Good afternoon. My name is Pam, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I'd like to welcome everyone to the B2Gold 4th quarter and year-end 2021 financial results conference call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question during this time, simply press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to withdraw your question, please press star followed by two. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, you may begin your conference.
Thanks, operator. Thanks for joining us. We're here, as the operator said, to report on the 4th quarter of 2021 and the year-end results for 2021 financial results. We had, as the news release indicates, another very strong quarter and year in 2021, ending up in a very strong cash position. Our costs were in good shape, and we're pleased with those results and I think are well-positioned to continue with our responsible mining from all of our sites and also continue to push to grow the company. We'll talk about that as well. We're gonna keep it pretty brief in terms of the presentation side, and then open it up for all of your questions.
I'm gonna turn it over now to Mike Cinnamond, who's gonna talk you through the highlights of the financial results, and then I'll come back on and talk a little bit about perhaps some outlook and where we see ourselves going. We'll open up to questions. We've got the whole B2Gold team, mostly in the office in Vancouver and some on the phone as well. We'll be happy to take your calls after the presentation. Thank you. Over to you, Mike.
Thanks, Clive. I'm gonna talk about the quarter and then the full year, and then I'll have a brief comment on the budget guidance that we already put out in a separate release, but reiterated in this news release. Firstly, for the quarter, gold revenue for Q4 was $526 million. That was sale of 292,000 ounces at average price of $1,800 per ounce. The gold price pretty much averaged for the quarter and for the full year. In fact, where we thought it would when we put out our cash flow guidance at the start of the year, which is remarkable in a year where it bounced up and down. Obviously, now we're seeing it at $1,900 an ounce with this Ukrainian crisis.
Prospects for gold sales are good. We're currently selling into those higher prices. Production-wise, consolidated production was 305,000 ounces for the quarter, and that includes our share of Calibre's production. Pretty much on budget, just slightly over 2,000 ounces over budget. From our mines, Fekola, 164,000 ounces. That was 4,000 ounces ahead of budget. Fekola through the quarter and for full year is the same story we've talked about already all year. Just higher throughput than we thought. I think we averaged over 9 million tons this year, which is remarkable. We budgeted 7.75 for this year.
Averaged over 9 million tons throughput, and that was partially offset by lower recoveries from lower grade stockpile material that we put through the mill to feed that throughput. Masbate, 47,000 ounces. That was 5,000 ounces lower than budget. If you recall in Q3, we'd already indicated that Masbate actually mined out of sequence. It mined some of the higher grade main vein material in Q3 that was budgeted for Q4. We thought in Q4, we'd probably give back about 10,000 ounces at Masbate, but in the end, we only gave back 5,000. Masbate actually performed a little better than we thought it would at the end of Q3. Then Otjikoto, 79,000 ounces, just 1,000 ounces over budget. Otjikoto just bowling along. It's pretty much everything is on budget or better than budget.
Recoveries for the Q are actually 99%, so pretty remarkable there. In terms of what that meant for cash costs and all-in sustaining costs. For cash costs produced, consolidated, $484 an ounce. That was $79 higher than budget. That kinda reflected what we thought we'd see in Q4, impacted by inflationary pressures, as I think all mines have seen, you know, inflation on higher fuel, reagent and fuel costs and stronger local currencies, particularly in Namibia, where the Namibian dollar was fairly strong. By site, Fekola was $379 an ounce produced, $60 higher than budget. Masbate, $952 an ounce, which is over $300 higher than budget.
Masbate, in particular, experienced higher inflation in terms of the fuel prices in the 4th quarter. Also it had slightly lower production, as I mentioned already, than was originally budgeted, so that contributed to that overall higher cash cost from Masbate. Otjikoto, $338, $319 higher than budget, so pretty close overall. Overall, just under $80 an ounce higher than we'd budgeted, but it's kind of what we expected at the end of Q3. All-in sustaining costs per ounce sold, consolidated for the Q were $860 per ounce. That was $82 an ounce higher than budget. That really reflects the flow through those higher cash costs. Some higher sustaining CapEx. We had some catch up.
We were slightly behind at the end of Q3. That was offset by higher ounces sold than we forecast and budgeted. What we found on the sales side was that we actually had an extra shipment or two. We were able to sell by the end of the 4th quarter before Christmas higher than we thought we would. That actually contributed slightly to higher ounces sold in the period. Overall, all-in sustaining costs $860 an ounce, $82 higher than budget. Comment on fuel, just as fuel is one of the main inflationary factors. It's around 30% of site total cost, diesel is around 14%, that's the fleet, and HFO on average is around 17%, just for your information.
Just some commentary on the full year results now. Revenue just under $1.8 billion for the year, again, average $1,796/oz, so very close to that $1,800 mark. Production for the year, including our share of Calibre, was 1,047,000 ounces. Excellent, and that's really up at the high end of that, near the higher end of that guided production range that we put out in Q3. For Fekola, 568,000 ounces, that was 25,000 ounces ahead of budget. That was near the top end of our revised guidance range for Fekola of 560,000-570,000 ounces, and it exceeded the upper end of our original guidance range of between 530,000 and 560,000.
Same story as it was for the Q, higher throughput, lower grade material from the stockpiles all year. Masbate was 222,000 ounces, so that was 15,000 ounces ahead of budget. Again, near the top end of our revised guidance range of between 215,000 and 225,000, and exceeding the upper end of our original guidance range of between 200,000 and 210,000. So I think at Masbate, we saw greater metal recoveries, you know, higher metallurgical recoveries and more oxide than was modeled, partially offset by a little lower than budgeted throughput, but still overall a significant beat from Masbate. Then Otjikoto, 198,000 ounces for the period, 7,000 ounces ahead of budget.
