Good afternoon. My name is Jason, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the B2Gold First Quarter 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 would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press the pound key. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call over to Clive Johnson, President and CEO. Mr. Johnson, you may begin your conference.
Thanks, Jason. Welcome to the conference call to discuss the financial results for the first quarter 2021. Thanks for attending. We had another very strong quarter, as you're going to hear from Mike shortly, as evidenced and as laid out in the news release. Very good financial performance, again, driven by strong operating performance at the mines, which allowed us a significant beat on our operating all-in sustaining cost. All of this, as everyone is still aware, is during COVID. Once again, it speaks to the tremendous leadership and the tremendous management and the employees we have at all of our sites, everyone on the same page, which was committed to continuing to mine during COVID if we could do it safely and responsibly.
We've had great relations with the governments in the countries that we mine, and I think we've earned a lot of trust there, I think over time with the cultural approach that we bring to the business of treating people with fairness, respect, and transparency. I think that pays off in a time of crisis or in a situation like COVID, because we established a mutual trust. The government, our employees, and the company all wanted to do the same thing. They want us to keep mining, but do it safely and recognizing the impact of COVID. We took many steps we've talked about before to assist the areas we're in, obviously with COVID, as we do with all sorts of aspects of their lives. I think it's been a great success in a very difficult scenario all around. These countries don't have a safety net.
The fact that we can continue to mine and pay taxes and keep these good paying jobs going and keep our communities as safe as possible, I think it's been a good thing for the industry. I think there's a positive going forward potentially in the mining space, because I think post-COVID, many governments will look at who were the good performers, what were the good businesses to have in your country during COVID. I think the responsible miners, not just us, others as well, have shown governments that gold mining can be a very positive thing in a time of crisis. Just in general, we're going to review the results of the quarter, and then we're going to talk a little bit about Gramalote.
As everyone sees in the news release, we delayed the completion of a final feasibility study, and then Gramalote, but we think that will be about a year. The economics are positive from the feasibility work that we've done so far. We feel there's a potentially better project there with an optimization for the drilling and other things that we can do. While the economics are positive, we want to make it a better project, and we're going to take the time to do that. I think it's important to know that also we were going to be looking at, we'd originally hoped to potentially have boots on the ground in September of this year if there was a positive development decision.
There was going to be some delay in that anyway, because the government was interested in our idea of doing resettlement in stages instead of all together waiting two and a half years to do all the resettlement and then start construction. We've had conversations with the government where they've been interested in hearing more about that idea, but they did ask us to go and then do some public consultation, understandably, and also to have the government review this proposal, which will take some time. We probably would have been looking at a six-month delay to boots on the ground, regardless of the economics or whether we've had a positive development season. Now we're talking about a feasibility study of a year.
Bill will give you some detail as to what we think and why we think more drilling and some of the other things are important. People talk about optimization sometimes to perhaps try and negate some negative. In this case, there's a number of things you'll hear from Bill that we identified in the project some time ago that we thought were things we may have liked to have optimized. At the time, we were trying not to change the footprint because AGA in the pre-feasibility study had realized a construction permit. We were trying to stay within the bounds of that. We can open that up and look at the optimization. You'll hear more about that from Bill. We remain very positive on the project.
We've had good conversations with AGA, our partner, and we're looking to shortly finalize a budget over the next year, an increase in budget, and we should be able to hopefully announce that soon. The conversations we've had, we're on the same page. We're disappointed that we didn't have the robust economics we saw in the PEA. Bill will talk to some of the things that changed, but they, I think along with ourselves, remain positive that this can become a good asset and a good project for us. We'll go ahead and do all that work. I think it's really important to note as well, the government relations remain very good in Antioquia and with the federal government. We had a meeting with them yesterday.
I had a call with a representative of the Minister of Mines in Colombia, and they've been very supportive, and they're a bit disappointed to hear that it's not going to happen right away, but very supportive of our desire to build the best project for everyone, including the Colombian people and the government as well. Very supportive there. There's a lot of activity going to be happening, as you'll hear, on the site in terms of working towards the resettlement program, all of our social programs we're doing there, working with the government, with small miners. There's a lot of good things are going to happen in addition to the optimization to let us keep this project moving forward. Generally, corporately, I think I'll just touch on the strategy briefly.
We remained pretty much on the same page as to strategy we've been on for some time, which is to continue to optimize production around our sites, as we've seen. We're going to continue to pursue our development opportunities and see where we're going with those, including Gramalote, also looking at the potential for additional production at Fekola from the Anaconda area. As we announced in the news release, we have applied for an extension of the Ménankoto license, which is part of Anaconda with the government. We felt we fulfilled all the requirements and obligations to legally do that. We're in discussions with the government, as we speak, about remedying the situation, and we hope to have a positive resolution of that.
We will take whatever legal means we have to, if required, because we think legally we should have been awarded that extension to the license. We're working to eliminate any confusion on that. Also, I'm working with the government on that. It's an important project for us. In fact, as you'll hear from Bill, we are planning to be trucking ore from Ménankoto, Anaconda down to the separator or down to the Fekola mill as early as early next year. Obviously, that's subject to the getting the license issue sorted out. Once again, we think there's tremendous potential in Anaconda, not only for the satellite, which we've seen the resource, about 800,000 so far, but much greater potential in the satellite and underneath in sulfide. Some very good drilling there.
It's an important project to us, I think it's a very important project to the people in the government of Mali as well, and we're uniquely suited to produce from there to everyone's benefit, given the proximity to the Fekola mill. Other than that, we're going to continue to focus on another thing we've done extremely well, which is exploration. We've had great results around I've asked Tom to say a few words today because we've traditionally had great results around the mines in turning resources into reserves, increasing mine life. That work continues, and this continues to go very well. Also, we're born of exploration twice and being on B2Gold, we're very good at grassroots exploration as well as brownfields, and we've got a very good exploration budget this year. A large budget, which I think is a good thing.
If you look at the return on investment over, let's say, the last three years or so, I think somebody worked out that it's about $19 an ounce of our exploration spend to discover ounces of gold at a cost that are remarkably low. As I always say, the cheapest ounces will be the ones that you find. Tom will talk about some of the exciting grassroots projects that we're doing, and he'll touch on the brownfields as well. In addition, we're always looking at opportunities to grow. M&A has been topic these days. We've said repeatedly that for us to go into that area would have to be something that we could find value for our shareholders on an accretive basis, not anticipating higher gold prices or exploration success. That's the discipline we've had for decades, and that will continue.
We're looking, if anything, if we enact transactions or anything, it's going to be something that we think there's an opportunity for us to add shareholder value. We're not likely, frankly, to win any bidding wars on the few decent deposits that are out there because we won't overpay. We did some of the heavy lifting before, in the sense of building Otjikoto and acquiring and building Otjikoto and Fekola when it was very unpopular to be growing. Hence the opportunity at the time, being contrarian. We continue to look at things that make sense to add shareholder value through from an acquisition point of view. That is an overview. I'll pass it over to Mike, and he's going to give us some of the financial highlights for the quarter, discuss our financial position, and then we'll be hearing from Bill and then Tom. Over to you, Mike.
