ABI

How does the cost per ounce (or unit) of the Sleeping Giant Project compare to industry benchmarks?

Created August 07, 2025 at 11:02 AM

Short answer:

The press release you provided does not disclose any specific “cost‑per‑ounce” (or cost‑per‑unit) figure for the Sleeping Giant Project, so a direct, data‑driven comparison to industry benchmarks cannot be made from the information that is currently available.

1. What the news release actually tells us

Item	Details from the release
Company	Abcourt Mines Inc. (TSX‑V: ABI)
Project	Sleeping Giant Project, Eeyou Istchee, Québec
Content	“Update on the ramp‑up activities” – i.e., progress on construction, commissioning, and initial production.
Financial metrics	None – the release does not give a cash cost, all‑in sustaining cost (AISC), operating cost, or any unit‑cost estimate.
Date	7 August 2025

Because the release is limited to operational status (e.g., “ramp‑up activities”) without cost numbers, we have no baseline to calculate a cost‑per‑ounce (or per‑ton, per‑kg, etc.) metric for Sleeping Giant.

2. Why “cost‑per‑ounce” matters in mining

Metric	Typical definition	Why it matters
Cash cost	Direct mining, processing & onsite costs (excludes sustaining capital, G&A, royalties) expressed per ounce of metal produced.	Indicates the immediate expense of turning ore into metal.
All‑in Sustaining Cost (AISC)	Cash cost + sustaining capital, corporate overhead, royalties, and other ongoing expenses, per ounce.	Provides a more complete picture of the long‑term cost structure and is the benchmark most analysts use.
Total cost (including exploration, development, etc.)	All cash outflows over the life of mine divided by total ounces produced.	Useful for comparing project economics across the entire life cycle.

Industry analysts typically compare a project’s cash cost and AISC to “benchmarks” that vary by metal, mine size, geography, and mining method.

3. Typical industry benchmarks (2023‑2025)

Below are average cost ranges reported by major industry surveys (e.g., S&P Global Market Intelligence, BMO Capital Markets) for the most comparable operations (primary gold and copper projects in North America). These are general figures and should be used only as a reference point, not as a precise yardstick for Sleeping Giant.

Metal	Cash Cost (USD/oz)	AISC (USD/oz)	Comment
Gold (primary, underground)	$900 – $1,400	$1,200 – $1,800	Underground mines are usually higher‑cost than open‑pit.
Gold (primary, open‑pit)	$600 – $1,000	$800 – $1,300	Large‑scale open‑pit projects in stable jurisdictions often sit at the lower end.
Copper (primary)	$1.80 – $3.10 per lb	$2.30 – $4.00 per lb	Costs are expressed per pound; conversion to per‑ounce gold equivalents varies.
Silver (primary)	$12 – $25 per oz	$18 – $35 per oz	Highly variable, dependent on ore grade and by‑product credits.

Note: These ranges are based on the majority of operating mines that have reported their cash costs and AISC in the last 12‑24 months. “Benchmark” values can shift quickly when commodity prices change dramatically or when new technologies (e.g., automation, renewable‑energy‑powered processing) are adopted.

4. How you could evaluate Sleeping Giant once the numbers are disclosed

Locate the cost metric – Most junior miners release either:
- Cash cost per ounce of gold (or equivalent for silver/copper), or
- AISC (the more comprehensive metric).
Normalize the figure – Convert any reported Canadian‑dollar costs to U.S. dollars using the prevailing exchange rate (e.g., CAD ≈ 0.74 USD as of Q3‑2025) and adjust for inflation if you are comparing to historic benchmarks.
Benchmark against peers –
- Identify comparable projects (e.g., other Québec‑based underground gold projects such as Detour Lake, Kirkland Lake, or the LaRonde complex).
- Use the same metric (cash cost or AISC) for a “like‑for‑like” comparison.
Factor in by‑product credits – If Sleeping Giant produces copper, zinc, or silver as by‑products, the net cost per ounce of gold will be lower after crediting revenue from those metals. Industry benchmarks often quote “net cash cost” after such credits.
Consider life‑of‑mine economics – A low short‑term cash cost is attractive, but investors also look at total cash costs over the entire mine life, capital intensity, and the payback period.

5. What you can do now

Check the full press release – The GlobeNewswire summary you quoted is truncated. The complete filing (often posted on the company’s website or SEDAR/EDGAR) may contain a “Cost of Production” table or a forward‑looking statement on expected cash costs.
Review the latest quarterly/annual reports – Junior miners typically disclose “cost per ounce” in their MD&A section.
Listen to the investor‑relations webcast – Management may give guidance on anticipated cash costs as the ramp‑up progresses.
Contact Investor Relations – A direct query can yield the most up‑to‑date cost guidance if it hasn’t been published yet.

6. Bottom‑line assessment (based on available data)

Because no cost‑per‑ounce figure is provided in the August 7 2025 update, we cannot definitively state how Sleeping Giant’s cost structure stacks up against the industry benchmarks listed above.

If the eventual disclosed cash cost is ≤ $1,200 USD/oz (or net AISC ≤ $1,600 USD/oz), Sleeping Giant would be considered cost‑competitive with the majority of North‑American underground gold mines.
If the cost is markedly higher (e.g., > $1,800 USD/oz cash cost), it would be above average, suggesting a need for higher gold prices or strong by‑product credits to sustain profitability.
Any cost below $900 USD/oz cash cost would place the project among the more efficient operations, comparable to the lowest‑cost mines such as Newmont’s Colorado Gold or Kinross’s Red Lake operations.

Until the corporation releases those numbers, any detailed comparison remains speculative. Keep an eye on Abcourt’s forthcoming filings (quarterly results, technical reports, or a full “Operations Update” that includes cost metrics) for the concrete data needed to make a precise benchmark analysis.