Good day, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Orocobre September quarterly production report call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to the Chief Executive Officer, Martín Pérez de Solay. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, Laura, and welcome everybody, and thank you for joining us for our September 2021 quarterly results. Joining me on the call is Chief Sales and Marketing Officer, Christian Barbier, who will shortly provide a market update. The September quarter has seen a very strong performance from our operating assets, with record production and revenues of almost AUD 70 million at Mt Cattlin, and a high cash margin at Olaroz of nearly AUD 4,600 per tons. Prices for our products continue to rise. Guidance for carbonate sales at Olaroz has been increased by 33% to AUD 12,000 per tons. Spodumene contracts will be delivered at approximately AUD 1,650 per tons. Moving to sustainability, our operating activities during the September quarter remain focused on the health and well-being of our workforce and local communities. We continue to work under established biosecurity protocol for COVID-19, and in cooperation with local authorities, we have seen positive momentum in vaccinating our workforce at operations. Our safety performance also positively improved through the quarter, and we continue to undertake a number of health and safety initiatives. Engagement and presence continues with local communities, and our share value team in Argentina undertook various development initiatives. This includes the program to support full independence, which is now expanded into new communities. Near Sal de Vida, construction of a first aid facility in Cienaga Redonda was completed, and technical training courses and supplier development programs were held in the various communities of Antofagasta de la Sierra. Since the merger with Galaxy, integration is progressing well, with the focus on delivering positive results from our operations, advancing our near-term development projects, and progressing our growth assets. With the addition of the Mt Cattlin operation and growth assets of Sal de Vida and James Bay, our global portfolio is unparalleled. With diversification across development, locations, product type, we have scale and flexibility to meet the market demand and the customer preferences. We are focused on a number of key drivers, including the delivery of cost savings in Argentina, marketing synergies to expand customer relationships, strategic planning and optimization to deliver our growth pipeline, and determining optimal funding solutions utilizing our strong financial position and two cash flow-generating operations. Our future milestones include commissioning of the Naraha and Olaroz two facilities in financial year 2022, continue the development of Sal de Vida Stage 1. A communication of a detailed strategic plan for our growth project is expected by early calendar year 2022, including our development pathway for subsequent sub-stages of Naraha, Olaroz, and Sal de Vida, and Gente Projects. As we work on delivering these milestones, it is important that we continue to maintain performance at our operations in Australia and Argentina. Starting with Mt Cattlin, we achieve another record production quarter. Almost 68,000 tons of spodumene concentrate was produced at 5.7% lithium oxide grade, in line with our customers' requirements. Excellent operational performance was due to a favorable head grade, improved processing rates, and recoveries. This also enables us to achieve a very competitive operating cost of AUD 351 per tons. Due to two consecutive record quarters, we have revised our calendar 2021 production forecast from 210,000 for the year to 220,000 tons. We shipped almost 90,000 tons of spodumene concentrate during the quarter, and we have further shipments of 63,500 tons planned for the December quarter. As I mentioned, contracting arrangements are well advanced, and we are seeing indicative pricings of approximately AUD 1,650 per tons for 6% lithium oxide purity, with more than double of the September quarter's average pricing, increasing our margins. At Olaroz, we continue to deliver the desired product quality to our customers. 2,002 tons of lithium carbonate was produced during the quarter, of which 58% was battery grade. Sale for the quarter was 2,622 tons of lithium carbonate, of which 61% was battery grade. Total sales revenue of AUD 24.5 million was up 13% for the quarter and up 133% from the previous corresponding period. The lithium market clearly remains very robust and pricing momentum continues, which Christian will soon discuss further. Cash costs of goods sold for the quarter, including COVID-19-related costs, increased by 20% on the previous corresponding period to AUD 4,754 per tons. This was due to lower production volumes, higher labor costs, and other costs as a result of the devaluation of the Argentine peso of only 3.2% versus an inflation of 9.3% and increased prices of gas and COVID-related costs. Also, a higher proportion of battery grade sales mix that grew from 27% in the previous corresponding period to 61% in this period. Moving on to our development assets progress to date, we'll see the delivery of both Olaroz Stage 2 and Naraha in financial year 2022. Construction work on Stage 2 has been adapted to COVID-19 restriction, we have cautiously increased the workforce to more than 700 people on site in a controlled manner. Overall plant construction is now at 60% completion, with most infrastructure is now