Thanks, Clive. I think I can run through the results of the quarter fairly quickly. It was a good, clean quarter and some nice results. Just starting firstly with revenues. We had revenue of $362 million on the sale of 257,000oz and realized an average price of $1,791 an oz. Overall, we sold 14,000oz more than we'd originally budgeted, and that's really a function of having higher production than budgeted in the quarter. Total production in the quarter, including our share of Calibre, was 221,000oz , basically 19,000oz ahead of budget. Total production from our three sites operating mines was 206,000oz , which was 18,000oz ahead of budget. Looking at those individually. Fekola, we produced 125,000oz , which is about 8,000oz higher than budget, and that's primarily a function of Fekola processing facilities just continuing to outperform.
We had originally expanded Fekola Mill to a notional annual throughput rate of 7.5 million tons. We did budget 7.75 million tons for 2021. In the first quarter of 2021, we had quarterly record of almost 2.1 million tons or an annualized rate of well above 8 million. Fekola Mill's outperforming, and we're seeing more production as a result. Masbate was 58,000oz , 7,000oz ahead of budget, and that's a function mainly of higher than budgeted mill recoveries. If you look at the ore feed that was processed in the period, we had better recoveries from the high-grade sulfide ore that we mined from Main Vein in the period, and also better recoveries from the low-grade stockpile, some of which material we ran through the mill, and that was originally mined from Colorado, but both of them had better recoveries.
Otjikoto production was 23,000oz , 2,000oz higher than budget, and that was really slightly better on all fronts, processed tons, grade, and recoveries. Looking at that in the context of cash cost per ounce produced, consolidated cash cost per ounce produced for the quarter was $609 per oz. That was $54 lower than budget. From our three operating mines, $581 per oz, and that was $60 less than budgeted. If you look at the individual components, Fekola $503 per oz , $55 less than budget. The beat on budget, which cash cost per ounce is a function of a few things. It's higher than budgeted production, as I mentioned, and lower than budgeted mining and processing costs.
We had lower maintenance costs at the mill in terms of our Sorry, lower budget maintenance costs for the mining fleet, and then we had lower budgeted processing costs at the mill, higher mill throughput, and lower cyanides. To note, the new Fekola power facility actually came online in the quarter slightly earlier than we thought, and we think that probably benefited cash costs by approximately $4 per ounce in the period against budget. Masbate, $608 per ounce cash cost, $80 less than budget. That's almost exclusively higher production in the period. We did have some savings in mining costs. It's mainly driven by higher production. Otjikoto was $940. That was $56 per ounce lower than budget. That, again, is primarily a function of the higher production.
Turning to all-in sustaining cost per ounce sold, consolidated, including Calibre, $932 an ounce, which was $146 lower than budget. If you look at our three operating mines, it was $919 per ounce or $159 per ounce lower than budget. That's a function of a few things. Obviously, the lower cash costs, as described a second ago, and also the higher than budgeted ounces sold. We produced more and sold more and that has a positive impact on the sort of fixed capital element when you look at it in terms of all-in sustaining cost per ounce. Also we had lower CapEx in the period. That's mainly lower sustaining capital, it's really the timing of fleet maintenance and rebuilds. Those are really the primary drivers. The capital costs we think are just timing, and we think they'll reverse later in the year.
Just to give you the individual components of the all-in costs. Fekola was $770 per ounce. That was $128 lower than budget. Masbate was $818, $194 lower than budget. Otjikoto $1,475, which is a larger number, but it's still $240 less than budget. Just a reminder for everyone on the line, the production from Otjikoto was very significantly weighted to the second half of the year. In the first half of the year, we're processing almost exclusively from stockpiles at site while we continue to strip the Otjikoto and Wolfshag pits. When we get into those pits later in the year, especially the higher grade components of Wolfshag in the second half of the year, we'll see that production level significantly increase. Overall, production-wise, cash cost-wise, we still think we're on target for our guidance for the year. Guidance is maintained.
A reminder, it's significantly weighted to the second half of the year. Our production for the first half is between 390,000 and 415,000oz . The second half is 580,000 to 615,000 oz. That reflects us getting into the better grade material in the second half of the year, both Fekola and at Otjikoto. Masbate is fairly consistent as it goes all the way through the year. A couple other comments on the operation. I know Bill's going to give you some comments later. Just a couple other thoughts. At Fekola, what's not included in the budget or that guidance for Fekola is any new material from the Cardinal area. We're currently looking at that now and what we can pull into the 2021 mine plan. That wasn't included in our budget or our guidance. Fekola solar, I mentioned that that came online.
I think we've now managed to source the remaining solar panels and get them on the way to site. They were on a ship at one point waiting to go through the Suez Canal, fortunately, that's resolved, we're still on track to finish the solar plant by the end of the second quarter. In the meantime, we did bring it online, the first part of it online earlier than expected. Just going to a couple of comments, I think, on really income statement, good results, nothing major to highlight. The earnings for the period, $99 million. Earnings attributable to shareholders of the company, $91 million, or $0.09 per share. Adjusted EPS was also $0.09 per share. A few things to highlight on the cash flow statement. Cash provided by operating activities was $146 million.
That's pretty close to our budget in the end. We did have a beat, as I mentioned on the cash cost side. The cost of our operations were lower, but offsetting that, we had some working capital movements really related to the timing of that and certain tax payments that offset that. We ended up pretty much right on budget for the quarter for operating cash flow. Assuming a gold price of $1,800 for the full year, we're still on track, we think, for that guided operating cash flow number of somewhere around $630 million. Approximately $500 million of that will come in the second half of the year as we get into that higher grade material and higher production, higher sales.
Just to remind everyone that the second quarter's operating cash flow will be impacted by the payment of those outstanding 2020 tax liabilities. There's about $140 million worth of 2020 tax obligations that'll be settled in the second quarter, the largest part of which is for Fekola. About $125 million of that total relates to either Fekola taxes or priority dividend payments, which are triggered as a tax. In addition to that $140, we'll also have some other withholding tax payments we'll make for monies that we're going to pay, remit up from sites as dividends to pull the cash up from sites. Couple other things to highlight in the cash flow statement. Dividends to shareholders from the quarter, $42 million, $0.04 per share. We're pretty comfortable with our dividend level right now. The $170 million.
We are paying one of the highest dividend yields right now in the gold sector. It's a significant component of our 2021 free cash flows. We will look at it again in the second half of the year, but as I mentioned, I think we're pretty comfortable with that level just now. The only other couple items I'd highlight on the cash flow statement, investing activities, just under $60 million for the period. That's about $18 million less than budget. As I mentioned in the all-in sustaining cost discussion, some of that's timing on CapEx for mobile fleet and rebuilds at sites. We think that will reverse later in the year. On the non-sustaining side, we were under fairly significantly. Gramalote was under $6 million.
It's under budget, but we're continuing to work on the feasibility study, so we expect that will reverse. In fact, as we noted in the news release, we are currently in discussions with AGA about increasing the feasibility study budget by approximately $34 million. Our share would be $17 million higher than we've currently budgeted. That would take us through to the end of the first quarter of 2022, when we expect to finish the feasibility study. Also under on the CapEx side, we were about $5 million under in the quarter in exploration.
