NRW Holdings Limited (NWH) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the NRW Holdings Half Year Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Jules Pemberton, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, and welcome to our Half Year FY '25 Results Presentation. I'm joined by Alex Hall, our acting CFO as well, who will talk through the financial pages. So where I'd like to start is the unfortunate part of the result, OneSteel Manufacturing Administration, which is on Page 2. And I'll talk through the sequence of events and obviously open it up to questions at the end of the presentation. Golding have actually been working for OneSteel since 2020, which is post the acquisition of the BGC Contracting business in 2019. The receivable and the sort of contract payables have always been a similar sort of term in terms of 60-plus days in terms of payments, and that's worked very well for us over the duration of the contract to date other than in the very recent term. So as at 30th of June, included in trade and other receivables are amounts due of $80 million. These amounts were fully collected in a period up to 19th of October and paid. However, August was only part paid and September not paid. So in November 2024, given they're in breach, Golding suspended operations due to OneSteel's failure to pay those invoices. On the 8th of December -- or sorry, the 6th of December, we executed a standstill agreement and various security documents, including guarantee and indemnity from both Liberty Primary Metals Australia and Whyalla Ports Pty Limited, and obtained first ranking of certain assets for the Whyalla Ports and the shares in Whyalla Ports and a commitment of $70 million to be paid from the financing activities that were announced at the time, which was one of their initiatives. We commenced work on receipt of an immediate $4 million payment on the 7th of December. And then, obviously, as we all are aware, the government appointed KordaMentha as administrators over OneSteel on the 19th of February 2025. Goldings owned approximately $113 million in trade receivable and contract assets. Now, some of that number is made up by $7.8 million worth of redundancies. There's another $1.9 million in interest costs and redundancies, given it was a cost-plus style contract, were paid by the client. So that obviously makes up the total number other than the receivable balances we had. During the period, there's been no earnings impact of the above events recognized by the group and no specific allowance being recognized at all. So what's the current status? We're continuing to provide mining services under the direction of the administrators in accordance with the terms of the MSA that was recently extended by a further 12 months. The run rate is lower because we're always transitioning and some of the redundancies. The run rate is lower than it was sort of from the period from -- to September, October, where we were billing somewhere between $22 million and $24 million per month when all 3 mining operations were active. Now we're transitioning to between 2 and 1 of the mining activities as we go to the magnetite operations moving forward. We do have various options, as we've spoken about in terms of when we agreed the standstill agreement and signed the standstill agreement. I won't be talking about our strategy to enable the repayment of our $113 million because, obviously, that's confidential and for us to work through. To the extent that future cash flows recovered do not at least equal their carrying values, obviously, the financial assets would require to be written down to the recoverable amount through profit and loss, but we have moved that receivable to noncurrent. Now, we move on to the highlights. The underlying business actually had a very good result apart from some issues in the mining side of the business, which I'll talk about later, which impacted our margins. Revenue, if we go through to the half year results page, revenue of $1.65 billion was up 15.8% on half '24. EBITDA was also up 20% on the second half. EBITA, not quite so much. And again, we'll come to the margin piece on the Mining segment later. Cash holdings for the first half, record cash holdings, very strong and still very strong conversion considering there was no receivable from Whyalla, OneSteel in there either. Order book, very strong. I think we talked about at the AGM being about $7 billion, less runoff. The business is operating at circa well was $3.2 billion to $3.3 billion of run rate. So strong conversion, strong cash holdings, very strong order book, and that includes repeat business and current preferred tenders that are in foot at the moment. Pipeline, very robust at $15.1 billion and $6.2 billion of active tenders, which is also a record for the group. Given the confidence that we've had in terms of cash flow and working capital working through the next sort of 6 to 12 months, we have declared a dividend of $0.07 a share, which is up 7.7% on the prior comparative period. And we're currently 95% secured on our updated '25 revenue guidance range of $3.2 billion to $3.3 billion. Previously, I think it was $3.1 billion in terms of guidance. Now a quick move on to the sustainability snapshot. And safety performance in terms of a TRIFR is up slightly on the prior period, but I do want to acknowledge the fatality we had this year, the tragic passing of Barry Breslin in October 2024, who was a subcontractor on the HWA Freeway project here in Perth. And again -- and we again extend our condolences to Barry's family and friends and those colleagues who are with him on-site when the incident occurred. In terms of some of the other sustainability highlights, certainly, female participation in the workforce has increased significantly from FY '24 in the same period at 17.2% and our indigenous participation in terms of workforce has also increased from the prior period. Now, I'm going to pass over to Alex now to run through the financial pages.

