Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the K92 Mining conference call to discuss their updated Kainantu Gold Mine Integrated Development Plan. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To join the question queue, you may press Star, then one on your telephone keypad. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may signal an operator by pressing Star, then zero. I would now like to turn the conference over to David Medilek, President and COO. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and thanks, everyone, for attending K92 Mining's updated Kainantu Gold Mine Integrated Development Plan conference call. We hope you and your families are doing well. In addition to myself, we have on the line John Lewins, Chief Executive Officer and Director, and Justin Blanchet, Chief Financial Officer. I would also like to remind everyone that after the remarks from management, the call will be followed by a Q&A session. As we will be making forward-looking statements during the call, please refer to the cautionary notes and risk disclosure in our MD&A and slide two of the webcast presentation. Also, please bear in mind that all dollar amounts mentioned in the conference call are in United States dollars, unless otherwise noted. Now, I'll turn it over to John to provide an overview of the economic study.
Thank you, David, and welcome everyone. We're delighted to announce yet another major milestone for K92, being the release of the updated Integrated Development Plan, which has delivered a major improvement on the economics of the Kainantu Gold Mine, outlining a robust Tier 1 asset. Before I discuss the specifics of the study, I'd like to begin by providing some high-level background information. The updated Integrated Development Plan, also referred to as the updated IDP, has an effective date of January 1 , 2024. All forecasts begin from this date. The study supersedes the 2022 Integrated Development Plan, also referred to as the prior IDP, which has an effective date of January 1, 2022. Similar to the prior IDP, the updated IDP evaluates two cases, a DFS Case and a PEA Case.
The DFS Case evaluates a stage expansion to 1.2 million tons per annum through the construction of a standalone process plant, with the current Stage 2A plant idled. This is consistent with the prior IDP DFS Case. The PEA Case evaluates the completion of two expansions. First, ramping up to the 1.2 million tons per annum through the construction of the new standalone process plant, then a second expansion to 1.8 million tons per annum by running the Stage 2A plant at 600,000 tons per annum and the Stage 3 new plant at 1.2 million tons per annum concurrently. This is referred to as a Stage 4 expansion.
I note that the updated IDP, PEA Case throughput is 100,000 tons per annum, higher than the prior IDP, supported by the throughput performance or outperformance rather, of the actuals that we've achieved in the 2 A Plants since the last study. For the updated IDP, we engaged several consulting firms, including H&S Consultants, GR Engineering Services, Entech, Metallurgical Management Services, WSP, ATC Williams, and EMM. I think it's important to note the construction for the expansion is well underway, and the mine declared commercial production almost seven years ago, so that provides excellent information to support the study. Now, in terms of the study highlights, I think it's fair to say we're very pleased with the results.
Beginning with the After-Tax NPV5%, the DFS Case delivers an NPV of $680 million at $1,900 per ounce, or almost $1.1 billion at $2,500 per ounce, while the PEA Case recorded an even higher NPV of $2.3 billion at $1,900 an ounce or $3.3 billion at $2,500 per ounce. Importantly, the growth capital remains low at $195 million and $201 million for the DFS Case and the PEA Case respectively. Important to note also that $15 million of growth capital was spent in 2023 and is not included in this figure.
After adding this to the growth CapEx presented, you'll see that the growth capital for the project remains closely aligned at $216 million for the PEA Case, with the $210 million CapEx it was guided in 2024 operational guidance in February of this year. So for the DFS Case, grades are high, averaging 8.5 grams per ton gold equivalent over a seven-year mine life, which for an underground operation supported by measured and indicated resource, is very substantial. This supports an average run rate of 303,000 ounces gold equivalent per annum, with a peak year of 319,000 ounces gold equivalent produced. Over the life of mine, costs are very low.
