Thank you and good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. On the call with me today, we have our Chief Financial Officer, Katie Tovich, and our Chief Operating Officers, Noel Pillay and Jason Economidis. I'll give you a short summary of our results before handing back to the operator for questions. Firstly, and most importantly, we will never be truly successful until every single one of our people goes home safe and well. It is a deep sadness that we did not achieve this during the period. We've all felt the devastating loss of two of our teammates, Tonela and Alfredo, at Mozal Aluminium in November, and we continue to do everything we can to support their families, friends, and immediate colleagues who remain in our thoughts.
We are sharing learnings from this incident across our organization and with the broader industry, and also undertaking a significant amount of work to improve our safety performance. Turning to our results, this half, we realized the benefit of our portfolio improvements that have increased our exposure to commodities critical for a low-carbon future. We increased production by 12% with the addition of the Sierra Gorda Copper Mine and our expanded low-carbon aluminum capacity through our increased ownership of Mozal Aluminium and the restart of the Brazil Aluminium smelter, and our teams around the world deliver a number of strong operating results, including record production at GEMCO. Hillside Aluminium and Mozal Aluminium continue to test their maximum technical capacity.
Operating unit costs were below or in line with guidance for the majority of our operations, and we recorded one of our largest profit results with underlying EBITDA of $1.36 billion, despite commodity prices declining from record levels in the prior period. This has enabled us to announce an interim fully franked ordinary dividend of AUD 224 million, or $0.049 per share, in respect of the December 2022 half-year. We have also increased our flexible capital management program by AUD 50 million to AUD 2.3 billion, leaving AUD 158 million to be returned by the 1st of September this year. Looking ahead, we expect to increase production a further 6% in the second half of the 2023 financial year, and operating unit cost guidance has been reduced or held in line with the majority of our operations.
Along with the strengthening commodity prices, the outlook for margins is positive, and we will continue to reward shareholders as our financial performance improves. We continue to invest in high-returning projects to improve productivity and unlock volumes, and we have a portfolio of high-quality growth options in the Americas to underpin our next phase of growth and value creation. At our Hermosa project in Arizona, the feasibility study for the Taylor zinc-lead-silver deposit remains on track to support a final investment decision in mid-calendar year 2023, while our milestones at Clark included completing the selection phase pre-feasibility study and entering our first MOU with an end user to establish a framework for supplying battery-grade manganese into the North American market. Finally, today, we announced changes to our leadership team that will take effect from the 1st of April.
Katie Tovich will be appointed to the role of Chief Human Resources and Commercial Officer, and our Vice President of Finance, Sandy Sibenaler, will be appointed the Chief Financial Officer. Katie has been an outstanding Chief Financial Officer, and her extensive marketing and commercial experience means she is well placed to excel in her new role, and Sandy brings more than 20 years of Treasury, Finance, and Commercial experience to the CFO role and will continue to deliver on our disciplined approach to capital management. Thank you, and I'll now hand back to the operator for 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 from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Morning, Graham and Katie. Hope you're well. Graham, first question's on CapEx and just noting that you've reduced your CapEx guidance, but looks like a lot of that's just shuffling into next year around timing, etc. But the question's actually on CapEx inflation, what you're seeing across some of your growth projects with studies, and probably just call out Trilogy Metals' 30%-40% CapEx increase on the Arctic project with their updated feasibility study. Now, part of that might be the fact that maybe the prior estimate was a little bit outdated, but just curious to see or ask you, I should say, or your views on, are you seeing those sorts of types of inflation coming through in some of your growth projects?
Yeah, thanks, Paul. Look, great question. I mean, obviously, you've seen a number of different businesses talk about increased capital costs, particularly in Western Australia with the heated market, but also other parts of Australia. I guess the big focus for us is the North American piece. To your point, I think around the Arctic feasibility study, that's more something that they put together, not the joint venture. I think to your comment, there is a bit more of an updated realistic assumption that have perhaps gone into that model than previously. But probably more importantly, the focus for us has been more about what's occurring in North America with an eye on Taylor, and as we talked about, we're on track for Taylor to actually come back to the board mid-year for approval into final execution.
Maybe a couple of comments about, if you look at one of the major indicators in the U.S., it's what's called the U.S. Construction Cost Index, and the latest updates sort of came out towards the end of calendar year based on numbers up to November 2022, and if you look at that curve over the last couple of years, it actually shows that there was a real steep escalation in that index that occurred, if you like, during the pandemic, which began in about September 2020, and that really peaked around May, June 2021, which is the time that we actually did the PFS capital cost estimate that we released to the market. Since that time, we've seen the index decline, and we've actually seen it level off for a period of time.
