Earnings call transcript: Mineral Resources Q3 2025 sees strong lithium output

Mineral Resources Ltd (MIN) reported its Q3 2025 earnings, highlighting strong liquidity, robust lithium production, and ongoing operational improvements. The company’s stock rose by 5.45% following the earnings call, closing at $18.18. With a market capitalization of $304.41 million and a P/E ratio of 11.08, the company trades at an attractive valuation according to InvestingPro metrics. This increase reflects investor confidence in the company’s future prospects, particularly in its lithium and iron ore operations.

Key Takeaways

• Mineral Resources maintains strong liquidity with $1.25 billion and an undrawn credit facility.
• Lithium production increased significantly, with a 21% rise at Marion and 17% at Wodgina.
• The Onslow Iron project is progressing well, with a significant increase in shipments expected.
• The company anticipates moving into a free cash flow positive state next year.

Company Performance

Mineral Resources demonstrated solid performance in Q3 2025, driven by increased lithium production and strategic operational improvements. The company reported a strong balance sheet with a net debt of $5.4 billion and a fully undrawn $800 million revolving credit facility. The Onslow Iron project continues to advance, with expectations of reaching 35 million tonnes in annual production.

Financial Highlights

• Liquidity: $1.25 billion
• Net Debt: $5.4 billion
• CapEx: $360 million, primarily for the Onslow project
• Lithium Production: 133,000 tonnes total, with Marion at 70,000 tonnes and Wodgina at 63,000 tonnes
• Iron Ore Production: 6 million tonnes attributable

Outlook & Guidance

Mineral Resources remains optimistic about its future, maintaining its mining services EBITDA guidance of $2.1-$2.2 per tonne. The company expects to become free cash flow positive next year, with potential deleveraging as the Onslow project ramps up. Additionally, the company aims to reduce its net debt to EBITDA ratio, reflecting a strategic focus on financial health and operational efficiency.

Executive Commentary

Mark Wilson, CFO, expressed confidence in the company’s trajectory, stating, "We expect to see the business move into a free cash flow positive state next year." He also noted the progress at Onslow, saying, "The Onslow project is falling into place well." These comments underscore the company’s positive outlook and strategic focus.

Risks and Challenges

• Potential port charges and ongoing legal processes could impact operations.
• Market volatility in lithium and iron ore prices may affect revenue.
• The need for governance improvements, including a new Chair, presents potential leadership challenges.
• Supply chain disruptions could impact project timelines and costs.

Mineral Resources’ Q3 2025 performance highlights its strong position in the market, with significant improvements in lithium production and strategic operational advancements. The company’s focus on financial health and operational efficiency positions it well for future growth. For deeper insights into MIN’s financial health and growth prospects, including 12 additional ProTips and comprehensive valuation metrics, explore the detailed analysis available on InvestingPro.

Full transcript - Mineral Resources Ltd (MIN) Q3 2025:

Josh, Call Moderator: Today’s call will begin shortly. Participants can ask both text and live audio questions during the call. To ask a text question, select the messaging icon. Type your question in the box towards the top of the screen and press the send button. To ask a live audio question, press the request to speak button at the top of the broadcast window.

The broadcast will be replaced by the audio question screen. Use the dial in number and access pin provided to ask your question via the phone. Alternatively, for those on a home or personal network, you can ask your question via the web by pressing join queue. If prompted, select allow in the pop up to grant access to your microphone. If you have any issues using the platform, dial in details can also be found on the home page under asking audio questions.

Text questions can be submitted at any time, and the audio queue is now open. Thank you for standing by, and welcome to Mineral Resources Analyst Call covering today’s release of its March 2025 Exploration and Mining Activity Report. Your speakers today are Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer and Chris Chong, General Manager, Investor Relations. A bit of admin before we kick off. This is a sell side call with analysts able to ask both text and live audio questions.

To ask a text question, select the messaging icon, type your question in the box towards the top of the screen, and then press the send button. To ask a live audio question, press the request to speak button at the top of the broadcast window. The broadcast will be replaced by the audio question screen. Use the dial in number and access PIN provided to ask your question via the phone. Alternatively, for those on a home or personal network, you can ask your question via the web by pressing join queue.

If prompted, select allow in the pop up to grant access to your microphone. If you have any issues using the platform, dial in details can be found on the homepage under asking audio questions. Text questions can be submitted at any time and the audio queue is now open. This call is being recorded with a written transcript being uploaded to the Minres website later today. I will now hand over to the Minres team.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Thank you, Josh, and good morning, everyone. It’s Mark Wilson, CFO here. Welcome to our March. I have also with me Chris Chong from Investor Relations. I’ll run through a few highlights first and then I’ll be happy to take questions at the end.

