Thank you for standing by, welcome to the Allkem Limited FY23 full year results briefing. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star followed by 1 on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press the star one again. For operator assistance throughout the call, please press star 0, if you are joining via the webcast, please progress the slides. I would like to advise all participants that this call is also being recorded. Thank you. I'd now like to welcome Martín Pérez de Solay, Managing Director and CEO, to begin the conference. Martín, over to you. Thank you, Paulie, and welcome, everybody, and thank you for joining us for Allkem's FY23 full year results briefing. On slide 3 this morning, I will be providing an update on our business and Christian Cortes, Acting CFO, will be providing us with our financial results. Also joining us for the Q&A is James Connolly, our Chief Project Development Officer, Liam Franklyn, our Head of Mt Cattlin Operations, and Christian Barbier, Chief Sales and Marketing Officer. On slide 4, this is our second full year results since the since the successful merger of Galaxy Resources Limited and Orocobre Limited in 2021. Since the merger, we have remained focused on delivering our strategy of growth and downstream integration. The results for FY23 are outstanding and demonstrate the realization of significant value and synergies across our business and people to the benefit of our shareholders. It is important to understand that these results are not achieved in a single year, but are the accumulation of years of work and progress across the entire organization, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our dedicated staff and business partners on this success. Looking back at the year, we have created value throughout our business portfolio. We reached a major milestone in successfully producing lithium hydroxide at Naraha, further delivering our vertical integration strategy and the diversification of our product offering. We achieved first production at Olaroz Stage 2, proving the operational viability of the carbonation process and also demonstrating the technical expertise gained by our team over several successful operating years at Olaroz. In parallel, we made significant advances at Sal de Vida and James Bay, from a business perspective, we made a number of strategic acquisitions of lithium tenements at James Bay, Mt Catlin, and Olaroz, which we will discuss in more detail shortly. FY23 revenue and EBITDA hit new records of $1,208 million and $910 million, respectively, and were underpinned by strong operational performance and robust pricing. Together as a team, we delivered record production volumes of high quality lithium carbonate product at Olaroz, and successfully turned Mt Catlin around to achieve record run rates towards the end of the year after experiencing some initial challenges. As a result, we achieved record revenues at both operations and continued to significantly advance our development portfolio. On the sustainability front, we also established our net zero plan. The plan identifies six initial projects addressing current baseline operational Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions estimates up to 2035. New projects and expansion projects are being considered as a group- at the group's net zero target. I will now hand over to Christian Cortes to cover the financial results. Thank you, Martín, and good morning to everyone. I will take you through the financial results slides, starting from slide 6. Allkem continued to demonstrate very strong results in FY23, capitalizing on strong production and sustained market demand, leading to record financial performance for the year. FY23 saw a record production at Olaroz of more than 16,700 tons, and a significant increase in production at Mt Cattlin in the second half of the year. Whilst Mt Cattlin's spodumene sales volumes are lower compared to FY22, this has been offset by low-grade product sales and increases in prices realized during the year. This has resulted in a record revenue for the group of AUD 1.2 billion, which represents a 62% increase year-on-year. Revenue was also supported by very strong market pricing in FY23. Realized prices from Olaroz were 88% higher than FY22, and at Mt Cattlin, they were 120% higher year on year. Allkem continues to manage operational costs in a challenging environment. Driven by inflationary pressure on costs for raw materials and contracted services, unit operating costs at both operations were higher than prior year. The combination of strong pricing and operational performance resulted in Allkem in delivering a record EBITDAX result of AUD 910 million, and net profit after tax of AUD 525 million, representing margins of 75% and 43%, respectively, which are materially higher than FY22. At an operating segment level, unit cash cost of sales at Olaroz was $5,014 per ton, an increase of 17% on FY22, mostly due to higher cost for raw materials and energy resulting from inflationary pressures. The removal of export incentives in Q3 also contributed to the increase in unit costs. However, very strong realized prices meant Olaroz delivered high EBITDAX margins of 89% during the period, increasing from 82% in FY22. Mt Cattlin's first production during the first half of the year was limited by fine grain mineralization and lower grade ore, with associated lower recoveries and higher waste stripping activity. Contracted mining services also experienced inflationary pressure during the year. Consequently, Mt Cattlin's unit cash cost of production increased to $909 per dry metric ton for the year. Mt Cattlin delivered strong EBITDAX margins of 84% for the year. Moving to slide 7. Olaroz and Mt Cattlin operations recorded combined EBITDAX of $991 million, compared to $556 million in FY22. Starting from the left-hand side in this slide, stronger financial performance as a result of substantial price increases for both spodumene concentrate and lithium carbonate, delivered