From that perspective, I think we have a reasonable degree of confidence about where we see the capital estimate coming in for Taylor. Now, in saying that, if you look at where we are today, obviously, we have been doing some work on the ground with regards to water treatment, water treatment plant number two, but also some of the well sinking. They are both actually on track. And while we're actually out in the market now, if you like, updating the majority of the estimates for Taylor, the early ones that we've actually seen come back have been well inside or as we expected as part of the pre-feasibility study.
So to date, we haven't really seen any particular movement, if you like, Paul, in that part of the market, but obviously, it's something we'll watch closely as we finalize the feasibility study over the next three or four months.
Yeah, thanks, Graham. You know, you've got a fair bit of contingency in the estimate as well. Maybe just moving to Sierra Gorda, and you sort of reiterated that the grade, head grade for next year and production looks like it's going to go down before it goes up with the fourth milling line. And the question's actually on the fourth milling line and just the studies there because your partner there seems like a little bit ahead on those study completions and wanting to get that approved, I think, a little bit early. So I'm just questioning around the timing of the study completions there and is it really waiting for the Chilean fiscal update before you press the button on that? Is that really what's, I guess, what's driving the completion and the FID on that?
Yeah, look, the way I think about Sierra Gorda, first and foremost, I think, as we highlighted probably in the previous results, if you think about where we are with copper grades, at the moment, we have actually moved into the shoulders of the ore body, which is why we're seeing the grade slightly come down. We do expect to return more, if you like, to the central parts in FY25 and 2026, and hence, you'd sort of be closer to that medium-term average, if you like, grade that we spoke about, that we've spoken about in the past, so i.e., a higher grade than what you're seeing. With regards to the fourth grinding line, I would start by saying that is something that we've worked well with the JV partner to date.
Originally, they were going down a different approach, and we actually had a discussion around what could look like, and we agreed the fourth grinding line was the right way to go. We have said, if you like, that H1 FY24 is when we expect to be in a position to make some kind of investment decision. They might be slightly different on timing, but to be honest, it's neither here nor there. I think for us, it's more about running the right process and bringing the right discipline to the project to understand how we get there. I think we're very aligned on how we progress the different options, if you like, Paul, at Sierra Gorda, and still believe, obviously, the debottlenecking project's underway at the moment.
We've had a couple of small issues with the high-pressure grinding rolls, but the fourth line and some of the other work we've got around improvement opportunities. We still have actually very much believe that there's a lot of opportunity, if you like, in Sierra Gorda to continue to improve. And I think we've made the comment before that we stand by. We're very happy with the price that we bought into, and the relationship so far is really good.
That's great. Thanks, Graham.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley, Australia. Please go ahead.
Hi, Graham. Thanks for the opportunity. Look, I've got two operational ones. Perhaps if we start with Worsley first up. You've talked about the costs out in the second half, and I presume there's a bit of lag-based timing in there as well. But what I wanted to understand was where's your consumption sitting in terms of caustic? Because you've flagged that it might be improving. My understanding was that it stays constant in this year and next. Basically, is it the refinery that's driving that, or is Boddington seeing better grades? I'm just trying to get my head around whether the refinery's doing better and can go beyond the nameplate there. That's the first one, and I'll come back with a second.
Yeah, okay. No problem, Rahul. And maybe look, if we start, there is no doubt that Worsley has seen some benefits, if you like, in terms of FX. And the caustic price, if you have a look at what we're actually seeing at the moment, the spot price is about 540 at the moment. The average in FY22 was about 601, and the first half average was 595. So we have seen caustic, if you like, moving in a slightly different direction than what it was probably about six to nine months ago, i.e., it's coming off. Look, I think the other comment I'd make around Worsley is when it comes from a cost perspective, they are seeing some benefits actually come, if you like, via the FX rate, which has sort of been useful for them as well.
But if you take a step back and have a think about the production, as you move through different mining areas and also different parts of mining areas, we do see the reactive silica level shift around. And to sort of put that in perspective, reactive silica level in FY2018 was about 1.52, FY2019 was 1.35, FY2020 was 1.31, FY2021 was 1.43, and FY2022 was 1.32. This year, we're probably going to look at a number that averages about 1.49 in terms of reactive silica level. Next year, we probably see a little bit of a jump up in terms of FY2024 to about 1.74. And that really is the big driver, if you like, of what actually happens, and that's driven by the grade.
If you think about it from a consumption perspective, this year, we'll see it sort of move from about 106 to 101 in terms of kilograms per tonne that we use.
