Michael White
Thanks, Keith, and good morning. We shipped approximately 55,700 trimetric tons for the quarter, which is a quarterly record for Piedmont, and approximately 117,000 dry metric tons in 2024, also a record. For the quarter, we recognized $45.6 million in revenue compared to $27.7 million in the previous quarter. The increase in revenue was due to increased volume.
Our realized price per metric ton was $818 for the quarter. On an SC6 equivalent basis, our realized price per metric ton equated to $909. We are pleased to achieve these price realizations given current market conditions, and our commercial strategy led to a 2nd consecutive quarter of industry-leading price realizations.
Our fourth quarter GAAP net loss was $11.1 million for a loss of $0.55 per share, and adjusted net loss of $3.6 million for a loss of $0.17 on an adjusted per share basis.
Included in our GAAP results were 5.5 million of transaction costs related to our proposed merger with Sya Mining, $3.2 million and restructuring charges associated with our 2024 cost savings plan, and other items including realized and unrealized gains on equity security holdings. We ended the year with $87.8 million in cash compared to $64.4 million in cash at the end of September 2024 and $71.7 million at the start of 2024.
Now moving to slide 8 to discuss our sources and uses of cash. Operating cash flows for the fourth quarter and full year were $6 million and negative $43 million respectively. Included in the full year amount were payments totaling $21 million in the first half of 2024 to settle prior year spot sales where the final price settlement in 2024 was less than the provisional payments we received in 2023.
Separately, we achieved a $14 million reduction in annual run rate cost savings, which I'll detail more shortly. We're pleased to report that cash outflows for our joint ventures as well as capital expenditures were less than $1 million in the fourth quarter and favorable in terms of outperforming our guidance. I'll stress that we are laser focused on cost containment and overall cash management, especially during this lithium down cycle.
For the full year we contributed $26 million to advance our joint venture projects and $11 million in capital expenditures as compared to $43 million in joint venture spending and $57 million in capital expenditures in 2023. Contributing to the year over year decline in joint venture spending was the completion of Restart CapEx at NAL in the first half of 2024.
Overall, we planned and successfully executed our cost reduction plan, leading to the significant reductions in our investing cash outflows on a year over year basis. As part of our proposed merger, we raised net proceeds of $25 million through the issuance of new ASX listed chest depository interests and drew an additional $7 million in borrowings from our working capital credit facility.
Now let's turn to slide 9. We introduced our 2024 cost savings plan in February 2024 with an initial target to reduce annual run rate spending by approximately $10 million. We took immediate action to control our operating expenses and reduce CapEx and joint venture spending early in the year as the lithium market retreated. These actions were difficult but prudent as we positioned the company for the long term.
Based on prevailing market conditions, we further expanded our cost savings plan in October 2024 and achieved $14 million in total annual cost savings for the year.
As a result of our cost savings plan, we recorded $10 million in restructuring and impairment charges in 2024, of which $3 million was recorded in the fourth quarter.
Included in our full year restructuring and impairment charges were cash charges of $4 million primarily related to severance and employee benefit costs and non-cash charges of $6 million which includes $4 million of impairment charges related to the conversion capacity of Tennessee lithium to Carolina lithium and $2 million related to accelerated stock compensation as part of our reduction in workforce. We continue to maintain our cost and investment discipline in 2025 through detailed expense management.
Let's move to slide 10, where we provide our 2025 outlook for shipments, CapEx, and investments in and advances to affiliates. We expect to ship 25,000 to 30,000 dry metric tons in the first quarter of 2025. This does not include tons which were sold as part of an ex-work sale at the port in December but shipped earlier this year.
For the full year, we anticipate making shipments to customers totaling 113,000 to 130,000 dry metric tons with full year shipments, including tons, which were shifted to 2025 as a result of a customer request to move a shipment from the fourth quarter into 2025.
As always, certain factors including shipping constraints and customer requirements may impact the timing of future shipments.
For our CapEx and investment outlook, we continue to reduce our project-related expenditures. We expect less than $2 million in CapEx in the first quarter and $6 to $9 million in CapEx for the full year. Joint venture investments and advances are also expected to be less than $2 million in the first quarter and approximately 7 to $13 million for the full year 2025.
