17-Feb-2026 (1:05am): I hold CMM in my SMSF and I've been reading through their Dec Quarterly report looking for clues as to how they're likely to report on H1 of FY2026 this month, or next month (last year they released their H1 report on March 6th).

The quarterly was excellent, and they look on track to come in at the top end of guidance or exceed their production guidance in August for FY26 (full year) if their second half is anything like their first half. Their costs for H1 were at the upper end of their FY25 full year guidance range but their costs are some of the lowest across all of the mid-to-large Aussie gold producers, so they can afford to have some increased costs and still be among the most profitable gold miners we have on the ASX.

Some highlights from their Dec Quarterly Report:

• Year to date gold production of 62,794 ounces at AISC of $1,626 per ounce puts KGP on track to achieve the upper end of FY26 guidance of 115,000 – 125,000 ounces at an AISC of $1,530 - $1,630 per ounce.
• Karlawinda Gold Project (KGP) delivered December 2025 quarter (Q2) gold production of 30,476 ounces (Q1: 32,318oz) at an all-in-sustaining cost (AISC) of $1,627 per ounce (Q1: $1,625 per ounce). 
• Record quarterly cash flow from operations of $122.4 million generated in Q2 (Q1: $106.9m).
• Total material movement continues to meet the production and construction requirements for the Karlawinda Expansion Project (KEP) with 4.4 million BCM mined in the quarter.
• Consistent mill performance continued with throughput of 1.16mt (Q1: 1.23mt).
• The acquisition of Warriedar Resources Limited (ASX: WA8) by way of a Court-approved share scheme of arrangement and option scheme of arrangement was successfully implemented on 25 November 2025, following approval by Warriedar shareholders on 6 November 2025.
• Cash and gold on hand at the end of Q2, inclusive of the integration of Warriedar balances, was $457.4 million (Q1: $394.4m). The cash build for the quarter was $88.8 million (Q1: $71.8m) before total capital expenditure of $39.0 million at the KEP ($36.1m) and MGGP ($2.9m), and the closing Warriedar cash balance of $13.2m following integration during the period.
• Gold sales of 31,652 ounces at an average price of $6,333 per ounce generated $200.5 million in revenue with a further 2,542 ounces of gold on hand at the end of Q2 valued at $16.6 million (Q1: $23.5m).
• Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DEMIRS) approved Capricorn’s Mining Proposal and Mine Closure Plan (MPMCP) in July 2025, allowing full development of the KEP and subsequent to those approvals the project has been advanced substantially. 

Now so far there's no bad news that I can detect - the KEP has now been fully approved and is progressing at pace and they're still producing gold at Karlawinda while they expand (upgrade) the plant to enable it to produce more gold p.a.

It should be noted that CMM can appear a little more expensive than other gold miners but they do have a management premium and/or quality premium in their share price because of their management's proven track record of getting very profitable gold mines built and operating on time and on or under budget, from Equigold to early Regis (RRL) to CMM. That Equigold/early-RRL team are mostly all now at either CMM or EMR, and both companies have done very well and don't seem to make mistakes or ever overpromise & underdeliver - it's more about conservative guidance which they then try to beat and often do.

I don't have any concerns over Karlawinda (their KGP), but their other big development project, Mt Gibson (their MGGP), has taken longer than expected to achieve final approvals (2.5 years so far), and it's still not there yet, so I had a read of what they've had to say about MGGP:

MGGP DEVELOPMENT

• Following MACA being awarded the preferred contractor status for the mining services agreement, early works mine design and planning activities have commenced.
• The process plant design scope was advanced to 98% complete, with the focus shifting to tendering of key construction scopes. Power supply contract evaluation continued.
• Capricorn submitted the final Public Environmental Report (PER) to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) in late Q1 FY26. The document was advertised for public review during the quarter with final updates and assessment now to follow. 1
• Capricorn is also advancing the Environmental Review Document (ERD) for the Part 4, Western Australian Government assessment process with EPA Services, ahead of the upcoming public review phase. This process includes incorporating outcomes from the Federal DCCEEW assessment. 