incremental profits of $551 million in FY23. Allkem captured the demand momentum in the industry, with Olaroz's lithium carbonate average pricing of $43,981 per ton in FY23, compared to $23,398 per ton in FY22. Mt Cattlin spodumene average realized pricing of $4,879 per ton in FY23, compared to $2,221 per ton for the prior period. This strong pricing performance was partially offset by lower spodumene concentrate sales volumes, with a net impact of $196 million year-on-year, mostly due to the issues explained previously on Mt Cattlin. However, this was partially offset by profit on the sale of low-grade products of $89 million, with Mt Cattlin contributing $78 million and Olaroz, $11 million. The increase in Mt Cattlin and Olaroz cost of $9.2 million are mainly attributable to the higher unit cost at Olaroz and record production volumes, while total costs for Mt Cattlin were down with lower volumes, partially offset by higher unit cost of production. The AUD 37 million in corporate and administrative costs from FY22 reflects a full year of the new organizational structure with the expanded Allkem group. The AUD 44 million profit elimination almost entirely represents the furlough of profits associated with carbonate sales to the Naraha Hydroxide plant. Such profits relate to inventories of lithium carbonate attributable to Naraha at the end of the period. Moving to cash flow on slide 8. The group experienced strong operational cash flow of AUD 781 million in FY23, compared to AUD 476 million in FY22. This is a reflection of the strong operational performance already discussed in previous slides. Allkem continues to pursue an extensive capital projects program across the entire portfolio. Total capital expenditure in FY23 was AUD 473 million across Olaroz, Sal de Vida, James Bay and Mt Cattlin. Such amount includes growth CapEx for projects at Olaroz, including Stage Two, Sal de Vida and James Bay, as well as sustaining CapEx and exploration spend for Olaroz and Mt Cattlin. After period end, Allkem also signed an agreement with the International Finance Corporation to support funding for the Sal de Vida project of up to $130 million. Allkem reported a net cash increase of $230 million year-on-year, from $418 million at the end of last year to $648 million at June 30, 2023. To recap, Allkem achieved record revenues during the period of $1.2 billion, delivering strong EBITDAX and net profit after tax results of $910 million and $525 million, respectively. It has a robust balance sheet with net cash of $648 million. With additional financing through the IFC, we're well positioned to fund and deliver the strong pipeline of projects in our portfolio. Thank you. I will pass back to Martin for an operations update. Thank you very much, Christian. Continuing on slide 10, starting with Olaroz. Record revenue of $592 million was underpinned not only by strengthened pricing, but with record production volumes, which increased 30% from the prior year. We anticipate that in FY24, we will produce between 22,000 and 26,000 of lithium carbonate from combined Stage 1 and 2. This factors in strong and stable production from Olaroz Stage 1, and also a 12-18 month run per period for Stage 2. On Slide 11, at Mt Cattlin, we also achieved record revenue of $616 million, after successfully turning the operation around to achieve record run rates toward the end of the year, after experiencing initial challenges. Cash margins of 78% remain broadly in line with the prior year. Given the strength of operations, we anticipate we will be producing 210,000-230,000 tons of spodumene in FY24, at approximately $850 per dry metric ton, which reflects the higher strip ratio with the development of Stage Four. Our drilling campaign of over 31,000 meters led to a resource and reserve update that confirms a four to five-year mine life extension to 2027, 2028, via open pit methods. We're also evaluating an underground option in the form of a feasibility study, which may provide a more economical mining method and potentially extend the mine life further. On Slide 13, project execution. Moving on to our growth pipeline from our committed projects, we will see our production base triple in the near term, and our product offering expand with Naraha. We have already started delivering this, and we have made material progress in defining the next phase, the next phase of growth for the company, including a potential Olaroz Cauchari Stage 3 and Sal de Vida Stage Two. On Slide 14, as you are aware, we recently reached the milestone of first production at Olaroz Stage Two. This achievement demonstrates the expertise of our team, who will now focus on the completion of commissioning and ramp up to full capacity. This year, we saw the Olaroz resource increase by 27% to 20.7 million tons, which includes 2.8 million tons from the Maria Victoria tenements. We that we successfully acquired late last year after we divested Borax. This large resource now provides us with a significant upside potential for future expansions. On Slide 15, at Naraha, we continue to prove the technology and capability of the team, converting Olaroz technical grade carbonate to battery grade hydroxide. Since first production was achieved in late October, we sold 1,345 tons of hydroxide in FY23. Recently, we have achieved stable production at 100% capacity, producing on-spec battery grade hydroxide, which are early signs of proving up the consistent quality at scale. Battery grade qualification with customers commenced last month, and we have started to dispatch samples. On Slide 16, Sal de Vida, we continue to see positive progress. As you can see in the images on the presentation, the first two strings of ponds are nearing completion and construction of the carbonation plant have commenced. Sal de Vida was issued an environmental impact approval from the Catamarca government during the year, enabling the increased capacity to 15,000 tons per annum for Stage One. A resolution was issued, permitting the