Mineral Resources Limited (MIN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

And good morning, everyone. It's Mark Wilson, CFO, MinRes, speaking. And joining me today is Mal Bundy, Independent Non-Executive Chair; and Chris Chong, GM of Investor Relations. I'll start this morning with a few opening remarks on the quarter before we move to questions. The March quarter delivered more solid progress across the business. We navigated our operations through 2 tropical cyclones, upgraded volume guidance across multiple divisions. We strengthened liquidity and reduced our net debt by $400 million. After quarter end, we also completed a USD 1.3 billion notes offering that materially reduces our cost of debt and pushes out our debt maturity profile. Strong operating performance, higher commodity prices and active balance sheet management are together driving faster deleveraging. While this improves flexibility, it does not change our disciplined approach to capital allocation. Our priorities remain balance sheet strength first, then selective high-return brownfields growth. Starting with the balance sheet. Liquidity strengthened to $1.8 billion at 31 March, up from $1.4 billion at 31 December. That comprised just under $1 billion in cash and a fully undrawn $800 million revolving credit facility. Net debt reduced to approximately $4.5 billion from $4.9 billion at the end of December, continuing our positive deleveraging trend. This quarter, our net debt number included $101 million positive foreign exchange revaluation on our unsecured bonds. We also continued to reduce legacy balance sheet items with the Onslow carry loan reducing to $459 million from $553 million and the iron ore prepayment amortizing to $440 million from $500 million. Post quarter end, we issued USD 1.3 billion of new unsecured -- new senior unsecured notes across 2 tranches, USD 650 million at 6%, they're due in May 2032 and USD 650 million at 6.25% due May 2034. This lowers our finance costs, extends duration and improves the resilience of the balance sheet. Specifically, the transaction reduces finance costs by around $48 million per year, lowers our weighted average cost of debt from 8.4% to 7.4% and extends weighted average tenor from 3.1 years to 5 years. The proceeds will refinance the USD 625 million 8% notes due November '27, fully repay the iron ore prepayment and redeem USD 350 million of the USD 1.1 billion 9.25% notes due in October '28. The POSCO transaction remains subject to conditions precedent, including formal documentation and regulatory approvals. As disclosed, those proceeds are intended to redeem the residual USD 750 million of notes due in October '28. This will further reduce our weighted average cost of debt to 6.9% and save another $100 million of interest per year. Looking forward, we expect liquidity and leverage to improve further in the June quarter and expect to be near or below our 2x net leverage target at June. Turning to Mining Services. It delivered another strong quarter. Production volumes were 80 million tonnes, and we've upgraded FY '26 production volume guidance to be somewhere between 320 million and 330 million tonnes. Two existing external contracts were renewed during the quarter and one external mining contract was completed. I would also like to reiterate an important point in the current fuel environment that Mining Services margins are not impacted by higher diesel prices because fuel is generally passed through to or supplied by the client. Turning to Onslow. In iron ore, Onslow Iron produced 7.8 million tonnes and shipped 7.2 million tonnes in the quarter on a 100% basis. Shipment volumes were affected by tropical cyclones, Mitchell and Narelle in February and March. We had water over the haul road in floodway areas designed to manage such an event. Winds, I'm told, registered over 190 kilometers nearby. Importantly, the private haul road and other key infrastructure sustained no damage. Operations resumed safely and the project returned to nameplate capacity shortly after each cyclone. At Onslow, the realized iron ore price in the quarter was USD 95 per tonne, representing a 91% realization on the Platts 61% index. Q3 FOB cost was $53 a tonne and year-to-date, that FOB cost is sitting at $52 per tonne against our guidance of $54 to $59 per tonne. For FY '26, our attributable Onslow volume guidance has been upgraded to somewhere between 17.7 million and 19.4 million tonnes with costs tracking at the lower end of guidance. Importantly, Onslow Iron is performing exactly as intended. It's generating free cash and it's reducing debt. We also continue to build optionality into the project's logistics chain with our sixth transshipper expected to arrive at the Port of Ashburton in