Regis Resources Limited

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Regis Resources Full Year Results Briefing. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number 1 on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Jim Beyer, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Betsy, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us on the Regis Resources June 2023 full-year financial results, which we released earlier this morning. Joining me this morning is Anthony Rakiki, our Chief Financial Officer, and Ben Goldbloom, Head of Investor Relations. Pardon me. We will be referring to the slides that we released as well. So if you've got those handy to look at or if you're on the web projection, you'll see it as well. So look, now while the headline loss of $24 million is disappointing, it is, we know, after $115 million hedge book impact. And basically the underlying results show business that has strength and that will start to shine through. Looking at slide three, the company achieved some significant milestones in FY23. By year end, we had largely completed the construction of a nine megawatt solar farm at Duketon, and we'd signed an agreement at Tropicana to develop a 62 megawatt renewable energy facility that combines solar, wind, and battery. And I can confirm that our solar farm at Duketon is in the very final stage of the commissioning and it'll either be switched on today or tomorrow and then delivering cheap and cleaner power to our operations at Duketon South. We declared commercial production at two of our growth assets in the Garden War South underground at Duketon and also at the Havana Open Pit at Tropicana. Our exploration tech services team established an exploration target at Garden War Main underground And this is a target of between 800,000 and 1.3 million ounces. And we're getting some early results that support our views on that. And most pleasingly, we received the last key state approval for the McPhillips project in New South Wales. I'd also note that all of these achievements were done while maintaining our safety record of well below industry averages and our gender diversity at above industry. So now I'd like to hand over to Anthony, Anthony Rikiki, who will step through the financial results a little more detail. Over to you Anthony.

Okay thanks Jim and good morning everyone. I'll start by just flicking you forward to slide number five and there that's our FY23 financial results, some high level numbers. You can see that the year's delivered record gold production and revenue, record revenue. Our open pit mines saw a reduction in stripping ratios and going forward we've planned for reduced waste material movements in FY24. The underground mines delivered record tonnes with commercial production at Garden Well kicking off and the mills continued to perform well with stable throughput and recovery. That record gold sales revenue drove record operating cash flows of $455 million. and relatively stable year-on-year underlying EBITDA, this time at $402 million. Note the underlying EBITDA is before an inventory net realisable value adjustment of $30 million. Moving on to slide six, that shows the cash flow movement for the year. This chart highlights the investment that was made into the future of the company, which is expected to reduce as we transition to a more of an operating cash build phase. I mean, the investments, cash flows are expected to reduce. $301 million was invested across mine development and other CAPEX, and we spent $69 million on exploration and the McPhillamy's development project. Other notable items include the $67 million tax refund, $39 million in the stamp duty payment relating to the Tropicana acquisition, and $115 million in foregone revenue relating to the clearance of another 100,000 ounces off the hedge book. The company finished the period with a cash and bullion balance of $243 million. 30 June 23 net debt was $57 million. Moving over to slide seven, we see the underlying EBITDA of $402 million and the statutory net loss of $24 million. Depreciation and amortisation was the largest driver between the statutory loss and EBITDA, and a significant portion of that relates to the accelerated depreciation at Duketon North Operations as it nears the end of its current reserves. On slide 8, that highlights that our balance sheet remains in good shape. Regarding that, on note, we have a corporate debt facility of $300 million, which matures in May 2024, and we're confident about extending that loan maturity date, and we're working with our lenders to that effect. The loan date extension will give us time to prepare our funding plan for the final investment decision on McPhillamy's, expected in the June quarter of FY24. Thank you, and I'll hand back over to you, Jim. Thanks, Anthony.

