OZ MINERALS LIMITED
OZL - MEDIA BRIEFING: 2008 Financial Results Presentation - Mr Andrew Michelmore, CEO and Managing Director
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:15AM
Consensus Data
| Broker | EPS (A$) | Sales (A$) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | |
| Patersons | 344.3 | 361.7 | 1402.1 | 758.2 |
| Wilson HTM | 0 | 0 | 1335.8 | 727.9 |
| Austock | 0 | 0 | 1175.1 | 680 |
| ABN AMRO Morgans | 0 | 0.1 | 1289.9 | 917.1 |
Click to listen to audio on your default player or
Download the latest version of the Flash Player
Mr Andrew Michelmore
Thu, 21 Aug 2008
11:15AM Australia/NSW
Select a tab above to display more information
 NORTHERN MINING LIMITED
(NMI)
|
42 Metre Gold Intersection At Blair North Prospect in Kalgoorlie - Mr Alan Lockett, Executive Chairman Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:30PM |
    |
 MOUNT MAGNET SOUTH NL
(MUM)
|
MUM - Strategic Update Presentation - Matthew Shackleton, Managing Director Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:00AM |
|
 FLINDERS MINES LIMITED
(FMS)
|
FMS - Iron Ore Activities Report No 27 - Dr Kevin Wills, Managing Director Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:00AM |
|
OZ MINERALS LIMITED (OZL)
ASX code: OZL
Website: http://www.ozminerals.com/
Industry: Materials
Principal Activities:
OZ Minerals Limited is Australia's third largest diversified mining company, it's the world's second largest producer of zinc, a substantial producer of copper, lead, gold and silver and is also growing its production of nickel. OZ Minerals was formed in 2008 through a merger of Australian based, international mining companies Oxiana Limited and Zinifex Limited.
Address:
28 Freshwater Place, Level 23, Freshwater Place,
2 Southbank Boulevard
SOUTHBANK
VIC
Phone: (03) 9288 0333
Fax: (03) 9288 0406
Executives & Directors
Mr Barry Cusack , Chairman, Director
Mr Andrew Michelmore , Managing Director, CEO
Mr Ronnie Beevor , Director
Mr Michael Eager , Director
Mr Brian Jamieson , Director
Mr Peter Mansell , Director
Mr Dean Pritchard , Director
Mr David Lamont , CFO
Ms Francesca Lee , Company Secretary
Company Podcasts
Company ASX Announcements
Company ASX announcements can be viewed on the ASX website.
Announcements from the preceding six months are shown below.
Please refer to the relevant stock exchange if any of the above information is incorrect
OZ MINERALS LIMITED (OZL) Events
Australia/NSW
OZ MINERALS LIMITED (OZL)
| Change in substantial holding | Fri, 3 Jul 2009 |
| Change in substantial holding - Amendment to notice 735651 | Wed, 1 Jul 2009 |
| Martabe Sale Completed | Mon, 29 Jun 2009 |
| Becoming a substantial holder | Fri, 26 Jun 2009 |
| Change in Substantial Holding for TOE | Thu, 25 Jun 2009 |
| Martabe sale approved by China Sci-Tech | Thu, 25 Jun 2009 |
| Successful placement of parcel of Toro Energy shares | Tue, 23 Jun 2009 |
| Final Director`s Interest Notice - AM | Tue, 23 Jun 2009 |
| Letter to shareholders | Mon, 22 Jun 2009 |
| Final Director`s Interest Notice | Thu, 18 Jun 2009 |
Please note: This company appears on this website as a result of its listing on the Australian Securities Exchange. Boardroom Radio does not claim any association with any company listed on this site.
OZ MINERALS LIMITED (OZL)
MEDIA BRIEFING: 2008 Financial Results Presentation - Mr Andrew Michelmore, CEO and Managing Director
http://www.brr.com.au/event/49714
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008, 11:15 AM.