May. Commissioning for that is expected by the end of Q4 FY '26. The seventh transshipper remains on track for delivery around the end of the financial year with commissioning by the end of first quarter FY '27. In the Pilbara Hub, Lamb Creek achieved first ore on ship in March, just 3 months after we broke ground. This is a key milestone, reflecting our team's capability to move quickly from development into operation. The realized Pilbara Hub iron ore price in the quarter was USD 89 per tonne, representing an 86% realization on the Platts 61% CFR index. We benefited from a higher lump weighting in the quarter in that part of the operations. Pilbara Hub FY '26 volume guidance is maintained. FOB cost is expected to be at the upper end of guidance with Q4 costs expected to be impacted by higher diesel prices, partly offset by the transition to the lower-cost Lamb Creek tonnes. In terms of lithium, Lithium division had a much stronger quarter. The average realized price across both operations was USD 2,105 per tonne, on an SC6 equivalent basis, up 92% quarter-on-quarter. We've continued to see prices strengthen into April with sales being reported above $2,500 per tonne. Total quarterly attributable spod concentrate production from Mt Marion and Wodgina was 127,000 tonnes SC6. Sales were 115,000 tonnes SC6 due to timing of shipments. FY '26 volume guidance for Wodgina has been upgraded to 270,000 to 290,000 tonnes SC6 and Mt Marion upgraded to 210,000 to 230,000 tonnes SC6 with FOB cost guidance maintained across both operations. Stripping at Wodgina is progressing well. We have line of sight to clean ore to feed all 3 processing trains by the December quarter, which will further improve recoveries and project economics. At Mt Marion, detailed design for a flotation plant to improve recoveries is nearing finalization. Separately, we've commenced the tender process for an underground mining contractor and the underground study is expected to be completed this quarter. We also continue to evaluate the potential restart of Bald Hill, keeping an eye on that in the current geopolitical environment, which is taking a considered approach. These are the sorts of opportunities we like in this phase of the cycle, existing assets, known operating teams, modest capital requirements that won't stretch the balance sheet with potential for attractive returns. On safety, I also want to flag that the company has completed a comprehensive review of its injury and illness classification procedure. Following this review, the procedure has been revised to align with global industry standards. Adoption of the revised procedure may result in higher reported metrics, reflecting broader classification of recordable injuries rather than a change in underlying safety performance. We expect to report LTIFR and TRIFR under the revised procedure from April 1, 2026. This reflects a maturing in the business with our strong focus on safety and well-being unchanged. In terms of fuel, just a few words on this. I know it's a topic of great interest. We've experienced no disruption to contracted diesel supply or operations as a result of the Middle East conflict. Our diesel is sourced from a major Australian fuel supplier. Due to a 1-month pricing lag, the March quarter was unaffected by movements in the diesel price and the cost impact will be realized from April. If diesel prices remain at current elevated levels, which have doubled since the commencement of the Middle East conflict, we estimate FOB cost increases of approximately $4 per tonne for Onslow, $7 per tonne for the Pilbara Hub and around $60 per tonne SC6 for our lithium sites. Despite this, FY '26 FOB cost guidance is maintained across all divisions. And as I said earlier, it's important to note that Mining Services margins aren't impacted. Just in closing, in summary, we're entering the June quarter with strong momentum. We've upgraded FY '26 volume guidance across multiple divisions. We've reduced net debt to approximately $4.5 billion and increased liquidity to $1.8 billion. We've also materially improved our debt maturity profile, our capital structure and our cost of debt. Onslow Iron remains our key free cash flow driver, but lithium has improved materially and the balance sheet continues to strengthen. Our focus on the remainder of FY '26 is clear. We're going to deliver on guidance, continue to delever. We're going to maintain disciplined capital allocation, and we're going to progress brownfields opportunities selectively and as justified by return and risk profiles. With that, I'll finish back now and hand back to Josh for questions. Thanks.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question today comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley.

