Dundee Precious Metals Inc.

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Dundee Precious Metals First Quarter 2022 Earnings Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to Jennifer Cameron, Director, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning. I'm Jennifer Cameron, Director, Investor Relations, and I'd like to welcome you to Dundee Precious Metals First Quarter Conference Calls. Joining me today are David Ray, President and CEO, and Hume Kyle, Chief Financial Officer. After the close of business yesterday, we released our first quarter results for 2022, and we hope you've had an opportunity to review our material. All forward-looking information provided during this call is subject to the forward-looking qualification, which is detailed in our news release and incorporated in full for the purposes of today's call. Certain financial measures referred to during this call are not measures recognized under IFRS and are referred to as non-GAAP measures or ratios. These measures have no standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. The definitions established and calculations performed by DPM are based on management's reasonable judgment and are consistently applied. These measures are intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. Please refer to the non-GAAP financial measures section of our most recent MD&A for reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures. Please note that unless otherwise stated, operational and financial information communicated during this call are related to continuing operations and have been rounded, References to 2021 pertain to the comparable period in 2021, and references to averages are based on midpoints over outlook or guidance. And now to turn the call over to David.

Thanks, Jennifer. Good morning, and thank you all for joining us. As you've seen from our news release circulated last night, the first quarter of 2022 was a solid start to the year, as we continue to generate significant cash flow driven by solid gold production and impressive oil and sustaining cost performance. This morning, I'll briefly review the highlights of our first quarter results and our operational performance before handing the call over to Kim to discuss our financial results. Looking at the highlights then from the first quarter, they include solid production of 63,000 ounces of gold and 7.7 million pounds of copper, excellent oil and sustaining cost performance of $684 per gold ounce, which was below the low end of our four-year guidance. strong free cash flow generation of $52 million to the quarter, and continued financial strength exiting the quarter with a cash balance of $382 million. With higher quarterly production forecast for the balance of the year, our mining operations are on track to achieve the 2022 guidance. I'm also proud to share another notable performance highlight. Our Bulgarian operations recently achieved 4 million hours without a lost-time injury, which translates to two years without a lost-time injury. This is a remarkable accomplishment that speaks to DPM's strong culture that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our employees at all levels. Turning now to the highlights of our operations, I'll start with Jalapetra. So Chalipetch continued its track record of consistent performance, producing approximately 41,500 ounces of gold, 7.7 million pounds of copper, at an all-in sustaining cost of $563 per ounce of gold. Gold production was above expectation, largely as a result of higher ore processed and higher gold recovery achieved in copper concentrate. Copper production was slightly below plan due to lower copper grades. At the end of March, we were pleased to announce a mine life extension and optimized mine plan in a technical report, as well as an updated mineral reserve and resource estimate for Chalapach. The optimized mine plan reflects improved gold recoveries, better commercial terms, and results in higher gold and copper production, adding approximately 286,000 ounces of gold and 47 million pounds of copper to Chalapach's life of mine production profile. The results are also reflected in an updated holding-sustaining-cost outlook for 2023 and 2024, where we've lowered costs to reflect the benefits of improved recoveries and commercial terms related to a higher volume of gold-copper concentrate delivered to third-party starters. We continue to focus on extending Chalapetch's mine life to our successful in-mine exploration program and a growing brownfield exploration program, which for 2022 includes the usual 44,000 meters of in-mine drilling for mineral resource development, of which roughly two-thirds of that is extensional. approximately 50,000 meters of brownfield exploration, which this year is primarily concentrated on near-mine exploration drilling related to the Sveta Petka commercial discovery application, as well as drilling at Sholodiri and other near-mine targets in the mine concession area. We've received all the required permitting for the drill program for Setapetka in March, allowing us to start the planned intensive drilling campaign to support a further assessment and application for a commercial discovery. And we commence that at the end of March, and it's for the commercial discovery application early in 2023. With a mine life that extends to 2030, an updated mineral resource base, an increase in mine and brownfield exploration drilling, we believe there is strong potential to continue our track record of mine life extension at Chalapetch. During the first quarter, Adetepe produced approximately 21,400 ounces of gold, which is above expectation for the first quarter as a result of higher gold grades, at an all-in and sustaining cost of $893 per ounce sold. With grades and