Thanks, Jules. Before I start the conversation on the earnings and balance sheet, it's important to note that these numbers reflect the inclusion of the HSE acquisition, which we completed on the 1st of August 2024. So in other words, a 5-month contribution of the South Walker Creek contracts to the revenue and earnings of the business and obviously, the balances across the balance sheet. That contract in itself was instrumental in driving that increase in revenue that Jules touched on earlier, the 15.8% up to $1.65 billion, which was a tick over 50% of where we guided earlier on in the financial year. EBITA was the 5.3% increase. It wasn't commensurate with the increase in revenue, mostly driven by those things that Jules mentioned earlier on the Mining division, which we'll go through on the mining slide. And structurally, the Civil and MET segments have contributed more than historically, and those segments are less EBIT in nature due to the less capital intensity. The nonrecurring transactions you see in the P&L there are mostly to do with the HSE acquisition, namely stamp duty and the extra -- well, refinancing of the finance facilities across the corporate NRW Group, which took our headline finance up to $450 million. So there's fees for that, that will not be recurring in future periods. Notably, the depreciation and amortization for the period was up by $26.8 million. Again, there's 5 months contribution of the capital-intensive South Walker Creek fleet that was added through the acquisition on the 1st of August. And there's the effect of where our maintenance cycle is where -- when I talk about on the cash flow slide, we have a huge increase in the amount of maintenance across our CapEx as a percentage of total CapEx, and that has a commensurate acceleration in depreciation as we wind down old components, so the engines and the transmissions and whatnot. Interest for the period was also up from PCP. That was driven by the use of our facilities. So firstly, $75 million to fund the HSE acquisition. So there's 5 months of interest from that. And then we've had the use of our corporate facilities to help deal with the challenges of the OneSteel payments that hadn't flown in the second half of the first half cash flow. The headline cash for the period, Jules touched on before, and that's a reflection of about 84% cash conversion on our operating EBITDA, and that's within our normal 80% to 90% expectations. The financial debt, I touched on before, mostly increased in support of the South Walker Creek contract acquisition. And recalling that, that acquisition was more of an asset purchase style deal. So we had to inject our own funds into the working capital of that contract. And on the subject of working capital, we also had the unwinding as we utilized previous cash advances from our clients and a deterioration of payments from OneSteel. Net debt for the period was $159.3 million. That increased our gearing from June up to 23.9%, but comfortably within our internal targets. Turning over to the cash flow. Our capital expenditure is the notable piece on here at $91.2 million, with approximately 18% of it came through the growth CapEx. And you can see the slide towards maintenance CapEx in this period with 53% or $48.5 million coming through. The maintenance CapEx is generally cash funded, and that has the effect of taking some of our cash through to our noncurrent assets. The borrowings for the period, again, related to the acquisition of the HSE mining fleet and the business as usual growth CapEx of $16.2 million, which are predominantly asset finance. And the dividends paid reflect the $41 million for the final dividend for June '24, which we paid in October.