Congratulations on a strong quarter. Look, from my perspective, the first question, you provided a pretty clear diesel impact there. I guess my question is that if you do have higher prices persist and they do kind of look like they're going to persist throughout FY '27, then in that scenario, do you have any near-term levers you can pull in terms of perhaps mine plan, in terms of grade profile, et cetera, to help yourselves improve your work index at least in the near term to cushion some of that impact in your earnings? That's the first one, and I'll come back with the second.

Rahul, thanks for the question. You can imagine that we're constantly evaluating and reassessing mine plan options on our operations to optimize against costs. Clearly, with diesel being where it is, that's something that we're working on. But I'm not in a position to provide any guidance on possible impact at this point.

Got it. Okay. And look, second one, good recovery increase at Mt Marion. I just wanted to touch upon whether there's been a genuine underlying recovery increase with a stable grade profile? Or is that largely driven by the fact that you've mined better parts of the ore body, just trying to think about my forecast going forward for the asset given where the grades might look like they're going.

Yes. We've talked about Mt Marion a bit, haven't we, in terms of its source out of various pits and the recoveries tend to fluctuate depending on where we are in each pit and how deep we are in each pit. So I think we're very pleased with the performance through the quarter. It did perform well. It might come off a little bit this quarter. And I think we're still expecting it to be a little bit softer next year. But again, we haven't finalized that planning. We're going through the budgeting process at the moment.

Our next question today comes from Rob Stein from Macquarie.

Sorry, just noting this strip ratio for Onslow in the quarter went up a fair bit, but costs basically hugged what they had been year-to-date and your guidance is down the bottom end. So I guess the question is, are you realizing any productivity benefits across the operation as you start to ramp it up to full utilization, get that fixed cost dilution? And how should we be thinking about that in terms of longer-term cost guidance for the asset, noting you're probably going to be taking a bit of a harder look given the diesel price environment on making savings elsewhere and what your trade-offs will be?

Rob, I think you can assume we've been at that asset now for a little while, and it's been steady state at nameplate probably for more than 6 months now. I think you can assume we're continuing to chip away at the cost, continuing to drive efficiency. We were up there yesterday doing a site visit to check on it and talking to the guys even in things like the truck maintenance facility, the way that they're able to optimize drive down cycle times is incredibly impressive. So that -- all those little things add up to greater efficiency across the operation. So very pleased, and that's why we're comfortable where we are with the cost and the cost guidance.

Okay. And then just sorry, a follow-up, third-party contracts, the services volumes were a lot larger than what I had and I think what consensus had. Can you sort of give us a flavor for how the demand for that segment of the business is changing in this current environment? How are we to think about -- obviously, you've increased guidance for this year, but how do we think about what guidance looks like for next year? I'm not trying to front run it, but just trying to get a think about the run rate.

Yes. I've said for a while that there's strong inquiry and demand for that service. We've got industry-leading capabilities in a number of areas. We've got 3 decades of experience. We're talking to a number of clients around a range of opportunities. Some of them are smaller and some of them are larger, and we continue to work through those. So very pleased with the way that's looking for the next few years.

Our next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS.

Two from me. So just a quick one on Onslow to start. Obviously, well done with the guidance upgrade. I just wanted to ask and confirm, though, in terms of the March quarter and the seasonality in production, but particularly shipments, was that in line with how you're thinking about sort of budgets and I suppose, anticipated downtime?

Lachlan, the answer is yes. We've talked previously about that March quarter being the most challenging in a weather sense with the cyclone season. So we expected it to be our softest of the year, and I think I might have foreshadowed that in some of my previous comments. So no great surprise with the impact of the weather. The one thing that maybe surprised me a little bit was just the number of days that those cyclones impacted us. We had to send the transshippers out a little bit further because of where the cyclones were tracking. But apart from that, overall, the quarter was pretty much in line with where I thought it was going to be for Onslow.

