Ramelius Resources Limited

Thank you for standing by and welcome to the Remelius Resources quarterly teleconference. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you'll need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr Mark Zeppner, Managing Director. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to dial in this morning. In addition to the quarterly report, we have released a presentation that we'll speak to during this call. All documents have been uploaded on the ASX platform and will also be available on our website shortly. This morning I'm again joined by our CFO, Darren Millman. Darren will provide some detail on the financials after I've run through the highlights and touched on operational performance as well as our development projects. As usual, there will be an opportunity for listeners to ask questions at the end. So for those who have downloaded the presentation deck, I'll be speaking initially to slide three. On slide three, we generated $89.6 million in underlying free cash flow during the quarter. And whilst our cash and gold levels remained at a similar level to last quarter at approximately $440 million, the balance does take into consideration our additional $97 million investment in Spartan Resources in July. Our quarterly gold production of 62,444 ounces was at an all-in sustaining cost of $19.65 an ounce. The all-in sustaining cost, whilst higher than full-year guidance, is in line with our plan, and it should also be noted that the all-in sustaining cost, excluding the non-cash component, would be $15.89 per ounce. Our FY25 guidance remains unchanged at 270,000 to 300,000 ounces at an oil and sustaining cost of 1,500 to 1,700 an ounce, with production being weighted to quarter two onwards following the introduction of the higher grade QO and improving grades at penny. Pleasingly, our production for the quarter was achieved without any lost time injuries as we continue to focus on this area since marking the 12-month LTI-free milestone in May 2023. Development activities at Kew are now well underway. We commenced all mining in the quarter, with the entire Mount Magnet open pit mining fleet now mobilised to this project. At Kew, we moved over a million BCM in the quarter, which was mainly focused on the high-grade breaker day pits. Expiration and resource development activities focused on Eridanus in the quarter, given the promising results we've seen at this deposit today. On to slide four. Just draw your attention to the table on the left, which breaks down the quarterly production for the last 12 months. The lower production for the quarter is the result. I'll focus on the development of Q, lower volumes from penny due to line sequencing. and lower grades from the stockpiles across Edna May, as expected. Grades and volumes from penny are expected to increase across the balance of the financial year, and this, along with the introduction of high-grade ore from Kew, will see production increase in the coming quarters. On to slide five, which looks at the company's quarterly production stat. As expected, our total tons mined reduced from the preceding quarter with the focus on the development of Q. However, what is plain to see is the impact the introduction of higher grade Q ore has on the mine grade, which increased 33% despite less ore from our highest grade ore source, penny, during the quarter. Mill throughput levels were maintained during the quarter with the drawdown of existing stockpiles across Edna May. However, the lower stockpile grade and less penny tons have resulted in a lower mill grade for the quarter, with the result in reduction in gold production compared to prior quarters. On to slide six, where we show the operating highlights for Mount Magnet. Production from Mount Magnet totaled 41,019 ounces at an oil and sustaining cost of $15.25 an ounce. Mining of the Brownhill and Eridanus open pits was completed during the quarter, with the entire open-pit mining fleet now relocated to concentrate on accessing the higher-grade QR, as mentioned previously. Underground operations feeding Mount Magnet are now focused on the Galaxy and Penny mines. The Galaxy mine is well into commercial production after development in the prior year, and as a result we saw a 90% increase in tonnes mined, 44% increase in mine grade and a resultant 172% increase in contained gold mined. At Penny, we did see a drop in production in the quarter, which was not entirely unexpected with the planned development of the next levels within the mine. We are expecting to see production from Penny improve from this quarter onwards, returning to levels seen in the second half of FY24. Before I move on from this slide, I'd like to highlight that in the quarter we mined at an overall grade of 3.43, whilst the mill process grades were some 20% less than this at 2.91 grams per tonne. If you look back a couple of quarters to the March 2024 quarter at Mount Magnet, we processed all grades at 3.42, similar to the current quarter's mine grades. And we did that at an all-in sustaining cost of $1,030 per ounce, with operating cash flow from Mount Magnet of $79 million at an average realized gold price of just over $3,000 an ounce. Now, the March 2024 quarter only included the high-grade penny material with no Q ore. As we sit here today, we have Q ore stockpiled at grades over 10 grams per tonne. and gold spot prices over 35% higher than the realised prices back in March. As a result, we are looking forward to some extremely positive numbers from Mount Magnet for the remainder of FY25. Just on slide 7, you'll note a picture of the construction works of the intersection with the Kew Access Road with the Great Northern Highway. Works on the whole road between Kew and Mount Magnet continue. Mainly the vitimization of this intersection with all haulage expected to commence shortly. As of today, we have 35,000 tons of oxide ore at a grade above 10 grams for 11,500 ounces of contained gold, which is only awaiting haulage and processing. This all will obviously generate significant cash flows once those stockpiles begin processing. Slide eight, Edna May. Highlights for the quarter, gold production totaled 21,425 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of just under $2,800 an ounce, with production being sourced from the existing high- and low-grade stockpiles available across the hub. The all-in sustaining cost, excluding the non-cash component, was $1,712 an ounce. As at the end of the quarter, there remained Around 900,000 tonnes of both high and low-grade stockpiles, which will provide feed for the mill into the March 2025 quarter. Slide nine, Eridanus. Earlier this year, we released a mineral resource for Eridanus of 1.2 million ounces, which was a 64% increase on the June 2023 mineral resource, despite the continued mining depletion. Our studies on Eridanus are continuing. We've added a new exploration target over and above the stated 1.2 million ounce resource of 1.6 to 3.7 million tonnes at between 2 and 2.5 grams per tonne for between 100 and 300,000 ounces. This is a new target that sits underneath the already contemplated open pit cutback. In terms of the cutback, we've set a new production target. For that, I compared between 12 and 16 million tonnes at a grade between 1.2 and 1.6 grams per tonne for between 575 and 775,000 ounces, which is a 25% increase on the previous production target, if you take the midpoints. With our mill expansion studies now firming at around 3 million tonnes per annum. Our targeted outcomes from these mill studies, not surprisingly, include increased gold production, a reduction in operating costs per tonne for all tonnes that go through the mill, and ideally leading to a lower overall falling sustaining costs for the Mount Magnet mine plant. Before handing over to Darren, I'd also like to highlight further detail on the exploration and project development programs underway at our various mines that I've not covered can be found in the quarterly report itself. And I'd also like to add we're very much looking forward to sharing with you the PFS results on our Rebecca Rowe project with some encouraging RC drilling results received in the quarter further enhancing the economics of that project. That covers the highlights from me. I will now hand over to Darren.

