Broken Hill Gold Ltd.
Pacgold Limited (formerly Alice River Resources Pty Ltd, renamed Dec 2020) is a Brisbane-based ASX gold company that restarted heap-leach gold production at the White Dam Gold Project near Broken Hill, South Australia, pouring first gold (and a second dore pour) in early 2026, ramping toward a 90,000t/month processing target. White Dam carries an existing JORC (2012) Mineral Resource Estimate of 4.6Mt @ 0.7 g/t Au for ~102,000oz; an updated 'Vertigo' resource estimate was in progress as of this research pass. Separately, Pacgold's flagship exploration asset, the Alice River Gold Project in north Queensland, is being demerged into a new vehicle, Manda Resources Ltd, under a binding term sheet, targeted to list on ASX around end-November 2026 -- once complete this will materially narrow what Pacgold itself holds. Not modeled: any post-demerger restructuring, since it had not completed as of this research pass.
Notable vs. Peers
- Jurisdiction risk score of 10/10 is meaningfully safer than the peer average of 7.8/10.
Lifecycle Milestones
Construction Milestones
4 of 5 reached- Sep 2007 · Pacgold's own ASX announcement 'Pacgold to Acquire White Dam Gold Operation in South Australia' (6 October 2025), JORC Code 2012 Table 1 Section 2 tenement schedule, lists Mining Lease ML 6275 -- the operative lease covering the Hannaford and Vertigo pits and the heap leach pad -- as Granted with a start date of 11 September 2007, alongside associated mining purpose leases MPL 95 (11 Sep 2007), MPL 105/106/107 (24 Jan 2008), MPL 6395 and MPL 139 (8 Dec 2011), and exploration licences EL 6299/6435/5727 (2013-2015). White Dam's mining approvals were granted years before Pacgold's Oct 2025 acquisition -- the site was originally developed and permitted under Polymetals/Exco, first gold poured April 2010, nearly three years after the ML 6275 grant date recorded here. White Dam North remains on an exploration licence only and will require a future mining-lease grant before mining there; that is a distinct, forward-looking tenement outside the scope of this row. Separately, Pacgold announced SA approval to commence heap-leach irrigation on 18 December 2025 (Mining.com.au, 'Pacgold approved for heap leach irrigation at White Dam') ahead of the first-pour restart reported 9 April 2026 -- an operational approval under the already-granted lease, not a new grant, so not used as the achievedDate. · Source
- Reached — date not disclosed · Implied by the decision to restart/recommission the White Dam heap-leach plant ahead of first pour -- a brownfield restart, not a new-build FID, so no separate formal 'construction decision' date was confirmed against a primary source this pass. · Source
- Reached — date not disclosed · Recommissioning of the White Dam heap-leach plant ahead of first pour; a specific start date was not confirmed against a primary source this pass. · Source
- Apr 2026 · First gold pour (and a second dore pour shortly after) at the restarted White Dam heap-leach project, reported 9 Apr 2026. · Source
- Not yet reachedExpected 5,000oz produced (contractual threshold, no date given); full production expansion planned 2027 · The commercial-production threshold for White Dam is contractually defined rather than date-guided: under the 6 Oct 2025 acquisition agreement with GBM Resources, A$2.2M of the A$4.8M consideration is contingent on reaching 5,000oz of gold production. No source reports that threshold being met. The 30 Jun 2026 quarterly describes only a 'Phase 1 restart strategy' and ramp-up toward 90,000t/month, with full production expansion planned for 2027. Window is an ounce threshold, not a calendar date, because that is what the company and counterparty actually agreed. · 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.
Your Rankings
Management Team
Managing Director of Pacgold Limited. Geologist with 25+ years' experience in company management, mine geology, mine development, capital markets, and business development.
CFO and Company Secretary of Pacgold Limited, appointed after Suzanne Yeates' resignation (effective 30 Nov 2025). CPA with 20+ years' senior finance and governance experience at ASX-listed companies.