I know it’s a busy morning for everyone. I’d like to keep the call to an hour max so that you can move to your other calls. And I’m also very conscious that we’ve given you a lot of additional data this quarter to help you understand where the business is at. So we’ll try and sip you through that as well. Just starting with my opening comments, starting with governance.

Regarding the Board, I can confirm that the Chair selection process is well advanced with the support of Korn Ferry. As you would expect, the shortlist of candidates has conducted extensive due diligence. We look forward to making an announcement before the end of the financial year as we’ve previously foreshadowed. In terms of the recent Board resignations, you’ll appreciate I’m not in a position to make any additional comments. What I can do is point you to the governance update that was released on thirteen February a few months ago.

And I’ll note, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no new matters identified since that update. I’ll also note that other directors have attended the EGC meetings from time to time and I’m told the EGC will continue to have a role going forward. Finally, work on strengthening processes, policies and controls continues with dedicated resources inside the business. Now, I’ll move on to highlighting a few points from the quarterly, starting with liquidity and the balance sheet. Liquidity remains strong.

We had $1,250,000,000 of liquidity available at March 31, including a fully undrawn $800,000,000 revolving credit facility. Onslow Iron continues to be cash flow positive. The carry loan at Onslow Iron, which to remind you is a receivable from our JV partners for funding them into the project, is now being repaid and sits at just below $800,000,000 As of thirty one March, our net debt totaled $5,400,000,000 CapEx was around $360,000,000 predominantly Onslow, and CapEx in the fourth quarter is expected to be a similar amount consistent with guidance overall. There was a working capital outflow in the first sorry, in the quarter reporting on of about 50,000,000 And whilst it’s a bit difficult to estimate the movement in volumes that we’re expecting, we expect a similar movement in Q4. In terms of our bonds, they’re trading below a bit below par, reflective of a broader decline in the bond and credit markets.

I’ll just remind people that the interest rate on those bonds is fixed, and so there’s no impact on our serviceability or our interest expense. Bondholders remain fully supportive of the Minres credit and remain comfortable with our ability to refinance the group’s debt maturities. The only variable the only thing that has changed is the coupon that we might be exposed to in a refi. In early February, it was probably around 8%. If we were to try to refi today, it would be closer to 10% to 11%.

But I want to emphasize, we’ve got two years before the first bond maturity falls due, and that gives us a lot of flexibility. As we said before, as the Onslow project ramps up, our EBITDA will continue to increase, and our net debt to EBITDA will naturally decline. We have spoken at length previously about the levers that sit within the business if we need to pull the deleveraging. We have a $10 plus billion balance sheet with various assets that we can monetize if we need to. In terms of safety, TRIFR at 3.67, that increase is primarily due to the construction at Onslow.

And as we see construction wind down, we expect that number will improve. In terms of guidance for lithium, Marion, we’ve had strong volumes as you will note through the quarter. And so we’re increasing our volume guidance to 185,000 to 200,000 tonnes, our C6 equivalent and we’re maintaining cost guidance. We’re also maintaining watching our volume and cost guidance. Wonslow following the stoppage of haulage in March, we’re now forecasting marginally lower volumes, 8.5 to 8.7, about attributable share, down from 8.8 to 9.3 previously.

And we’re maintaining our FOB guidance between $60 and $70 a tonne. Mining services volume is expected to be towards the bottom end of the guidance range. Just as I think the market understands volumes will increase as some flow of mine ramps up. We are providing guidance in terms of the EBITDA for mining services for FY ’twenty five per production volume tonne. We expect that to sit between $2.1 2 point 2 0 dollars per tonne.

In terms of mining services production in the quarter, volumes were at $62,000,000 and they fell slightly due to Yulgan and Bald Hill going into care and maintenance, but we also had some external volume growth that offset partially offset those projects going into care and maintenance. In terms of iron ore, total attributable production was 6,000,000 tonnes, shipments in line with that. In terms of average realized price for the quarter across the operations was US89 dollars representing an 86% realization. In terms of Wonslow, I’d describe it as a mixed quarter. We had a fourth tranche shipper started in March with 19 vessels loaded through the quarter and 3,600,000 tonnes shipped.

As we’ve previously announced, the rear two trailers of a road train tipped on their side on the whole road on the March 17, and we paused operations there for five days with haulage resuming upon consultation with the regulator with speed restrictions in place. As the haul road is upgraded, the average speeds resume back to plan. Mining activities at Cairnsbor as a result of shift to development and production reduced to 3,400,000 tonnes in mine with haulage. The main constraint at Onslow currently is haulage due to the upgrade works being undertaken on the haul road as previously discussed. That upgrade program remains scheduled for completion next quarter.