Gotcha. Perfect. That's very helpful, Graham. Thanks for that color. Okay. Then perhaps to follow on from Paul's question earlier on Sierra Gorda, you've talked a bit about the energy cost there and the transition to renewables aiding the cost out. Can I quickly firstly check whether there's a delay in terms of that switch? Because my understanding was that you were switching over in January this year to that new electricity contract. And then perhaps as a follow-on, the oxide circuit, how are you thinking about that? We've obviously had a small delay there, but is that looking to plan given your considerations for the expansion currently?
So maybe what I'd say, look, the oxide circuit is obviously we've got a load of materials sitting on the ground that were flagged previously that hasn't really been progressed at Sierra Gorda because they had been focusing, obviously, and rectifying in the early days some of the commissioning challenges. Then they also moved to a position where there's been progress in the debottlenecking project. I think our challenge, if you like, to the operation around anything around an oxide plant is you're very close to a number of other producers that aren't probably fully utilizing, if you like, their plant. So one of the things we're pushing the team to think about is obviously understand what it costs to build and run your own, but then also what are you willing to pay someone else to toll treat it?
I think that's a sensible way to actually think about it. Your other question around Sierra Gorda was around the energy contract. We went to fully, if you like, renewable in January. We've obviously been phasing through that position for a period of time. We do expect to actually see, if you like, a substantial benefit, if you like, that comes through on that. The average price from memory in calendar year 2022 was about $118 a megawatt, while if you look at the calendar year 2023, renewable energy price was probably closer to about $42 a megawatt, which is about 35% of that 2022 cost, to give you a sense.
Gotcha. Again, yeah.
You're talking about one million tonnes of CO2, if you like, out of the year.
No, understood. Yep. That's very helpful. Thanks for the color. I'll pass on. Thanks.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Hayden Bairstow from Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. It's Hayden. Yeah, Graham, just a couple of quick ones. Just on South Africa power, I mean, is things getting to a point where Hillside is at risk of getting material sort of outages and you'd have to look at turning a bit of it off, or are you still being sort of excluded from any major power outages?
Yeah, I handed over to Noel to go through the technical side, Hayden, but there was actually a really good, if you like, South Africa, there's a lot of focus on power at the moment. André de Ruyter the other week gave a speech to the inquiry around power and what's going on. I think he summarized it really well when he spoke about the importance of Hillside to stabilizing the grid, but also working hand in hand to manage their way through these load shedding events. I think Hillside is a critical part of helping Eskom and the South African government through this period of time. The relationships about how we work this is actually very close on the ground day to day about how we manage it.
Eskom, Noel can provide some more technical comments, but they're very focused on making sure that Hillside is in a position to support them. In saying that, it's great to see the work that Hillside has done around improving, if you like, how they actually use the power in the most efficient way. When you think about the challenge around there, they've been pretty much up around the technical nameplate capacity despite the increased load shedding. Maybe Noel, you can add a bit more color or detail to that about the feel on the ground, and in particular, do we see some other kind of large wholesale changes coming that would impact Hillside?
Thanks, Graham. And yes, I think for starters, in addition to what you've added, we've got a strong working relationship at an operational level with Eskom. So contractually, they can take down the smelters for set periods and for set quantums of power, which is around one pot line every 96 hours, which is worth about 400 kilowatts to them, which is substantial in the grander scheme of things. So they have that flexibility to use us. And the point Graham made around the importance and the significance of us, the grid, in an event of a black start, and that's just given the load shedding scenario that has grown over the last couple of years, that is a possibility nowadays more so than before. Hillside becomes more significant.
Hillside plays this. Hillside's very valuable to Eskom from that perspective, just to make sure that the grid remains stable so they do protect us and don't necessarily require outages beyond the contractual limit. I think that's the first instance. The other point around probably other risks to the grid, look, I think that's a situation that the South African government is dealing with as best they can. It's getting government support. There's a national plan that's been put out, fully resourced, and now appears to be funded. Execution is obviously the key, but there's lots of work to try and mitigate the load shedding scenario. Not sure there's any more you'd like me to add there, Graham?
Yeah, look, the only way I'd summarize it, Hayden, is look, they have always honored the contract commitments. They've never been outside of that. Two is the communication on the ground, I think, is great. Three is I think to take Hillside out would be dangerous to them because they lose that ability to manage load shedding and the backup power as Noel spoke about to restart the grid. And we are also the largest paying customer, which is important for the country at the moment. I think what would worry me is not necessarily a large system that came in where they tried to preserve power, because I think that would materially damage the economy and reputation. I think it's the unintended consequence where the grid fell over that would probably be more of a worry for me.
But obviously, that's for the period of time and how long it lasts all depends on the impact on the pot lines. But what I would leave you with, Hayden, is there's a constant ongoing engagement with the government, and in that space, they're really cooperative about how they work with us. And we've got a role to play, to be perfectly honest, as well.
