Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd (TRQ) 2021 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Turquoise Hill Fourth Quarter Financial Results Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) This call is being recorded on Thursday, March 3, 2022.

And I'd now like to turn the conference call over to Mr. Roy McDowall. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Kelsey. Good morning. I'm Roy McDowall, Head of Investor Relations and Communications. Welcome to our Fourth Quarter and Year End 2021 Financial Results Conference Call. On Wednesday, we released our fourth quarter and year end 2021 results press release, MD&A and financial statements. These items are available on our website and SEDAR.

With me today on the call are Steve Thibeault, our interim CEO; Luke Colton, our CFO; and Jo-Anne Dudley, our COO.

This call and presentation includes certain forward-looking statements and information. We refer you to the forward-looking statements section of the annual information form dated March 8, 2021, as supplemented by our MD&A, for the 12 months ended December 31, 2021.

And now I'd like to turn the call over to our Chief Executive Officer, Steve Thibeault.

Thank you, Roy, and thank you all for joining us this morning. Before I turn the call over to Jo-Anne for an operational and project update and Luke for review of our finances, I will provide brief comments on OT's record performance in 2021 and review some of the key highlights from the year, which was a pivotal one for the company.

Starting with our top priority, safety. Last year, the site achieved a full year All Injury Frequency Rate of 0.14 per 200,000 hours worked, the best ever in OT's history. We also reported record revenue of $1.971 billion, an increase of 82% versus 2020 and record income of $681 million, a year-over-year increase of 38%.

Turning to Slide 7. 2021 was a year of significant accomplishments for Turquoise Hill and its shareholders, with the critical steps towards bringing the Oyu Tolgoi high-grade underground mine into production. The key achievement in 2021 was the culmination of 2 years of negotiation with the Government of Mongolia that reset and renew our partnership and allowed us to proceed with the blasting of Panel 0 this past January 25.

TRQ and Rio Tinto reached a binding agreement on a funding plan for Oyu Tolgoi, which provides a clear and certain path to meeting TRQ's estimated funding requirements. We work with Oyu Tolgoi to enter into an Electricity Supply Agreement with the Government of Mongolia for long-term source of power from the Mongolian grid. In spite of the challenges presented by COVID, we remain on track with key infrastructure needed to take the underground to sustainable production in the first half of 2023, which is only 12 to 16 months from now.

Now turning to Slide 8. Despite the impact of the pandemic on OT staffing level and productivity, our 2021 copper and gold production was within our revised full year metal guidance range. Copper production for 2021 of 163,000 tonnes was within the guidance of 150 to 180, while gold production of 468,000 ounces came at the higher end of guidance.

All things considered, it was a solid year that resulted in TRQ posting record revenue and income numbers. We currently expect gold and copper production to be lower in 2022 versus 2021, due to the stripping of the next cutback and the processing lower grade stockpile material.

Once the underground has ramped up, OT is expected to operate in the first quartile of the copper cash cost curve and is expected to produce around 500,000 tonnes of copper per year on average from 2028 to 2036, from the open pit and underground operations.

Looking now at Slide 9. As I mentioned earlier, all injury frequency rate recorded in 2021 was the best in the site history and continue a trend in improved safety rates that has been seen at OT since 2013. This is very gratifying and a tribute to the site team. Safety is always a work in progress, and we are not taking anything for granted, but we will maintain the discipline necessary to protect our people and communities.

Considering the COVID-related challenges, the site has faced over the last -- past 2 years, this is a real tribute to the commitment of OT management and team to running a safe operation.

At the bottom of Slide 8, you will see that Oyu Tolgoi mill continue to operate at above nameplate capacity for the 6th consecutive year. This consistent outperformance speaks highly of a culture of excellence at OT.

With that, I will now hand the call over to Jo-Anne Dudley, our Chief Operating Officer.

Thank you very much, Steve. If we now turn to Slide 10. In Q4 2021, Materials Handling System 1 construction was completed and no-load commissioning commenced. Commissioning activities were completed in Q1 2022. This means the materials handling facilities, including the first Primary Crusher are ready to support the ramp up of Panel 0. Construction of the first on-footprint truck chute advanced during the quarter, and this has subsequently been commissioned during Q1 2022. The truck chutes are critical infrastructure required to support production from Panel 0 and construction of the subsequent truck chute is ongoing.