To date, we’ve upgraded in Nashville to 43 kilometers of the road. Once fully upgraded, the haul road capacity will be significantly higher than 35,000,000 tonnes as we can add more trucks. That’s a question that comes to us from time to time. The constraint of the road is actually limited by truck loadout and road train unloading capacity of over 60,000,000 tonnes. April shipping, giving you a sense of that, we expect it to be between one point three million and one point four million tonnes tied to the haulage.

We are forecasting a significant increase in haulage by road trains through May and June up to 2,700,000 to 2,900,000 tonnes per month. We’ve given you the numbers in the quarterly to support that, significantly increased haulage fleet up to 84 jumbo road train sets and moving contractor trucks that can travel down the highway up to 85 to 100 to support those numbers. And we’ve also given for the first time the average cycle times per day for each of those sets. In terms of the fifth and final trans shipper, which we need to be able to deliver 35,000,000 tonnes, That’s scheduled to arrive at Onslow Early May, and then we’ll move through a period of wet commissioning, and we expect that to be operating early June. In terms of the Pilbara hub itself, we shipped a total of 2,300,000 tonnes, which is another solid quarter.

In terms of lithium, we had a good operational quarter through for that business. Total spot production across Marion and Wodgina, One Hundred And Thirty Three Thousand geometric tonnes with shipments of 127,000 tonnes. The average realized price achieved across both Wodgina and Marion, this is an SC6 equivalent number, is US844 dollars At Marion, production was strong at 70,000 tonnes, up 21%. We had higher quality feed from the current pit and we had stronger recoveries. And as a result, we’ve increased, as I said earlier, volume guidance for the year to 185,000 to 200,000 tonnes, up 20% from the previous midpoint.

We’ve been saying for a while that the costs will come down across our lithium operations. The March has shown that Fobbe at Marion, we saw cost reduction measures flowing through with costs on an SE6 basis at $7.00 $8 a tonne, and we’re maintaining guidance, as I said earlier. In terms of Wodgina production, 63,000, up 17% quarter on quarter. Again, significant increase in recoveries from plant improvements and the delivery of more fresh ore. And again, that in turn drove FOB costs down.

FOB at Wodgina was $775 a tonne on an SE6 equivalent basis. And again, as I said earlier, we’re maintaining guidance for the full year. Finally, in terms of energy, we finished the drilling at Moriari Deep and Lockia 6 during the quarter. We’re continuing with the analysis of the results of that drill work and working with the Hancock team on that. And the first well for the Mimiras Hancock joint venture, Dandarrigan Deep one, commenced drilling in March, and we’ll have a better understanding of where that’s coming in over the next month or so.

I’ll end my opening comments there, and I’ll now hand back to Josh to queue for questions. Thank you.

Josh, Call Moderator: Thank you, Mark. If you’ve not yet submitted your text question or joined the live audio queue, please do so now. Our first question today comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Paul, please go ahead after the beep.

Paul Young, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Morning. Thanks. Morning, Mark and Chris. Hope you’re both well. Mark, first question is on the balance sheet, just sort cash moves.

So first of all, for providing the additional detail in the result, which is helpful. A question on the covenant testing of the revolver, which I see the $800,000,000 revolver. I know you pointed out here that you think that you will comply with the maintenance covenants at the June. Can you just step through that covenant? So is it a typical EBITDA to net debt net interest, sorry, covenant?

And how do we adjust the EBITDA? Is it just based on group EBITDA?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yes. Good morning, Paul. Thanks for the question. Yes, we have given a little bit more flavor across a number of points in the report this time around. In terms of the covenants, whilst confidential, I won’t give you the full details.

You should assume that they’re a typical covenant package for a facility like this. The main focus is an ICR type covenant, which is EBITDA over interest and the EBITDA trade is underlying.

Paul Young, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Okay. Thanks, Mark. I might come back and talk through the mechanics of all that certainly adjusting for interest expense, etcetera. The second question is on just broadly the balance sheet in general. I know you’ve pointed out that an equity raise is not in a consideration.

So I’m just curious around how you think about still the downside case scenarios and potentially a plan B and pulling levers as you’ve always mentioned and with respect specifically to asset sales. And do you have any sort of active sort of testing of the market on any asset sales at the moment? And if you do, how do you actually order those options? How do you think about actually ordering levers and or asset sales in priority?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: It’s I mean, there’s about six questions in that, Paul, but I’ll do my best to remember them, and I’m sure you’ll pull me up if I forget any. If I the way I think about it is this. There’s a cost associated with every choice, right? I mean, raise, as we keep being encouraged to do so by aspects of the market, that, in my mind, has a huge cost at today’s price, a huge impact on shareholders who don’t participate. So I think of that as an extreme high cost alternative.