That was actually a quarterly so I should have mentioned before, Otjikoto was a quarterly record and annual gold production record. The 198,000 ounces, that was near the top end of its guidance range of between 190,000 and 200,000 ounces. Like I mentioned, at Otjikoto, pretty much everything on budget or slightly better than budget. In terms of consolidated cash costs and all-in results for the year, consolidated cash costs for the per ounce produced came in at $535 per ounce. That was just $15 ahead of budget and within our overall guidance range for the year of $500-$540. We're pretty pleased with that. You know, we did see those higher costs in Q4, but when you take it in the context of the whole year, we came in within our guidance range.
Fekola was $449 per ounce produced. That was just $24 ahead of budget, and it was at the upper end of our guidance range of $405-$445. Masbate, $682, just $12 over budget and within our guidance range of $650-$690 per ounce for the year. Otjikoto, $493 per ounce produced, which was actually $6 under budget and within our guidance range of between $480 and $520. Overall, very solid, good production where we actually re-guided earlier in the year, and we came in within our range for the cash costs per ounce produced. All-in sustaining costs, consolidated per ounce sold, $888 per ounce. That was actually $6 less than budget overall.
Those sort of in line with budget all-in sustaining costs for the year reflect higher than budgeted gold ounces sold, some higher than budgeted gains in fuel derivatives as we saw fuel prices increase through the year. That was partially offset by slightly higher than budgeted sustaining CapEx of about $10 million. Overall, we came in at $888 per ounce. That came in within our range, our original guidance range of $870-$910 per ounce. Of that, Fekola, $765, so right on budget. Masbate, $914. That was actually $64 under budget. Masbate was below the low end of Masbate's guidance range of between $955 and $995. That was a result of higher than budgeted gold ounces sold, high...
It was higher than budgeted, fuel derivative gains and partially offset by some higher costs. Otjikoto was $908 per ounce. It was about $58 per ounce over budget. It was above the high end of its guidance range of between $830 and $870. Overall, all in sustaining costs consolidated were within the range. Maybe a couple other comments just on the operations before I run through maybe a couple income statement items and the cash flow. Fekola, like I said, had that excellent annualized throughput rate of over 9 million tons per annum, and we actually budgeted 9 million tons for 2022. We've now got the Cardinal Zone permitted. We began production there later in 2021, and we're ramping up production from Cardinal in 2022.
We did recently just put out a new Cardinal resource. For 2022, there's 50,000 ounces in the budget that relate to Cardinal, and that are included in Fekola's overall guidance. We think based on current studies, the engineering studies at Cardinal has the potential to add somewhere between around 60,000 ounces to Fekola's annual production for the next six to eight years. Fekola, again, the solar plant came online. It's the largest off-grid hybrid solar HFO solar plant in the world, we think. It contributes about 7,000, or sorry, 7% reduction to our processing costs, and that sort of equates to approximately 3% lower cash costs as a result of utilizing that solar energy and reducing our genset spinning reserve. We're pleased with that.
As we announced just early in the new year, we've now got the Menankoto permit back. In fact, I think we have started drilling on exploration. Drills are now active on Menankoto, and we intend to put out an updated resource for Menankoto by the end of this quarter. Otjikoto, just comments. Well, at Otjikoto, development in the Wolfshag underground mine continues. We expect to see the first ore produced in the first half of 2022, and we'll really ramp up that higher grade Wolfshag underground production in the second half of the year for 2022. We did exit Burkina Faso.
We disposed of our interest in Kiaka and Toega during 2021, both transactions with West African Resources. Okay. Let me make a couple comments just on the income statement for the quarter. We saw a gain on sale of Burkina Faso assets, $22 million. That's as I mentioned, this disposal of Kiaka and Toega. Now, there was an impairment charge in there for about $6 million, and that relates to the sale of our interest in Ondundu. That was an exploration asset that we had in Namibia, and we vended that out to Osino Resources, taking a mixture of cash and shares in return. Year to date, I think just maybe to comment on the losses, gains on derivative instruments.
We had $24 million gain on derivatives reflecting the income statement, and that's driven by fuel. Those are all fuel gains. So there's approximately 14 in realized gains and another 10 in unrealized gains for the period. Year-to-date tax charge for the full year, $270 million. Pretty significant tax at all sites now as we've seen revenues increase over the last few years and the mines really ramping up and producing well. We're paying a full slate of taxes in all locations. When you look at what the in terms of earnings, GAAP EPS for the quarter was $0.13, and GAAP earnings for the full year were $0.40 per share.
On an adjusted EPS basis, adjusted EPS per share was $0.11 for the quarter and then $0.36 for the year. Maybe just I'll round out the cash results with just some comments on the cash flow. From operating activities, we generated $267 million for the Q. Very solid based on those, you know, that $1,800 gold price and good results from the sites. That translated into cash flow per share from operations, operating cash flow per share of about $0.25. Again, in Q4, we paid the same level of dividend at $0.04 per share as we have for the other quarters in the year.
When I look at overall cash flow results for the year, $724 million cash flow from operations, which again is cash flow. It's approximately $0.69 per share. That's actually higher than we guided at Q3. We'd guided about $650 million in Q3. What we saw in Q4, which is a good variance, was about 13,000 ounces more shipped and sold than we expected. That added about $25 million roughly to our cash flows. There were approximately $40 million in tax payments we expected to make in the 4th quarter that didn't get made mainly for timing reasons. There were about $20 million related to Mali, which we're actually gonna pay early in the 1st quarter of 2022.