Thank you, Mark, and it's a pleasure to be here with you all today. I will be initially speaking to slide 10 of the presentation deck. On slide 10, we show financial highlights for the quarter. The September quarter has been another strong quarter for Remilius with approximately 90 million of free cash flow being generated. What is really pleasing about this is despite the low production in Q1, which was in line with our expectations, cash flow remains very strong, demonstrating the high margins being generated by the business. During the quarter, we sold 62,806 ounces at an average realized price of 3,359 per ounce, which included a mix of spot and committed forward sales. This resulted in total sales revenue for the quarter of 211 million. The gold prices showed incredible strength for the quarter, increasing from 3,500 to 3,800, a run that has further extended into the current quarter with spot prices currently sitting above As we have previously flagged, we continue to wind down our forward contract hedges, which now sits at 127,000 ounces at an average price of 3,123 per ounce. The oil and sustaining cost for the quarter was 1,965 per ounce, which was up from the prior quarter, but within internal expectations. This oil and sustaining cost includes a 376 per ounce charge at the group level from the non-cash drawdown of existing stockpiles. Excluding this non-cash charge, the group oil and sustaining cost is $1,589 per ounce. I will talk to this more shortly. The resulted oil and sustaining cost margin, which is the realised gold price of $3,359, less the oil and sustaining cost of $1,965, remains strong at 42%. Cost guidance for FY25 remains unchanged at $1,500 to $1,700 per ounce. Looking at Mount Magnet in isolation, the oil and sustaining cost was just over $1,500 per ounce. The higher cost in the quarter was driven by a couple of factors. Firstly, the focus on development of Q as opposed to the higher grade sections of the Eridanus pit in the prior quarter. Less production being sourced from lower cost penny operations. and development costs for Galaxy are now being considered sustaining as opposed to growth capital. Production is expected to increase and cost to decrease across the balance of the financial year at Mount Magnet, with higher grades and tonnage from Penny and the introduction of higher grade ore from Q. Cost guidance for Mount Magnet remains at $1,300 to $1,500 per ounce for FY25, peer leading in the industry. At Edna May, the oil and sustaining cost was $2,799 per ounce, which is again in line with our expectations. Given the prevailing gold price, we are milling lower-grade material, which having a higher cost is still generating meaningful cash flow. The Edna May oil and sustaining cost including $1,087 per ounce of non-cash charge at this asset level for the drawdown of existing stockpiles across the hub. Excluding this, the oil and sustaining cost for Edna May would have been $1,589 per ounce. While this non-cash charge is higher than flagged in our guidance, it is not expected to continue at this level for the remaining quarters, and free-carry low-grade stockpiles now being the source of mill feed. We still expect the non-cash charge over FY25 to be approximately $500 per ounce per and our cost guidance for Edna May at 2,525 to 2,725 remains in place. On slide 11 and 12, we show a breakdown of free cash flow metrics for the quarter and historically. Gold sales of 62,806 ounces generated operational cash flow of 111.2 million with 68.4 million coming from Magnet and the balance of 42.8 from Edna May. A total of $22.5 million was reinvested in mine development, resource definition and exploration in the quarter, which focused on Eridanus, Kew development and the Rowe Rebecca project. The resultant free cash flow for the quarter was $89.6 million, with the closing cash and gold position being $438.6 million, which was after the investment of $97.6 million in Spartan Resources. Our closing cash and gold position of $438.6 million, coupled with the new $170 million debt facility, leaves us with over $600 million in available liquidity. It is not only our cash and gold that points to strong balance sheet, but our working capital position with sizeable stockpiles available going forward. Lastly from me, I would highlight that the growth capital and expiration spend for the quarter was in line with expectations and our guidance but this spend remains at $20 to $30 million for growth capital and $40 to $50 million for exploration. However, such expenditures in H2 of FY25 is dependent on the outcomes associated with Eridanus and mill expansion studies mentioned earlier. Although any material spent associated with those projects are not realistically likely to come in until FY26. With that, I'll hand it back to Mark.

