Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Allkem Limited FY 2022 half-year financial results conference call. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number 1 on your telephone keypad. We do ask that participants limit themselves to asking two questions per turn. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Martín Pérez de Solay, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead. Thank you and welcome, everybody, for joining us to the Allkem half-year financial results for the 2022 financial year. Today, I will reflect back on the half year's activities and operations, and also provide commentary on our development assets in our growth pipeline. Also joining us today we have CFO Neil Kaplan, who will discuss our financial results, and Chief Sales and Marketing Officer, Christian Cortes. Moving on to the summary slide on slide four. As you can see, we have delivered exceptional results across the multiple areas of the business since merging with Galaxy. It should be noted that the results presented today include those for the former Galaxy assets for the period 25 August to 31 December, 2021. The merger was transformational for the company as it created an unparalleled development profile and positioned us to deliver high quality products with the scale and flexibility required by our customers. It also comes at a time of tremendous growth for the lithium industry as the world transitions to a net zero carbon economy. The merged entity entered the S&P/ASX 100 index during the period and achieved a record half year revenue of AUD 192.3 million, with strong prices for both spodumene and lithium carbonate. Cost management has been a major focus across the business, and despite material inflationary pressures, both Mt Cattlin and Olaroz have delivered significant operating margins with excellent operational performance. Most importantly, we achieved this because our teams across the globe successfully and safely produced high quality lithium products that continue to meet the requirements and specifications of our long-term customers. We also achieved significant advancements at all our development assets across the globe, with both Olaroz stage two and Naraha to commission this calendar year. During the period, we achieved a gross profit margin of 62% across the business, with a record result for both Mt Cattlin and Olaroz. The EBITDA margin across the business for the period was 51%. With two revenue generating operations and $ 450 million cash on our balance sheet, we are in a strong financial position to further advance Sal de Vida and James Bay, while exploring project finance opportunity for these tier one assets. Our strategic review of each asset and the business is advancing, and we have already made progress, which I will discuss throughout the presentation, including the development pathway for subsequent stages of Naraha, Olaroz, Sal de Vida and the James Bay project. Moving on to slide 5. We have steadily advanced our sustainability performance and transparency over the years. During the half year, we were pleased to publish our fifth sustainability report and retain our position in the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices Australia Index. Sustainability is a core driver of our business, and in the industry we work, our strategy focuses on three aspects: safe and sustainable operations, thriving communities, and responsible products that promote the transition to a net zero carbon future. We continue to operate within our COVID-19 biosecurity protocol to ensure we keep our people safe and our business operating. The half year period resulted in a rolling twelve-month TRIFR of 3.6 for the group. We have rolled out group wide health, safety and environmental standards for the merger, and will continue to implement a number of initiatives across our sites. We have a designated share value team that works with our local communities to ensure regular communication and the creation of long-term benefits across areas such as education, health and local production. We also have a local hire and procurement philosophy. We have now submitted our second modern slavery statement to the Australian government and conducted training on human rights to employees across the company. We are also committed to the reduction of our global greenhouse emissions and the transition to our business to achieve a net zero across our scope one and scope two emissions by 2035. Moving on to our operations and starting with Mt Cattlin in Western Australia, we concluded the calendar year with excellent results both operationally and financially. From the date of the merger, 25 August to 31 December 2022, Mt Cattlin generated approximately $ 115 million in revenue from the sale of 96,871 tons of spodumene concentrate, averaging 5.7% lithium oxide, which was in line with customer requirements. In the same period, 71,500 tons of spodumene concentrate was produced, concluding the half year period with production of 120,156 dry metric tons. Excellent operational performance was achieved due to favorable head grade and improved processing rates and recoveries. Front-end ore sorters also continued to make a positive contribution, treating material from low grade ore stockpiles. As a result, the cash cost of production was only $335 per ton over this period, beating previous guidance. Western Australia borders will reopen on March the 3rd, and this will reduce the pressure on staff and material resourcing and improve cost management. We continue to experience very strong demand and pricing momentum for all our lithium products and as supply-side tightening persists amid surging demand. We will discuss further later in the presentation. In the second half of financial year 2022, we expect to produce 80,000-90,000 dried metric tons as we return to life of mine average head grade, bringing the financial year 2022 total production to 200-210 thousand dried metric tons. We will also commence an exploration drilling program in March to test high potential areas around current mineralization that may lead to an extension of the life of mine. Pricing for the March quarter is expected to be approximately $2,500 per ton CIF for 6% lithium oxide and continues to improve as we move forward to the June quarter. Moving to the next slide. At Olaroz, we continue to produce high-quality lithium chemicals in line with our targets and customer requirements. 