This compares to $26 million in 2024. Our outlook is subject to changes in market conditions and may vary materially. With that, I'll turn the presentation back over to Keith.
Keith Phillips
Thank you, Michael. Turning to slide 12, I'd like to share some thoughts on the lithium market. We are pleased to report another quarter of strong price realizations against the backdrop of the soft lithium market. Our realized price at $909 on an SE6 equivalent basis once again led the industry. During the quarter, we saw a benefit from contractual lags embedded in our customer contracts in the contango and the lithium futures market.
While our commercial strategy has been highly successful, the narrowing can tango in the forward markets and the pricing lags in our longer term contracts means that our comparatively strong price realizations may not always be achievable on a go forward basis.
As for the lithium market, slide 13 shows that end market demand for lithium continues to grow very strongly. 2024 was another record year for EV sales, with approximately 17 million EVs sold globally. While demand growth in the US and Europe was modest last year, the dominant Chinese market grew by 3.1 million units in 2024, the largest year over year growth on record and roughly equivalent to the total number of these sold globally in 2020.
And there are new avenues of demand growth for lithium within the stationary storage market. Energy storage systems are growing rapidly to help modernize power grids, manage intermittency and power generation from renewable sources, and evolve to meet growing power demand from sources like data centers. As a matter of fact, CHTL, the world's leading lithium-ion battery producer, is expecting ESS demand to represent 34% of total lithium demand by 2030, a massively positive outlook for our markets.
I'd like to conclude this morning's call with some brief comments on our planned merger with Siona Mining.
On November 18th last year, Piedmont and Sayan announced the intention to merge in an all-stock transaction with an ownership split of roughly 50/50 on a fully diluted basis. The merger brings together two complementary businesses to create a bigger, stronger, simpler company, which will be the largest current lithium producer in North America with an exciting development pipeline in the United States, Canada, and Ghana.
Under our current operational structure, NAL's potential growth is limited by competing priorities between owners. Piedmont receives the benefit of its unique optic agreement while Sayana is the operator and majority partner.
By joining forces, the combined company is positioned to evaluate expansion opportunities resulting from the impressive drill results earlier this year at North American Lithium. We think NAL is the best located lithium project in Canada, and the opportunity for a brown field expansion with possible low cap expert ton and improvement to operating costs per ton is one of the key reasons we are so excited about the merger.
Mergco is also able to share technical and operating experience across in a large portfolio of growth projects in Aoya, Carolina lithium, and Moland. For those less familiar with Moland, this is a high grade project located in Quebec that boasts one of the largest booming resource bases in North America. The project is in the James Bay region, and the 2024 definitive feasibility study demonstrated a post-tax internal rate of return of 34% for 300,000 tons per year boomy concentrate and a low strip ratio of 2.3 to 1.
On the corporate side, Mergeco expects to realize synergies of $15 to $20 million annually through a combination of consolidated corporate functions and improved logistics.
The merger secured the backing of resource capital funds, the mining industry's leading private equity source, with RCF committed to funding approximately $45 million into the merged entity upon completion of the deal. This capital on top of the financing is completed at the time of the merger announcement, would provide important capital to enable Mergeco to advance projects toward development during the current down market.
Slide 16 shows the planned North Americans pojamine production of Piedmont and Syana versus several pre-production peers.
NAL is the largest current producer of spojay concentrate in North America, and Mergco has the potential to maintain its leadership position as other assets are developed. Importantly, this chart is purely focused on North American peers and ignores the significant potential for production at Aoya.
Scale is crucial in this business. Increasing scale can make a business more relevant to customers, can reduce unit operating costs, and improve downstream optionality, all while appealing to a broader investor community. With that, we can turn the call over to Q&A.
Operator
Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. (Operator instruction)
Your first question comes from the line of Bill Peterson with JPMorgan.
Bill Peterson
Yeah, hi Keith, and, Mike, thanks for all the information. Actually, my two questions are actually more related to the industry environment. I was hoping you could touch on the potential impacts of of tariffs if they do come to fruition towards Canada, how that may impact your planned shipment profile, I guess maybe that underlying there is how much is assumed for US domestic refiners versus China and other regions.