Okay, so if we're just looking now at slide 9 on the FY24 guidance, that remains unchanged at this point in the year, and we're very pleased to see that things are running to plan so far. I don't think there's anything really to identify here or highlight here. Apart from just reiterating this, our all-in-sustaining cost guidance does include, for the group, a $200, approximately a $200 an ounce non-cash proportion, which is related to stockpile drawdowns. And in fact, all of that is associated with Duketon. And if you actually calculate it out based on the ounces at Duketon, it's the equivalent of a $300 an ounce on their AISC that is basically non-cash, which if you do the maths, you'll realise that the AISC at Duketon's remained pretty much the same as it has in the past. We do see this year, of course, a material reduction in growth capital relative to FY24. Part of that, of course, is the transition at Tropicana with Havana moving into into commercial production, and the capital there for the next year or so is sustaining. It's defined as sustaining, but of course, in about 18 months or so's time, we'll start to see the back will have been broken at the Havana open pit, and we'll see that starting to ease off. And we see the Duketon Undergrounds accelerating, and certainly a step up in ore production this year coming from the open pits at Tropicana. Moving on to slide 10, Look, as a summary, over the last couple of years, two to three years, we've transitioned the portfolio and we've improved the balance sheet to provide a strong platform to grow the company. We now have a portfolio of assets, which is 100% located in Australia, and two of the assets have got a projected mine life beyond or greater than 10 years. The balance sheet, as Anthony mentioned, has got a low debt-to-equity ratio. and we're transitioning from the investment phase to the cash bill phase. The hedge book is scheduled to be completed by the end of this financial year, just a little bit over 10 months, but who's counting? And with this, we'll bring an additional $150 million in pre-tax cash flows. It's important to understand when the hedge book falls away, it's the equivalent of over $10 million in additional cash flows revenue and that of course is at current prices. It is this increase in cash flow that will be used to support future growth options at Tropicana and Duketon Underground and more notably at McPhilemys. And if you look at our slide you can see our pathway still exists to 500,000 ounces per annum and those 500,000 ounces will have good solid margins. That's made up of the 200 to 250 from Duketon over the coming years. 135,000 to 150,000 ounces coming out of Tropicana as we continue to see Havana Open Pit contribute and the undergrounds continue to grow and the same similar underground commitment or contribution from Duketon. And then, of course, with targeting a final investment decision in the middle of next year, we'd see a couple of years for construction for McPhillamy's, we can see that 165,000 to 180,000 ounces giving us a total of... comfortably 500,000 ounces per annum. So you can see the pathway that we're following to get there, and to maintain that, all we have to do is just keep doing the things we're doing. So we see it's been a year of mixed results, really. Clearly, the net loss is disappointing, but we can also see that the business has been positioned well and we're certainly heading to improve times over the coming year or so. So, look, I would like to now hand it back to Betsy and happy to take on any... ..answer any questions that anybody might have. Thank you.

Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star then 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star then two. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. The first question today comes from Levi Spry with UBS. Please go ahead.

Morning, Levi.

G'day, Jim. Thanks for your time. I just wouldn't mind a reminder on the filmies and then the timeline's coming up. So I think you mentioned... June quarter FID. What do we see before then? It feels like, yeah, obviously it's been a while since we've had updated numbers there and timelines.

Sure. Well, the timeline, as we mentioned earlier, the New South Wales, the key New South Wales permitting item of the recommendation or the support from the Independent Planning Commission has been delivered. That was back in March and the any legal appeals process finished during May, June. So we're clear on that. We still have a Section 10 application that was put in, Section 10 under the Federal Adship Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. We've responded to that. The individuals have put their position forward. It was actually aired and considered at the IPC as well and at the state level. I think the Orange Lands Council were involved in that as well and they indicated that there wasn't the degree of heritage relevance that I guess the claimants were suggesting. And as a result of that, the IPC considered that the issue was not warranted to hold the project up. So at the state level, we're clear. We're now just waiting for that to be worked through. So we have a view. We've done a lot of work on that front. We also know that the Orange Lands Council has made its position pretty clear. So we think that that's... We're confident that this will work its way through. For us, it's just a question of timing and we're waiting for that to happen at the moment. There is no more to be done apart from the department to give its views, its clearance. So on the project front, we've got a little bit of work we want to do in the field. that we're working on at the moment. We're updating and finalising the feasibility study and basically the bankable estimates. We anticipate that that would be early in the new year, sometime in the March quarter, positioning us for an FID in the middle of next year. Now, that is, you know, all of that is somewhat contingent on the timing of getting the Section 10 clearance because there is work we need to do, and we don't want to upset that process, but that's the timeline that we're running at at the moment. We haven't given any updated... formal guidance on what that project's looking like it still it still fits in this seven six and a half seven million ton for random capacity is what uh what we're driving to uh it'll be a 10 or 11 year production profile there's two million ounces in reserves um you know there's the uh certainly the guidance on the cap x is you know north of uh half of 500 million dollars And we've got to finalise that. Obviously, there's been some movements, a lot in increasing that over the last couple of years, but we are seeing some softening around that as well. And that also includes a $100 million pipeline to bring the water in from coal mines about 90 kilometres away. So when we're producing, we see that we'll be sort of operating in that range of... Initially, it's certainly 165 to 180. Interestingly enough, the grades improve with depth, so as you get further down later in its life, the production actually lifts to over 200,000 ounces per annum. So key answer to your question there, Levi, is we're looking for driving to a FID decision in the middle of next year, but unfortunately... As these things tend to be, the administrative process is somewhat the tail wagging the dog, and we just have to work hard to try and keep that moving, but respect the process has got to run its course.