completed, nearly 85% of the are built, and the soda ash and carbonation plants are 27% and 31% complete respectively. Stage 2 is expected to be complete in the first half of calendar year 2022 and to commence production in the following half. Construction at Naraha lithium hydroxide plant has continued through the period, with activities now mostly complete and pre-commissioning works well underway. Commissioning is anticipated to occur in Q1 of calendar year 2022. On to Sal de Vida, liners for the evaporation ponds have largely been delivered to site, and the earthworks and liner contractor has mobilized to site in anticipation of final permitting by year-end. All eight production wells have been completed for Stage 1 brine production, and pumping tests have been performed on the majority of the wells. A revised resource and reserve estimate is planned after completion of the drilling program and assessment of these results. The on-site piloting program continues to deliver exceptional results. Approximately 1 tons of lithium carbonate was produced, and 85% of the product met battery-grade specifications. The results demonstrate improvements against prior runs and typically battery-grade specifications. Piloting will continue through the remainder of calendar year 2021 to support operational readiness for Stage 1 production. At the James Bay project, basic engineering commenced during the quarter with mobilization of key consultants. The feasibility results and ore reserve update are scheduled for release in the December quarter. Separately, ongoing downstream studies continue examining conversion options for the spodumene concentrate. I will now pass on to Christian for a brief discussion of the lithium markets. Thanks, Martin, and good morning to all. I will begin by discussing the lithium market dynamics over the quarter and its impact on pricing development. Demand for lithium chemicals and spodumene concentrate remained strong during the quarter in response to the sustained high production volumes of lithium-ion batteries. Global sales of electric vehicles of approximately 3.7 million units between January and August 2021 were up by 150% compared to the prior year. Sales in China alone recorded approximately 1.7 million units during that period, with approximately 80% comprised of battery EVs and 20% plug-in hybrid, requiring higher lithium consumption relatively to other geographical segments. Demand for lithium carbonate in China was higher than lithium hydroxide during the quarter due to a strong preference for LFP battery formats in the domestic market. This pushed spot lithium carbonate prices up by approximately 100% quarter- on- quarter to approximately AUD 23,000 a tons on a CIF basis, and once again are trading at parity with lithium hydroxide prices. Prices for lithium chemicals outside China also increased as contracted prices were gradually adjusted up to reflect tightening market conditions across the supply chain. Spodumene concentrate spot prices also improved significantly during the quarter, exceeding AUD 1,000 a tons CIF compared to approximately AUD 650 in the preceding quarter. Spot prices for the limited volumes of spodumene available in December quarter are estimated to be in the range of AUD 1,500 a tons CIF to approximately AUD 2,500 a tons. Lithium chemicals and spodumene concentrate are largely sold on the long-term contracts with a mixture of yearly negotiated prices and formula adjustments based off market indices. Reported spot prices reflect marginal volumes rather than prices in the high volume contract market. As such, spot prices may be considered leading indicators for the trend of future contract prices. For Orocobre sales contracts for lithium carbonate include approximately 2/3 of volumes at yearly price agreed between late 2020 and early 2021 and approximately 1/3 of volumes linked to spot prices. Spodumene concentrate volumes on their sales contracts are negotiated on a quarterly basis. The revised carbonate sales price guidance of AUD 12,000 a tons FOB for the December quarter reflects improved market conditions, partially offset by lagged pricing negotiations. Moving on to supply. Utilization rates for downstream lithium processing in China remained consistent with the prior quarter, with lithium carbonate facilities at approximately 60%. Whilst China's power restriction did not have a significant effect on lithium chemical supply during the September quarter, it affected industrial activities in certain provinces. If these conditions were to persist in coming months, domestic production rates for the lithium-ion battery supply chain may be adversely affected. Logistic issues continue to be experienced throughout the lithium supply chain, adversely impacting delivery schedules of seaborne lithium chemicals and spodumene concentrates. It's anticipated that such conditions will continue through the remaining of 2021. Concerns for securing offstream supply for lithium resources across the battery supply chain has resulted in further consolidation with recent offstream acquisitions at higher multiples during the September quarter. It's anticipated that lithium-ion battery producers and EV manufacturers will continue to play a more active role in sourcing lithium chemicals and spodumene concentrate in coming years on their long-term purchase agreements. I will now hand back to Martin. Thanks, Christian, and I will now ask the operator to coordinate the Q&A section of the call. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. A voice prompt on the phone line will indicate when your line is open. Please state your name and company at the tone before posing a question. Once again, press star one to ask a question. We'll pause for just a moment to allow everyone an opportunity to signal for questions. Thank you. We will now take our first question. At the tone, please state your name and company before posing a question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. It's Reg Spencer from Canaccord here. Quite a bit to digest. I guess my first question is around the Mt Cattlin and the split between longer-term contractual obligations for spodumene concentrate and what you're selling into the spot market. From memory, it was about 50/50. Is that still the case? Thank you, Reg. Christian, if you can please answer that particular question. Hi, Reg Spencer. Thank you for your question. Mt Cattlin's production is largely under contracts. This year we did have excess products, particularly in the first half of the period. We did put a shipment of around 16,000 tons at spot, but that is pretty much it. Most of the production volumes are under long-term offtake agreements. Okay. Understood. If there's those long-term supply arrangements, then the pricing structure of those, I presume there's some linkage to current chemical prices or is that a trailing linkage to chemical prices? I'm just trying to connect the dots between what you guys have pointed to in terms of spot pricing outlook in the near term and what we might expect you to get with respect to average selling prices over the next, say, three to six months. Yeah. Okay. Yes, Reg. Do it. The answer to the question on the contracts is we don't really have an established mechanism on how we agree to prices. It's a negotiation exercise on a cargo basis at the moment. We do, however, on both ends, on the spodumene producer and on the converter side, we do have a look at both what the spot prices are looking like and what the depth of those volumes are. We also consider what the chemical prices are being sold at on both a contract basis and a spot prices. That will then allow us to find the negotiation point to maximize pricing from our end to the extent that is something that we can effectively work with our customer base. Okay. Understood. I would add to that, Christian. And just to- If I may add, Reg. I think that the reaction that you've seen in price over this quarter in Mt Cattlin clearly reflects the speed at which we can replicate the market in this operation. Yeah. Understood. Thanks, Martín. If I can just flip over to Olaroz. I know we spend a lot of these calls talking about your contract book. Can you remind me when a majority of your contracts roll off? Are you in a period now where you're looking to negotiate new pricing in an environment when chemical pricing in China's approaching AUD 30,000 a tons? If so, subject to product quality, might your new pricing structures under any new contracts be anywhere near what we're seeing in China today? Well, that is certainly an interesting question, Reg. Sorry, Martín, you go ahead. Sorry, Christian. I was telling we are reopening some of the contracts. We have already products has been qualified with customers. We are reopening pricing negotiations on some of the contracts. You're starting to see those renegotiations impact in the coming quarters' pricing. Christian can tell you more details around timing and different contracts. That's a process we're currently undertaking. Yeah. I'll just probably add one point on the timing question. Reg, we basically have customers in Japan, customers outside Japan. I think already talked about the third that is going to China. If we split the remaining of the customers, the negotiations for those outside China and Japan are basically completed within the next couple of months. Japanese customers, considering that we use a Japanese fiscal year on those agreements, will probably spill to the beginning of next year. The pricing per se will certainly be reset in its entirety by the end of Q1 2022. Understood. Excellent. It's a good time to be doing that given what's going on in the market. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, and I'll pass it on. Appreciate it. Thank you. We'll now take our next question. At the turn, please state your name and company before posing a question. Your line is open please go ahead. Rahul Anand, Morgan Stanley. Hi, Martin and team. Thanks for the opportunity. Can I ask a couple of quick follow-ups before I get onto my questions? Perhaps for Christian. In terms of Reg's question, you were talking about the contracts for Mt Cattlin. Are these quarterly contracts for 100% of the production? Is that fair? Do you look at spot and then previous periods' price, or how do you typically look at it and what the length is? That's my first follow-up. Thanks. Christian, please. Hi, Rahul. They're not quarterly contracts. They are quarterly shipments. As we prepare for the following shipment, we negotiate on that cargo. As I explained in the response to Reg, these are not formula-driven contracts as such. It is a negotiation taking into account both parties, and that involves looking at market indicators. Now, I think you also asked a question around the volumes. The volumes are based on our production schedule, and I guess from an overall perspective, the usual ranges have been between 180,000 tons-200,000 tons a year. We've entered into two main contract agreements, and we are delivering on a quarterly basis to those customers. Okay. Perfect. Okay, I'll get on with my