Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for our Financial Results Conference Call for the half-year ended December 31, 2021. Our Chief Financial Officer, Katie Tovich, is also here on the line, and I have our Chief Operating Officers, Jason Economidis and Mike Fraser, joining us on the line as well. Look, there's a short video which provides an overview of our financial results available on our website, so I'll keep my introductory comments relatively brief, and then we can get into some of the detail, if you like, in the Q&A. Look, I'll always start with the point that we have a strategy that's been in place since day one. It's a simple strategy that we think is fit for purpose across all cycles. It is underpinned by a belief in a strong balance sheet and a focus on a disciplined application of capital.
If I sort of break that strategy into components, the first piece around optimize our existing operations, I think in the period you would have seen that we had another good operating performance from the teams. We achieved production records of Worsley Alumina, Brazil Alumina, and TEMCO. We've upgraded full-year guidance at Illawarra Metallurgical Coal, Cerro Matoso, and Cannington, and the volume efficiencies and cost controls that the teams have achieved mean unit costs are well controlled despite strengthening currencies. It's great to see that our core markets are rebounding, and we've seen our prices start to reflect this in the increase at the start of 2021, which gives us confidence going forward. As a consequence, we announced today we'll be paying a dividend of $0.014 per share, and we increased our capital management program by $250 million, with $259 million to return by September 2021.
It's also good to see the teams doing a lot of work on the second pillar of our strategy, which is around unlocking the full value of our business. You would have seen us announce that we accelerate the development of the Q&P project at Cerro Matoso and the progressing numerous improvement and life extension studies across that business and other businesses. A couple of examples being the rollout of the energy efficiency technology we're rolling out at Mozal, and we're also looking at that to be incorporated at Hillside by doing a study. We've also got a number of decarbonization studies ahead of us, releasing our updated targets later this year. At the same time, we continue to work the portfolio, which is the third element of our strategy, by continuing to exit low-returning businesses. TEMCO is now gone.
Metalloys is on care and maintenance, and South Africa Energy Coal is progressing. We have also in the half unlocked value through the sale of a non-core precious metals royalty portfolio, and at the same time, while we're surprised by the IPC decision, we've got a number of options we'll look at that I'm sure we'll dive into today on that space. We've also established an attractive pipeline of growth projects. The studies at Hermosa are progressing with Taylor due at the end of this financial year and Clark in the first half of FY22 in terms of a concept study. The Ambler Pre-feasibility Study will be completed with the exploration program starting this season, following the COVID impacts in 2020. All our growth initiatives and our drive is around increasing our exposure to the base metals that we think are important for a lower carbon world.
It's reflected also by the 20 exploration partnerships past since we have a few companies which have a bias to base metals. If you think about our balance sheet, it remains strong. We ended the half with $275 million of net cash, and that has grown to $452 million by the end of January, with working capital unwinding as expected. Our buyback is continuing, and there are major catalysts coming that will move the quality of the portfolio forward in the coming year. With that, I'll open it up to questions.
Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Paul Young with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Morning, Graham, and Katie and team. First question, Graham, is on Appin, Illawarra, and Dendrobium Next Domain. Can you just talk through what is a realistic plan B as far as a mine redesign there and what that could look like just conceptually? And second to that, on the base case assumption, or the assumption, I should say, that you cannot get a plan B up through the IPC. What does that look like on a medium to long-term basis as far as all-in costs at that operation when you move to the longer panels? Just conceptually, what would the cost structure look like at Appin if it was running standalone? Thanks.
Yeah, thanks, Paul. I appreciate the question. Perhaps if we start, I guess, and take a step back and we think about the complex that we have there. Obviously we have Appin and Dendrobium. Appin itself is obviously the base of the business, and as we've spoken about over the last period of time, we've been executing a plan to sort of get Appin back to its nameplate capacity. It was great to see again the teams return to that three longwall configuration late April across the whole complex. Obviously, our guidance this year has been upgraded by 4% to 8 million tons. The hybrid plan that we talked about at Appin is maximizing productivity of the two longwall faces, and that continues over the next three years. And then to your point, Paul, we transitioned to a simplified mine layout with larger panels from FY25.