6,466 tons of lithium carbonate were produced in the half year, which was 6% higher than the prior corresponding period. Of that, 54% production was battery-grade compared to 29% in the prior corresponding period. Cash cost of goods sold is a key focus and remains highly competitive despite the higher proportion of battery-grade production. Higher labor and other costs arising from inflation materially exceeding the peso devaluation and increased gas prices. Sales volume of 5,915 tons was down by 24%, reflecting a decision in 2020 to reduce excess inventory at the time of significant market softness and uncertainty arising from COVID-19. Revenue of approximately $66 million reflects a 143% increase from the prior corresponding period, largely due to average FOB pricing increasing by 218% to $11,095 per ton. Encouragingly, our realized pricing will increase by a further 125% in the June half of the year to $25,000 per ton, delivering material operational cash flow. The Olaroz two expansion will deliver up to 25,000 tons of additional capacity and is well advanced with first production anticipated by the second half of this calendar year, subject to any COVID-related delays, bringing the Olaroz lithium facility to a capacity over 40,000 tons per annum. By 31 December 2021, stage two has reached 68% completion with 91% of pond construction activity completed and the soda ash and carbonation plants being 37% and 43% complete respectively. We have two lime plants operational and a third one under construction, which will deliver significantly increased capacity as we pump more brine to feed the expanded pond system. Construction, commissioning and operation of assets associated with brine handling and concentrations, and concentration are progressing in line with expectations. Capital expenditure for stage two at 31 December 2021 was AUD 266 million, excluding VAT and working capital from a total CapEx estimate of $ 365 million-$ 380 million, as updated in the December quarter results. I will now hand over to Neil to discuss the financial results for the group. Thanks, Martin, and a good morning and evening to all. First up is a consolidated group profit and loss. Please note that the result from the Galaxy assets is only recorded and consolidated from 25 August 2021, the date the merger occurred. Given the merged entity and substantially increased pricing for both lithium carbonate and spodumene, record revenues of $192 million were achieved with a record gross profit of $118 million and EBITDAX of $98 million. Mt Cattlin had revenue of $115 million from sales of 96,871 tons at an average selling price of $1,186 a ton CIF, while Olaroz revenue was approximately $66 million from sales of 5,915 tons with an average lithium carbonate FOB price of $11,095 a ton in first half FY 2022, compared to $3,492 a ton in the prior corresponding period, a 218% increase. Cash costs of goods sold increased by 20% at Olaroz due to higher production of battery-grade than the prior corresponding period, 54% versus 29%. Higher labor and other costs arising from the devaluation of the Argentine peso of approximately 7% versus inflation of approximately 20% and increased gas prices. A bridge of Olaroz's and Mt Cattlin's EBITDAX from FY 2021 to FY 2022 can be seen in an upcoming slide. Increase to $ 18.5 million in first half FY 2022 versus $ 11.1 million in first half FY 2021, mainly due to inclusion of the Mt Cattlin operation. Amortization of customer contracts of $ 13.4 million arising on the purchase price allocation related to the merger in line with underlying shipments is shown separately in this P&L, while in the financial statements is included in the depreciation and amortization number. This is a one-off charge. Acquisition costs of $ 12.8 million and an inventory adjustment due to the purchase price allocation on merger are both one-off charges. Net finance costs of $ 9.9 million are lower, mainly due to reduced interest rates and the reduced Mizuho stage one loan principal outstanding balance. Income taxes has been largely impacted by foreign currency movements and high inflation in Argentina. This resulted in a profit after tax of $13 million versus a $29 million loss in the prior corresponding period. Moving on to the next slide. This slide details the movement in the Olaroz and Mt Cattlin EBITDA, excluding corporate costs from first half FY 2021 to first half FY 2022. As you can see, the main factors in this result were substantial increases in the sales price, strong management of costs despite the increased percentage of battery products sold, lower tons produced and inflation outrunning devaluation. These combined to deliver a record EBITDA from operations of $106.3 million. Moving to the next slide. This slide details the movement of Mt Cattlin's EBITDA excluding corporate costs from first half FY 2021 to first half FY 2022. As can be noted, it is mainly sales price and sales volume increases that have been the main drivers of the record EBITDA from operations of $71 million. Moving to the next slide. This slide details the underlying net profit after tax. In moving from the statutory net profit after tax of $13 million on a 100% basis to an underlying record net profit after tax of $ 57.1 million, we have made the adjustments as detailed on the slide, which reflects a very strong business performance. One-off charges related to the merger and related purchase price allocation total $ 38.6 million, while the Argentine tax charge related to devaluation and high inflation was $ 23.8 million, with offsetting charges related to the tax effect of the purchase price allocation of $7.7 million and $ 13.2 million related to income generated in the financial instruments market. Moving to the next slide. Segment reporting is included in the statutory financial statements in note 1. The key points to note are record revenues at both Mt Cattlin and Olaroz of $ 114.9 million and $ 65.6 