Keith Phillips
Hey Bill, thanks. Good question. Yeah, the tariffs that were announced that were supposed to take effect, I think February 1st, were deferred 30 days. We'll see if they come into effect. The headline number for tariffs was 25% for critical minerals, the number would be 10%, and the tariff would be paid by the Importer, which would be an American customer. So, we obviously have one American customer, they would be liable for those tariffs. I think in the overall scheme of things, and we've talked to them about that, in the overall scheme of things, at these price levels, a 10% tariff, may or may not impact their decision making if it were to come to pass. That's a customer of global operations who could take the material and divert it elsewhere if they wanted to avoid them. But, and we've shift to that customer.
In other locations before, so that could happen if they chose to do that. For broader joint venture shipments and for shipments we make through trading companies or to our other international customer, none of that goes to the US so the tariffs wouldn't apply.
Bill Peterson
Yeah, thanks for that, Keith, and you know you and I've discussed sort of supply demand, over the past few years, and it still appears fairly challenged based off the market environment, I guess based off your own experience and take into account prior curtailments, maybe some project delays, what is your expectations around supply demand, for this year and over the next few years and. I guess underlying that too, especially from a US perspective is expectations around policy support, maybe assuming 30 the tax credits, may or may not still remain and, maybe the company also working on that behind the scenes as well.
Keith Phillips
Yeah, again, good question. I would say. We don't, our crystal balls as cloudy as other people's. I think in the near term, I don't have any particularly aggressive expectations for 2025. I do think lithium remains a very young industry. I think we're probably in the 2nd or 3rd inning of the evolution of this business over the next 20 or 30 years, and I think it'll remain volatile.
I will say I've now been in the industry 8 years, and I joined in a bull market. We went through a difficult bear market. They had a, fantastic bull market and we're in the middle here, hopefully the tail end of a difficult bear market. Nobody really projected any of these developments. I fully expect there'll be another rip roaring bull market here at some point.
And it will be, it will catch everybody by surprise, and I don't know exactly what will cause it. It might be energy storage demand like we talked about in the call, it could be other things. So I'm medium and long term bullish, but I do expect the industry to remain volatile, and we're not counting, we are, we do our internal cash flow budgeting on a spot price basis, so we're counting on, we're planning for a challenging 2025 and hoping to be pleasantly surprised. In terms of policy support, I think it's a mixed bag. I think the 30 credits. May disappear, maybe even will likely disappear. I really don't see that as that big an issue. I think the US market continues to be a relatively small EV market today. I think the solution for the EV market in the US is people continue to bring on new vehicles, that are interesting, interested in the market, which, every year new vehicles come on. We've gone from really 1 or 2 cars people might buy 5 or 6 years ago, Tesla Model S and Model 3, and now we've got multiple vehicles. I think that'll help. But, in terms of, the global, the commodities priced on a global basis, China continues to grow with a fantastic rate.
And again, energy storage is becoming a really important part of the story. We have some analysts projecting it'll be over 30% of total demand by 2030. That's up from maybe 2 or 3 or 4% in people's minds a few years ago. So that's a real pleasant surprise. So long term bullish, medium term, and short term, uncertain.
I should add though on kind of policy, I think Trump will pound the table really hard on This whole kind of national energy security theme, I think that could very well include support we can't anticipate yet for projects like Carolina in particular. He's probably very focused on USA, and we think that's a good thing for us.
Operator
Your next question comes from the line of Joseph Reagor of Roth Capital.
Hey Keith and team, thanks for taking the questions.
Keith Phillips
Thanks, Joe.
So, I guess first thing. Do you have like an update on timing of when you guys expect the merger to complete and what's left for hurdles to get there?