At the other extreme, I’ve got precedent transactions for the road at over a billion for half of it that I know I could transact on if I if I needed to. Again, I’m not saying it’s a priority or a preference, but I’m giving an example. We’ve talked previously about opportunity to do something with the carry loan, which is sitting at 800,000,000. So there’s a lot of capital tied up in those two assets alone. We get inbound queries from time to time on other assets within the portfolio.

That’s no surprise. We had that with the gas assets over six months ago, and we moved to TransAct as a result of that level of inquiry. Basically, we sit down, we weigh up all the options, we look at the portfolio. And what I would say, Paul, is that the assets that I’m describing are not assets that will take six months or twelve months to transact on if we need to do that. So we can move quickly if we need to.

In terms of the way we think about downside scenarios and so on, You know, I’m I’m probably jumping ahead of a few questions at some point, but and I think I’ve said this previously. But and I look. I should I I should actually acknowledge the world’s obviously a a bit of a different place than it was three months ago in terms of the external environment. There’s a little bit more uncertainty. We’re still seeing reasonable demand through the iron ore markets.

We’ve said previously, we see somewhat of a floor around 90 there. We do test our portfolio with prices below that. Prices would have to stay below that for a while before we’d need to start to move on any of the other opportunities. So I think I’ve tried to address the various questions in your list. But if there’s anything else, I’m sure you’ll come back.

Josh, Call Moderator: Thanks. Our next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS. Lachlan, please go ahead after the beep.

Lachlan Shaw, Analyst, UBS: Yes. Everyone. Thanks for your time. Just to start on the governance piece and I’ll come back with an operational question. So just interested in your comments around in the release around the replacement program for the Chair is on track by the June.

Can you give us a little more color perhaps on perspectives on priorities and timelines around the potentially replacing Board talent given recent resignations, addressing the vacancies in the Ethics and Governance Committee. And then, I guess, in respect of the Board response to last year to beginning the potential succession process for Mr. Ellison?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yes. Good morning, Lachlan. Nice to talk. In terms of the Chair process, what I would say is that that process has been running for a number of months. As I said, we’ve been working with Korn Ferry on it.

As you would expect, it’s identified number of very strong candidates for the role. It’s also identified a number of directors who, whilst they are extremely interested in the opportunity, felt that they wouldn’t have the bandwidth to be able to commit to the Chair role as it will as it would entail, that Min Reyes, over the next twelve to eighteen months for time reasons. So what I’m saying, therefore, is that we actually have identified other names through that process. As it was, our constitution limited the board to a board of nine directors, which is where we were at prior to the recent changes. So in fact, the changes have given us or afforded us an opportunity under the constitution to be able to move more quickly than we would have been otherwise able to do.

So I guess what I’m saying is I think we’ve got some flexibility in that process. And we’re expecting, as I said, to have that new appointment made over the next few months, next six weeks or so. In terms of the AGC and so on, in my comments, noted that a number of the existing remaining directors participated, attended at those meetings from time to time. The Board’s meeting shortly to consider the composition of the various committees. Some of those changes will be interim until the new Chair is appointed.

In terms of succession around Chris and so on, the position there is no different to where it’s been for the last few months. He’s fully committed to doing what he can to drive shareholder value, and he will, he himself has said, work with the board on that process in due course. In terms of I think that covers off your first question, Lachlan.

Lachlan Shaw, Analyst, UBS: Yes, Mark, look, that’s great color. Thank you so much. Second question is operational in respect of lithium. So quite an impressive cost outperformance in terms of where you’ve got those assets to. Can you talk to the expectation going forward in terms of how long you can sustain at these sort of cost levels?

I mean, there any point in the next year or two where you need to sort of come back and increase stripping or some other sort of set of factors that might sort of dictate those costs need to lift again? Or is that sort of the new benchmark to sort of take forward? Yes.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Thanks for the observation. And it’s been a while since we’ve had as good a performance out of lithium for the quarter as the one we’ve just had. And I think it’s demonstrated the potential of these assets. I know it’s been a while coming. I know we’ve had some misses along the way.

In particular, with Wodgina, it shows the impact of having access to fresh feed and continual fresh feed. We’re operating two trains generally. Every now and then, we turn the third one on, but not for very long. And that’s allowed us to drive those costs down. We’ve also changed some of our mining practices.

But most importantly, we’re getting better recoveries through the plant there. So the way I think about it, to answer your question, is the plant with fresh feed, we’ve got a better sense of the recoveries and what’s possible. So that shouldn’t change. The real variable will be stripped in future years. I’m not going to give guidance for 26 in this call, but we expect and one of the questions I will anticipate is why do you keep operating the lithium assets if you’re cash neutral or thereabouts?

Yeah. Last month, the assets actually were cash positive. The reason that we particularly with Wodgina, the reason we keep operating these assets through this period is because we’re effectively investing for what will be a very strong performing asset in twelve, eighteen months’ time as we continue to expose the ore body and we get to a point where we have consistent fresh ore for three trains. And at that point, we’ll see the strip lower. We actually see the grade improve in the mine plan.