That's just a function of timing, again, and we expect that to reverse later in the year. Overall, we finished Q1 $512 million in the bank and $600 million undrawn. We've got the full amount of our revolving credit facility available and available to draw. We're in good shape, cash flow-wise, liquidity-wise, and it was a good solid production quarter and results quarter. I think those are the main things I was going to highlight there, so thanks.
Thanks, Mike. Bill, over to you to give us an overview of operations and an overview and a bit of an outlook for highlights from operations and what we're looking at going forward.
Yeah, sure. Thanks, Clive. You hear me all right?
I do.
Yeah. Okay. Well, thanks. A lot of the stuff certainly was either hinted at by Clive or by Mike. Maybe I can just provide a little more color commentary to the actual operations. If you look, overall, obviously, we're quite happy with how everybody did at all three operations for the quarter. Every site exceeded its budget, we really didn't see any downsides as far as working forward into Q2 and into the second half of the year. Kind of going mine by mine, if you look at Fekola, great quarter. As far as development, I think everyone's aware, we previously said that our budget was run at 7.75 million tons per annum. We put out in the press release that obviously the mill is running much better than that.
We're still holding at kind of what we're saying is eight million-plus, but our life of mines are due here in the middle of the year. We're going to take a good hard look at what we think that number is going forward. We certainly believe that we've got some potential to add quite a bit of saprolite from both Cardinal and from the Menankoto or the Anaconda Area. Discussing Cardinal specifically, we did receive our bulk sample approval, so we are right now out there starting to strip it or will be heading to the mill or already have started heading to the mill, I think. If not, it's imminent. We certainly see going through the rest of Q2 and into Q3, we will be developing that.
Of course, as Mike insinuated or discussed, we see in 2022 and 2023 the potential for additional ounces to come from Cardinal, which are not in our current life of mine. The same story kind of holds true for Menankoto. From the operations perspective, we're assuming that the current situation is resolved. We believe when it gets resolved, that we're going to see trucked saprolite into the Fekola mill in 2022. Given the fact that we have a large additional capacity for the mill, those numbers could be quite significant as far as changing the life of mines. Once that's resolved, I think in Q3, we're talking about coming out with what we want to do there and putting it into production in 2022.
I think it's important to note while we're talking about trucking to Fekola, we see that as phase I of the project. Tom's group continues to drill out there, and we continue to have some success as far as looking at the hard rock. Once we get the phase I studies complete and get it all set up for trucking, we really want to take a hard look at, is there the potential to put another mill up in that area? That will be the emphasis once we finish the trucking study and get that all put to bed. We'll move on to what does a trade-off look like, trucking versus putting a mill up there. Real quickly on the solar side, Mike hinted at it, but solar plant is up and operating really well.
I think we've been publicly stating that we're kind of at 75% completion, but the reality is we're probably higher now. We've seen great returns on that solar as far as reducing our power costs. We believe that in Q2, we're going to finalize that, and we'll have the full benefit starting in Q3. Going to Otjikoto. Otjikoto, once again, had a really nice quarter. No issues as far as mining or milling. Right on schedule. The development, as Mike pointed out, the key is the second half of the year. The development for getting into Wolfshag3 remains on schedule. We don't see any issues there for meeting our targets. The underground remains, while it's a little bit behind, we still see gold coming out as projected in Q1 of 2022. Overall, no issues at all at Otjikoto.
Maybe one of the things to talk about is we are in the process of connecting up our overhead power line. That facility, the power facility at Otjikoto, operates in stand-alone configuration as an island. We believe by connecting to the overhead power line, that we'll be able to continue to reduce power costs there significantly throughout the rest of the life of mine, by taking the off-peak power prices, which I saw something, I think it reduces almost $0.04 a kWh for those hours that were on the off-peak hours. Looking at Masbate. Masbate, once again, great quarter. I continue to say that's a project that is probably just day in and day out, just performs as designed. We continue to see better recoveries and better grade at Masbate, as we say every quarter. That certainly contributes towards the overproduction for the quarter.
The rest of the year there is business as usual. We're in the process of developing another lift for our tailings. That remains on schedule. Overall, on the operational side, everything completely as advertised and as predicted. Maybe talking a little bit, as Clive asked, a little bit about Gramalote. I think it's important to start out talking about what the feasibility was trying to do and really get our head around why we've now talked about un-handcuffing maybe the project design from what the pre-feasibility was. When we took over the project, we agreed with AngloGold that we were going to basically hold the design, and the reason was, is they had already pulled a construction permit. The footprint had to remain the same, and we basically had to just try and optimize within the existing footprint.
What we found very early on is that there was a lot of things that we wanted to do, and some of these things were quite significant: things like diverting rivers in a different direction, moving infrastructure facilities, taking a look at the tailings pond. In order to do that, we would've been required to open up the permit. We've decided to go ahead and maintain the same footprint, but keep a log of where we were going and what we could change. When the feasibility was done, remember, one of the key things was upgrading the resource from inferred to indicated, and that was very successful, and then updating the cost.
When that was all said and done, we looked at it and we said, "While this project is positive, we certainly think that there's a better project here." We presented it to AngloGold. Anglo agreed with our concept, basically what we decided is that we were going to do some additional drilling, because we thought there was some further potential to increase the resource up to indicated. We were going to take a look at the engineering design as far as taking the handcuffs off and moving things around. We thought it was still critical, because we do think this is a project, and we do think this is something that we can move forward quite rapidly once we get what we're now considering the updated feasibility. We wanted to make sure that the social aspects continue to move forward. Things like resettlement.
We've been talking with Anglo, and we've been talking to the government about how we can make sure that that stays on track. The Colombian government is in the process of formalizing some artisanal mining within the region. That's a very positive development. We wanted to continue to support that, and we wanted to make sure some of the critical path items, things like bringing a power line into the region, continue to move forward. All of these things we put together as a packet for AngloGold. Conceptually, they agree with the concept, and we provided a budget to them. They're in the process of having a look at that, and we think very shortly, we will continue to move this project forward. We see the updated feasibility study coming out at the end of Q1. Obviously, if it's positive, we would mobilize shortly thereafter.
I think it was Clive that talked a little bit about it. It's really important to remember the difference between our proposed new schedule and what the actual schedule was not that different. When we talked about doing the PEA, when we were going to do concurrent resettlement, the government came back to us and asked for us to do some additional stakeholder engagement and to have them review the results of that stakeholder engagement. We saw the potential for a six-month delay in any case. We're not really that far off of that schedule. Moving maybe now to Kiaka. I'm not going to spend too much time on that. As we've said and we've continued to message, we do believe by the end of Q2, the results will be out, and we'll be discussing that. Clive, is there anything else what you want me to talk about?
No.
Hello?
I was on mute, of course.
Sorry.
Yeah, thanks, Bill. I think that, good summary. Maybe for the interest of the people on the line, maybe you should talk a little bit about some of the issues between the PEA and the feasibility work. Now, the study, when it comes out next year, will not be an updated feasibility study. It will be the feasibility study. Now we've done the feasibility work that's given us some economic indicators, but we have not completed the study. I think that's an important point. Can you maybe talk a little bit about some of the differences between the PEA and what we're seeing now in the feasibility work that we've done? Some of the factors behind that.