production expected to be stronger in the second half of the year, and particularly the last quarter, Adatepe is on track to achieve its 2022 guidance. As we look to the year ahead, we are assessing the results of the accelerated grade control program at Adatepe, which was completed in 2021. The drilling was carried over with 7,000 metres done in 2022, and all of that together is now anticipated to go into an optimised mine plan, which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2022. We're continuing our exploration efforts at Edetepe with 20,000 metres of drilling planned for 2022, which will be focused on near-mine target delineation and drilling within the mine concession and surrounding Cremobitsa exploration lines. During the quarter, after completing conceptual targeting for possible feeder structures within the Kamkrum mine concession area, we're also planning a 5,000-meter drill program, which will commence in the second quarter. We also commenced drilling of the Chirite Exploration License with an 11-hole scout program underway to test targets identified in 2021. Turning to Sumer, Sumer smelt had processed approximately 47,200 tons of complex concentrate in the first quarter at a cash cost per ton of $480. This is below target for the quarter as a result of maintenance to the off-gas system, as well as reduced backhouse capacity. This impact to throughput is likely to continue as we progress towards the shutdown, which is planned to occur in Q2 and actually later in this month. As a result, we expect SUMEP to be towards the lower end of its 2022 guidance for complex concentrate. In terms of future growth, we continue to advance the Loma Laga project, recently achieving a very significant milestone in the permitting process. In mid-April, we received technical approval for the EIA assessment study from the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition. This process is now advancing to the community consultation stage. Following another review from the Ministry, we expect to get the environmental license in the third quarter of 2022. As the permitting process advances, our team is proactively working with stakeholders to obtain the project's social license. I had the opportunity to meet with President Lasso and a number of his cabinet ministers in March, and we continue to maintain a constructive relationship with the government. We are in negotiations regarding an investor protection agreement, which we expect to execute prior to making any significant capital commitments. We've also increased our dialogue with local stakeholders to provide more visibility to certain aspects of the project that are of high interest in the local community. As we previously reported, we paused our planned drilling activities near the end of February, pending the hearing of a constitutional protection action against the ministry, which is sent in in Cuenca. The original hearing date was deferred following the filing of preliminary motions, and we expect the hearing to be scheduled shortly. We continue to work closely with government ministries and local stakeholders that support the project in defending this action, which the company believes is without merit. In parallel with permitting, we've also continued our work to optimize the feasibility study for Loma Laga and progressed with several trade-off studies aiming to further improve the project based on expertise and experience. Turning to the TMOP project in Serbia, we continue to progress the feasibility study focused on the oxide and transitional portions of the deposit, which is on track for completion in the second quarter and reporting in Q3. In terms of greenhouse gas targets, last night we were pleased to announce DPM's climate change commitments. These commitments are the culmination of a significant amount of work, which included assessing the risks and opportunities of climate change on DPM's business, as well as the development of a climate change strategy that incorporates our growth strategy, capital resources, and operational priorities. And it is aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. We are committing to reducing our absolute scope one and two greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% by 2025 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. However, in order to achieve the real reductions needed to avoid the global tipping point in the climate crisis, we also need to work with the suppliers and customers along our value chain. We're therefore also committing to develop a scope three emissions target by 2025 and to engage in the existing and potential new partners within our value chain to pursue opportunities that will have a meaningful impact. These commitments will require a significant amount of work and collaboration throughout our whole value chain, and I'm confident that we have the skills we need to be successful. We look forward to sharing our progress as we work towards these commitments. To wrap up the quarter, our strong production profile and significant free cash flow generation, combined with our operating track record and strong ESG performance, position us well to continue delivering value for all of our stakeholders. We are committed to deploying our capital in a disciplined manner, as we have demonstrated with our investment in optimizing our assets and advancing our growth pipeline. We also continue to pay a sustainable quarterly dividend and more recently used our NCIB to repurchase 1.5 million shares during the first quarter. We are confident that DPM's strong fundamentals continue to represent a compelling value opportunity for investors. And I'll now turn the call over to Hume for a review of our financial results and outlook, following which we will open the call to questions.