Moderator Good morning everybody, it is Matthew Foran here from OZ Minerals. Apologies for the delay. We just ran out a little bit with the analysts and
10 brokers conference earlier. I welcome you all officially to the OZ Minerals 2008 Interim Financial Results Media Conference. I would like to introduce Andrew Michelmore, our MD and CEO of OZ Minerals. Now, as per the invitation we sent out to you we will be assuming that you viewed the earlier webcast and that you have read the presentation and the associated
15 documents that were launched with that. So, accordingly, Andrew, I will be running through the entire presentation. He will just be giving a brief summary of the key points and then he will open it up to questions to you then. So, Andrew, if you would like to start?
20 OZL Yes. Thanks, Matt. We would like to say -- as Matt said that you have got the documents and you have listened in to the analyst briefing. Key points out of it. Certainly, the last six months have been challenging ones for many of the companies in the resources industry. All has been under cost pressures facing weaker commodity prices and strengthening Aussie dollars. We have
25 put together the -- we presented the half year results for Oxiana, the full year results for Zinifex and provided a pro-forma for the last six months for OZ minerals. In that pro-forma the net profit for OZ minerals from -- without one-offs and discontinued operations is 70.9 million. But, having said that, our operational performance has been very sound, strong production across all
30 sides and the synergies putting the two companies together never justified on cost savings but as we always said we would be pursuing those cost savings once we have the two companies together. We have identified that already in the last 50 days, 27-1/2 million of annual ongoing cost savings from the integration, that one-off cost of 41 million. Our target is -- as I have said is to
35 make sure we get a one year payback on it so we have to identify in excess of 40 million ongoing annual cost savings. Our outlook in the market is still very positive. This is the quiet season in the year in the Northern hemisphere. Various things backed off but we are starting to see the pickup in the market. Cost curves have moved up and you are seeing a number of parties coming
40 up with projects and out of production, but we are quite positive about not only the market going forward but also our position to be overly reacting to it off a very competitive cost base and therefore, the board is being quite comfortable about declaring a 5 cent per share on franked dividend. I think that is where I should just leave it and really open up the questions.
45
Operator Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question at this time, please press *1 on your touch tone telephone. If your question has been answered or if you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the £ key. Our first question comes from Jamie Freed of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Q Hi, Andrew. I was just a bit confused looking through the Zinifex accounts. You said in the first half of the year that you had a $228 million profit from continuing operations and now you are saying the full year one is
5 226.7 million. So is there some sort of operating loss in the second half of the year?
OZL That is correct. In the second half of the year with the drop in the price of zinc in particular and the strength in the Aussie dollar through that period, the net,
10 net, net was a small loss.
Q Okay. Okay. And just during the analyst briefing you talked a little bit about your debt capability. Has that fallen as a result of having in your market cap the combined company since you announced the merger?
15
OZL No, the debt ability is really against what you could gear up against your equity -- retained equity and also with your cash flow ability to be able to finance that debt. There are some various covenants that would require ratios. We still meet all those requirements and so we still see that we can
20 comfortably cover 25% to 35% debt to debt cost equity.
Q So that is still in the $3 billion range?
OZL That would still be in this $3 billion range. The issue as you are probably well
25 aware is the difficulty in the market at the moment. That it is not a liquidity issue, it is a credit issue. People have been willing to lend and the banks being able to get the financing across lending through each other, that has been the difficult task and that is why we believe the cash on our books is really a huge value for us.
30
Q Okay. And then, finally, it looks like you have made an $8.35 million payment to Owen Hegarty. Is that in cash? And, how does that rest with what the shareholders have decided at that meeting?
35 OZL That is really an issue for the board not the management. We should be dealing with that announcement that has gone out today.
Q Yes. So, is it all cash?
40 OZL It (inaudible) (00:05:45) all day. There will be more detailed announcements coming out on that issue during the course of the day.
Q Okay. All right. Thanks a lot.