Previously, we'd spoken about getting back to about 7.6 million tonnes of north end costs of about $100 a tonne. If we sort of look at Appin only and talk about that new plan, to the point you made, that plan, when we go into the longer length long walls, reduces the number of long wall moves. We don't have the same delay to relocating long walls, and we benefit from further productivity. For example, there's about 30 kilometers less underground development. There's fewer vent shafts. You go from four to two. You continue with continuous miners from seven to four, and you only have less gas rigs. I think your question around the cost is a good challenge.
If we have a look at where we are today, obviously Appin's cost base, excluding sustaining CapEx, was about $112 a tonne and about $27 a tonne in FY21 for sustaining CapEx. If you think about where we would aim to be beyond FY25 with these changes, we'd be pushing for an all-in cost at Appin of around $100 a tonne. That's certainly the objective of Jason and the team. To answer your question around the IPC, look, the IPC, it is fair to say our submission around Dendrobium, which included Area 5 and Area 6, to be clear, that was an unexpected outcome for the IPC, not only for us but probably all our stakeholders. So that is something, obviously, we're engaging with all the key stakeholders now about what the way forward looks like.
From our perspective, there are a number of options that we have in terms of how we go forward. One is to appeal. The appeal is basically on process, not merits. We can seek to have a government intervention. We can submit a revised plan, or we can accept the decision. But before we maybe sort of dive into that detail, I think it is important to sort of recognize that we also have some other options around Dendrobium in the short term. Clearly, we've already got some work underway in the area that we're currently mining. We potentially have some opportunities around Area 3C, even though longer term that has some gas challenges around extraction, and then there's potentially some remnant mining.
We think there's some work we can do at Dendrobium, but obviously our preferred case is around doing Dendrobium Next Domain, which is essentially Area 5. What we will have a look at now is obviously what options we have around a revised mine plan that makes economic sense, addresses some of the concerns potentially that were raised by the IPC. But at this stage, Paul, it is too early to make a definitive decision because the teams have just commenced that work. But what I would say, the important point is, if you think about the base business Appin, the team absolutely, with the redesign that we've put in place and talked about over the last couple of periods, has the opportunity to get to roughly an all-in cost of $100 a tonne.
Yep, great. Thanks, Graham. Good info there. I've got a second question on the portfolio more broadly over the long run. Now that Eagle Downs is out and some challenges certainly on Dendrobium Next Domain, if I look at the pipeline, obviously Hermosa is still a big project. It'll take multi-years to execute on. There's lots of upside through the drill bit, et cetera. Trilogy is more longer dated, near sort of 2030 as far as potentially first production. It looks like there could be a little bit of a gap there, three or four years where post the build of Hermosa and before you get stuck into Trilogy.
Just thinking around about your pipeline and options, I know you're doing all the farm-ins, which is the right thing to do, but do you think you need another larger project, or can you take on another larger project, say, in between Hermosa and Trilogy?
I'll start with Paul. I think they're all good questions and certainly appreciate there is a potential time lag with the development of the Hermosa in terms of Taylor and Clark, and obviously Arctic is a bit further out, as we've always spoken about. I think the critical point for us, though, is what do we do with the existing operations? I think it was great to see, for example, the work that's been done at Cerro Matoso around basically QMP, but also some of the work that they're now doing, if you like, around the next stage of development for them, which is really around an ore sorting and mechanical ore concentration project. That potentially has the ability to increase the processing capacity by 50%, offset some of the grade decline, but also get an extension on what's called Contract 51.
We've also got Hillside AP3XLE we're looking at. We've been implementing that in Mozal at the moment. So the existing operations are working what they can do to sort of look at growth and how they can maintain or sustain their production levels. I think, look, the gap in between when we develop our first project, you can look at that in two ways. One, we generate more cash than we need, so hence we'd look to return it back to our shareholders because we don't believe in carrying excess capital. The second thing is there may be opportunities that come our way, but again, we're not fixated as an organization on chasing volume over value.