construction of the solar farm, in addition, water use permits were issued as well. We continue to evaluate the development schedule and will advise of any changes once the work has been completed. On Slide 17, engineering and permitting at James Bay, James Bay, are both very advanced, with consultation related to provincial approval, COMEX and IBA in the final stages. The logistics of holding stakeholders' meetings remains complex due to wildfires continuing to impact the region, with associated road closures. This financial year, we completed a resource extension drilling program, which led to the discovery of a new high-grade zone and a 173% increase to 110.2 million tons at 1.3% lithium grade. This reconfirms the project Tier One status and strategic potential to vertically integrate into the North American supply chain. On Slide 18, looking more closely at the scale of James Bay, it is clearly a meaningful resource and has the potential to grow further with drilling, with drilling planned to test extensions to the east and west at depth. Additionally, 131 mining titles of CDC claims located to the north and south of the project were acquired during the year. Total James Bay mining titles now cover 11,130 hectares in 223 claims. On Slide 19, looking beyond our current assets and how we are going to strategically continue to capture market share in a growing market, growing so rapidly. Slide 20. As the EV industry is becoming global, more technically demanding, and continues to innovate its chemistries, customers will increasingly, increasingly ask for larger scale and optionality in the product offering. Supply chains are building out in newer regions, such as North America and Europe, and demand is growing rapidly. Those who are able to offer this will have the advantage, and this has been part of our company strategy: to deliver enhanced scale, product diversity, and vertically integrate our resources onto downstream chemicals. On Slide 21, we have announced an all-stock merger of equals with Livent in May. Together, we will create a leading global integrated lithium chemicals producer. This transaction is consistent with Allkem's strategy and delivers a step change in our stated objectives.... It immediately increases the commercial scale with an expanded geographical footprint and a combined lithium deposit base among the largest in the world. This is very important to remain relevant to our customers. It immediately enhances Allkem's downstream and vertical integration strategy, bringing together two complementary businesses and combined expertise, meaning we can be closer to our customers and have more control on our product. The combined entity is expected to deliver faster, lower risk growth with operating synergies and capital savings. Both companies bring compelling growth profiles to the merger. All in, the combination will enable us to unlock significant value creation for shareholders, enhances our position within the global lithium value chain, and our relevance to our global customer base. We will bring together the best-in-class ESG practices as we consider sustainability central to meeting the future growth of the sector. On Slide 22, recent progress on the transaction includes the lodgment of a preliminary registration statement on Form S-4. Progress is being made on the preparation of Allkem's scheme booklet and Independent Expert's Report. Other areas of progress include the preparation of SK1300 technical reports, which will update key metrics for each project. Antitrust and foreign investment notifications and applications have now been lodged. Finally, the Allkem shareholders meeting is expected to be held later in the year. Paulie, I will now send it back to you for the Q&A section. Thank you, Martin. At this time, I would like to remind everyone, in order to ask a question, press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. In the interest of time and to ensure we address as many participants as possible, we do ask you please adhere to a limit of 2 questions per person. I will pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Rahul, your line is open. Okay, we might just return, Rahul, just to the queue and move on to the next- Hi, I'm here now. Sorry. Ah! There we go. My apologies. Look, I just had one quick one on the depreciation side. Just, the numbers for me today were a bit higher, the reported numbers versus, what I had in the estimates. Perhaps one for Christian. I guess some of that is starting to come in from Stage Two. Is that the right way to think about it, Christian? How should we think about the run rate going forward? Hi, Raul, thanks for your question. Not really. The, the main driver for that, I guess, this proportional depreciation that came through relates to the capital at waste being amortized from Mt Cattlin. You remember, as we move into second northwest, what we do is we capitalize all this pre-strip, and then as we start effectively producing and selling that product, we just unwind that through the P&L. That's the main reason, Raul. Okay. In terms of a look-forward run rate, Christian, any sort of guidance there? Well, as, as we get into, into FY24, there's still a little bit of that capitalized waste to run through the P&L. Beyond that, you know, the, the expected depreciation that you would have seen in, in the prior years will remain comparable from a unit cost perspective. Gotcha. Okay, perfect. My second question was just around pricing. Perhaps a bit of an update in terms of markets, a lot of volatility that we're seeing, obviously, in not just the futures, but also, you know, EU, US, South America pricing, and then also the China pricing for carbonate. How do we think about sort of two things? Firstly, in terms of the nature of the contracts going forward, in terms of stability or pricing that you get for the next quarter or six months. What is the feedback that you're receiving from your customers at this point? Are you starting to see some pressure on that pricing