Ann: Operational Update and 2019 Production Guidance, page-33

"Capitalised stripping costs and non-sustaining exploration and capital costs are not included. "

In the BFS announced in Nov 2016 , there is no allowance made in CAPEX for overburden removal , however there is an allowance made for tailings storage dam (TSF) which would have been built from guessing laterite (rotten rock) overburden removed , I guess as they do each lift of the tailings dam during its life then that will be just part of operating costs as the word "non-sustaining " is used which raising a dam to prevent over flow definitely is not !
Likewise they are doing staged cutbacks which would have to be part of sustainable capital costs as the ore can not be accessed without the cutback which involves stripping waste rock.
The BFS also shows stripping ratios dropping from around 17:1 to 0.6 :1 over a 6 year LOM so seems they have included that in AISC

Therefore I doubt Sabine's proposed extra $300 in stripping per oz would occur as it has already been included .

So why do I come up with lower profit this CY than Sabine , the reasons are
1, due to the higher strip ratio in the early part of the LOM
2, stockpiling of ore is needed to prevent this last situation where ore was unavailable to pit flooding, it also makes blending of ore easier to improve recoveries , that stockpiled ore is a cost that can not be fully accounted for as receivable
3. Plant efficiencies for both the mobile and fixed plant still will not have been optimised in CY19 , I imagine there is another 15% available in increased prodn from debottling , reduced overbrake from blasting , improved ore delineation by excavator operators and grade control geos working together ...........