Okay, great, and just the second one, just Graham, on the broader business. I mean, the free cash flow is still fairly low. Obviously, there's some growth CapEx in here, but is there something that we can think about from a normalized cash generation where this business goes to? If you're doing sort of $1.5 billion of EV, $0.5 billion and $500 million of NPAT, how do you get the cash generation higher?
Yeah, look, I'll get Katie to talk a little bit, if you like, to the cash flow generation, because I think there are some one-offs around tax. There are some bills in the aluminum working capital, if you like, around specific timing events that occurred. But I think a couple of things I would leave you with is the fact that in the first half of the year, in relation to Worsley Alumina, you did see a 12% increase, if you like, in our production rate. You expect to see about a 6% increase in the second half of this year as that actually comes through. But I think more importantly, we had a nice slide deck that actually talked about how we see spot prices, well, prices we received in the first half of the financial year versus the corresponding period.
But more importantly, since that date, when you look at the chart on the other slide, you actually see the majority of our prices have moved substantially over the last couple of months. So we're actually seeing stronger cash generation in January, February come through. And obviously, in the second half of this year, you'd look to see a distribution come out of Sierra Gorda as opposed to actually putting money into the debottlenecking projects and a few other capital projects there. Maybe Katie, on the capital, working capital?
Yeah, look, I think Graham's probably covered it fairly well. Certainly in H1, we did see a number of one-offs and timing impacts impacting free cash flow generation. Working cap built 152 million. The largest majority of that is timing and should unwind as we move forward in the aluminum value chain. A number of shipments got delayed due to weather and other impacts. There is a permanent uplift associated with Brazil Aluminum as they build their working cap pipeline as they ramp up. We also, as Graham mentioned, had a number of one-offs related to portfolio activity. So we had Sierra Gorda tax payments, and we are continuing with our process in terms of recovering the large majority of those tax payments as we take the vendors to New York courts.
We also had a big payment for the CMSA life extension, $43 million, that went out in the first half. So I think those things combined with the lag effect prior period strong profitability on cash tax payments. You'll start to see those normalize now in H2, along with the 6% uplift in production in the second half, lower to flat costs, and sailing into an increasing price environment. You should see margin expansion coming in the second half. As Graham said, I think we would expect to see some distribution from Sierra Gorda in the second half.
Probably the other thing I would add is I think we did see an increase in our cost base aligned with our portfolio activity adjustments, but that is delivering improved operating margins across both Mozal and Sierra Gorda, combined with those portfolio adjustments of 42% operating margin and adding $200 million to underlying EBITDA. So those portfolio impacts are really starting to flow through in terms of improved margins for the business and therefore cash generation.
Did that help, Hayden?
Yeah, okay. So much better second half than as you normalize a lot of that from earnings via cash flow.
Yeah, the one-offs well positioned in terms of, I think, cost performance by the team and commodity prices were leveraged, plus you've got the production growth of 6%.
Okay, perfect. I'll leave it there. Thanks, guys.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Kaan Peker from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Morning, Graham, Katie, and team. First question's on Sierra Gorda. Outside of the copper grades, we've had annual throughput lowered to about 48-49. That was the pre or post debottlenecking. Just wanted to get an understanding of why that was the case. It's beyond the lower grades, just around the throughput.
Yeah, look, absolutely. Good question. And you're right. If you look about that debottlenecking project, which is currently in the process of being finalized, what we had talked about previously was probably getting closer to a number of about 50. What they probably had a few more challenges with than they probably expected has been around the high-pressure grinding rolls. They're probably not quite getting the power availability they expected out of those and hence not getting the production. So we're slightly low at that, but I do still think there's an opportunity to actually catch that back. But as we've always spoken about, I think the next big increment will be on the fourth, if you like, the fourth line. I think that actually allows you to make much more of a big quantum change. And certainly, that'll be the focus of the team.
We're currently in the feasibility study for that, and that'll probably allow you to get the throughput somewhere up between 57 to 58 million tonnes. But we'll obviously, when we finalize the study work, is when we come out of that. So you're right. De-bottlenecking's slightly under, but not huge in the scheme of things. But I still think there's an opportunity to pick that back as they fine-tune it.
Sure, thank you. And Cerro Matoso, great to see the license extended. But the question, I suppose, is beyond the OSMOC project, what's next? And is ferronickel exposure sort of suited for South32's portfolio? Thanks.
Yeah, look, I think it's a good question. I mean, I always think about Cerro Matoso as the kind of management team you want in place, because we wouldn't have been afraid to say in the early days when we created South32 that we're unsure about the future of Cerro Matoso and where they actually go, because they had increasing costs, declining grade, limited extension opportunities, and as everyone knew, a short life. I think Ricardo and the team there, it started with La Esmeralda, which is a project that we actually delivered much quicker than it was originally forecast by the previous owners and for a much lower cost, and that's successfully completed. You've seen the Q&P project now actually up and running, which produces higher grades in a short period of time.
