Go gold.... Go, page-2

GJ
You need to check your figures on the additional margin comparing Q3 and Q4 revenues. The average POG during Q4 was US$1,259 compared to a price received during Q3 of US$1,177: a difference of US$82. If 20,000oz was produced then the potential increase in revenue over the POG in Q3 was approximately US$1.64m (or A$1.14m if you use the AUD POG) (US$82 x 20,000 or A$57 x 20,000): not the US$4m and A$5.4m you have asserted.
By my calculation you have overestimated the figures in US$ and A$ by 144% and 374% respectively.

In addition, your assertion that the value of the Siana project has increased by US$125 million based on the current POG and the resource/reserve is wildly misleading. Firstly, a Resource has no economic basis for which to estimate a ‘value’ unless “Modifying Factors” as defined by the JORC Code have been applied. If Modifying Factors have been applied it is then called a Reserve. Secondly, a Reserve denotes only the underground potential “revenue” after recovery without the operating, administrative and capital costs associated with the operation.

As an example, based on the reported figures by RED the mean-weighted average price received during the 9 months to 30/3/2016 was A$1,573/oz (converted from US$ since they sell in US$), but the mean-weighted average AISC during the same period was A$1,598/oz. On average RED had a negative margin to the POG and AISC during that period of –A$25/oz (in other words it cost more to produce gold than the gold was worth.

If, as I expect, a Q4 production of 18,000oz (and based on RED’s stated 5B cash flow estimates; that have historically underestimated expenditures by 20% on average), full year production would bring a full year ASIC of A$1,585 (A$1,560- 1,610) coinciding with an average POG for the period of A$1,605 and therefore a POG-ASIC margin of A$25/oz. In other words the estimated margin is 1.5% (total margin/total value produced)… They will have received $100 of revenue but the cost will have been approximately $98.50.

A better valuation guide would be the NPV but since most gold companies are trading at a significant discount to their NPV it would also be misleading to use the full NPV as a differential valuation technique. So I must humbly agree with your closing advice that your “thoughts and calcs… may not be worth two nobs of goat crap”