Keith Phillips
Yeah, and the release, I think we said mid 2025, it's really going to be SEC determinant. We should be filing, we hope to file our, and hopes to file initial SEC documents in the next, few weeks. That process is somewhat predictable, but it could be faster or slower. So if you a mid-year, do you think June July time frame, I think that's a reasonable way to think about it. The, so I'd say the biggest hurdle is always the SEC, and, their review of pro forma is their review of, I will be registering with the SEC for the first time. So just like in say an IPO there, it'll be a review of their initial, financial information.
I think the other hurdles I think are reasonably. You would feel good about Investment Canada, which, reviews, transactions from a Canadian perspective, didn't have any comments, so we kind of passed that hurdle CIFIUS review we filed, we're optimistic this deal doesn't present any CIIAS issues. Harts Scott Rudio, I mean, the company together will be bigger, stronger, but it's still going to be a modest player in the overall market, so I don't anticipate any Hartco or antitrust issues.
So, and then we'll each need shareholder votes, which we're optimistic we'll get. I think it's a great deal for shareholders of both companies, so no reason to believe we'll have a problem with that. But, yeah, for planning purposes, I mean, ultimately the real question will be does it close in Muayana as the surviving company, does it close in their fiscal 2025, or does it close in July, as it's their fiscal 26, and we, we'll have better visibility on that in, after the first SEC comments.
Okay, thanks, that was great color. And then one other question, and you may not be able to comment on this, that there was some media speculation around the permitting and advancement of your partner in Ghana. Do you have any comment on it or can you give any additional color, more than what they did?
Keith Phillips
Yeah, they were, I think, they were in Daba last week or the week before, and there was just, this, it's a, it's a big conference. There's a lot of people with a lot of commentary about this and that, different projects around the world and around Africa. I don't think it's any more serious than that. I think the Atlanta team's doing a good job advancing that process. There was a federal election in Ghana in December. The party that's now in leadership is perceived by Atlantic to be even more friendly toward development of critical minerals mining. So, I think that's a positive.
So, I think we'll make, good progress this year. Obviously, we're in a market where, and this is, from a medium- and longer-term perspective, I think bullish. We're in a market where boing prices and, hydroxide and carbonate prices are at a level where it's hard to really support new investment in any project anywhere.
So even in Ghana, even with the oyo, which is a great project, relatively low CapEx, relatively low OpEx, it's hard to justify, investment here right now. I mean, that will change. I have 100% certainty that'll change at some point, but it just means we're not in as big a hurry as we might otherwise have been in Ghana or in Carolina or the project or Sayana with a project like Moland. You certainly take the long lead items like permitting you advance you can check those boxes and take away those. Those obstacles, but, we're we're comfortable with timeline in Ghana.
Okay, thanks, that was very helpful. I'll turn it over.
Keith Phillips
Excellent, thanks, Joe.
Operator
Your next question comes from the line of Noel Parks with Tuohy Brothers.
Noel Parks
Hi, good morning.
Keith Phillips
Morning Noel.
Noel Parks
See, I was, wondering if you could, talk a little bit, from your perspective on, the, sort of the. I guess industries various projects in Quebec and it just, if you think sort of third party or regional partnerships around processing are something that could be sort of on the near horizon or in the longer term and, do you see those being a material part of the sort of business model, as Sayana, expands possibly into mobile?
Keith Phillips
That's a great question. When we were putting NAL back into production kind of over the 2022, 23-time frame, markets were very strong. People weren't particularly focused on transportation costs. In a market like today, transportation costs mean a lot. If you have a remote mine, NAL is not remote, but all other as most other assets in Quebec are, just getting material to the market is an expensive part of the process. So first you have to get to a port, whether it's Quebec City that we use, or Montreal or they can cool or somewhere else. Then you have to get to a customer. Most of the customers, as are right now in China. So it's the expensive part of the process. So that means, so a couple of things I'd highlight. Number one, there are a lot of spontane projects in Quebec, some of them have and some of them, many, good, really good companies, good people, many and some really interesting or bodies.
Many of them are very remote, in, CapEx will be high, labor costs will be high, infrastructure to get to, get to the market will be very challenging and that we think expensive. So we're very happy that we think NAL is by far the best located project in Quebec, as projecting perspective, and of the James Bay North projects, we think Moland is by far the best located. So we're very excited about that. That'll mean, and if you think about projects, we think NAL brownfield expansion is particularly exciting. The infrastructure is already there. We're 40 miles from Vorre, CapEx per ton just should be lower to expand that rather than build a greenfield project somewhere else.