45 OZL Okay. Thanks, Jamie. Next question?
Operator Our next question comes from Michael Vaughan of the Financial Review.
Q Can I ask a question that I guess the analysts are asking a few times. I feel a bit ignorant asking it, but I am sure there a few people that are confused. Just the write-down in the value of Zinifex Canada and Ivory, could you sort of try and explain that to us non-accountant folks in the simplest possible way?
5
OZL Look Michael, this is a -- it is an outcome of I call it accounting practice that is imposed on us. Basically, when Oxiana, now OZ Minerals, takes on board Zinifex’s assets, they have to go in at a valuation. That valuation is the market valuation at the 30th of June as they transfer over. At market cap the share
10 price at that time was just over $4 billion. And when you then go and have a look at what is in the assets that go with those $4 billion, there is cash on the books. The cash on the books has to be taken out so you end up with roughly 2.8 billion for all the assets that are non-cash that is sitting in Zinifex. Now, how do you allocate that across the actual operating assets in the projects?
15
That is the question that is put forward and required from the accounting practices to actually have values on the books. The way to do this -- and we are not able to go in and do specific valuations of them. What we have done is we have taken an independent valuation which was the Grant Samuel
20 valuation we have done as part of the scheme document so we would take an independent look at what those assets were. That comes out to about 5 -- around 5 billion for some of those assets and versus the 2.8.
So we have effectively taken a ratio of 2.8 to just under 5 and then allocated
25 that ratio which was at about 51%, allocated that across Grant Samuel’s individual valuations on each of those assets. And so, for example, Dugald River which isn’t in Zinifex’s books but it is a project going forward. Grant Samuel put a valuation on that I think of about 650 million, around 600 million, and so, therefore, 51% of that goes in to just over 300 million and that goes
30 into the books of OZ Minerals.
Similarly, the value for Century is multiplied, the Grant Samuel’s value for Century is multiplied by 51% and that goes into the books. Similarly, the valuation that Grant Samuel had which was I think around 900 million for
35 Avebury goes in at 51% of that. So, that is how the allocation is on OZ Mineral’s books.
Then the next step, you have to go back and have a look at what were the actual holding written-down values on the books of Zinifex and that is when
40 you compare the two.
So in some cases, compared to the values that were on the Zinifex’ books, Zinifex ends up writing up some of those as they transfer across the losses and writing down some. It is purely the accounting treatment of it. It is not
45 asset pinning as to the value. We have not gone in there and said, “Oh, we should write this down and we should write that down and we reckon we should write that up.” None of that has actually happened. It has just been what was a mechanical accounting process that has ended up with these values going in. Now, just to add to that, it is a provisional allocation and under the accounting standards we have got 12 months in which management of the board can actually have a look at those assets going forward and say, “Is that a reasonable value to have for those assets or is it an unreasonable value?” So, we have got 12 months in this to do that.
5
Q So it is too simplistic for us to say that between the time when Grant Samuel did his valuations and now that the value of Zinifex is about 51% of what it was. That is too simplistic?
10 OZL In the market, the price that is (inaudible) (00:10:39). We have done this back in May we would have ended up with a totally different set of numbers. It is just the imposition of the market cap. Bruce, do you want?
OZL Well, I think you can draw that conclusion that you just posited literally, you
15 will be drawing the wrong conclusion because you would be saying that the long term fundamental value of these assets has effectively dropped by 50% in a couple of months. Now, it has the explanation that Andrew has just given to us because of the value of the Oxiana share price which determined the amount of consideration that Oxiana was deemed to have paid all of the
20 assets in Zinifex happen to come up with a number of $12 billion. That was what we had to work with and it is about how you allocate it. If the merger had been completed on the day it was announced which obviously is a hypothetical construct, the $4 billion would have been 6.3 and the whole allocation of values to the assets would have been done in the same
25 proportions that they would have been coming up with very different numbers. So, it is purely and simply a function of the share price of Oxiana on the date of the implementation of the merger a couple of days running up to that which happened to be July 1st. It sounds a bit of an artificial construct. It is not artificial but it is just one of the rules of the total consideration that was
30 deemed to be paid was based on the share price at the time. It happened to be a low price.