The all-in sustaining cost is estimated at $920 per ounce gold equivalent on a co-product basis, or $665 per ounce gold on a net of byproduct credit basis. For the PEA Case, the grade is also high, averaging 8.2 grams per ton gold equivalent over a substantial 14-year mine life, supporting a run rate of 414,000 ounces gold equivalent per annum, with a peak year of 485,000 ounces gold equivalent. Costs, as expected, are even lower for the PEA Case, benefiting from the higher throughput rate. With all-in sustaining cost of $822 per ounce gold equivalent on a co-product basis of $432 per ounce on net of byproduct credits basis.
Both cases of the commissioning of the Stage 3 plant expansion commencing late Q2 2025. It's important to note the construction is currently tracking better than this. For the PEA Case, Stage 4 is planned to commence second half 2027. In terms of the key changes from the prior IDP, a major change, which also is a big driver for updating the study, is the incorporation of our latest mineral resource reported in 2023, representing almost a full two years of additional exploration results. The updated mineral resource, recorded as measured and indicated resources, increased by 14% to 2.6 million at 10 grams per tonne gold equivalent, while inferred increased by 73% to 4.5 million ounces at 8.5 grams per tonne gold equivalent.
This extended the terminal year for both cases, particularly for the PEA Case, which will be shown later in the presentation. So other key changes from the previous IDP include the following: a significant improvement in economics from the new concentrate offtake agreement with Trafigura, featuring improved metal payabilities, lower penalties, lower treatment and refining charges and transport charges, all of which were better than the assumptions in the prior IDP. A higher ultimate PEA Case throughput rate, as previously discussed. An increase in commodity prices, with the base case metal price of gold increasing to $1,900 per ounce from $1,600 per ounce to be more aligned with recent peer studies. Since the prior IDP, inflationary pressure has been mild, which has resulted in a significant margin expansion.
As our base case gold price assumption is now well below the current spot, we've also presented numbers closer to spot at $2,500 per ounce. Cut-off grades have been slightly modified from the prior IDP to achieve the optimal mine plan, with the PEA Case being reduced by 0.5 grams per tonne gold equivalent, and the DFS Case increased by 0.5 grams per tonne gold equivalent. The reduction in the cut-off grade for the PEA was due to an internal decision to have a moderate longer life of mine at a comparable NPV, which we believe is in the best interest of the various stakeholders, particularly our local community and of course, Papua New Guinea. Significant and improved changes made to the paste fill design, with the mining method and recovery method having only limited changes from the prior IDP.
Capital costs have been increased to reflect scope improvement changes and also general inflation over the last two years from the prior IDP. Importantly, the capital cost remains closely aligned with our previous disclosed guidance of $210 million announced in Q1, as noted earlier. Now, the following slide summarizes the comparison between prior IDP and the updated IDP for both the DFS and the PEA Cases. The key points on this slide are, firstly, After-Tax NPV at $1,900 increased by 16% for the DFS Case and a very significant 73% for the PEA Case. Using prices closer to spot at $2,500 per ounce, NPV increased over 86% for the DFS Case and a very substantial 149% for the PEA Case.
Secondly, the particularly significant increase to NPV in the PEA Case are driven by a combination of a major expansion to all-in sustaining cost margin of over 16% at $1,900 per ounce, or over 81% at $2,500 per ounce, and total ounces produced increased by 46%, which extended the final year of production by five years. Thirdly, for both cases, run rate and peak production remained fairly similar to the prior IDP. In summary, the updated IDP has delivered a major improvement in economics. Now, in terms of the mining method and mining plan, very similar to the prior IDP. A bulk long-haul open stoping utilizing waste rock will continue to be employed, as it has been for several years, until the paste fill comes online in the study in Q3, Q4 2025.