We expect recoveries to improve, so we expect costs to be lower in terms of Wodgina. Marion is a little bit different. It’s always a high strip operation. It’s complex in the sense that we operate out of multiple pits, we’re moving from pit to pit at different times. So it’s a little bit more volatile in terms of its cost profile.

But hopefully, that gives you a bit of flavor. We’ll have more context, more detail when we do our update at the end of the year.

Josh, Call Moderator: Our next question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Rahul, please go ahead after the beep.

Rahul Anand, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: Yes. Hi. Thanks for the call, guys. Look, I wanted to ask a couple of quick ones. The first one was around we’ve talked a bit about the balance sheet, but I wanted to get a bit more color perhaps on the working capital side of things.

You’ve obviously given us some understanding of the $50,000,000 outflow you’re expecting in the next quarter. But you are coming to the end of a very big construction cycle. And as you step into FY ’twenty six, working capital is obviously going to be key in terms of how your deleveraging happens as well and how lean you can run that business. So I guess my first question is, how should I be thinking about working capital into next year? Is this going to be an incremental source of cash for us as we step into a very pivotal FY ’26?

And I’ll come back with a second. Thanks.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Good morning, Rahul. Thanks for the question. The I think the best way to think about it next year, and know it moves around from quarter to quarter and there are quarters when we release a fair bit of cash out of working capital and others that consume. And I think next year, a reasonable starting point is to assume 100% conversion cash conversion of EBITDA. I think, yes, I take your point around the unwind of the construction that typically sees accounts payable come off, but there are other aspects in the business as we grow, we think we can manage and release some capital out of.

So I think if you just start with 100%, that’s a pretty good baseline.

Rahul Anand, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you for that. And then I guess my second one, really appreciate the extra detail on Onslow today and obviously you’ve talked about your monthly run rates you’re expecting in May and June as well as an average at least. And obviously, you still have the last trans shipper to be delivered in June. So if I take a step back and I convert those monthly run rates, you’re already kind of starting to flag for May and June between 32,500,000 to 35,000,000 tonnes per annum production run rate.

And obviously, as I said, the trans shipper doesn’t come in till June. You’re still running slow speeds on the whole road. How should we be thinking about this asset going forward? You just talked a bit about Mark, you talked a bit about the toll road being capable of doing much more than the 35. It almost seems like the trans shippers are perhaps doing a bit better as well.

I know it’s early days, you still have a lot of work to do before you get the nameplate. But how should we think about the potential in the asset beyond that? And then the second part of that question on Onslow’s price realizations seem to be going very well. I mean, is that representative now of this mine going forward? Or are there still some variables we need to be worried about?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Let me take that first that last question first. The in terms of the realizations, we’re really pleased with the way that the product’s been received in the market. The customers are finding that it’s working well through their plants. So, yeah, there’s strong appetite for it. And as we’ve said previously, Bell would love to have all of our product if we would agree to let it have it.

In terms of the trans shippers, the I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves here. We are very pleased with the way that the trans shippers performing. We do believe that we can get up to $32,000,000 out of the four transships based on the cycle times that we’re seeing possible. We’re getting better than nameplate performance through parts of the loading facility, for example. So and and, you know, to remind you, we’re we’re less than a year into into operation.

So I think that there’s potential there. The the one thing I would say is that, as with everything, you need to have redundancy in the system. You need to have the flexibility to do maintenance. You have unexpected unplanned issues that arise from time to time. So I don’t wanna be talking in excess of 35,000,000 with five.

I just don’t don’t I don’t think we’ve shown that yet, and I think that would be getting too far ahead of ourselves. But I will just close that question by saying we’re very pleased with the way they’re performing.

Josh, Call Moderator: Our next question comes from Jonathan Sharpe from CLSA. Jonathan, please go ahead after the beep.

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: Yeah. Morning, Mark and Chris. Just one quick question from me. So just with the haul road, you’ve had to slow down the speeds with the issues that you’ve had, but you’ve increased the amount of road trains that you have on there. So just looking at the cost, I mean, the cost look pretty good at the moment.

But can you just give some insights or comment on how much these extra road trains are impacting costs and how much the unit costs will come down once you finish the upgrades and increase the speeds and everything goes back to normal? Thanks.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Sure. Good morning, Jonathan. The way to think about that is that the haulage costs are cost of mining services. So and the mining services charges are fixed for the JV. So the Onslow costs per ton themselves as we quote them are not impacted by those additional the cost of the additional haul trucks.