Yeah, sure. Some of the key ones relate to the resource, as I said. Obviously, for our 43-101 feasibility study, we can only use indicated, and we did the modeling only on Gramalote Ridge and didn't include the oxides in that. The pit design itself has changed a little bit based on some geotech issues related to the pit design. The mining itself, the mining rate, and the mining design remained exactly the same. On the milling side, we believe that we have a more elegant and more efficient milling process. It certainly was cheaper. We've included some additional equipment that wasn't in the pre-feas. That's just due to level of detail. The tailings facility remained exactly the same. Power, overhead power lines come in. Some of the key cost drivers which had changed, things like the power cost was slightly different.
We had updated some of the cost due to inflation. One of the key ones, as you talked about already, is resettlement. We wanted to move people out sooner instead of the way that the pre-feasibility had the resettlement was that it had a really long period where you had to fully complete resettlement before you could start construction. As I said, we were looking for concurrent resettlement. There currently is a river that flows right through where the existing pit or where the future pit would be. There's a big tunnel where they diverted that. We think that there's the potential to make that a better project. Some of these issues, those are the key differences.
Okay, thanks. Yeah, I guess just maybe from a strategic and a corporate point of view, we're quite well known for being aggressive. There's a big difference between being aggressive and being reckless, I always point out to people. In terms of the way we approach projects, the way we do it very safely and responsibly, but do it quite often more quickly than some others in the industry may move. I think this is perhaps an example, and some people have recognized it, of our discipline, that we have a project that has some positive economic indications, albeit not as robust as it was before.
We took a look at it and said, "Well, what's the best thing to do here?" The best thing to do here, because we're famous for building quality projects based on quality work and attractive economics. That continues. This is an indication, perhaps, if anybody needed to know it, I don't think they should have needed to know given our history, but an example of our financial and corporate discipline, where we think we can make it a better project, and our partners and ourselves are prepared to believe in that concept as well. We're prepared to spend some money to do it.
At the end of the day, the delay is appropriate to do a lot of very good work and then have a look at what comes out. We're hoping we're going to have significant improvement from the economic indicators that, while positive, were not above our threshold given the fact that we see so much upside or significant upside potential in the work that we're going to be doing. Thanks, Bill, for that. I'd like to pass on to Tom Garagan now to talk a little bit about some of the things he's excited about our large exploration budget this year and some exciting new countries and targets for us.
Thank you, Clive. Hello, everybody. As you know, we have an exploration budget this year of some $66 million to be spent not only on our main projects, but also in grassroots exploration. In grassroots exploration, we're looking at just over $27 million. Just a brief comment on the exploration around the mines. At Masbate, we're continuing to drill on the pit edges and the deeper portions of the pits, where the pits get bigger with the better gold prices that we're seeing now. In Mali, we're continuing to do exploration down plunge on Cardinal. It remains open, and we'll continue to do exploration in the Anaconda area as that area remains open. In Namibia, our exploration is almost exclusively focused right now on what we call the Otjikoto 23 zone, which is about 100 meters away from Wolfshag.
We'll have more on that later as that work continues. We view that as a positive sign for Otjikoto. Just in the grassroots exploration, we're talking about significant budget. Within that budget, we're talking about over 30,000 meters of diamond and RC drilling on some of our newer targets. I'll mention specifically, I'll start with Uzbekistan. It's an area we've been looking at, I hate to say this because it kind of dates me a little bit, but for probably close to 15 years, dating back to the Bema Gold days. It was an area we had visited back then, and we continued to work on relationships with government and geologists in that country. That led to us, a few years ago, being awarded some licenses in the country. The licenses we have are right near three world-class ore bodies.
Muruntau, there's a large variety of numbers related to that, but it basically is the world's largest gold mine at over 2 million ounces of production per year. Then there's two other 10 million ounce deposits in the immediate area. Our work in the area to date has been trenching, auger drilling, and some lab programs, and we're just about to start a 10,000-meter RC program this week. This will be followed later in the year with diamond drilling. This is an area of world-class deposits that has not seen a lot of exploration outside the exploration being done by the local government combinations. We're very excited about this area. In addition to that, in Finland, we have almost 8,000 meters of diamond drill planning on our property.
We've already earned 51% from the line, and we're getting close to having earned our 70% on this project. We're excited about the area. It's on strike with a new discovery called Ikkari, and the geology of Ikkari continues onto our ground. We've had some decent gold anomalies in our overburden drilling and our till drilling, and then also in some of our soil sampling and certainly rock sampling. We're excited about the potential for that. We think that holds something. Something new that's just come up, just recently, we've been awarded licenses in Egypt in a historic mining area.
Those licenses are just being papered right now, so I don't have too much detail on that at this time. We'll have more later, but it's an area we've, again, been focused on for several years, doing grassroots exploration and evaluating the potential of that area. We are excited about it. We'll continue doing grassroots exploration on other targets in other areas of the world that hopefully will be available for more discussion later on this year. Thank you, Clive.
Thanks, Tom, appreciate it. Operator, I think we're ready to open up for questions now.
Certainly. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. We will pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Tyler Langton from JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. Just to start with, I guess, Gramalote. Can you talk a little bit about, to kind of make the economics more attractive, just the importance of either sort of increasing production at the project or kind of lowering operating costs or capital costs? Just trying to get a sense of maybe kind of what's sort of the most important or a bigger focus.
Sure. Bill?
Yeah, sure. Certainly we see some potential for capital reductions. That's one of the big ones. Another one of the big ones relates to increasing the ounces that we can generate over the life of the project. This includes kind of a drilling program within the existing design pit. There were a few ounces left within the existing pit, which were in the inferred category. Just outside of the proposed pit, which would be in the measured, indicated, and inferred category. We see those two things really as some of the key economic drivers. In particular, if you look at the CapEx, as I said, there are some mostly related infrastructure projects, where we think we can bring the cost down.
Things where maybe the project's been designed for 10 years now, where people kind of lose focus on, if you had a blank sheet of paper, could you optimize things? That also relates to, certainly, the constructability of the project. Those are some of the things that we're looking at. As far as the OpEx, we don't see a lot of changes between what we have now versus what we would have a year from now.
Got you. Okay. That's helpful. Maybe just switching for color. With Cardinal, I think maybe last quarter you had talked about that mine potentially contributing, I think, 20,000 to 25,000oz kind of in Q2, and that'd be kind of the main contribution for the year. Is that kind of still what you're thinking? I think maybe I heard some comments of talking about maybe contributing in Q2 and Q3. If you just provide some more color there, that'd be great.
Yeah, I think hopefully what I said was 20,000 to 25,000oz over 2021, starting in Q2, from the bulk sample. Right? We're talking about 20,000 to 25,000 oz out of that bulk sample. I will say that it looks to me like, while we do not have it yet, and I must stress that, and I should also stress that it's an inferred resource. That we see starting really right now through the end of the year, we're going to start mining at Cardinal. There is potential that it could be a little bit more than that.
Got it. Great. Thanks so much.
Thanks.
Your next question comes from the line of Ovais Habib from Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Thanks, operator. Hi, Clive and B2Gold team. Congrats on a good quarter and thanks for taking my questions.
Thanks, Ovais.