Great. That's great color. And then the second question, just to move to Wodgina. So maybe just reflecting on the strip ratio there. And obviously, you're still stripping and looking to get to steady state 3 train operations in 2027. Can you just remind us of how we should think about what that pathway looks like to getting a lower strip and obviously increased ore feed into the concentrators. And then maybe a little further out, just a reminder the critical path in terms of standing up studies, potential FID and build for trains, what might come next, Trains 4 and/or 5?

Yes. So timing hasn't really shifted that much. We've been saying for a while it will be Q4 this calendar year when we get towards clean -- or enough clean feed to support 3 trains consistently. We've been running at 2 to 2.5 for some time now. And we expected to have and will have this quarter some lower grade feed coming through as we continue to run and produce tonnes. So over the next 6 months, we should really start to see that shift, and we'll start to see the strip come down. And then we'll see the mine open up, and we'll be able to access that feed continually for quite some time for many, many years. In terms of studies and the other opportunities up there, that's something that we continue to talk with our very good partner, Albemarle, about. We're continuing to evaluate a range of options for growth up there. And when we're in a position to comment, we'll bring more back to the market.

Our next question comes from Kaan Peker from RBC.

Two questions from me. Just the first one, maybe if I can push you for a bit more detail about the possibility of the Bald Hill restart, particularly given the industry-wide inflation. I mean does this change or reduce your enthusiasm around that? And I'll circle back for a second.

Kaan, we've been talking about the possibility of Bald Hill coming back online for a little while now. We said we wanted to see a bit more stability in the lithium market. That's shown to be quite resilient. The market outlook is very strong. We're seeing a lot of demand coming through now and supply is struggling to keep up with that demand. As I said in my comments earlier, we're just being considered in the broader geopolitical environment at this point. So it's something we're actively monitoring. I won't be able to say anything more than that, though.

Sure. And then secondly, maybe if we can -- an update on expectations for Mt Marion for the float plant and then again, timing?

Yes. We're just working through the finalization of that detailed design, talking with our JV partners, making sure we get it optimized. That's something we're working towards. It fits well with the underground work as well. They work off each other. And the underground work is going to be finished this quarter. So yes, we need to go back to the Board and take them through it. But the benefits of the float are significant in terms of providing us with a single product at 5% and ultimately giving us an extra 100,000 tonnes of production from 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes on an SC6 basis. So I think as we take the Board through both the projects together, I hope to be able to come back to the market over the next 3 or 4 months.

Our next question comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs.

First question is on diesel, just on the supply visibility. What assurances is your supplier sort of giving you on supply, where are they sourcing their crude from? Any information you can provide on that? And sort of what visibility do you think your major supplier has on crude supply?

Paul, look, we've had a very strong relationship with our supplier for a couple of decades. We're talking with them daily. We think they've got as good insight as any in terms of access to product. We've got visibility of shipments that they have coming into the country. We know when they're landing, how much is coming out. So very happy with the way that relationship has worked with us through this period. And beyond that, I'm not sure that we have any more visibility than any of the majors. But comfortable that we are where we are in terms certainty of supply.

Okay. And then a second question on iron ore realized pricing, particularly around -- I understand the Pilbara and the additional lump and that will continue. So that explains that. But just on Onslow, really the outcome on price realizations, you're actually outperforming some of your -- some of the other producers that produce similar sort of 58% product. So I just want to ask around how that's being achieved? Was there any provisional pricing sort of tailwind here? Or is it the fact that your partners are actually paying a little bit more, so to speak, versus a certain index? I'm just trying to understand how you possibly could be -- how you're outperforming some of your peers on Onslow specifically.

Yes. No kicker from a price adjustment or anything like that. It is just as it was through the quarter. Again, I've said for a while that this product's been very well received in China. It's been very well accepted by the mills that are using it. We've got a strong brand identity for the product, and there's a lot of demand for it. And so I think that's translating now into the sorts of realizations that you're seeing. So I think it's reflective of the quality of the product and market awareness of it.