So they are going ahead with as much as they can prior to final approvals being granted in a way that suggests to me that they expect the project to receive final approvals this calendar year, probably within months, however down on page 8 of their December quarterly report they said this:

Mt Gibson Gold Project

Progress continues to be made on development and permitting for MGGP in parallel with continued exploration and resource extension drilling.

In December 2023 Capricorn referred the development of the MGGP to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), based on comprehensive environmental assessment work over the last two and a half years. In June 2024, Capricorn received advice from DCCEEW relating to the assessment of the MGGP referral. The project referral is being assessed as a Controlled Action via a Public Environmental Report (PER). In Q4, Capricorn submitted the final MGGP PER to the DCCEEW. This follows previous receipt of guidelines for the PER and ongoing feedback on the document from DCCEEW. Capricorn submitted the final Public Environmental Report (PER) to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) in late Q1 FY26. The document was advertised for public review during the quarter with final updates and assessment now to follow.

In May 2024 Capricorn lodged the referral of the MGGP to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Part IV of the Western Australian EP Act to commence the WA assessment process, which will run in parallel with the Commonwealth assessment. In July 2024, the referral was validated by the EPA and released for 7 days public comment. Capricorn is now advancing the required Environmental Review Document (ERD) for the Part 4, Western Australian Government assessment process with EPA Services, ahead of the upcoming final public review phase. This process includes incorporating outcomes from the Federal DCCEEW assessment.

--- end of excerpt ---

My concern was/is: "The project referral is being assessed as a Controlled Action via a Public Environmental Report (PER)."

So I had a chat tonight with ChatGPT:

Question: How much of a problem is it that CMM's MGGP has now been referred to a Controlled Action via a Public Environmental Report (PER) in terms of holding up final approvals or the likelihood of approval being ultimately denied?

The fact that CMM's MGGP (presumably a mining or industrial project) has been referred to a Controlled Action via a Public Environmental Report (PER) indicates that the project is undergoing a more detailed environmental review. This generally happens when a project is considered to potentially have significant environmental impacts that need to be carefully assessed.

To break it down:

1. Controlled Action: This is a legal classification under Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It means the project might affect matters of national environmental significance (e.g., biodiversity, heritage sites, water quality). A controlled action requires further scrutiny and approval from the federal government before proceeding.
2. Public Environmental Report (PER): This is a form of environmental impact assessment, where the developer submits a report outlining how they intend to manage and mitigate potential environmental risks. The PER is open to public comment, allowing stakeholders and the community to review and express concerns.

Implications for Project Approval:

• Delays: The referral to a Controlled Action and the subsequent need for a PER typically causes delays. This is because the assessment process is more comprehensive and involves consultation, public feedback, and possibly additional information requests from government bodies. These delays could range from a few months to a year, depending on the complexity of the environmental impacts and the responsiveness of the proponent.
• Likelihood of Denial: While being referred to a Controlled Action does not mean the project will be denied, it does suggest that there are concerns over potential environmental impacts that need to be carefully evaluated. Denial is not common, but it is a possibility if the project is found to cause unacceptable environmental harm that cannot be mitigated.
• Final Approvals: The project will not be granted final approvals until the environmental assessment process is complete. The PER itself will be a key part of determining whether the project's environmental management plans are adequate and whether it can proceed. If the PER leads to a finding that significant environmental risks remain unaddressed, the project could face further scrutiny or conditions that delay its approval.

In summary, while being referred to a Controlled Action via a PER doesn’t automatically mean the project will be denied, it does add a layer of scrutiny that can cause significant delays. The likelihood of approval ultimately depends on the results of the environmental assessments, the mitigation measures proposed, and how well the concerns raised during the consultation process are addressed.

Question: What are the main environmental concerns over Capricorn Metals' Mount Gibson Gold Project?

The Mount Gibson Gold Project (MGGP) by Capricorn Metals is located in Western Australia, and like many large-scale mining operations, it has raised several environmental concerns. While specific issues can evolve over time with new reports and assessments, some of the main environmental concerns associated with the project typically include:

1. Biodiversity and Habitat Impact

• Flora and Fauna: The project area may contain significant native plant and animal species, including some that are considered endangered or vulnerable. Mining activities, such as clearing land for infrastructure, can destroy or fragment habitats, threatening local wildlife.
• Vegetation Clearing: Clearing large areas of native vegetation for the development of the mine site, tailings storage facilities, and infrastructure can reduce biodiversity and disrupt ecosystems, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas.

