Mick McMullen
Analyst · Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question
Thanks Chris. And we might just go to Slide 10 now, which is slide we’ve been putting up for several quarters now which, where we just look at our cost a ton. And you can see a couple of highlights on that. We’ve seen the mining cost of the Stillwater Mine which historically has been much higher, down to $119 a ton, which is actually now getting to be relatively close to the East Boulder Mine, there used to be a very large gap between those two costs, it’s closing rapidly. Our milling cost at $13 a ton for each site truly is sort of best-in-class. And I would say that our recoveries in that milling in concentrating area at 92% to 93% are also best-in-class. So, again across the board, we’re just continuing to squeeze the cost down. We’re seeing a little bit of an increase in our byproduct credit process, which is helping us a bit. Those have been depressed for quite some time. So, in general on the cost control side, both sites have had a very well, including the met completes [ph] had a very strong quarter. Going on to Slide 11, I talk a lot about mine productivity. And people sort of say well, why does that matter? Well, in this basic sense, mine productivity has a very strong inverse correlation with our all-in sustaining cost. You can see on that graph there, the green line, the all-in sustaining cost has had a very strong downward trend. The blue line is one our mine productivity metrics which is ounces per employee per month, all those to one-to-one inverse correlation between those two. As I said, June all-in sustaining cost was very low. It was a very strong performance. We would like to continue to push cost down. If you recall, we only at the last quarterly call came out with a new goal to reduce our all-in sustaining cost per ounce down to the mid-to-high 500s. And again, within one quarter, we’ve sort of - we’ve gotten there. So, I think that we still have many opportunities to drive productivity high. And that’s really where we see the ability to continue to drive cost lower. And I think many of the absolute costs that have, that could be taken out of the business have been the cost reductions from here on in, will very much come about through better productivity and high production basically. So, if we go to slide 12, in terms of other productivity metrics we look at. So, this is a subject that I spend much of my time thinking about. So this is that development rates. And we typically look at the 56-inclined [ph] over Blitz because it’s a single heading. It’s very easy to benchmark it. And you can see from this graph here that this year we’ve basically doubled advance rates relative to where we were last year, which also was a bit of an increase over the average of the previous two years. The 56, we spend a lot of effort on because this is the critical path item for first production of Blitz. We need this drive to be able to drill the reserves out. And we need this drive there so that we can access the ore body. We still think we have some room to improve. But again I think the team has done a great job at doubling their advance rates fee. Some of the other metrics we look at on Slide 13, so we look at stoped tons per employee hour. And again, at the Stillwater Mine you can see that since the start of this year, we had a 36% improvement. Again, stoping costs are down by about 20% since the start of the year, it’s another strong inverse correlation between productivity and cost. We see similar trends for capital development productivity and the reduction in unit rates. And so this is how we can reduce our sustaining capital spend but not cutting back on essential activities. And our teams have worked very hard. Again, we think we have some opportunities to continue to improve. But we really have seen a, over the last 12 months a material improvement in productivity across the board. Some of the things that we’re working on if you go to Slide 14, so we’ve achieved a lot. The costs have come down a long way. The productivity has gone up. But we still have a fair runway in front of us in terms of things that we can do. So, at the Stillwater Mine, we’re lining the waste dump so that we can move away from stick powder to different type of explosives called anther [ph], much higher productivity and much lower cost, less risk of strains for our workforce. We are spending $2.6 million in the back half of this year, which will go into as sustaining CapEx. And we see that that will have about a one-year payback. And we think and we’ve done this over the East Boulder and so we know it should work. And we saw a margin improvement in productivity and a significant reduction in cost of development once we did this. Ground support standard review, we’ve gone through a process, looked at our building patterns and we believe that we can still maintain adequate ground support, potentially better ground support and significantly reduce our building time and therefore increase productivity. I think on the technology side, it’s fair to say that at current state we are not at the leading edge of the industry. And we are aiming to get at least somewhere close to the top. There are lot of opportunities with automation and tracking of fleet to increase productivity. We are spending capital on that again as we announced sustaining