Centerra Gold Inc. Q4 FY2024 Earnings Call

Good morning everyone. Thank you for being here. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Centerra Gold Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call. Please note that all participants are in a listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity for questions. I will now hand over the call to Lisa Wilkinson, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications with Centerra Gold. Please go ahead. We are experiencing some technical difficulties, so please stay on the line for a moment. Apologies for the inconvenience. I would like to welcome you again to the Centerra Gold Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call, and now I will turn it over to Lisa Wilkinson, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications with Centerra Gold. You may begin.

Thank you, operator, and good morning everyone. Welcome to Centerra Gold's fourth quarter 2024 results conference call. Joining me on the call today are Paul Tomory, President and Chief Executive Officer; Paul Chawrun, Chief Operating Officer; and Ryan Snyder, Chief Financial Officer. Our release yesterday details our fourth quarter 2024 results. It should be read in conjunction with our MD&A and financial statements, both of which can be found on SEDAR, EDGAR, and our website. All figures are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Presentation slides accompanying this webcast are available on Centerra's website. Following the prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions. Before we begin, I would like to caution everyone that certain statements made today may be forward-looking and are subject to risks which may cause our actual results to differ from those expressed or implied. Please refer to the cautionary statements included in the presentation as well as the risk factors set out in our annual information form. Certain measures we will discuss are non-GAAP measures. Please refer to the description of non-GAAP measures in our news release and MD&A issued yesterday. I will now turn the call over to Paul Tomory.

Thank you, Lisa, and good morning, everyone. In the fourth quarter, we had steady operational performance producing over 73,000 ounces of gold and 12.8 million pounds of copper, and we ended 2024 near the low end of our consolidated production guidance range. We generated strong free cash flow from both operations in the fourth quarter, driven by robust contributions from Mount Milligan, which increased our cash balance to $625 million. In 2024, we made meaningful progress in executing on our strategic plan to maximize the value of our assets. Since the restart of operations at Öksüt in June 2023, the mine has generated over $480 million in free cash flow. While Mount Milligan, our additional agreement with Royal Gold, created the opportunity to assess the mine's long-term potential. In September, we announced the restart of operations at Thompson Creek and a progressive ramp-up at Langeloth, marking a major step in unlocking value in our U.S. Molybdenum operations. At current metal prices, the $397 million capital investment to restart Thompson Creek is expected to be funded largely from our cash flow from operations at Mount Milligan and Öksüt. Yesterday, we published an initial resource at Goldfield of 706,000 ounces of gold. After a thorough evaluation, we decided the resource size does not meet our requirements to support near-term development. We remain committed to maximizing the project's potential while exploring strategic and commercial options for Goldfield. Looking ahead to 2025, we're focused on Mount Milligan and Kemess, which are the foundations for our future growth. At Mount Milligan, the technical studies are progressing better than planned, and we've decided to move straight to completing a pre-feasibility study for the mine. This upgrade, together with an extensive drill program planned for this year, has the objective of significantly increasing proven and probable reserves at Mount Milligan once the study results are announced in the third quarter of 2025, making another key step in unlocking the full value of this asset, located in the top tier mining jurisdiction. As we look to the future of Mount Milligan, the establishment of the new mining and critical minerals ministry is an encouraging step forward, demonstrating the provincial government's commitment to streamlining permitting and regulatory processes for critical mineral projects, including Mount Milligan. We are optimistic about Kemess, which could be a future source of gold and copper production. The property has substantial gold and copper resources in a highly prospective district, with significant infrastructure already in place, which includes a 300-kilometer, 230 KV power line, one of the longest privately owned power lines in British Columbia; a 50,000 ton per day nameplate processing plant, which would require some refurbishment and equivalent replacements; significant site infrastructure, including camp, administration facilities, truck shop, warehouse; and lastly, significantly available tailings capacity through a recombination of input deposition and expansion potential at the existing tailings storage facility. Last year, we started evaluating technical concepts and engineering trade-off studies for potential restart options at Kemess. Early concepts include a combined open pit and conventional underground operation, which is expected to be less capital intensive and have a better cash flow profile than the previously permitted underground block cave concept. This year, in addition to an exploration campaign to further delineate the resource, we are continuing to advance technical studies. Early indications show potential for a long-life operation that takes advantage of our significant infrastructure already in place. We expect to provide an updated resource estimate and an accompanying update on the technical concept for Kemess in the second quarter of 2025. Finally, I'd like to provide an update on our sustainability initiatives. We remain committed to responsible mining and continue to make meaningful progress in our environmental and permitting efforts. At Mount Milligan, we are actively engaged with the Government of BC as we prepare to submit an amended application in the coming months for permits and expansions related to our ongoing operations. As I mentioned earlier, we are encouraged by the province's approach to streamline the permitting process for critical mineral mines, including Mount Milligan going forward. At Öksüt, we successfully obtained permits for expanded infrastructure and activities in alignment with our 2023 EIA and optimized infrastructure. This was achieved through ongoing constructive engagement with government authorities, ensuring we continue to meet all operational requirements while maintaining compliance with environmental and regulatory standards. With respect to our efforts on climate change, we have completed a thorough analysis of potential greenhouse gas reduction initiatives across our operations. These findings have identified key opportunities that will help shape our long-term strategy, ensuring that we pursue emission reductions in a way that is both economically and operationally viable. And with that, I'll pass the call over to Paul Chawrun to walk through our operational performance for the quarter.

