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 one 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 Rechichi, our Chief Financial Officer, and Ben, 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 AUD 24 million is disappointing, it is, we know, after a AUD 115 million hedge book impact. And basically, the underlying results show a business that has strength and that will start to shine through.
Looking at slide three, the company achieved some significant milestones in FY 2023. By year-end, we had largely completed the construction of a 9-MW solar farm at Duketon, and we'd signed an agreement at Tropicana to develop a 62-MW renewable energy facility that combines solar, wind, and battery. 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 Well South Underground at Duketon, and also at the Havana Open Pit at Tropicana.
Our exploration tech services team established an exploration target at Garden Well 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. Most pleasingly, we received the last key state approval for the McPhillamys 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. Now I'd like to hand over to Anthony Rechichi, who will step through the financial results in 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 5. And there, that's our FY 2023 financial results, some high-level numbers. You can see that the years 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 FY 2024. The underground mines delivered record tons, 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 AUD 455 million, and relatively stable year-on-year underlying EBITDA, this time at AUD 402 million. Note, the underlying EBITDA is before an inventory net realizable value adjustment of AUD 30 million.
Moving on to slide 6, 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 flow phase. I mean, the investments, cash flows are expected to reduce. AUD 301 million was invested across mine development and other CapEx, and we spent AUD 69 million on exploration and the McPhillamys development project. Other notable items include the AUD 67 million tax refund, AUD 39 million in the stamp duty payment relating to the Tropicana acquisition, and AUD 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 AUD 243 million. 30 June 2023 net debt was AUD 57 million. Moving over to Slide 7, we see the underlying EBITDA of AUD 402 million and the statutory net loss of AUD 24 million. Depreciation and amortization 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, I note we have a corporate debt facility of AUD 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 McPhillamys, expected in the June quarter of FY 2024. 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 FY 2024 guidance, that remains unchanged, this, 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 those, 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 the AISC.
That is basically non-cash, which, if you do the math, you'll realize that the AISC at Duketon remained pretty much the same as it has in the past. We do see this year, of course, a material reduction in capex relative to FY 2024. Part of that, of course, is the transition at Tropicana, with Havana moving into commercial production, and the capital there for the next year or so is sustaining. As 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 Underground's accelerating, and certainly a step up in ore production this year coming from the open pits at Tropicana.
Moving on to slide 10. Look, you know, as a summary, over the last couple of years, 2-3 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 has got a, as Anthony mentioned, has got a low debt-to-equity ratios, and we're transitioning from the investment phase to the cash build phase. The hedge book is scheduled to be completed by the end of this financial year, just over, a little bit over 10 months, but who's counting? And with this, we'll bring an additional AUD 150 million in pre-tax cash flows.
That's important to understand. When the hedge book falls away, it's the equivalent of over $10 million in additional cash 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 McPhillamys. 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 200-250 from Duketon over the coming years.
135,000-150,000 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 that or contribution from Duketon. Then, of course, with a targeting a final investment decision in the middle of next year, we'd see a couple of years we can for construction from McPhillamys, we can see that 165,000-180,000 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. 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 improved 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 one 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, g'day, Jim. Thanks, thanks for your time. I just wouldn't mind a reminder on McPhillamys and then the timelines 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've mentioned earlier, 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 any legal appeals process finished during May, June. So we're clear on that. We still have a Section Ten application that was put in, Section Ten under the federal 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 Local Aboriginal Land 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've cleared. 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 Local Aboriginal Land 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. And 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 finalizing 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 mid-June, in the middle of next year. Now, that is, you know, all of that is somewhat contingent on the timing of getting the Section Ten clearance because there is work we need to do.
We, you know, we don't want to upset that process, but that's the timeline that we're running at the moment. We haven't given any updated formal guidance on what that project's looking like. It still fits in this 6.5-7 million ton per annum capacity, is what we're driving to. It'll be a 10- or 11-year production profile. There's 2 million ounces in reserves. You know, there's certainly the guidance on the CapEx is, you know, north of AUD 500 million. We've got to finalize 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.