That, and then for Otjikoto, probably about $10 million lower tax exposure than we thought for the year. Then the other variances between the guidance of 650 and the actual 724 were really related to working capital. Comment on taxes for the full year. We thought we'd pay $380 million in cash for taxes during the year, and in the end, we paid $340. Main reasons for that are, I just elaborated, slightly lower tax payments in Q4 than we anticipated, but some of that's just gonna roll and be settled in Q1 of this year, Q2 this year. We ended the year with taxes payable, about $71 million, and that includes the Fekola priority dividend for 2021 of about $38 million.
For 2022, just for the analysts, total budgeted cash tax payments are about, we think are somewhere around $290 million, and that includes settlement of that $71 million that we're carrying in accrued taxes payable at December 31, 2021. Total dividends for the year, $168 million, so $0.04 per share US each quarter. That's one of the highest dividend yields, I think, in the gold space, just somewhere around 4% yield. Then on the investing side, cash used by investing activities for the year, $286 million. Overall, full year, it's about $10 million under budget from where we thought. There's a couple of offsetting factors in there. Sustaining CapEx for the year was about $10 million more than originally budgeted.
Some unplanned mobile purchases and some TSF work done at Fekola. Offsetting that, we had some under. Gramalote, we spent, I think about $11 million less than we budgeted for the year just based on timing as we work our way through to feasibility at Gramalote. Exploration. Some of the greenfield exploration costs we didn't expect to incur in 2021, we didn't. For some various reasons, some of which we couldn't get access to some of the properties. Total about $10 million under for the year there. Overall, about $10 million under in CapEx, but in the scheme of things, very close. We ended the year with cash and cash equivalents, $673 million in the bank, plus in liquidity terms, we've also got $600 million undrawn.
We've got a full amount of our revolver, $600 million, which is undrawn, and also $200 million available in the accordion feature of the revolver. Liquidity-wise, we're in good shape. Last thing I'm just gonna highlight was some of the budget guidance we put out. For the year, for 2022, we've got total gold production, including our share of Calibre, of between 990,000 and 1,050,000 ounces. Consolidated cash costs forecast to be in the range $620-$660. Consolidated all-in costs forecast to be somewhere just over $1,000-$1,050 per ounce.
Should come in as well based on v ery similar to 2021, just based on some of the stripping campaigns and the development of some of the higher grade material from the Wolfshag underground in the second half of 2022. Our results are definitely weighted more production-wise to the second half of the year than the first half of the year. Due to that production weighting, you'll also see, you know, an offsetting weighting where costs are higher in the first half than the second half, and cash flows are lower in the first half and higher in the second half. Again, a very similar story in 2022, I think, than we saw in 2021. A final comment on the budget numbers to reflect the factor.
You know, our costs are a bit higher in 2022 than we had guided for 2021. We're up about cash costs were up about $120/oz or 24% compared to 2021's guidance. You know, just over half that is inflation. We've seen increases in fuel costs, mechanical parts, labor costs, and a continued stronger foreign exchange rate for the Namibian dollar, all of which contribute to some, you know, more than half of that cash cost increase. Then the remainder of that cash cost increase is really coming from operational related items. We've got continued ramp up that sort of higher strip in the early stages at the Cardinal. So ramping that up in 2022, which is a little higher cost.
For Wolfshag, also commencing operations of Wolfshag underground mine in the second half of 2022. The other factor at Wolfshag is in 2021, we had the benefit of higher grade material from the Wolfshag phase 3 open pit, flowing through certainly significantly in the second half of 2021. But that pit's gonna be mined out in the first half or in the 1st quarter of 2022, and therefore, it impacts the cost per ounce a bit. In consolidated all-in costs, also budget did increase by about 18%. You know, about half of that same inflationary factors as noted above. There's also some higher sustaining capital, as we do some planning, plant kilns, facility raises at Fekola and Masbate.
That's just in a, you know, very high level how the budget looks for 2022. Again, we're in that million ounce per year range. We've got good costs, a little higher than current year, but we, you know, if assuming the gold price of $1,800 an ounce, we're still forecasting operating consolidated operating cash flow to come in somewhere around the $625 million mark. Very solid. That concludes the remarks I was gonna make.
Okay, thanks. As I said before, I'm gonna make a few comments now about looking forward, and then we'll open up for questions. I'm gonna talk about Mali first and foremost, obviously our largest mine is in Mali, and obviously, Mali is much in the news these days. I wanna talk about the reality of Mali from the gold mining perspective, and why companies like Randgold went there with great success in the early nineties and beyond. Many other companies, international companies, have gone to Mali for its tremendous wealth of gold mineralization. The government, historically, government after government, have believed in the importance of mining in their economy and have supported foreign investment in gold mining.
I think that gets lost sometimes in the noise of what our real events or issues that we deal with, and they're dealing with in Mali. There's sort of a fundamental issue there. You know, we've spent a long time, some of us 35 years, scouring the globe looking for great opportunities in gold mining, and often they didn't fit necessarily everyone else's model in terms of risk profile. Yet we've done it remarkably well between Bema and B2Gold in many, many different places all over the world. One of our keys is due diligence, and due diligence isn't just about resources and potential mining costs and permitting and all else.
It's also about assessing countries, being the places where they want us to come in and welcome us to be partners with government and create jobs and do all the great things we do for these economies around the world. There's probably never been more evidence than there has been during COVID, what we contribute and how we do it. Not just us, of course, many other responsible mining companies have done a great job of that. With the context of Mali, and why are we there, and why are we now looking at expanding in Mali, which includes phase one at Anaconda, which we used to call Menankoto, but we won't anymore. Now the license is back, we'll call it Anaconda again.