Okay, yes, thanks for the answer. Thanks, Jim. Thank you. No worries, Levi.

The next question comes from Alex Papanu with Citi. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jim and Anthony, a few from me. So just following on McPhillamy's, if the Section 10 approval does continue to push out, is there any risk to that FID date or should it be quite a quick process to gather that information once the approval is granted?

Yeah, good question, Alex. It depends how long it's pushed out for. So the short answer is it could. We're trying to work around it so that we can get everything... You know, we're not sitting on our hands at the moment. There's a lot of work going on. um but if uh you know obviously if it pushes out um and there's there's no more our understanding is that all of the responses have been gathered by the department and in fact when we've been talking to the department about the timing as much as you can do because you limited in how much influence you can have there the key message that's been coming out of the dsu which is the um the Department dealing with it at the Fed level, is that there is a lot of Section 9 applications around Australia. Now, Section 9s are effectively an application to cease and desist work that is currently underway while an assessment happens. And it's almost like, I don't know, I guess, without wanting to pretend I'm an expert in this area, in my view, it's a bit like a cease and desist activity immediately. So you might be building a... constructing a highway or you might be building a large factory or something, if a Section 9 comes in, the activity has to stop. Now, that is... The Department's telling us they've got a lot of those coming through at the moment and that's consuming their time, so they're not getting to close out the Section 10. which is clearly frustrating for us. So, you know, we need to get to work, and we are. We're trying to get this department to understand that while we may not be in construction, time is money, and time delay is also jobs and opportunity. So we're trying to push it along as much as we can. If it continues to delay for an extended period, it will have an impact on that FID day.

Yeah, great. Thanks. And in terms of DNA, so it was quite... It was a bit higher than what we were looking for. How should we think about DNA going forward?

Yeah, Alex, I mean, we don't... It's Anthony here. We don't typically provide our forecasted DNA numbers, but, look, you know, the view is that it'd be moving forward at similar rates to what you've seen. You know, 2023... was bigger, like I said, predominantly because now we're nearing the end of that loss of mine at Duketon North. So there was some accelerated depreciation there. But that's what we're seeing going forward.

Yep. And just to confirm, the Aussie $30 million inventory adjustment that you've reported, is that primarily to Duketon North changes?

It's scattered across a few different stockpiles. You know, we do a fairly scientific way. We work those things out nowadays, Alex, but basically it is with respect to the longer-term stockpiles that all of our sites have them. The longer-term, lower-grade stockpiles that we see... and you see them mainly in our non-current assets, you'll see that the portion in those non-current assets has actually reduced year on year, FY22 moving through to FY23. And that's because, you know, this year we are expecting to use up a lot of those stockpiles. And so that actually has an effect as well of reducing the amount of stockpiles that are typically at risk when you're doing those sorts of calculations.

Yep, understood.

That's it for me.

Thanks. Thanks, Alex. It's the first time I think I've heard accounting described as scientific, Anthony, but we do our best.

The next question comes from Andrew Bowler with Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Good day, all. Just a couple from me. Firstly, on dividends, I mean, obviously, No final dividend declared today. Just a note in your commentary that it's part of progressing the funding strategy for McPhillamy. So can we take that to mean that, well, certainly before the studies finalise, we won't see any dividends for the next year or so? Or will you revisit that as hedge commitments roll off maybe into FY25th?