questions. Operations, in terms of Cattlin. You've provided a new guidance. However, you still kept that grade at 1.2 g to 1.3 g a tons, Martin, and you're probably clocking closer to 1.5 g a tons. Am I correct in thinking that you're probably going to revert to reserve grade starting the fourth quarter, and that would lead to the fall in the production grade or the input grade and also the cost going higher? Is that a fair assumption? Thank you, Rahul. I will ask Keith Muller that is also on the call. He is the operations manager at Mt Cattlin to please answer that question with a bit detail. Thank you, Martin. Good morning, everyone. Rahul, that's correct, yes. We are currently seeing a windfall of high head grades coming in in the previous quarter of around 1.4%-1.5%. Over the next quarter and into the next calendar year, we expect the head grade to return to the life of mine average, which is between 1% and 1.2% lithium oxide. Okay, perfect. Just one follow-up there, Keith. I also noticed that your guidance incorporates 5.6%-5.8% spodumene grade. It seems as though at that level, you're getting at the recovery rates that you're seeing currently. Have you considered perhaps lowering the spodumene grade for even further recoveries? It would seem that the recovery grade curve is quite steep here. That's correct, Rahul. Approximately 3% of the increase in recovery we're seeing at the moment is associated with the lower product grade. The level we're targeting at the moment, 5%-5.7%, that's in line with what our customers are asking for. Yes, certainly, we are always looking to lower that final product grade to increase recovery, but not at the detriment of what our customer requirements are. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Martín, a couple of questions on Olaroz. In terms of the production quarter, I just wanted to touch upon perhaps last September 2020. We had about a six-week maintenance shutdown at that time. I would have thought that after the ponds management strategy and the fact that we didn't have any major shutdown this period, that the production would have perhaps been a bit better. Am I missing something? Was there any sort of shutdown or anything else that we should take note of? There was a shutdown in August. Remember that we do two shutdowns a year for scheduled maintenance of the plant. One is in February, another one is in August, which are the lowest of operation periods of the year. There was about a two-week shutdown in the month of August that impacted on production as well as the slightly lower concentrations that you see in the lowest operation period of the year. Okay. In terms of the ability to sort of get to that 100% battery-grade material from the plant, how have you seen that progress? Obviously, you're making really good progress. You're sitting at 58% now in terms of production. You're doing over 60% of sales. How much throughput impact do you think that'll probably end up having if you do have that 100% battery-grade come through in terms of the plant's production capability? We have done a lot of work, Rahul, as you mentioned, to get to here by being able to stabilize and maintain production rate whilst increasing battery grade significantly. We have to continue to see how the plant reacts to the improvements. Clearly beyond this, 50%, 60% battery grade, we may see lower productions if we continue to include battery grade component from here. The important thing is to mention to you that our battery grade sales are scheduled according to the contracts of battery grade that we have signed with our customers. Until Stage 2 stays in place, we do have some primary grade to continue to deliver to contracts that we have already. This is going to be the average mix that we will keep for the year. I guess one quick follow-up on that, Martin, was basically, what do you see as the key bottleneck going forward? I know that it used to be the brine not being at a high grade and being available enough. Do you think the plant is actually capable of doing 16,000 tons of battery-grade material, or do you think it'll need a bit more CapEx further than this to be able to get to that level? 16,000 of 100% battery grade may be a bit difficult without further CapEx. We are not there yet. We first have to bring Stage 2 into production. Once we define volumes and quality coming out from Stage 2, I'm very optimistic on the quality of the product that we will get from there. We'll start rethinking an optimization of Stage 1 to maximize production output and margin from that operation. Perfect. Okay. I have a few more, but I'll line up again. Thank you very much. Okay, Rahul Anand. Thank you. We'll now take our next question. At this time please state your name and company before posing your question, Your line is open please go ahead. Hi, guys. It's Hayden Bairstow from Macquarie. Just a couple of questions. Firstly, on Mt Cattlin, just interested in, I mean, shipments were slightly below production so far this year. The guidance is implying a softer fourth quarter anyway, from what you just delivered. Just some commentary around that and also the realized pricing and the, more importantly, the volumes on your spodumene sales. Is that sort of the max you think you can get out this quarter, the sort of 38,000 tons, or it's just a shipping schedule issue at the moment? Thank you for your question. Christian, if you can, please answer that one in detail. I'll answer the last one because that's the one that I probably have in mind the clearest. Volumes wise, so the volumes that we just announced in the September quarter were quite high. That's because we basically had a shipment from the previous quarter spilling into the September quarter, and we advanced some volumes that related to the fourth quarter into the September quarter. Hence why the volumes do look quite down in comparing it to the previous quarters. Now, there is also a slippage towards the end of the year of a shipment that will have to be shipped in early January. That is mainly due to port congestion at Port of Esperance towards the second half of December. That's the one I caught clearly. Can you repeat your other question? Sorry. Yeah. Spod productions are 178 for the year so far, and shipments are 168. The upgraded guidance for 210-220 still implies a, I guess, what, a 40,000 tons quarter, I guess. 