So we'll always be ready to look at opportunities, whether they be new projects or maybe potentially M&A, but it's always going to be through that lens of how we create value for our shareholders. We're not driven by increasing our production just to satisfy people. It's got to be about how we create value for our shareholders. So you should expect us to be continually disciplined in that space.
Yeah, thanks, Graham. I'll pass it on.
Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.
Thanks, Graham. Just to expand a bit more on Cerro Matoso, can you perhaps shed some light on the medium to longer term production expectations we should be expecting out of that asset now, given the changes?
Yeah, look, I think that is certainly something Lyndon will give more detail on as we do some more of the work. I mean, obviously, we've given some of the guidance around what, if you like, the actual QMP project looks. I mean, essentially, that would allow us to lift our production for a period of time. We're probably between FY 2022 to 2028, we'll be pushing the production up. I mean, our objective at Cerro Matoso is to roughly get to 40 to 42 thousand tonnes of nickel produced there, and we think that's about the right level we're aiming for with the number of different projects the teams are working on. The team at Cerro Matoso, look, I think have just done an amazing job over the last 12 months. As they've battled COVID-19, they've developed these options, as well as they've done a major furnace rebuild.
If you recall, that major furnace rebuild also had to cut the envelope to allow us to actually process that material. For that, 40-42 is probably about the right number we're looking to achieve.
Great. And I suppose I'll be the one to ask. Anything you can say on the South Africa Energy Coal sale, just to update us on progress?
Yeah, look, probably not a lot new than we've disclosed in the past. I mean, it does feel like it is taking time, but I guess people have got to understand that's in the backdrop of the country at the moment that is having a huge bout of COVID-19. We're working very closely with Eskom at the moment through that approvals process. Obviously, we've got South African Competition. We've got the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, the minorities that own a share in South Africa Energy Coal equity for a nominal amount. We're engaged really extensively with both Seriti and Eskom and making good progress. We're still on track. We believe to complete it by the end of March this year, and certainly, all the signs have been positive from the government interactions. There's just a lot of distractions in the country at the moment.
Great. And look, final one from me, if I may. Just great to see the buyback capital return amount. Can you steer us in any direction about how you choose to allocate money between a buyback and a dividend going forward?
Yeah, look, I'll pass that one to Katie. She runs that capital allocation framework.
Yeah, thanks, David. Look, I mean, maybe just to reemphasize our capital management framework is unchanged. And we obviously set within that, we have the minimum payout ratio of 40%. And as we see earnings expand, we expect to return incremental dividends via that mechanism to our shareholders. Look, our capital management program's flexible, and we've always said we'll seek to return cash to shareholders in the most efficient manner, and we don't plan to carry excess cash. So at current share price levels, we certainly see value in our shares at this level. We also believe in the longevity of our capital management on-market share buyback program. And so we do intend to continue to buy through the cycle while we see value. We do have that flexible execution approach where we buy higher volumes at lower price.
And if you look back through history, you can see we've had some good success in terms of the value approach to that dividend, sorry, that buyback approach. But I do think it's worth noting that we can switch, and we'll continue to assess that right form of return as we progress through the execution of the program.
Okay, thanks a lot.
Your next question comes from Kaan Peker with Royal Bank of Canada. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning, Graham, Katie, and Jason. Thanks for taking my questions. Just on the portfolio, maybe extending on Paul's question, is the ability to take on additional projects dependent on the South Africa Energy Coal sale? And maybe, I mean, it's been deferred in the past, but just wanted to check if you've got an update on how much capital you believe will be freed up post the sale or post the divestment of the South Africa Energy Coal asset? I've got another question afterwards.
Okay, well, maybe I'll address the first question. Look, from a portfolio perspective, there's nothing more important than us in terms of completing that South African energy coal transaction. Now, we've talked in the past about the complexity that business brings in terms of physical size and footprint, just pure number of people, plus the government involvement through the state-owned enterprise, Eskom, Department of Mineral Resources, and obviously National Treasury. It's a complicated business, and you can look across the industry at the moment and just look at results over the last six months where there's been roughly losses of $1.5 billion in most of the energy coal businesses because it is a business long-term that we don't think fits with a company like ourselves. Look, from our perspective, it is about completing the deal for those reasons.