Yeah, well, good question. I mean, you never say never, right? And our underlying DNA of Regus has always been you're there to make money and return it in dividends to our shareholders, which is why we've, over the years, when we've been in a position to do it, we've paid over half a billion dollars in divvies. But at the moment, we are in the reinvestment phase, in that cycle. You're quite right, we made the decision not to pay a dividend on the basis of what we can see coming towards us for capital requirements. That continues to be part of our thinking. There's no doubt that that will stay there. That requirement for funding of McPhilem is, when we get to the point of FID, is certainly, you know, part of one of the key things that we've got to keep our focus on over the coming 12 to 18 months. So, you know, I'm not saying no and I'm not saying yes. I'm saying that you can never say no, but, you know, under the circumstances that we're operating, I mean, if gold price went to $4,000 an ounce, would you... it'd be nice if it did then obviously that would be different but right now um you know we've made that decision to conserve the capital for obvious reasons and would need to be something something clear for us to change that view at the moment all right thanks i guess another hypothetical question i mean obviously um you know very excited for hedge commitments to roll off at the end of this financial year is

Is the funding for McPhilemys, I mean, obviously, depending on gold price, how much you might need in terms of additional funding, but would you consider hedging again along with another debt facility attached to McPhilemys or has the experience with hedging been a little bit traumatic and that's sort of no goes on off the table for any prospective debt package?

Yeah, well, whenever anybody talks about hedging, I don't pick a glass up off the table because my hands are shaking too much. But, look, I think there's no doubt that when we come to consider the form of funding for McPhilemys that we'll need to consider, and one of those is clearly debt, it's probably going to be sensible to be considering whether that risk is covered by some debt position... Sorry, some hedge position... So, you know, we can't rule that out. Certainly, the best... The pleasing thing is that the hedging that we've got at the moment is, you know, basically nearly half the current gold price. So any hedging that we did put on would presumably be a lot better than that. But we'd be doing that on the basis of forms of protection around that debt obligation. So, yeah, there's... We're certainly not ruling out hedging in the future. It's just going to be done for risk management purposes, I would think.

No worries. That's all from me. Thanks very much, guys.

The next question comes from Hugo Dicolese with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Morning, Jim and Anthony. Thanks for the update this morning. Maybe just following on from Andrew's question on dividends, firstly, I appreciate, obviously, you've got the capex benefit coming up, but I guess in the context of the franking balance as well, noting that you're probably due another tax refund in the December half, is that also a consideration in terms of when you potentially look to restart dividends going forward?

Yes. Yep, there's certainly... form part of the consideration in our decision not to pay a full-year dividend.

Yeah, great. Thanks, sir. And maybe one for Anthony then, also just kind of following up on the kind of framework for McPhillamy's around funding. Can you give us any updates there on how you're thinking on the funding mix in terms of how much of that comes from debt? And then maybe just an update on how you're thinking about group-level sort of debt or gearing sort of targets?

Yeah, I mean, look, at this stage, Hugo, you know, we're of the view that, and as you'd expect primarily, that the funding for McPhelomys would be a combination of our own cash flow generation that we've got and also taking on additional debt. So that picture will become clearer as we, you know, move through the feasibility process. Look, it's the main reason why we've chosen to do a debt extension now as deferral of the day as opposed to do a full refinance at the moment and that's just so that we've got an absolutely clear picture on McPhillamy. So yeah, that's obviously primarily what we think we should be able to do this with debt and cash flows but we just need to see as we progress through the the feasibility study work at the moment.

Great, thanks. So just to clarify, so the deferral on the debt, then you're really just looking for probably another, what, 12 months or something on that so that you can shore up that McPhillamy's funding option and then, I guess, overall, you're probably thinking still that the corporate-level funding debt rather than, say, project financing or something like that for McPhillamy's?

Yeah, that's fair enough. So, yeah, around 12 months, And, look, wherever possible, we'll try not to do specifically a project finance type arrangement. We try and keep it corporate. But we'll just see what the market's willing to do at that stage and our risk appetite as well.

