St Barbara Limited

Notable vs. Peers

• Financials score of 10/10 is stronger than the peer average of 6.4/10.
• Jurisdiction risk score of 5/10 is meaningfully riskier than the peer average of 7.8/10.
• All-in sustaining cost of $2,772/oz is 42% higher than the peer producer average of $1,946/oz.

Lifecycle Milestones

1. Permit granted

   Dec 1996 · Mining Lease ML136, covering 2,560ha on eastern Simberi Island, was granted in December 1996 to Simberi Gold Company Ltd, a subsidiary of Nord Pacific Limited -- Nord Pacific submitted its Proposal for Development and Mining Lease application on 9 September 1996, and the grant followed the same year (a secondary summary of an AusIMM conference paper, 'Simberi Oxide Gold Project - Licensing Approvals', places a signing ceremony on Simberi Island specifically on 3 December 1996, but this could not be independently verified against the primary AusIMM document, which returned a server error on this pass -- recorded to month precision only, per the YYYY-MM-01 convention). ML136 was extended in May 2007 for a further 10 years (December 2008-December 2018) and has since been extended again to 2038 under St Barbara. This corrects the placeholder's framing: the permit was granted a full 16 years before St Barbara acquired Simberi's operatorship (via its September 2012 acquisition of Allied Gold Mining Plc) -- St Barbara did not exist as Simberi's operator when the permit was granted, but the asset and its permit are the same continuous mining lease St Barbara holds and has since extended, not a different asset with a different history. · Source
2. Construction decision (FID)

   Reached — date not disclosed · Predates the scope of this research pass; no specific construction-decision date confirmed against a primary source. · Source
3. Construction start

   Reached — date not disclosed · Predates the scope of this research pass; no specific construction-start date confirmed against a primary source. · Source
4. First pour / production

   Feb 2008 · Simberi's first gold was poured in February 2008 under then-owner Allied Gold Mining Plc (successor to Nord Pacific's Simberi Gold Company subsidiary) -- commissioning of the oxide processing plant began December 2007, with the first gold pour in February 2008 and 33,068oz produced for the balance of FY2008 (versus nil in FY2007), per Allied Gold's own FY2008 reporting and independently corroborated by mining-technology.com's Simberi project profile. This predates St Barbara's operatorship by more than four years: St Barbara acquired Allied Gold Mining Plc (and Simberi with it) in September 2012. Recorded to month precision -- no source found this pass gives the exact day of the February 2008 pour. Per the Task #429 precedent, the gate concerns the asset's disclosed production timeline, not whether the current operator personally built the mine: Simberi is the same continuously-producing mine under a direct ownership chain (Nord Pacific -> Allied Gold Mining -> St Barbara), not a different asset. Corrects a placeholder note that asserted, without having checked it, that no meaningful first-production date existed for a 'long succession of owners'. · Source
5. Commercial production

   Reached — date not disclosed · Genuinely reached, but no single company-wide commercial-production date exists across two current operations with different histories: Simberi (New Ireland Province, PNG; commercial production commenced 2008 under prior owner Allied Gold, acquired via St Barbara's 2012 merger with Allied Gold) and the Atlantic Operations/Touquoy open-pit mine (Nova Scotia, Canada). St Barbara divested its historic Leonora district assets (including the Gwalia mine, WA) to Genesis Minerals in a deal completed 2023, and sold a 40% stake in the New Simberi expansion project to Lingbao Gold Group for A$389M in April 2026 (retaining majority interest) -- a leaner but still two-country, two-asset portfolio with no single clean date. This row was missing entirely prior to 2026-08-21 -- a genuine data gap, not a stage error; Miner.stage was already correctly PRODUCTION. · 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 0.46x sits in the 6th percentile among 36 production-stage gold peers -- and its jurisdiction score of 5/10 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.