Yaoure project development timeline. EPS growth (%) Adj EPS (c)

Transcription

1 Buy Amara Mining # AMA Data Price 16p Target price 27p (was 28p) Market cap 66m EV 58m Net cash 8m Free float 76% Index FTSE AIM AllShare Sector Mining Next news H BFS UK sales 0% European sales 0% North American sales 0% Rest of World sales 100% Description Amara Mining is an AIM listed junior gold miner with production, development and exploration projects in Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Cote d'ivoire and Liberia Performance Source: Bloomberg May Aug Nov Feb May Aug Nov Feb May Aug Nov Feb Analyst Price Relative Michael Stoner +44 (0) michael.stoner@peelhunt.com Peter MallinJones +44 (0) peter.mallinjones@peelhunt.com Specialist Sales Andrew Wilson +44 (0) andrew.wilson@peelhunt.com # Corporate client of Peel Hunt Yaoure gold project PFS results In the PFS we focus on Amara s MI&I scenario, as this best reflects the potential of the ore body. Despite an increase in the capex forecasts, the economics are broadly unchanged from the PEA released in March 20 (IRR remains +30%). The company is rapidly advancing Yaoure towards production, and it remains one of the strongest development projects in Africa. Buy. PFS overview: The capex and opex forecasts have both crept up (25% and 4% respectively) since the PEA. Despite that, the IRR remains at 30% on a $1,200/oz gold price, as the company has made a number of improvements to the mine sequencing in order to bring highgrade ore into the start of the mine life. Yaoure remains a lowcost and lowcapitalintensity proposition for which development at low gold prices can still be justified. In the MI&I scenario, the mine is expected to produce an average of 247koz/year for a 10year life at an exceptionally low average AISC of $648/oz. The frontloaded grade profile delivers average annual production of 323koz in years one through four. PFS review: Yaoure is clearly benefiting from a number of unique advantages that are afforded only to projects in Cote d Ivoire. The lowcost power is a key driver of low operating costs; Amara is maximising this benefit with the use of electric shovels, and this has the added benefit of reducing the company s exposure to fluctuations in the diesel price. The fiscal terms adequately allow for capital repayment ahead of tax falling due, and the VAT exemption significantly reduces risk of the working capital blowouts suffered by miners across Africa. Yaoure project development timeline BFS H First investment in development H Start construction Q First production Q Valuation and recommendation: We calculate a $304m NPV for the Yaoure project. This feeds into a group RNAV of 27p (from 28p). Our unrisked NAV is now 48p (from 53p), reflecting the full impact of higher capex forecasts. It is positive to see the reduction of the NPV largely countered by a reduction of the risking factor we apply to the project, as it has advanced from PEA to PFS. With Yaoure remaining an M&A target and one of the strongest African development projects, we reiterate our Buy recommendation. Stats Source: Company accounts, Peel Hunt estimates Y/E Dec Sales EBITDA Op Margin Adj PBT Adj EPS (c) EPS growth PER (x) DPS (c) Div yield FCF yield EV/EBITDA (x) 20A 0.0 (7.1) n/a (7.9) (1.3) n/a n/a 0.0 n/a (7.9) n/a 2015E 0.0 (6.0) n/a (6.0) (1.4) n/a n/a 0.0 n/a 10.1 n/a 2016E 0.0 (6.5) n/a (6.4) (1.4) n/a n/a 0.0 n/a (66.5) n/a 2017E 0.0 (6.5) n/a (12.8) (2.8) n/a n/a 0.0 n/a (358.5) n/a Marketing Communication This document must be treated as a marketing communication for the purposes of Directive 2004/39/EC as it has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of research; and it is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.

