ESS essential metals limited

There is some unexplained additional capital expenditure at Core...

  1. 3,708 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 7642
    There is some unexplained additional capital expenditure at Core but this isn't the main difference between the $89m DFS and $290m raised by issuing new equity (as per quarterlies across 2021 and 2022 - excluding options). The main difference is after spending $136m on PP&E / capitalised other assets (presumably mainly grants pre-strip), Core still have $125m in the bank. Broadly equal in 2nd is higher capex and non-mine development costs. Core's cash balances at this point in time are a surprise. Normally you would expect cash balances to be much lower than the DFS capital cost as commissioning commences. The ASX listing rules may be creating a problem towards the end of mine development because you could easily have a $50m cash outflow quarter towards the end of a significant development and to have >2 quarters cash then you need to have $100m cash (or explain why you don't). I'd have thought that Core would manage liquidity risks until Spod starts through a committed undrawn bank borrowing facility but a key value proposition of their's was no debt. This may have made this option unacceptable so they did a late stage $100m capital raise. Note - the $21m from the DSO sale isn't in the Dec figures.

    With $136.4m spent on PP&E/other non-current assets (tagged as mine development in the last two quarters) you would think that Core is towards the end of the costs for its $89m DFS. Core's $100m capital raise noted $95m of Finniss costs to first production and $6m re DMS project acceleration so $12m of over-runs have at least been identified. Its unclear if BP33 costs are now part of this $136.4m.

    But all of this cash raised for expenses and cash balances beyond mine development creates a warning for the likes of ESS around whether a high enough provision for this is factored into the scoping study. In Core's case Admin, exploration, tenement acquisition, capital raise costs and boosting cash balance have collectively consumed $182m across 2021 and 2022. This increase will lower a little with Q1's capex costs (what-ever they are). The ESS scoping study noted $350m (inc working capital) vs $293m capital costs. The scoping study has a gap of $57m for working capital. If core's needed around 3x this amount for working capital, head office and exploration purposes, perhaps I was too optimistic in my earlier post and should have assumed $450m of capital needed to be raised if ESS was to go it alone.

    At December 2020 Core had $4.5m cash. Across the 8 quarterlies across 2021 and 2022 core gained (spent):
    • ($17.0m) on operating cash flows (admin and corporate had increased to $5.1m in the last quarter!!)
    • ($3.3m) on production costs (presumably for the DSO sale)
    • ($6.4m) on Tenement acquisition
    • ($25.0m) on investment classified exploration and evaluation
    • ($61.2m) on the purchase of PP&E
    • ($75.2m) on other non-current assets with the last two quarters called mine development
    • ($1.4m) on other investment including security bonds
    • $290.4m gained from of proceeds from the issue of shares
    • ($13.0m) spend on costs of raising equity
    • $34.3m gained from options converting
    • ($1.6m) on other inc lease payments
    • $0.2m of rounding because the total closing Dec22 cash was $125.3m
 
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.

Currently unlisted public company.

arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.