You are right in identifying those costs there. There’s no question the cost this half in mining services will be higher as a result and less productive tons in the sense of the activity that’s required to move them. But we factored all of that into the guidance that we’ve given around the EBITDA for mining services of between $2.1 and $2.2 So that’s where those costs sit.

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: Okay. Thanks. I’ll leave it there.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Thanks.

Josh, Call Moderator: Our next question comes from Rob Stein from Macquarie. Rob, please go ahead after the beep.

Rob Stein, Analyst, Macquarie: Mark and Chris. Quick one on cost at Enbloy, noting the $58 a tonne below your guidance range. Assume that you probably had a few benefits associated with sort of ramping up the mine and operating below your nameplate production capacity.

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: Can you just sort of highlight those? Because I think consensus expected those costs to be that high. And I’ve got a follow-up.

Rahul Anand, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: Good morning, Rob.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: If I caught that correctly, you’re just asking for a little bit more flavor of the impact of the ramp up on the cost. Is that right?

Rob Stein, Analyst, Macquarie: That’s right. Because costs were lower than where some expected it to be. And I just sort of wanted a bit of flavor around why that were and where we can and the rate at

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: which we can expect that to trend in the future.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yes. Okay. I think the best way to think about it is we’ve previously given a projected VOP number, which was anchored off pricing a year or eighteen months ago at $45 And that assumption assumes full run rate $35 mine operating in a mature state. Obviously, this quarter is lower than we’ve reported previously. The costs have come down.

We’ve had the benefit part of the impact is that the mining services ramp up rates step down over time tied to time rather than to volume. So as we move through the ramp up period, the mining services costs come off a little bit the cost charge to the JV that is, and the benefit of that is seen in that number that you were quoting. I think we won’t see the number really get down towards the into the 40s until we get towards that 35,000,000 tonne per annum run rate for an extended period.

Rob Stein, Analyst, Macquarie: Thank you. And then just a question on mine operations, obviously, some yes, the wet weather on the haul road impacted your ability to haul during the quarter. Did you pay back your ramp up and your focus on development at the mine? Can we expect that to sort of give future benefits associated with the reorientation of Yellowkits and the like?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: We refocused on the mine development. We got to a point where the stockyards were full, So we focused on development in terms of waste movement and so on. But we were in a position where we’d slowed down activity to a point. But as you’d understand, shift to moving ways and so on will have a benefit down the track.

Josh, Call Moderator: Questions. For Thank Thank session. Now and session. If you do have any issues using the platform, dial in details can also be found on the homepage under asking audio questions. Our next question comes from Kate McCutcheon from Citi.

Kate, please go ahead after the beep. Kate, you are live. Please go ahead with your question. We will move on to the next question and come back to Kate in a moment. The next question is from Glyn Lawcock from Barron Jowie.

Glyn, please go ahead after the beep.

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: Mark, good morning. Actually a couple of quick ones. Firstly, just on Onslow and getting the 35,000,000 tonnes in the September. Currently, you’re obviously using a lot of additional fleet on public roads. Do you assume you’ll get to 35 just with all the off road so you

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: can

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: get down to the cost structure? Or will you still be using in third party haulage to get to 35 by the end of the September?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Glyn, so we our modeling and our experience shows that we can get to the 35 just with our off highway fleet once we have the unconstrained speeds and able to operate along the length of it. So we expect those costs will come out of the cost of the supplementary contractor fleet will come out of the mining services business next half.

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: Okay. So you think they’ll be gone by the time you get to $35,000,000 Okay. Thanks. And the second question, Mark, quickly. Just on your net debt, obviously, increased a little bit again over the quarter.

If we look at your current projections for the quarter and pricing, assume it stays where it is, have we seen peak debt? Or do you think we go a little bit higher before we peak out? In

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: terms of peak debt itself?

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: Yes, the 5%.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: If it goes higher, it’s not going to go significantly higher. In terms of net debt to EBITDA, it’s coming down every month. Yes.

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: Okay. But the peak net debt probably this quarter if

Lachlan Shaw, Analyst, UBS: All right. Thanks, Mark.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Thanks, Glenn.

Josh, Call Moderator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Matthew Friedman from MST Financial. Matthew, please go ahead after the beep.

Matthew Friedman, Analyst, MST Financial: Sure, thanks. Good morning, Mark and Chris. Mark, wondering if you

Rahul Anand, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: can just give a little

Matthew Friedman, Analyst, MST Financial: bit of an update on some of the contingent payments that you’re expecting to come in over time related to the gas business. I’m particularly interested in the Moriari drilling. I think previously, you’d said that the work on defining a resource there would be done by February. So any particular reason why that’s been delayed? And yes, how are you thinking about some of those contingent payments that are still kind of expected to come

Yes.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Good morning, Matt. The answer is that the process under the arrangements with Hancock basically require third party experts report assessment. And then each party has input into that, has involvement with that. So it’s just a process of and that’s that’s offshore. It’s being done offshore.

