Take-off in Saudi Arabia after regulatory overhaul
The acceleration of KEFI’s ambitions in Saudi Arabia comes as a result of three main developments:
■
The uplift in its resource at Hawiah, which has increased by 29% to 24.9Mt at a grade of 1.71% copper equivalent, containing 411kt CuE, or 2.2Moz AuE and now supporting an estimated nine-year production life with 47% of its resource upgraded into the indicated category for reserve determination and still open along strike and down plunge.
■
The adjacent Al Godeyer licences (which are 12km to the west of, and which are regarded as a direct geological analogue to, Hawiah), having now been granted to KEFI, where trenching is well advanced ahead of planned drilling in 2022.
■
Reports that Jibal Qutman (where KEFI has delineated a resource of 733koz and where a pre-feasibility study on a heap leach was completed in 2015) is now likely to receive a mining licence in FY22.
KEFI’s key 2022 objectives in Saudi Arabia are now to complete the Hawiah copper-gold project pre-feasibility study (PFS), update Jibal Qutman’s development plans and to start drilling Al Godeyer (which returned over 7g/t Au from surface sampling and demonstrates a surface gossan extending over 1.7km and where early field results indicate significant volcanogenic massive sulphides (VMS) potential, similar to the copper-gold deposits at Hawiah) in Q222. VMS deposits typically form in clusters and Al Godeyer is only one of the many VMS prospects in KEFI’s pipeline of exploration targets. In this case however, success at Al Godeyer could potentially add substantial value to the development of the Hawiah project.
Hawiah mineral resource update
Hawiah reported an updated mineral resource estimate on 6 January 2022. Compared with its 2020 maiden mineral resource, the update represented a 29.0% increase in tonnage at a slightly higher grade to result in an approximate one-third increase in contained metal, capable of supporting production for an additional two years relative to its September 2020 preliminary economic assessment (Edison estimate). Including by-products, the resource is the equivalent of 24.9Mt at a grade of 1.71% copper equivalent (cf 1.57% CuE previously) containing 411kt CuE or 2.68g/t gold equivalent (cf 2.51g/t AuE previously) containing 2.2Moz AuE.
The 95km2 Hawiah exploration licence is located in the south-west of the Arabian Shield on the 120km Wadi Bidah Volcanogenic Mineral belt. The Wadi Bidah belt is almost three times as long as the Bisha belt in Eritrea (see Nevsun), hosts over 20 VMS occurrences and is almost unique among the world’s VMS belts in that it remains, to all intents and purposes, unexplored.
Exhibit 2: Hawiah location
|
|
Source: KEFI Gold and Copper
|
Hawiah updated mineral resource estimate
KEFI announced a maiden mineral resource at Hawiah on 19 August 2020 and a preliminary economic assessment (PEA) on the project on 22 September 2020. After a period of additional drilling, it then followed this up with an updated mineral resource estimate on 6 January 2022.
Relative to its 2020 maiden mineral resource, the update represented a 29.0% increase in tonnage at a slightly higher grade to result in an approximate one-third increase in contained metal, as shown in the table below:
Exhibit 3: Hawiah* maiden mineral resource estimate
Material type |
Category |
Tonnage (kt) |
Cu (%) |
Zn (%) |
Au (g/t) |
Ag (g/t) |
Cu (kt) |
Zn (kt) |
Au (koz) |
Ag (oz) |
Updated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open pit |
Indicated |
7.0 |
1.13 |
0.78 |
0.66 |
10.03 |
72 |
55 |
149 |
2,271 |
Underground |
Indicated |
3.9 |
0.83 |
1.00 |
0.61 |
9.89 |
32 |
39 |
76 |
1,230 |
Sub-total |
Indicated |
10.9 |
0.96 |
0.86 |
0.64 |
9.98 |
104 |
94 |
225 |
3,501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open pit |
Inferred |
1.4 |
0.43 |
0.41 |
1.17 |
10.14 |
6 |
6 |
52 |
446 |
Underground |
Inferred |
12.6 |
0.89 |
0.88 |
0.55 |
9.61 |
113 |
111 |
221 |
3,892 |
Sub-total |
Inferred |
14.0 |
0.85 |
0.83 |
0.61 |
9.67 |
118 |
116 |
273 |
4,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open pit |
Total |
8.4 |
0.93 |
0.73 |
0.74 |
10.06 |
78 |
61 |
200 |
2,717 |
Underground |
Total |
16.5 |
0.88 |
0.90 |
0.56 |
9.66 |
145 |
149 |
297 |
5,122 |
Total |
Total |
24.9 |
0.90 |
0.85 |
0.62 |
9.81 |
223 |
210 |
497 |
7,839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oxide, open pit |
Inferred |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.03 |
1.7 |
3.9 |
0.1 |
0.04 |
7 |
16 |
Transition, underground |
Inferred |
2.0 |
1.1 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
12.0 |
21 |
16 |
45 |
763 |
Fresh, underground |
Inferred |
17.2 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
10.1 |
147 |
141 |
297 |
5,595 |
Total |
Inferred |
19.3 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
10.3 |
168 |
157 |
349 |
6,373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difference (%) |
|
+29.0 |
+3.9 |
+5.5 |
+11.0 |
-4.3 |
+32.5 |
+33.9 |
+42.5 |
+23.0 |
Source: Edison Investment Research, KEFI Gold and Copper. Note: *KEFI 30% beneficial interest; reported in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Targets, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, The JORC Code, 2012 Edition.
