MRE lower than expected10 Feb 2026 09:20
Given the numbers in the RNS it appears that they are going to roll with the upfront extraction, what I mean by that is rather than take a lower yearly sum and try to keep the thing going for 10 years, they will take what they can in 5 years. Here is what Claude has to say about it:
Annual Production
Ore processed: 250,000 tonnes/year
Average grade (using Indicated): 5.46 g/t
Gold recovered: 250,000 t × 5.46 g/t × 88.75% recovery = 1,213,125 grams = 39,000 ounces/year
Revenue: 39,000 oz × $5,000/oz × 99.5% payability = $194.0 million/year
Operating Costs (per tonne)
Mining: ~$2.50/t (average, assuming mostly oxide/transitional)
Processing: $60/t
G&A: $10/t
Transport: $2.50/t
Total: ~$75/t
Annual operating costs: 250,000 t × $75 = $18.75 million/year
Annual Operating Profit:
$194.0M - $18.75M = ~$175.3 million/year
Additional Implications
At $5,000/oz gold:
The cut-off grade could be lowered - Material between 0.5-0.92 g/t that was previously "waste" might now be economical to process, potentially expanding the resource
The pit shell could be deeper/larger - Higher gold prices justify mining lower-grade material further from surface, which could significantly increase total ounces
Project payback would be very fast - Even with $50-100M in upfront capital costs, payback could occur in under a year of production
This would be an exceptionally profitable operation at current gold prices. The combination of high grade (5.46 g/t) and high gold price creates very strong economics.
So the headline number is lower, but the high grade and high gold price is key to underpinning valuation. The real question is can they prove up more ounces elsewhere?