Our next question comes from Matthew Frydman from MST Financial.

Look, firstly, thanks for the detail on the diesel cost impacts at the iron ore hubs. I'm wondering if there's any commentary you can provide on recent shipping cost impacts to your CFR costs and whether you can give that either in the context of at the group level or at the asset level because I imagine it's a little different between the 2 assets, obviously, due to the vessel sizes. But I'm just thinking the quantum of the impact may actually be a bit bigger than the diesel impact in isolation.

Yes. So diesel represents about 30% of the cost of shipping, as I understand it. And so if 30% of the cost of shipping is doubled, you get an impact. The price is being felt more in the Panamax sizing than the Cape sizing. Cape sizing might be $5 or $6 a tonne, Panamax a bit more. And just generally, sorry, on the diesel, look, we've tried to be as helpful as we can with the commentary on it because we know it's -- everybody is looking at it from a slightly different basis, since based on $10 a barrel and all this sort of stuff. We just tried to make it very granular and give you the impact on FOB.

I think that's pretty clear. Maybe secondly, at Mt Marion, obviously, great to see you moving forward with the underground restart and the float plant. And I'm just trying to think ahead as to how these kinds of decisions might work under the POSCO JV, obviously, once that closes. And I guess probably more interested in Wodgina and you've already talked through some of the future growth options you've got there. But I guess, can you talk us through the mechanics of how it would work to make these sorts of capital investment decisions at Wodgina or at Mt Marion and whether that would be first seeking approval at a POSCO JV level and then elevating to the MARBL JV or the Ganfeng JV level? I guess I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of things like investing in a processing plant upgrade or additional train in the future, and how quickly you can move on those kinds of decisions under the POSCO JV.

The starting point for us remains our capital allocation framework. So we're thinking about these opportunities in that context. And just to remind people, we need to be at -- with a clear pathway to leverage -- net leverage of 2x for us to be considering any sort of growth CapEx. So that's a gate that we want to step through. We need -- as I said earlier, we need to take the Board through the combined project and get final endorsement and sign off. I think the benefits we've talked about previously are pretty well understood. But again, we need to take the Board through the whole process in detail. In terms of the process going forward, the key thing with the POSCO arrangement, and they're a wonderful partner, right? POSCO is a great company. They're a wonderful partner for us at Onslow. And when we get this deal done on the lithium, no doubt it will be the same. The most important thing is we remain the operator of each of those mines. We still lead. We work closely. Ganfeng and Albemarle have the primary -- the largest economic co-interest with us. So they're going to be the key stakeholders as we step through things.

Our next question comes from Mitch Ryan from Jefferies.

The $0.90 a tonne Port of Ashburton levy dispute with Pilbara Ports and Chevron has clearly escalated to the point where it's going to civil trial. At what point do you need to start carrying a liability on your balance sheet for that? And what -- and can you quantify what it would be if it was applied retrospectively?

Mitch, it's currently before court at the moment, and we've been accruing that amount all the way through. So it's in our numbers as if we're just being conservative in our numbers. It doesn't mean that we expect that to be the outcome, but that's the approach we've taken from an accounting perspective.

Okay. Okay. And then just the $240 million of CapEx during the quarter, can you just provide a bit of a breakdown of what assets that was -- can you sort of spread that across the assets for us or the projects?

I might have to take that offline and come back to you on that. It's broadly CapEx is tracking generally in line with where we thought it was going to be at the start of the year. So it's still spread in the same sort of -- well, let me put it differently. We haven't started and embarked on any major capital spend items that you don't already know about.

Our next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey.

Just 2 questions from me. Firstly, as they say, it's always about the art of the deal. I mean MIN managed to change the Wodgina sell-down deal with Albemarle, I think, 3 times from memory. Is there any potential to alter the terms on the POSCO deal or even get out of it?

