Thanks for the link @nosurprisesHe definitely says 24 months,...

Thanks for the link @nosurprises

He definitely says 24 months, although I get the impression he is giving the company more time than they probably need just in case.

I have been a fan of the approach taken to drill up the resource, and obviously it has worked very well so far. However, I'm now inclined to agree with @Undaunted and I'd rather they were mining, or at least further down the track planning for it. 24 months seems a long way away, and at current gold prices even the old GCY may well have been profitable (I'm no mining engineer, so this is just a guess).

In the past the rationale has been to build the resource so the project is almost bullet proof. This has been welcome news because I've been caught out a few times over the years with poor resource modelling (including GCY). Some of the examples quoted as influencing them down this path were CMM and BGL, as they spent a long time drilling to make sure they understood what they had. However, I think there are differences in our case, particularly with regard to infrastructure and the capex required for a restart. But also in the nature of the resource. As others have commented, the underground widths are very wide compared to BGL (and OBM) so in theory mining is easier and cheaper.

I have been hoping that they were further along in the planning stages, but just not broadcasting the fact. As @Joelstar and @speculator101 have hinted at, if you kind of read between the lines there are steps they have taken to prepare for mining with staff appointments they've made, the decline, the size of the capital raise etc. As Simon has worked with Bill B at Northern Star I have been half expecting him to take a leaf out of Bill's playbook and have most of the details worked out and then surprise the market with an imminent mining announcement. But after watching the video this seems much less likely.

I can't think of another situation like this (other than Woodlawn) where most of the infrastructure is in place and the bar to restart is quite low. I am not convinced that they need to have a 10 year mine life before they restart, as they don't have to deal with the huge capex bill that normally goes with starting a mine. They are in a very different situation to say a BGL, and the risks they face are much less. Maybe the benefit of following the example of CMM and BGL only goes so far. As @Undaunted has pointed out it would be far better to fund the exploration from mining proceeds than shareholder capital.

As I've said above, I am not mining engineer so I may be totally off base. I am also very grateful for all that Simon and the team have accomplished so far. They have turned one of my worst ever investments into the best I've ever had by a long way. However, the Dalgaranga project is unique, it is not like most other projects going around. Dalgaranga has relatively new infrastructure, an incredible deposit (that may well get much better), which is right next to the mill. SPR is also operating in the most bizarre and beneficial environment for gold mining that I have ever seen. In situations like this it might be better to write your own script rather than following too closely what others have done.

These are just my thoughts, and as usual DYOR.