I was thinking about your comments comparing Mt Morgans to...

I was thinking about your comments comparing Mt Morgans to Gwalia loki as cost performance is going to be the key metric next year for DCN and specifically whether they meet the feasibility targets.

The issue with the comparison is that Gwalia is much, much deeper. Even though the grade is very high, Gwalia has all the associated costs of operating 1200-1500m below surface. They have to truck the ore up a single decline (more congestion, 1:7 decline means ~9km trucking distance), ventilation at these depths would also be difficult, and ground conditions might also be difficult. All of this adds up.

The mining cost per produced ounce at Gwalia is approximately $400/oz or $165/mined tonne. Gwalia producing about 750 ktpa form the mine.

Beresford/Allansons on the other hand are only 540m below surface at the deepest and there are three declines for more efficient ore movement. Some of the stuff in the Keith Goode note also mentions how good the ground conditions are and how well they are progressing with mine development.

The mined cost per produced ounce at Mt Morgans UG is $522/oz, or $67/mined tonne. Mt Morgans target is 1Mtpa from the mine. Of course these are only feasibility numbers as opposed to actuals at Gwalia.

So the underground grade at MM is only a third of Gwalia but that is only one factor. Might be better off using a more similar mine to Mt Morgans to gauge if DCN numbers are feasible (I will be doing same).

I remember having similar discussions with eshmun some years ago about RRL grade being so low from the open pits, but we know they can consistently make good money.

Anyway just some thoughts. I have spent a bit of time at an underground mine and have more of an appreciation of the technical challenges than I used to, and am trying to use that to inform my mining investments.