Great. Thanks for that, Anthony. Jim, I'll pass it on. Thanks, Hugo.

The next question comes from David Coates with Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead.

G'day, Jim, Anthony, and Ben. Hope you're well. Thanks for the presentation and update this morning. Just circling back to costs. And, you know, you've highlighted, you know, the fact that, you know, there's a $300 ounce inventory drawdown. In fact, if you just, you know, included in due to be also made a comment about, you know, the capex at McPhillamy's. Just from a high level, broadly speaking, you know, you've also sort of previously said, you know, that the diesel costs are sort of coming off and now it's sort of helping the cost base. What are the key kind of cost drivers and which way are they going as we sort of look into FY24 for you guys, you know, across operating and CapEx?

Yeah, yeah, good question. Look, I mean... If you're looking at it on a per ounce, well, the key inputs, diesel has been reducing, although I think that's levelled off and we might have seen a slight increase, you know, a fractional increase in the last month. Diesel is obviously a reasonable chunk of our costs, given that all our power, well, not all of our power now, but most of our power is generated from diesel and the fleet. So that's probably... single significant, single input cost. The contractor and mining costs, the rate per BCM overall is the other key factor. What are the ... Boy, I said in terms of pit mining, what are the three things that drive your cost per ounce? One is the grade. Well, no kidding. The other is the strip ratio and the other is the rate per BCM. So the rate per BCM is influenced by the diesel price, which we've seen sort of stabilised. We also see a key element on the rate per BCM of the rise and falls. And, you know, with the inflation starting to certainly tempering around, that has slowed down. The, you know, costs always are increasing, but just not at the wildfire rates that they were for the last 18 months. So we see them stabilised quite a bit more than we were seeing this time last year. There's always pressure. There always is. Labour still continues to be an area... More so the issue there, I think, is shortage of experience rather than the actual cost. There's just a real tightness in the labour market and... You know, you can fill a position, but you're not always getting the skills experience that you'd like, so you've got to be patient or live with it. And that, I think, is a little bit more of a cost to the industry that doesn't show up straightaway, and I think that's something we're all dealing with. So, you know, pressures haven't gone away, David, but they're certainly not as dramatic as they were this time 12 months ago.

And on the capex front, you know, again, sort of high-level sort of, you know, considering the fillings?

Yeah, look, we still... I'm a little bit reluctant to go any more than what I said earlier, partly because, you know, there's been a lot of pressures on components and parts over the last probably 18 months or so, and we've seen that definitely cool down. Demand for, you know, this time two years ago or 18 months ago, the market was wild with all these projects that were going to happen. Now they're not quite so busy, and so rates have dropped. Major componentries have become more available on factory lines, and therefore they're a bit cheaper now because of... You know, we see that easing, but given that, you know, our FID is still, you know, probably six or seven months away before we finalise the capital build, I'm a bit reluctant to say any more than I already have on that range that we're sitting in.

No, that's great. I don't know if there's a specific range to summarise underlying input factors. That's great. Thanks, Jim. That's it from me.

Thanks, Dave.

The next question comes from Alex Barkley with RBC. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jim and Tim. Just on the, I didn't really see any major asset impairment despite a few changes to your mine plan reserves, maybe a higher discount rate as well. Are you able to give a comment on that testing process and, you know, was it close or no issue at all? Just how you saw the book values there.

Yeah, Alex, yeah, the impairment work, we look at that every six months, as you expect we do, whether or not there's a trigger internally, we'll always take a look at that. Yeah, you're right, discount rates have gone up. You'd expect that for everyone, you know, interest rates are going up and we're exposed to that too. But we still continue to get the headroom there, you know, around the Caring Valleys at Duke to North obviously come off quite a bit anyway. Duketon South's got its life of mine that protects it and gives it plenty of headroom going forward. And with Tropicana, it's a good asset and it's got its headroom available too. So, yeah, that's where the work's landed.

Yeah, I'd like to back that up, particularly around the Tropicana. You know, we're pleased with the way that that continues to um evolve and unfold in its value um you know and gee at spot price it's way you know it's one way way over um so we're we're very pleased with that yep just the last one uh if you have any more clarity on what sort of cash tax you're expecting the upcoming year or quantum of refund maybe

Yeah, we are expecting a refund again based on the FY23 year. It's not going to be as big as last time, though, that's for sure. And look, we're still working through that. But yeah, we do expect a refund.