capital budget for this year and will be in for next year. And we say that this has a lot of opportunities for us. So, if we go to best practice operations, with use of these - some of these, innovation technology, we can explain much of the productivity difference between them and ours. We’re looking at our building and measuring equipment, again we can see some different opportunities there. We had some new rile and power systems going in place, again the sustaining capital in that for the back half of this year. And if people recall when we had the ‘14 eight power system, we shut some stopes down at the end of ‘14. We said we took them offline. We said it would reduce their production a little bit but we would wait until the infrastructure was caught up to mine those ounces. We brought those, back online sort of September/October last year. And again, I think that had a fair bit to do with driving our cost down. We’re doing exactly the same thing with the 32-pass system. Again, we got to spend the money. It will mean that we take some ounces offline in November/December of this year. But by early next year we expect to see this have another positive impact on our cost. I think maintenance and tracking and optimization, maintenance is a large customer having for us. And we have a lot of opportunities here. And I think our blasting practices we made some improvements. We still believe there is some way to go. So, there are several things that we have on the line, which do require to us to spend some money. But we believe that there are some significant opportunities here in order to significantly reduce our cost. So, turning on to Slide 15, with Blitz, this is clearly our main growth development project. We’ve talked about it in the past that those higher advance rates that we’re seeing in the 56 have allowed us to accelerate the expectations for first production to late ‘17 or early ‘18 as I said. We’re actually moving the development crew for all access across there on August 1. So, we are pushing ahead, with actually getting in to mine the first stope. Capital, spend the first production we expect to be in the range of $155 million to $175 million. So this is not the total project budget. This is the amount of money we expect to spend until we get the first production. We expect that production when ramped up fully to be in the range of 150,000 to 200,000 ounces a year. I can say that we are looking at options to increase this production rate and to further define that ramp-up schedule which I would say still needs a bit of work. We are seeing a rapid change in our development rates. And we still think we haven’t planned out a way we can get them to. We believe that Blitz will be our lowest cost ounces due to the expected grade it’s 0.6 to 0.7 of an ounce to the ton and the logistics. This is setup it was available at East Boulder. So, we’re hoping to get sort East Boulder top cost per ton with the original feel with the top grades. When we look at what can we do for shareholders to impact valuation, clearly accelerating Blitz and bringing on more production at a lower cost has really probably the best potential to maximize NPV and therefore value per shareholders. So there is a lot of focus on this group with highly dedicated project managers whose sole job is to accelerate this thing and deliver this thing safely in an environmentally friendly manner. And we are pushing on with this as fast as we can. Going to Slide 16, you can see there the sort of the full scope of the project. That first stope block on the left-hand side in red, the 10,000 east stole block. There is about 60,000 ounces there we expect to mine at just under 0.7 of an ounce to the ton. So, again very good grade, and we’ve put a little scale on the top of the Golden Gate Bridge so that people can understand truly the scale of this operation. It’s equivalent to two on the bid going that bridge’s respect into wind. And we are now starting to do some initial work on how do we then actually start access in mining, the project that, below the rile level called [indiscernible]. We’ve opened up a lot of gantry out there it’s about 23,000 feet long. It’s about 4,000 feet up to surface from the rile level. But in addition we have 3,000 feet below the rile level down to our lowest levels of our working. So again, we’re pretty excited about this. The faster we can develop it, the quicker we can bring it online for people. Slide 17, we’ve talked a little it in the past about the work we’re doing at Lower East Boulder. We thought we’d give a bit more information today. So, we’ve done a scoping study with part the way through pre-feasibility study or PFS. And that PFS is really aimed to --what’s the optimal way to access or develop the next mine below the current rile level. The current rile level is on the 6,500 level, below that we have a large proven and probable reserve base of around about 4 million ounces. You can see the numbers on the graphic. We had this year done some limited deep drilling below those reserves. We have successfully intercepted the reef at [indiscernible] East Boulder drive at the 4,000 level. And so, our PFS is really based on sort of established in the haulage level down around the 4,000 level which would to be actually by twin declines from surface or an internal shaft. That PFS is looking at a range of production