Thanks, David. Good morning, everybody. I'll begin by reviewing first quarter financial results, after which I will touch on our three-year outlook, financial position, and capital allocations. For the quarter, we generated adjusted net earnings of $37 million for $0.19 per share, up from $0.17 in 2021. This increase was primarily attributable to higher smelter throughput, pull rates, and sulfuric acid prices at SUMEP, higher metal prices, and lower treatment charges in respect of concentrate sold, partially offset by lower volumes of metals sold at Atatepe, in line with our mine plans. as well as higher operating costs in respect of power, fuel, and other direct materials. Net earnings attributable to common shareholders in the first quarter of 2022 were $27 million. This included a restructuring cost of $10 million at SUMEM related to a comprehensive initiative directed at optimizing its cost structure, as well as mark-to-market after-tax losses in respect of our Sabina special warrants. Both of these are excluded from adjusted earnings as they are not reflective of our underlying operating performance. In terms of our cash flow metrics, Q1 cash flow from operations before changes in working capital was $64 million and free cash flow was $52 million, each of which is comparable to the corresponding period in 2021. From a cost perspective, we continue to focus on margin improvement and cost performance at all of our operations. As expected, first quarter mining costs and oil and sustaining costs were up over 2021, reflecting inflationary pressures stemming from COVID and now more recently the Russian situation, particularly in respect of power prices, which are at record levels across Europe. Nevertheless, for the quarter, we delivered one of the better oil and sustaining costs in the industry at $684, up from $522 in 2021. reflecting lower volumes of gold sold at Atatepe, higher operating costs, higher outlays for sustaining capex, partially offset by higher byproduct credits, and the impact of a stronger U.S. dollar. At Sumed, Q1 cash cost per ton was $480, down $487 compared to 2021. This was due primarily to the timing of the Osmalt furnace maintenance, which occurred in the first quarter of 2021. and this year is planned for the second quarter. From a capital expenditure standpoint, sustaining capital expenditures incurred during the quarter were $9 million, down from $17 million in the corresponding period in 2021, and this decrease was due primarily to the timing of last year's Osmel Furnace Maintenance shutdown at Sumit. Growth capital expenditures incurred in the quarter were $6 million, up from $2 million in 2021, due primarily to spending related to the development of Loma Larga and the Team Up Gold project. Looking forward over the balance of the year at Chilipetch and Atatepe, we are forecasting higher average quarterly production, and with solid year-to-date performance, are well on track to achieve our 2022 production guidance. At SUMEB, throughput is expected to be at the lower end of its 2022 guidance as a result of maintenance activities during the first quarter in the off-gas system, which reduced baghouse capacity. These issues are expected to be resolved during the Osnot furnace maintenance scheduled for the second quarter, and are expected to translate into improved operating performance over the balance of the year. As previously mentioned, strong first quarter cost performance. We are well on track to achieve our 2022 guidance at all of our operations with potential upside as a result of the surge in the U.S. dollar against most currencies. Our guidance in respect of 2022 CapEx also remains unchanged, reflecting higher planned balance of year spending. Looking beyond 2022, our outlook remains unchanged, with the exception that we have updated our oil and sustaining costs to reflect production and delivery of lower copper-grade concentrate to third parties, combined with improved recovery performance in commercial terms, as set out in the most recently issued Chilipetch technical report. In particular, we reduced our oil and sustaining cost outlook by roughly 6% to 7%, with 2023 and 2024 now expected to be between $590 to $700 and $690 to $800, respectively. In closing, we delivered another quarter of solid operating performance with our mining operations, which contributed to free cash flow generation of $52 million. As part of our overall capital allocation framework, we continue to allocate a portion of our free cash flow to shareholders, with Q1 buybacks representing $8.9 million and a Q1 dividend of $0.04 per share, or $7.6 million, up 33% from 2021 levels. With cash at $382 million at March 31, 2022, no debt, and continue strong free cash flow generation, we are well positioned to fund our existing growth opportunities and to generate additional value to stakeholders while continuing to return capital to our shareholders, a base portion of which will continue to be in the form of a sustainable quarterly dividend. And with that, I'll turn the call back over to the operator.

Thank you, sir. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your questions, you may press the pound key. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. And we do have our first question from Cosmos Chu with ICBC. You may ask your question.