First couple of questions, Clive, are on Gramalote. This, I guess, I can direct to Bill. You've already answered a lot of the questions I had, so good overview on that front. In regards to the additional, I guess, extended resettlement, just to make sure that I understand correctly, was this due to additional footprint need to be added, or is this resettlement always in the plans or in the works?
No, Ovais, it was always. Even back in the AGA days, there was quite a big resettlement which went along with it. We certainly have provided now more detail around that, and we're in the process of really working through our Resettlement Action Plan. A RAP has been developed. The difference really was, as I said, there was a condition precedent for the construction permit, which basically said you had to do all of the resettlement. Everywhere, in every region, you had to move everybody out.
What we realized is that there was a big chunk of it, which we could do, and then we could start construction. There were some people on the periphery that we could then deal with as we got to that area. That's really the difference. The overall resettlement is basically the same. There are some people that are saying that they're in, there are some people saying they're out, but in general, the quantum is pretty close to the same.
Got it. Okay. Thanks for that, Bill. Just talking about the optimizations that are expected, is the plan basically to get close to the economics shown in the PEA before giving green light to the project? What I'm trying to ask is there a point where you would walk away from Gramalote? Where's the point where you would make a decision, essentially, what I'm trying to ask?
Yeah, that's Clive probably answer that. From an engineering standpoint, all we want to do is we want to make sure that it's got the best economics possible and that it's most easy for us to build.
Yeah, I think we are going to spend a significant amount of money in addition with our partner. We're expecting to agree a new budget as we've talked about in the news release. We definitely are doing that for good reason. The reason is because we think we're seeing enough indicators, as Bill says, when you start taking the handcuffs off the engineering side, the design side of things, that we see significant potential to make it a project that we would want to go forward with. The economics today are positive. I guess some companies might use mechanisms like hedging, et cetera, to maybe look at making those things better, potentially. That's not where we are in the sense of we're looking at it from a technical point of view, saying we think we can add more ounces, we think we can lower the capital.
If you look at the all-in sustaining cost base and the current economics from the feasibility work, I think it was somewhere around close to the mid sevens. Attractive project from that perspective. Can you add more ounces? Can you lower some of that capital and add to that 15% IRR? Ourselves and AGA are companies, I believe, I can't speak for them, but I believe that we are not companies that would continue to pursue something if we thought we were sort of flogging a dead horse or just giving false hope. We very much see an opportunity here to make this a project that we would want to develop.
Perfect. Thanks, Clive and Bill. I have a couple of more questions, but I'll let others ask questions and then jump back in the queue.
Okay. Thanks, Ovais.
Your next question comes from the line of Geordie Mark from Haywood Securities. Your line is open.
Good morning, evening, all. Thanks for the time today. Good quarter. Maybe if I can expand on some of Ovais's questions, not to beat a whole different point. Just in terms of the change in budget, is that largely drilling expense related in addition to the 18,000 meters of drilling that was already planned this year?
You want me to answer that, Clive?
Yeah.
Yeah. Geordie, there's three components there for sure. You're right, there is a big chunk of drilling which goes along with that, and I can let Tom or Brian maybe give more clarity there. There's also the engineering component, which is more just the actual consulting and engineering aspect of it. Then there's the social component. Like I said, we do want to push forward some of the key social issues. We have put some money in there for things like basically preventing some sort of inflation happening with resettlement. Purchasing land packages now, making sure that we've got the right areas available for resettlement. Those types of things also take up a chunk of the budget.
Okay, brilliant. There was also mention of the power line. Is that in terms of trying to bring that online to basically move the project forward or the project timing forward as you progress with optimization?
Well, what we know is the power line is absolutely on the critical path regardless of what happens, right? We've been in negotiations with a couple of power companies down there and have picked a group that we'd like to do the studies for. They have to go out now and do a full ESIA. They have to do all the engineering, and basically they have to design the route on the site. They're talking about something like a 28 to 30-month schedule to do that. We decided at this point that we're going to put a little bit of money at risk to get those studies going. That's what that is.
Okay, that's excellent. In terms of, if we stay on power and move over to Fekola, and obviously Fekola at two-thirds solar panels is hitting beyond capacity. Is that right at the moment or nominal baseline at least? With the additional final 25% of the panels in place, do you expect any linear capacity increase there, or are you met with battery storage limitations there for delivering more power into the local grid?
Yeah. I'm super bullish on this, so I'm going to pass that one on to probably John Rajala, who's really more qualified to answer that.
Yeah. We'll plan on trying to maximize our solar power usage. Only 75% of the capacity is online right now. We lost some panels, about 25% in a fire, and they're going to be on-site very soon and then installed. We plan on having that in operation by around the end of June or so. We'll be up to 100% of capacity and hopefully we should be able to increase the amount of solar power contribution from that. Does that cover it?
Okay. I was just wondering if it was going to be beyond the original expectations, given the performance so far.
We think we have a good shot at it. We've been exceeding expectations just with 75% capacity in operation. Hopefully we'll be able to continue that with the additional solar panels installations.
Okay. That's great. If I can just indulge one more. Moving over to Kiaka, obviously experience on solar power and looking at a dual LNG solar source there. What sort of capacity are you thinking for that power plant?
Dennis, you want to talk to that?
Yeah. The power plant we're looking at for Kiaka is, it'd be a combined LNG solar plant. We're currently looking at about a 30 MW plant, very similar to Fekola, for that right now. In optimization, we might want to kick that up a little bit, but it's in that magnitude.
Okay. Thank you for that. I'll pop back in the line for questions. Thank you.
Great. Thanks, Geordie.
Your next question comes from the line of Josh Wolfson from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Thanks. Bill, earlier in the call you mentioned that the Anaconda trucking study was going to be continuing on this year. Could you clarify what the permitting challenges there relate to, and I guess it sounds like you're still able to proceed with Anaconda or, if not, what the sort of implications are in advancing that opportunity?
Bill?
As I said, I think Clive was pretty clear that we're kind of working through what our permitting issues are right now. What we've always said is it is a separate license, right? It would have to go through the full permitting, and we're working on those studies right now. Obviously, for permitting, you would need a full ESIA, which we're in the process of completing right now. You would need some sort of feasibility study. What we're calling that is kind of the phase I aspect of the Anaconda project.
All of those, it is our intent to complete those in Q3, and then you would have to go and look at what the license conditions would be for actually bringing the project up, how it would be for tolling it through Fekola. All of those things would need to be discussed. That's why we're talking about really, with the exception of maybe a bulk sample, you're probably not going to see any ounces, best case, probably in the second half of 2022, being trucked.
That, just so I understand that those ounces that would be produced, the Menankoto permit, the issues there do not affect the ability to truck the ore to Fekola?
All that stuff has to be resolved before we can do it, for sure.
Okay.
There's a few different licenses there, though. There's Ménankoto, there's other licenses that are not impacted by the current discussions going on with the government about the Ménankoto license. Yes, clearly, we should be very clear about that. We need to resolve this issue with the government about our right to the extension of the license, and are hoping to resolve that shortly.
Okay. In looking at Kiaka, any update that's going to be coming out, I guess we won't have the updated Gramalote numbers until early 2022. What's the potential for the team to look to advance that project in the second half of this year, either in lieu of Gramalote or even alongside it, assuming Gramalote proceeds next year?