To date, a total of 193 diamond holes have been drilled at Hawiah over 41,841m (an average of 217m per hole). Drill spacing on the Camp and Crossroads Lodes was approximately 50–60m within areas reporting to the ‘indicated’ classification of resources and 120–140m for areas reporting to the ‘inferred’ classification. At prevailing metal prices (US$9,904/t Cu, US$3,798/t Zn, US$1,914/oz Au and US$24.81/oz Ag), we calculate that the resource contains total metal to a value of US$4.2bn (cf US$2.8bn previously), or the equivalent of 419kt of contained copper (cf 302kt previously) at an average grade of 1.68% copper equivalent or 2.2Moz of contained gold (cf 1.6Moz previously) at an average grade of 2.71g/t gold equivalent.
The entire deposit comprises three separate zones, denoted the Camp Lode, the Crossroads Lode and the Crossroads Extension Lode (see Exhibit 4), with the increase in Hawiah’s overall resource in its update largely attributable to 1) expansion of the Camp Lode at depth and 2) expansion of the Crossroads Extension at depth. At the same time, KEFI confirmed that the VMS style of mineralisation is continuously present directly beneath 5.0km of gossanous ridgeline (cf 4.5km previously) and that it is the source of an extensive and exceptionally strong geophysical anomaly. As such, KEFI was successful in achieving the four main objectives of its drilling programme, which were:
■
to define an open cut gold resource for early, low-cost mining;
■
to update existing resources in key areas into the ‘indicated’ category for inclusion in Hawiah’s ongoing PFS;
■
to expand the known resource areas in order to increase the overall global tonnage; and
■
to increase drilling density within the copper-rich Transition Zone in order to demonstrate grade continuity and allow for better evaluation of an open-pit mining scenario.
The massive sulphides intersected in its drill programme are reported to reflect a dominantly pyritic stratiform body containing a variable polymetallic blend of copper, zinc, gold and silver. Nevertheless, there remains considerable blue-sky potential. To date, the orebody has only been drilled to a vertical limit of 590m, but continues to remain open at depth. The down-dip continuation of the Camp Lode is of particular interest in this respect. As predicted by KEFI’s geological model, the depth extension of the Camp Lode has an elevated average grade of 1.2%, making it the highest-grade area outside the copper enriched transition zones. Moreover, the final and deepest drillhole into this mineralisation (HWD 092) intersected 5.45m (estimated true width 4.4m) at a grade of approximately 1.6% Cu, which had the effect, among other things, of extending the total plunging strike length of mineralisation to 1.2km from surface at an average true width of 7m. Two of the other deepest drill holes (HWD_005 and HWD_059) have registered grades of 1.27% copper over a true width of 9m and 1.55% copper over a true width of 8.7m, respectively, and, if intersected in line with expectations, would extend mineralisation to a depth of c 800m and may indicate that resources are nearing the source (vent) of the VMS, where higher grades and thicker massive sulphides and stockwork-style mineralisation may typically be found. Geochemical analysis and volcaniclastic textures within the lodes have also indicated increasing proximity with depth to a potential primary feeder source. The Crossroads Extension Lode (0.7km long with an average width of 5m), which has been explored to a maximum vertical depth of 390m (where 5.4m of massive sulphide was intersected), similarly remains open at depth.