So that’s it’s just a process of working through that and and all the data points that exist for it. So it’s a little bit slower than I would like, but we should have a we should have a reasonable feel by the end of this quarter where we’ve landed. And that’s that’s also for Lockyer, similar similar issue there in terms of assessment of the outcome. And and just Okay. Thanks.

Just just just to explain that a little bit better, we’ve drilled we’ve drilled one well there, but there are other wells in the nearby proximity. So it’s not like you’re trying to assess the impact of one single well. You’re trying to assess the way that that reservoir operates through that broader environment with the input of the other wells, if that makes sense. That’s why it’s taking a little bit longer.

Matthew Friedman, Analyst, MST Financial: Okay. Thanks, Mark. So in your view, all of the required drilling has been done and really it’s now more sitting in the the data gathering and interpretation phase at the That’s

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: correct, yes.

Matthew Friedman, Analyst, MST Financial: We

Josh, Call Moderator: will now return to Kate McCutcheon from Citi. Kate, please go ahead after the beep.

Kate McCutcheon, Analyst, Citi: Hi, morning, Mark. Apologies for issues with this line. Cash of $450,000,000 so that’s lower than the Street had you ending the FY and we’re only in March at the moment. What are the key bunk buckets of chunky things in that market, if any? Was interest payable in the March?

Was there any big working cap moves? Anything to call out that we should think about?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: There were I mean, we have interest payments through through March, April, and also in May, on on the month. So it it can be a little bit can be a little bit lumpy. I’d have to get back to you and just try and reconcile back against the straight numbers, which we can do and take that offline with you.

Kate McCutcheon, Analyst, Citi: Okay. Got it. And then so interest costs at the moment are running above $400,000,000 a year. And so if the base case is to roll the debt, which it seems like it is, and you’re going to move from mid-eight percent to an interest rate to 12% as per your comments, I mean, know a lot can happen in the next period of time before that debt needs to be rolled. But how do you dig here?

What is the base case for the balance sheet, I guess? Is it that assets are sold? Is it that it’s too early to know because it depends on commodity markets and the bond markets, etcetera? Or is there any sort of color around what the base case is?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Can I just be very clear? I don’t intend to roll at 12%, and I don’t need to roll at 12%. And I’ve got two years in which to execute that refi, and I would expect that interest rate to be lower, considerably lower when we do refi, primarily because the Onslow ramp up will be complete by that point. So but to get to the more substantive aspect of your question, next year, we’ll see the business move into a free cash flow positive state. We will see deleveraging.

As a result, we’ll see free cash balances increase. We have a cost associated with refinancing or repaying bonds before they’re callable. So we would have to weigh that up. The first one becomes callable at par next week, which means we can refi it with no cost. At the other extreme, we could be looking at an 8% plus premium to refi.

So we’re unlikely to be wanting to pay down debt for the sake of paying down debt where it’s going to cost us to do so. But we’ll continue to monitor that as we work through and build those cash balances up. And finally, as I said earlier in my comments, we do retain the option to continue to monetize parts of the balance sheet if we need to. That’s something we just as we’ve been doing for a few years, we keep an eye on it regularly.

Josh, Call Moderator: Our next question is from Lyndon Fagan from JPMorgan. Lyndon, please go ahead after the beep.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources0: Thanks very much. A couple from me. Just wondering if you can talk through the potential port charge there of 1.4 dollars I mean, you expect to need to pay that at some point? It raises though you don’t, but just wondering what the process is around disputing that and and whether that actually does end up needing to be paid. And then the the other question I had, again, just on the unit cost, a really good outcome in the quarter.

It does look as though you’ve got costs stepping up next quarter just to get to the upper end of the guidance range at the guided tonnes. Am I reading that wrong? Just wondering if you can talk through that.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: I’m assuming you talk Lyndon, I’m assuming you’re referencing Onslow numbers with that last question. Is that right? Yeah.

Paul Young, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Yeah. Yeah. That’s right. Sorry.

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: Yeah.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yeah. I mean, the answer is we’ve given ourselves a little bit of flexibility in those numbers when we go out to the upper end of the range. But, yeah, we’re we’re very pleased with the result in the in the quarter. And we’re pleased with the way that the operations are aligning with where we thought they would in our modeling a few years ago. In terms of the port charges, let me just provide a little bit of color around that because we probably haven’t been as clear in the statement as we should have been.

There’s two components to it. And I should emphasize, these charges got put to us by the port authority after we’d started operations. We were so a bit surprised by them. First one is a 90¢ per ton charge, and the port would have that apply against all tonnage movements in the channel. The second is a 50¢ charge, which is, as we understand it, only gonna be applied on tons as the through maintenance periods when trench shippers are alongside berth, maintenance, and so on.

