I don't know why that is surprising. There's not just cash costs, but also the non-cash costs. These can be found as D & A (Depreciation & Amortisation).
For WSA the EBITDA was 61 million, the EBIT was 44 million, so non-cash D&A were 44 million.
And in that respect Mincor is more efficient than WSA. Giving it a very quick look I would say that WSA uses about twice as much capital per dollar to generate nickel revenue as Mincor. So Mincors non-cash D & A costs are a lot lower.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- please explain ?
I don't know why that is surprising. There's not just cash...
-
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 10 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add WSA (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
CCO
THE CALMER CO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Anthony Noble, MD & CEO
Anthony Noble
MD & CEO
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online