million, respectively. Record EBITDA at both Mt Cattlin and Olaroz of $71 million and $ 35.3 million, respectively. One-off pre-tax charges related to the merger of $ 38.6 million. A tax charge mainly related to forex movements and high inflation impacts in Argentina of $ 23.8 million. Statutory net profit after tax was $ 13 million. However, the underlying net profit after tax was $ 57 million. Moving to the next slide. This slide details the consolidated group balance sheet at 31 December 2021. The key points to note are a healthy cash position of $450 million with cash increasing mainly due to the merger and strong operational cash flow. Various balance sheet items have increased due to the merger, with PP&E increasing by approximately $1.5 billion due to the purchase price allocation as well as $49 million related to Olaroz stage two expansion spend. Goodwill of $530 million was recognized on the Galaxy merger, attributable to deferred tax liabilities on valuation uplifts for James Bay and Sal de Vida. The net deferred tax liability increase is mainly due to the Galaxy valuation and the effect of inflation and devaluation in Argentina. Non-current loans and borrowings increased due to project finance for stage two, partially offset by stage one project loan repayment. The project finance loan has reduced from $191.9 million to approximately $57 million at 31 December, and in less than two weeks will have reduced to approximately $48 million. The drawdown of the $180 million from Mizuho for the stage two expansion was completed during the half, with repayments to commence in September 2022. Moving to the next slide. Cash generated from operations resulted in a positive $57.6 million, mainly driven by higher average sales prices. In detailing some of the main movements, cash acquired on the business combination relates to cash acquired due to the merger of nearly $210 million. The purchase of property, plant and equipment mainly relates to stage two expansion CapEx and Sal de Vida. $ 13.2 million relates to income generated in the financial instruments market. Proceeds from borrowings is represented mainly by the final drawdown of project financing for Olaroz stage two and loan from the SDJ outside shareholder, Toyota Tsusho Corporation. Cash and cash equivalents at 31 December were approximately $ 50 million, with $ 133.2 million of guarantee funds related to Olaroz, Naraha, and Sal de Vida supplier. In summary, a robust lithium market has resulted in record revenue, gross profit and EBITDA, with costs kept under control and improved operational efficiencies. We've reduced stage one Mizuho debt by approximately $ 144 million following the recent repayment in March 2022 and continue to generate material operating cash flow, leaving the company well positioned for 2022 and the future. Thank you, and I will now pass you back to Martin. Thank you, Neil. On slide 17, construction activities at Naraha lithium hydroxide plant are mostly complete. This facility is the first of its kind in Japan and fits into our long-term strategy to provide not only scale but product flexibility to meet customer preferences and also market demand. Site training and pre-commissioning works have commenced for the feedstock, with a feedstock from the Olaroz stage 1 facility. Mechanical completion is expected by March quarter 2022, with first production to follow later this half following COVID-related border restrictions in Japan. There is a growing need for lithium hydroxide domestically in Japan as it is required for the high-end battery technology, and we will strategically market this product with our joint venture partner, Toyota Tsusho Corporation. On slide 18, this tier 1 project with competitive CapEx. I'm sorry. Sal de Vida is a tier one project with competitive capital and operating cost estimates and superior brine chemistry that readily upgrades to battery grade lithium carbonate. Construction of the ponds and brine distribution network for stage one commenced just a month after receiving final environmental permits from the provincial government in December. All production wells have been completed for stage one, brine production and general infrastructure and early works are progressing. The on-site piloting program has delivered excellent results to date, and activities will continue this year to train staff and support operational readiness for commercial production. Commissioning and first production are expected by second half calendar year 2023, and studies are progressing to expand stage one to 15,000 tons per annum from the current 11,000 tons per annum. At the James Bay project, we achieved a significant milestone late last year with the release of the feasibility study and maiden ore reserves. The results demonstrate lower quarter development capital and unit operating costs. The operation is also projected to generate a pre-tax NPV of $1.4 billion using a conservative long term spodumene price of around $1,000 per ton. The study details a 321,000 tons per annum operation utilizing clean, renewable energy, conventional mining methods, and a process flow sheet with a 2 million tons per annum plant design similar to the Mt Cattlin operation. This project is strategically located near high electric vehicle growth regions and will play a very important role in the North American market. This project is unique in that it utilizes a sustainable source of hydropower to provide approximately 45% off-site power needs, which will predominantly be used in the processing plant, fixed infrastructure and selected mobile equipment. Basic engineering has commenced alongside the procurement process and preparation of construction permits for other works is underway. In early January, the first drilling rig mobilized to site and drilling has commenced as part of the sterilization and resource extension drilling program. Positive stakeholder engagement continues with all community and government stakeholders. Completion and release of the feasibility study will allow environmental and social impact assessment and impact and benefit agreement and other regulatory approvals to progress towards completion. Allkem expects construction activity at the