Hi, David Hume. It's, as you know, CIBC. But they may have changed the name on me. I'm not sure. But maybe my first question is on your cost for the quarter, you know, as you mentioned $684 an ounce, which is great. You know, below your 2022 cost guidance. You know, I'm just, I guess my question is, in light of inflationary pressures, how were you able to, you know, get to a number that was below your target? And is it sustainable? Is it mostly due to, you know, the better concentrate terms coming from Chalapage, or was there something else as well?

Yeah, great question. I think, you know, as you may recall, we increased our guidance or our outlook for costs coming into 2022 because of the inflationary pressures that we were seeing in 2021. So I think in the first instance, it was anticipated that we were going to be higher. I think the one thing that actually benefited us in the quarter quite significantly was power prices. And power prices are at record levels across Europe. And what we weren't sure of, but what we factored into our guidance was a more conservative outlook in terms of ongoing subsidies. And the subsidy from Bulgaria continues and is expected to continue And so that was really one of the key reasons why we've performed as well as we have. Now, having said that, our outlook for the year does reflect higher commodity prices for direct materials, including things like diesel, which are up relative to what we forecast, but not that significantly, really. So when we look at our forecast for the full year, taking into account the continued subsidy from the Bulgarian government for power, and the strong U.S. dollars, we're very confident with the guidance that we have and see upside to it as well.

Great. Thanks, Hume. I'm not sure how much you can share with us, but I think on the last conference call you mentioned that power costs might have doubled year over year, but it sounds like now it's, you know, offset. How much of that is offset by subsidies, and, you know, how much longer can these subsidies continue, or is it, you know, quarter by quarter that you find out if these are continuing?

Again, good question. I guess the fact is that we don't have visibility or confirmation from the government that the subsidy would be in place long-term. They tend to announce it and give us visibility for several months at a time. So at this point, we have visibility to probably the end of June at this point. But I think one of the dynamics that exists is the fact that because virtually all of the power production in Bulgaria is state-owned. And you're in an environment where there's sort of one European price for power. The state is essentially enjoying windfall profits, which it can easily return to consumers, including the industrial consumers, to help mitigate the impact of these elevated prices. And I think, as I mentioned earlier, probably a year end in the context of . I would say that power prices without the subsidy are roughly five times higher sometimes, probably three to five times higher than what they were historically. So the subsidy, which is based on a formula and can sort of range between 30 and 40% actually, you know, that goes a long way to mitigating some of the impact. But even if we were to lose the subsidy for the balance of the year, it still would not impact our guidance for 2022.

Great. And then, you know, this kind of is related to my second part of my question here. You know, it's, again, very encouraging to see that you've lowered your on-sustaining cost guidance for 2023 and also 2024. I guess the first part of my question is, what's a power cost assumption that's been priced into your lowered on a sustaining cost on a go-forward basis?

For 2023 and 2024, we essentially use the same elevated power price that we're using for 2022. So nobody knows at this point as to where power is going to go. All these things tend to overshoot and undershoot in the short term. I wouldn't expect that power prices would remain at these elevated levels into 2023 and 2024, but that's what we've assumed for purposes of the guidance.

Great. And then the second part of my question is, I would assume that, you know, I think on a previous conference call, you mentioned that a lot of the Chalopech ore is now going to third-party smelters instead of going to Sumet. I would assume that's the case in terms of, you know, your updated data on sustaining cost assumptions for 2023 and 2024. Can you remind us how much of your Chalapet or Concentrate is now going through third-party versus SUMED? And I guess the second part of my question is, you know, are these longer-term contracts? Because I remember in the past, at times, you know, having Concentrate going through SUMED was actually a bit more economical, right? then going through third parties, can that, you know, flip in 2023 and 2024? How, how sure are you in terms of these commercial terms, these favorable commercial terms continue?

Uh, yeah, I mean, historically, um, as you know, SUMEB was, you know, our assured outlet for complex concentrates, not just for ourselves, but, but third parties, um, And the market certainly changes over time. I would say in the current market environment, and we've seen this for the last several years actually, there's increased opportunity for chillpetch to divert. And the commercial terms by diverting to other smelters is certainly attractive. So you may recall that what we said is You know, at this stage, rather than expanding the smelter, our primary goal is to divert Chelapeche material to other third-party material. So what our outlook reflects is exactly that, a decreasing proportion of Chelapeche material going to SUMEP over the next three years to the point where we are anticipating and planning that 100% of Chelapeche material will be diverted away from SUMEP by 2024. And as a consequence, we will essentially pick up, you know, not just in terms of the recoveries of the concentrate and golden concentrate, but also there's a significant pickup in terms of the commercial terms that we are able to achieve with other third-party smelters.