Thanks, Alex. If we slide over to the next slide, which is our strategic exposures. Again, this goes to demonstrate the resilience of the business. We've had a tough half in Mining. Clearly, it's not been the best half in Mining, which we'll talk about in a minute. However, Civil and MET have both performed very well. Now, we go to the segment overview. As you can see, that's the sort of group result for the segments, significant increase in Civil, huge increase in Civil, and we expect given the volume of work that's out there at the moment for that to continue to be buoyant. Mining, as I'll talk about in a moment, we see that as a first half year only. It was impacted by weather and some one-offs in terms of contract changes, lithium contract at Mt Cattlin as an example, which ceased that was put on care and maintenance. And in MET, again, another strong performance, largely driven by Primero activities and major projects there. So we'll go on to the Civil segment. As I said, as a summary, significant growth on PCP, continued improvement in margins. Now, as we look forward, we still have -- we've had a few projects complete, which are the Bunbury Outer Ring Road here in Perth and also the HWA and Intelligent Freeway project. Now, the HWA and Intelligent Freeway projects were essentially contributing 0 to margin, and they are still in the first half and then run off in the second half. So, as we look forward, we continue to see opportunities to improve margins and outlook in that business. We're very successful in terms of contract wins during the period, 8 new contracts in the resources sector across the Pilbara region and Bowen Basin for Tier 1 clients. As I mentioned, the achievements of the road openings, which we've been working on in the public infrastructure space here. Outlook really for '25, '26 and beyond is still very strong. We can see a pipeline straight out to 2030 at the moment in terms of sustaining capital projects across the iron ore majors, plus also infrastructure projects coming through, particularly in WA and Queensland, which are our key markets. Our urban subdivision business continues to perform well. And that's obviously predominantly based in that Southeast Queensland development market. Order book is currently $800 million, and we've got active tenders of $1.3 billion in the segment at the moment. So when we go on to Mining, disappointing. Obviously, margins were impacted as a result of various things I just spoke about before. Growth at the top line, we did integrate the strategic acquisition, which was the HSE Mining business, fantastic business, which we ultimately then won a $1.6 billion 5-year contract extension, which commences next January off the back of that acquisition. Earnings were impacted. We had higher-than-average rainfall in Queensland. Three out of the 6 months were quite disruptive in terms of rainfall. And that probably only led us to deliver maybe be sort of 70%, 75% of our productive capability. It's not a torrential rain that comes and goes within a couple of days, but a lot of sort of persistent rain, which can impact hours and days on projects. So quite disruptive. The other impact was Mt Cattlin, which is a great contract for, not only the Mining business, also drill and blast, which sits in this segment. And that equipment has then been stood down, not redeployed immediately. Those assets have now gone to the Evolution project at Mungari at Castle Hill, which has started in sort of February, March of this year. So, a, you've got a contract finishing with earnings lost, plus you haven't been able to redeploy the equipment. And majority of the people that we've had there and equipment, obviously, we've now redeployed, but we had the impact in the first half. So highlights contract-wise in the first half. I've spoken about the South Walker Creek extension, which we won $1.6 billion in 5 years, which commences in January '26. But also we won the Evolution 6-year contract, which I just spoke about as well where those assets from Mt Cattlin will be going and key people. Order book is strong, $4.9 billion and active tenders of $3.4 billion, again, suggests a very strong profile. We continue to look at opportunities on the basis of capital intensity and trying to reduce our overall capital intensity across the business unless we're able to buy very competitively in terms of the HSE Mining business, which obviously gave us some assets and a contract to build on going forward. So we're still very disciplined around capital around those future projects. Now subject to any further impact from any abnormal rainfall in Queensland, which seems to be okay at the moment out in the coal regions and the outcome of the OneSteel receivables recovery, our margins are expected to return to historical long-term percentages during the second half. So that's Mining. Minerals and Energy Technology. Again, as I mentioned at the sort of outset, good performance, very good performance from the Primero business and RCR and DIAB. Primero performed strongly in the first half, underpinned by its major projects and so did DIAB. RCR delivered per expectations and is now focusing on growing its OEM products and parts business, including the launching of a new sealed pan feeder at MINExpo International in the U.S., which is our own designed, created, built, patented piece of equipment. Lots of opportunities still presenting. As you can see from the active tenders, $1.5 billion worth of active tenders across that group. It's probably at record highs or close to as well for that business. So lots of opportunities across multiple commodities, which gives me the confidence for a strong second half and certainly into '26 and '27. Other initiatives that we're working on is more around -- we're still working on alternative lithium refining IP. That's been going well and focusing on OEM part sales where the margins are better than project style work. And if we look at the summary, overall remains very strong. We've got a group pipeline of $15.1 billion with current active tenders of $6.2 billion. Order book strong at $6.8 billion, including that repeat business and preferred tenders. So our full year guidance is maintained at $205 million to $215 million and revenue expected to increase from $3.2 billion to $3.3 billion during the year. Cash conversion, gearing, very consistent to longer-term levels, as you would know. So that brings us to the end of the presentation. Happy now to open to questions. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from William Park from Citi.