So maybe a refund in and no cash tax out. Is that the right way to think about it?

Expectations and net refund in, yeah.

Okay, all right. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you. And that ties back to the question of on the dividends as to, you know, if we paid a dividend and used up the franking credits, it means that that may not eventuate. So that was a bit of a double hit that we were trying to avoid, keep our cash growing.

The next question comes from Matthew Fryden with MSC Financial. Please go ahead.

Sure, thanks. Morning, Jim and team. Just wanting to unpack that pathway that you've given to 500,000 ounces, unpack that a little bit more. In particular, the Duketon component, so 200,000 to 250,000 ounces. You may have to get the crystal ball out, Jim, but just wondering, in your view, what that asset looks like in FY27 and even beyond. I guess, in particular, the proportion of production that you think is likely to come from open pit and stockpiles versus undergrounds. The context of the question is, you know, obviously considering the recut of operating costs that you've just been talking about and, you know, clearly what that's done to the remaining reserve life at Duke and North, you know, it does seem like Duke and South will naturally have to push underground over time to continue to be economic. So, yeah, just wondering how you sort of think about that asset at that point in time.

Well, yeah, thanks, Matt. Well, pretty much the way that you described it, really. Yeah. You know, Duke to North has got its year to run. We are looking for other opportunities up there, but I think it's going to take a little bit more time before we find the next half a million ounce deposit to keep Duke to North running hard. But we're looking at options at the moment. So, and clearly... You know, we had been quite a bit more optimistic about Duketon North probably a year or so ago, but with the inflationary impacts on costs, and clearly that's had an impact, and our desire to ensure that the ounces we produce are ones that have a margin, which is why we're sort of looking at this lower range for Duketon. If I painted a picture and said, as a minimum, what would I think Dukedom would be looking like out at that point in time, we'd have the undergrounds running, possibly with a new production source at the Gardenwell main. We have some reserves there, but we see that as being a third potential production zone from underground. With, you know, with all of our undergrounds continuing with this role in reserve replacement, which we see as part of the nature of... You know, if you looked at the reserves for the underground and said, well, it doesn't look like you've got much life, people who haven't been... You know, just need to go and have a look at the history of undergrounds across WA in these relatively small operations where you... where you just, you know, you have two years of reserves and you have done for the last eight or 10 years as you've been rolling. And we can see that sort of, that story presenting itself. In fact, you can look and see that we've, you know, been replacing depletion quite well in that part of the world. And Dukedon South... Sorry, not Dukedon. Rosemont Underground has got new production areas that are opening up in the southern area that give us optimism as well. Open pits will always have a role to play. We have a number of little satellites around the place that will help sort of contribute to effectively, if you like, keeping the mill full. But there are other underground targets that we know that, for example, there's some potential at Toohey's Well, we know there's potential at Bannego. We're barely getting started at Ben Hur, but we know there's potential underground extensions there as well that we're looking at. So I can certainly see where out at that point in time and beyond that undergrounds would continue to be uh significant contributed to the proportion of production and that's on the basis of course you know in the meantime we've got our exploration program going across the belt where we are getting you know uh it takes us time but we're looking for the next garden well size deposit or rosemount size deposit in a half a million million ounce deposit which is definitely uh something that that is It's just taking, it'll take time. So, and of course, if we do, and when we do find that and we do bring that into the portfolio, that means that Duketon quite potentially returns to its previous production levels in that above 300,000 ounces. But at the moment, we can certainly see a pathway with the undergrounds. So, you know, probably just a bunch of descriptions that are reinforcing what you were presuming in the first place.

Yeah, sure. Thanks, Jim. I guess the following question then is how should we be thinking about the capital required to replace that sort of baseload feed from the open pits over the next, you know, say four or five years? You know, is that just business as usual, sustaining capital in the existing undergrounds that you've got at Gardiner South and Rosemont? Or, you know, should we be maybe factoring in something a little bit higher in order for you to build on that ability to produce from the undergrounds?