Stope shapes were generated using MSO at cut-offs of 3.5 gram per tonne and 4 gram per tonne gold equivalent for the DFS and PEA respectively. Both cases leverage the existing twin incline infrastructure, which is already complete, and ore and waste passes, which are currently under development for highly efficient material movement, leveraging gravity. In terms of the dilution calculation, the parameters remain effectively unchanged from the prior IDP, except as the text bolded, which outlines how we incorporate a more conservative assumptions when proximal to the hanging wall or footwall of the fault gouge, through adding an additional one meter of dilution at one point four two grams per tonne gold equivalent. I note, however, that we see the fault gouge as a major opportunity.
It is well mineralized and has recorded some high-grade drill intersections through it, and once paste fill is commissioned, we see the potential to effectively mine it and ultimately extend the mine life. Overall dilution averaged 28.5% in the PEA and 27.8% in the DFS. In terms of the Stage 3, 1.2 million tonne per annum processing flow sheet, only minor modifications to the plant design from the prior IDP, and particularly around modifying the design to allow for efficient future expansions. The Stage 3 plant flow sheet is more modern and optimized when compared to the Stage 2A processing circuit currently operating. The major change on the prior IDP is the paste fill system. The new design is considered low risk in terms of both construction and operation.
It involves producing a filter cake at the processing plant and backhauling it via the surface haulage trucks to a storage point near the 800 portal, and then transporting it to an underground paste fill plant via a dedicated fleet. The prior IDP transported a thickened slurry from the process plant via a pipeline over 6.5 km to the portal, and involved two stages of tails thickening and extensive pumping from overland to underground, which we view as having high technical risk. Importantly, the updated IDP underground paste fill is located nearer to the center of the deposit at approximately the 1,200 RL. This is important because it means that voids it fills below can be transported via gravity, while voids to fill above it is able to be reached with only one stage of pumping, thereby considerably lowering operating risk.
Ultimately, the capital cost was similar, and operating costs only moderately higher compared to the prior IDP. In October, we awarded the river crossing and haulage road contract. This was done on a lump sum, fixed price basis for the majority of the project, considerably de-risking our capital cost. It's important to note that the capital cost for the river crossing is higher than the prior IDP. However, the majority of capital cost increase has been offset through savings and other packages which have already been awarded, particularly in relation to electrical infrastructure. This is a key reason why the growth capital remains closely aligned with our operational guidance reported in February this year.
In relation to the haulage road upgrade, the scope is focused on four key areas: widening the road from approximately nine meters to 14 m, smoothing out the variance in gradient, reducing gradient in certain areas to improve road safety, and straightening the road in certain areas. This upgrade results in improved road haulage safety and efficiency in operating larger trucks. It is incorporated in sustaining capital and yields significant savings in operating costs over the life of mine. The haul road and river crossing upgrades are planned to be completed by the end of 2025. Now, looking at the life of mine plan, material movements, the DFS Case achieves run rate throughput in 2027, while operating at a fairly steady head grade for most of the mine plan.
In terms of the PEA Case, it achieves Stage 3 run rate throughput of 1.2 million tonnes per annum in Q1 2027, and Stage 4 run rate in Q4 2027. It operates for almost eight years at maximum or near maximum throughput. It's a significant improvement from the three years of maximum throughput in the prior IDP. Grades are below average in 2029 through to 2031, and it's a focus of our exploration program to not only add mine life, but to bring in higher grade feed sources to maximize production and cash flow during these years. And that, of course, is Exploration Kora Judd, within the mine lease and outside of the mine lease, as well as other sources. It's important to note that the ramp-up makes allowance for the slower development rates and the impact of the mine shutdown in the first half of 2024.
For both cases, the planned schedules reaching 1.2 km per month in May 2025. In terms of operating costs, costs are obviously very low. For the DFS Case, on a co-product basis, cash costs are $694 per ounce gold equivalent, and all-in sustaining costs are $920 per ounce gold equivalent. Net of byproduct credits, cash cost of $380 per ounce gold, and all-in sustaining, $665 per ounce gold. As for the PEA Case, on a co-product basis, cash costs are $633 per ounce gold equivalent, and all-in sustaining costs, $822 per ounce gold equivalent. Net of byproduct credits, cash costs are $174 per ounce gold, and all-in sustaining costs are $432 per ounce gold.