My first question relates to OneSteel issues there. I appreciate that the discussions are still sort of ongoing, but just wondering what are some of the key milestones for us to think about when it comes to the receivables with respect to OneSteel? And when is the sort of the date of creditors meetings?

Will, look, the creditors meeting, I think the first meeting is today this afternoon, I think, which will just be a list of all the creditor amounts outstanding presumably. The reason we've moved, obviously, the receivable to noncurrent is because we're going to need some time to work through the recovery of these amounts. And whether that takes 6 months or longer, I don't expect from what I've heard from the administrators for it to be anywhere close to an [indiscernible] process, which went to 14 months or something. So I don't know is the answer, but we'll obviously be working very hard on the various levers that we have.

And just looking at the midpoint of your revenue and EBITA guidance, it implies 7% margin in the second half. Can you just step through what could be -- I mean, clearly, Mining would be one of the key drivers, but just wondering the 7% looks to be on a very high side in comparison to recent years. Just wondering what are some of the key drivers that's going to deliver that sort of margin in the second half, please?

Well, obviously, predominantly Mining. I mean, even if you look at the first half revenue at our sort of normal margin, I mean, in the second half last year, we did okay. PCP, we had some contribution from Spartan in there, I think. But the $10 million the first half kind of sitting there, I mean, if you assumed we're at 9%. So I think Mining clearly has to be a driver of that. Also, your civil projects not having the drag of revenue being produced from HWA and other freeway projects and things that we had at 0 margin. So you're going to kind of see a bit of an improvement, I would have thought across that.

And my last question relates to, I guess, depreciation and amortization profile. Do you expect -- is it reasonable to expect what we've seen in this half to effectively continue through to second half? Or are there any sort of moving parts that we should be thinking about?

It would probably be similar, maybe not as high, but you've got an extra month of South Walker Creek in there. So it wouldn't necessarily be higher again, subject to the commencement date of Castle Hill and other things because, obviously, we've had some assets down there, but they're lower value assets that are being put to work in WA that have been out of work for a period of time. So I would expect similar or maybe lower, I don't know, around about the same, I think.

Your next question comes from Jakob Cakarnis from Jarden Australia.

I just want to go back to OneSteel, if I could, please. Can you just let us know what the $70 million of financing facility related to the function of that facility whilst the administration process is going on and how that differs from the physical assets that you've taken charges over, please?

Okay. So the $70 million only equates to what we were getting out of the standstill agreement from Sanjeev Gupta's financing activities. Now, I can't remember the exact date. I don't know if we put it on our presentation, but there was a date that he announced that he was raising USD 100 million from a very credible global fund who we have spoken to. Hence, I knew it was credible. And unfortunately, some of that timing slipped, but we were promised $70 million, given where our receivable was, it was part of the condition to continue. So does that make sense? If you Google it...

Yes, I guess...

It's got nothing to do with any other sort of recovery. It was a financing initiative from them at the time, which was before December, of which we were going to get AUD 70 million in proceeds.