You've also seen us do a major furnace rebuild, and the furnace rebuild was around stability and integrity, but it also allowed us to process a wider, if you like, spectrum of materials, which gives you more flexibility around existing stockpiles that are on the ground, but also some satellite ore bodies, which are very similar to La Esmeralda and Q&P. And the last piece we've done is around OSMOC, which in combination with the broader window allows you to increase the throughput going through the furnace into the furnace and again, a wider spectrum of materials, but it also has the ability to actually increase your processing capacity, which was tied to the original contract 51, which has given us that 15-year extension.
When it comes to how do you fill that, the sweet spot, if you like, for Cerro Matoso is above 40,000 tonnes of nickel a year, ideally somewhere between 40 to 45. They actually have a number of older stockpiles that couldn't originally be processed. They've got a number of potential satellite areas that they're working through now, like La Esmeralda and Q&P, that we're pretty comfortable that'll actually allow you to fill up that 15-year, if you like, extension. I think the strategic question for us is, if you think about the product that we produce there today, you're right, it is a ferronickel. It does compete with, if you like, the nickel pig iron. It's a Class 2 type nickel versus a Class 1, which is what everyone wants.
We have been doing some studies, if you like, of how you could potentially convert that ferronickel to a matte product, and that could be particularly useful if you think about some of the legislative changes you've seen occur in USA, around the IRA, which is going to drive the increase of electric vehicles and also looking for the supply of some of those critical minerals. So that is something we're doing some work at the moment at Cerro Matoso. Feasible, technical, easy to do. It's more about what do the economics look like now and what does the customer base look like. So I think as they've done over the last eight years, Cerro continually find a way to reinvent themselves. What worries me more, if you like, about Cerro Matoso is Colombia and the government's approach, if you like, around increasing taxes.
You saw the withholding tax increase from 10%-20%, and you saw royalties for the first time become non-deductible. There are obviously some things that we're talking to the government about, but that probably worries me more than the resource side at the moment, but that's something we'll continue to engage on the ground with. But again, if you want to talk about a poster child for a team that you want to run an operation, I think the team at Cerro have done a great job about creating optionality and delivering on that optionality.
Thank you. Very clear. Appreciate it.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.
Thanks very much. Just to continue the conversation on Cerro Matoso, that additional 15 years, are we right to sort of model that at around 1% nickel grade as opposed to sort of closer to 1.7% that you're doing today, or is there something else in the mind plan out there that might look better than that? Thanks.
Yeah, look, I think the grade I'll be thinking is somewhere between that 1-1.1%. I think the other piece for us is sort of then thinking about long term, what do we have that ability to convert that type two to type one nickel? I think that's where the real opportunity lies there.
I mean, what sort of investment would be required for that, Graham, in terms of size?
Yeah, I think that's something we'll do as part of the next stage of study, because I think the other piece is which market are you trying to tap into? For people who aren't aware, Alex moved out of the IR role to actually move into VP of battery minerals for us. That's obviously a fast growing area, particularly around Clark, which we can talk about later, because I think there's a huge amount of opportunity in that space. But it has extended to Alex also looking at what's the demand for some kind of matte product that would actually go, if you like, into that battery world. So over the next six months, we'll get a good understanding around the economics. Cerro can continue to run actually as is today if produces a ferronickel product, which you always place a ferronickel product.
The risk is you see that discount sort of being quite wide over the last period of time. And if you look at the actual bifurcation of the market, Class 1 is a shortage, Class 2 today is not really a shortage, so it's much more of a volatile pricing marketplace. So I think it's more about what can we do to enhance Cerro rather than sort of say Cerro is going the base case is they've studied as they are, the opportunity is how do you develop a new product in a new market. But I think the other one, Lyndon, that we probably haven't talked about a lot today is Clark. Clark for me is a really interesting one. We've always spoken about Hermosa having those three pieces of value. You've got Taylor, you've got Clark, you've got the broad land package.
Obviously, we've spoken about Taylor and that sort of progressing to an execution decision mid-calendar year. I think Clark is coming incredibly quickly behind it. You've seen we've actually signed that first MOU with the battery provider. And we had a slide in the pack that at the moment, some of the existing battery technologies use roughly around 17%, if you like, manganese. There is a big push by most of the actual battery producers, particularly if you think about them building these mega battery facilities in the U.S., about how do they move to those battery technologies where you're actually probably using about 60% manganese and really you're trying to displace cobalt and to a degree, if you like, reduce your reliance on nickel. And we are the only manganese project that will basically be close to execution in the U.S.