2 Amaraa Mining# Amara Mining (AMA) Listings: AIM Recommendation: Buy Share price: 16p RNAV/NAV: 27p / 48p RNAV/NAV multiple: 0.59 / 0.34 Mkt Cap: 66m Daily volume (3month ave): 0.9m 52week High/Low: 27p / 13p Peel Hunt NAV summary KalsakaSega NAV Adjustments Core NAV Baomahun NAV Yaoure NAV Total risked NAV (RNAV) Total NAV Discount rate 10% 10% 10% NPV Risk factor RNAV RNAV (p/share) 100% 23 60% % West African asset map Financial summary Income statement E 2016E 2017E Revenue Cost of sales G&A 52 (56) (11) Production profilee Other EBITDA Net profit Total comprehensive income EPS ( ) (30) (44) (52) (47) (25.0) (8) (16) (5.3) (1.4) (1.4) (13) (13) (2.8) Production (oz) Adjusted EPS ( ) (9.2) (1.3) (1.4) (1.4) (2.8) Balance sheet E 2016E 2017E KalsakaSega Baomahun Yaoure Cash Debt 13 Working capital (incl. bullion) (3) (3) (3) 472 (3) Commodity price assumptionss (US$/t)) 2015E 2016E 2017E+ Cash flow f E 2016E 2017E Gold ($ $/oz) 1,200 1,200 1,200 Operating cash flow Investing cash flow Financing cash flow Dividend Change in cash 7 (21) (21) 0 (20) 13 (5) (13)( (70) (76) (403) (409) Ownership Selected holders Shares outstanding Management & insiders Shares (m) 461 % Sensitivity table (RNAV p/share) Aurum Franklin Templeton Discount rate Gold price ($/oz) 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,4000 1,500 1,600 8% % % % , Ingalls & Snyder JP Morgan Sustainable Capital Van Eck Source: Company accounts, Bloomberg, Peel Hunt estimates

3 Prefeasibility study review (PFS) It is important to note that the PFS is a step towards a production decision. It is clear to us that there is a significant amount of work to do in optimising both of the scenarios presented in the PFS, and we therefore expect the project economics to improve through to the BFS, rather than weaken. We focus on the MI&I scenario in our mine plan assumptions and detail below a number of opportunities for Amara to deliver upside beyond these forecasts. Two scenarios The PFS on the Yaoure gold project in Cote d'ivoire highlights two 6.5Mt production scenarios: one based on the maiden reserve estimate, which is based on the measured and indicated resources, and the other based on the measured, indicated and inferred resources (the MI&I scenario). The MI&I scenario is generated by Amara and is not NI compliant. The need to run this scenario arises from a quirk of the resource block model, where a section of inferred resource sits at surface overlying indicated resource blocks with stronger than average grades. In the PFS model these inferred ounces cannot be included and are classified as waste, therefore sterilising the underlying indicated ounces, the impact of which is demonstrated in the relative difference from the improved MI&I scenario. This issue is currently being resolved with a 6,000m drilling programme that is expected to upgrade the section of inferred resource to the indicated category, and therefore move the optimised PFS economics towards the MI&I scenario. Management could not get this drilling completed and included in the PFS ahead of needing to submit the study as the basis of the mining licence application due in July (ahead of Cote d Ivoire elections in September). It therefore was obliged to finalise the PFS on the existing data; this is why we pay little attention to the PFS numbers and focus on the MI&I scenario. PEA vs PFS In the table below we compare and contrast the PEA with the two scenarios detailed in the PFS. Table 1: PEA MI&I scenario PFS operating metrics comparison Source: Company, Peel Hunt estimates Operating metrics PFS MI&I Scenario PEA Ore mined Mt Strip ratio waste:ore 4.5:1 3.3:1 4.9:1 Contained gold koz 2,663 2,766 3,0 Mine life Years Plant capacity Mt Average head grade LOM g/t Average head grade Years g/t Recovery rate % Average annual production LOM koz Average annual production Years koz Capex $m Pre strip $m Contingency $m Total capex $m Opex (including royalty) $/oz Allin sustaining cost (AISC) $/oz