There's tremendous potential there, I think, as you can see in the news release for phase one, which is short term, trucking some saprolite, soft material down to the Fekola mill, which is potentially 100,000 ounces a year. Beyond that, we've had some great exploration results. The last time we reported the resource from that Anaconda area was based on 2016 drilling, and that was about 770,000 ounces. It looked quite attractive because it was on surface, most of it weathered material that could be trucked down to the mill and run through the mill very easily. Beyond that, we've had some good results. We'll come out with a new resource in March.
We're saying it's very important for the future of this company in terms of growth, because we think there's gonna be a much larger resource there, potentially leading to not only phase one of mining the saprolite material and trucking and starting as early as late this year in partnership with government, but then also looking at the bigger picture, which is phase two. If we're successful and continue success in some of the intercepts we've had on the sulfides below the saprolite material which averages 50 meters depth, below that, well, the sulfides we've had some good results. Do we have another multi-million-ounce potential here, which could lead us to phase two, which could be another mill in the Anaconda area and sharing some facilities with the Fekola mill as it exists today.
We see lots of potential and upside in Mali, specifically in the belt we're in right now. We have the Cardinal new discovery, which is adding production right now, 500 meters away from the Fekola mill. Of course, we have this embarrassment of riches, almost in a sense, that the Fekola main ore body remains open to depth, and we think we may end up as an underground mine there, actually in the not too distant future complementing open pit. Then, of course, we have the whole situation of the Anaconda, which we haven't been able to talk much about or in fact, drill at Menankoto because of a license dispute. We're comfortable there. We're very good at problem-solving. It's what we've done for 35 years.
A lot of us as a group, we're still together, and that's one of the keys to our success is crisis management, whether it be pandemic, whether it be typhoons or earthquakes or political coups or whatever else. We've dealt with pretty much all of it all over the world. We've consistently been successful at that. The reason for that is fundamental, and that is delivering on the promises you make around the world. I find that in life, not just in mining, if you deliver the promises you make, you make more friends than enemies.
We've earned a great social culture, and I think this is why I'm spending a bit of time on this, is to understand, really dig a little deeper or at least listen to the idea of why we and others are in Mali and want to do more in Mali. Because we believe the government today and the government that's going forward will continue to honor their laws and continue to support foreign investment and gold mining. Post-COVID, many, many countries in the world, almost everyone needs foreign investment.
Gold mining has shown itself to be over the last couple of years a really good foreign investor in terms of job creation, obviously, revenue creation, job creation, responsible mining, health and safety, which we lead the world in, and just critical to these economies in all the positive ways, education, agriculture, you name it, the things we do around the world. We have a great social license in all the areas we work in, and that's earned over many years of delivering on your promises and treating people with fairness, respect, and transparency. Mali today, the dispute over Menankoto was a very specific issue. I considered it an anomaly in the bigger picture of our relationship.
At the end of the day, we were able to work with the government. The government was able to realize that the best way forward with this was with us as the partner driving it, especially given the proximity where we are with Fekola. Also, the government's gonna be a 20% partner in this. If you look at the benefit to the government, and we've got the stats somewhere, but what the Fekola mine's meant to the people of Mali and the government of Mali, it's extraordinary, and they get that. It's not as if we're a bit at war with the government of Mali. It's so easy to put headlines out there or people to make comments about, "Oh, not gonna be too global. We're staying away because of those Mali problems."
Well, the issue we had was very specific, and we did resolve it amicably with the government. They're very supportive of going forward with Anaconda. In fact, they keep asking us when, you know, "When are you gonna start producing up there?" That'll create more jobs. That'll create things. I just wanna try to clear the air a little bit or at least tell you why we are still there and mining profitably in partnership with the government, doing some great things in the country. Partly because of our remarkable exploration team with Tom Garagan and his team, we have been able to now do what we've done in many places, which is find a lot more gold.
If you look at the Fekola story, then you look at Anaconda, you see some similarities, you see some resemblance to other things that we've done. At the end of the day, we've always been prepared to go where others fear to tread, where they don't think the timing's right, et cetera. That's one of the reasons we have had success in Africa, in Oyu Tolgoi, and also at Fekola, because it wasn't popular to do M&A back then. We did a contrarian thing which worked out remarkably well for our shareholders. We will always be disciplined about what we do in terms of growth or what we do in terms of M&A.
Over the last 13 years, we've taken this company from zero ounces a year to 1 million ounces a year with a number of accretive acquisitions that we've done a great job of building the mines or making them better, and also adding ounces everywhere we are and having some great exploration success beyond that as well. I just wanted to spend a little time on that because I think Mali's a little bit misunderstood. Yes, there's some serious issues that, you know, the government situation at the moment, and is the government gonna commit to elections, which we hope they will soon, to go back to what is the democratic history. The bottom line is the importance of what we're doing in that country. That's not lost on anyone, including the current government.
I just wanna touch on that because you're gonna see us doing more in Mali, and we will continue to geographically diversify through exploration, development projects and also perhaps M&A, if it makes sense to do any of that. We will continue to work with the government of Mali to make Mali an even more successful country and ourselves a more successful company in gold production from Mali. A couple other things that I think are topical that I'll touch on briefly. Gramalote. We're looking to have the results of the feasibility study available internally at the end of the 2nd quarter of this year with the ability to release those results shortly thereafter. As everyone's aware, I won't reiterate the news release.
We've taken a number of steps in the last while with w e worked with our engineering team to actually go back and look at the work that had been done earlier in terms of engineering. The bottom line is the capital cost before is estimated at around $900 million to build the Gramalote mine, which could produce 400,000 ounces of gold a year. The operating costs and all-in sustaining costs have always looked pretty attractive. The big nut is capital. How do you improve your IRR? How do you improve your project? Well, two ways to do that are to reduce the capital cost and then divide it by more ounces. We've had some success in reducing the capital cost. Inflation will be a factor there, so that'll be interesting to come out of the study. Also, we've just come and kind of...