Shaft 4 sinking activities recommenced during the quarter, and readiness works for Shaft 3 continued ahead of anticipated sinking later in Q1 2022.

In terms of mine development, breakthrough of the conveyor and service declines was achieved in Q4. So now both the conveyor and service declines are connected to the underground mine. Drawbell drives excavation in the Panel 0 initiation area continued with drawpoint construction work also underway. Panel 1 and Panel 2 design refinements study were continued, with preliminary outcomes of Panel 2 expected later this year.

All undercut readiness criteria were achieved on the 24th of January 2022, with the first undercut blast fired on the 25th of January.

In terms of exploration, Turquoise Hill through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Asia Gold Mongolia, Heruga Exploration and SGLS LLC, operates an exploration program in Mongolia on licenses that are not part of Oyu Tolgoi. Turquoise Hill owns 3 exploration licenses: Bag and Od-2 in Umnugobi province and Khatavch in the Dornogovi province. The 2021 planned exploration program was successfully completed on all 3 licenses. Results have identified further zones of interest that will form part of the exploration program for 2022.

If we turn to Slide 11, we can see the key near-term milestones to Panel 0 as well as the critical activities to enable the ramp up of production to 95,000 tonnes per day. Important milestones for 2022 include the first drawbell firing in Panel 0, which is anticipated in Q3, with sustainable production for Panel 0 expected in the first half of 2023.

COVID-19 impacts have resulted in expected commissioning dates for shafts 3 and 4 in the second half of 2023. Due to the impact of the shaft delays and work restrictions impacting underground development progress as well as changes to mining scope, we now expect the first drawbell in Panel 2 to be fired in 2026, and the first drawbell in Panel 1 to be fired in 2027.

With the commencement of the undercut and the full budget uplift now approved at the Oyu Tolgoi LLC Board, a reforecast of cost and schedule for the remaining project scope, including Materials Handling System 2 and concentrator modifications is underway and is expected to be completed during Q2 2022.

I'll now hand the call back over to Luke Colton, our Chief Financial Officer.

Many thanks for this, Jo-Anne, and good morning to everyone. If you could please turn to the next slide, I'll provide a summary of our key financial metrics for 2021.

Revenues of $1.97 billion in 2021 were a record for the company. They were 82.8% higher than 2020 due to a combination of higher volumes and higher prices. Copper and gold volumes increased by 9% and 157%, respectively, despite the challenges from COVID-19. This was driven by the scheduled move to higher-grade areas of Phase 4B and the company also benefited from average prices that were 53.4% higher for copper and 2.4% higher for gold.

Revenue of $504 million in Q4 of 2021 increased 24.4% from the $405 million in Q4 2020, and that's due to a 35.8% higher average copper price and 54.5% higher gold sales volumes.

Net cash generated from operating activities was $576 million in 2021 versus $41 million during 2020. This was primarily due to $0.9 billion higher revenue and lower interest paid as a result of a lower average LIBOR rate. This was partially offset by an $18 million interest received as bank deposits and money market funds were drawn down to the fund investment in the underground and $327 million higher taxes paid, which included the $356 million in payments made to the Government of Mongolia and those related to the 2013 to 2015 and 2016 to 2018 tax assessments. These payments are the subject of the international tax arbitration proceedings that were suspended on February 11, 2022.

Net cash generated from operating activities was $149 million in Q4 '21 versus $70 million in Q4 2020, reflecting a $91 million increase in gross margin from the higher sales revenue, offset by $11 million higher operating expenses, and those were associated mainly with the implementation of COVID-19 controls.

Income attributable to owners of Turquoise Hill increased from $2.02 per share in 2020 to $2.61 per share in 2021. The increase mainly reflects again, the $0.9 billion higher revenue offset by $0.6 billion additional tax charges in 2021 versus 2020.

2021 reflects the $278 million deferred tax expense from utilization of prior year tax losses against current year taxable income and from a reduction in loss carryforwards anticipated to be utilized in further -- in future periods, and those were mainly driven by the previously announced underground delays.

