They did, but do you believe everything they say blindly??Yes,...

They did, but do you believe everything they say blindly??

Yes, the IO price did have an impact (of course it would), but its the rest of the results that have me concerned.

Where are the C1 cash cost savings related to Fenix Newhaul? Where are the overall PBI savings from Fenix Newhaul? and how profitable are they are at low IO prices?

Take a look at the segment reporting. Fenix Newhaul seems about right based upon what they were trading before the acquisition (probably trading a bit down actually), but broadly in line with what I was expecting. The problem I see is what are the "unallocated costs", they aren't clear from the Income statement, it appears they have taken costs out of the reported profits of Iron Ridge to make it look better, bearing ibn mind you cannot see a big one-off jump in a corporate cost that you would nbormally expect to see from this sort of thing.

As I said, it seems like smoke and mirrors to me.



It appears to me that Iron Ridge basically is barely profitable at these levels (hence why I mentioned the sensitivity to the IO price).

Bear in mind this is also visible from the cashflow statement, and this is one of the major reasons why a dividend wasn't paid. Their "trading" cash is negative for the 6 months. Look at trading cash (ie. add back Income taxes to Net cash from Operations) and Operations are generating about $6m in cash, however then take a look at cash from Investing. The loans / borrowings I am certain relate to servicing of their lease payments (as if you look at Note 19, the only debt levels they have relate to the lease liabilities that they took on when acquiring Fenix Newhaul. Take that $5m off the $6m and they generated $1m but that was before any sustaining capex which as you see from below is about $2.1m net (take the 1st, 2nd and 4th items in the Investing activities below) so they essentially had a net cash outflow from Operations in the half year.



Happy to discuss further, but if its just comparing actual results to "statements" made by the company on the back of a poor performance, I'll believe the facts rather than the blurb that the company gives. Clearly they will want to make this look good, so they will throw in words about the future and everything looking rosy (its investor relations 101) but it doesn't make it true. I deal in facts not in hyperbole.