And I think the synergy that we'll see between Taylor and Clark, plus that opening market, I think is going to be huge for us, if you like, around that Hermosa project. And the other one, just while we're talking about Hermosa, we continue to progress, if you like, the Peake work, which is more of a copper-orientated polymetallic quantity deposit. And we'll actually get by the end of this year into the Flux deposit, which will be a satellite, different ore body completely. So I think we're really pleased about how that's evolving.
Thanks, Graham. And I guess what sort of scale of investment is required to produce a battery-grade manganese product? And although it sounds great on paper, how material is that opportunity for South32?
Yeah, so the way I think about it, it's going to be an increment. We've already started a bulk sample to actually work with multiple customers. I think an important thing to understand, the mine plan actually would be in a situation where the mine itself effectively sits above the top of Taylor. So all the dewatering work we're doing now will actually benefit, if you like, Clark as well as Taylor. And in fact, it clears the Clark area much quicker because it's at the top. And you're looking about a single decline underground mine, real small footprint. We would start, if you like, by doing that decline to access a much larger bulk sample. That allows us to move from where we've been doing lab tests to a pilot plant, then to a larger scale test.
I think the bigger question for us is, what does the size of the market look like? Our marketing guys would have said probably last year you're looking at about 10,000 in terms of a ton output. Now they're saying 60. Other people are talking 60 is not enough. I think it's more a question about what the demand looks like. So that's where, Lyndon, we're working closely with the customers, and the work that Alex is doing is important. And it's fair to say Alex is getting a lot of holes in his shoes by spending his time on the ground talking to people. But I think later in the year, we'll have a much bigger update, if you like, on where Clark is, hopefully more MOUs.
But I think equally as important as we've spoken about in the past, there is a lot of support from the U.S. government in the form of potentially grants that would allow us to de-risk some of that capital investment as well. Early days to get too excited about that, but as you'd expect, the team on the ground is exploring that closely now.
Thanks for that. I'll pass it on.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Paul McTaggart from Citigroup. Please go ahead.
Morning. So you noted that Worsley have slipped up around Alcoa mining licenses, around sensitivities of water catchment area, which obviously you're experienced with at Illawarra. I just want to get an update in terms of your mining operations. Do you have any of the same issues, and how long are your current mining licenses for at Worsley?
Yeah, look, Paul, look, great question. And it's worth noting there are substantial differences in how this actually works. In particular, when you talk about where they're at, if you like, in their journey, we're in a totally different situation. They're mining, if you like, incredibly close to where the major water catchment is, which is the Serpentine Dam. In some cases, they're up to, I think, 300-400 meters in terms of proximity. We're talking. We're 15 plus kilometers away from any kind of major water catchment area. So that risk isn't particularly an issue for us. They're also subject, if you like, because of where they're located and how their agreement is, they have to submit an annual mine plan to the regulator to get approved. We don't actually have those kind of issues. At the moment, we are looking towards the future.
When we look toward the future, we are going through a process at the moment about the next series of mining areas that, again, will not be near any major water catchment. We're going through that approval process at the moment. We're out for an, well, API, if you want, for a better word, public submission that's out there. We're responding to those public submissions. That allows us to think about the next two or three, if you like, mining horizons. Certainly, the next one that we have in the mine plan, we already have approvals for, so we're not in the same position, if you like, that Alcoa are.
Thanks, Graham.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead.
Graham, good morning. Could I just clarify one thing? So are you now currently engaged with the U.S. government to try and get some sort of grants for Hermosa? Is that how I understand it now? And what do you think your prospects are?
Yeah, the two things that I talk about in that space, Glyn, is the legislation that's come through from the U.S. government that Biden put out around March last year where they're driving for increased EVs. There are two available pools of funds, one for the Department of Defense and one for the Department of Energy, I think it is. The Department of Defense is probably an area that we could target and work with them around how we could fast track Clark. So it's fair to say we're engaging with them. We think we tick all the boxes, but formally, we need to sort of go through that process. There's a fair bit of discussion that needs to occur in the U.S. for that to occur, but it is happening on the ground now because we certainly classify Clark as a critical mineral. Zinc does as well at Taylor.
So I think we're absolutely right on the radar there. I think the second thing is we're actually working with the government there about the Biden administration is looking for a project to put into what's called the FAST-41 project, which essentially puts all the federal government's resources into trying to not shortcut, but make sure there's the right attention on all the approval processes and the right available resources to go through the process as quick as you can. They're the two things that we've sort of got on our agenda, and they're the two priorities for Pat and the team outside of obviously progressing the feasibility study. I would expect by May, we'll have some pretty good definitive answers on that, but I'm certainly optimistic there'll be some form of assistance, Glyn. It's just what it looks like.