2020 reflected recognition of a $347 million deferred tax asset recognition, which was driven primarily by improved near-term commodity price estimates.

Income attributable to owners of Turquoise Hill decreased slightly from $0.79 per share in Q4 2020 to $0.78 per share in Q4 2021. This reflected the impact of a $99 million higher revenue from higher copper prices and gold sales volumes, offset by higher tax charges as well as higher total operating cash costs. A $20 million deferred tax expense in Q4 2021 reflected the utilization of prior year tax losses. In Q4 2020, additional deferred tax assets of $86 million were recognized as a result of improved near-term commodity price estimates.

2021, C1 cash costs and all-in sustaining costs benefited from the impact of the higher gold credits. All-in sustaining costs were also impacted by a $24 million increase in open-pit sustaining CapEx as deferred stripping was $22 million higher in 2020 (sic) [2021] due to waste mined ahead of the transition of mining to Phase 5.

Capital expenditure of $997 million in 2021 comprised $913 million related to the underground, including $232 million in underground sustaining capital expenditure as well as open-pit capital expenditure of $84 million. 2021 open-pit capital expenditure included deferred stripping of $27 million and tailings storage facility spend of $26 million.

Q4 2021 capital expenditure was $300 million versus $263 million in Q4 2020. And that's comprised of $259 million in underground capital expenditure and $40 million of open-pit sustaining capital expenditure.

Our cash and cash equivalents decreased from $1.1 billion at the end of 2020 to $0.7 billion at the end of 2021. The additional investment required to fund the underground project exceeded free cash flows generated from OT open-pit operations.

The base case incremental funding requirement increased from $2.3 billion at the end of 2020 to $3.4 billion at the end of 2021. That $3.4 billion is a decrease of $200 million from the $3.6 billion reported at the end of Q3 2021.

If you can move to the next slide, please. You'll see again that Turquoise Hill had liquidity of $0.7 billion at the end of Q4 2021, decreasing slightly from Q3 2021's ending balance of $0.8 billion.

As noted previously, the funding gap has decreased to $3.4 billion from $3.6 billion at the end of Q3 2021. The decrease is mainly the result of updates to short-term mine plan, slightly improved commodity price assumptions.

TRQ's base case incremental funding requirement incorporates metal price assumptions from copper and gold over the incremental funding period, which we have now included in our MD&A. The Definitive Estimate, which estimated a development capital cost of $6.75 billion; COVID-19 restrictions through the end of Q4 2021, which resulted in a cumulative increase of $175 million to the estimate of underground development capital included in the Definitive Estimate; the current forecast of sustainable production for Panel 0, which is still expected in H1 of 2023; the current forecast of delays to Shaft 3 and 4; the impact of open-pit mine designs in response to previously reported geotechnical events; resequencing of the open-pit ore phases due to the delayed commencement of the undercut as well as the impacts of COVID-19 on open-pit waste movement; and $1.8 billion of scheduled principal repayments, which the company is attempting to reprofile. The details of these and other items are discussed more fully in our MD&A, which is available on the company's website, SEDAR and EDGAR.

On January 24, 2022, Turquoise Hill entered into a binding Amended and Restated Heads of Agreement with Rio Tinto, which replaces the previous Heads of Agreement. Key aspects of the amended HOA are included on this slide. The full agreement is available on the company's website, SEDAR and EDGAR.

The amended HOA signals an improved relationship with Rio Tinto and an updated joint view on how to fund the underground project. The key highlights are as follows: to pursue rescheduling of principal repayments of existing debt with a target completion date of December 2022 latest; seek to raise additional supplemental senior debt of up to $500 million, which would be available for drawdown once sustainable production is achieved; an incremental co-lend facility provided by Rio Tinto of up to $750 million, which would also be available to be drawn down upon once sustainable production is achieved; Rio Tinto will if needed, provide a short-term secured advance directly to Turquoise Hill of up to $300 million, which would be available during the debt funding restriction period identified in Resolution 103, and the company agreeing to conduct an equity offering in a form of its choosing of at least $650 million by no later than the end of August 2022.

With the amended HOA in place, the company is together with its partners restarted the engagement process with the project finance lenders regarding sequencing of the principal repayments and other elements of the amended HOA.