We have just completed a lot more drilling to go with the new resource, and we'll see what the ultimate size of the resource ends up being. We're kind of optimistic about that, but we're gonna know really soon. We will continue the discipline we've shown for years in terms of what we do with Gramalote. We will not build it simply because we put a lot of money into it. That's not what we do. We'll build it if it's economically attractive to our shareholders and makes sense in our world. There are not many Gramalotes in the world. This is a significant asset. AGA is our partner for 50/50, and we're working very closely with them, and they're a good partner.
Both companies' board of directors will have a decision to make in the 3rd quarter, I would think, about a development plan for Gramalote. If the government wants us to go, we'll update the permits, et cetera. We're updating the permits with some changes we've made that the government is very supportive locally and federally of this project going forward. What happens? Well, there's gonna be a decision made by both parties. AGA, I can't speak for them, but AGA will evaluate and decide if it fits in with their growth profile going forward with other things they're doing, and we'll decide where it fits in our world based on the economics, based on what else we've got going on, et cetera.
You have to think, if we're gonna do the heavy lifting and be the operator to build the mine, which AGA wanted us to do, then if you like 50% of something, then there's a good argument to suggest you might like 100%, but that's not for sure. There's other significant gold producers that have already approached us to say, "Well, if AGA decides not to go forward, we'd be interested in coming in and partnering with you on Gramalote." A number of alternatives there. One is to not go ahead. One is to go ahead with AGA as partners and have half the gold production to our account, 200,000 ounces to our account. The other is to bring another party or go it alone.
We have the financial clout and strength we have right now today, and we can clearly take on something like Gramalote for 100% if we chose to do that. Now, there's a lot of things that we'll factor into that decision, not just 'cause we have cash available. We'll see very shortly with Gramalote. We're hopeful that it can become approaching this if it is to our shareholders. Now, it is one of those projects where I would consider, and we're not supposed to say this, we're supposed to blame it on the banks all the time if you do any hedging at all. Gramalote is a situation where, you know, if you, i t has to make sense and it has to make sense at a lower gold price than today.
If you could lock in some of your gold production during payback on a mine like that, I think that's pretty damn attractive, and I think our shareholders could see the logic in that if you can increase your production by 200,000 or 400,000 ounces a year of low cost, relatively low-cost production. That's Gramalote, you know, touched on Anaconda, which I think is a huge asset and opportunity to the company that is yet to be put into context and released publicly, what that new resource might mean and what we go with phase one and phase two mean there as well. In terms of exploration, it's always been one of our strengths. You know, B2Gold started as junior exploration companies at zero.
That's an unusual story of taking the company from exploration through development, production and being good at all of it. Most of the few lucky people that find gold in economic quantities don't produce it. They shouldn't. They should be bought up by bigger companies that know what they're doing in production. I find that a lot of production companies are not good at exploration because they don't have the entrepreneurial hunger to go out and actually find things or go sometimes where others fear to tread. I think that's one of the exciting things about what we've done and where we go in the future. We've got some great exploration programs going on. We've got a budget, I think it's $67 million this year in exploration.
Some of you will go, "Whoa, that's a lot of money." I go, "Great. Isn't it great?" 'Cause if you look at our w hat we've discovered in terms of ounces at existing mines or new opportunities over the years of B2Gold, I think we got calculated somewhere around $15 an ounce cost through exploration to for an ounce. That's money well spent. About 65% of that budget is brownfields exploration around existing sites, and the rest, which is a substantial amount, is for some really exciting greenfields. I won't go into too much detail on that. We can put you together with the geology team if you're into geology, and you want to hear about it.
But Finland, our, w e just, our partner announced again today on our behalf, some exciting results there next to a major discovery by Rupert Resources. Good for them, a major new discovery there, but it's early days for us. We're seeing some interesting mineralization. That's exciting. We're also in Uzbekistan, speaking of outside the box, and have some very exciting drill targets there and a number of other, you know, locations as well. We'll continue to try and find the cheapest ounces of gold or generate the cheapest ounces of gold, which are the ones you find always with numerous, high-quality exploration targets around the world. Finally, on M&A, I think the best way to describe our attitude towards M&A right now is ambivalent and potentially disappointing.
Now, ambivalent in the sense that we don't need. When you look at the potential, the unrealized potential in the marketplace of what Anaconda could be, and you look at if Gramalote should go, and you look at those two opportunities, there's a lot of growth in those two, dramatic growth for this company, without any further exploration success. Where our job is to realize value for our shareholders, and it's not been realized so far because we haven't been able to come up with the new Anaconda numbers and also Gramalote's still a question mark, obviously. In the meantime, though, and our stock's been hammered over the last year and a half, starting to recover now, partly because of the Menankoto situation and the knee-jerk reaction to that, which I understand, but you always get a little bit of overreaction on the downside.
You don't get it on the upside so much sometimes, but that's the nature of our business, perhaps. When it comes to M&A, we're only gonna do what we've done for the last 30 years, which is accretive deals that make sense for our shareholders. We've never been about growth for the sake of growth. I think that's one of the reasons we've been successful is highly disciplined due diligence and accretive deals that we then turn into great mines that make us successful. We're not gonna suddenly change that approach.
With M&A, we're looking at some opportunities out there, but I think if we do something, it's gonna make sense to our board 'cause they're gonna vote for it, and it's gonna ultimately make sense for our shareholders because we'll be continuing on the discipline we've shown for a long time. You know, sometimes people think because we're a very aggressive company and always have been, that there's somehow that's a negative. I always say there's a huge difference between being aggressive and being reckless. We're never reckless, but we're extremely successful in seizing opportunities and going for it. Also some of the highest standards in our industry, what we're able to maintain. We're ambivalent in the sense the opportunity's gotta make sense in the context of our shareholders, where our share price is trading at.
