Continuing delays on Anglo American's Minas-Rio iron ore project in Brazil are likely to push up the cost of the project more than the market had been expecting.
The group had been facing three licensing challenges affecting construction activities at the beneficiation plant, as well as land access issues affecting the 525 kilometre pipeline route. Two of these injunctions were removed in September, enabling construction of the primary crusher and conveyor system at the mine site and pre-stripping work to resume, but wrangling over the injunction preventing the construction of the electricity transmission line is dragging on. Construction work not covered by the injunctions is on schedule, Anglo American said.
The mining group is carrying out a detailed cost review to assess the impact of the already announced delay and the other disruptive challenges faced by the project which include high cost inflation across the construction industry in Brazil. The review includes an independent external assessment commissioned by the board.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The current indications are that capital expenditure for the project is likely to be more than the $8.0bn upper end of the current range of analysts' expectations.
JH
-
Should you invest in UK equities?The FTSE 100 hit a record high this week, but UK equities remain unloved and undervalued compared to their global and US peers. Should you snap them up at a discount?
-
State pension errors: DWP urged to check for mistakes among divorced peopleFormer pensions minister Steve Webb says there are a high number of divorced women on low state pensions. Now MPs want the DWP to check if there were any errors in “potentially underpaying men and women who are divorced”.