4 It is worth noting that the PFS and MI&I scenarios are not being compared on a likeforlike basis, given the differing pit shell gold price assumptions being applied (the PFS scenario assumes a $975/oz pit shell and the MI&I scenario assumes a $800/oz pit shell); this has the effect of reducing the tonnage in the MI&I scenario, but increasing the average head grade. The standout differences between the PEA and PFS mine plan assumptions are listed below; on balance we consider that the net effect of these positive and negative changes is broadly neutral to a small negative: Reduced strip ratio (big positive) Here the company has delivered on promises made following the PEA, where the 20 drilling programme has filled in gaps in the resource model with the effect of reducing the strip ratio. Higher dilution and mining loss assumptions (negative) Higher dilution and mining loss assumptions have been used in the PFS than in the PE; this has the impact of lowering the average head grade. We believe the assumptions made in the PFS are overly conservative and we see upside beyond the current forecasts. Lower recovery rates (big negative) The reduction of the recovery rates from 95% to 90% has come following the completion of more detailed test work in the PFS. Lower average annual production (small negative) This is a result of the lower head grade forecasts and reduced recovery rates, as throughput rates have been maintained. Frontloaded mine plan (big positive) The stronger production profile at the front end of the mine life (years ) has done a lot to optimise the project s NPV Increased capex (negative) In both of the PFS scenarios the preproduction capex has increased by 25% over the PEA estimates. This is because of the estimates now including a bigger mining fleet and addition of a prestrip which gives early access to high grades from CMA, thus improving the project NPV despite the higher capex. Table 2: PEA MI&I scenario PFS economics comparison Source: Company, Peel Hunt estimates Economic metrics PFS MI&I Scenario PEA NPV $1,100/oz $m NPV $1,200/oz $m NPV $1,250/oz $m NPV $1,300/oz $m $1,100/oz % $1,200/oz % $1,250/oz % $1,300/oz % Payback period years

5 Life of mine (LOM) operating metrics The chart below clearly demonstrates the frontend weighting to the mine plan. By introducing a prestripping programme, Amara will gain access to highergrade areas of the ore body in the first four years of the life of mine. Following that, there is a period of weak production in year five; we see potential for this year to be smoothed with the stronger grades from the following years. Chart 1: MI&I production profile Source: Company, Peel Hunt estimates 450, , , , Production (oz) 250, ,000 Grade (g/t) , , , Production Grade The production profile has an obvious impact on our cost forecasts, which suggest that the mine will operate on a very high margin in the early years, with the margin declining in line with the falling grades towards the latter end of the mine life. Chart 2: Production and operating cost profile Source: Company, Peel Hunt estimates 450,000 1, ,000 1, , ,000 1,100 Production (oz) 250, , Costs ($/oz) 150, , , Production Opex (inc. royalties) AISC 300 Optimisation potential We have already mentioned that there are a number of opportunities to optimise the economics of the project further as Amara works through the BFS; these are detailed below: Dilution and mining losses The current resource block model doesn t give any flexibility around the dilution assumptions. There appears to be a high level of dilution assumed in the model, and this could not be flexed in the PFS. 5

6 Work is now starting to remodel the resource to allow for less conservative assumptions to be tested. Selective mining vs bulk mining This is the standout opportunity to improve the project s economics. The block model currently is currently running 12.5m x 12.5m x 10m mining blocks, and this creates a lot of dilution in the highgrade CMA zone. There is real potential to treat the CMA zone and Yaoure Central zone as two distinct ore bodies, and therefore apply a selective mining methodology and run 2.5m x 2.5m x 2m blocks on the CMA zone, and maintain the bulk mining assumptions for Yaoure Central. This could reduce the level of dilution being applied to the CMA zone, following which we would expect the mined grade to come out north of 2g/t. A 1.96g/t target head grade was mooted in the analyst presentation by the engineers, and this seems conservative to us given the 3g/t average drill intercept in the CMA zone. Mining fleet optimisation The dual mining methodology would be focused on selective mining in the early years of the mine life and could therefore allow for smaller fleet in early years, thus deferring some capex (NPV efficient) Ore classified as waste Within the PFS scenarios there are inferred ounces and other mineralised material that are both classified as waste. This material sits at surface in the Yaoure central zone in the historic pit. It could add additional high grade material early in life of the mine, with limited stripping required. The Yaoure central zone is not scheduled to come into the mine plan in the early years of production; success in proving up this mineralised material and upgrading the inferred ounces to the indicated category could allow it to feature earlier in the mine life. It would