Under the current base case assumption, additional equity in excess of the initial $650 million would not be required if the reprofiling, SSD and co-lend are fully successful. The amended HOA provides that, if necessary, Turquoise Hill could be required to raise up to a total of $1.5 billion, less the amount raised than the initial equity offering just discussed via a further equity offering again in the form of its choosing.

Should they occur, any significant further delays to the underground project or nonfulfillment of any of the conditions precedent identified in the amended HOA would also adversely affect the ability of the company and OT LLC to obtain additional funding or reprofile existing debt as contemplated by and/or within the time frame set out in the amended HOA.

Additionally, the company continues to monitor commodity markets, the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 and how the undercut progresses and the underground mine ramps up its production.

Our liquidity outlook and estimated incremental funding requirement will continue to be impacted either positively or negatively by various factors in addition to the aforementioned many of which are outside the company's control.

And with that, I will hand the call back over to Steve to wrap things up.

Thank you, Luke. And to wrap up, we faced multiple challenges throughout 2021 and entered 2022 with a renewed partnership with the Government of Mongolia. We negotiated a new funding agreement with Rio Tinto, an Electricity Supply Agreement for Oyu Tolgoi and we have begun blasting the Hugo North, Lift 1, underground mine.

I want to thank the entire team at OT and at TRQ for their commitment they demonstrated in helping us bring the underground into production for the benefit of all stakeholders.

We will continue to update the market as the underground progresses, and we look forward to ramping up what will become one of the largest copper producer in the planet -- on the planet, sorry. Thank you very much. And with that, the operator, we are open up for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Ralph Profiti from Eight Capital.

Two questions, if I may, Steve. One perhaps for Jo-Anne and one for Luke. And maybe I can start with Jo-Anne. Jo-Anne, I see in the MD&A that there's been a reduction in the number of drawbells to achieve sustainable cave propagation moving to '21. And I'm just wondering, Jo-Anne, is there any offsets to that with respect to perhaps higher costs when we think about perhaps secondary breakage or, say, in a realignment of the scheduling? Just wondering what some of those offsets are.

Thank you, Ralph, for your question. So that change in drawbells really is a reflection of a change, a minor modification in the sequence on the footprint that was really has its foundations in geotechnical concerns and trying to minimize those.

And essentially, what we're trying to do here to get to sustainable production is to reach a certain area. And that area is the point at which our calculations and the information that the rock mass tells us the cave will start to propagate. And so, although there has been a change in the number of drawbells, we're still reaching the same area. We're just doing it in a slightly different way because the undercut is starting in a different orientation.

So there's no fundamental change to the point at which we think that the cave will start. It's that we're starting in a slightly different sequence, opening up a different geometry.

In terms of trade-off, we don't expect to see any cost implications of that. There is a scheduled advantage in doing that, but that was not the primary driver of or any contribution to driving that decision. The decision was driven by geotechnical concerns and trying to minimize those. So hopefully, that answers your question, Ralph.

It does. Luke, I appreciate the disclosure on the metal price assumptions used in the base case. So thank you for that. Luke, when I think about $6.75 billion in CapEx and the remaining $1.25 billion, could you categorize those in buckets, roughly speaking, how much of that remaining CapEx is perhaps labor? How much of that is equipment? And how much is consumables? Just rough numbers would be a little more helpful.

Thanks for the question, and I might get Jo-Anne to help me a little bit on this one as well. If you think about that remaining capital to complete the underground project and to get to the $6.7 billion, plus the $175 million in COVID impact, I have tended to look at it from the perspective of the sort of major packages of work that are underway and that need to be completed.

And if you think about it from that perspective, obviously, you have Shaft 3 and Shaft 4, which are underway. You also have Material Handling System 2, which would be a large portion of that remaining capital. And I think it's very similar in many respects to what we've already done with MHS1. So I think there's probably a greater degree of certainty there.

And then obviously, you have the upgrade of the concentrator, which is another major piece of work that would form part of that remaining capital estimate. Obviously, a large portion of that is going to be labor-related. And there are definitely going to be packages of equipment, et cetera, that needs to be purchased associated with those major pieces of work.

And I know the underground team. They're in the process at the moment of looking at all of that carefully as part of the sort of reforecasting work that is underway and that we hope to be able to provide further detail on in the coming months.