Yeah. We haven't got too far into that yet because we're waiting to see the results of the feasibility study in Kiaka to see whether it meets the threshold for us to go forward. We're going to know that by the, as I say, middle of the year. Yeah, conceptually, if there was a positive development decision there, we could look at, we talked before about the potential for if they were both positive, Gramalote and Kiaka, we wanted to develop both of them. We talked about various possibilities. One would be to sequence the construction team. We'll never build two mines at the same time. That's one of our rules that's been key to our success.
We've got one great team, but you can also look at potentially using the team for earthworks initially, let's say, at Gramalote or at Kiaka, and then moving that team to the next one, whichever one you do it in. Similarly, the mill construction team when they complete the one project can move to another. All of that, of course, is based on the final feasibility at Gramalote, and also the updated feasibility study that we're working on right now, that we expect to be prepared to release in the middle of the year at Kiaka.
Understood. One sort of final one, just in the language in the release. The comments about Gramalote, and I guess the expanded footprint that could require the permit modifications, that not affecting the license, but that potentially affecting the implementation schedule. Is that just for, I guess, the project as it was, if it was advanced this year? Or does the potential footprint change and the permitting changes affect the implementation schedule if it was advanced next year as well?
Bill, you want to answer that?
Yeah. The language maybe is not quite as clear as it could be. What we're really talking about, the way it works in Gramalote or in Colombia is that they have 3 levels of permit modifications. There's this insignificant, these are things like when the resolution of your topography gets better and your road is shifted just a little bit. There's no real major social or environmental impact change. Those you do on the fly. There's these minor modifications, where it might be where you're moving something around just a little bit. Once again, there's no significant environmental or social impacts or potentially positive social or environmental impacts. Those have a small review process, and you can do those on the fly.
Those are the things that we've always been talking about inside of the existing permit we can do. What we're talking about is, as I said, taking the handcuffs off and looking at what we're calling potentially major permit modifications, where you're actually taking structures and maybe moving them into a different valley or moving an access road somewhere else, which have real impacts, which have to be investigated. As we go along for the engineering process now, we've got to start looking at, okay, this is really optimal. This is how much money it could save us. Is it worth trying to get a permit modification to do that?
If it is, you start talking with the government. What would it take as far as updating your impact assessment? All of those things are now going to be in play as opposed to us just saying, okay, we're going to keep it to these non-consequential or minors. Let's talk about majors. I don't like the phrase that we're increasing the footprint, because that's not necessarily the case. What we're actually doing is we're modifying the footprint, and in that modification, we may be changing the potential social or environmental impacts, and those need to be evaluated.
Okay. That's a lot more clear. Thank you.
I think it's important to note there, we talked a bit about it earlier on, but the relationship with the Colombian government is very strong. There's a very strong Canada-Colombian relationship, with the Minister of Mines and the government. They're helping the government, are very supportive of responsible mining as an important part of their economy. We've always said Gramalote's in a great location in the mining district of Antioquia. If you flew over Colombia and said, "Where's the best place to build the first large open gold mine in the country?" You would pick Gramalote. Tremendous local support, the community, and there's some disappointment now because they thought this was going to crank up pretty quickly.
Once again, if we are successful in what we're looking at doing, this is a really important source of jobs, and there's lots of people working there now, and that continues. All that work continues as we talked about, resettlement, working with the government, small miners, and other things. Between ourselves and AGA, there's been a lot of good work done here over the years. It's very important to note that on building these, working with the local community and the federal government and all governments. There's a lot of support for this project.
We think it makes a lot of sense. The government gets that, and I think they're highly motivated to work with us to see Gramalote become the best project it can be and to get it built for all sorts of positive reasons for the economy, local economy, but also the overall benefits to the government and the people of Colombia. There's a lot of support for this project. I think it's really important to keep that in mind.
Okay. Sorry, final question. I know I'm taking up a lot of time here. When you think about these potential changes and modifications in the footprint, are there permitting elements that you're able to accelerate before that first quarter 2022 target date? Does that sort of date then start the permitting process for these modifications?
That's a really good question. The answer is, we have to look at that. That's literally what we're doing right now. As I said, it's this huge trade-off study in our mind on the potential delays as far as permitting versus the potential economic benefits. As Clive has indicated and I said already, we have a positive project now, but can we make it even better? Those are the things that we're looking at. What I will tell you is, you have to remember that resettlement still is on that critical path. We're now working through that Resettlement Action Plan, and that's really going to push us out into Q1 2022 in any case. How do you play around with that? That's what we're looking at right now.
Okay. That's great. Thank you very much.
Thanks. Next question.
Your next question comes from the line of Don DeMarco from National Bank Financial. Your line is open.
Thanks a lot for taking my call, guys. Just building on one of the last questions. There was mention of comparing Kiaka to Gramalote. Maybe I take this a bit further, and is there a chance for some of the projects that Tom talked about to take priority over Gramalote, say, in the next 12 months? You've been in Egypt and Finland and Uzbekistan for a few years now. Which of these projects is most advanced, maybe even closest to a PEA?
Yeah, no. We haven't been working in Egypt or Uzbekistan for a couple of years now. We've done some work in Uzbekistan, but this is relatively new. This is pretty early-stage stuff where we've done some auger drilling and things like that, and we're doing some reverse circulation drilling and heading towards diamond drilling as well. They're all pretty early stage. They're really big, attractive targets, but we don't want to oversell it. They're at an early stage.
Yeah.
We're a long way away from talking about a PEA in any of these things, but we're in elephant country in the circumstances we're looking at.
Yeah.
That's the reason why we're there. Tom, do you want to comment on that further or?
I think that's pretty accurate, Clive. We're still early on in the game, as Clive says, these are all elephant country targets. It's why we chose them. No, I don't know that within a year, well, for sure not within a year, we're going to be replacing the other development projects with these.
Okay, great. Given the Gramalote NPVs in the $500 million range at this point, and obviously, as you mentioned, there's visibility for it to grow, is this project perhaps of a magnitude now that's better suited to one owner? Maybe if you believe in the project, is now a time to increase ownership? What are your thoughts on that? We know from your previous comments that Anglo likes the project as much as you do.
I can't speak for AGA, we've had lots of calls recently, of course, talking about the situation, being very transparent in a venture. From what they took a look at our news release, what we're saying, we, of course, wanted their input into that. They'll be coming out shortly with their quarter and their thoughts on the development projects. We're both disappointed that it wasn't as robust as the economics we saw on the PEA. See the opportunity, as we said a number of times, you can make that better. In terms of ownership, I think that what I've heard is that AGA is prepared to spend a significant amount of money along with us to see if we can, with us operating, to see if we can make it a better project.
I'd be a little surprised if we wouldn't be considering changing our ownership in it now. We've invested a lot into it, money and time, et cetera, and believe in the path that we're on, the potential. Once again, you can ask AGA that question in their quarter, which I think comes out in the middle of May. The indications from what they've said to us is they want to be a player in Colombia. They've got other projects, [inaudible] , et cetera, that they're pretty excited about. Where they take Gramalote, from what they've said to me, is an important part of what they're looking to do in Colombia.