For the first time in my career, perhaps, we have the opportunity to use not only shares but cash for M&A because of the extraordinary financial position we find ourselves in. If there's something out there that makes sense, it's an existing producer, perhaps it's had struggles, et cetera, and maybe there's some synergies there or some development project opportunity we looked at a lot. The potential for disappointment comes in because of a drum I've beaten for a long time, and I won't beat it to death today. It's the two biggest risks or the two biggest problems with M&A and the reason we're not seeing it, despite a lot of institutions wanting it, and we do need more better run gold mining companies as we go forward, and everyone says it, everyone says the right things.
Oh, yeah. No, we're open to mergers for sure. We're open to a deal." A lot of them aren't telling you the truth, the shareholders, because they work for you, but they're actually entrenched management. They're entrenched because they wanna keep their jobs, and they don't. They're not acting in the best interest of the shareholders at all, who they work for. They have a fiduciary duty as directors of these public companies to build shareholder value. We've got a couple of situations, numerous situations over the years where companies are not telling the truth. It's management. They wanna keep their jobs. That's not their right. We know of what we speak. Being one of those approached by Kinross in 2006 about a potential merger, we said, "We're not interested." Management was not interested at all.
We said, "You know what? It's about the shareholders, so why don't you sign a CA? We're building one of the greatest gold mines in the world, the Kupol Mine in the Far East Russia. We don't wanna sell the company, but it's not up to us." We told Kinross to put forward their best offer, then asked them for another one, then another one, and then we decided that it was our right to decide, and we went to the shareholders.
Our board of directors immediately said to us back in the day. We said to the board, "Do you think we should take this to the shareholders?" It was so obvious, and that's what a responsible gold mining company does or any public company does when they're faced with an opportunity for the shareholders that may hurt their pocketbook or their ego. At the end of the day, we'll see what happens, but the two big disappointments potentially in M&A are projects because there aren't many good ones in the world. The second is entrenched management, and I just find it offensive on behalf of shareholders, and we've walked the talk on the other side.
At the end of the day, we're open to do accretive acquisitions for us, and there's some deals out there, not many, but a few that might make a lot of sense for both sets of shareholders in these situations. Yet, there are shareholders out there that are not hearing about opportunities because management is putting themselves ahead of the shareholders. The decision is not management's, the decision is not the board of directors, the decision on these kind of situations of potential M&A is the shareholders. For the institutional shareholders out there, and I may have a few words to say about this at BMO next week, but join us. Join us. Don't fight me over how many years a director should be allowed to be a director of the company. Let us run the business.
We do it rather well. Help us. Help us by forcing the shareholders of companies that are not telling the truth, force them to do the right thing for you, the shareholders of the company. Let's grow this business. We have to grow this business by having people act in the interest of the shareholders, not in self-interest. That's my little speech for today. We're open for business. Don't run around saying now that, "Oh, my God, they're gonna go and acquire something that's stupid." No, we're very disciplined. We've got a great growth profile, extraordinary financial strength. We'll use it to build the company. I haven't got it wrong so far. We'll continue to do that. That's most of what I wanted to say. I think with that, let's open it up for questions.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. If you have a question, please press star followed by one on your touchtone phone. You will hear a three-tone prompt acknowledging your request, and your questions will be pulled in the order they are received. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press star followed by two. If you're using a speakerphone, please lift your handset before pressing any keys. One moment for your 1st question. Your 1st question comes from Ovais Habib with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Pleasure.
My 1st question is on Anaconda. Now you're expecting to release a resource update in Q1, and then, you know, you're looking to have a phase two drilling. Is the plan to complete a PEA on standalone versus trucking ore down to Fekola? I'm trying to figure out, you know, what are the parameters, how large you need Anaconda to become before you can consider Anaconda as a standalone project?
Sure. Well, I guess in terms of the I'll pass it over to Bill in terms of the PEA or the, what we're doing there in terms of working with the new resources. But we're working on a PEA right now on the phase one, which is the saprolite, weathered material trucking that down. That's what we talked about, the potential 100,000 ounces of additional production a year starting as early as potentially late this year, early next year. Bill, you wanna talk about the timing of that study and where we are?
Yeah, for sure. Thanks for the question, Ovais. I think you remember when we talked before, we already have a study based on the previous resource, which was announced, which really shows economically that trucking is a viable option, right? As you pointed out, we're coming out with a new resource right now, which will be out by the end of Q1.
Our plan is to take that resource and look at it and really kind of expand on the trucking concept for 2022. Basically, once we get that, we've already done all the environmental work, we've already done all the permitting and all the feasibility work on that. We'll be going to the Malian government with that concept for a phase one trucking study. As they continue to expand the resource, we'll look at the next iteration on what does it look like for a standalone mill. I mean, knowing that it would take a couple of years in any case to get the equipment ordered and to get it built up there if that was the choice, you know, there's some time in that. In the meantime, we think there's real value in trucking down to Fekola.
From what I understand, phase one is the trucking situation that's likely happening or starting in 2022. As you increase your resource, you'll start looking at the standalone, and then you require additional permits and obviously additional studies for that.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, you made it maybe more simplistic than it is. Knowing that we haven't seen the resource size at the end of March, I mean, maybe those studies start happening, the phase two starts happening immediately. In the meantime, we still would have to look at trucking while we're getting everything set up for the phase two portion of that.
