Gold Turnaround Story of 2018, page-2727

You actually never said potentially. This is your quoted sentence:

"When people buy the stock expecting AISC of 1000-1200 as far as the eye can see, they are going to get shaken out when they report 1600, 1800, 2000. This "step change in economics" rhetoric is just that until proven otherwise."

This entire statement is rhetoric compared with what we had discussed.

Firstly, nobody should be expecting AISC of 1000-1100 as the company clearly stated 1100-1200 and they delivered on it. This reaction that the quarter is poor when it is exactly what they promised to me shows how poorly supported the company is, and perhaps their previous actions are haunting them here (perhaps rightly so).

Secondly, as you know the AISC going to 1800 or 2000 would require a massive pre-stripping to be ongoing with strip ratios of 15-20 as they had in september last year (22 SR) along with low grade (1.1g/t in sept). This just isn't as likely anymore as we have discussed. The grade modelled shows increasing towards the end of OP life and the pre-strip removed a lot of tonnes which has lowered the overall average SR for the rest of OP life. The only way you truly can justify that comment is if you believe the modeling is incorrect.

Thirdly, part of the reason for the high AISC and losses for Blackham was the debt loading of the project. This has been greatly reduced (albeit through massive dilution) to a very manageable level. This quarter they reduced net debt to just over 10million and look able to continue to do so for the next few quarters.

I didn't take your posts as offensive because I lost money on the day, I am fine with my holdings and I don't invest for daily swings. I took offense because unlike your normal posts you had an overtly negative view which was fundamentally incorrect unless you truly don't believe the modeling to be accurate, which is fine if that's the case but please state that as otherwise I thought we were working off the same set of base assumptions.