So we're excited about that. Having said all that, NAL could benefit, Mobilland could benefit, the North American sponsoring market could benefit from having more conversion locally. It would mean would provide a meaningful opportunity to save on transport costs and improve margins. If you just imagine it costs, say $100 a ton to take material from Quebec to China, depending on how big the shipment is and everything else, that's a business where people are breaking even, that makes a big difference. So we're cheering for people to develop that. The only chemical plant being built in Quebec right now is the Arcadian plant at Rio Tinto will inherit in Baconcour.
Forget the size of that. I want to say it's 32,000 tons a year, something like that. We're, Quebec's going to need a lot more capacity. I think as Sayan has said, and I think as we've said, as far as Quebec goes, our strategy is to really Ideally partner with other parties who are bigger and stronger and have the technical capability to execute on that basis, where we can be the minor and provide the spojamine and make the margin there and potentially participate in some way in the downstream of Quebec.
But it would be wonderful if that happened. I think I could I could definitely see. Someone like Rio Tinto, if the Arcadian plant goes well and they can sort of doubling down and really trying to gather uponamine from multiple sources in Quebec, that'd be good for Quebec, it'd be good for the industry, it'd be good for, certainly be good for us.
Noel Parks
Great, thanks a lot.
Keith Phillips
Thank you. Thanks.
Operator
Your next question comes from the line of Greg Jones with BMO Capital Markets.
Hi Keith, good morning. Good morning, Michael. Just wanted to follow up on a prior question regardingoa, please. If the ratification occurs during 2025, how do you envision the project development timeline advancing from here? I heard your comments regarding the current market environment. If you were in the situation where you get the permit.
Would you advance as quickly as possible? Would you slow it down? How do you think about moving the project forward and potential start dates?
Keith Phillips
Yeah, good question, and I'll give you our perspective, and I think it's shared by Atlantic, our partner, I think it's also shared by Sayan, our merger partner, and I think by the time, but, this is a decision that ultimately will be made by what we call mergeco. We'll have a new name for the company soon enough. But, so it's something, it's a topic of conversation. I think it's fair to say everyone has a view that if Sloge means 8 or $900 a year, it's not the time to go build a new mine. If we were Rio Tinto and we're funded that way, you could take a view that you invest countercyclically and you invest at the trough, but to do so would be really highly diluted to us, to be highly diluted to Atlantic.
We just don't think it'd be the right time to do it. We are engaging in conversations with different, debt funding sources for the project on a joint basis. Those could be, international finance organizations like the DFC in Washington or others commercial banking organizations.
That's a development that will take time. So I suspect 2025 will be a year where we wrap up all the, permitting ratification, and from that perspective, we're ready to go, and then we really refine the funding, and put in place that funding to minimize the equity dilution to any participant, but to put the company, put the asset on its strongest footing. And then once that's done, the question is, does the board approve.
Does do do any of the boards or do all the boards approve funding the project when on a spot price basis the IRRs would probably not meet your hurdle. So this is a question that everybody with a project is going to have to deal with, and I think the answer is there are going to be very few projects that I say $900 spot spon mean, pass that hurdle test from a board perspective.
That'll change because boing prices are going to have to go up because no one's going to be building in this environment. And there may be some brownfield expansions here or there, but, we think it's, or I say nobody, few people will be building in this environment. But, so it's too early to tell Greg, we still have these steps to go through, but my guess is we'll be waiting for a stronger market.
Great, thank you for the cover. I'll turn it back.
Keith Phillips
Okay, thanks a lot, Greg. I'll see you next week.
Operator
That includes our Q&A session. I will turn the conference back over to John Koslow for closing remarks.
John Koslow
Thank you, operator. That concludes today's call. Thank you for joining this morning as a reminder.
A copy of our earnings release, presentation, and a replay of this call are available on our website at Piedmont lithium.com.
Michael White
Thanks everybody.
Operator
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.