At the same time, drilling below the Central Zone (the 1,700m long area between the Crossroads and Camp lodes) has intersected mineralisation down to a depth of 580m and confirmed its resource potential, as indicated by a strong induced polarisation (IP) anomaly. However, drilling within this area is limited and yet to be fully defined, with the result that only the oxide portions of this area have so far qualified for inclusion in the ‘inferred’ category of resources. Finally, massive sulphides are reported to have been intersected in a drill hole 150m to the north of the Hawiah ridgeline, confirming that the mineralised horizon continues at depth even beyond the northern surface exposure in the ‘Crossroads extension area’.
Exhibit 4: Hawiah project drilling and exploration
|
|
Source: KEFI Gold and Copper
|
Similar potential exists in the upper levels of the deposit, where the gossan portion of the mineralised zone is challenging to drill by virtue of the weathering patterns and the numerous cavity zones encountered. However, the French geological survey, Bureau de Recherches Géologique et Minières (BRGM), drilled VMS gossans elsewhere in the 120km long Wadi Bidah metallogenic belt (WMMB) in the 1980s, which resulted in the delineation of a resource of 1.2Mt at a grade of 6.4g/t, containing 254koz gold, and management confirms that this oxidised portion of the deposit, which has demonstrated high levels of gold mineralisation, will also be further investigated.
Based on published literature, KEFI management believes that the Hawiah deposit is analogous to (albeit already bigger than) the Al Masane polymetallic VMS mine, which was the first mine in Saudi Arabia to export copper and zinc concentrates and has reported resources of 8.5Mt at grades of 1.0% copper, 5.0% zinc, 1.0g/t gold and 38g/t silver, and a similar metal composition within similar structural and geological settings to Hawiah. Note that the discovery of the stockwork zone that fed the structure now being drilled at Hawiah could also represent a potentially much larger bulk-mineable target analogous to the Jabal Sayid mine operated by Barrick (to the north of Hawiah).
In terms of the value of the in-situ resource itself, we estimate that the update represents an increase in value of c US$8.0m to US$11.8m on a 100% basis (see our report Gold stars and black holes, published in January 2019), or US$2.4m to US$3.6m (or 0.12 US cents per KEFI share, undiluted) on an attributable basis (ie reflecting KEFI’s current 30% interest in the project). Of particular note however is the upgrade of a substantial portion of the resource into the indicated category, which now accounts for 44% of the total (cf 0% previously). Of more significance, it takes the deposit closer to supporting the extended 17-year scenario in KEFI’s PEA of the deposit (cf the seven-year ‘base case’ scenario) and of therefore increasing the NPV8% of the project from US$96m (for the seven-year ‘base case’) to US$362m for the extended mine life scenario (on a 100% basis – see Exhibits 6 and 7, below).
The resource reported by KEFI in Exhibit 3 is the equivalent of 24.9Mt at a grade of 1.68% copper equivalent (cf 1.57% CuE previously) or 2.71g/t gold equivalent (cf 2.51g/t AuE previously), such that each tonne of ore contains an estimated US$167 worth of combined metals at spot prices (see Exhibit 5) cf US$144 previously.
On 22 September 2020, KEFI announced the results of a PEA at Hawiah. The PEA was conducted by the KEFI planning team, supported by internationally recognised specialists, including SRK, and included technical analysis, high-level assessments and trade-off studies to establish the likely key components of the mine’s potential development. Among other things, these included:
■
Underground mining using long-hole open stoping, using rib and sill pillars for support.
■
Processing via two-stage flotation to produce separate copper and zinc concentrates, with a cyanide leach circuit to allow for the production of gold doré from the zinc concentrate and tailings stream.
■
Tailings storage and required infrastructure.
