The headline figures are misleading. These figures have to be...

The headline figures are misleading. These figures have to be evaluated over time. Admittedly, over time there is a clear trend to increasing costs (and some interesting operational practices that are clearly not very good- eg. inadequate staff training, poor transitioning to owner mining in NZ, poor staff retention, incorrect geological modelling), but the main value adding prospect is Dipidio which could potentially change this company.

2 things about the cash cost reported in this- $108 of the cash cost is due to the accounting change (changing from capitalised pre-strip to operations), and 45 is the difference in ounces. This leaves $80 difference in cash costs, of which $65 is due to the higher NZD (but REALLY due to USD debasement), which is also responsible (and more than offset) by the rise in USD POG. So only $15 is due to rising input costs, which by itself is ok, but if you factor in the rise in the previous quarter as well, reflects underlying true increases (but at a much more stable rate than the reported cash costs suggest).

"Real" earnings are probably somewhere between 12-16 for the quarter- reflected by the fact that cash balance was unchanged, but 11mill was spent on Dipidio, and some more was spent on land, Caterpillar trucks (I count exploration as a sustaining expense) etc. etc. This is not too divergent from previous quarters. Good luck with the carnage from releasing this with poor communication and at an inopportune time!