I will now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Darryl Cuzzubbo, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead. Thanks, Darcy. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you again for joining us for another quarterly investor briefing. It is our pleasure to provide you with an update on what has been a very busy quarter. With me, as usual, is Peter Sherrington, our CFO, and Tommie van der Walt, our Chief Projects Officer. Similar to previous updates, what I'd like to do is just talk to a few external events that continue to shape developments in the rare earth sector, which we need to be mindful of as we work to secure the best outcomes for your company. What we'll also do is cover off on a couple of achievements during the quarter and why they are significant before turning to how we're progressing towards FID, which as per the last quarter update, we are still targeting to achieve FID this quarter. Keeping to that time will enable us to start construction next quarter. I'll then hand over to Peter to provide an overview of key financial events for the quarter, and then Tommie will talk about our execution readiness, and in particular, the focus that we have on recruiting the right people, having well-developed plans that we're ready to execute, and making sure that we secure the most commercially competitive contracts possible for when the FID flag drops. At that point, we'll open up to Q&A. Let me just start by a few key developments in the market. First, you might have noticed that the NdPr price has varied during the quarter between AUD 100-AUD 130 a kilo on the Asian Metal Index, which is around the floor pricing that has been set by the U.S. government and more recently by the Japanese. The independent Benchmark Mineral Intelligence index continues to track above the Asian Metal Index by about AUD 10 a kilo. If you look at our website, you'll see that we track both of those indices in terms of pricing, so you can get a daily update. What we're seeing around pricing gives us a level of confidence that China's control over pricing is being reduced through the introduction of floor pricing and other mechanisms. As a sector, we continue to believe that moving volumes to a pricing index such as BMI, which is completely independent and transparent and hence can be trusted by investors to reflect market fundamentals. It's also important to note that S&P Global Platts have also introduced their own rare earth pricing index for supply into the U.S., which is great to see. Over the quarter, we saw Lynas announce a deal through which it has largely locked in its current volumes with Japan until 2038 with a floor price of AUD 110 a kilo and a profit-sharing arrangement above AUD 150 a kilo. This was important because as we were negotiating our final off-takes, we were engaging with some of the same parties that Lynas was. As you can imagine, it was always going to be hard to get a well-priced off-take while Lynas's volumes were on the table. As I said in our last investor update, securing well-priced off-take agreements that reflect the changing price dynamics will play a significant role in setting the value of your company, essentially for the next decade. Hence, it's always been important to get the best possible outcome here rather than the quickest outcome. At the end of March, we saw the Australian government announce that they had passed legislation through both houses in supporting the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve. This is providing a very wide-ranging mandate to the government Export Credit Agency, Export Finance Australia, to execute agreements for the purchase of critical minerals, including rare earths, to be held as part of the reserve. The Australian government actually did this well ahead of time. Where they'd flagged that they would do this by the end of June, they actually did it by the end of March, which I think is a bit of an illustration of how important the Australian Government sees this. Lastly, in terms of macro developments, you know, we're seeing elevated fuel prices due to the Iranian war, and they have been a catalyst in increasing demand for electric vehicles, which, as you know, is the biggest growth driver for rare earths over the next decade. In China, which is the largest automotive market in the world, EVs have now achieved price parity with conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, and in many cases are cheaper. In fact, there's this article just last week that refers to two-thirds of EVs being cheaper than a typical internal combustion engine vehicle. Last week, Chinese battery manufacturer, CATL, announced a new EV battery with a range of up to 1,500 km and a charging time of less than 10 minutes. The reason why I point these out is that you can see that these developments is going to increase the demand for EVs as economies of scale tip from internal combustion engines towards EVs. Let me now just turn to a couple of milestones that were achieved by Arafura during the quarter. We announced our partnership with Clean TeQ Water to assess a lower cost and more effective way of separating rare earths, with a particular focus on what is possible with heavy rare earths from Nolans. We're in the middle of doing trials on this. As mentioned in previously, previous quarterlies, we want to recover additional heavies from the Nolans Project, from the waste liquor recovery stream and process them to a separated rare earth similar to what we're doing with NdPr, rather than selling heavies as part of a SEG heavy rare earths combined product. The reason for this is that we will get a better pricing arrangement for bundling lights and heavies together. That's for two reasons. Firstly, you know, we all are very aware that China has traditionally controlled about 90% of NdPr. They've traditionally controlled about 98% of heavies. Supplier risk of heavies is even greater than the supplier risk for lights. Furthermore, as we see emerging magnet manufacturers outside of China, they today don't have the capability or the technology equivalent to China. They need more heavies in the mix in order to make a magnet that performs as well as a Chinese magnet. We see demand for heavies going up and supplier risk being greater. Hence why we want to increase our heavies and sell heavies as a bundled product with our lights to get the best possible pricing from the market. This project to produce and process heavies is separate to our phase one, and it will be subject to a different decision point, and we expect to make that decision sometime after calling FID for phase one. Pursuing this value creation option, however, in parallel with phase one, is helping us secure remaining off-takes on the most favorable terms possible. During the quarter, we also announced our compensation deed agreement with the pastoralist who owns the land on which the Nolans Project is situated. You'll note that the agreement