Thanks, Paul. On Slide 10, we show operating highlights at Mount Milligan for the quarter and the full year. Mount Milligan produced almost 38,000 ounces of payable gold and 12.8 million pounds of payable copper in the fourth quarter. Full year 2024 gold and copper production was over 167,000 ounces and 54 million pounds, respectively, which was below our guidance range due to lower grades encountered in an area of Phases 6 and 9 that are at the periphery of the ore body. Gold and copper sales were up 4% and 15%, respectively, quarter-over-quarter, which was anticipated due to the timing of shipments. In 2025, Mount Milligan gold production is expected to be 165,000 to 185,000 ounces, and copper production is expected to be 50 million to 60 million pounds. In the fourth quarter, all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,114 per ounce, 15% lower quarter-over-quarter, driven by a decrease in sustaining capital expenditures. Full year all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,078 per ounce at the low end of the guidance range. The site-wide optimization program at Mount Milligan continues to progress. The site has reduced operating costs, and we continue to see productivity improvements in the load haul cycle at the mine, as well as improvements in the unit processing costs. In the full year of 2024, milling costs at Mount Milligan were $5.33 per ton processed, 11% lower than 2023, despite a slight decrease in throughput. In 2025, all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis are expected to be $1,100 to $1,200 per ounce. In 2024, Centerra identified an opportunity to accelerate the use of in-pit mine potential asset-generating waste storage, which has increased the available capacity in the existing tailings facility. As a result, mine operating costs are expected to improve over the life of mine, and there was an increase in the stated reserves at the end of 2024. This resulted in a one-year mine life extension to 2036. As Paul mentioned earlier, we have made the strategic decision to move directly to a pre-feasibility study for the life of mine plan. We are optimistic that mine life can be extended beyond 2036, which is currently constrained by tailings capacity. We are evaluating options for additional tailings capacity by expanding the existing storage facility or constructing a second facility. It is also expected that the pre-feasibility study will incorporate an increase of annual mill throughput in the range of 10% through ball mill motor upgrades and additional downstream flowsheet improvements at a modest overall capital expenditure, which may also provide the benefit of improved overall recovery. The pre-feasibility study and associated mineral reserves estimate are expected to be announced in the third quarter of 2025. Now moving on to Öksüt. On Slide 11, we show operating highlights at Öksüt for the quarter and the full year. Fourth quarter production was over 35,000 ounces. Öksüt has now completed processing the excess inventory that was accumulated in 2022 and 2023. A total of 4.4 million tons were mined in the quarter, and 1.1 million tons were stacked at an average grade of 0.99 grams per ton. Full year production in 2024 was over 200,000 ounces of gold, which was the midpoint of the guidance range. In 2025, gold production at Öksüt is expected to be 105,000 to 125,000 ounces, driven by a return to normal production levels as planned. In the fourth quarter, all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,327 per ounce, which is higher compared to last quarter due to lower sales and higher royalty costs from elevated gold prices, which also contributed to higher cash flows and margins. Full year 2024 all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,015 per ounce, near the upper end of the guidance range. 2025 all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis are expected to be $1,475 to $1,575 per ounce, up year-over-year primarily due to a lower production profile and partially due to the impact of inflation in Turkey, which has not been fully offset by the devaluation of the Lira. On Slide 12, in the fourth quarter we made great progress on the restart activities at Thompson Creek. Detailed engineering work for the plant refurbishment was initiated with a focus on engineering and procurement for long lead items. Mobile fleet refurbishment is on track and approximately 80% complete with most of the work on trucks, shovels, dozers, and road graders completed. By the end of 2024, Thompson Creek had 170 people on site; two electric rope shovels and 14 trucks in operation. The project schedule and costs are on track and in line with the feasibility study targeting first production in the second half of 2027. We expect to commission the remaining haul trucks, shovels, and drills to achieve the planned mine production with the ramp-up of the tons mined per month in the early part of 2025. We expect to substantially complete detailed engineering work and procurement of long lead mill equipment by the end of the third quarter of 2025.