2. Water Management and Quality

• Groundwater Use and Impact: Mining operations, especially those involving open-pit mining and dewatering, can impact local groundwater systems. The extraction of water for processing operations can reduce available groundwater for nearby agricultural or community uses.
• Surface Water: Mining activities can lead to contamination of local rivers and streams from runoff containing chemicals or heavy metals, or from sedimentation caused by soil disturbance. The management of waste water, stormwater, and the potential risk of chemical spills are critical concerns for the surrounding environment.
• Tailings Storage: Proper containment and management of tailings (waste left after gold extraction) is crucial to avoid potential leaks of toxic chemicals such as cyanide, which is commonly used in gold mining.

3. Air Quality

• Dust Emissions: Open-pit mining, blasting, and transportation of materials can generate significant dust, which can affect air quality both on-site and in nearby areas. Dust can be harmful to human health, local vegetation, and livestock.
• Emissions from Equipment: The use of diesel-powered machinery, trucks, and processing equipment contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, which may impact local air quality and contribute to broader climate change concerns.

4. Chemical Use and Contamination

• Cyanide Use: Cyanide is commonly used in gold extraction processes, and its potential for leakage or mishandling poses significant risks to local ecosystems and wildlife if not managed properly. The potential for spills or contamination, especially in proximity to water sources, is a key environmental issue.
• Chemical Waste: The handling, storage, and disposal of chemicals used in processing (e.g., cyanide, sulfuric acid) need to be carefully regulated to prevent contamination of surrounding land and water.

5. Waste Management

• Tailings Storage Facility (TSF): One of the biggest environmental risks for any mining operation is the management of tailings. The Mount Gibson Gold Project will need to manage large quantities of tailings, and the risk of failure of the tailings dam or seepage into surrounding environments (soil, groundwater, surface water) is a significant concern.
• Waste Rock Piles: Mining operations produce waste rock, which, if not properly stored or treated, can leach contaminants into the environment, including heavy metals or acid mine drainage that could harm nearby ecosystems.

6. Impact on Cultural Heritage Sites

• Indigenous Land and Heritage: Mining operations on or near Indigenous lands raise concerns about the destruction of cultural heritage sites, including sacred sites, archaeological artifacts, or other places of cultural significance. There may also be social and cultural impacts on local Indigenous communities, including displacement or disruption to traditional practices.
• Community Consultation: Ensuring proper consultation with affected Indigenous communities is critical for the project’s social license to operate and for addressing concerns about environmental and cultural impacts.

7. Climate Change and Carbon Emissions

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Like all large-scale mining projects, the Mount Gibson Gold Project contributes to greenhouse gas emissions through its operations, particularly from the use of heavy machinery, transportation, and energy consumption. These emissions contribute to broader climate change concerns.
• Energy Use: The energy requirements for processing ore and other operations may rely on fossil fuels, which can increase the carbon footprint of the project. If the operation transitions to renewable energy sources, this could mitigate some of the concerns related to climate change.

8. Landscape and Visual Impact

• Landform Alteration: The open-pit mining method used at Mount Gibson would alter the landscape significantly. There are concerns about the aesthetic impact on the surrounding environment, especially if the site is near sensitive or pristine areas that are valued for their natural beauty.
• Dust and Noise: Along with visual impacts, the noise and dust generated by the mine could affect both human populations and wildlife in the area, potentially leading to public opposition and regulatory scrutiny.

9. Social Impacts

• Local Communities: There are concerns about the social and economic impacts on local communities, especially with regard to noise, dust, and the potential for reduced quality of life for nearby residents. Additionally, there may be concerns about the distribution of economic benefits from the mine, with some arguing that local communities should receive a larger share of the economic returns or better infrastructure support.

Environmental Approval Process:

Given these concerns, the Mount Gibson Gold Project has been referred to a Controlled Action under the EPBC Act. This means that the project is being assessed for its potential impact on matters of national environmental significance, and the project will need to go through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The Public Environmental Report (PER) that is part of this process will be a key document in evaluating whether the environmental impacts can be adequately mitigated, or if the project poses unacceptable risks.