There are added benefits in terms of it does obviously help us from a balance sheet perspective because if you look pretty much day one of that business to where we are today, it's always been a drawdown on cash. And it also has large closure provisions, but recognizing those closure provisions are quite long-dated. So it certainly has those challenges. And maybe, Katie, you can add some thoughts about how you think about the balance sheet post-sale.
Yeah, thanks, Graham. Certainly, in terms of sustaining capital, we do see that our sustaining capital will reduce post the divestment of South Africa Energy Coal in the region of around about $100 million a year. So certainly, from a capital intensity perspective, that will be attributed to the balance of the portfolio. The other element that we've talked about too is freeing up balance sheet in the context of provisions. And you will know that South Africa Energy Coal has at the moment about $870 million worth of rehabilitation provisions associated with it. So that's about 35% of our total provisions. So we will release those also as we divest South Africa Energy Coal. And those elements will be reflected as we reconsider our optimal balance sheet, as we've said, post the divestment, say.
But I also would just sort of close that out. I wouldn't want people to think that we're building war chests on the balance sheet to go and do M&A or M&A decisions. We'll continue to focus on growth options as we have in the past. It's all about creating value, not chasing coal equivalent units. That same discipline has so far been. Yeah, so, I had a second question.
Sorry, just finding it a bit tough to hear, but just on that, yeah, I sort of missed that last part.
Okay, still there? Sorry.
Yeah, sorry.
Might be you're live. We might have to try and just take the next question and see if we can circle back.
Your next question comes from Hayden Bairstow with Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Yeah, thanks, Graham. I'm having the same problem. It seems to drop in and out a bit. Just a quick one on Cannington. I mean, obviously, you sort of lifted this year a little bit. Just interested in sort of the outlook. I mean, you know, provided a few guidance previously. What, yeah, how do we think about that? Is some of these high-grade areas likely to deliver better results into the sort of medium term and the rest of the project and the reserve upside? Just sort of trying to get a better feeling for that. And then just on manganese in the NT, just obviously, that on reserves, it has a reasonably short life. There's obviously potential to convert all of that. I mean, just some timing on when we might see updates to the mine life assumption at GEMCO.
Yeah, maybe I'll deal with the manganese one and I'll get Jason to talk about the Cannington one. I mean, obviously, Gemco has the beauty, I guess, of being the best asset in the industry from a unit cost basis, a grade, and also proximity to the customer. Look, we have a number of different options on the go at the moment around Gemco. As you rightly pointed out, at the moment, we have about 5.7 years' worth of reserve and about 11 years of resource. At the moment, the team are working hard to basically get into the eastern leases, which essentially has the project moving into feasibility, where we'd expect, if you like, the final investment decision on that to be made around May 2022. And first production will be about FY25.
That'll basically work about three years that'll move, if you like, from the resource to the reserve. I think that, and they'll probably scrape out another two or three years on other work they're doing around just general stuff around the property. I think the big one for us is really around the southern areas. The southern areas is a large, unexplored area, free of the work that we've been doing over the last 12 to 18 months. We are in stage two of that exploration program that'll run for roughly two years. In that, we'll do about 94 km in new drill lines and pads. We'll do roughly 792 RC drill holes, of which we've probably completed, I think, roughly last time, we'll look just around 220 at the end of December. We'll restart the program in 2021 when the dry season is sort of back.
Then we expect to complete the drilling in there by 2021. The challenge with the southern leases is really understanding what you have: is it two, is it five, is it ten years? We just haven't done enough work, but we'll be in a position to talk about that towards the end of this calendar year, or sorry, financial year 2000, sorry, calendar year 2021. Maybe Jason, do you want to talk about Cannington and where they're at?
Yeah, thanks, Graham. And thanks for the question, Hayden. Look, Cannington's actually stabilized in production. I think our access to high-grade stopes continues. There's no sort of nothing, no impacts that are foreseen in the future. We've got some studies underway at the moment looking at different areas that we can go into. So I'm not sure if there's anything else you wanted to ask, Hayden, but Cannington's in good shape.