Thanks, Paul. Slide 13 details our fourth quarter financial results. Adjusted net earnings in the fourth quarter were $37 million or $0.17 per share. In the fourth quarter, sales were almost 84,000 ounces of gold and 16.4 million pounds of copper. The average realized price was $2,207 per ounce of gold and $2.88 per pound of copper which incorporates the existing streaming arrangements at Mount Milligan. At the Molybdenum business unit, approximately 2.9 million pounds of molybdenum was sold in the fourth quarter at the Langeloth facility, at an average realized price of $22.67 per pound. Consolidated all-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis in the fourth quarter were $1,296 per ounce. Full year 2024 all-in sustaining costs were $1,148 per ounce, in line with the guidance range. Slide 14 shows our financial highlights for the quarter. In the fourth quarter, we generated strong free cash flow at both operations, driven by robust contributions from Mount Milligan. Cash flow from operations on a consolidated basis for the quarter was $93 million, and free cash flow was $47 million, which includes spending of $23 million on development costs for the Thompson Creek mine. In the fourth quarter, Mount Milligan generated $77 million in cash from operations and $65 million in free cash flow. In the fourth quarter, Öksüt generated $52 million of cash from operations and had free cash flow of $41 million. The Molybdenum business unit as a whole used $12 million of cash in operations and had a free cash flow deficit of $35 million this quarter, mainly related to spending on the Thompson Creek restart. Returning capital to shareholders remains a key pillar in our disciplined approach to capital allocation. In the fourth quarter, we remained active on our share buybacks, repurchasing 1.8 million shares for total consideration of $12 million. The Board also declared a quarterly dividend of Canadian $0.07 per share. In the full year 2024, we returned $88 million to shareholders, including $44 million in share buybacks and $44 million in dividends. A key focus for Centerra is returning capital to shareholders, and we expect to remain active on the share buybacks depending on market conditions. At the end of the year, our cash balance was $625 million. This provides us with total liquidity of over $1 billion and positions us well to execute on our strategic plan and deliver shareholder value. Slide 15 shows our 2025 outlook. This year, we expect to produce between 270,000 and 310,000 ounces of gold on a consolidated basis, driven by Öksüt returning to normal production levels. Copper production is expected to be between 50 million and 60 million pounds. 2025 consolidated all-in sustaining costs are expected to be $1,400 to $1,500 per ounce, up compared to last year, driven mainly by lower gold production at Öksüt and the impact of net inflation in Turkey. We remain disciplined to protect margins through our initiatives at our sites including at Mount Milligan, through the site optimization program, which will continue in 2025. Sustaining capital expenditures in 2025 are expected to be $97 million to $119 million, and non-sustaining capital expenditure guidance is $140 million to $160 million, mainly driven by the restart of operations at Thompson Creek. In 2025, we expect to produce 13 million to 15 million pounds of molybdenum, an increase in volume compared to 2024 as we work to incrementally ramp up Langeloth to its full capacity of approximately 40 million pounds per year over the next several years, as we previously announced in September. We expect the increased volumes in 2025 will lead to Langeloth moving to an EBITDA-positive business. We continue to invest in exploration. This year, we expect to spend $35 million to $45 million, including $20 million to $25 million of Brownfield exploration and $15 million to $20 million of Greenfield and generative exploration programs. Over 80% of our exploration expenditures are expected to be expenses. We are expecting a solid 2025 with continued strong cash flow generation at our operations, allowing us to fund the restart of Thompson Creek and continue to return capital to shareholders while preserving our cash for strategic opportunities. I'll pass it back to Paul for some closing remarks.

