Prepared remarks
Hello, everyone, and welcome to SSR Mining's Second Quarter 2026 Conference Call. This call is being recorded. At this time for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the call over to Alex Hunchak from SSR Mining. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and hello, everyone. Thank you for joining today's conference call to discuss SSR Mining's second quarter 2026 financial results. Our consolidated financial statements have been presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP. These financial statements have been filed on EDGAR and SEDAR, and they are also available on our website. There is an online webcast accompanying this call, and you will find the information to access the webcast on our corporate website. Please note that all figures discussed during the call are in US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Today's discussion will include forward-looking statements, so please read the disclosures in the relevant document. Additionally, we refer to non-GAAP financial measures during our discussion and in the accompanying slides. Please see our press release for information about the comparable GAAP measures. Rodney Antal, Executive Chairman, will be joined by Michael J. Sparks, Chief Financial Officer, and William MacNevin, EVP of Operations and Sustainability on today's call. I will now turn the line over to Rodney.
Great. Thanks, Alex, and good afternoon to you all. We enter the second half with momentum. Having delivered operating results in line with expectations and, most importantly, we completed a meaningful strategic repositioning of SSR through our exit from Türkiye. We are well positioned to achieve full-year guidance targets through higher production in the second half that will drive significant free cash flow generation through the remainder of the year. We expect all-in sustaining costs to trend to the upper end of our full-year guidance range due to a number of factors that we will speak to later in the call. We continue to work hard on business improvement initiatives to help mitigate pressures on costs across the company. Strategically, over the last few months, we have delivered a number of significant milestones, including the successful divestment of both Çöpler and Hod Maden. The approximately $1.5 billion in cash proceeds from the Çöpler sale was received before the end of the second quarter, bringing our total cash position to nearly $1.8 billion with no debt.
With the exit from Türkiye, SSR is now a free cash flow-focused Americas gold and silver producer anchored by our position as the third-largest gold producer in the United States. Our US platform alone has considerable growth potential that we look forward to showcasing moving forward. Separately, we have now reestablished our position as the capital return leader amongst our peer group, returning $400 million to shareholders year to date. This implies a nearly 8% yield before the forthcoming dividend payments and ongoing share buyback over the remainder of 2026. Our organic growth initiatives continue to advance across the portfolio as we seek to meaningfully extend mine lives at each of our assets. As a result, and capitalizing on our significant liquidity position, we made a conscious decision to increase our growth capital expenditure for the remainder of 2026. It is the right time for us to begin investment in future growth across the business after years spent identifying and studying the opportunities.
The anticipated publication of the Marigold technical report by year-end will begin to provide insight into some of these tangible opportunities. As you can see, our business is in an excellent position as we head into the second half. We have the best-in-class balance sheet, a peer-leading capital returns program, expectations for a very strong second half of production and free cash flow, and a track record of disciplined capital allocation. These traits are key differentiators for SSR amongst its peer group. So before moving on to the next slide, I want to summarize some of the catalysts ahead. First, we expect to publish an updated technical report for Marigold with the objective of capturing growth opportunities like Buffalo Valley, DG80, and New Millennium with the purpose of extending mine life. Next, we are continuing to advance a number of exciting brownfield opportunities at both Puna and Seabee and Bill will speak to more about these in the coming slides.
And third, we will continue to execute against our capital allocation framework as announced in June, where we will maintain balance sheet strength, invest in the business, and return capital to shareholders in the form of buybacks and dividends. These catalysts are just a few of the potential avenues for value creation in the years ahead. So with that in mind, let's talk more about the track record of creating value. With our strategy clearly defined, it is worth highlighting how we got to this point. We have clearly demonstrated a track record of meaningful value creation with growth in per-share metrics, capital returns, and disciplined M&A. I have already spoken about our commitment to capital returns and particularly share buybacks, but it is also worth noting that once factoring in our restated reinstated dividend program and projections for ongoing share buybacks, we are tracking towards a sector-leading capital returns yield in 2026.