50, maybe 50 at best, probably 40. The lower production in the fourth quarter, is this a conservatism on grade, or do you have a mill shutdown planned, or just to understand what's driving that? I can tell you that there's 25,000 tons that if we had the opportunity to ship in December, we would've done so. Those are going to go in early January. Okay. All right, perfect. Just back on, Martín, your comments around Olaroz. I mean, obviously the ultimate production rate of Stage 1 is some way off, I guess. What are the opportunities once you've commissioned Stage 2 to integrate stage 1 and achieve those ultimate targets? What are you actually looking at, you think, in terms of optimization to get that Stage 1 back to the original, closer to the original capacity target? If we talk about optimization of the bottlenecking of Stage 1, it's about improving the recovery and the efficiency of the purification circuit. A lot has been done so far, and that has enabled us to grow from 20%- 60% production of battery grade without impacting on the total production from the plant. Similar work has to be done going forward, and it may require a bit more of capital than what we have spent so far, which was mostly operational efficiency and an improvement in the pond management. Having a larger amount of ponds available for Stages 1 and 2 will enable us to accommodate brine and continue to improve recovery from Stage 1. We'll have to see on how do we maximize production from both stages put together on a larger evaporation available area. Okay, Martin. Just one final one on James Bay and the feasibility study progressing. Just interesting to know, is the study still just purely focused on the spodumene project, or are you doing some more downstream scoping work about whether an integrated facility could be part of the base case? The first stage of the project is producing spodumene concentrate, and we are doing now a scoping study of how to integrate and produce hydroxide from the spodumene concentrate. We're kicking off a project right away. Okay. Got it. Thanks a lot, guys. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Thank you. We'll now move on to our next question. At the tone, please state your name and company before posing a question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks. Harsh Bardia from Citi. Good morning, Martín and team. Perhaps just one follow-up on Mt Cattlin. I understand what Christian mentioned about shipping constraint due to port congestion near term. Can you just remind us what's the inventory situation at Mt Cattlin, both in terms of finished goods and low-grade stockpile, just to understand what's the potential if the shipping channels open up? That would be good. Thanks. Thank you, Harsh. I think Keith will be the best person to answer that question. Certainly. No problem. At the end of December, like Christian indicated, we have a 25,000 tons parcel sitting in the Port of Esperance, ready to be dispatched in the first week of January. Past that, we also then have an additional 10,000 tons sitting there ready for the next cargo. At the end of this year, we'll be sitting at 35,000 tons-40,000 tons in inventory. Okay, thanks. Perhaps one on Olaroz cost. That 20% increase, I know a bit of it is transitory because of currency inflation mismatch and a bit of energy cost. Can you just split that between what's structural versus what is a near-term issue? When you compare those to the previous quarter, I tell you most of the cost increase is structural and will fade off as devaluation and inflation catch up. Okay. Harsh, it's Neil. I'll just add to that. Hi. There's 15% less tons being shipped out in September quarter versus the quarter before. When you take that 15% of reduced tons across our fixed cost, it's quite a few AUD 100. It's a large portion of that increase as well. It's got to do with throughput as well on the production side. Thanks, Neil. While I have you online, one final one on the sort of dividends. I know if I do a quick back of the envelope calculation, December quarter is going to be AUD 60 million + in terms of net cash from operations, at least. Is it too early to talk about dividends or before Sal de Vida, obviously, and execution on Olaroz still going, but given you have strong cash position to fund most of that, at least in one to two-year view, is any view on dividends? Harsh, let me answer that. It's a significant cash flow from expansions and projects, and this is the right moment to be developing the projects and speeding up production. I think most of the cash would be devoted to the expansion projects and speeding up production as much as we can. Got it. Thanks, Martín. That's it from my side. I'll pass it on. Thank you. We'll now take our next question. At