I think Cannington is running well, Hayden. I think the one thing that we've always flagged is obviously the mine is in excess of 20 years now. The shaft itself, we've talked about eventually what do we do with that shaft because eventually you've got to move out of the shaft because it actually has high-grade ore in there and probably the highest grade ore in the mine at the moment. So certainly one of the initiatives that Jason's been leading, Joe, who runs Cannington, is what is the right time to sort of move from using the shaft for taking tons up to actually going back to truck haulage. And if you remember during the truck replacement underground, we were sort of roughly for a period of time 100% trucking ore out of the mine, so we've done it in the past.
That's a trade-off study that the team's sort of focused on. I think to Jason's point, mine production is back up to where it needs to be. The mill always has extra capacity. I think the key for them at the moment is, and we've pointed out in the past, you don't have that many different, if you like, options to sort of move the mine sequence because of limited openings. I think what I would say the team has done a really good job on is going back to some of them old stuff, stopes that we've talked about cutting in half and accessing. I think the more we've done that, the better the team's got at that around productivity. But what you should expect, Hayden, there's still some fluctuations in grades as we just go from stope to stope because the sequence is pretty well set.
The only big change potentially around if we get into the shaft earlier.
Yeah, okay. So year-on-year fluctuation still likely. Okay, cool.
So I imagine we'll make a decision on the shaft within the next six months to give you a timing of what that looks like.
Okay, cool. Thanks, Graham.
Your next question comes from Glynn Lawcock with UBS. Please go ahead.
Morning, Graham. Just a few quick ones, hopefully. Just in the report, you talk about your long-term coal supply agreement and you're going to assess the impact from the IPC ruling. I probably should know this, but could you just refresh it? What is that long-term coal supply agreement? I mean, are you having to supply coal and what's the risk if you can't have to shut Illawarra in 2024 because you can't make it work? That's the first one. Thanks.
Yeah, look, we obviously have a, you'll see in our sales numbers, we have a domestic product that we actually sell to BlueScope as well as we sell a little bit to Whyalla. I mean, that contract has been in place since the demerger of the business from BHP many years ago. It's an interaction, if you like, with relationships over a long period of time. We put in our plant. It's actually sort of based on their lease. They obviously have specifications around what they're looking for in tonnage blends. That's something we engage with them on a regular basis as the mine plan changes. In many ways, when you have some of the challenges around China and other places in placing your product at the moment, it's a good natural hedge to have. But we have a good relationship with BlueScope.
We'll continue to work through that as the mine life changes and the composition of the blend changes.
But is it a supply or pay agreement sort of thing that if you have to provide coal for a certain period, or does closure unexpectedly negate your obligation under that supply agreement?
Yeah, look, probably some commercial sensitivity around some of the details of the contract. But what I would say is it is a turned-down contract. There are some best endeavors clauses contained in that contract, but also both parties recognize that the coal blend changes over time. So we work through that in a good way.
Okay. And then just you've spoke a lot about Eskom already and obviously the SA Coal Sale, but you will have seen overnight the deal that Eskom's just been allowed to put up price hikes by 15% plus. How does that play into what's happening? Is that something that had to happen to help you move forward on the sale, or are they completely separate events? I'm just trying to understand if that's a positive for the sale process. Thanks.
Look, I mean, if you think about Eskom at the moment, they're a state-owned enterprise with some of the pressure on reliable baseload at a competitive price. Their balance sheet is stretched. So one of the things they're looking to do, obviously, is to increase the prices for certain customers they sell to. The other side is they're looking to procure high-quality cheap coal from a variety of different sources. We actually think, while we're not focused on the revenue side, that's their complaint, so it's not impacting us, per se. We're more focused on how do we help them out with the coal side. We think part of the attraction of the deal with Seriti is a combination of the two resources and the infrastructure actually allows them to lower their average unit cost of coal procured.
I think from that side, we're just watching the other side on the expense side, so I don't think it impacts our deal whatsoever. Mike, you might have a phrase and have a slightly different view being in South Africa and closer to it.