We have a track record of value-accretive M&A and this was most recently illustrated by the strong returns generated from our acquisition of Cripple Creek and Victor. Across the portfolio, we have consistently demonstrated our ability to add value through mine life extensions and optimizations and we expect this to continue in the future. At the same time, the numerous organic growth initiatives across all four of our assets create an environment where we can evaluate strategic additions to the portfolio purely on an opportunistic, value-accretive basis, similar to our approach at Cripple Creek and Victor. If attractive M&A opportunities in our core jurisdictions are not present, we are confident that focusing solely on our organic portfolio will continue to evolve our multi-decade production profile. As you can see, the figures illustrate a powerful picture of discipline and value creation in how we run our business.
We have seen our consensus now increase nearly 300% over the last two years, and our cash flow per share improved by 440% over that time. We intend to continue building on this impressive track record for the years to come. So now I am going to turn it over to Michael on Slide 5 to discuss the quarterly results.
Thank you, Rodney, and good afternoon, everyone. In the second quarter, we produced 102 thousand gold-equivalent ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $1,226 per ounce. These results were consistent with our expectations and reflected the intentional increase in sustaining capital spend that Rodney discussed. Our strong first-half operating performance positions us well to achieve our full-year production guidance. We do currently expect costs to be towards the upper end of our guidance range. This reflects both higher realized fuel prices during the second quarter and a deliberate decision to advance sustaining and growth investments across the portfolio. Given the strength of our balance sheet and cash flow generation, we are taking a disciplined approach to accelerating capital where we see the potential to extend mine lives, improve operating resilience, and create attractive long-term returns.
These investments are not simply incremental spending. They are intended to enhance the quality, durability, and value of our Americas-focused asset base. We expect sustaining capital expenditures to remain elevated in the third quarter. Production is expected to strengthen as the year progresses with approximately 55% to 60% of second-half production weighted towards the fourth quarter. Turning to fuel costs: our diesel hedging programs at Marigold and CC&V have mitigated the impact of recent price increases. However, we remain exposed to market prices for unhedged diesel purchases across the portfolio. Based on our current operating portfolio, a $10 per barrel increase in oil prices results in a net estimated increase of approximately $10 per ounce in consolidated AISC in 2026. We are closely monitoring the potential secondary effects of higher fuel prices on transportation, reagents, and other consumables.
Our contractual arrangements and ongoing engagement with key suppliers provide visibility into emerging cost pressures and help us proactively manage potential disruptions or inflationary impacts. For context, consumables represent approximately 15% of our total cost base, while fuel generally represents between 10% to 15%. Royalties represent a further approximate 15% and naturally increase in stronger metal price environments. Bill will discuss individual operations in greater detail, but at a portfolio level, our focus remains clear: maintaining operating discipline, actively managing inflationary pressures, and directing capital toward investments that strengthen margins, extend asset lives, and support sustainable free cash flow generation. Now let's move to Slide 6 for a brief review of our financial results. Second quarter revenue was $443 million based on sales of 98 thousand gold-equivalent ounces.
Average realized prices were $4,300 per gold ounce and $74.24 per silver ounce. Net income and adjusted net income were both $0.66 per diluted share. Our realized gold price was 5% below the quarterly average, and this primarily reflects the timing of sales during the quarter, with a greater proportion of our second-quarter ounces sold in June when gold prices were lower. Free cash flow from continuing operations was $50 million in the quarter, bringing year-to-date free cash flow to nearly $300 million inclusive of working capital. Free cash flow before changes in working capital was $123 million in the second quarter. These amounts reflect the reclassification of H1 spend at Hod Maden into discontinued operations. As a reminder, Çöpler and Hod Maden were included as discontinued operations in our financial reporting for the second quarter. The second quarter also included $120 million in cash tax payments.