I'm not going to comment on the POSCO deal. Obviously, we'll tell you when we're in a position to do so if there's any change or any update on the status of that.

Okay. And then just secondly, on the costs, if I look at year-to-date and the guidance you've given on fuel, I mean, that's 2 questions in one. Firstly, the fuel guidance you gave of $4 per tonne, $7 per tonne, and $60 per tonne that's based on what you currently saw diesel doubling. I'm just wondering, is diesel even more expensive now such that the rate could be higher? And then as a second part, as we exit Q4, it would seem like with the guidance you've given, you're going to be exiting above the guidance rates for '26. Is that a fair given where diesel is?

Diesel pricing is struck with a lag, as I said, there's been a fair bit of volatility with the pricing. And at one point, the price had more than doubled. So when I talk about doubling for the quarter, I'm taking effectively an average over the quarter. At the moment, it's possible that we'll finish the quarter lower than double. But the average for the quarter, we're expecting to be double. I don't know if that answers the question in terms of -- Glyn, if I haven't answered your question, hit me again.

Glyn, you're live, if you wish.

Yes, Mark, sorry, I just was curious, like, what spot diesel is looking like now.

I mean essentially, it's running at around $2 a liter at the moment.

And that's what's -- that's roughly double what you use.

Roughly double. Yes.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question today comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS.

I just wanted to -- I suppose, Mark, you touched on capital management. And just observing given that the business is deleveraging, that's on track and operational performance is improving. I'm just wondering if Board conversations around balancing growth versus returns are changing. And maybe how should we think about those sorts of conversations and those balances going into FY '27 and '28?

Thanks, Lachlan. Look, we've spent a lot of time with the Board over recent months talking about a whole range of things. I think we foreshadowed that we were having a couple of days with them on strategy. So we did that a month or so ago, which was a great couple of days. And you can imagine that part of that conversation was around growth and the prospects for growth into the future and what the company would look like. This company's got a very strong proud track record of over 30 years delivering growth, 20 years as a public company. And I think the pipeline of opportunity for it remains significant. And we've talked previously about the brownfields expansion opportunities. We've slowed down in the past years investing in some of those whilst we focused on delivering Onslow and getting the cash flow coming out of Onslow. Now that the cash is coming out of Onslow and the deleveraging is happening, we've got options under our capital allocation framework, which could include further deleveraging, could include some sort of return to shareholders, and it could include growth. So they are the sorts of things that we're talking about with the Board actively in terms of choice. And we'll be continuing to do that in the coming months as we head into '27.

We have a written question from Ben Lyons from Jarden Securities Limited. Ben asks, given the imminent arrival of TSV 2, 6 and 7 at Onslow, can we please revisit the strategy of using them, i.e., when is the first dry dock required for TSVs 1 through 5 using TSV 6 as a substitute? And when can TSV 7 start to provide incremental tonnes above the 35 MTPA rate? Remind us of the requirement to dredge the channel and incremental expansions to the loadout facilities.

Okay. Thanks, Ben, for the question. So the sixth transshipper will be here imminently in the next few weeks, and we'll spend some time commissioning it. We expect that transshipper will help us deliver incremental tonnes through FY '27. We've talked about taking those tonnes up towards 38 as a result of that transhipper coming online. The seventh transshipper provides us with the flexibility or I guess, more accurately, the ability to maintain that sort of run rate for a full year as we cycle the 6 operating transshippers through maintenance periods, which run to a number of days per month for each. In terms of dredging and so on, that's something that we just -- it's a constant thing that we'll be managing and navigating. That's just ordinary course in the same way that we maintain our assets generally. And in terms of expansion and so on, we don't need to be thinking about that with the sixth and seventh transshippers. The existing infrastructure is sufficient to allow us to operate with those.

Thank you very much. There are no further questions, and that concludes today's call. Please reach out to the MinRes team if you have any follow-up questions. You may now disconnect.