The full details of the results of KEFI’s PEA may be found in its announcement. It was also the subject of Edison’s report entitled Rose gold published on 30 September 2020, and readers are directed towards this report for a fuller explanation regarding Edison’s approach to calculating a value for the project and its assumptions in doing so. A brief comparison of the major differences between KEFI’s original assumptions and Edison’s updated assumptions in calculating a value for the project (including spot metals’ prices) is as follows:
Exhibit 5: Comparison of KEFI and Edison assumptions regarding Hawiah cf spot prices
|
KEFI assumption |
Edison assumption |
Spot prices |
Metals prices |
|
|
|
Copper price (US$/t) |
6,603 |
*6,410 |
9,904 |
Zinc price (US$/t) |
2,315 |
*2,315 |
3,798 |
Gold price (US$/oz) |
1,956 |
*1,524 |
1,914 |
Silver price (US$/oz) |
27.50 |
*24.99 |
24.81 |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
Sustaining capital expenditure |
US$46m |
Seven years at US$8m pa = US$56m |
N/A |
Source: KEFI Gold and Copper, Edison Investment Research. Note: *Long-term real prices.
Note that Edison’s long-term prices remain unchanged relative to our last note.
In its PEA, KEFI considers a ‘base case’ scenario in which the mine operates at a throughput rate of 2.0Mtpa for seven years and an ‘extended’ scenario in which it operates for a further 10 years ‘at the average grade of the Camp Lode below the 1070m RL elevation’. On the basis of these assumptions, the updated financial outcomes generated by Edison from its model compare with those generated by KEFI as shown in Exhibit 6. In addition, we have also shown equivalent outcomes in the event that the current spot prices of metals (see Exhibit 5) prevail over the entire course of the Hawiah mine life in real terms:
Exhibit 6: KEFI versus Edison financial model outcomes
Extended mine life scenario |
Scenario |
Base case scenario |
KEFI |
KEFI |
Edison |
Edison |
Edison |
Model |
KEFI |
Edison |
Edison |
Edison |
*Spot |
KEFI |
KEFI |
Edison |
Spot |
Assumptions |
KEFI |
KEFI |
Edison |
Spot |
|
|
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
Ore processing rate (Mtpa) |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
17 |
17 |
17 |
Life of mine (years) |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
|
|
78 |
78 |
78 |
Average annual operating costs (US$m) |
79 |
78 |
78 |
78 |
|
|
155.5 |
142.6 |
218.0 |
Average annual revenue (US$m) |
153 |
155.5 |
142.6 |
218.0 |
|
|
86 |
86 |
86 |
Average annual all-in sustaining costs (US$m) |
85 |
86 |
86 |
86 |
|
|
69.5 |
56.6 |
132.0 |
Annual steady-state pre-tax free cash flow (US$m) |
67 |
69.5 |
56.6 |
132.0 |
**554 |
**362 |
**311.3 |
166.1 |
650.0 |
Post-tax NPV (US$m) |
**96 |
**99.8 |
28.3 |
322.0 |
|
28 |
26.6 |
21.5 |
49.8 |
Post-tax IRR (%) |
22 |
20 |
13.7 |
46.7 |
|
|
222 |
222 |
222 |
Pre-production capital expenditure (US$m) |
222 |
222 |
222 |
222 |
166 |
108.6 |
93.4 |
49.8 |
195.0 |
30% KEFI share of post-tax NPV (US$m) |
28.8 |
29.9 |
8.5 |
96.6 |
5.65 |
3.69 |
3.18 |
1.70 |
6.64 |
Ditto (US cents per share, undiluted) |
0.88 |
1.02 |
0.29 |
3.29 |
4.30 |
2.81 |
2.42 |
1.29 |
5.05 |
Ditto (pence per share, undiluted) |
0.75 |
0.78 |
0.22 |
2.50 |
Source: Edison Investment Research, KEFI Gold and Copper. Note: Per share amounts undiluted; *US$1,830/oz Au, US$9,750/t Cu, US$3,590/t Zn, US$23/oz Ag prices and US$1.35/£ forex used; **NPV calculation conducted at an 8% discount rate; otherwise, all other NPV’s conducted at a 10% discount rate.
Several features of these outcomes are noteworthy:
■
The similarity between the outputs of the KEFI model and the Edison model using KEFI assumptions for the ‘base case’ scenario, which confers confidence upon Edison’s financial model relative to KEFI’s.
