Member Info for DASUT

Spoonington I thoroughly agree a case of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous.

Although if you follow true method the last 6 months total material moved is 65,301 less ore so waste 58,419 divided by ore 6,882 therefore ratio 8.5. Either way too high but as I say trend is better than it has been in recent times.

Tibbs In very basic terms well yes but wish it was that easy. However quarterly numbers provided gives you the total material moved and the total ore moved so pretty straight forward to calculate where we are at.

I like to look at is the most recent numbers that have been reported. Total material mined first 6 months 2023 - 65,301 k/tonnes, ore 6,882 k/tonnes ratio 9.5. Reduce total tonnage by Capital's waste contribution of 22,000 k/tonnes = 43,301 k/tonnes so strip ratio drops to 6.3.

Playing with numbers - as I say I prefer to wait until we see the numbers after the Capital contract is complete.

Let's just say improvement over 1st six months 2022 - 64,372 total k/tonnes against 5,736 k/tonnes ore - ratio 11.2, so moving in the right direction.

Tibbs yes and no it will depend upon questions asked because a day on a mine site for people with experience will throw up pertinent questions for those that the analyst's are representing, also I would hope many will arrive with in depth questions.

Am I frustrated again yes and no because I have never been on a mine that doesn't go through growing pains, it just feels as though previous management had the Ostrich syndrome and rather than do what Horgan and his guys are now having to do, they buried their heads and ploughed on digging themselves into a corner.

AISC is abnormally high because so much investment is having to be made so fingers crossed this time next year we will see the benefits of the abnormal expenditure.

The cash reduction is as I see it delayed expenditure that should have been spent in years past, could however say the old guard were making provisions for a rainy day.

Thank goodness they did have cash in the bank just imagine how disastrous it would have been if they had to declare insolvency so as I say yes and no, because you would think it would be difficult to go bankrupt having gold in the ground but I have seen it happen.

However definitely a yes because I hate waste and excuse the pun but Centamin have wasted considerable "time" trying and yet to achieve the production and profit consistency.

Easy to criticise what Horgan and his team are doing because they are spending considerable funds and as I say yet to achieve the consistency. Problem I have is I don't have any alternatives to make constructive criticism and feel Kees Dekker is in the same boat and will say proof will be best judged frustratingly this time next year.

Sorry should read 1 gramme not 1%.

So difficult to paint a picture of waste v ore because unless you are a geologist it can all look the same. All mines have waste there is no such thing as a wall of minerals. The ore also has waste when delivered to the plant hence the 1% grade per tonne of ore.

I am always fascinated at the complexities involved and the skills involved particularly at the start of working in a given area. Try to imagine a large expanse of an open area and the drill and blast team placing explosives in the ground lifting the ground under a controlled blast so that it can be dug by equipment. This is to remove waste to access ore? Or is it to free up ore to enable diggers to access the ore? You need to ask the question. So you won't see a waste mountain because it is below your feet.

So even the likes of Kees Dekker will only see the operation as it is not the whole picture of what it should or could be.

The analysts will be given presentations, they will look at the pit's and processing plant doubtful they will go underground due to health and safety and little will be seen because equipment will be at the face not accessible by a group of visitors.

Doubt they will see areas such as waste dumps which aren't overly exciting albeit this can be an area that exposes inefficiencies or hopefully professionalism.

These analysts I doubt will turn up with stop watches and fully understand the details of the mining operation to understand how well the operation is performing as this will take weeks and studying multiple cycles of the operation and involve experts in earth moving and processing experience.

Maybe Cowichan who as advised by Tibbs is a Geologist can explain the differences and complexities.

Paul, I wish I knew even hazarding a guess would only bring me to a target output of 500,000 ounces per annum which really isn't a guess because that is what is being reported. The important element is what the cost per ounce will be and whether there can be an improvement of the open pit grade and obviously a favourable Gold Price .

Also in addition to the waste clear up how much of the contract involves opening up ore bearing areas, "advance stripping" resulting in free dig.

I absolutely hate guessing because there are so many factors that are unknown which frustrates the hell out of me as gone are the days that a site visit would give me the warm fuzzy feeling or the run for the hills feeling.

3bear I thoroughly agree that a safe incident free mine will normally be an efficient highly productive mine. Emphasis on the word normally because currently Sukari isn't an efficiently run mine. Why is because the strip ratio due to the abnormal waste removal inevitably means costs are abnormally high.

If however the cost reductions in other areas weren't in place then we would see far worse numbers, so credit due to the current management team for some good strategies.

I don't see Sukari becoming an efficient, productive acceptable profitable operation until the waste contract has finished.

I generally read and hear good things happening at Sukari and that they are pretty much over the major hurdles created by the less than efficient few years prior to 2020.

The proof of the restructuring of management and the operations will not be fully understood until we see a mining operation not a mining operation with an expensive non profitable muck shifting project carbuncle needing to be lanced and removed.

Unfortunately the carbuncle has taken years to develop and will take a little longer to be removed.

Siko, Good to hear from you and like you I feel Egyptian politicians and their advisors see nationalisation as political/financial suicide. Egypt rely so much on the World Bank and International country finance and goodwill would go through the floor if they even hinted at the word.