Jo-Anne, do you have any more detail there or any additional specificity that you might be able to help with?

I think you covered it very well, Luke. The reforecast is underway and the previous estimate contained assumptions on all the main elements and you've covered the scope, the primary scope that remains.

Next question comes from Orest Wowkodaw from Scotiabank.

Just following up on Ralph's questions. I realize you haven't completed the work at this point. But can you give us an indication of what you're seeing with respect to what you're seeing on the CapEx front as you're looking at recosting the project in terms of impacts of inflation and schedule delays to date?

Yes. Ralph, I'll -- sorry, Orest. I mean the only thing I can give you is guidance because you will understand that the information is being captured, is being determined at the moment and we will have that in Q2, okay? But what we can see at the moment is that some of the commitments have -- came out with a large one related to the Materials Handling System 2, came out pretty close to the previous estimate, okay, that we had.

But that was a guarantee for the future one, but it came out in line with that. The -- as well we are trying to find out, there's a large portion of labor in our estimate and that to come. And that one -- I mean we've been favorable because we're -- the exchange rate -- not favorable. I mean there's no impact on that from an inflation perspective because of the FX advantage that we have with Mongolia.

So I would say, overall, the work needs to be done, Orest. There's some element now because there are going to be other elements that will vary, but what we're seeing right now is not a significant one, but we're -- and I'm very cautious here, okay, what needs to be completed and done before we can have certainty.

Okay. Fair enough. So do you expect that update to come with the Q2 financial results? Or could it come earlier than that?

With the Q2 results, I would hope that if -- now we're going to do within the -- and we're expecting that information to come in the Q2 period. So I'm going -- and Orest it will depend and expecting it will be in Q2. So it will not come with Q2. It will come at best with the Q1 results. Is that enough, Orest?

Yes. Just a question for Luke in terms of getting some -- a little bit more granularity. Thanks for the updated schedule in terms of the maturities of the project finance facility that are in the notes. But when I look at that schedule, it looks like you've got $400 million maturing this year and then $1.4 billion maturing in '23, '24. Can you give us the split between '23, '24? Is that pretty even between the years? And then similar question for the $1.2 billion that's maturing in '25, '26, please?

Yes. Thanks for the question. Listen, it's -- you're right, it's $400 million in 2022. And most of that is actually back ended to the December 2022 payment, which is why we're trying to get the reprofiling done before December, and then at $1.4 billion over kind of 4 payments in 2023 and 2024. So the repayment profile is such that we make -- we would make principal repayments in June and December each year.

So taking that $1.4 billion and dividing it sort of by 4 would, broadly speaking, give you the sort of principal repayment that needs to be made each June or December. I mean there are slight variations due to cash sweep mechanisms, et cetera. Most of that actually comes into play after 2024 actually. But broadly speaking, that's how you should think about it. And that's the level of granularity we kind of guided the market on so far.

Okay. So is it fair to do the same thing for that $1.2 billion that's due in '25, '26 roughly, just sort of split in half between the years?

Yes. I mean I think on a rough basis, that's probably right. Again, there will be some variance due to cash sweep mechanisms and things like that. But broadly speaking, that's a pretty good position.

And your next question comes from Craig Hutchison from TD Securities.

With respect to your guidance for this year and particularly the underground CapEx guidance of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion, does that include sustained CapEx or sustaining CapEx on top of that?

Luke, do you want to answer that?

Yes. So the $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion, it doesn't include any capital expenditure for open pit. But the $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion does include both underground development CapEx and underground sustaining CapEx.

Okay. And then the overall kind of cost to complete the underground, the $6.75 billion and the additional $175 million, is that an all-in capital number? Does that also include sustaining CapEx? Or is that -- is there some kind of amount on top of that number?

No. The $6.75 billion plus the $175 million is just underground development CapEx. There's always been underground sustaining CapEx on top of that. And if -- for example, if you look at our AIF or if you look at our technical report, you can see the underground is going to have a sustaining capital requirement for many, many years into the future. So the $6.75 billion plus the $175 million is exclusive of underground sustaining capital.

Okay. Any kind of clarity in terms of what that number could be between now and sustaining production?