Thanks, Darren. So just last slide, we have summarised our key focus areas for FY25, which are pretty much unchanged from those previously released. We'll continue to improve our safety performance group-wide and deliver FY25 guidance in line with our We Deliver and Do It Safely core company value. We'll continue to develop, queue and deliver first-door to Mount Magnet as planned this quarter. We'll complete the Eridanus Underground Open Pit Studies by December, along with the Mount Magnet processing facility study, due for the same timeframe, along with the Rebecca Rowe combined pre-feasibility study in December also, all the while increasing exploration drilling at Mount Magnet, Kew, Penney, and last but not least, Rebecca Rowe. If we can now open the line up for questions, please, Darcy.

Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star 2. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Andrew Bowler from Macquarie. Please go ahead.

G'day, Mark and Darren. Just looking at the comments on page 7, you just talk about some great control drilling in the lower areas of Penny and you talk about the northern mineralisation seeing some thinner spread out in multiple veins for Penny. Just wondering what that could do for the remaining inventory of Penny or are those changes to modelling considered immaterial?

Hi Andrew, it's Mark. Yeah, look The ore body looks a little more complicated than what we've seen so far on the northern end. I think the geological term is bifurcation, where the vein has split in certain areas and it wasn't showing up in the earlier drilling. And so we're still trying to understand. We've only recently drilled and we're recently developing. But it looks like it's stronger on the south end and could go for longer. To understand the total overall impact, we're not quite there yet, but there is some complication down in the lower northern part of the oddbody that we weren't predicting, and that's what we were talking about in the quarterly.

No worries. Thanks, Mark. And last one for me, maybe one for Darren. From what I could see, there wasn't any cash tax paid in the quarter, but you guided, you know, circa $90 million over the year. Can you just give us a bit of an idea how that might come out? Is it relatively even between the remaining three quarters or is it, you know, back-ended into the second half? Cheers.

Yeah, probably... Third quarter, you know, probably looking at about 70 million instead of the space. So, yeah, it's sort of back-end loaded. No worries.

That's all for me. Thanks, Jen. Thanks, Andrew.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Michael J. Scantleberry from Euros Hartleys. Please go ahead.

Yeah, Mark and Darren, just a question around the map magnet mill expansion. How should we be thinking about the grade profile, production profile, given the expansion? You're looking to go to 3 million tonnes per annum?

I don't know the grade off the top of my head. Obviously, the average grade of Eridanus is 1.4, 1.5, but it has a profile of being lower grade towards the top, as we saw when we actually mined the current pit. and improves with depth. So we need to throw all that into the mix. But essentially, if you're going from your 2 to 3 million tonnes, there's probably an additional million tonnes of aerodinous material which has that improving grade profile that I talked about. But don't know the grade on an overall basis, let alone a year-by-year basis, Mike, just yet.

No worries. And then is there any kind of colour you can give on CapEx or do we have to wait for the study? Just obviously you're looking at going at that 3 million tonnes and you list out a few items that you need to work on the plant to get there.

Yeah, no, we're working with G-Res on that at the moment. We wouldn't want to throw numbers out there at this stage, but we think it's not too X-y. Maybe looking at what Capricorn have done will give you some sort of indications of where we're probably thinking. And broadly, if you're doubling production, you're building a new mill, it's probably going to cost you $200. So it's less than that, but it doesn't come for free, as you know.

Makes sense, makes sense. And then do I hear correctly just on the timing for the spend that would be in FY26? Yes.

