RE:Response from IR about drilling resultsSo, likely the posters who've demanded 900 oz/ton exploration results "or else" will go unsatisfied.
Gold is hard to find. KL has two of the world's richest large deposits, and so is arguably in a better situation to find more rich deposits, but it's still not a lock.
What we can be much more confident, IMO, that KL will deliver is fat cash flows; rooted in
1) two great ore bodies, and
2) excellence in execution, based on experience and leading-edge mining technology. When shaft #4 is sunk, it is estimated that Macassa & Fosterville will be running at or better than under $250/oz cash costs and just over $500 AISC, on over 800K ounces/year; with over 1 million ounces/year total produciton. (See Makuch's May 2018 BBN Bloomberg interview for documentation). That kind of execution and cash flow can be compared to what we've witnessed from the other miners, this week: Barrick, Goldcorp, New Gold, etc..
The biggest downside risk I can see (other than acts of God) is where Fosterville's steady-state ounces/ton ends up, after Swan is depleted. I don't see it as a problem - there's plenty of drill results already in the bag inferring Fosterville has plenty of 15-30g/t ore even if we don't find more 1 million ounce 60 g/t deposits. But it is an unknown. On the other hand, Macassa and the historic mines to it's east look like the biggest upside potential, IMO, and that's based on data (drill results, and the records of the historic mines) not speculation.
'Pumpish' as it sounds, I suspect Makuch's and Sprott's estimates that operating cash flow will at least double, from here, are dead-on, and subject to upwards revision as the KL team continues to grow the business.