowledgement that it will need to be paid out at some future time. What seems incogruous is that there seems to be a view that we can deduct that cost from the calculated AISC. I can see that when this cost is eventually incurred/paid and shows up in the cashflow report, that then it will be treated as somehow irrelevant and should be disregarded, again. The issue is that all the goldies use AISC as a measurement, they all will be allowing/paying for, rehabilitation costs. Some will have higher costs than others. Those with higher rehab. costs will (in due course) chew through more cash for rehabilitation than those with lower rehab. costs. It needs to be recognized when comparing one goldie with another, or in NST's case, one mine with another. The AISC at Plutonic is too high - full stop. The rest of the business is subsidising Plutonic - or to put it another way, Plutonic is losing money and is a drag on the rest of the business. NST seems to be accepting of this and that it will continue as a loss operation for another year. When the Hermes feed is eventually (12 months away) processed at Plutonic, will that mean that the feed from the Plutonic mine itself will be reduced/suspended to allow max. processing of the higher grade Hermes feed?