James Bay project to commence in the third quarter calendar year 2022, with commissioning to follow in the first half of calendar year 2024. Moving on to the market, as we know, global electric vehicle adoption is robust and is becoming revolutionary across the globe as major economies make significant commitments toward a net zero carbon future through their energy supply and transport. New supply, particularly for lithium, is critical to meet this market demand. There has been significant build out capacity throughout the lithium-ion supply chain. Forecast global lithium-ion battery cell production capacity for 2031 rose to 5.1 terawatt-hours, 5,137 gigawatt-hours in January 2022, an approximately 60% increase over 12 months. As demonstrated in the figure on the right from Benchmark Minerals, forecast global demand outstrips all known possible new supply. Market participants are already experiencing the pressure of supply shortages, which has triggered a significant surge in lithium prices. Last year alone, we experienced tremendous pricing momentum in raw materials and chemicals, which increased the profitability of our business. Taking a closer look at the business, our customers are showing a strong preference to enter long-term supply agreements to reduce their exposure to a forecast supply deficit. Throughout calendar year 2021, our sales volume of lithium carbonate and spodumene concentrate have mostly been to customers with supply contracts of 1- to 3-year tenures. In the December half year, contracted prices were gradually adjusted upwards to reflect the tightening market condition, market conditions across the supply chain. At Mt. Cattlin, volumes are contracted and prices negotiated quarterly on a cargo basis with reference to spot pricing. The average realized price increased by 126% during the reported period, and in the current March quarter, indicative pricing for 43,500 tons of shipments is $2,500 CIF for 6% lithium oxide. As mentioned, price momentum upwards continue, and we are receiving offers for future shipments in line with the current spot pricing that is being reported by brokers and agencies. At Olaroz, pricing for lithium carbonate contracts during calendar 2021 were approximately one-third linked to average monthly spot indices, one-third with annual fixed price agreements in late 2022, and one-third linked to contract indices with quarterly adjustments. In 2022, annual contract that previously had a fixed price will be linked to contract indices with an average bi-monthly adjustments. Therefore, we have moved away from the fixed pricing, maintain our exposure to spot pricing, and increase our exposure to contract indices, which are moving upwards in line with the spot pricing. During the reporting period, average realized price increased by 58%. Lithium carbonate prices for the second half FY 2022 are expected to be $25,000 per ton FOB basis, up 125% on the first half of FY 2022, up 25% from our previous guidance. At Orocobre, we measure our success by our performance and sustainability, product quality, customer focus, and cost leadership and growth. We are focused on sustainable operations and development and continually improving product quality and cost leadership as part of our customer focus. We have been working closely with our customers since the start of our operations, and we'll continue to do this as we expand our customer profile alongside with our unique growth pipeline with world-class assets. We remain in a very strong financial position with two revenue-generating operations and a number of project finance opportunities. Our key focus areas for this year are to continue delivering sustainable operations at Mt Cattlin and Olaroz, commissioning Naraha and Olaroz stage two, and advance Sal de Vida construction and James Bay basic engineering. As mentioned, we will be providing a strategic review of our development projects in March. In this, we will provide detail around plans to deliver our material growth assets as our customers and the industry supply demand profile to 2030 is very supportive on developing projects as soon as possible. Thank you. I will move on now to the Q&A section. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star 2. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Again, we remind participants to limit themselves to asking two questions per turn. Your first question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Oh, hi, Martín and Neil. Thanks for the opportunity. Martín, first one is on prices. From the quarterly report to today, we basically had the spot prices rise 47%. You had the contract prices for Japan, Korea, China, rise about 66%. You flagged about a 25% increase today to your guidance for this half. How should we think about prices in general? Firstly, why are you getting a lower uplift? I thought most of the contracts were moving to flexible pricing now with a two-month lag. If it is all flexible, should we expect prices to be materially higher in the two months to come or the months to come? That's the first one. Thanks. Thank you, Rahul. I will ask Christian to answer your question since he's more up to speed on the marketing. Sure. Thanks. Hi, Rahul. Thank you for your question. The guidance that we recently upgraded is particularly focused on what we can see on the indices that we're pricing our product towards. It's a bit early for us to comment beyond the current quarter. As such, the 25,000 ton price is something that we can comfortably estimate based on the indices prices. That means as we move into the following quarter and those indices are effectively updated, we'll be able to provide further commentary with regards to incremental pricing for the next quarter, i.e., the fourth quarter of the financial year. It's fair to say that. In case, Rahul. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, Rahul, if you look at the pricing guidance for the second half of the year of $25,000 per ton, that's about a 127% increase for the first half of the year. That's a significant increase. Yep. No, I completely understand that. Okay, perfect. Look, I might follow up with another one on pricing later on. Second question was for Neil. Neil, the cash tax paid $0 for the period. Can you perhaps provide a bit of guidance as to how we should be thinking about it for the half to come and perhaps stepping into next year in terms of tax losses, et cetera? Thanks. Sure. Thanks, Rahul. Well, firstly, you've got to consider the Argentine tax law and regulations requires taxes be calculated in the local currency pesos, as opposed to the SDJ functional currency of U.S. dollars. This means as the peso devalues against the USD, that the full tax liability position of SDJ is gonna increase, resulting in a non-cash tax expense. In addition, Argentine tax law and regulation have other tax measures as a consequence of high inflation, which provides some limited relief against the full impact of inflation. Basically, this inflationary adjustment also results in you know, non-cash tax expense being recognized. Out of that tax charge that you see of approximately $ 29 million, you've got $24 million of it as a direct result of the devaluation of the Argentine peso and high inflation. Let me just stay on Argentina for a moment. As the prices remain this sort of, you know, these sorts of levels, we were forecasting FY 2025, where we'd probably be paying taxes. If they remain at these sort of levels, there's a very strong chance we may have to pay taxes in 2024. That's as far as Argentina goes. As far as Australia, there was in that $29 million, about a little over $ 5 million derived from Australian taxable profits. The Australian Galaxy side of the business did bring along a whole bunch of tax losses. However, the Australian tax laws restrict the rate at which we can use these losses in our Australian tax consolidated groups, given it's based in terms of an available fraction. I won't get too technical, but it's a fraction that we can use. We get to use all of them, but more on a delayed basis, which results in us having to pay taxes at these very high lithium prices. Hopefully that's answered, Rahul, what you require. If you wanna get into more detail on it, you know, certainly happy to have a separate call. Sure, Neil. Just one follow-up, because I did miss part of that. FY 2025, you said was the initial expectation of paying taxes, but you think it might be FY 2024, given where lithium prices is. Is that what I. Yes, for Argentina, Rahul. For Argentina. The second part I was just talking about was Australia. I mean, this certainly is what we've put into our financial statements right now reflect management's estimates of the amount at the half year. This will be looked at at the full year, given you know the tax expense right now is really affected by non-deductible transaction costs associated with the merger. It was also affected by non-deductible transaction costs associated with the merger. Argentina FY 2025 was initial, brought back to FY 2024 and Argentina and Australian taxes we expect to pay you know probably towards the end of the year, due to the available franking following the merger and how the tax losses of Galaxy can be used. I don't know if you heard all of that when I went through it. Yes. Yes, I heard now. Yeah. Good. Yep. Okay. Perfect. That's very clear. Thank you very much. That's my two. Great. I'll come back with any others later. Thanks. Thanks, Rahul. Thank you. Your next question comes from Hayden Bairstow, from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Morning or evening, chaps. Just a couple of questions on CapEx. Well, one on CapEx and one on Sal de Vida. Just on the increase for Olaroz, I mean, how do we think about just broader cost pressures and the potential impact on Sal de Vida? Will that have to be revised, either the CapEx, you know, on budgets or timing on development, just given the pressures you're seeing there? Just on James Bay, just interested in your development options there. I mean, there's a couple of other players up in that region. Is there any sort of potential tie-up with downstream processing that's being investigated? Or you're looking at this purely as a standalone development with maybe, you know, longer term, your own standalone downstream plant as well? Thanks. Thank you, Hayden, for your question. With regards to the CapEx increase in Olaroz, which was released jointly with the December quarter figures about a month ago. increase in CapEx, as we explained, responded to COVID-19-related delays, inflationary pressures on steel and other important parts of equipment. It also related to increased labor costs in Argentina and lower valuation rate, which increased the capital cost. More or less, there's a detailed explanation in the December quarter about the answer to those three factors. We are looking into the overall CapEx for Sal de Vida, as we're looking into an expansion of the project from the current 10,700 tons to 15,000 tons, and those numbers will be released along with the results from the study. I don't foresee any surprises and costs. Capital intensity for Sal de Vida will be along the very competitive rates and comparable to what we are seeing in, you know, our other projects. As I said before, we are finalizing that study. With regards to the joint venture question, yes, there's a significant movement in the industry in Quebec. I'm having meetings with provincial authorities over there and there are lots of discussions going around about potential teams up, but I will tell you it's very preliminary at this stage. We have our project with our own standalone facility, but I'm of the view that, you know, larger scale brings lower cost to all parties. If there's an opportunity to do something there, we'll look into it in more detail. Our standalone project is quite strong from a financial operational point of view. If any team up improves returns, we shall look into it. Okay, great. Thanks for that. Thank you. Your next question comes from Jack Gabb from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thanks. One question on the markets and then one just question on Mt. Cattlin. Just in terms of the market, Christian, I think I remember asking back when you gave the $20,000 a ton guidance for your spread in pricing, and I think you said at the time that your spread of pricing was sort