This is consistent with our normal annual payment cycle under which approximately half of our full-year cash taxes are generally paid in the second quarter with the balance largely distributed evenly between the third and fourth quarters. Our strong cash position allowed us to continue returning meaningful capital to shareholders while preserving substantial strategic flexibility. During the quarter, we returned $338 million through the repurchase of 10.4 million shares and we announced the reinstatement of our quarterly dividend. Share repurchases continued into the third quarter as we execute against the $500 million buyback program approved in mid-June. As of July 31, we retained capacity to repurchase 8.6 million additional shares under our current normal course issuer bid which extends through March of next year. At current valuation levels, we continue to believe that repurchasing our shares represents an attractive and accretive use of capital.
During the quarter, we also received the cash proceeds from the Çöpler transaction and, as a result, we ended the quarter with nearly $1.8 billion in cash, even after the significant level of share repurchase completed during the period. Earlier today, we announced the completion of an amendment and extension of our revolving credit facility. This facility was increased from $400 million to $600 million with a renewed four-year term and included a 25-basis-point improvement in borrowing rates as compared to the prior facility. Overall, the second quarter demonstrated the strength of the business: solid operating execution, substantial free cash flow generation, disciplined investment in our assets, and significant capital returns to shareholders. With a strong balance sheet, a more focused portfolio, and several opportunities to enhance long-term asset value, we are well positioned for the remainder of the year and beyond. Now over to Bill on Slide 7 to talk about the operations.
Thanks, Michael. I will first start with HSS. Working with all of our stakeholders is foundational for our business. This is highlighted through one of SSR Mining's three core values, being better together. Today, I would like to share a methodology we have implemented to improve how we work with our host communities. At each of our operations, we have established community development committees. These committees have members from local communities, who participate in both the build and selection of which support and local business enabling projects are implemented. Through the committee members' contributions and efforts, we are improving the quality of both where and how we support our local communities. Now on to the operations. Starting with Marigold: in the second quarter, Marigold produced 31 thousand ounces, bringing year-to-date production to 69 thousand ounces, reflecting our original forecast for a strong H2-weighted profile in 2026.
We expect second-half production at Marigold will be approximately 65% weighted to the fourth quarter. Marigold remains on track for its full-year production guidance of 170 thousand to 200 thousand ounces. AISC in the second quarter reflected higher sustaining capital spend as previously guided. Sustaining CapEx will remain elevated in the third quarter due to the timing of spend on fleet replacements and upgrades. We have also increased our growth capital guidance at Marigold from $48 million to $65 million as we accelerate spend to facilitate longer-term growth initiatives at the site. We expect full-year AISC at the top end of guidance reflecting the increased sustaining capital as well as the impact of higher fuel prices on the unhedged portion of our diesel usage. As noted, we plan to have an updated technical report and life-of-mine plan for Marigold out later this year. This new life-of-mine plan has potential to demonstrate a meaningful extension against the 2024 TRS while incorporating the increased blending requirements noted earlier this year.
As previously guided, while this will result in changes to the annual production profile at Marigold, we continue to expect total ounces produced over the next five years to be comparable to the 2024 TRS and then include meaningful life extension thereafter. A lot of hard work has gone into this updated life-of-mine plan, and we look forward to updating the market later this year. Additionally, we have continued to advance exploration and analysis of numerous other targets across the broader Marigold property to support additional mine life extension and growth opportunities in the future. Marigold has been in operation for more than 38 years and we are confident there is a very long future still ahead for the operation. For CC&V: in the second quarter, CC&V produced 28 thousand ounces at an AISC of $1,995 per ounce, bringing first-half production to 66 thousand ounces and well on track for our full-year guidance of 125 thousand to 150 thousand ounces.
Second-half production is expected to be 50% to 55% weighted to the fourth quarter. AISC is trending towards the top end of the full-year range due to fuel costs and a modest increase in sustaining capital on equipment components and general site improvement initiatives. Growth capital has also been modestly increased as we accelerate the timing of spend on the expansion of VLF2. Overall, CC&V continues to perform very well against expectations and has clearly established itself as a cornerstone asset in our portfolio. The currently-in-progress Amendment 14 is advancing and we continue to expect final approvals before the end of 2027. Work to evaluate opportunities to improve the longer-term production profile, including the potential for future mineral reserve conversion, remains ongoing. For Seabee: Seabee produced nearly 17 thousand ounces in the second quarter at an AISC of $2,360 per ounce.