scenarios of sort of 150,000 to 200,000 ounces a year for a capital cost of somewhere in the order of $225 million to $275 million. Now that would be a combination of replacement and growth ounces and the preface is not complete yet. But we’re pretty excited about this. We as I said, we have a large prudent and probable reserve in it already. And in fact we are mining lower East Boulder from the top down, not necessarily the most efficient way to do it. And hence we’re doing this pre-feasibility study. So, when you have an ore body that’s 28 miles long by over a mile vertical, you have many opportunities for organic growth when I’m trying to sort of define some of those and look to see when we might bring those on. Slide 18, Altar, as we know it’s a very large Porphyry system. And there is around about 8 million tons of copper and 6 million ounces of gold contained. We did some recent, we spent some money recently on drilling that, really not sort of looking at the known deposits, and looking at some of the other exploration areas there. And I think that the change of government in Argentina has definitely made Argentina more attractive investment destination. Going to Slide 19, you can see the whole QDM 29 was sort of drilled below and adjacent to what we knew in the sort of small QDM gold deposit. And actually had a very large mineralized into safety net. So, it’s quite exciting. I think we’ve added some value to this project, for not a lot, of spend. And we continue to evaluate how we may realize value for shareholders out of that. If you go to Slide 20, we’ve been doing some conceptual plans there. If you look at the line on that slide, you can see clearly that a large blocked cave access from the side of the hill would make a lot of sense and rather than trying to sort of develop an open pit from the top of the hill where you got a lot of waste dripping. And the highest grade material is sitting at the base of the hill. So, this looks quite interesting actually. And I think that we will continue to spend a limited amount of money on this project. But I think the shareholders would provide some good auction value on copper and gold for very little money now. Going to Slide 21, we’ve updated our guidance as we have often done at this time of the year and previous year. You can see that we’re giving guidance for sales of mined ounces now, and cost of metal sold which we have not previously done. In terms of guidance that we have previously given, we’ve now bumped up our guidance range on ounces and lowered the range a little bit. Cash costs were reduced, all-in sustaining costs guidance we’re now targeting in the order $595 to $635 an ounce. Jay [ph] and I are broadly the same as what it’s been in exploration the same as what has been before. Sustaining capital in the $50 million to $60 million range, and project capital in the $40 million to $45 million range, which is where we’ve been. I would say on the sustaining capital, which then drives into our all-in sustaining cost guidance. We do anticipate a bit of a pick-up in sustaining CapEx spend in the second half. I have said previously that the warmer summer months, is typically when we can get in and do all of our bumps groundwork. But also we have these other projects related to for instance the waste dump lining which we’re doing in the back half of this year. Some of the technology-spend not huge amounts of money but collectively they do add up to a bit. And we do expect to see-off our sustaining CapEx spend to pick up in the back half of the year. We will on the other hand continue to look to drive out our underlying cost lower. But I think the guidance range of $595 to $635 for AISC is a reasonable improvement and we feel comfortable in that. So, going to Slide 22, and I think it’s been pretty clear that there has been a particularly in palladium a large market deficit and platinum, some sort of deficit. And Broke [ph] is across the board and typically have been forecasting quite a bit high prices than where we’ve been. And if you go to Slide 23, this just sort of shows where we were yesterday versus where those long-term prices were. And obviously prices have moved up significantly from when we had the call last quarter. We still think that there is some opportunity on the upside for those prices. And it’s pleasing in particular for palladium which I think has been lagging the market and it’s fundamentals for a while that we have seen stopped to move up and down and actually reflect its fundamentals. So, in summary on Slide 24, look, again, safety performance was outstanding. And the all-in sustaining cost was very strong. Productivity continues to improve at both sites and that’s really what’s driving our cost improvement. Recycling continues to grow, and as Chris said, our balance sheet is very, very strong. We did see a slight cash reduction that was very much driven by working capital increases and funding at growth capital. That gives us a lot of optionality in the current market. And as I said, we have seen finally in particular the palladium price stock to reflect its fundamentals. So, again, we’ve seen prices recover across the quarter, that’s been very pleasing and we continue to look to drive improvements within our business. And with that, I’d like to turn it over to any questions that people might have. And I’m happy to take them.