Hi, good morning, Glynn. Yeah, look, nothing much to add from what Graham has said. I think the key issue here is Eskom is severely under pressure. They still absolutely believe their way out of their balance sheet pressure is through some kind of price relief, which they're obviously trying for, so through managing their revenue line. But I think, as Graham has said, from our point of view, they're pretty separate. But I think if there is any linkage, it's really that they are talking to National Treasury about an integrated plan. And as Graham has said, I think the deal that Seriti brings in terms of their club deal is really one that gives them much more certainty on longer-term coal supply prices, which on the cost side, their primary fuel costs have really been climbing.
So we do believe that this is a good deal for them, and they are very supportive. Okay, thanks. Graham, can I slip in one quick one, if you may? Just the timeframe for the buyback, is that over the next 12 months or six months?
Six months. We've got what, 250 plus the nine that we didn't get completed in the timeframe, so that would be the objective to try and get that away, obviously, before the blackout.
No worries. Thank you.
Your next question comes from Paul McTaggart with Citigroup. Please go ahead.
Morning. So I just want to circle back to the provisions. So obviously, they increased. You dropped your discount rate. I'm just not sure from what to what. Maybe you can tell me that. But I was interested, those provisions that relate to SA Coal have obviously gone up. I think you said it is now, whatever it was, 800 and something, 870. It was 100-odd million lower than that before, I recall. Is there any, given that that's now gone up and you haven't yet completed the sale process, is there any adjustment in terms of what Seriti pays or anything you need to put in to recognise that adjustment?
Maybe I'll just pass across to Katie Tovich to talk about the provisions.
Yeah, look, Paul, I mean, those provisions, they will move up and down through time depending on discount rates. And also, FX has had a pretty significant impact in terms of the provisions. You will see in that slide that we have captured sort of the breakdown of FX discount rate and total cost estimate changes. But certainly, your ballpark, I think, is about a $130-$140 million movement, which is roughly 50/50 in terms of FX and discount rate. You will see in our accounts, we don't disclose the discount rates that we use, but we do have a sensitivity that we note that 0.5% discount rate movement has about a $405 million impact on the group's provision valuation.
Probably the only comment I'll just make. Second part of the question was around impact on the deal. Look, Seriti will form their own view of what closure looks like, so if you like, the current and future liabilities, because they are quite long-dated, and obviously, as we've spoken about in the past, they're looking to combine and look at some synergies between the two operations, which will allow them to reform a view, so we'll also have a different view on what the appropriate discount rate is. I think there are, look, some legacy rehab issues that clearly are provided in the provision. They're probably a little bit more solid, but the forward-looking one's very much their perspective, and it's certainly not been an issue for the future liabilities that they've raised any questions or issues around where we've changed our internal discount rate.
Okay. Thanks.
Your next question comes from Peter O'Connor with Shaw and Partners. Please go ahead.
Morning, Graham. Katie. Graham, I've got a series on Illawarra, if I may. Firstly, the outcome from the IPC, do you have the ability—you gave three options that you had—is the fourth option going back with an alternate proposal, i.e., to reconfigure completely away from the dams and estuaries, etc.?
Yeah, look, Peter, thanks for the question. And as you pointed out, we have a number of options, including appeal, do nothing, seek government intervention, or look at rebuilding the mine plan. As you would expect, before we make any kind of decision, we're going to understand all those options. The submissions at Dendrobium was really Area 5 and 6. So clearly, we'll have a look at the importance of 6 versus 5, what the trade-offs are. I expect there will be a mine plan that we'll have a look at that potentially has optionality.
But I think the key for us is understanding what do the economics look like around that plan, and that's the work that the team's yet to do. The flip side is, obviously, without the Dendrobium piece, there's still opportunities to optimize that even more. And that's the objective come in at around $100 a tonne.
So the team will be doing both pieces of work. So we need to do that work, and then we'll come back to the market with an update. But there is certainly an option to cover different plans.
Is it fair to say that Area 6 has less dam issues than Area 5?