of $15,000-$35,000 a ton. Just curious, with the updated guidance that you've given today, what does your spread in pricing look like? And I guess what I'm asking is, does the increase reflect just an increase at the top end and you're still selling some material at $15,000, or is it sort of a broader brush? The second question on Mt. Cattlin, interesting in your presentation, you talked about exploration focused on extending the mine life. Just curious, is there an opportunity to mine lower grade given where spodumene prices are at the moment? Or is this more about sort of greenfield exploration in and around the existing resource? Just curious what you're looking at. Thanks. Thank you, Jack, for your question. First one will be answered by Christian, the second one by Keith Muller, who manages the Mt Cattlin asset. Hi, Jack. Thank you for your question. With regards to the price spread, within our existing contracts, the spread has increased predominantly on the top side. We had already started delivering volumes at the bottom range, so that really doesn't change. However, as the price index from different agencies was updated towards the end of January, we were able to push that top range higher. I would probably say the spread is looking more like $15,000-$45,000 for the existing quarter. Perfect. Thanks. I'll take the second question, Jack. Just in terms of the exploration at Mt. Cattlin, we intend a 32,000-meter drill program over the next 6-8 months, starting in March. Out of that 32,000, 30,000 will be localized to the immediate pit expansion. Yes, we are targeting a lower grade. At the moment, our reserve cut-off is at 0.4%. With these prices, we are evaluating if there's any benefit in dropping that bottom cut-off grade. 2,000 meters that we'll be drilling is in exploration leases around the vicinity of Mt. Cattlin. Not directly associated with an immediate expansion, but more so with a greenfields evaluation of what else is in the vicinity. Perfect. Thanks. Just on that potential grade cut-off reduction, have you got any sensitivity as to how many tons that could bring into the pit? Not at the moment, no, Jack. Look, we first have to do the drilling to firm up and convert those resources to reserves before we can further evaluate the effect of cut-off grade. Perfect. Makes sense. Thanks all for me. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from Reg Spencer from Canaccord. Please go ahead. Good morning, Martin, Neil, Christian. First question relates to the statement in the presentation where you're looking at changing the structural nature of your contracts, moving to more index-linked pricing. Will that be effective immediately, or is that more a case where as the supply contracts roll off, you would move to that different structure? I guess as part of that question, will we likely see greater impact on your prices received in the June quarter as opposed to the March quarter. Thank you, Reg, for your question. Christian can answer the details of the question. However, you're seeing a significant increase in the second half of the year in the price guidance that we are giving. Christian, if you could please go through the details. Yes, Martin. Hi, Reg. You have two questions. I'll address first the first one about the contracts. We have successfully moved towards flexible pricing arrangements across our portfolio. However, I did point out last time during the quarterly call that a couple of our customers were still getting products associated with their fiscal year 2021 volumes/prices. That's coming to an end this quarter. As we move to the last quarter of our financial year or the second quarter of the calendar year, we're effectively moving everything to flexible pricing. That would then help to answer the second question with regards to guidance or prices for the following quarter. Considering the nature of the floating pricing mechanisms we have, it will certainly be a reflection as to what the prices on these indices will look like in the next month or two. If they continue to be revised up, then I would expect that we'll capture some of that growth into the following quarter. Excellent. Thanks, Christian. That's useful. My next question relates to Naraha. That looks like it's on schedule to be commissioned this quarter. Will you guys provide some kind of guidance as to the pricing structure at which product will be sold to the joint venture in Japan? Just so we can get an understanding of how that relationship between Naraha and SDJ might work. There's no way of transfer pricing, right? This is gonna be arm's length pricing, but you know, it is. I guess where I'm going with the question, are the profits more likely to be at the Olaroz level, or will there be some kind of lower pricing to Naraha and those profits be at the Naraha joint venture? Well, thank you, Reg. As you said, pricing is going to be arm's length, and the pricing at which Olaroz will sell the product to Naraha will be based on market. It's going to be market pricing for the product going from Olaroz to Naraha. Naraha profitability would be on lithium carbonate in Olaroz and on the upgrade from technical-grade carbonate to battery-grade hydroxide profitability will stay in Naraha. That's the way the pricing and the profit between both operations will be. Okay. Understood. Just on that then, Martin, is there a benefit in sending, you know, lower spec. Well, it would obviously be a lower spec product, and it will be priced accordingly based on whatever indices are moving at that particular time. Yeah, the profit uplift will come down to your conversion costs and, you know, whatever you can get hydroxide for in Japan and Korea, or Japan. Exactly. This is part of the strategy to increase the value added to our products. We were firm believers that hydroxide that the spread between hydroxide and carbonate will grow and has been impacted by some particular events during this year. In the long run, we trust profitability from hydroxide will be significant. That's what we are doing by growing our production and the value chain by getting into more complex molecules, delivering the solutions that the customers need. Excellent. Thanks, Martin. I'll pass it on. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS. Please go ahead. Good morning, good evening, Martin, Neil, and Christian. Thanks very much. Just a question on Olaroz stage one. Can you just remind us of your thinking around the battery-grade, technical-grade split, you know, going forward? I do know that you had higher OpEx with the higher battery-grade split in half. What should we be thinking about that split going forward for stage one? And specifically, how should we sort of take forward the OpEx related to that? I've got a second question I'll come back to. Well, thank you very much for the question. The answer on that is going forward, you should see a split similar to what we've seen in this quarter. It seems slightly a 50/50, slightly higher than 50 in battery grade, but around this level until stage two comes into production. As we increase production from stage two, we may change the split of product within stage one. Currently, this product split maximizes the production capacity from Olaroz as well as the price, and also enables us to meet our customer contracts. With regards to the cost, they came down into December quarter from what they were in the June quarter. We expect them to be around this range for the second half of the year. You know, still depending on the devaluation and inflation rate in Argentina. In the last two quarters, we've been impacted by a higher inflation than the devaluation rate, which impacted on the costs. It's, you know, it's not a significant number in the cost, but it moves the number around a bit. Roughly 55% of our cost are peso-based and 45% are dollar-based. Yeah, that and that impacts in the way in which we see the cost evolving. From a product split, you should see something similar to what you are seeing, because that enables us to maximize productivity and meet the customer contracts we have. Great. Thank you. Second question from me. Just on Mt Cattlin, and again, looking at the OpEx line there. The borders are opening in WA shortly. Do you expect to see some, you know, some benefit to the cost line in terms of that border opening? How much of that cost that we saw in the December half do we take forward? Thank you. Well, thank you. I will let Keith answer your question in more detail, but clearly the opening of the border in the second from March the third will enable us to better manage our cost basis. Keith, if you can provide more details. Certainly. Thanks. The majority of that escalated cost is associated with the higher stripping ratio that we are seeing over the next 12 months. Very little of that cost is associated with the impact of COVID. If anything, that has actually suppressed the expenditure as we struggle to get a workforce in and out of the tight WA market. So we've slightly mined less than what we anticipated. So I wouldn't expect that our expenditure will go down. If anything, it will go slightly up as we are now capable of increasing our mining volumes and sustaining the production levels. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Oh, good evening, Martin. Martin, in your presentation you said market participants are experiencing shortages. It's an interesting comment. Just wondering if you could maybe provide some color. I know I only asked four weeks ago on the January call, but can you maybe talk about through the supply chain? I assume you talk to OEM car manufacturers, battery manufacturers, converters, now that you're a spodumene producer as well. Just, you know, any insights you can offer on the inventory positions, whether it's, you know, the raw material, the batteries or even cars. Then just on Mt Cattlin, just shipping logistics. I mean, everyone seems to be whinging about shipping logistics. Just wondering if you can provide any color on how that's maybe tracking now another month on, are we getting much more success at getting product out of Western Australia and out of Argentina? Thanks. Thank you very much, Glyn. I will ask Christian to answer your questions on inventory, if we are seeing pressure from customers to secure product. Christian can be more detailed around the inventories and Christian, Keith, if there's any detail we can give Glyn around the shipping logistics from Western Australia. Hi, Glyn. Yes, in fact, we do have conversations with customers and I guess potential customers throughout the value chain. I guess we just quickly start with converters. I think that it's probably the most obvious one that the delays on incremental production are just effectively not being able to capture some of the lack of utilization in Chinese conversion capacity. So that is quite evident. We certainly get a lot of queries from non-Chinese customers for this, well, for any product really. You know, the conversations have really changed towards the requirements around cut-off grade and specifications, which obviously gives you an understanding that you know, they're effectively trying to get whatever they can get. As we move up the value chain, particularly with cathode customers, I think traditionally speaking, cathode customers either in Japan, South Korea or China have different sourcing strategies. Those that usually pick up volumes and fixed volumes for the year have come back with additional volumes, and that's in response to just higher demand of their own production into the battery supply chain. That's where we're seeing some of those requirements or requests having to be, I guess, turned down because we simply don't have the ability to provide them with further volumes to the ones that we had already agreed to. In China, I think China is a lot more geared towards securing a percentage of their annual offtake with contracts and the other component they'll pick up from the spot market. We have seen a lot of queries from Chinese participants requiring us to provide them with any level of support, particularly in 2022, as they are significantly concerned of not having enough inventory for the year. I think, look, I think as you look across the value chain, inventories are certainly down. We understand that some of the converters in China are running at less than a month of inventory. As you