If concerns raised in the PER are not addressed adequately, it could result in significant delays or even rejection of the project.

Question: Please name any specific concerns over this particular project that have been raised by either local groups or environmental groups

For Capricorn Metals' Mount Gibson Gold Project (MGGP), several specific concerns have been raised by local and environmental groups, especially in the context of the environmental and social impact assessments that are part of the regulatory process. While specific groups or individuals might raise different issues, common themes from environmental and community stakeholders typically focus on:

1. Threat to Local Biodiversity and Ecosystems

• Endangered Species: Environmental groups have raised concerns that the project area is located near habitat for endangered or vulnerable species. There are concerns about the impact of mining on flora and fauna, including any endangered plant species or threatened animals that inhabit the area, such as certain fauna species native to the region. Mining operations may disrupt these species' habitats, leading to fragmentation or loss of habitat, particularly in sensitive ecosystems.
• Clearing of Vegetation: The project involves clearing large areas of native vegetation, which poses a threat to local biodiversity. Groups like the Wildlife Conservation Society and other local environmental organizations have often voiced concerns about how clearing might impact the region’s native plant communities and disrupt local wildlife corridors.

2. Water Usage and Pollution

• Groundwater Depletion: The project is located in an area where water resources are already scarce. The dewatering required for open-pit mining operations could lead to local groundwater depletion, impacting both nearby ecosystems and communities. There is concern that excessive groundwater extraction could affect agricultural activities or local freshwater supplies, a key issue in many rural areas.
• Surface Water Contamination: Environmental groups have expressed concerns about potential pollution of nearby rivers, streams, and wetlands. Runoff from the mine site could contain heavy metals, cyanide, and other contaminants from the mining process, which could end up in local water systems, damaging ecosystems and potentially harming local agricultural land or drinking water supplies.

3. Tailings Management and Risk of Contamination

• Tailings Storage Facility (TSF): There is concern over the design and safety of the proposed tailings storage facilities (TSF), particularly the risk of seepage or dam failure. In the past, tailings dam failures at other mining sites have led to severe environmental damage, and local environmental groups have pushed for stringent oversight and transparency regarding the construction and maintenance of these facilities. Leaks of toxic substances such as cyanide or heavy metals into the environment could result in long-term ecological damage.
• Acid Mine Drainage: Another concern is the potential for acid mine drainage from the mine's waste rock or tailings. If sulfur-containing minerals in the waste rock are exposed to air and water, they could create sulfuric acid that leaches into surrounding soils and waterways, further impacting ecosystems.

4. Cyanide Use in Gold Extraction

• Risk of Spills or Leaks: The use of cyanide in gold extraction is a well-known environmental concern. Local environmental groups have questioned the project’s plans for cyanide management and the containment of the toxic substance, particularly its potential for accidental spillage or leakage into nearby water sources. If not managed properly, cyanide contamination can have catastrophic effects on aquatic life and the broader environment.

5. Cultural Heritage and Indigenous Land

• Impact on Indigenous Lands: The project area is located on traditional Indigenous land, and concerns have been raised about the impact on local Aboriginal heritage and sacred sites. Environmental and cultural groups, such as the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Council, have pushed for proper consultation with Indigenous communities to ensure that culturally significant sites are preserved.
• Consultation with Traditional Owners: Local Indigenous groups, including the Wajarri Yamaji people, who are the traditional owners of the land, have been involved in the approval process. There have been calls for more meaningful and transparent consultation to ensure that their concerns regarding land use, cultural heritage, and environmental protection are adequately addressed.

6. Air Quality and Dust Pollution

• Health and Livelihood Concerns: Dust emissions from mining operations, particularly from blasting, hauling, and the processing of ore, have been a concern raised by local communities and environmental groups. Dust can degrade air quality, leading to potential health issues for nearby residents, livestock, and wildlife. There are also concerns about the visual impact of the mine site, particularly for those living nearby.

7. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Carbon Footprint: Environmental groups, including those focused on climate change like The Wilderness Society, have raised concerns about the carbon footprint of the Mount Gibson Gold Project. The emissions from diesel-powered mining equipment, transportation, and processing contribute to the broader issue of climate change. While the project’s carbon emissions may not be as high as some other industries, environmental groups are advocating for a reduction in emissions and a shift toward more sustainable energy practices in the mining sector.