Look, I think they both have some. Again, we would just be very clear. If we think about the IPC process, the regret that we would have is not having the opportunity to actually, if you like, answer some of the arguments put forward in terms of how actually accurate we think they are. There are certainly some impacts in areas both 5 and 6. There are trade-offs in both areas. So I think moving Area 6 potentially has some benefits, and reducing the footprint in 5 could also have some benefits. But again, if the project doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't matter. The teams will have to do the work, and then we'll work out the market on the outcomes.
To your point about government intervention, and given the notion of the ecosystem in Illawarra, you've mentioned BlueScope, etc., but the entire ecosystem, this is a big deal. It's a bigger deal into South32. So is government intervention your key option?
I think, look, from our perspective, obviously, there's a number of stakeholders involved here. I would start with the point again that all stakeholders, even people against the project, were probably surprised by the IPC's ruling. I think it is a reminder of how hard it is getting to approve projects, coal projects on the East Coast, whether they are thermal or met coal, understanding every mine has some of its own individual challenges. I think, look, from our perspective, we'll engage with the government stakeholders, local Illawarra people, and unions, and also BlueScope. Because to your point, we're very much, if you like, interconnected there, and the jobs and the economic benefit, I think, flows to not only BlueScope and South32, but also the broader Illawarra community. So they're the stakeholders we'll be engaging with.
But I think what we really need to do first is look at what an alternate mine plan would look like in terms of value, addressing some of the issues before we make our mind up, which are the four options we've assumed.
Just for the life at Dendrobium, based on how we see it today, what life is left in Area 3B? What's left in or what's available in Area 3C? And is it all Wongawilli, or is it Bulli and Wongawilli seams in those areas?
Look, as we work our way through that, and we've spoken in the past, ideally, we want to sort of be getting, if you like, into Dendrobium Next Domain about 2025. That's when you're sort of starting coming out of the current mining area, particularly at 3A and 3B, where you're doing longwall 17, 18, 19, and 21. The area we can work on that we have consents with is Area 3C. There's potentially two longwalls there that we can easily access. Other longwalls, potentially, will need gas drainage, so that's something we have to look at and the time that would take. The other piece, obviously, is part of this mining mix will always leave some remnants behind. So the other option we'd look at is, well, could you access some of those remnants for a period of time?
Again, Peter, there's all the work that the team needs to do before we make a final decision, but there are a number of options we need to work through.
Just a final one, clarification on that. Then you said the cost of $100 target, is that an all-in sustaining, including sustaining capital, or is that a cost target?
That's the all-in cost target from 2025, what we've got down to the new Longwall configuration at Appin. And there's some options there that the team are pursuing about alternate access and a few other pieces. But that would be the target the team would be looking for.
But that includes sustaining capital?
Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
We are experiencing coal quality issues today due to a major telco outage on the East Coast. We apologize for the inconvenience. Your next question comes from Jack Gabb with BOA. Please go ahead.
Thanks, and good morning all. Just one more question on the closure provisions, and sorry to labor the point, but I think your overall provisions actually went up by around $600 million, which, I guess, significantly outweighs the $100 or so in South Africa. Just curious where the rest of that provision increase comes from and how much of that is FX. And then just one other question. Thanks.
Katie, can you answer that one?
Yeah. Thanks, James. Yeah, you're absolutely right. We saw about a $650 million increase. Look, almost 50% of that increase came specifically in relation to Worsley Alumina. And about 73% of that movement is a combination of Worsley Alumina and South Africa Energy Coal. And what you'll see in our presentation pack, we have actually provided a breakdown of the FX and discount rate impacts in terms of impact across the broader portfolio, but we haven't broken it down specifically by individual operation.
Thanks. And sorry, what's driving the Worsley increase outside of FX?
It's the discount rate.
Okay. And then one more question, just on Hermosa. Has there been any change in the permitting timeline or your expectation, Graham, just reflecting the change in administration over there?
It's an interesting question because, obviously, the new president coming in, Biden, has made a policy objective around a couple of things which we think are interesting. One, obviously, is around a more move to a decarbonized green world by embracing what needs to be done around climate change. The second thing he's been very public about is looking for self-sufficiency around battery technology, which obviously Clark has that potential. So from our perspective, there's been no negative policy, if you like, issues that have come out. In fact, there's more positives around what he's looking to try and do for the demand of some of our commodities. No changes around the permitting legislation or even talked about that. Naturally, in the past, the Democrats have probably been a little bit slower than the Republicans on approving projects, but we haven't heard any noise like that.