That also includes a AUD 100 million pipeline to bring the water in from coal mines about 90 kilometers away. So when we're producing, we see that we'll be sort of operating in that range of initially, certainly 165-180. 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. Yeah, thanks for the answer. Thanks, Jim. Thank you.
No worries, Levi.
The next question comes from Alex Papaioanou with Citi. Please go ahead.
Hi, Jim and Anthony. A few from me. So just following on, on McPhillamys, if the Section Ten 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. But if, you know, obviously, if it pushes out, and as 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 know, limited in how much influence you can have there.
The key message that's been coming out of the DCU, which is the department dealing with it at the federal level, is that there is a lot of Section Nine applications around Australia. Now, Section Nines are effectively an application to cease and desist work that is currently underway while an assessment happens. And it's, you know, it's almost like, I don't know, I guess, without wanting to pretend I'm an expert in this area, it's, in my view, it's a bit like a cease and desist activity immediately. So you might be building, constructing a highway, or you might be building a large factory or something. If a Section Nine 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 Ten, 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 delays also jobs and opportunity. So we're trying to push it along, as much as we can. If it continues to delay for extended period, it will have an impact on that FID date.
Yeah. Great, thanks. And in terms of D&A, so it was quite, it was a bit higher than what we're looking for. How should we think about D&A going forward?
Yeah, Alex, I mean, we don't... It's Anthony here. We don't typically provide our forecast of D&A 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 of, you know, now we're nearing the end of that life 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 AUD 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, you know, 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, FY 22 moving through to FY 23. 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 couldn't let that one get through to people.
We do our best.
The next question.
Next question.
-comes from Andrew Bowler with Macquarie. Please go ahead.
G'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, you know, it's part of progressing the funding strategy for McPhillamys. So can we take that to mean that, well, certainly before the study is finalized, we won't see any dividends for the next sort of year or so? Or, you know, will you revisit that, as hedge commitments roll off, maybe into FY 2025?
Yeah, look, good question. I mean, you never say never, right? And our underlying DNA of Regis 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 AUD 500 million in divies. 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. You know, that continues to be part of our thinking.
There's no doubt that that will stay there, that requirement for funding of McPhillamys, 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 12-18 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 it, you know, under the circumstances we're operating, I mean, if gold price went to $4,000 an ounce, which it would be nice if it did, then obviously that would be different. But right now, you know, we've made that decision to conserve the capital for obvious reasons, and would need to be something clear for us to change that view at the moment.
All right, thanks. I guess another hypothetical question. I mean, obviously, you know, very excited for hedge commitments to roll off at the end of this financial year. Is the funding for McPhillamys... I mean, obviously, you know, depending on gold price, you know, how much you might need in terms of additional funding, but would you consider hedging again, along with another debt facility attached to McPhillamys? Or has the experience with hedging been a little bit traumatic and that's sort of no-go's 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 McPhillamys', 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. So 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, we'd be doing that on the basis of, forms of protection around that, that debt obligation. So, yeah, there's, there's, we're certainly not ruling out hedging in the future. It's just gonna be done for, for risk management purposes, I would think.
No worries. That's all from me. Thanks very much, guys.
The next question comes from Hugo Nicolaci 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, appreciate, obviously, you got big CapEx spend of McPhillamys 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, it's certainly form part of the consideration in our decision not to pay a full year dividend.
Yeah, great. Thanks for that. And then maybe one for Anthony then, also just kind of following up on the kind of framework for McPhillamys 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, 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 McPhillamys would be a combination of our own cashflow 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 it, the debt extension now, you know, as deferral of the date, as opposed to do a full refinance at the moment, and that's just so that we've got an absolutely clear picture on McPhillamys.
Yeah, that's, you know, obviously, primarily, 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 feasibility study work at the moment.
Great. Thanks, so just to clarify, so that, the, 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 McPhillamys 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 McPhillamys?
