Tanya Jakusconek: Good morning, everybody. That’s me, I think. So, I just have a few questions if I could, just some follow-up. I’m going to start just on Round Mountain, again, this Phase S one, and I appreciate you giving us the Slide 19 to show us the production profile, but maybe from a high level when you said lower strip and that’s going to help on the cost side, maybe directionally from a high level, what did improvements have you seen on cost? Is it 10%, 20%? Just directionally so we have an idea as best as we can with the information.
Will Dunford: Yes, it reduced about a third of our strip. So, it reduced about $80 million worth of kind of upfront CapEx cost as compared to what we were considering last year. And you can see in the table that what we see as the go-forward CapEx and some – what I outlined for Anita.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay.
Will Dunford: So, that is, that is down – CapEx is roughly down a third. You can see where it’s at now.
Tanya Jakusconek: Yes, yes, no, I was just more focused on the operating costs, but yes, I saw the CapEx.
Andrea Freeborough: On cash costs, Tanya, we are expecting cash costs for 2024 to be similar to this year and then – in 2025, and then Phase S will help lower those costs.
Will Dunford: Yes.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. When you say, Andrea 2024 similar, are you meaning similar overall company in 2024 to 2023? And then are you just saying 2025 overall company, or is it just at Round Mountain?
Andrea Freeborough: I was referring to – yes, Round Mountain specifically.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay, perfect.
Will Dunford: And the really positive thing, Tanya, is with that lower CapEx and the change in the strip ratio, although the cash cost will be staying similar over the next couple of years, there’s actually enough free cashflow coming out of Phase W even at the 1850 that we kind of run our analysis at for this to fund the pre-strip of Phase S. So, fund to that 125 next year in this 60 to following year.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. thanks. And then my second question actually has to do with Great Bear and Curlew. So, just looking at Great Bear and just looking at the longitudinal and seeing that this drilling continues to go deeper and the grade continues to improve. And I appreciate, Paul, you said that – I thought in the last conference call, we said between half a million and a million ounces added to the resourcing for the underground. I’m just wondering if – because this grade is appearing to be better, obviously better grade is going to help this resource number. Are you thinking that we are going to be toward the upper end of that range?
Paul Rollinson: No, I think Tanya, we’ll stick with the highly confident on 500, and I’m expecting we’ll do better, but I don’t really – I don’t want to speculate at this point. I think what’s clear to me here is, this directional drilling is really filling in the panel. And what we’ve got here is a really attractive open pit, high grade open pit, which will have great cashflow. And now the underground, as was our thesis, is filling in quite nicely. So, we can kind of see phase one of the mine, followed by the underground, now starting to show that the Hinge limb, Red Lake style mineralization, continues at depth. So, we’ll have a high-grade feed. It’s all coming together really well. But the point I think we were trying to make is, the efficiency is great, but there comes a point where I’m not sure it makes a lot of sense to keep punching down below one kilometer.
Everything is going full speed ahead with the decline. As we said, we expect to begin early works next year, and once we get the decline down, we’ll do more definition drilling from there, as opposed to from surface.
Tanya Jakusconek: Yes, no, that makes sense. And maybe just, has your thought process changed? You’re getting a lot of visible gold I see there in in the Slide 21, just changed at all on the capping factor that you’re going to be using, has that changed at all? And just remind me how you’ve been thinking about these high-grade results and sort of what are we capping?
Paul Rollinson: Yes, I think you’re good observation. We are seeing a lot of visible goals. My expectation is that that’ll ultimately drive a positive reconciliation, but it’s a Hollywood problem.
Tanya Jakusconek: Absolutely, at 260 grands per ton. Okay, maybe my last question, just if I could move on to Curlew. Can you just remind me what’s our expectations? You got another good drill results again, higher grade that what you have the overall resource. Can you just remind me what we’re expecting for year-end 2023 when you report your results in February?
Will Dunford: Yes, we are expecting to see an increase in our resource. Obviously, that’s going to come out fairly shortly, but it is. We’re hoping to be in that overall between inferred and indicated to be in around that million ounce mark, maybe a little bit higher. But obviously, February is where the work will come to fruition and give you a firm number of the increases that we’ve seen there. Obviously, that new drill hole, we’re not expecting to have a resource around that by year-end. That’s one hole at the bottom of the paleo surface there. So, that’s going to take follow-up work at the end of this year and into next year before we can pull that into a resource.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. That’s what I was trying to understand, whether that could be pulled in. Okay, so that one’s not pulled in, but you are expecting an overall increase in the resource from the other lower grade holes that you have outlined there.
Will Dunford: Yes, we are. We’ve had some other good intercepts higher up in the in area of our resource, particularly around K5, which you can see on the page in the press release where we kind of have some of our better mineralization in the existing resource. So, we do expect a positive update on the resource there.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. Thank you so much. I’ll leave it to someone else to ask questions. Appreciate you answering my questions.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Mike Parkin with National Bank. Please go ahead.
Mike Parkin: Thanks guys, and congrats on the salt quarter. Most of my questions have been answered. Just wondering if Phase S, having to build another pad, are you fully permitted for all that or is there any kind of permitting to kind of get completed to further de-risk that, optimize Phase S?
Will Dunford: No, we already have our federal permits for Phase S. There’s no significant permitting that’s required. The small expansion on our existing end pad that was already planned as part of the old Phase W work, so no hurdles in the way there.
Mike Parkin: And then just following up on Tanya’s question on Curlew, you’re targeting to be over a million ounces of total resource. Ultimately, is there an internal goal that you can share with us in terms in terms of scale of a resource that would kind of hit at a level where you might see the pulling of the trigger of a restart? Or is it just kind of too early and we’ll just have to wait for, as these additional results continue to build the resource?