Well, I think the existing undergrounds have really got this rolling, sustaining capital. You know, there's no... Like, when you start an underground mine, there's probably a reasonable lick of, I don't know, $30-odd million setting up the portal, putting the initial ramps in, bent shafts, power, all that sort of getting it into a position where it's ready to run, which is what we saw at Rosemont and similarly at Garden Well. With Gardenwell Main, I'm not quite sure it'll be... I don't think it'll be quite that significant because a lot of the infrastructure is already around, but that might require some proportion of that, and we'll give some guidance on that at the time. But, you know, it's... But as you look at rolling on the ounces from the existing operations, it's just more of the same. It'd be, you know... my view on that. And you might, like I mentioned, you know, there's a Ben Hur or maybe there's a Bannego or something, then, yeah, certainly there's that, you know, $25 or $30 odd million to set it up to get it before it starts production and then it's just running in a normal, consistent cost way. Does that help?

Yep, that's very helpful. Thanks, Jim.

The next question comes from Meredith Schwartz with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Jim and team. If I could just follow on from Matt's questions on Jeet and South. So you've had some good exploration results in that middle zone as you go down with the exploration drive. When can we expect a resource update on that area? And secondly, In terms of your broader plans for production from those zones, will you look to drill out that entire area from south to north to determine a production schedule, or will you start bringing on some production areas sooner to add to underground feed for the mill? Thanks.

Yeah, good question, Meredith. A combination of those. We certainly, we have an area that we're targeting for potential production that sits out underneath the main. It's where the actual, that exploration decline will end. And we don't have a slide of this in the pack, but if you have a look at, I think the diggers, Brezzo's got it. There's a slide there, a long section of Garden Well, and you can see where the decline sort of comes to an end which is later on this year, that's an area that we're already targeting to be a potential production area. But in the meantime, while that drives mining across, we are slowly working through each drill cutty that we put in as we run down that ramp. We're actually drilling it out as we speak and getting results that are encouraging for us. Of course, the first drill cutty that we drill from is virtually an extension of... is looking at ore bodies that just extend slightly northwards of the current south area. If you have a look at the section, you'll see what I mean. We're encouraged by that. In summary, yes, we're looking to open up a new production area within a reasonable timeframe sitting underneath Garden Wall Main. We need to get there and just confirm the reserves that we believe are there and get a decent um i guess grey control plan in place and then in the meantime we'll be drilling out that whole area between the south and the north and looking to see whether that in fact could be a third underground production zone that's if i painted the ideal picture we keep producing from the south and keep rolling down which is what we're doing um we target this new area underneath the garden well main proper which is where that declines heading and that's got a potential new production zone and in the and then while we sort of bring that up we complete the drilling satisfy ourselves and and hopefully um you know things pan out the way that um the upside of our exploration target um we've got another production zone sitting in the middle but obviously we've got a lot of work to do yet before we can hang ahead on that but that's that's the that's the um that's the strategy and that surprise we're chasing there yeah so if i could um so in terms of that that's i suppose second production front you know in that northern northern zone

What would be a likely timing for production to come out of that? Do you think, are we looking two years away? Would that be a rough timeline?

I wouldn't think two years might be a little bit far out. It certainly won't be this year. We need to get there and drill it and confirm it. Our experience tells us that... don't go out too early and tell everybody how fantastic and how soon it's going to be because underground mining, particularly when you're opening up new areas, just takes a little bit of time so that you don't blow your foot off. So two years, certainly. Earlier than that, well, I'd love it to be, but, you know, Stuart Gould, our COO, is, you know, understandably wanting to make sure that we don't overpromise there.

Yeah, absolutely. No, no, thanks. Thanks very much. That's all the questions from me. Thank you.

Thanks, Meredith.

Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand the call back to Mr. Beyer for closing remarks.

Thanks, Betsy. Thanks, everybody, for joining us this morning. I appreciate the questions too. It always helps us to add a bit more colour and perspective to what can be a bit dry. And as always, if there's any follow-up questions or anything, please give us a call or drop us an email and we'll do the best that we can to help you out. Thanks very much for joining us. Appreciate your time and have a nice day.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.