Maybe just a last comment on that in terms of what the consideration was going into this, and it was also the same for the technical report. For this year, we've assumed 50% of the production from Chalapetch will be at a grade suitable for shipping elsewhere, 50% to the smelter. For Q2 and Q3, we'll be producing grades suitable for the smelter. So in Q1, what you've seen is what you can anticipate as an increasing proportion of our production. going forward. For next year, that drops to 25%, one quarter of production from chalopech, and we're not anticipating any chalopech material going unless it's favorable for us to do so to the smelter as from 2024.

Great. Thanks again, David and Hume, and those are the questions I have.

And we have our next question from Trevor Turnball of You may ask your question.

Thank you. Hi, David. On chelapeche, I wanted to ask you kind of more of a nuts and bolts question about the lower grade concentrate strategy for chelapeche and how that's helping with the improved costs. Just so I understand, is it kind of correct to say you're able to lower your cutoff and that's how you're getting the higher metal into the concentrates? Higher metal meaning kind of more metal in aggregate through the bigger mass pool?

So in the last two years with the technical report and with the updates that we've made as part of the AIF, what you would have seen is that there's been an extension to the life of mine, which in part is because of a rethink. of the cut-off grade in the blocks, the mining blocks. This year, what we're anticipating is there's going to be more focus on the actual exploration results feeding into the technical report. So what happened in this particular case is we found an opportunity whereby, with the work that we were doing, we could drop the concentrate grade target for copper which effectively increases your recovery into a copper concentrate, which could then be sold as either copper or a gold concentrate, because it fits within a certain window in terms of copper grade, gold content, and arsenic content. And that's something that I think is fairly unique for us relative to others, and this is why we've taken advantage of that opportunity. So what we've done is we've rethought the cut-off grades and the blocks for the mine as part of the technical report, and that's brought about the additional 280,000 plus ounces over the course of the life of mine out to 2030. So what happens, of course, is you're increasing the total tonnage, increase the mass pool, and drop the tailings, which increases the overall recovery and the benefit in terms of recovery. So if you would look at where we were last year, we were at 76% overall recovery. This year, we were anticipating something that would be, say, 5% better than that, but actually Q1 performance was even better than that. We were closer to an 83% overall recovery. So it gives you an idea of the benefit in terms of gold units, even at a lower gold input grade, which if you sort of look at the numbers, that's what you'll see. Now, last comment on this maybe is that you have to make sure that the entire circuit can handle what you're doing. So part of what we did was we dropped the head grate going into the mill in order not to overwhelm the filtration while we were working on the capacity for filtration. What happens now in Q2 and Q3, you increase the concentrate grade, which is no longer putting the filtration plant under pressure. So therefore, the head grades for Q2 and Q3 will be higher, and then we'll drop it again for Q4, depending on the constraint that is provided by the filtration. There's a lot more detail than perhaps you need, but I just wanted to give you an impression of this is going to be a year of sort of two hearts. You've got Q1, Q4, which is at that low grade, higher mass, full high recovery, Q2, Q3, which is higher. suitable for sooner which is a lower recovery slightly lower recovery but still giving you the sort of benefit of the learning that we have from all of that in terms of an overall performance. So at the moment, we did a test in Q4 last year, which allowed us to agree we would do that for this year, for Q1 and Q4. And then Q2, Q3 will then feed into what we do in future years. So sorry, a lot more detail than probably you wanted to know, but I just wanted to give you an understanding of what we're doing is we're progressively building in these opportunities into the production plans. And that's why we have the high confidence in being able to achieve.

