When I wrote my earlier post yesterday, the draft I was working on had two serious errors, I inadvertantly posted the draft when I intended to review it. That error means that I do not have the wherewithal to guesstimate Q3CY23 and Q4CY23, as I pretended to do in my disordered frame of mind. As an aside, Management tends to be imprecise with years, and when FY is not stated, I assume it is a calendar year.
Getting back to that table that I used, I have now adjusted plant numbers based on 80% of capacity, because that is what Management stated was the target percentage, and it makes sense to use less than 100%.
Year .... Tonnes .. Capacity at 80% .. Plants
2024 ..... 73200 ........ 160000 ............ 1
2025 ... 150000 ........ 160000 ............ 1
2026 ... 187000 ........ 320000 ............ 2
2027 ... 331000 ........ 480000 ............ 3
2028 ... 383000 ....... 480000 ............ 3
2029 ... 383000 ....... 480000 ............ 3
2030 ... 520000 ....... 640000 ............ 4
2031 ... 575000 ........ 640000 ............ 4
2032 ... 732000 ........ 800000 ............ 5
2033 ... 730000 ........ 800000 ............ 5
The “Plants” column shows an increase, all it means is that at some point within the year, a new plant would be added. Looking at the numbers, one can conclude that Plant 2 will be ready in early CY2026; Plant 3 in the second half of CY2027, Plant 4 in late CY2030, and Plant 5 in early 2032. In loose terms, a plant every two years.
I assume Management would fund these extra plants from profits. I noticed from the FY23 accounts that WAK may be making a gross profit of circa 50, which bodes well for the future if other expenses plateau, or at least increase slower than revenue,
Expand