Year-to-date production is 23 thousand ounces as we focused on underground development in the first half of the year. For the full year, Seabee continues to track to the lower end of full-year guidance and we expect higher grades will drive the strongest production in the fourth quarter. Full-year AISC at Seabee is also expected at the top end of guidance. Our 2026 growth capital forecast has been increased from $15 million to $35 million as we advance the Porky West project in the second half of the year. Porky has the potential to extend the mine life at Seabee well into the next decade and we are also progressing near-mine drilling at Santoy as we seek to extend operations at the deposit. On to Puna: in the second quarter, Puna produced 1.7 million ounces of silver and an AISC of $29.52 per ounce. Over the first six months of the year, Puna has produced 3.4 million ounces. Second-half production at Puna is expected to be relatively evenly split between the third and fourth quarters while full-year AISC is trending to the higher end of guidance as a result of inflationary pressures in Argentina.
Our teams continue to evaluate the numerous pathways to grow Puna, including additional laybacks at Chinchillas, evaluation of the Molina open-pit target adjacent to Chinchillas, and continued advancement of the Cortaderas project. Regarding the growth pipeline: as I have noted through this call, all four of our operations have a clear growth trajectory with the potential to meaningfully extend current mine lives and sustain our current production profile for many years to come. We are in an enviable position on this front and, as noted, our significant liquidity position has enabled us to advance growth capital spend at each project to support timely delivery of each project's development. With respect to the rest of our organic growth portfolio, we are advancing early-stage opportunities across each of our core jurisdictions. This includes continued evaluation of the Amisk project in Saskatchewan where we are progressing internal economic studies to better understand the project's long-term potential.
Regional exploration is also continuing across the province. In the U.S., early-stage field programs are underway at multiple exploration targets in Nevada. In the second quarter, we also finalized a strategic investment in Phenom Resources on the Dobbin project in Nevada. Dobbin is a Carlin-style target with more than a two-kilometre-long gold-in-soil anomaly and limited historical exploration. The first drilling ever undertaken on the property commenced early in the third quarter. We currently own 9.9% of Phenom, and hold an option to earn a minority ownership in the property through $4 million in exploration spend. As you see, there is plenty underway across the portfolio, and we look forward to providing updates on these growth initiatives in due course. Now I will turn back to Rodney for closing remarks.
Great. Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Bill. The first six months have already delivered a transformational inflection point for SSR. We enter the second half in an excellent position where we expect strong production and free cash flow into the year end. Our capital allocation and returns approach has now been fully implemented through the investment in growth as well as returning capital to shareholders through both share buybacks and the reinstated dividend program. So with that, I am going to turn the call over to the operator for any questions you may have. Thanks everyone.
Questions and answers
Thank you, Mr. Antal. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. The first question comes from George Eadie with UBS. Please go ahead.
Yes. Good day, team. Thanks for the call. Maybe Bill and Rodney, starting at Marigold. If I go back to the original target, it was around 22 million tonnes stacked at 0.4 grams per tonne. You are at 9.3 and 0.7 grams per tonne now. Can you maybe help us with how many tonnes you need to stack in the second half or at least what grade to get to the lower end? Just to sort of better understand how that is trending?
Sure, George. We have resequenced some of our mining in the previous quarter, but we are still on track to reach our projection for the year and be at the lower end of guidance as suggested.
What is the lead time here? If you were to throw, just for simplicity, say 0.5 gram per tonne on the pads today, when would that be leached out the other side roughly?
Our leaching extends between 90 and 120 days, George, with most of it at that 90-day time frame.