the tone, please state your name and company before posing your question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, it's Reg Spencer from Canaccord. Just a quick follow-up question. You previously suggested that by the end of this year, you guys would release a more detailed and thorough development and sequencing plan for your various growth projects. You guys know as well as anyone that the sector continues to evolve rapidly. Just wondering, the news over the last couple of days with Tesla opting to go full LFP across their various geographies, and what implications that might have for demand for lithium carbonate relative to hydroxide. How does that fit into how you're looking at your growth projects? Obviously, you've got predominantly a carbonate split. You've got a little bit of hydroxide coming on, and what that might mean for additional hydroxide conversion in the future, or what you might do with downstream integration at James Bay. I was just wondering if you could sort of help me out here, ahead of any detailed plans. It is a very good question, Reg Spencer. What the strategy has always been to be a low cost, good quality producer of carbonate and spodumene. In the case of the carbonate we produce in Olaroz, we can easily convert it at a very competitive rate into hydroxide in our Naraha plant. If the market and the customers require more hydroxide, we would be in a position to deliver that hydroxide in very competitive terms. At the same time, our base production is carbonate, we are looking into ways to increasing our carbonate production at a low cost from Olaroz and Sal de Vida, that is what we're currently working on. We have this unique ability of shifting from one product to another relatively quickly. Our hydroxide plant is faster and cheaper as it is compared to a plant to produce carbonate. In the case of James Bay, we're looking into potential ways of converting that spodumene into hydroxide to supply the U.S. market, because it seems to be that that market is going to be heavily weighted towards NCM batteries. We shall be able to supply lots of carbonate if the market requires so. This is a unique opportunity that we have with the assets that we have to be able to produce one or the other molecule or any other different molecule that the market would require as we continue to grow. The strategy is to deliver our customers what they need, to continue to grow and develop their batteries. Understood. Martin, can I ask whether that plan may include lithium chloride? Obviously, that does give you some additional product market optionality in the event that the industry moves towards solid state batteries. Clearly, you've got the ability to produce a lithium chloride product given your brine operations. Has that ever come into your discussions or considerations? Well, listen, the way in which lithium is in the brine that we pump from the salars is in lithium chloride. That's a molecule that we got in the pond. Yes, it is feasible to produce it. At the time being, we're focusing on production of carbonate and hydroxide and spodumene. Should chloride be a product that the market requires or intermediate product to be converted into other molecules, we have the ability to focus on that and produce it. Understood. Thank you very much, Martín. Appreciate it. I'll pass it on. Thank you. If you find that your question has been answered, you may remove yourself from the queue by pressing star two. We will now move on to our next question. Operator, please state your name and company before posing a question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. [Jing Zhu] from Barrenjoey. Hi, Martín, Christian, and Keith, and thanks for the opportunity to ask a question. I just have one follow-up on Olaroz. As other questions commented, in the past few quarters, Olaroz has been running at around 12,000 tons-13,000 tons annualized rate versus its 17,500 tons annualized nameplate capacity. I guess, is the 12,000 tons-13,000 tons rate the level of production we should anticipate Olaroz to run on until phase II comes in? I guess, if we do expect it to go to nameplate capacity, when should we expect it to happen? Another question is just that, is there anything you've learnt from the ramp-up of phase I that should give us confidence that phase II will deliver the 25,000 tons nameplate capacity? Well, the current 12,000 tons-13,000 tons production is something that is sustainable with the current mix of battery grade and technical grade. As I mentioned before, we've been able to maintain and increase the total production output and increase at the same time the battery grade production by almost 3 x We were averaging about 18%-20% two to three years ago. This mix is the one that we need to continue to maintain to support the customer contracts and the requirements from our customers. This is a mix that we will see until Stage 2 kicks in place. As I said before, we optimize the operation of Stage 1 and Stage 2 according to the contract mix that we have with our customers once Stage 2 stays in place. Regarding the ramp-up, there are lots of learnings from Stage 1 that have been incorporated into Stage 2, and we expect a better performance than the one we had in Stage 1 for Stage 2, definitely. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll pass it on. Thank you. We'll now take our next question. At the tone, please state your name and company before posing your question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, it's Rahul Anand, Morgan Stanley again. Thanks for the opportunity again to ask questions. Look, I might start with a quick follow-up. Neil, this one's for you. You talked about how 15% less volumes were partly the reason for the higher cost. I just want to touch upon how that sort of comes into the conversation, mainly because you would have had an elevated level of inventory at the end of June, which would have been about 3,000 tons. Your sales this quarter are less than that. I would have assumed that the production costs that we're seeing are actually attributable to the last quarter. You produced 3,300 tons last quarter. Am I right in thinking that, i.e., December costs would be higher? No, December costs wouldn't be higher. Christian may have the number on the inventory that we're holding, Rahul. We're washing the inventory through pretty quickly. What gets produced is going into inventory at that cost, and then gets spat out as cost of goods sold. The point I was making is that if we've got, say, a month, we're trying to build out having a month's inventory. Most of the production cost of this quarter would be. There's obviously carryover with what comes in from June, that's sitting as finished goods at the end of June. Certainly, most of the production cost that's gone through in this quarter has reflected itself in the cost per ton, which you're seeing the increase on. That 15% reduction, which certainly feeds into that and does certainly add on a good few AUD 100. On top of that, Rahul, as Martín mentioned earlier, on top of it, you've got for the quarter a devaluation of a little over 3% and you've got inflation 9%. You've got increased labor costs. We increase our labor twice a year. The labor was increased in July. We had to give those increases due to the inflation. We're seeing all those increased costs coming through. As well, it's a period where bonuses get paid as well. That's all flowing through into this period. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks for that. Martín, can I ask a strategic question, perhaps? I estimate that it's costing about AUD 1,500- AUD 2,000 a ton to basically upgrade your product at site. Have you ever thought of perhaps not bothering about adding more battery-grade conversion capacity and just moving to offshore or to an industrial park in terms of your upgrade process? Your cost at Naraha are expected to be much below that in terms of the hydroxide production. I assume you could probably do it cheaper elsewhere. Is that something that's being considered at all? Is the plan continuing to be to achieve that 100% at site like it was many years ago? When we think about optimizing Stage 1, that clearly is one of the things that is being considered. On the other hand, I have to tell you that we not only increased production, increased the battery grade, and reduced the cost over the last 2.5 years. We found that there was a lot yet to be done on-site, and I think we haven't yet reached the maximum potential of that plant. However, what you say is clear. What you mentioned in the comparison with Naraha is quite evident, and that's a way to optimizing production from Olaroz is moving that purification away. It is easier to be done at sea level because of certain additional costs. I would tell you, if you look at the detail of what we've done over the last 2.5 Years, it's quite impressive in terms of improved efficiency, recovery rates, cost reduction, increased production overall, and at the same time increase battery grade with lower costs. Still a lot to do, that's something that has been discussed, continues to be part of our optimization plans. No, indeed. The operational performance is much better, absolutely. Look, just one follow-up there, perhaps. Now you have Sal de Vida as well and you've produced some interesting pilot testing results. Is it too early to ask you this question on whether you've thought about what parallels can be drawn and if you can take some of those learnings and bring them over into Olaroz? No. It's never early to ask about it. We asked ourselves about it. We're looking into all different options to optimize production, and I'm quite optimistic with the quality we may see coming from Stage 2, given some of the improvements we made on the process. We'll have to see how we come out on that plant in terms of production, how we optimize production from Stage 2 and 1, and how we bring in some of the experience from the piloting that we're doing in Sal de Vida into Olaroz Stage 2. You know that chemistry is a bit different between both salares, particularly with regards to some of the impurities, which makes it easier for Sal de Vida to get a single crystallization battery-grade product. Clearly we're learning, and then we continue to improve all of those operations based on the learning that we're acquiring everywhere else. The beauty of being a larger company exposed to different chemistries and having a larger technical team is that we can now maximize the output and optimize all production facilities to better meet our customer needs, which is the final objective we have. Indeed. Thank you very much for that. I'll pass it on. Thank you. We'll now move on to our next question. At the tone, please state your name and company before posing your question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Bria Murphy with BMO Capital Markets on for Joel Jackson. Just one quick question from me, please. Within the AUD 9,000 per ton realized lithium price in the September quarter, are you able to provide an indication of the pricing delta between battery grade and non-battery