then add another point of production in years and reduce the operational risk, while also adding cheap ounces early into the mine life. This positive effect could be further compounded where the inferred material sits above indicated ore and is currently sterilising those ounces in the mine plan. Recovery Management guides that recovery could rise from the current 90% estimate to 9192% for the LOM. Processing The flow sheet currently includes a gravity circuit that adds only 0.7% to the total recovery at an upfront capital cost of $7.8m; a costbenefit analysis will now be run to optimise the flow sheet, and this could see the capex bill reduce. Aggregate production There is potential to sell waste rock (basalt) as a road aggregate in order to reduce waste mining costs. Historical heap leach reprocessing The historical heap leach operations sit next to the proposed pits and the new plant. The heaps are thought still to contain mineralisation at approximately 0.5g/t; this could be run through the plant during the commissioning process to generate early cash flow ahead of production. Rightsizing the plant 5mtpa may be most appropriate throughput scenario following the detailed work on selective mining, which would be expected to reduce the total tonnage sent to the plant through the life of the operation. This would reduce the capex bill, driving the IRR higher. 6

7 Valuation Table 3: NAV summary Source: Peel Hunt valuations, 10% discount rate, $1.55/ exchange rates, shares in issue 461m The updated forecasts from the MI&I scenario in the PFS form our base case assumptions; from this we calculate a 27p/share risked NAV (RNAV), down modestly from 28p. This shortterm price target includes heavy risk adjustments of both the Baomahun and Yaoure NPVs. We would expect the risking factor to be reduced as the projects are advanced towards production decisions. This should in the long term see the RNAV trend towards our full NAV of 48p (was 53p). Our valuation is broadly unchanged from our previous forecasts, which were based on the PEA mine plans. This is because the 5.6% reduction of our NAV is largely mitigated by the reduction in the risk weighting (now 55% from 50%) applied to the project NPV, which leaves our RNAV broadly unchanged. We continue to ascribe no value to the KalsakaSega mine, which is currently in a closure process. There may be potential to recover some value from the sale of the plant, which is in full working order, or the unwinding of working capital. We believe that it is prudent to assume that no cash is generated from the subsidiary. Risk weighting Net interest Att. NPV RNAV NAV NAV ($'000) ($'000) ( /share) (p/share) Production assets: KalsakaSega 100% 90%/78% Production NAV Adjustments: + Net cash/(debt) end ,694 31, G&A (6,000) (6,000) (1) (1) Exploration spend (13,128) (13,128) (3) (2) + Amlib drilling asset value 1,600 1, Core NAV,166, Exploration and development assets: Baomahun 60% 100.0% 23,294 13, Yaoure 55% 90.0% 303, , Exploration/development NAV 327, , Total risked NAV (RNAV) 341, , Total unrisked NAV Current P/RNAV multiple (x) 0.59 Current P/NAV multiple (x)

8 Financials Shares outstanding: 461m Market capitalisation: 66m Cash (last reported): $17m Options and warrants: 0.2m EV: 58m Debt (last reported): $0m Income statement ($ 000) E 2016E 2017E Revenue 52,403 Cost of sales (56,134) G&A (10,523) (7,107) (6,000) (6,500) (6,500) Other & exceptionals (29,865) EBITDA (44,119) (7,107) (6,000) (6,500) (6,500) DD&A (6,607) EBIT (50,726) (7,107) (6,000) (6,500) (6,500) Net finance income/(charge) (1,225) (809) (6,267) PBT (51,951) (7,916) (5,983) (6,368) (12,767) Tax payable (153) Net profit (NPAT) (52,104) (7,916) (5,983) (6,368) (12,767) Net loss from discontinued ops (11,884) Total net profit (NPAT) (52,104) (19,800) (5,983) (6,368) (12,767) Other comprehensive income Minority interest charges (5,008) (4,068) Attributable profit (47,096) (15,732) (5,983) (6,368) (12,767) Balance sheet ($ 000) E 2016E 2017E Cash and equivalents 11,372 1,687 13,190 Other current assets 30,476 2,275 2,275 2,275 2,275 Total current assets 41,848 3,962 15,465 2,275 2,275 PPE 22,208 5,927 5,927 66, ,927 Investments Other noncurrent assets 112, ,417 0, , ,545 Total noncurrent assets 134, ,344 6, , ,472 Assets held for sale 13,506 Total assets 176, , , , ,747 Shortterm debt 13,162 62, ,732 Other current liabilities 36,355 4,792 4,792 4,792 4,792 Longterm debt Other noncurrent liabilities 10,156 3,150 3,150 3,150 3,150 Liabilities held for sale 13,506 Total liabilities 59,673 21,448 7,942 70,6 479,674 Cash flow ($ 000) E 2016E 2017E Net profit/(loss) (50,726) (7,107) (5,983) (6,368) (12,767) Loss from discontinued