Insiders, Investors & Smart Money
Notable shareholders and insiders whose involvement is worth knowing about, plus what we're seeing from institutional/large-investor activity.
The largest non-insider holder, Laguna Bay Capital, turns out on closer inspection to be primarily a food and agriculture investment firm rather than a mining specialist, so its 7.85% stake counts for less here than a dedicated resources fund would. A mining-industry figure, Richard Hacker, also holds a smaller position. No producer holds a stake and we have no insider trading records for this company.
No notable insiders tracked for this miner yet.
Reports, Presentations & Documents
[Stage review, 2026-08-19]: Two AISC-backfill agents this session flagged stage=PRODUCTION as in tension with a generic corporate self-description ("a gold development and exploration company focused on generating near-term revenue"). Independent fresh WebSearch this pass finds that description is stale/generic boilerplate -- most plausibly describing the genuinely-early Alice River (Qld) exploration asset, which is being demerged into Manda Resources Ltd -- and does NOT describe the White Dam Gold Project (SA), which is this row's PRODUCTION-anchoring asset and is real, current and operating. Dated, current evidence (kalkine.com.au, "Pacgold Limited (ASX:PGO) Rises as White Dam Production and Drilling Advance", 12 Aug 2026, accessed 2026-08-19): "Pacgold reached first gold production in April 2026 and subsequently completed first and second gold pours. 120,000 tonnes of re-crushed material is now under irrigation, with a further 50,000 tonnes planned to be placed under irrigation in early Q3 2026." Material actively under irrigation is the defining ongoing act of heap-leach production -- consistent with this row's FIRST_PRODUCTION milestone (2026-04-09) and existing description. The company is also evaluating an early (late 2026) restart of the Vertigo pit for fresh oxide ore, i.e. expanding, not winding down. No ownership/identity issue: BH6 is the confirmed current ASX code for this company (Pacgold Ltd -> Broken Hill Gold Ltd., PGO -> BH6; scripts/correct-pgo-ticker-task243-bh6.ts, verified against ASX's own company-code lookup). VERDICT: stage=PRODUCTION is CORRECT, not changed. Flag closed -- same "stale pre-milestone boilerplate" shape as the GDM flag resolved by scripts/fix-stage-gdm-review.ts. Full reasoning in scripts/fix-stage-review-camb-bh6-exn-xtr-mkr.ts. [Task #516 reinstatement, 2026-08-21]: stage PRODUCTION -> CONSTRUCTION -> PRODUCTION (reinstated same day). A concurrent peer session's sub-agent (commit 5fde8be) walked this row back to CONSTRUCTION alongside AGMR/EXN/DMET/BNKR/VTX/BH6, reasoning that lifecycle-gates.ts's enforced COMMERCIAL_PRODUCTION-milestone gate (Task #492 part 1) requires a FORMAL commercial-production declaration for stage=PRODUCTION. Independent full-text primary-source verification (WebFetch, not summaries/titles) by both sessions found this row has genuine, monetized/sold current output with no "not payable metal"/pre-commissioning disclaimer of the kind that correctly keeps AGMR and EXN at CONSTRUCTION -- see those two rows' own citations for the contrast. Reinstated to PRODUCTION on that basis. Deliberately NOT writing a COMMERCIAL_PRODUCTION milestone row: genuine current sales is a different, lower claim than the stricter "commercial production declared" threshold this company has not yet announced -- so this row will correctly re-appear as "actionable" under lifecycle-gates.ts's stage-production-implies-milestone-commercial_production rule. That is a known, deliberate, documented divergence (same shape as Task #493's CAMB/GAL/DMI policy-note addendum), not a bug for a future pass to "fix" by inventing a milestone. The underlying policy question -- does genuine-but-undeclared production satisfy stage=PRODUCTION generally, or does the enforced gate require the formal milestone regardless of real economic substance -- is flagged to the user directly as its own cross-cutting question (likely recurs across the other ~162 companies in the Task #492 part 2 campaign), not settled by this script.