When drilling down into the operating cost per ton, the DFS Case increased $29 per ton processed, and the PEA Case increased by 6.6% or $7.86 per ton processed from the prior IDP, which we see as a good outcome when factoring two years of cost inflation from the prior study. We see the potential to do better than the cost presented, particularly in terms of processing, but also with respect to G&A. In summary, we expect significant margin expansion from the prior IDP. In terms of capital cost, on the left is a breakdown of the capital cost for the DFS Case, and on the right, the breakdown for the PEA Case. Importantly, as noted earlier, we're pleased with how the capital costs are tracking and remain closely aligned with our operational guidance disclosed in February.
The largest packages, excluding the owner's team approvals and indirects for both cases, are the process plant, paste plant, river crossing upgrade, and power station. It's important to highlight that of those four large packages, excluding the paste fill plant, the vast majority of the capital has been spent or committed, and mostly awarded on a fixed price basis, significantly de-risking the capital cost for K92. The process plant has 97% of capital either spent or committed, and represents almost half of the total growth capital. The river crossing, 84% of the capital is either spent or committed. The power station, 88% of capital is either spent or committed. Overall, as at September 30, 2024 , 63% of capital has been spent or committed, which, following the award of the river crossing contract earlier this month, has increased to 68% of capital spent or committed.
It's also important to note that both cases in the study are fully funded. K92 has a strong cash balance, ending Q2 with $71 million in cash plus $20 million in restricted cash that K92 has the ability to make unrestricted beginning first of January 2025. We have also access to significant amounts of liquidity through undrawn credit facilities. At the end of Q2, it was some $80 million. We drew down a further $20 million in July, and have $60 million available to draw down on demand. There's also an additional $30 million of liquidity available through an accordion feature. In Q3, we delivered record production in a record gold price environment, resulting in a notable increase in our cash balance, even after considerable capital expenditure for expansions during the quarter. Lastly, our commodity price downside is protected through the cost-effective purchase of put options.
Just over 2 million earlier this month, we purchased put option contracts for the next nine months, covering 12,500 ounces of gold per month at $2,400 per ounce to protect against downside price risk. To be clear, it's not a hedge. We'll sell on spot if it's higher. This is insurance, and we retain full exposure to the upside of commodity price. In summary, our financial position and outlook is strong. I'd like to take a moment to show you some of our recent construction photos. The first image is a drawn view of the process plant, with the wet end of the plant in the foreground and the dry end in the background. As annotated, we note that a significant number of the long lead items have already arrived on site, many of which arrived comfortably ahead of the construction schedule.
In the foreground, you'll see that the structural and mechanical steelworks, plus equipment, has arrived on site for the contractor to complete those works. We now show two more close-up photos of the process plant construction. On the left is the dry end of the plant, where you'll see a significant progress has already been made. In the foreground is the SAG and ball mills. The ball mill civils are 100% complete and ready for steelwork, mechanical, and piping. The SAG mill civils are nearing completion with a due date of mid-October, and I know these photos were taken almost a week ago. This zone is in the critical path and is tracking well. At the surge bin and reclaim, all raft slabs have been poured and are awaiting construction of walls. This area is not a critical path and is being worked on opportunistically.
At the primary crusher, shutters, forms, and bracings are in place for the first pour of the wall lift. This zone is also not on the critical path. As shown in the right image, civils are complete at the tail thickener and structural steel erection has commenced. The filter press building raft slab is complete and awaiting shuttering and pouring of the walls. For the water services, the outer ring beam foundations have been poured, with the inner ring beam to follow. Again, this area is not on the critical path, and works are done opportunistically. For the flotation circuit, which is just outside of view, we've completed all of the civils except for ground slabs for walking around the plant, which can be done at any time.