Thanks very much, Ryan. Looking out to 2025, we're advancing key growth catalysts at both Mount Milligan and Kemess while continuing to expand our exploration efforts. With great progress on the PFS study at Mount Milligan and ongoing technical evaluation of Kemess, we remain focused on unlocking long-term value and strengthening our asset base for the future. Now operator, we can open the call to questions, please.

Our first question today comes from Lawson Winder from Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead with your question.

Operator, thank you very much. And Paul, hello, good morning, and hello to your team. I just wanted to get an idea for your thinking around growing in gold going forward. So in particular, Öksüt, we saw reserves decline there. Is there an interest to expand the presence in Turkey in any way? And then when you think about Goldfield as an option that is not really there any longer, is M&A on the table when you think about growing that core business?

Thank you for the question, Lawson. Our main focus is to keep gold as our primary metal. The answer is yes. In terms of valuation for production assets, as you've noted, they are currently very high. Our top priority is to enhance value within our existing portfolio. We believe that extending Milligan, as we mentioned, along with the work we're progressing at Kemess, will provide the best path for continued gold exposure. While we've put Goldfield on hold for now, Kemess remains a major area of focus due to its significant mineralized asset. We're exploring various mining approaches that do not involve a block cave. Primarily, our ongoing gold exposure will come from the assets we currently hold. However, we are always on the lookout for additional assets that fit our strategy. Regarding Turkey, we are committed to the region. We consider it a favorable place to operate, and if any assets become available there, particularly in gold, we would definitely be interested in evaluating them. Additionally, we are active in three or four Greenfield exploration programs in Turkey.

Okay, that's interesting. Also wanted to just kind of stay in the capital allocation theme. You guys continued to be remarkably consistent with your buyback and both the dividend. Since those levels of capital return were set, the gold price is $1,000 higher. Is the thinking of evolving any further along the lines of potential higher capital return? I know I've asked you this before, but the gold price just keeps going higher and higher, and so at some point, is there a need to maybe rethink the dividend or maybe get more aggressive on the buyback?

Well, we are committed to the buyback. We think that our shares are cheap, and we think they are a great investment, first and foremost. What we're doing right now, and this is a discussion we've been having over the last little while on that capital allocation point. We think that we have some credible projects potentially on the horizon here at Milligan and Kemess. So our preference is to allocate capital to the gold growth going to your earlier question, while maintaining our current levels of dividend and buyback. So to answer your question, our preference on incremental investments or capital allocation, our preference is to put those to work in gold assets, principally the organic opportunities, but also potentially in M&A.

And then just a final question, which we often talk about is the potential to materially increase gold recoveries at Mount Milligan. What is kind of the target now? Has that evolved in any way? Is it potentially higher than you had thought last quarter or even a year ago this time? And what is now the timeline on getting to a point where those gold recoveries are materially improved versus the 2024 levels?

Yes, that's a great question, Lawson, and it's a very key area of focus for us internally. So the first thing I want to say is Q4 was lower recoveries, both in copper and gold. And the primary reason was you have to go back to the LOM that we negotiated with Royal Gold. What's happened is we're resequencing overall and in periods of time, like in Q4, just open up the pit, get more input storage down the track. We opened up an area that was a little bit periphery to the ore body. And then what happened was near the surface, the oxidation partially we were able to still put it through the plant was a little higher than expected, and there was some fault in that we didn't have mapped as well. So that's why Q4 was somewhat lower. But on the positive side, it is because we're expanding and we're looking at this as a 20-year, 30-year mine life, not short term. And to really answer your question, when we expect it to get better, well we are better than we were in Q4. And I think in terms of numbers in between, I would say, mid-60s should be a good target. We're looking at ways that we can recover better, both with the LOM work that we're doing and in the short term, with a better understanding of the GeoMet model and doing some better blending because there are some mineralogical changes throughout the ore body that we're getting better at understanding.

Okay. I look forward to watching that evolve. Thank you, Paul, and thank you both gentlemen.

Our next question comes from Jeremy Hoy from Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead with your questions.

Congrats, thanks for taking my question. Realizing it's difficult to anticipate what's going to happen over the next four years, could you comment on the potential impact of tariffs on Milligan costs? And any plans that may be put in place to alleviate those?

Yes. Thanks for that. We're not terribly worried about the tariff situation. We've done an internal assessment, and we don't think we're really exposed, but there may be some details that Ryan, you may want to talk about; we've looked at this.

