It's split the brokers - Jarden appear to be the most negative at $48.50 with Citi at $80, RBC Capital at $85 and Bell at $84 the most bullish. Most of cut price targets though (probably as the price has fallen).

CE does look to have a lot of levers to pull but there are a lot of factors out of his control.

I think the mining services is the base for any downside while the other bets (Onslow, lithium, and whatever the gas plan turn out as) are the upside.

Does anyone have the detail of all the mining service contracts by chance? and how most are guiding for growth to $1B in EBITDA from this division? That's doubling from current levels. It looks like there's just a few major ones? Also not sure why BHP/RIO allow MIN to build the crushers on their sites and take a margin - how is that more efficient than doing it themselves.

@Mujo From memory, and its in the briefings that CE has given recently, they say they are 30% (or thereabouts) more efficient per shift than the majors. This is why they get paid for the mining services they can do it cheaper and faster than the large miners.

I have no way to independently confirm it as true but given that the majors all use Min for the crushing makes sense that this would be the reason. As your correct that no one give margin away for no reason.

@Mujo Business Breakdown recently did a podcast on MIN, how unusual is that!, you will know most of it, but goes into MIN services' competitive advantages. definitely worth a listen.

what you say is correct. the reliance on commodity prices is a risk, and this is my largest commodity exposure (outside of gold) about it for commodities. it si about as risky as i want to go.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5PVYoEOrWwmo6irRVjtoY4?si=8757f56caff44d40

@Solvetheriddle you beat me to it - I was just about to link the podcast, too!

If you sign up for a free account at https://www.joincolossus.com/ you can access the podcast transcript. Here's one bit that may be relevant to @Mujo 's question:

Matt: [00:22:55] And is the competitive landscape today with BHP and Rio that they're currently doing their own version of InfraCo internally, and it's just not having the same success that MinRes is having with regards to that specific division and the capabilities?

Fraser: [00:23:11] I think that's probably a fair way of phrasing it. So if you take a BHP or a Rio, they will have some sites where a lot of crushing and processing is done by Mineral Resources already. But you can imagine for these types of businesses, they still feel it's important to have internal capability, and they've obviously invested tens of billions of dollars in their own infrastructure in rail, ports, processing and handling.

So they're kind of a hybrid model of using someone like Min's and their own internal capability. But as I mentioned, no one is debating any longer who was the more efficient operator. The BHPs and Rios would readily recognize and admit that MinRes is far more efficient, not only on the capital and construction side, but also on the operating side.

I think Chris recently mentioned that MinRes is kind of in the order of 30% more efficient on a 12-hour shift than their peers. So there's a steady march if you want to lower your costs and drive more profitability to potentially use a partner such as MinRes. And MinRes doesn't really have any competition, particularly in the crushing side of their infrastructure, which is the key service they offer to third parties.

Thanks I did listen to that as well as the equity mates podcast - but wasn't sure why they are efficient? as in the staff (culture)? the equipment they buy? I just don't understand why - especially if MIN is earning 20% ROIC on it - how much worse are BHP/RIO.

The lithium makes sense as I believe there's no industry standard and the rock is a lot harder - so can see why MIN is better being more an expert. Iron ore on the other hand surprises me.

@Mujo from what I have listened to it sounds like it is company culture. This is all from CE so take it with a grain of salt but some of the comments were things like it takes them around 3 months to transform a worker to be MIN workforce ready, if they last. They also talk about a lot of Min personel have been there for a long time and know how things work so can make things happen faster. They have an accountability culture and back themselves to find solutions and not cover over problems. It sound like it is a we are the best, us vs them type culture which can be pretty powerful if it is controlled in a positive direction. Its hard to separate corporate PR from reality but it does sound like there is some truth to the culture being a competitive edge driver here.

Thank @Slideup , sounds a bit like Mader Group - and agree can be powerful.

@Mujo yes the flipside of what i am saying is that when i use to speak to a lot of the contractors out west, they would love cts with BHP RIO WDS as they were so inefficient for various tasks, it was easy money. so the benchmark is low...the other benefit MIN gets the internal work as well which would help a lot (scale and operational expertise)

Sometimes I wonder if MinRes has considered looking at copper for a change?

It's one reason holding me back from going in too much here.

Given copper is mooning probably not the time for an acquisition though.