side? Thanks. Thank you, Rahul. I'll ask Christian Barbier to step in on this one. Thank you for the question, Raul. Good morning. Look, there's a lot of elements in the questions that you've asked. Firstly, is the business sentiment in China, which has been affected, this year by the a lower GDP growth and by the state of the real estate market, and you know how much this influences sentiment in China. However, what we've seen is that the battery supply chain and the EV industry has always historically fared better than the average economy. We still are with about 35% growth year on year in EV registrations in China. In terms of pricing, as you noted, there is volatility in the price, and there has been for some months. It is still a relatively immature industry, where buyers try to put pressure on the sellers, and sellers try to take advantage of the buyers whenever they can. That induces volatility. The price the spot price in China over the last few months has been fluctuating between probably something like $25 and $45, continues to fluctuate. What we see, however, is first, a very, a very healthy market, a very healthy market fundamentals, I should say. A market that is growing year-over-year, and a steady, steady growth, despite again, some concerns about the economy. 35% year-over-year, looking in the U.S., over 50% growth year-over-year. In Europe, in a difficult economic environment, still growth. I also want to note that in India, EV have passed the 2.5% market share, which, you know, for, for a country like India is, is very promising. We also have low inventories in the supply chain in China, and this is why, the fundamentals remain healthy. Lastly, a pretty fair level of profitability along all the steps in, in the supply chain. So your question about contracts, and what we can expect in terms of pricing, all I can say is that we expect our prices to reflect the market conditions at, at the time of, of delivery. You, you will also have noted that over the last few quarters, we have registered a, a weighted average price above our peers and above the, above the market regularly, quarter on quarter. That's, that's all I would say on prices at this stage. Just one follow-up there. In terms of the structure of the contracts, I mean, if you look at it, the portfolio holistically, are we now fair to assume that, you know, you're a spot plus 1 month, spot plus 2 months type of portfolio with quotational pricing, in terms of delivery times into China? Or, do you have lagged contracts as well, that are still sizable in the portfolio? Yeah, we still have lagged contracts, but really, it's a portfolio that has various types of formulas. We do have formulas that are closer to the to the time of delivery. Or yeah, about the time of delivery and others that refer to the time of shipment. So quite a variety, and also a variety of indices used. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you very much, Tim. I'll pass it on. Your next question comes from the line of Kaan Peker from RBC. Your line is open. Good morning, Martín and team. Couple of questions on the James Bay resource update. See that both Mt Cattlin and now James Bay use a long-term price of $1,500 per ton for spodumene. Has Livent's view on that long-term spodumene price fed into this? I'll circle back on the second one. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. This, this is only based on, on, on our internal views of, of the prices. It's, as, as you know, until the, the approval transaction is, is signed off, we remain as two independent companies. It is our view on, on pricing. Sure. Just part of that, how much of that resource update has come about from the long-term price increasing? I'll, I'll, I'll pass it on to James to, to address that, detailed question. Please, James. Yeah, thank you for the question. The, the resource is underwritten by $1,500 as a conservative effort. Okay? We applied a revenue factor on our long-term metals price of about 75% to get us to that $1,500, and that's to build an, a robust economic mine. We're not doing our price forecast on that. Our, our sales and marketing team under Christian will provide those to us in terms of our cash flow modeling. Let's not confuse what that $1,500 is there for. It's to create robust long-term mines where we don't have to go restate this resource. Sure. The important part is the largest part of the increase in reserves and in resources in James Bay is a direct consequence of the drilling campaign that was performed during the year. It's a great asset. Yeah, it's a good outcome. Just if I've understood that well, that 1,500, is essentially 75% of sort of the long-term price, which suggests about $2,000 a ton of spodumene. For a full year. Yes. Yes, for a full year asset- Sure that's what we're doing. Okay. Also, just wondering, on the resource, the sort of overall plant recoveries, for James Bay are expected at 71%, and they sort of declined to 67%. That's part of what was released in the resource update. Can you provide some detail on what's driving that decline? Thanks. That's more a grade relationship that we've done. You'll also notice that part of our recommendations in there is to test composites below 0.5 cut of a grade. That was the lowest composite sample we had. As we extend that down, we hope to improve those recoveries on, let's say, the lower grade samples and improve that recovery going forward. A lot of test work for us to do, especially with this, the northwest sector, to confirm and to potentially bring more into the resource. Sure, that's great. Appreciate it. I'll pass it on. Thanks. Your next question comes from the line of Kate McCutcheon from Citi. Your line is open. Hi, good morning, Martín. On Sal de Vida, when can we expect an update for capital cost expectations and timing on first production there? Or are we still on track for mid-calendar year 2024, I think, was the last timing you gave the market. No, listen, Kate, thank you. Thank you very much for, for your