Do we -- I mean, for the exposure then to your physical assets, do we deduct $70 million of the $113 million or are they completely separate?

No, no, it's completely separate. But the problem is now it's -- I say it's a moot point, but it's an administration process, right? So we still have potential levers, as I've said, around our strategy and the guarantees that were provided and other things. So, I'll leave it at that. I don't want to go into any detail. But the $70 million was quite disconnected. It's a pre-administration event, which had it worked in timing or had the government not stepped in, our exposure would have been $70 million less. That's where it comes from. It comes from the standstill agreement that was part of that standstill agreement negotiated.

I appreciate you won't get into strategy. Are there any costs you guys are budgeting for in relation to the cost of recovery from here if you do have to enforce? And how would the market think about those?

Look, I mean, there's going to be some legal costs and other things, obviously, but I wouldn't think they're going to be material.

Okay. And then I think just similar to Will's question, you answered the D&A part quite well. Just in the net interest line, are we expecting then a similar net interest expense in the second half relative to the first? Is there any expected movement on that half-on-half, please?

I'd expect it to come down slightly half-on-half just as we repay our asset finance in the ordinary course and start retiring some of the $75 million we drew for South Walker Creek assets. What's unknown is just obviously the timing of any recoupment of those OneSteel amounts and how much short-term liquidity we might use from our corporate facilities. But I kind of go times 2, less a little bit. So it's no real change.

Your next question comes from Evan Karatzas from UBS.

Just a couple for me. Maybe just the first one, the revenue guidance implies sort of the 2H goes backwards relative to the 1H. Is it fair to assume that's sort of the Mining segment related that drives that overall decline, just given your comments around positive comments in Civil and MET? Is that a fair assumption?

Well, it does, Evan. It depends on whether you take the $3.3 billion or not. We said $3.2 billion to $3.3 billion. So it depends on -- it doesn't necessarily mean it's going backwards. It depends on -- that's the number that we've given.

Okay. All right. Fine. And then maybe just with that Mining -- 2H Mining margin returning to the 9%. Anything you can sort of talk to around Jan, Feb that's sort of underpinning your confidence you can return those margins to that level? I'm just -- it seems like it was still pretty wet up in...

January was good. Well, a lot of the wet was very far north. So, obviously, every time there's a cyclone, we keep a very keen eye on it. But there was 3 months out of the 6 were bad in the first half, which is a factor. But also the impacts of the higher maintenance spend that we had in that first half on specific -- a couple of specific projects plus the loss of Mt Cattlin. There's some pretty big impacts there that are probably more than reflective of the 9% difference.

Okay. Fine. And the cash flow as well. So it was obviously a pretty strong performance in the half. Am I right in sort of the tea leaves you dropping here was that you actually had some working capital items go against you? Like can you just sort of speak to how you're expecting 2H cash generation as well? Is there any -- I'm just wondering is there any one-off that will unwind in the 2H, please?

I mean, remembering what we had to put into South Walker Creek contract is a one-off. We've effectively started that project from scratch on a working capital basis. So that's -- we do a number of months work where we're paying before the contract kicks in, in terms of our payment. So that's a one-off. So I expect that to remain fairly flat, and we usually do our best to manage the ins and outs of contract startups and contract ending in the MET and Civil segment. So I shouldn't expect it to deteriorate too much, and we put a full stop on what's happening with OneSteel. Obviously, that took a churn during the first half, which can't happen in the second half.

Yes. Okay. So like around this [ 83.7 ] like in the ballpark, right? Is it the...

Yes. I wouldn't expect a cash movement through working capital of any note.

Okay. Yes. Okay. That's good. And then just final one then for me. I mean, that sort of unallocated or corporate cost line, I mean, it was sort of $15 million at EBITA in the first half, sort of what's -- is there anything -- I mean, it's a pretty material step-up from last year. Like anything one-off in there? Or do we annualize that for the second half? Just trying to understand how that line looks, please?