They were hoping to, with us as operator, to showcase what we could do together to the Colombian government, and we still hope to be able to do that, just on a little bit of delay, as we've said here. Sure. We have always said that if opportunity came to increase ownership, we'd consider that. From what I've seen so far, I don't see that there's going to be a willing seller. I think we'll go forward 50/50. Once again, I can't speak for AGA, but that's what we've been told from them quite recently.
Okay. Thanks for that. Just finally, you guys have a strong development team. You built Fekola, finished the Fekola expansion. With Gramalote delayed, is there any motivation to deploy your development team onto some type of an interim project?
Well, I think there's some areas within the company of things that we're working on, whether it be looking at expansion opportunities or other things like that, where you might use some of the team or some of the senior team and input. We're not going to go and acquire something and build something because we have a tremendous construction team that we need to keep busy. That's not the way to run this business, in our opinion, although we have a great team. I think this team has been together for so long, or come back together is a better way to put it. Back in the Bema days, Julietta, then Kupol, of course, Kinross takeover.
Some of them worked for Kinross for a period of time, but as soon as they got the call to come back to the culture of B2, the vast majority came back. It's like an old rock band in a way, where they take some time off, and then they decide to do another tour. The whole band gets back together, or most of the band, and they're able to attract other high-quality people because of that. I think there's a mutual respect here and trust.
Our construction guys really feel valued in the company as they are, and they love doing stuff for us. If we find the right opportunity in a situation of acquiring a deposit wherever, of course, we'd be looking at that. Not to keep the team busy. I believe the team will be available when we're ready to go and get the band back together. If we find something, of course, they're ready, they will. Okay. William did you want to add to that?
I would like to add to that just a little bit. One thing that people don't realize, clearly, a lot of these guys in the construction realm are very good at all of the civil type stuff. Some of these guys are deployed right now at Fekola, or maybe they're doing a quick project at Masbate, but they were actually working on the operational side. One of the key secrets is that this whole core team, like the logistics team, the procurement team, the warehousing team, those people set down on a site. Right now they're at Fekola bringing up the next group. We haven't lost them, right? They're still there. Obviously, the exciting part of mine running is the construction aspect. Everybody wants to go on construction projects, but they understand if there's not a project that they'll sit down and wait for the next one.
Okay. Thanks so much, William. Thanks for your time, guys.
Thanks, Bill. Good explanation.
Your next question comes from the line of Lawson Winder from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Hi, good morning and good afternoon. Thank you for the update. Just a question on, obviously acknowledging the political risk management being a core competency for B2Gold, could location of Gramalote and Kiaka feature into which you might ultimately prefer developing?
Sorry, can you just say that again?
Could the location of Kiaka and Gramalote factor into which of the two projects you might have a preference to develop first?
That's an interesting question. I'll go first here, I think that we think they're both in good locations in the country that they're in. Kiaka is in an area with significant mine operations and the relatively "safer" part of the country. In the sense of [inaudible] , I think I touched on it earlier, we're in Antioquia, a historic mining district. Local people understand that. We've worked hard to show them what it would look like and what we're trying to do. A lot of support there, and it's a great location within Colombia, for sure. I would say, I know somebody else can chime in here, Bill, whoever, I don't know. I think they're both in attractive areas in the country. I don't know that one would be decided over the other on that basis. Bill, what do you think about that?
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right, Clive, for sure. We just like the good projects. I will tell you, most of the guys, if I'm being honest from a construction standpoint, we've spent the last three or four years in West Africa building that project. They'd like a new venue, and of course, the fishing is much better in Colombia, so they do have a preference.
I think a few things are better. A couple of things are better, but
Okay. That's a good one. Also on Kiaka, Clive, you mentioned in the past that it could be developed with a partner. Have there been any discussions in that direction?
I think the key thing, of course, now is get the feasibility and see what it looks like. The alternatives have always been to bring a partner in, sell the asset if we don't think it's for us or we just don't want to take too much on. There's always an alternative. I think the key now is going to be getting the results of the feasibility study, see if it meets our criteria, or if not, then is somebody else interested in it, potentially. All those options are still on the table, but it's hard to have those discussions until you really know the economics of the project.
Fair. If I might, can I just ask a question on the Ménankoto permit? In terms of what's going on the ground there, has this third party that now has a license already started exploring? In follow-up to that, are you able to share with us who the third party is just in terms of, are they a junior? Are they a local company? Are they a major mining company? Maybe you can't share that, but if you could, it'd be helpful.
I think obviously we're in the process and have been for some weeks of having extensive conversations with the government, and we feel we've had some positive indicators from those discussions. It's a small mining company, frankly, without a history of mining construction expertise or financial strength. At the end of the day, we just feel that I do want to point out, and I think I meant to say it earlier, but the history of Mali and gold mining, it's been a really good place to do business, and I've said this many, many times. If you go back to our mine opening not that many years ago and listen to the speech of the president at the time, it was tremendous, and the government support was really great, and a mutual trust relationship.
We delivered on the promises we made, this is what we try to do always, and we're transparent with the government and very respectful. Really good relationships. I think if you look at, talk to Mark Bristow and look at the Randgold experience and now the Barrick experience, he's argued for decades, and he got it right. He got there early and was contrarian, it paid off really well for the Randgold shareholders. He says the same thing, that it's a really good country to work for with the government. They understand the importance of gold mining for their economy. Hugely important, never more than today when you look at COVID, et cetera. They've always honored their laws.
There aren't that many countries in the world where you actually have a mining convention, as we do in Mali, that locks in your taxes for the duration of your project, the tax regime. Back in the early days, Randgold had some pretty attractive tax deals. They were typical in the industry at the time, but they had things like five-year tax holidays, relatively low royalties, but the government never, ever attempted to change the tax structure in those mining conventions. Those mining conventions are backed up, and if you have issues, you end up in Paris to deal with them. The government's never gone there. This new government, we've had success in working with this new government within the Ministry of Mines, the civil service there, who many of them are the same, and getting things like permits for bulk sample, permits for other things.
This is one that we feel, as we said in the news release, we feel we have a right to the extension of the Ménankoto license. That's what should have happened, and we're working with the government to really show our side of that story and that argument. We spent $27 million there, and the really logical thing for Ménankoto, for everyone, including the government, that will own 20% of Ménankoto and owns 20% of Fekola, best thing for the people of, we believe, of Mali, and our shareholders is, and the government with their ownership, is to see that Ménankoto ore truck down to Fekola, and we think we have a legal right to that license.
We will be working cooperatively with the government respectfully just to resolve this situation, but we will take the steps to defend our rights as required as we go through the process. Our hope is to resolve it through discussion and get back to work. We had scheduled at least $8 million of work in the Ménankoto area. Some of it's ongoing to the north of the Ménankoto license, so we're still going. But this is an important part of the potential to even further improve Fekola, but also, is there another Fekola there? We see a lot of potential there. Yeah, the history of Mali has been very good, and I've been very strong in my view of saying to shareholders and people, don't, as my father used to say, don't believe the gentiles are wrong.
Don't generalize about Africa or even West Africa. Look at the situations and where they are. Mali has had a history of centuries of gold mining. They get it. The governments have always gotten it, and we're looking for this government to continue the tradition that the Malian governments have, which is honoring the laws and seeing the importance of gold mining and future gold mining investment in the country. That's our position today, and we're having some constructive conversations around that and hope to see the situation resolve.