Okay. So stuff you are throwing today is in that quarter. That is sort of helpful. Maybe just to change to CC&V as well, if I can quickly. In the 10-Q, there is a declaratory judgment there on discharge and the Carlton Tunnel permanent discharge. Can you maybe help me understand that and remind us what the story is for that?
Yeah, George, it's Michael. So with regards to the Carlton Tunnel, as you remind, when we did the agreement with Newmont, we worked out that we would put together the long-term mine closure plans and then there would be an economic sharing of those costs. That work is ongoing. It was already underway when we acquired the asset, and that continues on with the work being done with the regulators as well as the team at site. Amendment 14, as Bill talked about, which is the next phase of growth that takes us into the 2030s, is on track and we expect final approvals before the end of 2027, as he mentioned.
I was more referring to the comments on March 9 around the parent company with a federal court lawsuit on the water quality. Maybe remind what that is, Michael, or maybe I am just overreacting; I cannot remember what that is.
Sorry, George. I will dive in. More specifically, I think Michael gave you a good idea. There are multiple parts to the way this was structured with the deal with Newmont. With respect to that point specifically, it is really a Newmont-driven approach to the legal case with respect to the Carlton Tunnel discharge and the permits around the discharge and what has been required around it. As Michael mentioned, the important part is it was already in train and Newmont is controlling that piece of the previous permitting cycle that we are going through. The overall picture for us will not change in terms of liabilities for SSR in the future, whether that is successful or unsuccessful as we go on. It is something Newmont is controlling; we do not have carriage in that court case.
So in summary, from your perspective, this would not be a big issue or risk for SSR at all? It sounds like that is the case.
No. Ultimately, I think it will help define what the long-term requirements are for mine closure at Cripple Creek. So it is obviously important, but in terms of how the deal has been structured for us, we are protected.
Thanks, guys. I will pass it on.
The next question comes from Ovais Habib. Please go ahead.
Hi, Rodney, Michael, and Bill. Thanks for taking my question. I will start asking about Phenom Resources. Can you kindly share with us what kind of opportunities you are seeing over there? And should we expect this to be the kind of deal SSR Mining is involved in — taking a strategic investment approach rather than acquiring companies or assets completely?
Hi, Ovais. It is an interesting option for us. As we looked at the opportunity and we identified this through our team on the ground in Nevada, it is very early stage. The fact was that this piece of land was tied up in forestry land that was not available for exploration for a long time. It became available and Phenom were able to pick it up and start an exploration program. What we saw in some of the early stages was interesting enough for us to enter the way we did at both the corporate level and at the asset level itself. So it is still very early — drilling is really only getting underway. Phenom themselves will lead the continuous disclosure and updates as time goes on. Clearly, it is an opportunity for us to participate in something that we think is very interesting. To answer your question on strategic approaches, we look at everything from the types of earn-in structures that we have to asset acquisitions. Our process will not change. We have a track record of discipline. We take time to ensure anything that gets to market has gone through our disciplined approach to due diligence. We will look at things like Phenom and other opportunities the same way.
Thanks, Rodney. A follow-up: you mentioned earlier it was a good time to extend your revolving credit facility. Am I reading too much into it, or is there a potential big use? You already have $1.8 billion in cash. How should we think about the revolver increase?
We felt it was the right time to do it. Michael and the team worked with our syndicate of banks. Most importantly, the terms were favorable — it was not just the extension and increase from $400 million to $600 million, it was also the improved economics, including a lower borrowing rate. It was the normal course for us.
And one last question: coming back to guidance and the impact after your divestment of Çöpler — I saw your AISC got reduced compared to previous guidance. Is that the impact from Çöpler?
Yes, that is correct. It is the impact of not having the care and maintenance costs from the Çöpler asset included.
Perfect. Sounds good. Thanks again, Rodney, Michael, and Bill for taking my questions. I will pass it back.
The next question comes from Lawson Winder with Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.