There'll be one-offs in terms of all the legalities around the OneSteel process and some accounting through all of that, which is forced into the first half, probably not quite 2x to normalize across the 12 months. But as the question before touched on, we probably do have some legal fees inevitably for the second half around OneSteel as well.

Your next question comes from Nicholas Rawlinson from Morgans.

You mentioned Curragh scope reduction is one of the reasons for the decline in the margin in Mining. Have you been able to put any of that additional fleet to work elsewhere?

Yes. Well, look, some of that was hired fleet. So that didn't really have too much of an impact and any of the owned assets have gone to [indiscernible]. So it's not lost. It's an impact in the first half, but not kind of gone forever, if you know what I mean. It's just gone from Curragh. Curragh made some changes that's all.

Okay. And just on Fimiston, given it's the target cost estimate contract, is there a chance that you could potentially see some incremental earnings from the gain share during FY '25 if you're potentially delivering under budget? Or would that only really come through sort of later in the piece in FY '26, FY '27?

I mean, I wouldn't be -- it would be prudent of us to leave it as it is and not look at any of that until '26. We've still got a full year in '26.

Your next question comes from Matthew Chen from Moelis.

Just one on trying to understand the comment in the OneSteel information where you've had confirmation that Golding will be paid by the administrators for all services performed. So I take it that's services that are kind of ongoing now, as well as services kind of prior to administration taking effect, that's all services performed. Is that how I should read that?

Certainly not. No, it's only from the administration date. Yes. No, it's an administration date comment that once the administrators go in there, you get purchase orders to continue. Yes.

Your next question comes from Richard Amland from CLSA.

Just a couple of follow-on questions regarding OneSteel. Is it accurate that you seem to be incurring about $10 million worth of receivables per month of operations under the current contract?

Yes. I think that's around about the run rate at the moment.

Okay. What termination rights do you have to end operations on the contract?

What termination rights do we have?

Yes, just to exit?

Look, it's under an MSA. So, obviously, if anything changes or they don't want to pay us or they do something else, then we do have termination rights under the contract.

You can't terminate from your end?

Yes, we can. Yes, we can, if we want to. So...

I guess, the direction of my question is really, we hear from companies across all kinds of sectors that problematic clients or contracts just absorb massive amounts of management time. And to the extent that you can cut your losses and just get out of this. Yes. I'd just like to understand what that looks like and why you wouldn't at this point?

Well, in theory, there is very little risk right now because the administrators are in, the administrators have to pay for post appointment, all invoices, right? Now, if we're performing work that has been directed by the client, which is now being run by the administrators, the structure of the contract was always relatively low risk in terms of productivities and things previously with Sanjeev Gupta and the OneSteel team. And now it essentially is using our equipment and our people to perform the transition work before they go to sort of MET 1, MET 2, which is a major expansion of the magnetite projects. So we're getting paid for those people and that plant. The other option is to take them off site and go and redeploy them somewhere else. But whilst you're being paid and you're guaranteed to be paid and making a margin, there's no risk of why would you move them.

And the margin that you're going to be earning on the OneSteel stuff going forward is reasonably attractive. Is that the case? Or, I guess, that [indiscernible] you've already had.

Absolutely. Previously, it was double-digit margin, and it still currently is.

So just to confirm or summarize, so it is -- there's 2 parts to your exposure. One is, everything pre-appointment of the administrator, which is the $106 million receivable plus the $7 million. And then after the appointment of the administrator, that stuff is reasonably confident of just being paid. Is that...

There is 0 risk once an administrator is in place to being paid post the administration. They are being funded by the state government and the federal government. So they're on the hook for making sure those payments. Now, if you had a very -- if you have different counterparties, it might be a different view that you take, but the view that you take when the government, both state and federal are funding it to the tune of, I don't know what the state is putting in, $400 million of immediate funding backed by a guarantee from the federal government, there is no risk in that receivable at all going forward. So where we are working to recover is the receivable prior to the administration, obviously, which was -- that's the bit that we need to -- that we're focusing on.

