Ariana Resources plc

Notable vs. Peers

• Jurisdiction risk score of 4/10 is meaningfully riskier than the peer average of 7.8/10.

Lifecycle Milestones

1. Permit granted

   Reached — date not disclosed · Forestry-land-access permits and "Strategic Investment" status for the Kiziltepe Gold Mine were confirmed by June 8, 2015 (a land-access permit application submitted April 2014 was still pending as of a March 30, 2015 update). Exact day of the underlying permit grant not disclosed; best approximate is mid-2015, ahead of the September 2015 construction start below. · Source
2. Construction decision (FID)

   Reached — date not disclosed · No discrete FID/board-approval release was found; the closest equivalent is Ariana's Definitive Feasibility Study for Kiziltepe (~21,000 oz/yr Au-eq, 8-year mine life, US$31.1m initial capex), publicly released and described by the company as a "watershed" study in June 2013. Exact day not independently re-confirmed (source access restricted). · Source
3. Construction start

   Sep 2015 · Ariana announced mine construction had commenced at the Kiziltepe Sector -- forestry-land clearing underway, mining contractor assigned, site works expected to start October 2015. · Source
4. First pour / production

   Reached — date not disclosed · Kiziltepe delivered its first gold-silver pour in March 2017 (exact day not disclosed), per Ariana's own half-year report; pilot/commissioning production through end-June 2017 totaled 1,929 oz Au / 14,519 oz Ag. Commercial production was declared separately in July 2017. Construction had originally targeted completion by mid-December 2016 per a Nov 29, 2016 construction update, pending TSF approval and an Operations Permit. · Source
5. Commercial production

   Reached — date not disclosed · Genuinely reached, but note the geography: Ariana Resources' only producing assets are in Turkiye, not Zimbabwe. Its Kiziltepe mine (via the Zenit Madencilik JV) began commercial production in July 2017 (month-level precision only, no exact day disclosed, so achievedDate is left null); its newer Tavsan mine completed ramp-up in July 2026, while Ariana is simultaneously divesting its remaining Kiziltepe legal interest to Proccea Construction. The Zimbabwe asset (Dokwe Gold Project, this Miner record's country field) is a feasibility/development-stage project and is explicitly NOT in production -- Miner.country appears to be a separate, pre-existing data-quality issue (should likely read Turkiye for this company's actual production geography) flagged for follow-up, not corrected in this milestone-only fix. This row was missing entirely prior to 2026-08-21 -- a genuine data gap, not a stage error; Miner.stage was already correctly PRODUCTION. [Task #568 addendum, 2026-08-24 -- original note above preserved verbatim, nothing removed] Two statements in the note above are now superseded. (1) 'Miner.stage was already correctly PRODUCTION' -- stage was moved to PFS by Task #568 after review. Ariana's Turkish position is a 9.9% EQUITY SHAREHOLDING in Zenit Madencilik, not a participating interest in the Tavsan mine, and Ariana's own RNS confirms Tavsan profits 'are retained within Zenit going forward' -- no attributable production, revenue or dividend reaches Ariana, so it does not clear the Task #516 PRODUCTION standard. Stage now anchors to Dokwe's 26 May 2026 revised PFS. (2) The suggestion that Miner.country 'should likely read Turkiye' was considered and DECLINED -- country=Zimbabwe is correct and was re-confirmed with its own citation; see MetricSource(country). THIS MILESTONE ROW ITSELF REMAINS VALID AND IS DELIBERATELY RETAINED: Kiziltepe's July 2017 commercial production and Tavsan's July 2026 ramp-up are real, correctly-sourced historical events. They simply no longer gate Miner.stage. · Source

Milestones are recorded only from a company's own dated disclosure. A milestone with no date shown is one we can confirm was reached but for which no date was disclosed — we don't estimate one. "Not yet reached" means exactly that, not that a date is missing. An "Expected" line likewise only ever reflects the company's own guidance (e.g. a study or permit decision targeted for a stated quarter) — most not-yet-reached milestones have none, and that absence means no such guidance has been disclosed, not that one is overdue.

A relative ranking of how closely this company matches the profile of juniors that have actually been acquired — not a probability, and not a reason to buy. Acquisitions are rare: only a few dozen significant deals happen a year across a universe of thousands of juniors, so even a high score here describes a long shot. The strongest signal the underlying research identifies — whether a major already holds a JV, earn-in, or 5–19.9% strategic stake — isn't tracked yet and is absent from this score.

P/NAV of 0.09x sits in the 0th percentile among 23 pfs-stage gold peers -- and its jurisdiction score of 4/10 is low enough to plausibly explain much of that discount: a known, identifiable risk the market may be pricing correctly today. This is the headline Risk/Reward Asymmetry pattern this screen looks for -- a real, specific risk (e.g. a permitting dispute or comparable jurisdiction issue) that, if it resolves favorably, could re-rate the stock sharply. A mechanical screen only: this does not by itself confirm there IS a resolvable catalyst, or that it resolves favorably -- see this company's own profile page for any completed, cited research (Task #530) into that real "why," where one exists yet.

A relative screen, not a probability and not a reason to buy. This flags companies trading unusually cheap vs. peers of the same lifecycle stage and commodity, for a real, identifiable reason (a jurisdiction risk, a specific dispute, an incident, a financing gap) that may or may not ever resolve favorably. "Unexplained" candidates carry no identified driver at all -- a more speculative bucket than a named catalyst.