■
For the ‘extended mine life’ scenario, the difference between the net present value (NPV) of the KEFI model and the Edison model using KEFI assumptions is 14.0% (US$311.3m cf US$362m), which we regard as being an acceptable variance within the context of a PEA in which the operating and capital cost estimates are made to a ±50% level of accuracy.
■
The material increases in the valuations of the project attained using spot prices compared with long-term prices.
In its PEA ‘base case scenario’, KEFI envisaged mining at a rate of 2.0Mt per annum at Hawiah for seven years, or 14.0Mt over the life of the operation – equivalent to 72.5% of the maiden resource reported the month before. Applying this percentage to the updated mineral resource would imply a mineable inventory of 18.0Mt or approximately nine years’ worth of mining at a rate of 2.0Mtpa – some, but not all of the way, to KEFI’s target of a 17-year mine life (the ‘extended mine life scenario’ in Exhibit 6, above). The results of the same analysis as above, adapted for a nine-year mine life (at both Edison long-term and also spot prices) are presented in the table below in addition to those already calculated:
Exhibit 7: KEFI versus Edison financial model outcomes
Extended mine life scenario |
Scenario |
Base case scenario |
9-yr life of mine |
KEFI |
KEFI |
Edison |
Edison |
Edison |
Model |
KEFI |
Edison |
Edison |
Edison |
Edison |
Edison |
*Spot |
KEFI |
KEFI |
Edison |
Spot |
Assumptions |
KEFI |
KEFI |
Edison |
Spot |
Edison |
Spot |
|
|
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
Ore processing rate (Mtpa) |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
|
17 |
17 |
17 |
Life of mine (years) |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
9 |
|
|
78 |
78 |
78 |
Average annual operating costs (US$m) |
79 |
78 |
78 |
78 |
78 |
78 |
|
|
155.5 |
142.6 |
218.0 |
Average annual revenue (US$m) |
153 |
155.5 |
142.6 |
218.0 |
142.6 |
218.0 |
|
|
86 |
86 |
86 |
Average annual all-in sustaining costs (US$m) |
85 |
86 |
86 |
86 |
86 |
86 |
|
|
69.5 |
56.6 |
132.0 |
Annual steady-state pre-tax free cash flow (US$m) |
67 |
69.5 |
56.6 |
132.0 |
56.6 |
132.0 |
**554 |
**362 |
**311.3 |
166.1 |
650.0 |
Post-tax NPV (US$m) |
**96 |
**99.8 |
28.3 |
322.0 |
67.3 |
414.7 |
|
28 |
26.6 |
21.5 |
49.8 |
Post-tax IRR (%) |
22 |
20 |
13.7 |
46.7 |
17.3 |
48.6 |
|
|
222 |
222 |
222 |
Pre-production capital expenditure (US$m) |
222 |
222 |
222 |
222 |
222 |
222 |
166 |
108.6 |
93.4 |
49.8 |
195.0 |
30% KEFI share of post-tax NPV (US$m) |
28.8 |
29.9 |
8.5 |
96.6 |
20.2 |
124.4 |
5.65 |
3.69 |
3.18 |
1.70 |
6.64 |
Ditto (US cents per share, undiluted) |
0.88 |
1.02 |
0.29 |
3.29 |
0.69 |
4.23 |
4.30 |
2.81 |
2.42 |
1.29 |
5.05 |
Ditto (pence per share, undiluted) |
0.75 |
0.78 |
0.22 |
2.50 |
0.52 |
3.22 |
Source: Edison Investment Research, KEFI Gold and Copper. Note: Per share amounts undiluted; *US$1,830/oz Au, US$9,750/t Cu, US$3,590/t Zn and US$23/oz Ag prices used; **NPV calculation conducted at an 8% discount rate; otherwise, all other NPV’s conducted at a 10% discount rate.
In consequence and owing to the tabular and continuous nature of the mineralisation, KEFI anticipates that Hawiah can be advanced to a development decision quickly and at relatively low cost. In particular, if the resource can be expanded to make the ‘extended mine life scenario’ a reality, then KEFI expects that 75% of the project funding could be eligible for preferential debt finance via Saudi Arabian incentivisation schemes, thereby increasing the project’s (leveraged) post-tax internal rate of return to in excess of 50%.
