Member Info for DASUT

Tibbs, When I ask a question of Centamin I actually say can they have someone involved respond. Where do you think the IR department or the PR agency get the answers, hopefully from people who are actually involved and know what is going on?

Sorry I don't understand I asked a couple of questions and got the answers that I was pretty much expecting.

One of the questions related to Cowichan's concerns relating to the licence expiring mid 2024.

It is a normal course of events that an exploration licence is followed by an application for a mining licence if the property is deemed as viable.

As far as I am concerned I am reassured that Doropo is moving in the right direction.

So what is it you want to hear?

Tibbs, I would rather have someone on the ground floor of the business respond to my questions than people on the periphery of the business. The guy who I spoke to knows what is going on and what he is saying makes sense and fits with what I pretty much thought would be the response. Even the early move towards opening up the mine and preparing for the start up process follows what I have experienced previously.

Rebess yes approval can be denied if the numbers in the plan don't stack up when/if the Ministry of Mines personnel/advisors/consultants analyse the application.

Given the time and the number of studies that have been done I would suggest they will be confident especially if they are looking at the access roads, camp prior to approval.

Sorry I should have said my question related to Doropo and my question has been answered fully and with a little extra detail than just how the licence expiring is being handled.

I asked the question and got a reply that I was expecting as the current licence is valid for exploration and does expire mid 2024 .

The response from one of Centamin's corporate analysts is as follows:-

We have until the middle of 2024 to submit our application for a mining license, with an additional 90-day period taking us to late Q3. However, we intend to submit our mining license application (DFS + ESIA) by the middle of 2024.

We then envisage a 3-6 month approval process, pending approval, we will be in a position to go to the board and make a final investment decision.

We are also considering the potential to expedite the final construction timeline by completing some low cost early works (roads, equipment downpayments, construction camp etc.) ahead of license approval.

So all sounds positive.

Cowichan are you saying that a mining licence expires mid year or a prospecting licence expires mid year? As I read it Doropo can still apply for a mining licence after which they have a time period to go mining or indeed as you say sell it on if doesn't fit their core business model. Certainly a good question to ask at the next presentation of results.

Problem with politicians is that they know nothing about how a business should be run and therefore regardless of professionals any decisions will need to go to debate and a committee will then need to be formed and best of luck if a decision is made.

Tibbs todays politicians running a train company good luck with that.

Tibbs As far as I am aware they didn't revise the quarterly report they revised the Group Resource and Reserve Statement presented on 19th November.

You must get your head around the reduction in grades in the open pit during the last quarter as an average impacted by them mining the below low cut off grade and classifying as ore and delivered to the "leach pad" rather than treating this as waste and dumping on the waste dump.

I am not sure what revised quarterly report you are talking about and where you are getting the open pit feed grade of between 1.0 and 1.2 in the early years.

A feed grade isn't an open pit or underground grade it is an average of both.

Regarding the question to close down the open pit and just mine the more lucrative underground. If they did this the number of tonnes through the plant would increase the costs involved in processing by uneconomic multiples and the reduction in ounces would make the mine totally uneconomical.

3bear the first quarter is always a bit softer because they programme the major services of equipment and plant at that time of year, after the year end push and the weather is marginally better for the grafters in the workshops etc.

Daz not sure 4th qtr was overly spectacular if you take the second half of the year the average is 119,000 ounces per Qtr and they admit to tonnes/ounces sitting on the ROM from 3rd qtr process plant repair shortfall.

I bet they were sweating a bit come a week to go to the year end and I still believe they have the capacity to meet the targets for 2024, 119,000 ounces a Qtr gives them above low end target.

There is so much flexibility above and below ground and providing there are no disasters in the processing it should be an achievable mid production target.

I will need to take a look at the original RNS but don't get approx 100,000 ounces over LOM proven against probable making such a difference as there have been far more impressive RNS announcements to effect the SP, is it maybe the market catching up on the very good year end results?

Pinching from 1st quarter to make the year end result will still mean getting the ounces out of the ground and through the process because has to pass audit so has to be fact not a lie.

Tibbs, Pardey is history forget about him you can't change history .

What I suggest you do is go to the Centamin web site, Assets, Sukari and then click on the 2023 Technical Report. OK it is what it says a very technical summary but have a scan through it and look at the various diagrams and you will see that the area called Cleopatra is included in the projected pit and I think but don't know but this could be incorporated in the area that Capital have been opening up.

Tibbs Sukari open pit is no different to any other open pit the grades vary across the mine it is the nature of geology. It is always going to be the case that underground will possess higher grades but underground mining is expensive and volumes lower as the ore is in narrower veins again it is the structure of geology. Open pit is normally all about volume because that is the nature of how the ore is dispersed.

Without the open pit the underground isn't viable and the open pit will struggle now without the underground.

Tibbs, Like any business it develops if it is to be successful and the open pit has been and will continue to be essential to the development at Sukari. The underground workings has been paid for by the revenue from the open pit and now the higher grades from underground add support to the open pit.

This is what the mine plans were all about from the start it is all about the grades and blend at the time of processing this is why they pretty much had to get into the underground early.

I am also generally disappointed with the low end result as far as ounces but pleasantly surprised with the fiscal controls to bring AISC down and increases in resources and the increased worth of the ounces. So overall pleased with the progress that has been made and pretty confident that your mate on the train will stay on board come April.

Rebess not too suspicious but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Capital machines were borrowed for a concerted effort to get over the line. Also interesting that they sold 5,000 ounces more than they produced in the 4th qtr so they had some flexibility.

Tibbs where did you get the quote that the open pit is a drag on profitability, because as I see it without the open pit contribution you won't cover your costs?

Yes less profitable than the earlier years but many successful businesses have the less profitable aspects but they pay the bills and others pay for the expensive holidays.

I haven't read where Horgan has said Capital are opening up high grade areas the way I see it is they were assisting in opening up areas to add the flexibility and consistency. Yes higher grades because when the earth moved they were restricted to moving 0.5 grams per tonne until they could get back into the west wall at 2 grams per tonne.

Goldgnome as I say my numbers were very rough and only take into account the basic muck shift truck and shovel and also rounded somewhat because $2 and 150 tonnes made the sums simple.