Yeah, look, 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'll try and keep it corporate. But we'll just see what the markets are willing to do at that stage and our risk appetite as well.
Great. Thanks for that, Anthony and Jim. I'll pass it on.
Thanks, Hugo.
The next question comes from David Coates with Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead.
Good day, Jim-
Good day.
Anthony and Ben. Hope you're well. Thanks for the presentation and update this morning. Just circling back to costs. You know, you've highlighted you know the the if you back you know there's a $300 ounce inventory drawdown. In fact if you just you know including Jutin you also made a comment about you know the the the CapEx at McPhillamys. Just from a high level broadly speaking you know you've also sort of previously said you know that the the diesel costs are sort of coming off and and they were sort of helping the cost base.
What are the key kind of cost drivers, and which way are they going, as we're sort of looking to FY 2024 for you guys, you know, across operating and CapEx?
Yeah, yeah, good, 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 leveled 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 the single significant, you know, single input cost. The contractor and mining costs, you know, the rate per BCM overall is the other key factor.
You know, what are the, well, I said in terms of pit mining, what are the three things that drive your cost per ounce? One is the grade. Well, you know, 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 stabilize. We also see a key element on the, on the rate per BCM are the rise and falls. And, you know, with the inflation starting to, to certainly tempering around, that has slowed down the. You know, costs always are increasing, they, but just not at the wildfire rates that they were for the last 18 months. So we see them stabilized quite a bit more than they, than we were seeing this time last year.
There's always pressure. There always is. Labor still continues to be an area. More so the issue there, I think, is shortage of experience rather than the actual cost. There just, there's just a real tightness in the labor market and, you know, you can, 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 straight away, and I think that's something we're all dealing with. So there's, there's, you know, pressures haven't gone away, David, but they're certainly not as not as dramatic as they were this time 12 months ago.
On the CapEx front, you know, again, sort of high level, sort of, you know, you considering McPhillamys?
Yeah, look, we, we're still... I'm a little bit reluctant to go any more than what I-
Sure.
said earlier, partly because, you know, there's been a lot of, a lot of pressures on components and parts over the, over the last probably 18 months or so, and we've seen that definitely cool down. Demand for, you know, this time 2 years ago, the, or 18 months ago, the market was wild with all these projects that were gonna happen. Now, they're not quite so, quite so busy, and so rates have dropped. Major components have become more available on factory lines, and therefore, they're a bit cheaper now because of so, you know, we see that easing. But given that, you know, our FID is still, you know, probably 6 or 7 months away before we finalize the capital build.
I'm a bit reluctant to say any more than I already have on-
Yep.
on that range that we're sitting in.
Yeah, that's gravel enough to the specific range, just some of those underlying input factors. That's great. Thanks, Jim. That's it from me.
Thanks, Doug.
The next question comes from Alex Barkley with RBC. Please go ahead.
Hi, Jim and team.
Alex.
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, so, yeah, look, the impairment work, we, 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, look, we still continue to get the headroom there, you know, around, the carrying values of Duketon North obviously come off quite a bit anyway. Duketon South's got its, got its, life of mine that, protects it and gives it plenty of headroom going forward. And with, with Tropicana, it's, it's, yeah, it's a good asset, and, that's got its headroom available too. So yeah, that's where the work's landed.
Yeah, I'd back that up.
Particularly around the Tropicana. You know, we're pleased with the way that that continues to evolve and unfold in its value. You know, and, gee, at spot price, it's way, you know, it's way, way, way over. So we're, we're very pleased with that.
Yep.
How that asset's performing?
Just a last one. If you have any more clarity on what sort of cash tax you're expecting in the upcoming year or quantum of refund, maybe?
Yeah, we're 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.
Maybe a refund in and no cash tax out. Is that, is that the right way to think about it?
Our expectation is a net refund in, yeah.
Okay, all right. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you.
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, double hit that we were trying to avoid, keep our cash growing.