question. We're finalizing the, the baseline for costs and, and timing for the project. That, that should be quickly released. We, we do expect that mechanical completion to approach more towards the end of the year and, and initial production right after that. Those analysis are, are, are coming together, and we will be putting them out within the SK1300 reports that we're updating for the merger process. Okay, sorry. Just to be clear, mechanical completion, the end of next calendar year? Yes. Okay. Then secondly, if we could get some comments on the impacts of the inflation and devaluation of the peso that we've seen recently, is that ultimately a positive thing for costs? Well, I will let Christian Cortes expand more on this. The, the initial reaction is that, you know, when devaluation runs faster than, than inflation, which is what we have seen over the last two weeks, it improves our cost performance. As we have seen in Argentina, over time, inflation, you know, regains terrain against the devaluation, and, and, and it matches the, the situation. So short term, it is positive on, on, on the cost side. Christian is, is working a lot, and lots of things have been done last year to hedge the, the peso position in Argentina. And, I tell you that we don't expect a significant negative results from, from the movement. Christian can tell you more detail about those things. Christian, please. Hi, Kate. yeah, Martín, just building up on, on a bit more detail to, to your point. we've obviously come off a, a two-year period where inflation, at local level, was running ahead, the devaluation of the local currency. In FY23, we saw that arbitrage, being around a 10%, pass on to, to real US dollar inflation terms for, for operating costs at Olaroz. as, as Martín alluded to, the immediate effect that we expect is to see some level of relief on the back of, of having that, devaluation now surpassing inflation. We don't obviously know how long that's gonna go for, but, you know, to the extent that the currency maintains relatively stable for the next few months until the elections, it would effectively mean that we have probably a good three to four-month period where we can bank some of those savings. Yeah, perfect. Okay, thanks for the color, Christian and Martin. Your next question comes from the line of Reg Spencer from Canaccord. Your line is open. Thanks. Morning, Martín. First question's around Olaroz guidance. You guys have always put forth a relatively conservative ramp-up timeline, but just looking at your guidance number for FY24, it feels like it does look a little conservative, knowing that you did do 5,000 tons in the June quarter. Is that a fair comment? Would you agree that your guidance for in the next 12 months is a little conservative? Well, Reg, yes, you can look at it that way. We always said that a ramp-up period for Olaroz Stage Two could take between 12 to 18 months, and as you know, I'm cautious on the ability to ramp up that faster than the expected time horizon. That's a way to look into it, and that's why it's also a wide range from 22-26. We feel comfortable within that range, given the stable production from Olaroz Stage 1 and what we can reasonably expect from Olaroz Stage Two. I said before, we've been through Olaroz Stage 1, so bear with us until we ramp it up completely. Okay, can I ask, Martín, is there any specific part of the process that you're most concerned about? You know, clearly you've got some good stocks of concentrated brine. You know, the front end of the carbonate plant seems to always work well, or at least it certainly did in stage one. You know, are there any specific parts of the process where you're more concerned than others, and that's what's driving that caution? No, listen, we incorporated some new improvements to the process, particularly in carbonation reaction and the filter pressing and else, and it all worked very well with the initial performance that we got from Stage Two. It's just being conservative on the issues that may happen as you ramp up volumes in a plant that operates at 4,000 meters height when you have 2 plants in parallel. You know, there are a few things that may create some potential interference between 2 plants. It's just getting familiar with that and, you know, getting the team used to running both processing in parallel, what makes us think conservative. We feel pretty confident with, with the process, and, we already tested, the carbonation reaction, filter pressing, and, and it all goes very well in, in stage two, and very good results and, you know, first attempt, we've got a good quality product. Excellent. Thanks, thanks, Martin. Just lastly, upcoming election, based on what I can read in the media, the front runner would appear to be, how should I describe this? Non-conventional or a little bit outside of the lanes when it, especially compared to the existing politics there. If Milei wins this election, do you think we could see any changes to any of the legislation or tax or royalties or anything like that? What might the potential implications be for, you know, synergies to be developed with Livent's operations? Well, I think quite a lot of questions in one, right? I'll try to answer them. Let's stick with the first one. We'll stick with the first one. Yeah. First one, yeah, yes, he's a newcomer. He was not of the. You know, he, he, the, the, the winner of the primary elections had only a couple of representatives in the legislative power in the few, in the last election. You know, it, it has been a surprise to all politicians in Argentina, the amount of support that he have had in the primaries. It also was to mention that only two-thirds of the people that had to vote, did vote. It's still an open end for, for the election. What I would consider as a positive from the results of the primary, is that all three running up candidates, you know, the most, the largest one, has been around percent, and then the shortest party is official government with around 25%. When