Sure. We've looked at our operating sites. And on a global scale, we think we're generally not going to be too adversely impacted. So 95% of Milligan's costs are from Canadian suppliers. You never know what's going to happen with supplier to supplier arrangements and how those costs pass through, but our supplier base is largely Canadian. And so we don't see, even in a tariff world or a retaliatory tariff world, a big change in the Milligan cost base. I think we're still hammering away at the MPlus program to try to drive costs down, which offsets any cost creep that may come. So we feel pretty good about the Milligan costs. And then all the Milligan concentrate sold into Asia, nothing goes into the U.S. So there shouldn't be any noise there. Hopefully, that answers your question, Jeremy.

It does. Thank you very much, and I will step back in the queue.

Our next question comes from Anita Soni from CIBC. Please go ahead with your question.

Hi, good morning, Paul and team. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to ask about the reserve and resource update. Regarding the grade increase at Mount Milligan, could you provide more details about what caused that?

Yes. So Paul, I believe your question was what caused the grade increase in the reserve at Milligan. Is that correct?

Yes. That's primarily domaining of where the mineralization is occurring, and we're actually still working on that. You do get what's called soft boundaries on the domains and then where do you actually draw that boundary. And we remodeled based on the drilling from 2023. And fundamentally, we tightened up the domain. So that lowers the amount of ore and increases the amount of waste and increases the grade. And we're still working with where that balance is as we work through the ore body.

I'm curious if that had any effect on the short-term production profile that we should know about.

Yes. So that's actually one of the reasons why we didn't quite get the production that we had expected at Mount Milligan is because we did get more tons and lower grade overall. So we're looking at readjusting that factor. It won't affect the overall metal, and it won't affect the strip ratio. It's really a fairly minor difference, but that's the work on the grade. And it does vary throughout the ore body as well. So we're continuing to understand that better.

I apologize for the confusion. Originally, we were discussing higher grades and managing some waste in the ore, particularly from the lower quality areas. However, is the issue you presented in Q4 causing uncertainty about how to adjust my model at this point?

Okay. So the new model update has higher grade because you lowered the amount of tons and you tightened up where the mineralization occurs in the domains. And then when you go ahead and mine it, you expect to get those grades. What's happening in some areas, including Phase 6 and 9, you mine it, and then you actually have more ore than you thought, but at a lower grade. So in essence, the mineralization is spread out over a wider area. And so that balance is what we're working through. On the reserves estimate, the grade is higher because the amount of ore is slightly less. So it's a balance between how much ore you have and how much waste you have.

Okay, got it. Can you tell me what kind of statistical model it was for ID 2, ID 3 or creaking?

No, we use ordinary kriging, and we used soft boundaries. So the key focus, though, is the mineralization domain.

Okay, alright, thank you.

Our next question comes from Brian MacArthur from Raymond James. Please go ahead with your questions.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. I apologize I was cut off if this has been answered. But I have two questions. Just first of all, on Goldfield, so what is the strategy now? Obviously, resources narrowing. It's not near-term development. Does that mean you're willing to sell it, or does it just mean there's going to be some more work or it's just going to be kind of like Kemess was for you, just put in the queue and hold on for a while?

I believe it leans more towards the latter. We have three objectives for the year. The first was to check if we could get run-of-mine recoveries, which we did. The second was to see if we could lower capital expenditures, and we achieved that as well. The third was to evaluate whether we could grow the resource, but we did not meet our threshold to continue advancing the project. Therefore, it is being put on hold for now, which is reflected in the impairment we took on the asset. Regarding a potential sale or joint venture, yes, that is absolutely an option. Currently, our focus with Goldfield is more on strategic or commercial aspects rather than technical ones. However, there is definitely gold in the ground; it simply does not meet our thresholds at this time, and we won’t be conducting extensive drilling there. The emphasis is on strategic planning.

Great, thanks. That's very clear. And just on another strategic issue, any update or comments on potentially partnering on the molybdenum operation? I mean, with what's going on, U.S. assets may become more strategic going forward. Is there any comment you can make on that?

We enjoy our Molybdenum business despite the general market sentiment. We see it as a high return, high NPV, and relatively low-risk project, especially considering the broader political context in the United States. We are considering strategic options for it, but any outcome would need to meet our valuation criteria. There is always interest in these assets, especially now that we are advancing the project. We truly value the business, even if it doesn't align with current market views regarding Centerra.