No, I appreciate the extra color because, I mean, the net result is easy enough to see costs coming down, but it helps to understand exactly some of the more technical aspects of how you've achieved it and not put the plant under strain. You know, as the My next question, I guess, would be about SUMEB and just as kind of the dynamics have changed with respect to what you're doing with your concentrate and obviously the broader copper market. Does that inform your strategy with respect to SUMEB at all? Is there thoughts of ever perhaps divesting of SUMEB or if that was a thought, is there more demand perhaps for a smelter Whereas in the past, I'm not sure there would have been a market or any buyers for it.

I think the opportunity that we're taking advantage of is fairly unique for us. not necessarily accessible for the rest of the market. And what happens is it's an opportunity for us. It's actually a problem for somebody else. So what that means is that there's likely to be other materials which will be looking for a home at Sumed. So, you know, this remains our ability to backstop the production of our concentration. Things change in the other direction. But equally, what we're doing at Sumed is we're undergoing a number of activities at the moment to increase the productivity and competitiveness of one of which is this T300 project. So we're trying to make it so that SUMEP is more self-sustaining and less reliant on the chelopege concentrate, which with a cost-plus arrangement makes it uncompetitive relative to third-party snuff. So I think the bottom line is that we're not seeing any particular increase in overall arsenic-containing concentrate coming to market, but we do see there is going to be an increased demand in the near term for SUMEP capability. At the same time, we're trying to decrease the unit cost as part of this P300 process, which we have happening this year and next year at SUMED. And I would say, last but not least, to your point of its importance to DPM, at this point, I think we still need the fallback, but it's one of the things that we consider. You know, at what point does this become more of a distraction to DPM than it becomes a positive in the terms of the confidence and ability to place our concentrate?

Yeah, I appreciate that. And then I just have one last question and switching gears, obviously, quite a bit to Loma Larga. You got the technical approval for your EIA and you're looking for final approval later this year. At the same time, I know you had a challenge to your drilling permits and that's interrupted some of your exploration work, at least for the time being. My question, I guess, is do you expect similar challenges to perhaps interrupt your work challenges to the EIA that somehow might impact your ability to advance the work you're trying to do there.

We would anticipate that those people who are concerned about mining in that area will continue to do what they can to delay our advancing the project to the point where ideally we can get them comfortable that we're all doing the right thing and this is going to be a net positive for that area. So it's not just exploration, though. The thing that we're primarily concerned about is really not extending Loma Lago. We know the opportunity is there, but it's primarily around the hydrogeology, geotech, and other drilling that we need to make sure that our assumptions in the technical report and the plan to construct this asset are well-founded. So we are anticipating that we'll get a court date on that. This is not the first. It's not the only one. This is the third of a series of different actions like this to a rule in favor of the Ministry of Environment, by the way. This is the challenges against the Ministry of Environment of the company.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. That's all I had. Thanks again, David.

And speakers, we have our next question from Wayne Lamb with RCBC. You may ask your question.

Yeah, thank you. Maybe just to follow up on that question on Loma Laga, I was just wondering if you might have any clarity on an expected timeline that you're looking at in terms of a resolution of that court process?

We're anticipating the dates of the setting of the case any day, literally. At this point, if you have a look at the other actions that have taken place, that have taken a couple of months as the longest to get to a conclusion, still a potential for an appeal process in that. So, obviously, we're paying close attention. We're very happy to see that the other court cases have actually ruled in favor of Marty. Obviously, our ambition at this point is to work through a process which provides confidence that we are doing the right thing, something we believe very firmly that we are, and gives us the ability, while that is happening, to get on with this drilling, which allows us to complete the opportunity of the updated technical report.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then maybe a follow-up on SUMAB. Would you be able to provide a bit more detail on the ongoing review of the cost structure and kind of where you see room for optimizations? And then just wondering if there's a certain tonnage that you guys need to hit to break even there on a quarterly basis?