you look at the overall offering, all three candidates have manifested the support of the lithium industry, and quite supportive of Argentina continuing to export and grow in lithium. Based on the results, I don't foresee problems or challenges, neither for Allkem nor for the merger with Livent. With regards to economic measures, it's a bit of, I'll tell you, of confusion now of what every one of the parties would like to say, would, would like to do. What we are seeing is more than 50% of the votes have been on right side candidates, that have been announcing government austerity measures and reaching fiscal balance and unifying the foreign exchange. That I think is going forward, a positive news, coupled with the support that all three candidates have manifested for, for the lithium industry. Okay, excellent. Excellent, That's great. Thanks, Martín. I'll, I'll pass it on. Your next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Good morning. A couple questions for me. First, you know, we're seeing conversion margins really get smaller as the weeks go on here. What are your views on that, and how that may impact spodumene pricing, lithium pricing? What are your views on that, and what it may impact the industry? Thank you, Joel. Christian, Barbier, I think you, you're better positioned than me to answer that one. Yes. Good morning, Joel. Thank you for the question. Look, conversion has always been a business with relatively limited constraint margins. You have a feedstock and you're producing a chemical. So depending on the speed of growth of one chemical versus another, prices can fluctuate in different directions, and carbonates and hydroxide can fluctuate in different directions. Likewise, the supply and demand balance between each segment in the supply chain can, can affect the margins, especially in the conversion process, which is probably the one that, if you're not integrated, is more susceptible to fluctuations in terms of margin. That's probably all I, I, I would say at, at this point. You know, there's, there's still a need for conversion. There will always be a need for conversion. Conversion, converters in, in China at the moment, are still, are still profitable, albeit from one month to another. They, possibly at, at different levels of profitability. You know, everyone in the supply chain is, is making money. I'm, I'm not too concerned about the situation. Okay, you gave some cost guidance for Mt Cattlin for fiscal 2024. Could you give us an idea of maybe how Olaroz cost, cash costs may fare in 2024 relative to fiscal 2023? Yeah. Thank you, Joel. Christian, you can explain the, the cost evolution in Olaroz. Hi, Joel. the, the challenge of, of providing cost guidance on Olaroz, it comes down to the stage of where we're at now with, effectively- completing and ramping up the expansion at Stage Two. Our estimate currently is, we'll continue to see costs similar to where we closed in the previous quarter. However, that comes with a caveat as to obviously depending on how the yields are looking like from the new plant. If I could slip one more in. When we think of Quebec and Canada, I mean, you've got with Livent two big projects you're pushing through. You know, one project has some government involvement already with IQ, one doesn't. I mean, how does James Bay, does it have to be where Whabouchi or Nemaska has to go first, considering the involvement with the government, just may politically work out better, and James Bay has to be slowed down a bit to focus on Whabouchi first? Or how do you think about that? We, we don't see any, how to say, any, any implication from one project into the other. Both projects are moving forward, and the expectation is to continue to move them forward at the speed that we both have planned, Livent and with the Whabouchi mine and up with the James Bay project. We think James Bay is a, it's a great asset, has demonstrated a great upside opportunity, and we want to start developing it as quickly as we can. We're in the final stages of the approvals, and we don't foresee government involvement as any reason to speed up or delay one project or the other. It's, both projects have to go in as quickly as possible because the demand in North America is going to be very large. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Matthew Freedman from MST Financial. Your line is open. Sure. Thanks. Morning, Martin and team. Maybe while we're talking on that point of James Bay, can you remind us exactly where you're up to in the approvals process? Obviously, the COMEX approval is still outstanding, and you mentioned IBA as well. Can you expand on that? Also, whether the resource updates that you've, you've, you've announced, whether that has any impact or whether you would contemplate any changes, in, in that approvals process, as a result of that growing resource? Thanks. Thank you very much, Matthew, for your question. Listen. As I said before, we in the month of January of this calendar year, we secured the approval from the federal government. That approval came with a series of requests to complete certain studies that have all been completed and done. We're in the final stages of approval with COMEX, and all of the questions have been answered, and COMEX is just in into the final process of processing the resolution and issuing the approval. We expect that to happen soon. However, COMEX does not have a timeline as as the federal government does. With regards to the IBA, it's also in the final stages, and we have had to delay twice a public hearing with the community of Eastmain on the, on the IBA because of the, the, you know, the, the need to evacuate the city of Eastmain as a consequence of the, of the wildfires. Communities have come back to, to the houses over the last two weeks, and we expect to be able to complete this public hearing with the community on the IBA shortly. With those things completed, final stages of approval of IBA and COMEX, you know, clearly, shouldn't be a long time until