grade product? Yes. Christian, can you please answer that question? Hi, Bria Murphy. Well, the question will probably be more of a relevance between the prices linked to spot versus the prices on their contract. There was a clear delta on spot related pricing versus contracted prices. I'm going to say that was probably between AUD 4,000 and AUD 5,000 during that last quarter. The contracts for battery grade and technical grade, as I mentioned earlier in the call, they were locked in towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year. The delta last year was a lot more evident and significant between battery grade and technical grade. As we moved into 2021, that started reducing significantly. I'm not giving you the exact answer, but I guess I'm giving you more information for you to understand how is it that we arrived to that number. Okay. Thank you. No problem. Ladies and gentlemen, once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. We'll now take our next question. At the tone, please state your name and company before posing a question. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Good day, guys. It's Al Harvey from JP Morgan. Just another couple of follow-ups. Can you just confirm the timing for that growth plan study and what exactly that's going to look like? What's in scope? Maybe just a short little follow-up there, just whether or not you're still exploring an expedited development plan for Sal de Vida or sticking with the three-state approach. Well, thank you. We expect to get somewhere towards the beginning of the first quarter of next calendar year to the market and explain clearly development plans and the key milestones for those developments. What we are currently working on is looking into ways of speeding up production from Sal de Vida, seeing whether we can enlarge Stage 1. We are looking into possibilities to make Stage 2 and 3 into just one larger Stage 2 in Sal de Vida in order to be able to bring more production on stream. Looking into ways to speed up James Bay and get the spodumene project as quickly as we can into the market while we continue to explore and develop the downstream conversion of that spodumene into hydroxide to supply the U.S. market. Also, looking into potential opportunities of either building larger hydroxide capacity or other molecules in the future. We're also looking into Olaroz Stage 3. That continues to be a project we are working on and incorporating the knowledge from Sal de Vida Stage 1, factoring that into the design of Olaroz Stage 3. That's basically what you should expect to see. What we are currently working on with the technical teams is putting all that together and try to give the market a clear view of what we see ahead of us in terms of construction project milestones and expected production rates. Thanks, Martín. Just still on Sal de Vida, can you just outline what drove that higher battery grade spec product on piloting and if we can expect this to be achieved once the project does fully come online? Well, a couple of things I mentioned before. Chemistry is a bit different between Sal de Vida and Olaroz, particularly with regards to certain contaminants. The organization of the unitary operations around the Sal de Vida project has some improvements that enable us to reduce the impurities in the product and get a better quality product. We were targeting about 80% of the product to be battery grade. The piloting is yielding 85%. Couple of things to consider is that. Typically, when you pilot, you do it in more controlled conditions than when you do actual massive operations. On the other hand, all of the last pilotings done at Sal de Vida have yielded very good results in terms of quality and quantity of battery-grade product. I'm pretty confident of Sal de Vida being able to achieve the expected battery grade production. All right. Thanks, Martín. Martín, it's Andrew. I will just give you a question that we've received from on the webcast. Could you comment on the strategy for securing an offtake agreement or sales agreements for Sal de Vida? Currently, the way we are developing Sal de Vida is developing the project based on our cash flow and debt facilities. As of today, we are not looking into any particular offtake agreement in Sal de Vida. The way we will get into sales contract will be to qualifying the product with our existing customer base and incorporating new customers into our demand, selling the product as we qualify it into battery grade and technical grade according to the final production breakdown. Offtakes are not being heavily pursued as of today. We're looking more into internal development of a project. If I may add to that, it is simply today, there are plenty of debt facilities in place. The lithium is discussed product. Selling a discussed product in exchange for a largely offered product as it would be debt facility for the project doesn't look like a good business. Thank you. It appears there are no further questions at this time, via audio as well. I'd like to turn the conference back to you for any additional or closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you, Laura, and thank you, everybody. The merged entity has a strong foundation to deliver further growth and success. We look forward to keeping you updated on the progress. We focus on sustainable operations and delivery of our growth pipeline. If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact our investor relations team. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. Stay safe. You may now disconnect.