8. Impact on Local Communities

• Disruption to Local Way of Life: Local residents, particularly those who live in rural areas near the project, have voiced concerns about the social and economic impacts of the mine. There is a perceived risk of disruption to local agricultural practices, community activities, and the overall quality of life due to noise, dust, and traffic from mining operations. Concerns have also been raised about the potential increase in cost of living, particularly for essential services like housing and infrastructure.
• Employment and Economic Benefits: While the project will likely create local jobs, some groups have expressed concerns about the distribution of these benefits. Local organizations, as well as some Indigenous groups, are advocating for a greater share of employment and economic benefits for local and Indigenous communities.

Groups and Organizations Involved:

• Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)
• The Wilderness Society
• Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
• Wildlife Conservation Society
• WWF Australia
• Environmental Defenders Office (EDO)
• Indigenous Groups: Wajarri Yamaji people, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation

These groups are typically engaged in the formal assessment processes, making submissions, and sometimes organizing public campaigns to highlight their concerns about the potential environmental and social impacts of the Mount Gibson Gold Project.

Conclusion:

In summary, the main environmental and social concerns raised by local groups and environmental organizations regarding the Mount Gibson Gold Project center around the potential loss of biodiversity, water pollution, tailings management, use of cyanide, cultural heritage, and climate change. These concerns reflect the complex balance that mining operations must strike between economic development and environmental protection, and they highlight the challenges the project faces in obtaining environmental and social approvals.

Question: Please be more specific - what flora and/or fauna for this particular project are considered to be at threat or compromised

The Mount Gibson Gold Project (MGGP) by Capricorn Metals is located in a region of Western Australia with significant biodiversity, and as with any mining operation, there are concerns about the potential impact on flora (plants) and fauna (animals). Specific concerns over the threat to vulnerable or endangered species in the project area have been raised by environmental groups and during the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process.

Here are some of the flora and fauna species in the area that have been identified as potentially at risk due to the project's activities:

1. Flora (Plant Species)

• **Acacia Species: The project area includes important habitat for various species of Acacia, a genus of plants that are common in the region. Some Acacia species are considered vulnerable or endangered, such as Acacia gilesiana and Acacia pineana, both of which can be found in the area around the project. Mining activities such as vegetation clearing and soil disturbance can threaten these species.
• Eucalyptus Species: Several species of Eucalyptus trees, such as the Eucalyptus gamophylla and Eucalyptus woodwardii, are also present in the area. Eucalyptus species play a crucial role in the local ecosystem and are important for both habitat and food sources for local wildlife, particularly koalas and birds. Clearing land for the mine could directly impact these species.
• Spinifex Grasses: Spinifex grasses are a significant component of the landscape, providing habitat and food for a range of fauna, particularly ground-dwelling species. Clearing or disturbance of spinifex habitat could lead to the loss of these important ecosystems.

2. Fauna (Animal Species)

The Mount Gibson Gold Project is located in a region where various threatened or vulnerable species reside, and the following are of particular concern:

Mammals

• Bilby (Macrotis lagotis): The Greater Bilby is a vulnerable species that inhabits the region. Bilbies rely on burrows and dense vegetation for shelter and food, and habitat disturbance, such as land clearing and changes to soil structure from mining activities, could have a negative impact on their populations.
• Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis): This species is also classified as vulnerable and may be found in the region, particularly in areas where eucalyptus forests exist. Loss of habitat due to land clearing or changes in vegetation could negatively affect the population.
• Mallee Fowl (Leipoa ocellata): This ground-dwelling bird, listed as vulnerable under Australian environmental law, builds large nests in sand mounds. Its population could be impacted by habitat disturbance caused by the mining operation.

Reptiles

• Western Carpet Python (Morelia spilota imbricata): This snake species, which is found in the region, can be threatened by habitat destruction, including deforestation and disruption of native ecosystems.
• Great Desert Skink (Liopholis kintorei): Listed as vulnerable, this species is found in spinifex-dominated habitats in desert and semi-arid areas. The mining project could disrupt its habitat, leading to a potential decline in numbers.