we, we get the final approval and go ahead on the project. However, as I've said before, the COMEX does not have any deadline on the time they can take to approve the things. I think we've seen that, we secured federal approval in January, and we're still working with COMEX on finalizing the process. With regards to whether the project will change as a consequence of the new resources announced, no, the project in its initial stage, remains at the 40,000 tons per annum capacity, and the development of these resources will be something that we'll look into after initiating the development of the first stage of James Bay. I don't want to delay the project anymore. I just want to move it as quickly as possible. Thanks for that, Martín. Sorry, can you just remind me, is it still your intention to, I guess, publish an update, in terms of CapEx and, and timing and, and costings, et cetera, once you've received all those relevant approvals? Will that be, I guess, irrespective of, of the timing on the merger discussions? Yes. You, you will see an update, which we expect to come across, close to the, the, the assurance of, of the final approvals, but should be coming for, for the merger discussions. We are updating all of our JORC and NI 43-101s into SK1300s, and that will come. I will take advantage of that to update costs and schedules for all the projects, as I said before, with the case of Sal de Vida. Okay. That's, that's very helpful. Thank you for that. Maybe just quickly, Christian gave some commentary and color before around how you're seeing pricing in terms of your products in the September quarter. Can I just ask, in prior quarters, you have withheld on spot sales and chosen to build inventories in into a falling market or into volatile pricing environments. Can we expect that that's still the strategy and that you'll continue doing that where appropriate? Yes, Matthew Freedman, this is Christian Cortes. Thanks for the question. Look, we, we have no withheld on spodumene sales. We, we had withheld on carbonate sales, but the pricing wasn't attractive and demand was very soft. We, we explained that we would release tonnage as pricing conditions are better, and this is what we have been doing over the last couple of months. During the course of this quarter, you can expect to see a reduction of the level of inventory, which we expect will continue into the December quarter. We will always do this progressively without compromising the average selling price. Got it. That's very clear. Thanks for taking my questions. Your next question comes from the line of Al Harvey from J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Good morning, Martín and team. Just on the Olaroz guidance, just wanted to get a sense if you're able to provide the battery grade split that you're expecting in that guidance. Obviously had a very strong final quarter, but that was with a relatively low battery grade share. Maybe any guidance there, or if you can remind us, your contractual obligations on providing battery grade spec carbonate from Olaroz. you know, for, for the exact number of battery grade, I have to divert it to Christian Javier. What I can tell you is that all of the battery grade that we are producing is what the customers are requiring, and according to the contracts that we have. I estimate we'll have a similar quantity as we had last year of battery grade, but Christian, you can correct me on that one. Yeah. Look, Al, we are producing both battery grade and technical grade as per demand from our customers. But also if, and if your question comes from the spread between battery grade and technical grade in spot prices, I probably would not focus excessively on this, because from one contract to another, performance can change. Looking at the split battery grade versus technical grade in our sales may not be necessarily a good indicator of what future price performance will be. Yeah, thanks. I, I guess I was just trying to get a bit more of a sense on yields. I mean, I guess the primary grade spec product does tend to yield better, so I was just trying to get a guide there. Yeah, I think I'll leave it there. What I can tell you is that all of the production from Olaroz Stage Two is going to be technical grade. You know, we'll continue to produce similar grade on battery from Olaroz Stage 1. Sure. Thanks, Martine. Your next question comes from the line of Mitch Ryan from Jefferies. Your line is open. Morning, Martine and team. Thank you for taking my question. I note that, earlier this month, you announced the new Topco board, which has proposed 12 members. If I look across, and it's not an exhaustive list, but I, I compare it to BHP at 10, Albemarle at 10, SQM at 8 members, Pilbara at 6. You know, the only company that I've seen is, is Rio at 13. I just wanna understand why that's the appropriate number of board members, and is it reflective of complexity within the business, that requires that sort of skilled matrix? Well, thank, thank you for, for your question. Mitch, it's, I think you have to consider this in the context of a merger. It's, it's two companies are coming together and maximizing the expertise that is coming from, from both sides. It's important. It's not going to be a definitive number, but it's something that the board will, will evaluate over time. What is the right number of, of board members that the new company will have? Initially, I think it's, it is the right decision because it enables both companies, you know, to keep as much as, as the legacy and track record that they can have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for taking my question. Your next question comes from the line of Hugo Nicolaci from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Morning, Martine and team. Thanks for taking the question. Maybe just one for James and then kind of a follow-up on James Bay. I was just wondering if you were able to provide a bit of timing, clarity, just around the potential for converting the updated