Okay. Thanks, Lyndon. Just, we're in a pretty amazing cold market at the moment. Why haven't we seen the sale of Eagle Downs? I mean, if you can't sell it in this market, when can you sell it?
Yeah, look, I think it's a good challenging question at the moment, Glyn, about. We've obviously had a discussion with a number of parties. It's fair to say that in this position, we're not the only joint venture party. And it doesn't mean that all your interests completely align. We've got a good open engagement. It's fair to say that our partners still obviously have a lot of interest in met coal. There's a number of other parties that, if you like, have a lot of interest in met coal. Probably more of the Chinese, if you like, are our owners and that probably haven't been as politically interested in investing in Australia over the last couple of years. That's changed. As you would expect, we're pretty prudent when it comes to that around our accounts, and we've obviously written down Eagle Downs to the value of zero.
But at the moment, we are exploring with other parties what possibility exists. I do think, if you like, with some of the changing relationships between China and Australia, that dynamic might actually shift over the next six months. It's not something that requires a lot of attention for us in terms of looking after it, maintaining it. I think it's an option that exists there that we'll continue to have a look at, but the timing probably is going to be better over the next six to 12 months versus the last 18 months.
So sorry, Graham. Does your partner then have a say in who you can sell it to? I mean, I would have thought you just have your 50% and you can sell it, or what input or restrictions apply? I'm just a bit confused.
I think it's more about how many people might want to develop a partner with the partners that are Chinese over the last 18 months as well. So I think there's a combination. There's a buyer's interest, if you like, of who wants to buy and partner with your existing partner. And then the pool's been a little bit smaller because less people are interested in terms of the Chinese-Australia dynamic. I think that's sort of shifting to more of the favorable side now, Glyn.
Oh, okay. I get it. Thanks very much.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Morning, Graham. So just a couple of simple ones, hopefully. So just with the CapEx change and the guidance, the $105 million reduction, should we just think about that as pushing into subsequent years?
Yeah, that's the simple way I think about it, yes. I think cash is key. I think it's been smart by Pat and the team in particular to sort of push some of those payments out, but I think it's just timing, correct.
Got it. That makes sense. And then second one, so just given the sort of CapEx inflation we're seeing regionally, globally, just on Hermosa and the costs there, obviously the project's looking a little different now with Clark coming to the fore, but how are you thinking about the overall CapEx there?
Yeah, like I made some comments earlier, I think it was Paul's first question. If you look at the index, the construction index in the U.S., that probably peaked during the early stages of the COVID pandemic. It's plateaued and then it's come up a bit. If you look at November 2022, the last numbers that came out, we are completing that water treatment plant number two work, which is quite a bit of construction in terms of concrete, steel, trades, electrical, etc. We're also doing the dewatering, and we have not seen, if you like, that capital move at all. The team are straight on the job at delivering on that.
And if you think about some of the early packages we've already got back from Taylor, they're certainly well within the amounts that we've spoken about when we gave out the CapEx estimate for Taylor as part of the pre-feasibility. We've obviously got some more work out at the moment that'll come back over the next couple of months as we finalize the study, but we're not at this stage seeing any kind of shift in capital or the material. When we did do the pre-feasibility study, it's worth noting at the time when we went out and did the estimates was the time that the actual U.S. construction index was at its peak. So time will tell over the next couple of months, but so far, that number's proven to hold straight and hold well.
Thanks, Graham. Sorry, I was a little late in the call, but thanks for that. That's great. Thank you.
No problem at all.
Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone. Your next question comes from Matt Greene from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning. Graham and Katie. I joined later as well. So apologies if this was asked. But Graham, I just want to follow on from your answer on Clark and the manganese. I see here you're looking at a high-purity manganese sulfate as the preferred flow sheet. So just as a confirmation, you won't go all the way to battery grade?
No. We'll work closer with customers to see exactly what they're looking for. But there's the end user of the batteries, there's intermediate companies, and then there's suppliers. We're obviously with Alex in that role. We're working about where we play. But at the moment, we certainly think the logical place for us is to produce that, if you like, high-purity manganese sulfate monohydrate. And then that's what the customers are looking for to give them the most flexibility as they develop the next stage of battery chemistry. The interesting thing is you look at the investment that's sort of been triggered by the U.S. legislative change in December, the Inflation Reduction Act. That is really going to drive the installation of a number of large mega battery facilities.
The good thing from our perspective, if we get that right, those factories are generally configured for about 20 years to produce a certain type of battery. That's where it's important that we get that bulk sample, get that work done, and understand exactly what they're looking for to essentially lock in the only domestic manganese supplier in the U.S. for the next 20 years.