Q And so, it is a question of you guys saying the market has this completely wrong and so these asset values are reflective of the inherent value and so
35 are the assets.
OZL Let me pose it to you as a question. Would you imagine it likely that a valuation of 900 million you will take the Grant Samuel put on Avebury for example on the 6th of May which was the day that their report would have
40 halved in the space of six weeks. And clearly that will be not what you would expect it would be. The valuation on all of the assets in that scheme book has effectively -- if you took that view, been decimated in six weeks. That is not what happened. What did happen was the total value that we had to allocate across the assets because of what had happened to the Oxiana share price
45 had actually fallen and now it sounds crazy but that is what it is.
Q But Grant Samuel also valued those assets in a very, very different commodity price environment, didn’t he?
OZL Certainly six weeks before the end of the year so not that different. And in fact, the forecast -- and again if you go into the report, they are actually presented there -- the long-term zinc price value is dollar to pound. I think most commodity analysts would still have long-term zinc price in the dollar
5 award and the long term copper price they use was $2 to $2.50 a pound. Most analysts would have it closer to $3.5 to $4. The long-term goal price they use was $900 an ounce which again is not a long way from where we are at the moment and again, probably in line with most analysts’ views. So, it is not a case of anything fundamental having changed but rather more --I
10 think we are just getting the effective financial market volatility having its way truly into the value we had to assign to physical assets.
Q Okay. We are going to let someone else have a go. Thanks.
15 OZL Yes, Michael, and also, if you -- it is not just Grant Samuel if you are going to have a look at the various analysts and their valuations on the company. They come up with numbers in the high 3s, some into the 4s which just reinforces people to use long-term prices to workout DCF valuations of the businesses and those have not changed.
20
Q Thanks, Andrew.
Moderator Next question, please.
25 Operator Our next question comes from Rebecca Le May of AAP.
Q Hi, gents. Further to some comments at Diggers by Peter Lester, I was wondering, in terms of the attractiveness of OZ Minerals to foreign entities or perhaps even some local entities, have you had any approaches on that front
30 door at all since the Diggers presentation?
OZL Rebecca, we have nothing that is clear on that front. If there were something we would have gone out to the market with it.
35 Q Fair enough. You can’t blame me for asking.
OZL Not exactly.
Q The other question I was curious about, looking at the increase in the stake of
40 Toro Energy, I wonder where that particular investment fits in with your strategy and uranium as a whole for OZ Minerals.
OZL As part of the integration process, we are reviewing all the minority shareholdings we have in various entities. But, comment on the uranium, we
45 actually like uranium as a commodity. We like the outlook for it, the demands of going through the nuclear power stations. It fits in with our operations expertise, exploration, mining, processing. The sorts of areas we go into it will be where -- as we said before we are a long consumer of energy. We are short in supply of it. It would fit in as a natural hedge in our energy portfolio. So, while more decisions are being made on that one, I would say uranium is one of the commodities we would certainly look at seriously.
Q So you would be looking to perhaps increase your stake even in Toro wearing
5 another uranium vehicle perhaps so?
OZL Look, at this stage we would make no comment on that.
Q Okay. And then, one final one, if I may. You mentioned the review with the
10 minority shareholdings. Are there any commodities that you have decided to rule out of the mix?
OZL No. I think it is the ability for where we are positioned that would give us in them. We have got a number of commodities we would like to be in. It is a
15 matter of getting a significant position, cost-effective position in them. So both their ongoing operating cost, but also the cost of entry so we would go back and have a look at it and also, they need to be material in our business. It takes as much management time to run a little business as it does to run a big business. So, in the combined company, we are going through and
20 looking at things that maybe were sensible in the two smaller companies but maybe are not material in the bigger company.