Yeah, I think you know the whole concept is which I think fits really well while we're permitting and then don't forget permitting of the saprolite. We're just talking about a little bit of blasting and basically digging this out of the ground and putting the trucks and taking it down. There's no mill, so there's nothing when it comes to permitting. It should be pretty straightforward. The government's very, very keen, within the laws and within the rules, to get that permit in our hands as soon as possible, basically.
We're all on the same page there. It's a process, and we've been through it before, but we're not that concerned about that because at that stage. While we're trucking the material down to add production through the Fekola mill with the saprolite material, we're gonna be doing extensive drilling. What's the budget this year for the Menankoto, Anaconda area?
$12 million as a loan, yeah.
That's a lot of drilling. It's not expensive drilling because you're drilling from surface, and this is basically the ore body, and the saprolite comes to the surface in many places. You know, we're gonna find out a lot more by the end of this year with all this extensive drilling going on below the saprolite resource. We'll come up with a new resource in March, but we don't think that'll be the end of it. The potential here remains basically is for another multi-million ounce discovery in Mali between the saprolite and the sulfide. You know, that's not something we say lightly. That's one of the reasons it's so attractive to us is putting that together in the near term, phase one and then ultimately phase two.
I would suggest to you by the end of this year, with all this drilling going on, we're not gonna have an indicated resource on the huge amounts of the samples of the sulfide material, but we're gonna have real indications on how big this thing might be. That's the approach. I mean, in the Anaconda area is the upside. You know, could the Fekola complex, if we dare to project ahead a little bit, produce 1 million ounces gold a year? We think it has that kind of potential subject to more drilling and what we're seeing becoming reality.
Got it. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Just quickly moving on to the you know towards Fekola, last time we talked, and this is maybe a question for Tom, any update you can provide on the FMZ zone, which is adjacent to the Cardinal zone, how that's shaping up? Is it looking like another Cardinal, or how should we perceive the FMZ zone?
I assume you mean the FMZ zone.
FMZ. That's right.
Yeah. It's a parallel zone that hasn't been drilled to the same extent as Cardinal, although part of the FMZ zone is included within the Cardinal resource. Exploration this year, we're spending a good significant part of our exploration dollars are gonna be in the Mamba area for sulfide in the down plunge extension and the underground potential for Fekola. But we'll be doing some drilling in FMZ and also in Cardinal. Cardinal is open down plunge also. There's two significant-looking ore shoots that we see there that have potential for future underground also. We'll be looking at that. Yes, that'll be part of our program.
Perfect. Thanks, Tom. That's it for me for right now. I'll get back in the queue.
Okay. Thanks, Ovais Habib.
Your next question comes from Josh Wolfson with RBC. Please go ahead.
Thanks, operator. When we're looking at the upside from the various sources at Fekola, you know, prior guidance was that Anaconda could add 800 to 100,000 ounces, and then Cardinal could add 60,000 ounces. I guess I'm just wondering what that baseline is. If we think about what the net result is from those additions, can that sustain the mine at 600,000 ounces, and I guess for how long?
So-
Well, for the how
Well, you can answer the.
Yeah.
Non-exploration.
Right. Josh, let's go back to. You gotta step back a little bit further than what your question is. Remember, last year, we were operating at 7.75 million tons per annum. This year, we've increased to 9 million tons per annum. As part of that, the Cardinal resource is already in there. Right? That kind of 60-80 is already kinda baked into what we're talking about for 2022 and going forward. Now, with the additional 1 million tons, what you're really talking about is how much additional can you add from Anaconda? Quite frankly, at this point, without getting a full mine plan together, I don't wanna put a hard number on it. What I will tell you is that we've been kind of very public that in the short term, we're looking at 80,000-100,000 ounces, you know, over the next couple of years.
Per year.
Per year. That's correct. Sorry, Clive. Per year, and that long term, you know, we kinda see that 600,000 ounces plus minus, and I'm gonna do the plus minus hand wave a little bit, as pretty achievable, certainly in the near term at Fekola.
Okay. I guess, in other words, you know, at which point would you start to see some pressure materialize, you know, from maybe the grade profile? Is that after year three, four, five, ? Like, you're just wondering how much visibility we have today.
Yeah. I think if you first you should go all the way back to when we did the feasibility study, put it out, you know, and then look at what the kind of overall profile was for Fekola. Then, you know, take a look at what we updated. What I can say is really, I think, really out to 2026, we feel pretty good about where we're at. Then, of course, you know, we haven't even talked at all about what could be the potential of Fekola underground, you know, what that looks like. There's a lot of things still in the works. What I can tell you is in the short term, 600 sounds great. In 2026, we really have to look at how we're gonna supplement that grade.
In terms of the ultimate, just as I said, we're gonna wrap up by the end of the year, with as well as exploration drilling going on and infill drilling going on and we had confidence in the material they sampled in the sulfide as well. We'll have a pretty good idea where we're going. As Bill said, if the resource that comes out in March is of interest in terms of the sulfide portion of that, then we will. We may very well, in and around that time, start to kick off permitting for something for a mill to get that process started. If the plans align, we'll progress from 1,000 ounces a year.
From satellite, you'll progress into substantially larger production, potentially with a mill subject to all the drilling we're doing and the new resource/reserves ultimately. So that's the plan. As we see it, the plan in place right now, the timing could work rather well because you have this great source initially of satellite material, which you can truck cheaply down to the mill. Because it's so soft, you can actually add it on top of the 9 million.
Yeah. Maybe just to expand on that, one of the things we're looking at, you know, we did this when we did Fekola. We kinda looked at this optimization, you know, Whittle optimization. We see that as a very real project coming up, where we've really got to now look at, you've got Cardinal, you've got Anaconda, you've got the underground, you've got Fekola, you've got a mill now that runs at 9 million tons per annum at least. We really wanna take a look at kind of optimizing all the sources. That's a study that we're gonna start this year. Of course, that'll be ongoing as the resource gets updated. With I don't wanna be too cagey, but I just think projecting too far out there is really not appropriate at this time because I don't think we know how good it can actually get yet.