Okay. That's helpful. But I mean, if we look at the manganese side of things, I mean, I think 90% of it's coming out of China. There's the Koreans and one player in Europe that produces battery-grade manganese sulfate. So who is the customer here for this product? Is it a precursor cathode? Is it high enough quality that they can actually make use of it? Or is the customer someone that needs to upgrade it further to a battery-grade product for the midstream cathode?
Yeah. I think the big driver in the U.S., and the way, well, and why it's important for the Department of Defense, but also the Department of Energy, is, it's all about domestic security. It's all about controlling, if you like, the actual supply chain, and to be perfectly honest, it's about being non-Chinese.
Okay, so it sounds like the customer here is a precursor based in the U.S. for actual batteries.
Yeah. And look, we talked about we've got one MOU when they're comfortable to announce what that is. But there are a number of different people we're talking to, and the interest is high. But in saying that, the final configuration of what we produce and what they need is still something we've got to work through together. What I'd say, look, it's an exciting opportunity in the early days. It does, I think it'll be good to test our agility and entrepreneurship to sort of get there quickly. But I think it's something that we can actually use to work with the government to actually achieve that domestic security and actually use some of that funding. But I think there's also advantages to Taylor around how we can then manage, if you like, the mining in terms of where you place material.
It takes less stress off your tailings capacity because you'll have voids to put it into. There are some synergies around operatorship. And I think the other piece, if you think about we're going to produce two critical metals that the U.S. government is screaming for, we're going to build a project that's in probably Santa Cruz County, which is one of the poorest counties in Arizona. We're going to more than, if you like, I think it is double the revenue of the actual council, have an impact positively on the communities. And we've got a very small footprint versus some of the other potential explorers and developers in Arizona. I think we potentially have the opportunity to sort of be a great example of how to build something in the U.S.
That's helpful. So just to follow up again here. So in terms of the downstream, you've got strategic metals, I should say. You've got zinc. But manganese on the downstream battery space. Are part of your discussions here also maybe tying in Cerro Matoso going to a nickel sulfate as a possible supplier of that as well into the U.S.?
Yeah. I think look back to what customers are asking us questions around Cerro Matoso. So that's why we did the study work. There's a bit more work to be done on that piece because the other major players who's looking at converting, obviously, Class 2 to Class 1 type, and that's a nickel pig iron, is China and Indonesia. That's not going to be particularly applicable for what the U.S. is looking for. So I think there is an opportunity with Colombia being friendly with the U.S. But again, as we indicated, we've done the study. There's more work to be done on that. It's part of the reason we have that team that Alex is leading to actually do that work. And the early indications are strong, but there's a lot of work to be done on that yet before we lock that in.
Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. And just lastly, the GEMCO Eastern Leases, the study and FID, I think it was meant to be out last year sometime. Can you just give us an update on that?
Yeah. Look, that continues to actually progress through where we're up to. We're probably expecting around that that's probably pushed out a little bit in terms of the process, but not enough, if you like, that it's going to be critical to disrupt the mine plan. We'd expect that to come out this half in terms of the numbers and the estimates and where it looks like. We're just doing some more final work on the cost and schedule and working that through. I think the other thing, if you like, on GEMCO is the Southern Leases, where we have about two years of the resource. If you're two years in the resource, I think that's another area we continue to do work on.
I mean, GEMCO, I think, had a great half in terms of record production, but as everyone's aware, they're very susceptible to weather events in this next period of time outside. So part of that's building buffer stocks. But we're progressing on the Eastern Leases, just a little bit longer than we'd expect, but that's part of the consultation process of why you disrupt the mine plan.
That's great. Thanks, Graham.
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Kerr for closing remarks.
Look, thanks, everyone. I know, look, it's been a really busy day for many of you today and a lot of other calls to attend. So I appreciate you focusing on South32 today. Look, I think for our perspective, we've been doing a lot of work over the last two years, as you're aware, about transforming the portfolio, more exposure to green aluminum, addition of copper, creating opportunities to grow in both zinc and also manganese and silver as we think about helping the world decarbonize. We're well positioned, if you like, in the second half of this year with commodity prices rising, increased production of 6%. Unit cost, as Katie alluded to, relatively flat across the business, so slightly better than what we had previously.
And I think at the same time, we have some really attractive growth opportunities in the right jurisdictions for the right commodities that set us up really strongly. And as you've always seen, we're consistent around our capital management. We don't plan to hold excess cash. We look at the most effective way to return that back to our shareholders. What should you expect in the future? I'd expect to see increasing margins, increasing cash generation, increasing growth of the portfolio, and us looking at ways to get that excess cash back to our shareholders. But thanks, everyone, for your time today, and look forward to the one-on-one engagements over the next couple of weeks.