The next question comes from Matthew Frydman with MST 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 200,000-250,000 ounces. You may have to get the crystal ball out, Jim, but just wondering, in your view, what that asset looks like in FY 2027 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. Context of the question is-
Yeah
... 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 Duketon North. You know, it does seem like Duketon 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, that asset at that point in time.
Well, yeah. Thanks, Matt. Well, pretty much the way that you described it, really. You know, Duketon 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 500,000-ounce deposit to keep Duketon North running hard. But we're looking at options at the moment. So, and clearly, you know, we had been a little, 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.
It is, you know, if I painted a picture and said, as a minimum, what would I think Duketon would be looking like out at that point in time? We'd have, you know, the undergrounds running, possibly with a new production source at the Garden Well Main. If that, you know, we have some reserves there, but, we see that as being another, a third potential production zone from underground with, you know, with all of our undergrounds continuing with this rolling 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, doesn't look like you 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 just, you know, have 2 years of reserves, and you have done for the last 8 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.
Duketon South, 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've, you know, we know that, for example, there's some potential at Tooheys as well. We know there's potential at Baneygo. We even know, you know, 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 a significant contributor 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, it takes us time, but we're looking for the next Garden Well-sized deposit or Rosemont-sized deposit in a 500,000-1,000,000 ounce deposit. Which is definitely something 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, well, that means that Duketon was quite, quite potentially returns to its 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 follow-on 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 Garden Well South and Rosemont? Or, you know, should we be maybe factoring in something a little bit higher in order for your ability to... 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, AUD 30-odd million, setting up the portal, putting the initial ramps in, vent 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 Garden Well Main, I'm not quite sure 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 the as you look at rolling on the ounces from the existing operations, it's just more of the same, would be, you know, my, my view on that. A new mine, like I, I mentioned, you know, there's a Ben Hur or maybe there's a, there's a Baneygo or something, then yeah, certainly there's that, you know, AUD 25 million or 30-odd million to set it up, to get it, before it starts production, and then, then it's just running in, 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-
Good morning.
Good morning, from Matt's questions on Duketon South. So you've had some, some good exploration results in that middle zone as you go down with the, the, the exploration drives. When can we expect a resource update on that area? And, and secondly, in terms of your broader plans for production from, from those zones, will you look to drill out that entire area from, you know, south to north, to deter- to, to determine a production schedule? Or will you start bringing on some areas, production areas sooner to, add to underground feed for the mill? Thanks.
Yeah, good, good question, Meredith. Look, it's 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, will end. And we don't have a, don't have a slide of this in the pack, but if you have a look at, I think the diggers, Prezzo's got it. There's a slide there, a long section of, of Garden Well, and you can see where the, the decline sort of comes to an end, which is later, 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 have—we are slowly working through each drill cutting 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 cutting 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 plant head section, you'll see what I mean. But, so, you know, we've been... We're encouraged by that. So in summary, you know, yes, we're looking to open up a new production area within a reasonable timeframe, sitting underneath Garden Well Main.
We need to get there and just confirm the reserves that we believe are there and get a decent, I guess, great 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. We target this new area underneath the Garden Well Main, which is where that decline's heading, and that's got a potential new production zone.
And then while we sort of bring that up, we complete the drilling, satisfy ourselves, and hopefully, you know, if things pan out the way that the upside of our exploration target, 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 a hat on that. But that's the strategy and that's the prize we're chasing there.
Yeah. So if I could, so in terms of that, I suppose, second production front, you know, in that northern zone, what would be a likely timing for production to come out of that, do you think? Are we looking, 2 years away? Would that be a rough, a rough timeline?
I wouldn't think it... Two years might be a little bit far out. It certainly won't be this year. You know, we need to get there and drill it and confirm it. You know, our experience tells us that, don't go out too early and tell everybody how fantastic and how soon it's gonna 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.
Yep.
So two years, certainly. Earlier than that, well, I'd love it to be, but, you know, Stuart Gula , our COO, is, you know, understandably wanting to make sure that we don't overpromise there.
Yep, 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 one 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 color 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.