Okay, thanks, Clive. I just realized it's a quarter past the hour, so I had one more, but I'll try and ask it really quick. I think this is for Mike. Basically, in January, you guys guided the much higher H1 unit cost, and Q1 came in well below the low end of what your guidance was. Is it fair then to expect a very material increase in all-in sustaining costs in Q2?
Well, on the operating side, we did better, right? If you look at the factors impacting the better our cash costs this quarter, there are better recoveries that we just didn't model, right? We expect that we'll keep those, the benefit of those, as we run through. Lower input costs at Fekola for things like cyanide. Again, we expect to keep the benefit of that. I think some stuff will roll forward and just benefit overall. You shouldn't just push it all in the second half of the year. The guidance we gave, the second half of the year, we think is still good.
On the all-in side, it was the benefit of those lower cost, higher production, which we think will meet the benefit of that higher production as we roll through the year. Some of it was that CapEx was just timing. You will see that. What we don't spend H1, we still expect to spend H2. On the CapEx side, yes, those costs will just roll over into the second half. On the OpEx side, most of those benefits we should keep.
Okay. Thank you. That's it for me, guys. Thank you very much.
Good. Thanks. Thanks for your questions.
Your next question comes from the line of Carey MacRury from Canaccord. Your line is open.
Hey, good morning, everyone. Maybe just one more question on Gramalote. I think the all-in sustaining costs were about 15% higher than the PEA. How much of that is underlying cost inflation versus maybe just fewer ounces in the plan? Is there some other factors driving that change?
Which answer, Bill or Mike?
Yeah. The all-in sustaining cost will be up a little bit because of some inflation for sure, particularly related to, as I think I've mentioned, labor, power, and fuel prices versus what the PFS PEA had.
Is there any context maybe on what the dollar per ton difference is?
Maybe I can dig that up. I don't have it right here at my fingertips.
Yeah. Okay, fair enough. Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Anita Soni from CIBC. Your line is open.
Hey, good morning, guys. I love how Jalen sneaks in a question there. I only have one question left, and that's with regards to the Gramalote. I know it's a broad question, but can you give me an idea of the timing, how long it takes for permits in Colombia? I'm not as familiar with Colombia.
As I said, there's kind of three levels. We've had some pretty in-depth discussions with the government on these particular issues. You're kind of looking, as I said, for the insignificant ones. Those are on the fly. The minor ones might be kind of in that three to four-month range for review and approval. I think it's six to nine months on the majors from the time you submit.
Okay, the last question, I know also very early stage, but as you think about a construction decision, what are you looking at for a construction timeline on this one?
Well, I'll just say, we were always talking in that 30-36 month range.
Okay.
I can't think of any reason why that would change.
All right. Okay. Thank you very much.
Your next question comes from the line of Jared Hoover from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Morning, guys. Thanks for the call. I know there have been a number of questions asked in Gramalote, but I just wanted to get two more in, please. It seems from a lot of the commentary that the two main points that are going to result in potentially better economics on this project is around infrastructure and how you can move that about and optimize that. The other is potentially increasing the life of mine production. If I look at the two pits, Monjas West and the Trinidad pits, it looks to me like those are lower grade pits. If you have to bring it into the life of mine, it seems like it would automatically increase your cost.
Is it more a case of, yes, you potentially bring that into life of mine, but it's more a case of you having to look at the recoveries around that project and that potentially enhancing the economics? If you could just chat to that, please. My second question is just around your partner, AngloGold. If for some reason it doesn't meet their particular hurdle rate and they were wanted to be sellers of the project, are there any mechanisms that would allow them to, or in your agreement with them, that would allow you to potentially pick the project up, like their full 50%, or would it be in stages, sort of 10, 20, 30, et cetera? Just if you could chat to that would be very helpful. Thank you.
Sorry, the second part of your second question where you were saying, I didn't quite get that. Were you asking whether we think AGA would be amenable to us purchasing some of their interest in stages? Is that the question?
Is there a mechanism to that?
Yes. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. If it's the case of offsetting or a one-off, the total 50%.
Right. There's a mechanism, yeah, okay. Bill answered the first one, but I'll answer that one maybe first, the second part. There's a mechanism in the agreement, where if you put forward a development plan as operator and AGA has a limited period of time, I think it's 30 days to respond, both parties to respond to deciding to fund that development plan.
There's a mechanism whereby we can purchase the other 50%, either party can, based on fair market value, based on the feasibility study, that the development decision would be based on. In addition, though, there is a provision where either party can go down to 30%. There's a mechanism where they can go to 30%, if they want to stay involved in the project but not have the full 50%. There is those mechanisms that work both ways in the agreement. Bill, you want to answer the first?
Yeah, sure. You are correct. Monjas and Trinidad currently, their resources are lower grade. I guess internally at this point, we see those as potential out near the end of life of mine as upside to extend the life of mine for sure, that really wouldn't do a lot for your NPV. What I was talking about when I was talking about drilling is we're talking within the Gramalote ridge area, just outside of the existing design pit and even outside of that in the measured indicated and inferred, we see some potential to increase the NPV and the IRR by bringing inferred ounces into the indicated, which of course then allows us to put them in the 43-101. As far as the infrastructure, you're correct, that was the other issue.
Perfect. Great. Thank you very much.
Thanks. Thanks for the questions.
Your final question comes from the line of Charles Rowe, a shareholder. Your line is open.
Thank you for taking the call. Much of what I was going to ask about has to do with the problem with Mali, I guess. That's been answered. The only thing I would ask you to do is, I've been asking for a copy of your annual, what do you call it? Your annual information form. The last thing I've got was shareholder relations said they put something in the mail to me the week of April 6th. I still haven't received it. If you could just remind your shareholder people I'm still waiting for the annual information form.
Okay.
Annual information form.
Okay. Well, that's not good.
No, it isn't. I'm obviously following what's going on in Mali because so much of the company's interests are there. Again, without the annual information report, I'm kind of winging. I've got 40,000 shares. I'm sure very small compared to the corporate people, but so small.
Well, no. No, that's important. We pride ourselves on our transparency and delivering on what we promise. Obviously something slipped through the cracks there, so it's very important, Charles, and you can send an email if you'd like to Ian MacLean, imaclean@b2gold.com or to me, cjohnson@b2gold.com, and I will get on it and make sure that you get that, not by snail mail, by a mechanism that gets it to you quickly. Thanks for being here.
Thank you.
Thanks for your support as a shareholder.
Okay. Good luck to us all.
Sure.
Stay healthy.
Thanks a lot. Thank you. Appreciate it.
There are no further questions. I now turn back over for closing comments.
Well, I think we covered a lot of ground here. Thank you for your time and your interest and some very good and interesting questions. We're really pleased with the quarter, obviously, and looking forward to another very good productive year, profitable production and lots of all this exploration and development opportunities that we see. Thanks everybody for your time. Obviously, if you have follow-up questions, you can reach out to Ian McLean to put you into the person you want to, or if you know the person you want the answer from, you can go directly. Thanks for your time, everybody, and stay safe. Thank you, operator.
That concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.