Q Thanks very much.
25 OZL Okay. Thanks, Rebecca.
Moderator Next question?
Operator Our next question comes from James Regan of Reuters News.
30
Q Hi, good morning guys. Look -- and just -- really just one two-part question. You seem a bit optimistic in the longer term on the commodity cycle. We are seeing a number of metals producers and miners actually curtailing operations over the last few days, everything from Xstrata to Perilya to a few
35 of the others -- Russia with nickel. What is the basis for your longer term optimism? And the second part of that would be, Andrew, are there any considerations at the present to possibly curtailing any of the operations within OZ Minerals?
40 OZL Yes, look, that is a very good question. The optimism is really based on where we see the demand going and being sustained -- China and other parts of Asia as well as India, Brazil, infrastructure in Russia -- again, going into construction of interest infrastructure rather than production of consuming the metals into commodity items that then are exported. Where we see where
45 our fundamental belief comes from is to go to those countries and see them investing in infrastructure which consumes the metal. The zinc coating of the (inaudible) (0:19:11) for putting into buildings and bridges and roads and the like. The copper going into air conditioners, refrigerators, piping in the buildings and the apartments that are being built. We - that is where we are quite strong on the consumption, the nickel going into the stainless steel. Now, two components then. One is the demand, two is the supply. We see some supply issues across various areas particularly in copper, but also, the increase in the cost curve and I think this is where in the short term, with the
5 imposed cost of sulphur, sulphuric acid, oil, steel and the like, those costs have really pushed up the cost of production right across a number of the minerals and the operators.
And I think you have seen that recently in the nickel laterites where it is not
10 that they do not have a good business, it is just their externally imposed costs have made at the current prices and very tight for them in terms of cash so they have backed off. We have certainly seeing this on the zinc curve. We have seen projects being shut, a number of operations that were reopened when the prices were in the $3000 a ton for zinc, back below $2000 a ton or
15 even at $2000 a ton, those operations are no longer cost-effective because of those input costs on energy consumables and labour.
So, I think there is a resettling and readjustment. If I come back and look at iron ore and coking coal -- even steaming coal, you see the demand going in
20 there and that is where I think there is a disjoint between the sentiment around a number of the other minerals and metals. For example, the zinc, 15% of the steel -- mild steel that is produced is coated in zinc. So, on one hand there is still a very optimistic approach in the market towards steel consumption, and yet there is this pessimism around zinc.
25
So, I think there is a short-term movement by institutions in the speculative side of the LMA prices and that is where I think you are seeing the prices being pushed below the top end of the cost curve. And I think that is not sustainable. And what you are seeing in the marketplace now with the
30 cutbacks in production, stopping our projects and the like is the market saying -- the producers saying to the market guys, “You got the price number wrong.” We will not produce at this level and that is why they have come out and actually said they will shut down.
35 Q Okay. And how about yourselves?
OZL In terms of ore, that is why we put in -- there were questions that were being asked about us, “What is your cost position like? You know, are you under the water in these current environments?” And that is why we published that
40 C1 cost that shows that -- as we have always said, we have got very efficient, very good operating assets. They are still in the black. And we do not sit on our laurels on that, we are chasing through improvement even further.
Q And so, can I take that to mean, Andrew, that at least for the immediate
45 future, there are no plans by OZ Minerals to curtail any of it is commodities production?
OZL There are not but not the immediate future. We would have announced that but it is something that you continue to look at. If people push the prices down it would be something that we would continue to look at. We do not want to be making losses on a sustained basis right at our operations. That is not the way to look after our shareholders.
5 Q Thanks a lot. Thank you.
OZL Good. Thanks, James.
Moderator Next question.
10
Operator Our next question comes from Jamie Freed of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Q Hi. I just have a few more questions. When you are looking at revaluing assets from Avebury and I guess these Canadian assets, within the next 12
15 months, do you only have a 12-month limit to do it? And if you did so and revalue them upwards, would you get a gain in terms of the exceptional items on your profit line?
