The PFS was out last week and the number were big as expected given the gold price. I note project size is the same as the scoping study but due to a lower head grade and sticking with conservative met, the production profile is lower. Capex was up more than I expected after adjusting for some inflation and opex was up mostly due to a higher LOM strip ratio.

Takeaway is that the PFS was a "downgrade" but I think an observation I have noticed over time is the the SS to PFS can have these significant "downgrades" and what is more important from a longer term investor consideration is that if the PFS is now considered robust. In the case of STN I think it is.

A recent learning for me was NWC which went through the same "reckoning" however, I got a bit annoyed (and for some other reasons too) and sold out which went on to cost me dearly not long after selling. I think the lesson is that if the commodity is in a bull market, the project is looking robust whilst the valuation is also very compelling, then the best path is to wait out the churn (maybe buy the dip?). No fundamental flaw, then no problem.

STN met results update. Recoveries in the mid 80s with this testing showing 86%. PEA used 75% which was conservative based on prior met work.

What does this mean to project economics?

• Recovery is up ~15%
• Total ounces produced up ~15%
• NPV is up ~25% as the revenue from extra ounces essentially fall through to FCF.

These are the kinds of breakthroughs that can drive large re-rates in project economics as studies progress, offsetting the typical scope and cost creep that comes with more detailed engineering progress.

In this gold price environment, Apollo Hill is will show to be a A$1.5b+ project.

https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20250605/pdf/06kgd8hc82cdq9.pdf