Birds

• Grey Falcon (Falco hypoleucos): This species of falcon, listed as vulnerable, relies on open areas and forested landscapes for hunting and nesting. The disturbance of such habitats by mining could affect its breeding and hunting capabilities.
• Australian Bustard (Ardeotis australis): While not classified as critically endangered, the Australian Bustard is listed as near threatened. It inhabits open grasslands and semi-arid regions, and the disturbance caused by mining activities (such as clearing, dust, and habitat fragmentation) could negatively affect this species.

Invertebrates

• Red-Tailed Phascogale (Phascogale calura): While primarily a mammal, it relies heavily on invertebrate prey. Its habitat could be compromised by mining, affecting its food sources and shelter.
• Threatened Insects: Certain species of native insects, such as pollinators and other vital members of the ecosystem, could also be impacted by habitat loss, dust, and chemical use on the mine site.

3. Key Ecological Features at Risk

• Wetlands and Waterways: The local wetlands and riparian zones (areas near rivers and streams) are crucial ecosystems that support a variety of species, including aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, birds, and mammals. These areas are often sensitive to pollution from mining, especially runoff from the site containing chemicals, dust, and sediments.
• Threatened Vegetation Communities: The montane vegetation in the region, characterized by Eucalyptus woodlands and other specialized vegetation communities, could be disrupted by the expansion of the mine. This habitat supports a range of species and is important for local biodiversity.

Specific Concerns Raised by Environmental Groups

• Disturbance of Ecologically Sensitive Areas: Environmental groups have pointed out that clearing land for the Mount Gibson Gold Project could affect key ecological corridors. Fragmentation of habitat could isolate wildlife populations, reducing their ability to breed and forage effectively.
• Impact on Endemic Species: The region is home to some species that are endemic to Western Australia or specific regions, meaning they are found nowhere else in the world. Disturbing their habitat could contribute to a decline in already fragile populations.
• Fragmentation of Habitat: Many of the species at risk rely on large, contiguous tracts of habitat. Mining could disrupt these areas, making it difficult for species to find food, mates, and shelter.

Regulatory and Mitigation Measures

In response to these concerns, the company will likely need to address them in its Public Environmental Report (PER) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The potential for habitat destruction, particularly for vulnerable or endangered species, will be a major focus during the approval process. Some possible mitigation measures might include:

• Offset Programs: Proposals to offset habitat destruction by protecting or rehabilitating other areas of land with similar ecosystems.
• Wildlife Relocation: Plans to relocate species from affected areas to new habitats.
• Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring programs for species at risk, including surveys of populations, nesting sites, and habitat quality.

Conclusion:

The Mount Gibson Gold Project threatens several flora and fauna species, particularly those classified as vulnerable or endangered, such as the Bilby, Western Ringtail Possum, and various plant species like Acacia and Eucalyptus. The key concerns revolve around habitat destruction, fragmentation, pollution risks (particularly to water), and the overall impact of mining on local biodiversity. Environmental groups have raised these issues, and they will likely play a central role in shaping the project's approval conditions and any required mitigation measures.

--- end of chat ---

OK, so we have discussed here on SM recently the limitations of AI when it comes to doing research and even solving simple problems like how best to get to a car wash 200 metres up the road (with or without your car), so I accept that much of that above will be worthless and may not even be applicable to this particular case (CMM's MGGP), however there are still likely a few environmental concerns there that I was previously unaware of, or hadn't considered to be an issue here.

So while CMM are confident that Mt Gibson is going ahead at some point, so were the current management at RRL about McPhillamys in central NSW a few years back until Tanya Plibersek (then Australian Federal Minister for the Environment and Water) torpedoed the project in July 2022 by denying them their TSF location (TSF = tailings storage facility, basically where all the waste slurry is pumped to after the gold has been extracted from the ore). McPhillamys might still get built, but if nothing else that decision in mid-2022 has delayed that project by at least 4 years. At worst it may never get built.

However McPhillamys is apparently prime farmland in rural NSW whereas Mt Gibson is an old minesite, so a brownfields site rather than a greenfields site, as this arial view shows:

Yes, CMM want to expand the project area and clear further land around it where they have already found more gold such as their Highway Deposit plus those red dots on the above map outside of the existing pits - Sundance, Gunslinger, Ace High, Crazy Horse and Mexicola; however the majority of the gold is below existing open pits and there is already an old heap leach plant there.