Yeah, that's the feeling. If we like what we see come the end of the year, and even if you're pushing buttons and board approvals and you get the ball rolling with permitting and contractors, I can't see a lot of spend in the second half of FY25. It would mainly be material in FY26. So, you know, whether there's another $20 or $25 million or so spent in the second half, and that's why we've always pointed In terms of growth capital to FY25 being very similar to the $50 million or so we spent in FY24, we can't see that changing.

No worries, that makes sense. I'll pass it on. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Alex Barkley from RBC. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Mark and Darren. Another question around Eridanus. Thanks for the comments around the production target and expiration target. A couple of questions there. Is there a reason the production target grade is a bit lower than the resource? Is that just around dilution? And then with the expiration target, just interested how that might come into play. Could that get added into a cutback design before you do make the final decision around the mine and the mill? Just sort of timing how that one might enter. Thanks.

Thanks, Alex. It's Mark. I beg to differ on the exploration target being a lower grade. It's between 2 and 2.5. Oh, the production target doesn't go as deep. The exploration target effectively sits below the pit shell that you see. And in line with the improving graded depth, the deeper you go, the higher grade you get. So yeah, the the actual cutback production target at 1.4, 1.5 is lower than the midpoint at 2.25, but that's not unexpected given the nature of the ore body as we are understanding it. And sorry, what was your second question, Alex?

The timing around the expiration target being sort of lower confidence than the resource, when might that become resource and does that enter your decision-making? Yep.

Yeah, look, ideally, Alex, that comes with the mineral resource update in December. And we ideally convert that, most likely, that exploration target to an inferred resource, given its depth and the number of drill holes we've got. I think there's about a dozen holes into it. So I think we'd be able to get that into the classified category.

Yeah, OK, perfect. So great at depth. Got it. All right. Thanks very much, guys.

Thanks, Alex.

Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone. Your next question comes from Paul Caner from Ordmanet. Please go ahead.

Yeah, hi, gents. Thanks for taking my questions. Just another one on the mill expansion there at Mount Magnet. You mentioned that 3 million tonne per annum option seems most likely. Can you maybe just flesh that out a bit more, I guess, what's keeping you at, 3 million tonnes per annum and not going higher, is that an oil constraint, a space constraint or a capital issue?

I think it's more related to capital, Paul, and obviously we're working through that at the moment. But you do get to a point where rather than adding or upgrading certain parts of the mill, you do get to a point where you've got to look at pump sizes, conveyor sizes, and yet you're almost building another mill. So there is a step change in capex that does help dictate your decision-making.

Yeah, no, understood. And then just on that Q mining, I know it's still relatively early days there, but that material you've mined, I guess, has that come in at a higher grade than you... than you expected?

I think it's fair to say the break of day pit average grade is 4.5.

There is also a lower grade stockpile. There's another 35,000 tonnes at, I think, 1.7, sitting alongside the high-grade stockpile, even though I was up there last week, and you can't tell the difference between the two, funny enough. The average grade of 4.5, I'd actually guess that the higher-grade portion is outperforming, And we did flag that if any oil body is going to outperform, it's going to be the high-grade proportions of Q, given the top cuts and given, I suppose, how conservative we are with our resource-to-reserve processes. So there might be some uplift there, but it is early days, I will caution.

Yeah, no, great. And I guess how much should we assume sort of comes in the next quarter? Yeah. I guess, from those stockpiles?

We're obviously just going to kick off haulage very shortly. We've just finished the intersection. We do have to haul through Mount Magnet Town and turn right to head out to the Mount Magnet mill. So we might not be going at maximum production rates, but we'd like to think that we'll get, obviously, that high-grade portion into the mill by the end of the quarter.

Yeah, awesome. That's it for me. Thanks very much, guys. Thanks, Paul.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Rob Wolf, a private investor. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mike. Good to chat. Just a couple of quick questions regarding the possibility of the expansion of the mill at Mount Magnet. First one, regarding grind size. Obviously, with gold price high, is a finer grind going to be looked at to try and get that little tiny bit extra on recoveries And the second question linked in really is, will the large stockpiles of low-grade and reasonably low-grade at Mount Magnet be considered in that 3 million tonne expansion for later in the processing option for that mill?

Thanks, Rob. Good to hear from you. One of the key outcomes I didn't mention it verbally, but it's in the release, was to maintain our recoveries, which last time I looked were pretty handy. They're around 95%. You know, you're starting to push the Mets to get much more than that. We don't really think we need a finer grind than what we've currently got. We're reasonably fortunate with our ore sources, but we'll always keep an eye on those recoveries. In terms of the stockpiles, you know, if they're I think they're 0.9 grams or 3 million tonnes average. They'll find a place in the mine plan which best suits, and at this point in time, I think it's at the end of the mine plan. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait because we've got a higher grade to put in first. Sounds good. Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Rob.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now head back to Mr Zeppner for closing remarks.

I'd just like to thank everyone for listening. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.

Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.