The image on the left is another angle of the SAG and ball mill construction, highlighting the significant progress made to date, as noted in the prior slide. The right image is of the warehouse expansion upgrade, which we are completing in-house. This will increase the size of the warehouse by a factor of three. So now, in terms of life of mine production schedule, the DFS Case ramps up to run rate in 2027, which is also peak production of 319,000 ounces gold equivalent produced. The average run rate production is 303,000 ounces gold equivalent.
During the ramp-up, costs also come down significantly, as you'd expect, with the Kora product run rate all-in sustaining cost averaging $780 per ounce gold equivalent, or $397 per ounce gold on a net of by-product credit basis. For the PEA Case, production achieves run rate in 2028, producing 440,000 ounces gold equivalent in that year, with a run rate average of 414,000 ounces gold equivalent, and a peak production of 485,000 ounces gold equivalent in 2034. Through our exploration programs, we see potential to bring in higher production years sooner.
Like the DFS, during the ramp-up, costs come down significantly, with gold product run rate all-in sustaining costs averaging $805 per ounce gold equivalent or $338 per ounce gold on a net of by-product basis. Looking at After-Tax cash flows, at $1,900 an ounce, which, as you'd be aware, is considerably below the current spot prices, both cases generate significant amount of free cash flow. The run rate average for the DFS Case is $239 million per year, and the PEA Case is $316 million per year. Now, if we look at $2,500 per ounce, the average run rate for the DFS Case is $328 million per year, and the PEA Case is $431 million per year.
Since gold prices are going higher, and we'll probably get asked this question, we ran the cash flow analysis at a near spot price for gold, copper, and silver, which outlined an average for the DFS Case of $346 million per year, and for the PEA of $454 million per year. So I think in summary, the Kainantu Gold Mine is an exceptional project. In terms of the After-Tax NPV 5% sensitivity analysis, both the DFS Case and the PEA Case benefit immensely from higher gold prices. The DFS Case, at $2,500 an ounce, delivers an NPV5 of $1.1 billion, increasing to $1.5 billion at $3,100 an ounce.
In the PEA Case, at $2,500 an ounce delivers an NPV5 of $3.3 billion, increasing to $4.3 billion at $3,100 per ounce. For the PEA, I think it's important to note that the NPV at $1,900 is still considerably greater than our current market cap, and we believe this study highlights the significant deep value and re-rating potential of K92. Importantly, the commissioning of the Stage 3 process plant is near-term and will be funded. Lastly, I'd like to highlight that there are multiple high potential opportunities to improve upon the already robust economics of the updated Integrated Development Plan.
There are currently 11 rigs on the property, six underground, five on the surface, and we see multiple high potential opportunities, including but not limited to: firstly, near mine infrastructure targets to extend the known resource, Kora, Kora South, Kora Deeps, Judd, Judd South, Judd Deeps. Secondly, expand known satellite deposits, particularly Arakompa, which we have increased the number of drill rigs by a factor of four during the course of the year, so we've got four now. Maniape is also very promising, with historic highlights, including 49 meters at four grams per ton and seven meters at 22 grams per ton. Thirdly, exploration for high-grade veins within development distance from Kora and Judd, including Karempe, Mati, and Mesoan. And lastly, deliver better than forecast plant throughput and recovery.
We see a major potential opportunity to exceed the design throughput at the Stage 3A plant, demonstrated from the multiple throughput records that we've achieved over the last twelve months in the Stage 2A design. We also know that recent gold recovery outperformed versus the updated IDP parameters observed in Q2 and Q3 of this year, and that's also very encouraging, so with that, operator, we'd like to commence the Q&A session.
Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. To join the question queue, you may press Star then one on your telephone keypad. You'll hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, please press Star then two. Our first question is from Stephen Soock with Stifel. Please go ahead.