resource to reserve. Appreciate you doing another drilling campaign from November, but just when we should think about kind of getting that update in terms of timing. Yeah. Thanks, Hugo, for the question. We are planning in this winter season to do a lot of the conversion around the northwest sector, whilst we focus on extensions of the zones. I'll remind you that this was discovered undercover, and so we're pretty exciting about the rest of the deformation corridor. To your point, we know the spacing that we know the spacing and angles we need to attack this beast at. We're targeting this season, so we can get the spacing in accordance with what's required to bring it into an Indicated category, and we look forward to bringing it to, to our board, within the next year, in 2024 itself. Obviously, we'll finish up drilling March, April, and then we'll, we'll, we'll get going with the resource update and potentially look at what that looks like for a, from a reserve perspective as well. That'll be early days. Great. Thanks a lot. Just to clarify then, it sounds like about this time next year, that we'll probably get that next sort of set of updates then? Exactly. Hopefully find a north northwest. Yeah, hopefully. Good luck. Next one, just around that then would be, just around obviously, you know, James Bay and, and part of the kind of rationale for the merger with Livent was the ability to feed James Bay products through kind of an already permitted and, and in construction hydroxide facility. To the extent that James Bay is now obviously a considerably larger size resource, what are the considerations that you might contemplate in terms of, you know, feeding James Bay material through a different facility, versus now maybe building something standalone for James Bay, given the size? Thanks. Those are still considerations that we're, we're hosting internally. We are, we are looking at its own site versus a Bécancour site. We'll carry on with these studies and preserve the optionality going forward. We won't pin ourselves down into any one case, but yes, sites are, are open to us, and there are more logical sites out there. Great! Thanks for that. I'll pass it on. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of David Fang from CICC. Your line is open. Oh, morning. Morning, Christian and team. Thanks for taking my question. Just a quick question regarding your volume guidance for all of us. Maybe have any ballpark breakdown for stage one and stage two volume for us, just to better understand your expectation for the ramp up? Shall we expect around 9,500 tons amount-based volumes to be delivered to Naraha during FY24? Thank you. Thank you, David, for your question. A couple of things on that. The, yeah, as you know, there's some interference in the demand for brine from both plants. So, you know, giving you a pretty detailed split until seeing how both plants operate and work together, it's, it's, it's a bit difficult. And, as I said before, we have factored in a wide variety of ramp-up ranges for both Olaroz Stage Two into the guidance. You know, I expect a very similar and robust production as we had this year for Olaroz Stage 1. And, you know, most of the wiggle room within the range coming from Olaroz Stage Two, that, that's, that's a good way to look into it. However, there's going to be some interference between both assets. On the other question, yes, Naraha is able to produce at full capacity now. The plant has been ramped up to full capacity and demonstrated its ability to produce at a good quality at that level. However, the final demand for Naraha is going to be determined by the amount of battery-grade hydroxide contracts that we sign following the qualification process that is taking place now. That is what will finally determine total demand from the Naraha plant. Okay. Thanks a lot, Carlo Martin. That's really helpful. I'll pass it on. As we are approaching the end of the session, our next question will be our final question. If you do have any further questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to the investor relations team. Your final question comes from the line of Ben Lyons from Jarden Securities. Your line is open. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Just one question on the mining physicals at Mount Catlin, please. Noting on this call last year, it was indicated that that elevated strip ratio that we've been observing of pretty close to 13 to 1, would revert back to a number much closer to 1 to 1. Now, obviously acknowledging that mine plans are organic beasts, just note the comment on the guidance slide that we should now expect a higher strip ratio profile due to that Stage Four cutback coming into the mine plan. Can you please confirm what strip ratio is embedded in the unit cost guidance of $850 for this year, and how that strip ratio profile performs over the remaining 4-5 year life of mine for the open pit operations? Thank you. Thank you, Ben, for your question. Liam will answer that in detail to you, but strip ratio analysis is in line with what we announced for the open pit for Stage Four. Liam, please. Liam, you're silenced. We can't hear you. If he's not available, Martin, I, I can follow it up post the call. Yes, we'll, we'll follow up. I'll ask Liam to, to give you a detailed call on that one. This strip ratio that you are seeing on the cost is pretty much in line with strip ratio that we are foreseeing for Stage Four. Yep. Okay. Right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ben. As that does conclude our Q&A session, I would like to hand back over to Martín for closing remarks. Thank you very much, Paulie. As I said, our achievements today demonstrate the commitment of our team to deliver sustainable production and development across our global portfolio. We remain dedicated to keeping this momentum in the future. If you have any further questions, please contact our investor relations team. Thank you. This does conclude the conference call. You may disconnect.