Regardless of how they describe them, you know, we we’ve taken a view that that the port can only lever reasonable charges, and we’ve started process in court to try to get to the bottom of it and understand the background of the charges. And that’s just a process we’re gonna step through. Ultimately, the cost will be cost for the JV, not for Minrez. At this point, we don’t believe we’re going to have to pay them, but, you know, time will tell.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources0: And what’s the current port charge at the

Jonathan Sharpe, Analyst, CLSA: moment, please?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: I don’t think we’ve ever disclosed that. I’d have to check that and get back to you. It’s not significant. It’s you know, I mean, at Utah, it’s 11. At at also, it’s significantly less than that.

But

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources0: And just a really quick follow-up, if I may. Just your confidence levels of getting into the 40s as a unit cost now that you’ve you’ve added for a little while running.

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: I’m confident. I am. I think that the work that we’ve done, as I said earlier, we’re pleased with the way the operation is falling into line in terms of our previous predictions. I know we’ve had some disruption with cyclones and with the road upgrade works and some of the truck issues. But by and large, I think the project is actually falling into place well, and I’m confident with those costs in the 40s.

Josh, Call Moderator: Our next question comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs.

Paul Young, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Mark, a question on the mining services EBITDA per tonne guidance you provided of $2 to $2.1 I just want to confirm, does that exclude the revenue that you bank from the haul road? Because you’re just noting in the first half that I think your margin was around $2.6 a tonne or thereabouts when we exclude the $29,000,000 you banked. So I’m just trying to figure out, yes, what the second half looks like to get to the average of $2 to $2

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yes. So Paul, you can assume that it’s like for like. The $2.1 to $2.2 is what we expect across all the volume out of mining services for the year. And then yeah. Actually, I was about to start to give guidance for next year, I’ve cut myself off.

So I’m self self self selected there. Yeah.

Paul Young, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: That’s fine. I think you’ve answered it. Also, it’s coming down because of the partly because what you said earlier around, just using that the contract tracks, right, that the initial cost is

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: attached to Yes. Yes. I should have explained that better. This this half is saying a fair bit of disruption through the mining to the mining service. If you think about the mining services, less around the crushing, but more from the pit to the to the ocean going vessel.

There’s been a fair bit of disruption through that whole period for the reasons we’ve talked about. And so that’s been less efficiency driving the cost down. You can take a view as to what you think that will be going forward.

Paul Young, Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Okay. And then just an accounting question, and this is a small but just a note too on the front page on the revaluation of the $3,000,000,000 unsecured bond. Was there much movement there? And do you have the $1,000,000 amount? Just trying to work out the how that contributed to net debt increase, at all?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: No, we were using 63,000,000 at the half, so it wouldn’t have been a material movement.

Josh, Call Moderator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barron Joey. Glyn, please go ahead after the beep.

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: Mark, thanks again. Just on the undrawn facility, I understand you in answer to a question to Paul at the start, obviously, it’s all on foot. But to run your cash down to what looks like now three to four months of liquidity just on the cash side, is there a reason why you haven’t drawn the revolver? Are there issues at all? Or is there something else?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: No. There’s no issues, Glyn. I mean, I could draw the 800 today if I wanted to. I could draw all of it. The way we think about it is it’s not intended to be a source of permanent capital.

It’s intended to be drawn from time to time depending on working capital requirements and the state of the business for a period of time. But at this point, we don’t need to. And the process of drawing it and and, again, just to explain it, it’s it’s a very simple process to draw it. And we’ve got nine banks in the nine banks in the facility. It’s a club structure.

We’ve got another half a dozen who would love to be a part of it that we can turn to to to add to it if we want to or if we want to swap anybody out for whatever reason. So we’ve got a fair bit of flexibility with it, but we we don’t need to draw it. Haven’t needed to draw it through the quarter.

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: Okay. And if you draw it, it’s what you can get the money within twenty four hours, can you?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yes. It’s as simple as it might be 48, but it’s as simple as I mean, essentially, I have to represent there are no defaults subsisting at the time of the draw. So that’s on May. And then it’s it’s a notice to a bank, whichever bank we choose out of the nine. They’ve all got different pricing and terms, and then we get the money within a within a couple of days.

Glyn Lawcock, Analyst, Barron Jowie: So it’s expensive sort of short term liquidity. So hence, no need to really draw it if you’re the KP can avoid it?

Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Mineral Resources: Yes. I mean there’s no need to incur the interest cost if we don’t need to.

Josh, Call Moderator: Thank you. There are no further questions. That concludes today’s call. Thanks for your time and have a great day. Please reach out to the Minrez team if you have any follow-up questions.

You may now disconnect.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.