They definitely need to do the opposite and encourage international investment especially if they are to develop their mineral resources.

Tell to the best of your knowledge do you feel the 5/6 influential Egyptian families still have advisory influence?

I remember in the early noughties senior family members of large Egyptian organisations were co-opted into the ministries to organise, restructure, streamline, manage and introduce efficiencies.

What do you expect they are politicians, they only ever kick the can down the road.

3bear, Love your optimism and hope you are right.

Doropo could produce by 2026 if they rubber stamp the development by the end of this year/early next year.

Bearing in mind it is likely to be contract mined and from what we have heard so far the process could be quite straight forward so a standard type CIL processing plant, that has a "relatively" short lead time.

Could be even earlier if they lay down a leach pad and start with a very simple heap leach operation which isn't uncommon in West Africa, prior to the plant being operational.

The available revolving finance line would be adequate to kick start the project.

However as I say there would need to be some extremely fancy footwork to get the button pushed by the year end and so far I haven't read anything that talks about a simple heap leach to get the mine up and running and wow would need to be flying to get 200,000 plus ounces per annum out of the so far reported resource by 2026.

The PFS has been a long time coming so it should by now have considerable detail and this detail I would hope can or already has created a mine plan. If so the all important financial numbers to create the bankable document should be relatively straight forward to obtain and audit.

As I say like your optimism and processing some gold by 2026 is possible but only with somewhat more than a fair wind (more like a gale) behind them.

Market, Who is on the back foot problem is you can only work with numbers that have some substance and to be honest life is too short and am not in the mood having recently lost a a much younger sister in law and the need to support my brother far out weighs any such issues?

Cowichan sorry I can't agree with your numbers so as I said before lets call it a day and agree to differ.

Thanks Cowichan but you still don't provide an answer to my question, more deflections. Where does the $100 million plus come from? If we can agree this number I will be shouting as loud as you from my soap box but I can't get close to this number being over what it would cost Centamin to do the work themselves.

Simple maths say $235 million divided by 120 million = $1.96 and $260 million divided by 120m = 2.17 per tonne BUT this is for two contracts. A 4 year waste movement and a drill and blast 15 month extension.

The Capital $21million capitalised in 1st qtr and 10.9 million tonnes moved is $1.92 this gets closer to the cost per tonne of the lower number if maybe we extract albeit a guesstimate the cost of the drill and blast contract.

OK there is a couple of maybe's that the capitalisation might not refer to the same period.

So do we trust the Centamin accounting practices given it is for a three month period and several weeks after the period ended, I would hope that they will have had enough time to provide accurate numbers for something you agree in fact advise is calculated monthly and I would think auditors will have a say in the numbers provided.

Cowichan I am not down playing anything I am asking if what you say is that $100 million plus should have been passed on to us shareholders which is what sparked my interest and if you are right then question The Board BUT I can't so story closed as far as I am concerned.

$21 million capitalised for contractor waste movement of 10.9 million tonnes says less than $2 a tonne.

I have read the extracts of the contract and sorry find nothing wrong. As for Centamin supporting Capital to finance the equipment sorry I don't see it as just Capital that gains. Centamin gets equipment on site to expedite the removal of waste, There must be far more in the contract than what I have read because BCM and LCM,(significant risks with material density and swell rate calculations) no mention of tonnes yet everything subsequently in the financials of both companies refers to tonnes being moved.

I can't make a call on the extractions of information or supposition because that can be dangerous.

All of my input has been civil and factual to the best of my knowledge and experience and as I say what I have read is typical of material movement contract be it on a road, dam, construction or mining project, so sorry I don't agree with your conspiracy theories.

We quite obviously have to agree to differ.

What I will however agree with is that the contract should never had needed to be awarded and should have been part of the normal mining process in past years. However it wasn't and the consequences are a 4 year expense that will hurt the bottom line.

Large cut backs or other issues unforeseen or otherwise that impact the bottom line are nothing new in Mining and from my experience certainly isn't only Centamin that has had to bite the bullet.

Cowichan sorry forgot to add 1st quarter Capital were paid $21 million for waste moved at 10.9 million tonnes. So $1.93 per tonne according to financial statement.

OK just done a quick scan, thanks I will try to digest the detail of extractions from what to me looks pretty much like a generic material movement contract. Not sure why Capital would agree to a BCM contract however as difference from BCM to Loose can be considerable depending on swell factors, involving additional truck and load movements, pretty sure somewhere in the contract this will be covered.

Lease contract across borders is different to finance across borders there is an ownership issue hence I would suggest what looks to me to be some guarantor statements.

As I say I will still consult old contacts who are in the business to understand if these terms were applicable to other interested parties prior to the award to Capital.

From what I understand the 67% is Institutional voters not sure how we individual shareholders get the opportunity to vote I certainly haven't received an invitation to provide a proxy vote,other than to attend the AGM, and if I did attend not sure how you prove you are investor. Can someone enlighten us.

Cowichan grateful for a response as it is important that we get the facts straight are you sure that the value for Capital's waste contract is 259.2 million as I have searched and spoken to guys who are in the business and my understanding is what has been published is $235 million with a high of $260 million (covering inflation) but these values include both the 4 year waste removal and the extension of the 15 month drill and blast contract.