Thanks very much, operator, and good evening Rodney and team and thank you for today's update. Also congratulations on closing the Türkiye divestments. If I could get your thoughts on capital allocation: on the buyback, is the roughly $70 million of repurchases in July a reasonable run rate for the balance of the year? Carrying that through to the end of the year, that would bring you close to the $500 million approval. Is the expectation that the $500 million will ultimately be used up by year end?
I am going to pass that one over to Michael, Lawson.
Lawson, good afternoon. We look at our capital allocation as a four-part view: number one is balance sheet resiliency, and we have shown a really strong position. We have a strong growth portfolio internally and want to ensure we can fund that because that is the best use of capital from an internal growth standpoint, and Bill outlined some of those key items. Disciplined M&A is another pillar, and finally share capital returns. Remember, we are operating under a normal course issuer bid in Canada which limits the number of shares we can repurchase during a year to 10% of the float. We still have about 8 million shares under that plan which goes through March. If you look at the approved $500 million from June, our expectation was to be consistent with the market where it makes sense for us. We do believe we are undervalued versus intrinsic value and will continue to buy back where appropriate through March when the NCIB is exhausted. Looking forward, we would have the opportunity to put another program in place if that is exhausted.
Understood. On sustaining CapEx guidance for 2026: official sustaining CapEx guidance is $202 million for the continuing North American assets. How would you recommend we model that? Is $202 million plus 3% to 5% a good range? Any specificity would be helpful.
I'll pass that one again to Michael.
Listen, Lawson, Bill mentioned a few items we are working on, including a few fleet purchases at Marigold and other locations. For the purposes of guidance, we are currently looking at an increase of roughly $25 to $35 million more than what we originally guided for sustaining capital. So that would put you somewhere in the $230 to $235 million range.
Okay. That is about a 15% increase. That is very helpful. Finally, with the working capital adjustment being a headwind this quarter and some of that relating to the Çöpler sale, could you give an indication of how you expect working capital to trend in Q3 and Q4, all else equal and assuming no material change in the gold price?
With Çöpler and Hod Maden now classified as discontinued operations, you should see things normalize into continuing operations the way they are now presented. We did have an inventory build which impacted our working capital in Q2, and as Bill mentioned, we would expect that to work off through the year in the normal leach cycle.
Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Good job.
The next question comes from Joshua (Josh) Wilson with RBC. Please go ahead.
Yes. Thank you very much. On the Marigold comments about the new mine plan, the company mentioned two factors: one was an extension of mine life, and the other was some impact from ore blending. I am wondering what the initial impressions will be from that blending impact if we should think about production growth in the near term or if it is going to be more stable? Any commentary would be helpful. Thank you.
Hi, Josh. I will take this one. We are still wrapping up the Marigold technical report, which we will publish before year-end, so I will be cautious because it has not been completed or published yet. What Bill mentioned is that when we look into the next five years with the blending requirements and the new mine plans, the production profile over that period is predominantly the same as what was in the last TRS. That is important. Looking further out, we see opportunity for mine life extension from Buffalo Valley, New Millennium, and DG80. We have been reoptimizing the mine plans, looking at stripping requirements and material movement, and that will all be reflected in the publication. So once we publish, we can be more specific, but the emphasis is on a longer life for Marigold rather than a short-term dramatic production increase.
On the cost structure side, you provided incremental details about sustaining capital, reagents, and energy. This year, there has been a big influence from energy hedges in place. How should we think about the cost structure going forward? Are there unit cost inflation numbers the company can provide to give a better impression of what the cost structure looks like without those hedges?
Josh, as you mentioned, the hedges go through the end of this year. We are looking at opportunities to renew the program depending on volatility and prices that make sense. For the rest of this year, the rough sensitivity is about $10 per ounce for every $10 per barrel increase in oil prices based on our current portfolio. In a scenario where price changes affected operations more broadly, for our US operations that represent about 70% of our portfolio, the impact could be in the $20 to $30 per ounce range for every $10 per barrel increase in oil beyond what we have used for guidance. For context, Seabee only has deliveries once a year via the ice road, and Argentina is a different regulated market where we see inflationary impacts lagging other regions. We are closely monitoring the impact on transportation and consumables and are not seeing a major impact beyond what we've discussed, but we would expect potential inflationary impacts in certain scenarios.