Okay. Just one final question about Öksüt. It was noted earlier that the reserve life there isn't very long. Is there a significant opportunity to extend it? I feel like with all the inventory stockpiling, the mine plan has become a bit unclear. Currently, it’s around four or five years at about 100,000 ounces, but is there any potential to exceed that?

I wouldn't suggest there is a lot of exploration potential at Öksüt. However, we need to determine how much gold is present in the stockpiles. There may be some opportunity for a period of residual leaching. Our exploration efforts in Turkey are primarily focused on Greenfield type targets. Turkey has very appealing geology, and we aim to capitalize on that more through a Greenfield program rather than expanding at Öksüt.

And our next question comes from Mike Parkin from National Bank. Please go ahead with your question.

Thanks guys for taking my question. I'll start with Öksüt. Just given the fact we're sitting at almost $3,000 gold, is there an opportunity? Like there's always kind of a bit of a perfect balance on the economics with the amount of chemicals you're putting on it. But at an elevated gold price environment like we're at, is there a potential to kind of shock the pad and potentially pull additional ounces out by putting in, for instance, like a higher cyanidation concentration where you might get very short-term kind of boosted recoveries that would normally not be economic? But in this gold price environment, they would probably be able to drive some of that potential, not expected to be recovered gold at your standard base case operating metrics, but at an elevated one, you'd get some additional ounces?

Yes. That's actually a great question, and we look at that all the time as well as cutoff grades, both at Öksüt and elsewhere, just due to the run-up on the gold price. The sensitivity to the concentration of the cyanide and then the recovery is not all that high. So you might get a small amount of gain, but we don't really look at that because when you do the column test, there's not a whole lot of sensitivity to the concentration of the cyanide with respect to recovery.

What about waste classified at a lower gold price? Is there an ability to potentially reclassify some waste material as ore now?

Not at Öksüt, no. I mean, in future, you may look at cutoff grades, but really, at the end of the day, the way Öksüt's mineralogy is put together, you're not really looking at lower grade, a whole lot of lower grade going into the waste dumps.

So Mike, it's not like Nevada, where you have mineralized waste dumps that you could re-leach. Here, it's really not quite this simple, but it's either ore or waste. It's much more delineated than it would be in Nevada.

I apologize for joining the call a bit late. I noticed an interesting slide on Kemess. It appears that the cross-section on Slide 8 does not align with the anticipated 2023 year-end pit limit. Am I correct in thinking that if you adjust that to the Northwest line AA, you would actually observe deeper pits that capture more of the mineralization shown in the cross-section?

Let's take a moment to discuss Kemess. Centerra's initial idea was for a block cave, as shown on the right side of that cross-section. Over the last six to eight months, we have reviewed all the drilling data and created a new site-wide resource model to identify additional areas of mineralization on the property. Our conclusion, illustrated in the slide, is that we are shifting our focus away from the block cave concept on the right to a series of near-surface mineralization areas that are apart from the previous underground plan and the old Northgate pit. To address your question, we are currently conducting infill drilling to see if we can link those various open-pit deposits in the area we refer to as the saddle area. Our goal is to determine if we can develop a low strip ratio and a readily accessible set of open-pitable resources. Right now, our emphasis is on drilling and technical studies to explore potential options. As I mentioned in my prepared comments, we expect to release a resource estimate early in the year with further details on what we might explore. There is significant mineralization at Kemess, which is a major mineralizing system, and the property we control is quite extensive.

I might be dating myself, but I remember covering Northgate with Kemess and that being a bit of a cash-caliber asset for them. Where is that pit? Would that be on that slide or further off to the left?

No, these deposits are located north and west of the old Northgate pit, approximately 8 to 10 kilometers away. I may be getting ahead of myself, but we need to consider how we would transport material from these new deposits to the old pit and facilities if they prove to be viable. What we find promising about Kemess is that if you were to build a 50,000 ton per day concentrator in that part of British Columbia today, it would cost around $2 to $3 billion. However, we already have significant infrastructure in place, including what is likely the longest power line in BC, an airstrip, a camp, and the old processing plant. This existing infrastructure holds considerable value. Additionally, our reevaluation of the site-wide resource model, along with rising commodity prices, has increased our optimism regarding these deposits, which are part of the property but not particularly close to the old Northgate pit.

Okay. No, that's interesting. I look forward to the update.

Thanks, Mike.

And ladies and gentlemen, with that, we'll be concluding today's question-and-answer session as well as today's conference call. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.