Between March new resource and the end of the year, all the drilling we're doing. Those are the important things we will fill in. Hopefully, this, we'll be able to supply you with the details. I mean, if you wanna look back for a reference point, look back at what Fekola was when we acquired it with a 4 million ounce resource and 3 million of that in the reserves. Look what Fekola became, 7 million- 8 million. So these situations can grow rapidly as we did at Fekola, by seizing the opportunity to drill, to construction, and come with a much larger deposit than we acquired in the highly accretive we did in 2000 and whatever it was.
Okay. We'll stay tuned then. Moving over to Gramalote for a second, you know, we've seen commentary from some of your peers about inflation for capital, you know, running at a rate at least year-over-year, consistent, I guess, in the 10%-20% range, most of them are towards the upper end of that. You know, ignoring the potential impact from the optimization, is there any sort of reason we should not apply the same sort of thinking to what the base case would be for Gramalote?
Go ahead, Bill.
Remember, the last feasibility was based on Q1 2021 costs. We don't have it. Costs haven't come in yet, but we do believe there is gonna be an increase. I would say, you know, that it's not gonna be that different than what you're seeing in industry.
Remember, we've been working hard at significant changes, realistic changes in engineering design, et cetera, roads, et cetera, and tunnels and stuff to bring that capital cost down because we thought it was a better project. We were basing this on work done a long time ago, a lot of the good work, but that's where we decided this could be a better project by some fundamental changes to the approach. That's why the capital has potential to reduce. If the capital comes down from the $900 million, which it is, then the question is, how much does it come down? Is there a portion of that you lose back because of inflation? That's gonna be the issue.
The good news is we won't have to speculate for too much longer here, with the study available. The results of the study, hopefully at the end of the 2nd quarter, and the study itself in the 3rd quarter. That will lead to a development decision or not.
Perfect. I will also stay tuned to that. Those are all my questions. Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks.
Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, if you do have any questions, please press star one. Your next question comes from Don DeMarco with National Bank Financial. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, gentlemen. 1st question for Mike. Mike, what is the quarterly weighting of the $290 million in cash taxes? I mean, is it just simply like similar to last year, like heavier in H1?
I think, give me a second there and I'll tell you.
Okay.
You know, it's probably pretty even through the year, I'd say.
Okay. Yeah, it's fine.
Remember, like in 2021, we had that big catch up because we had that bumper year in 2020 that we had to pay higher taxes on in 2021.
Yeah.
What you saw through the current year, remember, like I said, we've got about $70 million to pay at the end of 2021.
Mm-hmm.
More than half of that's the dividend. Really there's not that much outstanding tax related to 2021 to be settled up in 2022. I would say it's more evenly distributed in the Q's next year.
Okay, good. You guys have had a couple years now where production costs are back end loaded. Would you expect recurring back end loaded years going forward?
As in after 2022 or just for 2022?
After 22.
Yeah. No, that's kind of the beauty of some of the things we're doing, you know, like the Otjikoto with the underground coming online that we think that cost profile is gonna kind of level itself up. Same thing at Fekola. You know, now with Cardinal and everything, we've got additional sources. It was really related to the way the ore body was laid out around Fekola and Otjikoto, where you're kind of working up and down within the zone to the high grade material. I think that will kind of level itself out.
Okay. I figured that might be the case. Now just shifting over to Fekola. We see that you're forecasting potential Cardinal production of about 60,000 ounces over the next 68 years. Even if you hit 60 over eight years, I mean, that's total production less than 500,000 ounces versus a total resource of 1.2 million. Can you comment on that differential? It seems to me at face value that there is some upside at Cardinal beyond what this preliminary forecast is.
Yeah. I think you answered your own question. There's a lot of upside. I mean, once again, on the operational side, we've just kind of looked at what we can put into a reserve based on the drilling that's there. But of course, they continue to drill and explore that and turn that inferred into indicated. The answer is yes, there's upside.
Don, it's also open beyond that.
For sure.
In other terms, where's open to depth of strike, where's it open?
It's open to the north.
Yeah, more to come there, both the drilling is also turning inferred into indicated, but also it's still open. Can we add more?
Okay. Just finally, for 2021, you had the Fekola throughput around 7.75, you hit 9.14. For 2022, it's nice to see 9 million, but all things equal. Are you aiming for higher than 9 million? What can you do?
It's one of these, what have you done for us lately questions.
Right.
The answer is, remember we started at four and went to five and then went to six to 7.5, and now we're at 9. We did originally, maybe John should pipe in here, but we did do a study where we looked at 10, going to 10, and we've got the capacity to do that. It'll be tight. It's also, it'll also be very expensive because it's not just, you know, upgrading the pumps and the motors and everything. It's actually adding an additional line. We certainly think that there is some, I would say, incremental upside, but we don't see that operating this thing at full on all the time is in the best interest to make sure as far as, you know, the maintenance goes. I think nine is probably the right number, plus-minus, given the 10%-15% saprolite.
Right.
Okay. Thanks for that, Bill. Congratulations again on strong finish to the year. Good luck, guys.
Yeah, thanks.
Ladies and gentlemen, as a final reminder, if you do have any questions, please press star one. There are no further questions at this time. Please proceed.
Okay. Thanks, operator. Thanks, everyone for your good questions and your attention. We look forward to further positive reporting as we go forward. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your conference call for today. We thank you for participating and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Have a great day.