Hi, John and team. Congrats on getting the study out. It's great to see the large increase in the resource base and rapidly growing. Just had a quick question around the change in the cut-off grade. You know, obviously, the cut-off grade went down for the PEA and slightly up for the DFS. Can you just talk a little bit about why the different directions for the two different levels of study?
Yeah, Stephen, thanks. Thanks for the question. That's, I guess, the real focus for us is on the PEA. That is our longer- term. It is 14-year life, and part of it is about our engagement with the government and looking at our longer-term licensing and showing that the project has a long life, and that obviously, when we engage and look at how we renew our license, is important. At the same time, we've looked at the numbers, and it does not compromise our NPV in return. So that really was the main driver to modify the PEA.
In terms of the DFS, there is a slight improvement for putting up the cut-off grade slightly, but the DFS is not really a focus for us, if you like, in the context of engagement, and looking at what the project really looks like.
Sure. Fair enough. I guess, yeah, the long-term picture here is more important on building out the right scale and planning to that level. I appreciate the answer. Just one more for me here, I guess. You know, you went through where work is on site. You know, I guess what is some of the critical path items getting to that I believe is the May target date to have the Stage 3 kind of up and running and coming online. You know, what's I guess the critical stage now and then how does that transition? The development's important, but is there anything else that's a focus?
Okay. So the commissioning of Stage 3 Plant is late second quarter next year. And then we're looking effectively that by the end of the third quarter, the plant is commissioned, and it's up and running at its design rate. Commissioning of the paste fill starts in the third quarter once we've got reasonably stable operations in the plant. You don't want to commission paste fill while you've got unstable operations in your plant. So first off, it would be then that the critical path in terms of achieving the 1.2 million ounces in part due to the paste fill are sustainable, because paste is obviously important for us in enabling us.
To increase the number of working faces that we've got. With paste, we can go bottom down and top up, so that's an important one for us, and we expect that the paste will take at least a quarter to get up and running. And normally, if you look at an underground mine, it takes around six months to get it working efficiently. Not so much the generation of the paste, more the systems, procedures, infrastructure that you need to put it into your stopes and getting your cycle working. We've identified, and you've mentioned, obviously, the development meters, and that is an important point for us, getting our development meters up. I think we're pretty happy with where we're sitting right now this month.
We've seen the start of a pretty significant improvement, in part because we're starting to improve some of our infrastructure. Those things are coming through. But it's obviously key for us, and it's mentioned to be able to get that development meters up to 1,200, I think, the second quarter next year. So those would be our key things.
Perfect.
There were enablers to do that, such as,
Go ahead.
Upgrade, etc , etc . But, it's the measure is meters at the end of the day.
Great. Got it. No, thanks for that color. That's it for me. I'll pass the line on to someone else.
Thanks, Stephen.
Once again, if you have a question, please press Star then one. The next question is from Alex Terentiew with Ventum Financial .
Hey, good. I'm assuming it's good afternoon. I don't think you're in PNG yet, but thanks for hosting this call so quickly after the news release, guys. A couple questions for you. One, I noticed just the recoveries, you know, gold in line with previous numbers and studies. Copper, you reduced by 1%, and silver down a couple%. You know, despite the fact that over the last few months you guys have been, you're hitting some pretty good numbers. Is there anything you guys have learned recently about the ore longer- term that's kind of changed your understanding of what we should expect for recoveries?
Alex, simple answer is no, we haven't. There isn't anything we've found that shows any longer- term issues or deterioration in the recoveries. The recoveries are, however, based on test work as well as what we're achieving, and that test work and that work was all done and completed some months ago. And it's only more recently that we've improved our recovery significantly. And the biggest thing we believe is actually getting our retention times, keeping our retention times up and stability of operation and what have you. We actually internally believe that the recoveries that we posted in the last quarter are what we should be achieving in the new plant.