OZL I’ll pass that to Jeff.
20
OZL We have got 12 months to be able to undertake that revaluation or assessment of the allocation of the purchase price. And any adjustments that are made from here will be within that allocation, so there will not be any significant items that flow through to the P&L. It will be moving numbers
25 between the allocation of the assets that we have already identified.
Q So there is a $4 billion -- $2.8 billion limit than on what you can do between those assets?
30 OZL Correct.
Q Alright. Just with Prominent Hill, I know there was some sort of mention of $41 million in claims from contractors, I was wondering if you could explain that?
35
OZL With the contingent liability in relation to -- that we have disclosed in the financial statement it is just -- it is a normal part of business for a project of this size and scale so our contingent from the point of view of contractors from time to time will make clients in relation to their contract. As part of the
40 normal management of a project, we are required by the accounting standards to disclose contingent liability that will be subject to the normal process of mediation and negotiation with their contractors and any amounts in there would be currently built within into our estimates as to the final capital expenditure of Prominent Hill.
45
Q Okay. Great. And just finally, you said there was a small operating loss for Zinifex in the second half of the year. At these zinc prices are the formers and the fixed assets still turning on operating loss?
OZL The -- as we showed in the accounts, the cash flow from operations is positive. But obviously then, by the time you add in exploration that is written off in the period, development costs that are written off in the period, you end up with a negative number.
5
Q Yes. Is that including depreciation, too?
OZL Yes, that includes depreciation. And that is shown in the six months -- one of the slides in the presentation, Slide 20 -- 35, the left-hand side of that slide shows you the half year for the six months.
10
Q So then --would you say the current prices that would, you know, still be an operating loss?
OZL We are going through the reviews of cut-off looking at the synergies across
15 the Company, reviewing the exploration, all those additional columns, discretionary costs, the amount we spend on development projects, the amount we spend on exploration, the whole head office integration costs and synergies there they are the bits that will determine it, and obviously, that is a key focus for us.
20
Q All right, great. Thanks.
OZL Next question.
25 BRR Our next question comes from Kate Haycock of MiningNews.net.
Q Hello. You mentioned that you were thinking about where you were reviewing your exploration costs. Can you give me some idea of what those exploration costs have been for both companies in the last six months and what you are
30 thinking of cutting that back to?
OZL Total exploration, if you take exploration around -- at our current mines, extending the ore bodies, exploration of near mines so we are looking at extensions, drilling in the local vicinity, and you also add exploration for
35 Greenfield, so at a totally new site. Combine the two companies, we are spending just over 100 million on that, and we would be going back and reviewing what is the appropriate. That is 100 million in a year so we will be going back and having a review on what is the appropriate level, particularly in the third category. Obviously, the first two categories, significant value
40 added and also requirements in the first category for just continuing the business.
Q Thank you.
45 Moderator Next question.
Operator Our next question comes from Michael Vaughan of The Financial Review.
Q Andrew, forgive me for asking a hard question. But given the writedowns today, there is -- the half operating loss of Zinifex, it is not a great headline number, the shares are down 10%. Is this a pretty disastrous start for the merged company?
5
OZL Look, I think it is a messy set of accounts that comes out of the accounting process, putting the two together. And obviously in the market, where the zinc price has fallen in Aussie dollars, something like 40% in the last year, copper has come up a bit. The Aussie dollar exchange rate has not helped in that
10 period. It strengthened significantly through the six months. I think a number of parties have identified that it was going to be a tough six months for the first half of the year. But I think that combined with all the accounting treatment that is required, I think it makes it messy, and therefore, people react to it. I think a number of parties were out there also, maybe sitting
15 around, expecting a buyback and hoping for that. And I think maybe a number of those people bailed as a result of it. But, you know, I think the important part is we are trying to get across with the OZ Minerals’ pro forma, the underlying cash flow from the operations. Three hundred and thirty-three million underlying cash flow from operations is very strong with a strong cash
20 position, and we are just going to work our way through this period in the market.
