>>23075025
Of course AISC has to be considered (it's not as if sustaining capital spend doesn't exist) but you can get a much better view of the company's corporate costs per ounce when you strip out the sustaining capital, D&A and royalties. Sustaining capital is variable on a quarterly and annual basis, over the course of the mine life it smooths out to an average but when we're looking at annual numbers it can skew things. In addition legacy mines often get less sustaining capital spend which skews them into looking better when compared to better mines that companies are eager to spend more money on developing. D&A is a non-cash expense. Royalties are dependent on the gold price so obviously AISC will look high now compared to a year or two ago.

If you refer back to my post >>23073256 you can see that the corporate costs without those non-core mines will actually be better when you strip out the variables and non-cash items out of the equation. It's all visible in the 10-K. Sure revenue is affected negatively by virtue of gold production coming down, that much is obvious. But margins are actually improving.

also I haven't really measured it but I'm pretty sure I have like 150iq