The studies, or at least studies I've been involved with, have generally been conservative in recoveries, and actual plant recoveries tend to outperform what you see in the lab. But at the end of the day, you've got a consultant looking at all of that and signing off on it, rather than if I'd been doing it, I would've had higher gold and copper recoveries. But it is what it is, as they say. I do think that it gives us. It's one of the areas where we can outperform what this study presents. We've shown it in the last quarter, and we've no reason to believe that the future ore that we treat will be any different from that which we're treating now.
Okay. Great. Another question, if I may. You know, there's a lot of detail in here, so I apologize if it's in this press release, I just haven't seen it yet. But this study includes the latest Trafigura agreement, I believe. And if any details in there on, you know, what sort of treatment charges are implied or other charges, whether it's for this new study or, you know, relative to the old one?
That is, commercially confidential information, the actual specifics. They are in there in as much as they affect the outcome. We're probably looking at something in the order of a three percentage point improvement in our overall payability.
Okay. Thanks. And just one last question. I know I'm gonna be on site there next week, so I'll get more details then. But I'm just curious, now that you guys are so much more advanced in your construction and you're kind of knowing what to expect here, when it comes to your labor complement in terms of, I guess, even labor rates, but also number of people, are the numbers still in line, kind of with what you were thinking a couple of years ago? Or has your labor forecast changed?
Our labor forecast is a little higher than it was previously. I mean, part of that is we've obviously in the PEA, we've upped our production by approximately 6%. S o there is a slight increase in labor numbers. The labor still envisages running two plants in parallel, which is something that potentially we don't do with the ability to expand the existing plant, and that's obviously something that we're going to be focused on. Once we've got the new plant running, we've already got designs to expand, for instance, the flotation area and what have you, and we've certainly got the power in the mills to be able to increase throughput significantly, so that's an area that we're working on, which actually reduce our numbers.
So there is a marginal increase in our labor underground and in the plant, mainly in the plant area, on the maintenance side. In the underground would be operations and some in maintenance as well. And that's also 'cause we're, you know, looking to be able to get our availabilities and utilizations equivalent to what you'd be able to get in Australia.
Okay. All right, great. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Alex. Look forward to seeing you next week.
Once again, if you have a question, please press Star, then one. This concludes the question and answer session. I'd like to turn the conference back over to John Lewins for any closing remarks.
Thanks, Katie. Well, thanks for making the effort to be on this call with relatively short notice. Apologies a bit for that. Dave and I are actually heading down to Papua New Guinea this evening, and we wanted to be able to have the call and have the engagement with people prior to heading out. And obviously, that's something we'll be able to discuss with our on the tour that comes up next week, now that we've released the results of the study.
I think the outcomes that we've seen from this study really highlight just the quality of the asset that we have, both in the context of the deposit itself and the grade, but also in relation to how we're able to exploit it with our existing infrastructure, how we locate our location with infrastructure, with grid power, etc , etc , all provide an exceptional opportunity in the context of Papua New Guinea. The study is obviously really focused just on Kora Judd, and so doesn't really obviously look at those potentials outside of what we've already defined. Fair to say that, first of all, as people would be aware, because we've reported additional drilling, we drilled Kora, we've drilled Judd outside of the existing resource, and we've shown that it extends further. So there's opportunities there.
We make mention of gouge, where our internal estimates are in the hundreds of thousands of ounces of potential additional resource that we can get by bringing in a raise drill and being able to exploit that. None of that is in this study at this point in time. There's a significant upside there. This, we have, we believe, been fairly conservative on our costs, and we believe there's opportunities there as well. So I think this is a great outcome where PEA has got something like 40-odd% more ounces that we will produce over a 14-year life. So it's pretty outstanding, and it really sets this company up, quite frankly, for the next decade and beyond. So again, thanks for your time.
We look forward to hosting those of you who are going to be on site and show you what's happening there, and also on the exploration front, which we are particularly excited about right now, and I think we are looking to get some results out on the exploration front within the next week or so, so another step, and we've still got more to go, so thanks very much for your time this afternoon.
This brings to a close today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.