Q Okay. And I guess ignoring the fact that you -- Zinifex before your current position was the timing of the merger wrong given the change in commodity
25 prices and asset valuations that have happened since then and I guess the skewing of the value in the merger?
OZL Look, you got to take the window when it opens for being able to put the two companies together. A lot of people in the institutions in the market and
30 analysts had come to the same conclusion that it would make sense putting these two companies together. The synergies of the business is the lower risk profile, the spread of operations, the projects, the cash flow, the cash on the balance sheet, all make -- it made sense. That rationale still stays the same. I think, you know, to do it six months earlier apparently was not going to work.
35 What we are doing at this point in time, you just do not know. You do not know what their individual share prices would have been and whether it would have been appropriate. But at the time it was done, it was appropriate. From my mind, the fundamentals have not changed. The putting two companies together is a much better position than those two standing alone, and that is
40 the platform to go forward.
Q Okay. And last one. Given that you have not gone down the buyback path and you been drawing down debt to finance the remainder of Prominent Hill? You have got all the cash on the balance sheet. Are you really -- you have
45 demonstrated to people you really have to go and buy something now. Are you under pressure? Do you feel that you really do have to buy something given the strategies that you have put in place?
OZL You are right, Michael. The message very clearly the market should take is we are here -- this was put together as a platform for growth. We are going to operate well, we are going to really focus on our costs, we are going to deliver the projects that -- like Prominent Hill and Sepon, expansion in
5 Avebury that we have committed to, but we are also going to look at growing the business through M&A activity. We have got to get the first three areas absolutely humming to ensure the market supports us on anything we do on acquisition. And really, we are saying that where we look at it, that is the best value adding for our shareholders going forward. And we are focused on the
10 ones -- the opportunities out in the marketplace that can really do that.
Q Great. Thanks very much.
OZL Michael, If I can just add to that answer, this (inaudible) (00:32:11) small
15 point, the financing of the balance of Prominent Hill, as Jeff Sells was saying earlier is substantially out of operating cash flow and…
Q Alright.
20 OZL ...actually out of (inaudible) (0:32:24) debt.
Q Okay.
OZL …a very significant task that the source of funds (inaudible) (0:32:29).
25
Q Okay, great. Thanks.
Moderator Next question.
30 Operator I am not throwing any further questions at this time.
OZL Okay. Well, again, thank you very much for calling in. Again, I apologize for what looks like a messy set of accounts. They are complicated, three sets of accounts coming out at the same time, and with the accounting treatments, it
35 is quite difficult but a layman or an engineer to follow but having been taken through the logic of what had to be done that is what they are, but it doesn’t change the fundamentals. The fundamentals of OZ Minerals, a fantastic platform, strong cash flow from operations really focused on the synergies of putting the two companies together and extracting all those benefits as fast
40 as possible and as large as possible. And we are very positive about the work going forward in the market and for the Company. Thanks again for calling in.
INTERVIEW CONCLUDED
Contact brr@brr.com.au for more information
DISCLAIMER: Transcripts made available by Boardroomradio.com is a free service whereby the transcripts are created by one or more third party contractors without any involvement or oversight by Boardroomradio.com or the respective company, firm, partnership or individual that is being transcribed. Boardroomradio.com and its contractors, client companies, firms, partnerships and guest speakers (paid or otherwise) do not invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for, the information they provide. Boardroomradio.com makes every effort to provide a high quality service. However, neither Boardroomradio.com, its transcript providers, nor the providers of any other written or oral data made available on the Boardoomradio.com site (and its partner sites) give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of the information provided. Users should confirm information from another source if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so. Boardroomradio.com, its directors and employees do not accept any liability for the results of any actions taken or not taken on the basis of information in this site, or for any negligent misstatements, errors or omissions.