One last question: with the revolver increase, you talked about M&A being a focus. Does the additional flexibility provide anything beyond that? How should we be thinking about it given the high net cash position and the increased revolver?
Joshua, the revolver renewal was ordinary course. It was coming to maturity, and Michael's team extended the facility for a four-year term and improved the economics by reducing the interest rate. We also upsized it given our strong liquidity position. It is normal course and I would not read too much into it beyond that.
The next question comes from Ovais Habib with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Hi, Rodney and SSR team. Congrats on a good quarter and looking forward to a strong second half. A couple of my questions have already been answered, but starting with CC&V: in terms of the status of Amendment 14 for CC&V, you mentioned earlier that Newmont has started processes. Are those discussions progressing? Is this just an extension of the current mine life or something else?
Hi, Ovais. A couple of things: Amendment 14 is separate from the Carlton Tunnel legal matter that Newmont is handling. Amendment 14 is on track and we are moving along with the regulators. We took ownership of that part of the process when we acquired the asset and everything is moving according to plan. We expect approvals before the end of 2027. That amendment defines the current mine life in the last TRS for Cripple Creek and is important for enabling the expansion of future valley leach fields and supporting the longer-term production profile.
Thanks for that. On exploration focus: Marigold has Buffalo Valley, Millennium, Marigold North; is the exploration program currently focused at Marigold, or are there opportunities at CC&V, Seabee, and Puna as well?
It is a combination across the portfolio. This is the product of several years of work. Some of it has been step-out drilling, target definition, and infill drilling to support new studies like the Marigold technical report. Marigold will be the first to publish its report. Cripple Creek beyond Amendment 14 presents additional opportunities to extend mine life. We also have Porky at Seabee, and targets at Puna including pushbacks at Chinchillas, the Molina open-pit target, and Cortaderas. Each asset is at different stages of drilling and definition, and as results come in we will start to provide more tangible updates. We are excited about the portfolio now that we are focused on the Americas platform.
That is it for my questions. Thanks for taking them.
The next question comes from Don DeMarco with National Bank Financial. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and good morning/afternoon, Rodney and team. We have talked about the brownfield opportunities, which are well detailed on Slide 12. Which among these projects has the greatest potential to add reserves, production, or NAV over the next three to five years? Are any of these projects targeting production increases or are they primarily focused on mine life extension?
Don, the near-term priority is publishing the Marigold technical report which will bring Buffalo Valley, New Millennium, DG80, and other targets into clearer focus — Marigold is the most mature project. Cripple Creek is busy with Amendment 14, which we expect to complete by the end of next year and that underpins the current mine life. The other assets have targets that could add mine life extension. Much of this work will be focused on resequencing and optimizing to smooth production profiles rather than generating a step-change in production, although meaningful life extensions across assets would be a significant outcome over time.
Thanks. One more on costs: despite year-to-date production tracking to guidance, Q2 AISC exceeded annual guidance at Marigold, Seabee, and Puna. What gives you confidence in achieving consolidated AISC guidance through H2?
Don, part of it is timing. A large portion of our annual cash tax payments hit in Q2 which elevated AISC for the quarter. As working capital and tax timing normalize, and with the stronger production profile expected in H2, we believe we can achieve consolidated AISC guidance by year-end, though at the higher end of the guidance range.
Okay, great. Thanks again and thank you for taking my questions.
We have a follow-up question from George Eadie with UBS. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hi, team. Can I ask about July at Marigold — how it went? What was the average grade thrown on the pads and tonnes stacked? Was it nearly two million tonnes? Any color you can help with?
George, we do not disclose real-time operating metrics for each individual asset on the run. We would not be saying we are on track for the full year unless operations were moving according to plan.
Okay, that is cool. Thanks.
This concludes the question-and-answer session and today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating. Have a pleasant day.