This is gold mining in and around an old gold mine, with dozens of historical pits already there, so this one is NOT going to get torpedoed like Regis' McPhillamys GP (gold project) was. At worst CapMetals may not be able to clear some of the land around some of those few deposits outside of the existing pits, or they may have limitations put on them over how much additional land they can clear, but this has to be viewed in the context of what it is, which an old minesite.

So my take on this is that the governments (state and federal) are not rushing this through, but are actually doing the opposite, maklng sure everybody with an opinion gets heard and that as far as possible all legitimate concerns are adequately addressed in the final approval conditions. So while it's already taken longer than expected, and it might take longer yet, at some stage this one gets approved IMO, and I'm thinking that will be some time this calendar year (most likely).

And Mt Gibson will be CMM's second mining centre:

Interestingly, despite CMM generally regarded as being one of the more expensive Australian gold producers, 4 out of 5 of the brokers that FNArena covers are bullish today and have even higher price targets:

Only Jarden is neutral with a TP of $11, being $2.44 lower than the $13.44 that CMM closed at today - here's FNArena's summaries of the most recent broker notes/updates from Canaccord Genuity and Jarden:

And Below are FNArena summaries of the latest updates from Macquarie and Ord Minnett:

So you can see there that OM had a TP of $19.50 for CMM on December 12th, then raised that to $24 on Jan 29th, while Macquarie had a TP for CMM of $15.20 on Jan 30th and then on Feb 9th they raised that by $1 to $16.20.

Bell Potter's last update was back at the end of October when they had a $14.30 target price for CMM. I have only included the most recent updates here in this straw, but FNArena has a much longer history.

Source (Broker data above and charts/tables below): https://fnarena.com/index.php/analysis-data/consensus-forecasts/stock-analysis/?code=CMM

Charts source: https://fnarena.com/index.php/analysis-data/consensus-forecasts/stock-analysis/?code=CMM

When looking at those Capex and G&A numbers above, remember that they are in the middle of expanding Karlawinda (their operating mine) as well as doing some early work at Mt Gibson, so they are spending to increase future production at Karlawinda and bring a second mining centre into production.

So, yeah, possible further permitting delays for Mt Gibson (MGGP) are a risk, however on the whole I reckon CMM is more likely to have more upside (positive) share price catalysts than downside (negative) catalysts.

And then there's the gold price:

We're holding above A$7,000/ounce for now, and the US$ gold price just dropped below US$5,000/ounce in the past couple of hours while I've been doing this straw, but I have no doubt it'll be back over US$5K/oz within a day or two. Soon enough anyway. The uptrend remains intact. But my point here is that no matter how good a gold mining company is, the gold price is going to have a major impact on their share price. At the moment the gold price is still a tailwind, but it could become a headwind if it dropped below CMM's cost of production, but with an AISC of less than A$1,700/ounce, the gold price would have to go down a very long way before we need to worry about CMM's profitability.

So, yeah, happy with CMM being a decent position in my SMSF - and I may add to that position today, or soonish. Before they report for H1. They sort of already have though because it's all in their December Quarterly Report, but I still reckon they could rally on their official H1 report.

I was very happy with the market's reaction to NST on the day they reported (+4%), GMD yesterday (+7.42%), and EVN last week (+8.68%) - I can't see why CMM would be the black sheep.

Much better reactions than I've seen with some SaaS and a handful of consumer discretionary companies on the day of their reports during the past week. In terms of sentiment, there's still plenty of positive sentiment around the better Aussie gold producers, with good reason.

P.S. Here's Commsec's current view of broker sentiment regarding CMM:

Source: https://www2.commsec.com.au/quotes/recommendations?stockCode=CMM&exchangeCode=ASX#/recommendations/consensus

And here's a chart showing CMM, NST, GMD and EVN vs the All Ords (XAO):

I'm thinking there's room for CMM to head further north from here. They haven't recovered from the recent small gold price decline at the end of January like the others have. GMD is another one that had a management premium in the share price prior to that gold price decline and rebound and they (GMD) also haven't fully recovered to their former highs, so both GMD and CMM look good here to me here.

Disclosure: Held.