look at cathode producers, while there was some restocking activities prior to the lunar year celebrations and have continued since then, our understanding is that inventory levels are effectively just there to get them through the monthly production, and they're not carrying a lot of excess for the following months. You had a question around shipping and logistics. The situation in the current quarter has become a lot better. I think while you still have those restrictions that need to be addressed on the quarantine protocols, the supply has improved. There are more vessels. The rates are also more competitive than what they were in the previous half. It is a little bit of, you know, we have to monitor this every time we look at securing vessels because the situation can change quite rapidly, as we have seen in the past. Christian, just maybe going back to the inventory question, if I could just ask a follow-up, and thanks for all that color. Do you have any insight? I mean, you're obviously further down the chain and, you know, like we asked this, we talked about this back four weeks ago, but, you know, the OEMs, the actual car manufacturers talking to them, you know, do you have a sense of what their biggest fear is? I mean, it sounds like obviously the converters and the battery manufacturers can't get enough lithium, but is that transpiring all the way through the chain? Yeah. Glyn, we've seen a lot more active behaviors from certain OEMs that have traditionally left those negotiations in securing of supply with battery or cathode manufacturers. A few of them are playing a more active role at assisting wherever they can, stepping in and trying to basically secure supply in the current year, whereas in previous conversations were more about long-term security of supply. I think that just again reinforces that the concern is there through the whole value chain now as it as contrary to what was probably six months ago. Okay. I know it's early, but is there anything changing as a result of what's happening in Europe from what you can see talking to customers? Well, most of our customers are in Asia, Glyn. The reality is, we have limited volume into Europe at the moment that has been predominantly for industrial applications. I suspect there will be obviously an impact on industrial activity in Europe, and that may, you know, that might mean that some of those volumes won't be there in the next six months. However, our ability to place product with our existing customer book in Asia is quite strong. I don't think we would have any issues to reallocate product if we had to. Okay. Thanks very much for the color. Question. Thank you. There are no further phone questions at this time. We will now move on to webcast questions. The first question is: In the disaggregation of the group's revenue from customers, there is AUD 4.6 million in revenue for Olaroz from Europe. Is that the battery-grade lithium carbonate? Neil, can you please answer that one? I can pick up that if that's okay, Neil. Okay. Thank you, Christian. Yes. Look, as I was just explaining to Glyn a minute ago, most of the volumes that we sell into Europe are for industrial customers. It will probably be somewhere between 70%-75% industrial customers. The remaining goes into customers that produce electrolyte salts. Thank you. Your next webcast question reads: For Olaroz, there is a net loss despite the huge price increase for lithium. As in FY 2020, this is largely due to income tax expense. Is this likely to continue into the future? Thank you very much. Neil, you can answer this one, please. Yes. It all depends. It all comes back to exactly what I explained a little bit earlier as far as devaluation and high inflation. We expect those numbers to some extent start equaling each other, but there will be an effect as that continues with the high inflation rate and high devaluation, the tax charge has to be booked. Hence it's a non-cash charge, but it does have to be booked and the opposite side of the accounting entries on the balance sheet where it affects the deferred tax liability. Thank you. Your next question, what do you think is the ceiling on carbonate and spodumene pricing that the market can realistically absorb? Thank you for the question. It's quite an interesting one. Christian, you may give some color, but we have seen the pricing increasing every quarter over the last year, so difficult to set a ceiling. Christian, you might have some more detailed views there. Thank you, Martín. I can't really comment on what the ceiling may look like, but what I can, I guess, share is that the elasticity for lithium prices has obviously been a lot wider than what we thought before in previous years. Now to provide some color, the impact on pricing on lithium with regards to the total cost of the vehicle, and therefore the potential incremental cost of the electric vehicle to the end customer, is probably not as significant as most people would think. The reality is, an average electric vehicle will take approximately 40 kg of lithium into their batteries. If we were to effectively look at the price run that lithium chemicals have experienced over the past year, the incremental cost to a battery pack has probably been in the range of $1,000-$2,000 per vehicle. When you're looking at an average price of a vehicle, somewhere around $50,000, the incremental cost of having such a significant increase in pricing is not that significant. We haven't seen a slowdown in demand, even after some of the OEMs have listed their prices for the 2022 year. I think just to sum that up, I don't think I have a view on what the limits or the ceiling pricing would be. I can only conclude that the overall demand is not really being reduced as a result of having an incremental cost of $1,000-$2,000 on a vehicle. Thank you. That does conclude our time for questions. I'll now hand back to Mr. Pérez de Solay for closing remarks. Thank you everyone for joining us today. For further inquiries, please contact our investor relations team, who will also respond to any additional questions submitted on the webcast today. Thank you very much. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.