opns (9,454) DD&A 6,607 11,745 Working capital changes 24,515 8,279 Exceptionals 29,933 Other (including interest & tax) (3,032) (3,258) ,874 Operating cash flow 7, (5,393) (5,893) (5,893) Capex (9,035) (1,536) (60,100) (386,900) Acquisitions & investments 10,000 (54) Other (22,165) (18,000) (13,111) (9,868) (16,267) Investing cash flow 21,200 19,590 13,111 69, ,167 Equity issues (net of costs) 26,270 30,007 Net proceeds/(repayment) of borrowings (6,668) (13,332) Dividends paid Other Financing cash flow 6,668 12,938 30, Forex effect 133 (224) Net change in cash (20,571) (6,447) 11,503 (75,861) (409,060) Cash in group held for sale 3,0 Cash at year end 11,372 1,687 13,190 (62,672) (471,732) Financial position and ratios EV Net debt (13.2) Total working capital (2.5) (2.5) (2.5) Free cash flow 11.5 (75.9) (409.1) Production (koz) EBITDA margin n/a n/a n/a Adjusted EPS ( /share) (1.4) (1.4) (2.8) DPS ( /share) Dividend yield P/EPS (adjusted, x) (18.6) (18.6) (9.3) EV/EBITDA (x) (15.4) (25.9) (88.8) Source: Company accounts, Peel Hunt estimates Net assets 117, , ,995 8, ,074 Shareholder equity 197, , , , ,661 Other reserves (77,941) (93,109) (99,092) (105,460) (118,227) Noncontrolling interests (2,839) (4,360) (4,360) (4,360) (4,360) Total equity 117, , ,995 8, ,074 8

9 Recommendation structure and distribution as at May 2015 Corporate No Corporate % Total No Total % Buy > +10% expected absolute price performance over 12 months Hold +/10% range expected absolute price performance over 12 months Sell > 10% expected absolute price performance over 12 months NB The recommendation is the primary driver for analyst views. The target price may vary from the structure due to market conditions, risk profile of the company and capital returns Peel Hunt Company Analyst Shareholding held by Company in PH (>3%) PH in Company (>3%) makes a market in this company is broker to this company has received compensation from this company for the provision of investment banking services during the last 12 months has acted as a sponsor/broker/nomad/ financial advisor for an offer of securities from this company Amara Mining x x x x Recommendation history Company Date Rec Date Rec Date Rec Date Rec Amara Mining 22 Apr 13 Buy This material was prepared by Peel Hunt LLP, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. This document must be treated as a marketing communication for the purposes of Directive 2004/39/EC as it has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of research; and although Peel Hunt LLP is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research, Peel Hunt LLP applies this prohibition through its internal systems and controls. The analyst or analysts responsible for the content of this marketing communication certify that: (1) the views expressed and attributed to the research analyst or analysts in the report accurately reflect their personal opinion(s) about the subject securities and issuers and/or other subject matter as appropriate; and, (2) no part of their compensation will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views contained in this research report. Peel Hunt has effective organisational and administrative arrangements set up within the firm for the prevention and avoidance of conflicts of interest with respect to research recommendations, including information barriers. This document is for the use of the addressees only and is not intended for nor should be disseminated to Retail Customers as defined in Directive 2004/39/EC. It may not be copied or distributed to any other person without the written consent of Peel Hunt LLP and may not be distributed or passed on, directly or indirectly, to any other class of persons, Peel Hunt LLP may in its discretion distribute this document to any other person to whom it could lawfully be distributed by an unauthorised person and without its content being approved by an authorised person. This document has been prepared using sources believed to be reliable, however we do not represent it is accurate or complete. Neither Peel Hunt LLP, nor any of its partners, members, employees or any affiliated company accepts liability for any loss arising from the use of this document or its contents. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any security or other financial instrument. While we endeavour to update on a reasonable basis the information and opinions contained herein, there may be regulatory, compliance or other reasons that prevent us from doing so. The opinions, forecasts, assumptions, estimates, derived valuations and target price(s) contained in this material are as of the date indicated and are subject to change at any time without prior notice. This research does not constitute a personal recommendation and the investments referred to may not be suitable for the specific investment objectives, financial situation or individual needs of recipients and should not be relied upon in substitution for the exercise of independent judgement. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance and an investor may not get back the amount originally invested. The stated price of any securities mentioned herein is not a representation that any transaction can be effected at this price. Peel Hunt LLP, its partners, members, employees or any affiliated company may have a position or holding in any of the securities mentioned herein or in a related instrument. This document is approved for communication by Peel Hunt LLP in the UK and to EEA market professionals who have registered with Peel Hunt LLP to receive such information. Please note that the share price used in this note was the midmarket price at the close of business on the previous trading day. Unless otherwise stated, Peel Hunt LLP owns the intellectual property rights and any other rights in all material contained in this document. No part of this document may be modified, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed, transmitted, published or derivative works created from this document without the prior consent of Peel Hunt LLP. By accepting this document you agree that you have read the above disclosure and to be bound by the foregoing limitations / restrictions. US Disclosure: This research is distributed to US investors by Peel Hunt Inc., which is a member of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). Peel Hunt LLP accepts responsibility for the contents of this report and it has not been altered in any way by Peel Hunt Inc. Peel Hunt LLP and/or its affiliates may hold 1% or more of any class of common equity securities in the issuer that this publication covers. Disclosures in relation to Peel Hunt LLP and/or any affiliate s role in: (1) managing or comanaging a public offering of securities for the issuer; (2) receiving compensation for investment banking services from the issuer in the past 12 months; (3) expecting or intending to receive compensation for investment banking services from the issuer in the next three months; and, (4) making a market in the issuers securities; are set out in the main disclosure section of this publication. Canada Disclosure: This research may only be distributed by Peel Hunt LLP to Permitted Clients as defined in Section 1.1 of NI in reliance on the International Dealer Exemption and International Adviser Exemption pursuant to subsections 8.18(2) and 8.26(3) of National Instrument Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations ( NI ) and Notification to Clients of the prescribed information under subsections 8.18(4)(b) and 8.26(4)(e) of NI in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Peel Hunt LLP is not registered in the local jurisdiction to provide advice on securities or to trade in securities. Peel Hunt LLP is: (1) registered in England and Wales with its principal place of business in the United Kingdom; (2) a member of the London Stock Exchange; and (3) regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. All or substantially all of the Company s assets may be situated outside of Canada. There may be difficulty enforcing legal rights against the Company because of the above. Republic of South Africa Disclosure: This research may only be distributed to clients as defined in the FAIS Notice 37 of 20 issued by the Financial Services Board. This research is distributed by Peel Hunt LLP under the exemption granted from section 7(1) of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, Australia Disclosure: This research is distributed in Australia by Peel Hunt LLP under the exemption in ASIC Class Order [CO 03/1099] from the requirement to hold an Australia financial services licence. This research may only be distributed to a Sophisticated Investor or a Professional Investor and a "Wholesale Client" (within the meaning of sections 708(10), 708(11) and 761G of the Australian Corporations Act, respectively), being a person to whom an offer of securities can be made without disclosure under Chapter 6D of the Australian Corporations Act. Peel Hunt LLP Moor House 120 London Wall London EC2Y 5ET T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) peelhunt.com A Member of the London Stock Exchange. Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, 25 North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E 5HS. Registered in England and Wales No: OC Registered office as above.