I think the bigger issue for us is more about completing the pre-feasibility at Taylor, which we expect by the end of this financial year. And the challenge there for the team is understanding we've looked at declines, looked at shafts, what's the right nameplate capacity for actually Taylor, and how does Clark, which has the battery-leading minerals, how does that fit together to develop them? And I think that's probably going to be more informative around what permitting looks like versus what any government policy looks like at the moment.
Yeah, because presumably the existing timeline reflects just an underground development, whereas if you're doing open pits, you need to resubmit a single application, or can you run two concurrently?
If you think about the two deposits, so Taylor's deep and still open laterally and at depth. Clark sits across the top as a separate ore body. They did talk originally in Arizona about accessing that as an open pit, but they didn't put any real work into it. Our perception would be if you do a decline or perhaps you do a shaft if you want more throughput, you probably drive through it that way. Understanding how the two would work would be important because Clark's obviously a lot shallower, and you might get to it quicker.
Perfect. Thanks, Graham. That's all for me.
Your next question comes from Sam Webb with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Thanks, Graham. And Katie, just two quick ones, please. Just noting the net cash jump in January, so just trying to get a sense of how much was that working capital driven, and to what extent is there more working capital release still to come? And then the second one is, is there a net debt range or a net cash range that we can or should be thinking about once you exit energy coal? Just trying to get a sense of what the capacity could be for future capital returns here.
Both great questions, Sam. Katie, go Katie.
Yeah. Thanks, Sam. Look, I think starting probably with your second question in terms of net debt range, we haven't clearly provided that information at this stage, and we did say we would come back to you post the completion of the SAEC di vestment. And probably the other elements for us to consider in that context is also what our future capital profile looks like. And so certainly that would be part of that assessment. In terms of working cap, look, yeah, we did see pretty big unwind in working cap in January, which you've seen playing through in terms of that increase in net cash in a month. Biggest unwinds probably in relation to receivables and also some inventory unwind.
If I look forward, probably the biggest impact in terms of working capital are going to be price and FX as we look into the next six months. I would expect at the moment, if I think about the work that team's done, we have really optimized our inventory levels at each of the operations, and also our debtor days are pretty stable. So it's really the price FX overlay that's probably going to impact us there. And I think the other things to consider, manganese, there's an opportunity for us to increase the distributions out of the manganese business. We've had timing issues across the half year. And we've also probably got a bit of a long inventory position in terms of our raw materials ahead of the smelters and the refineries in the alloy value chain. And that's really just in terms of managing COVID.
So as COVID logistics issues settle, we would probably expect to see a bit more of an unwind in terms of our aluminium value chain working cap.
Got it. So just back to that net debt question. So should we expect once you exit here that we'll get an update with that exit around how you're thinking about the balance sheet now? Something, some wording around that?
Yeah.
Okay. Great. Thank you.
That's all the time we have for questions today. I'll now hand back to Mr. Kerr for closing remarks.
Thank you. Thanks everyone for the time today. I know it's a really busy day with other calls on the go as well. Look, I would like to apologize for the audio quality. Despite what you're thinking, we have actually been trying to yell our answers out here, but the line's actually quite poor quality. So apologies for some of the issues going on. Maybe just a couple of real closing comments. It was great to see a really strong operating performance by the teams this half, and I think that reflects a number of halves now where the teams have really done a great job at the operations in terms of production unit costs.
I think we're in that unique position that we haven't been for a while now where we see a rebound in demand from markets outside of China, which is driving up some of our key commodity prices, which is a positive sign for us to see. I think at the same time, despite COVID and some of the challenges, we've kept a strong balance sheet. We continue to increase our shareholder returns, and importantly, there are a number of key catalyst milestones around the portfolio over the next 6 to 12 months that certainly make me and the team very excited. But again, thank you for your time today and your support.