Yeah, okay. So in terms of the optimization, what always was the intent of doing that is there was a need to bring in some of the work that might typically be done by third parties elsewhere. And the reason why we did that is we didn't feel we were going to get to an appropriate level of performance. So we did that with maintenance. We did that with some of the oxygen production and so on. And the end result of that is that the plan was we were going to complete that work and then say, okay, right, how do we optimize the structure given there was so much going on with the construction and, you know, the other work at the smelter. We never quite got to that last phase. So now what's happened is we said, all right, we're going to focus on this. So we're running what's called a P300 project. And a large component of that is how many people do you actually need to run this facility and what is the work and what are the roles and how do you plan this to give you the sort of performance that you're looking for. So we commenced a voluntary early retirement and a voluntary separation process, which is actually occurring right now. So that will take roughly 15% of the current complement out of the smelter. And we are obviously taking the work and redesigning the roles so that when we come out of the shutdown, we'll be operating under a different system. So that's sort of what's happening there. At the same time, we're looking at what work do we have contracted so we can displace any temporary and contracted employees where possible with this change in workforce. But ultimately, it will be how do we bring down the overall cost, increase productivity, such that we can achieve our P3 under target. In terms of the amount of tonnage that we're going to need, we're assuming that the baseline number would be in the region of what our previous record production has been, say 230,000 to 232,000. tons per year. But there are different ways to do this. So I've been involved in a number of different smelters and I can tell you that some of the ways that you can do this is if you're short of tonnage, you run for a period of time until that tonnage is depleted and then you shut down and people take vacation. You do the work that you can do and then restart. So actually we could easily foresee a range of situations where we're operating as we are now. with a sort of, let's say, a 15-month maintenance shutdown window, you could easily see that you could run for 10 months of the year and then have a lesser number of people because you don't have to take into account vacation timing. So there's lots of different ways to look at this thing. But I would say from a tonnage point of view, assuming that we're talking about something between 200 and 230,000 tons a year would be the type of number that we're looking at with that $300 per ton goal.

Maybe I would just add... a comment there. I think that number that Dave referred to is really looking at SUMEB like on a standalone basis because, as Dave mentioned, like right now, Shell Patch has a cost-plus contract with them. And the very purpose of that contract was to help ensure that we maintained a, you know, viable cash flow generating business And that was put in place before we ever acquired SUMEP. You know, as a third party, we put a contract in place to ensure viability of the smelter, so it continues to this day. So I would say under that, like, construct, you know, probably the low end of our guidance would be about breakeven. Like, we've always sort of said that, you know, SUMEP's going to generate anywhere between sort of $0 and $10 million of free cash flow, not a very significant portion at all of the overall cash flow. So 210 would be, roughly speaking, kind of break even under the current construct. But we very much want SUMEP to reduce its cost structure, and the opportunity there is one, standalone viability, and two, it'll further reduce the TCs that Chilipetch pays on a go-forward basis. So I hope that sort of adds some additional color.

Okay, perfect. Yeah, that's really good detail. Last one for me. I guess on the emissions front, I think it's pretty notable having such an ambitious target on GHG reduction. You guys already have two very low emissions mines. So I guess two questions. The first is, you know, is the majority of that reduction going to be targeted at SUMEB? And can you outline maybe some of those initiatives? And then the second, if the majority of your emissions fall within scope two, Isn't that much more difficult to change incrementally, given that it's not directly within your control?

Yeah, thank you. Great point. So, by the way, I said in my presentation that it was by 2025 that we have a 37% reduction. It's actually by 2035. So, talking about the initiatives, and I'll come back to the sort of split of activity and where the opportunity is within the organization here. We've already had a number of items that we've been looking at that can give us sort of improved performance, and some of that is down to energy supply, which at the moment is a mix of hydro and coal, and looking at emphasizing things from more green sources that can give us some benefit, both in terms of cost, but also in terms of the greenhouse gas generation. The mines, and actually the smelters as well, there's a lot of things like like conveying, rework, grind optimization, all of that type of thing, even consumables. So, for instance, some of our ACT programs, our advanced control programs, are actually on optimization of flotation, which gives you reduction in reagent consumption. So that then has the knock-on benefit that, you know, you've got less scope 3 consumption as part of your supply chain. So anyway, it's a complex situation. Back to your other point, there's definitely more opportunity at the moment in the smelter than I would say that there is at the mines because they're already well advanced in terms of that performance. This is a really big conversation. We're really happy to have that perhaps as a separate item because we'd like to make sure that, you know, we've got all the people here who can really sort of show you why we're excited about the work that we're doing, but this is something that we're working on actively. And the next phase of that, as we said, is that we need to really be talking actively with our suppliers and the people who are receiving our material to make sure that we have a plan of action, not just for scope one and scope two, but more for scope three as well.