Your next question comes from Simone Grogan from The West Australian.

Just continuing on OneSteel. I wondered, is NRW in line potentially for any government creditor support potentially? Have you made the case for that? Or been in any discussions with the state or federal government in terms of potential support along those lines? Or are you relying solely on that sale process?

Look, it's too early. It's too early to know how things are going to pan out. The only support they're currently given to creditors, I think, is for anyone owed up to $5 million, which you may have reported at $50 million, but it's not -- I think it's $5 million. So the small credit immediately. And the rest, as I said in the question before, we continue to work funded by the state and federal governments on our current work. And there are significant plans to turn this thing into a very sizable operation. So we've got nothing to lose by continuing to do our work and support the operation.

That's great. Thank you for clarifying that. And just one more, if I might, just on sort of numbers in terms of staff that you maybe had on the contract before you sort of ceased work and I guess, where it's sort of at now and if there's any redundancies or anything like that?

No. Look, I think there was about close to 600, I think, prior to the redundancies. Workforce now is significantly lower than that, probably around 300. But the redundancies, as I said at the outset of my presentation, are actually paid for through the contract, which is some of the amounts that were also owed where we paid the redundancies, but we haven't been paid by the client. But that was always planned. So originally, this contract was supposed to finish at the end of January. What we negotiated with the client prior to the administration was a 12-month extension, which gets us from a run rate of around sort of low- to mid-20s per month down to about 11 or 12 per month in terms of revenue, whilst we transition because it was -- we were working in 3 different mining hubs at the peak. So the planned scale back of the hematite was always part of our contract. The only difference is, obviously, we've negotiated an extension, which is what we're currently performing at the moment.

Your next question comes from Tom Chapman from Jefferies.

Since KordaMentha was appointed 19th of Feb, have they made any kind of payments yet? Or are they on the same kind of 60-day payment terms?

They haven't paid yet, but I would imagine they'd be -- they're fortnightly, worst case 30 days, but they normally have to pay fortnightly.

Yes. And then just with the Mt Cattlin closure, how much of the $330-odd million contract value was forgone from that?

That's a good question. We did very little, to be honest. We started there, and I think maybe we did 6 months worth of work probably. So very little anything care and maintenance may come back again one day. But at this point in time, we've obviously moved on. But Rio are taking over that overall operation. So it went to care and maintenance. We're moving here and obviously, people out of there or have.

Yes, that makes sense. And then just lastly on the MET segment. I think at your last result kind of roughly guided to that being $1 billion top line business for FY '25. Is that still the expectation?

On MET?

Yes.

Yes.

Great. And then also the Civil business, I think, also guided to around -- to be over $700 million for the year. Is that a lot higher now given that strong 1H performance?

Well, if you look at what we announced in terms of project wins, I mean, that project momentum is only building at the moment. It's not waning. So, yes, we expect a good performance from that business over the next few years.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Nicholas Rawlinson from Morgans.

Just a quick follow-up from me. Could you just give us some color on the near-term opportunities and the size of some potential awards in the pipeline? Like I know there was a large contract in MET, which you guys were bidding on that was due sort of late last year. So just wondering how that's sort of transpiring at the moment and any other opportunities.

Sure. Look, we've got a very big active tenders sort of position at the moment, which is a record for the group. There are lumpy amounts in there, but that's in Mining. But also on the infrastructure side, there's lots of activity, decent sized projects. The one you might be referring to, there have been some delays, I think, in terms of those things, but delays have not gone. So look, I think the news flow potentially in the second half is very good on the basis of the size of our active tenders pipeline at the moment.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Pemberton for closing remarks.

Okay. Look, thanks, everybody, for listening. Obviously, not the cleanest result we've ever produced, but we also didn't expect the government to intervene as they have. So we look forward to catching up with those of you that we'll see on the road show this week. And yes, anyway, catch up. Thanks very much. Cheers.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.