Obviously, the 2022 guidance that we've provided includes the amount in 2022 for underground sustaining CapEx. And the technical report that we've issued would give you an idea of what the underground sustaining capital requirements are going to be broadly speaking going forward kind of over the life of mine, I think. And I believe there's some additional information on in the AIF as well.

Okay. And maybe a similar question in terms of the production guidance. Does the production guidance include any underground development ore? Or is that separate to that guidance? Is that -- I guess is the guidance only for the open pit?

Yes. Jo-Anne do you want to cover that?

Yes, sure. Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Craig. Yes, so it does include underground materials that will be fed to the mill. So the production guidance is inclusive of the integrated production schedule.

And again, the technical report does have some schedules in it that would help to provide information around the kind of ramp up we would see and the proportions we would see being fed, remembering that there has been a 6-month delay to undercut commencement since the technical report was completed, but it remains materially correct. Is that's helpful?

Okay. So you can't kind of provide a breakdown between -- on maybe a rough percentage basis, what will come from the underground, what comes from the open pit?

It's very early days, Craig. So we've just started the undercut and the first bell is in Q3. We don't start underground ramp up until half 1 next year with some reaching the milestone of sustainable production. So it takes a while to build the drill points to ramp up the capacity of the underground mine. So it remains at modest levels for some period to come yet.

There's a pretty wide variance, I guess, between the guidance ranges, and I think it's around 40% between copper and gold. Is that because of the concerns on the sort of ramp up of the underground this year? Or is it more just kind of contingency around COVID or concerns over grade? Maybe if you can provide some kind of clarity there?

Sure. So really, the production guidance predominantly reflects the open-pit performance. And as you are no doubt aware, the open-pit takes several years of cutback time to get into the high-grade areas. And that means that, that we see variability in the delivery of the grade to the mill.

And that means that, as you're ending a phase in terms of completing the high grade and moving into more medium-grade areas while you're trying to advance to the next high-grade section, you do see that change in grade. And so the guidance reflects the differences in those areas. So it's really driven by the open-pit and the stage of mining we're at in the open-pit in terms of being between anything of Phase 4B and stripping Phase 5 in the Southwest area.

Okay. And maybe one last question for me. Just with respect to the reforecast of this cost and schedule that's going to come out in Q2, I mean is there a risk that under the funding forecast of $3.4 billion goes up on that forecast? Or is some of those costs more pushed out to 2023?

Craig, I would say that the funding gap, if you're talking about -- if your question relates to if the new estimate would have an impact on the funding gap of $3.4 billion? The $3.4 billion, you remember Craig, it's for -- it's covering the full period 2022 to 2024, okay? So -- and the answer is yes, okay? So an increase in the underground development CapEx would have an impact, okay? And -- because that would be CapEx that would be spent within the period of 2022 to 2024.

However, as we mentioned, we're always optimizing. There's a lot of elements related to that. And when we'll have the information, that's why we will give you an update on the funding gap, okay? But also we'll need to update -- as we did in the last quarter, we'll need to update our pricing assumption, which also has an impact on the funding gap. So we'll give you a full update with the information we have at that time.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from Jackie Przybylowski from BMO Capital Markets.

Most of my questions have already been answered, but I just -- I wanted to ask a question to Luke, if I can. Your interest payment this quarter was quite a bit less than what I had modeled. So I was wondering, Luke, if you could walk us through how your interest expense is incurred and how it's calculated? And if we can expect sort of these similar relatively low levels of interest expense going forward? Or what might change that?

Sure. I can try and give you a bit more flavor there. The way you're probably seeing is the interest expense that gets reflected. The main interest payments are actually made in June and December of every year. And they are on the PF debt. So they would incorporate obviously the interest rates that we've secured with the various lenders under that debt.

And if you go to the debt note in the financial statements, there's actually some further breakout of the interest rates under the different tranches. It would also include the fee that were charged by Rio Tinto to provide their completion support undertaking. So those things -- those are the things that are included in that charge. So it's mainly just the interest that we pay or that we incur on that PF debt. And then the actual payments to the lenders, again, they happen, I believe, in June and December every year.

Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude your conference call for today. We thank you very much for participating and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Have a good day.