Okay, perfect. I think it's great that you've set such a target and really pushing the bar forward. Look forward to updates ahead. Thank you.

And we have our next question from Don DeMarco with National Bank Financial. You may now ask your question.

Thank you, Operator, and good morning, team. Congratulations on your quarter. Just two questions. I apologize if some of the response has been touched on but just wondering why the cost guidance uh was not reduced for 2022 i mean we see there's a driver for that um led to the reductions in 23 and 24 but but not 2022. yeah um i guess what i would say is uh first off um

The 2022 guidance did reflect some of the outlook that we were anticipating in terms of the 50-50 production going to third parties and to SUMEP. The other thing, though, just looking forward, we're in a very uncertain period right now, and I think even though we feel quite confident with the guidance that we have right now, and I really don't see any, you know, prospect for having to change it. And as I mentioned earlier, I think that there's, you know, good reason to think that we might actually, you know, get to the lower half of the range on the oil and sustaining cost side, maybe even on a cost per tonne basis. There's still a lot of uncertainty there. around power pricing in particular, supply chain pressures and further cross pressures that might come up because of the Russian situation. So I think we're just being conservative, but directionally we have indicated that I think that there is some upside to getting into the lower half, particularly if the US dollar is at current levels. I think we sort of forecast balance of the year probably 9% higher than the current level of the dollar. So that's some pretty significant tailwind that gives us comfort that even if we are to see some further increase in direct materials or we were to lose the subsidy, it's not going to impact our guidance. So I apologize, I can't be more specific than that.

No, that's very helpful. Yeah, that's pretty helpful. Yeah, you're being a bit conservative, and there's maybe a little bit of uncertainty, and some of your expected cost reductions are already baked in. That's fair. Maybe just another question on Loma Larga. Is there going to be an updated technical report at some point, or maybe just some sort of refresh on CapEx? I think that the feasibility study estimated CapEx to be about $316 million. We're in this inflationary environment. Everybody's just trying to get a handle on on the magnitude, if any, increase across any project. So when might we expect some update on that?

Yeah, good question. So that's why we're saying that, for our view at the moment, we're less concerned about some of the other impacts, like doing additional resource drilling, as much as we want to really get on with the geotechnical drilling and the hydrogeology and this type of thing. At this point, we're anticipating that Sometime in Q3 or Q4, we'll be having that report ready. All of the trade-off studies will be done. All of the resource work will be done. So it's really down to the confirmation information, such as condemnation drilling underneath the tailings facility and the geotech hydrogeology that I was talking about. Just to make sure that you're not taking a flyer on something like the tailings. You need to make sure that you have a good level of confidence in the earthworks costs in particular around those. In terms of the other work, that's progressing well in terms of the trade-offs and just something that you may not have thought of. One of the advantages of Loma Laga is in the experience at Chalapetch and by what means we can bring that to differentiate ourselves in terms of what the value can be of that project. The same thing we just talked about in terms of the grade of concentrate as an opportunity for Loma Laga. So that's one opportunity, the considerations in terms of the production and where that might go. Another one, for instance, is are we going to do underground conveyor? Are we going to do trucking sort of technology? We typically don't use conventional technology on flotation, but we're sort of well beyond that. And there's opportunities there to get something that is going to have a relatively quick payback, controllability, as well as when we point to a real benefit relative to the technology. So all of these things are being put in. I'm not concerned about will be more about getting the information we need to put confidence on the capital estimate.

And I think before the 318, that was INB's estimate. We're not sort of hanging our hat on that. We're doing all the optimization work currently. We ultimately will issue a number around which we have confidence. But we fully expect that number I would say even before the subsectionary environment, we would expect that likely to be higher given the way that we're going to, you know, build the project. So in this environment, I think you can further expect, you know, increases and, you know, just directionally because it's not, again, something that's grounded. We've always said it's probably going to be closer to $400 million in aggregate relative or, you know, versus the $318 that IMV had originally put out there.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Good luck with Q2. Appreciate it. Thanks.

And speakers, there are no more questions on Q. I will turn the call over back to Jennifer Cameron for closing comments.

Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us. Should there be any further questions, please feel free to reach out to our team, and we look forward to speaking with you next quarter. Thank you.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.