Following completion of the PEA and successful subsequent drilling, KEFI has commenced work on a PFS, which is scheduled for completion later this year, followed by a mining licence application and a potential start to development in 2023. In the meantime, it has renewed its exploration efforts, with the early phases of exploration in 2022 focusing on resource definition within the Central Zone of the orebody (see Exhibit 4), where only limited drilling has taken place to date, with a view to increasing the size of the overall mineral resource. At the same time, drilling programmes have started to increase the drilling density in the areas of the inferred resource that report to the open-pit scenario (ie predominantly inferred oxide resources) with a view to upgrading them into the ‘indicated’ category, thereby justifying mine planning and the estimation of a maiden ore reserve and aiding in the open-pit study as part of the project PFS. Note that the successful incorporation of an initial open-pit scenario into the PFS holds out the possibility of a lower initial capex requirement for the project, as does the potential to develop the copper and zinc concentrator after the start of mining and gold processing operations. So far, such a possibility has not been considered in our analyses of Hawiah. However, KEFI management estimates that both initiatives could, between them, reduce initial capex by US$62m (or 27.9%) to US$160m.
In addition to the Hawiah project itself, the Hawiah work programme will also incorporate the previously announced works that will start at the nearby Al Godeyer licence, which was granted to KEFI’s 30% owned Saudi associate, G&M, in December 2021. Scout drilling for a large stockwork, or ‘feeder’, zone to the massive sulphides already identified (which would represent a separate, and probably much larger-scale, target than the existing Hawiah resource) is already underway. Note that there is a possibility of a maiden resource being announced at Al Godeyer later this year:
Exhibit 8: Al Godeyer location with respect to Hawiah
|
|
Source: KEFI Minerals, G&M
|
Hawiah context and analogues
Albeit Hawiah is at an earlier stage of development than the following two examples, they nevertheless represent two analogues as to what it could become in terms of its value in the future, given time and investment:
Atalaya Mining (formerly EMED Mining) is an AIM- and TSX-listed mining and development company that produces copper concentrates and silver by-product at its wholly owned Proyecto Rio Tinto site in south-west Spain and is seeking to become a leading multi-asset copper producer in Europe. In addition, it has a phased earn-in agreement to acquire up to 80% ownership of Proyecto Touro, a brownfield copper project in the north-west of Spain that is at the permitting stage. Production in FY20, FY21 and FY22e was a steady-state c 54–56kt copper and attributable resources amount to 2.6Mt Cu or 4.4Mt CuE. As such, Atalaya’s current market capitalisation of US$679m equates to US$12,350 per annual tonne of steady-state production, US$261/t in-situ copper resource and US$154/t in-situ CuE resource.
Applied to Hawiah, these valuations imply a project valuation of US$187m (production), US$58m (copper resource) and US$66m (copper equivalent resource) – of which KEFI’s attributable share would be 30%.
AMAK (Al Masane Al Kobra Mining Co)
For the purposes of its IPO (which was reported to be 73.6x over-subscribed), AMAK (which operates the Al Masane mine – see above) recently priced its equity at 63 Saudi riyals per share, giving the company a valuation of US$1,109m for an in-situ resource of 86kt Cu and 293kt CuE – or the equivalent of US$12,932 per tonne of in-situ copper resource and US$3,781 per tonne of in-situ copper equivalent resource.
Applied to Hawiah, these valuations would imply a project valuation of US$2,884m (based on its copper resource) or US$1,611m (based on its copper equivalent resource) – of which KEFI’s attributable share would, again, be 30%.
Note that these valuations for Hawiah, based on both Atalaya and AMAK, may be directly compared with the post-tax NPVs calculated in Exhibits 6 and 7, above. AMAK’s resource multiples are unquestionably high within the global context – if not the highest – and may possibly be discounting future exploration success, among other things (see the copper section of our report Gold stars and black holes, published in January 2019). Nevertheless, given that Al Masane is an analogue to Hawiah geologically, technically and commercially, it is perhaps no surprise that KEFI management has indicated that it will investigate the possibility of a dual listing in Saudi Arabia, where the investor attitude is described by management as being one of ‘great pride’ towards mining and where KEFI management describes being lauded as being an early mover in the sector.