involves Arafura issuing the pastoralist with shares, while he also saw fit to invest his own money to increase his holding in Arafura. This is a super clear demonstration of the alignment and the support that we have from the landowner, which is, of course, incredibly appreciated and important, particularly as we look to starting construction shortly. It also puts us on a very strong footing as we look to progress future opportunities with our pastoralist, such as progressing phase two. Now let me talk about FID. As already mentioned, we continue to target this quarter for calling FID, which will enable us to start construction next quarter. Although this isn't completely in our control, we are increasingly confident that this will happen. There are two main tasks that we've previously flagged as needing to achieve in order to call FID. Firstly, we spoke about being fully funded. Given we are over 90% funded and we have multiple options to close that gap, including equity from cornerstone investors and equity potentially tied to off-take, we're very comfortable in achieving this. This is not the primary precursor to calling FID. The last remaining and primary precursor to calling FID is to secure one more off-take agreement so that we have a clear line of sight to satisfy the lender's requirement of having 80% of our production accounted for through off-take agreements. As we've been consistent on saying this, it is important to us that this is on an independent and transparent pricing index where pricing reflects market fundamentals, which as you know, are currently very strong and we believe will get even stronger in the future. We have been having multiple engagements in relation to placing additional off-take, and we basically said to the different parties, "Whoever gets there first gets the off-take." We remain steadfast in our commitment to achieve this in time to take FID this quarter. With that said, I'm now going to hand over to Peter to talk to progress during the quarter from a financial perspective. Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Darryl. In March, shareholders would have noted that the company executed binding agreements with two cornerstone investors for subscriptions totaling approximately AUD 230 million. The respective investments were for EUR 50 million from KfW, which manages the German Raw Materials Fund, and $100 million from Export Finance Australia. The strong support from these two state-backed funds provided another indication of the strategic importance of the Nolans Project and what we see is its critical role it's playing in facilitating diversified rare earth supply chains. The investment by the German Raw Materials Fund and EFA were done largely on similar terms and conditions. There was significant alignment between the two investments. Both were at an issue price being at the lower of the VWAP for the 20-day trading period prior to each respective subscription agreement being executed, less a 10% discount or at any lower price per share for shares offered to third-party investors in the lead up to the completion of the KfW and EFA investment. The two investors have their respective conditions precedent, there is some similarities between them that must be satisfied prior to settlement. These include, in the case of German Raw Materials Fund, FIRB approval, given that it's a foreign entity. Both investors require the project to be fully funded. Execution or contractual close of the debt project finance facilities as part of that fully funded solution. Importantly, shareholder approval of the facilities, which is a requirement before they can be issued. Additional cornerstone investment has also been secured with the National Reconstruction Fund for a AUD 200 million convertible note facility. The terms for the convertible note have been agreed under a binding term sheet, but we're currently in the process of advancing to a final agreement. Importantly, the final agreement, in addition to the convertible note agreement, will also require a subordination deed between NRFC and the project finance lenders. It's important that the senior debt facilities do not become subordinated to the NRFC facility agreement. That subordination deed is advanced, and there's largely significant agreement between the two parties around the completion of that document. Last year, the company completed a capital raising of AUD 480 million, significantly de-risking the equity funding required for the Nolans Project. At the 31st of March, we had a cash balance of AUD 561 million. The subscription agreements with the German Raw Materials Fund and EFA combined with the NRFC convertible note and cash represents funds on hand or binding commitments of around about AUD 911 million. Taking into account these cash holdings and commitments and the project financing, the company requires just a further $134 million to fully fund the project. This represents 10% of the total project funding required. The cornerstone equity commitments, along with the debt financing facilities, place Arafura in a strong position to achieve financial close for the project and the Final Investment Decision in this current quarter. That's the key points from financing and project funding during the quarter. I'll hand over to Tommie, who'll talk about project execution. Thank you, Peter. From my perspective, the top three priorities for the Nolans Project at this time remain, number one, getting the right people in the right roles doing the right work, the focus on project execution readiness, and ramping up the procurement process to be ready for execution after the FID announcement. Now, the establishment of a highly capable Arafura owners team and Hatch EPCM team is critical to ensure our project success. Over the last few months, solid progress has been made to identify and recruit the key owners team members. Currently, there remains only one role to be filled. Good progress there. The Hatch EPCM team has mobilized all the required key resources and have configured the project and the EPCM tools to project requirements. The focus of the team has been on developing the project execution plan and setting up for execution readiness. Key milestones achieved towards project execution readiness over the last couple of months include the acquisition of the existing 208-bed accommodation camp that's been established on-site previously and managed through a rental agreement. This will substantially reduce accommodation costs and enable the efficient and timely camp readiness to support the initial construction works. The scope of work to commission the camp is underway, and it's part of the site reinstatement scope. Key activities for this is, it typically includes the recommissioning of critical site services, for example, raw water supply, potable and wastewater treatment, temporary water, sorry, power supply, et cetera. Development of a procurement strategy which builds on continuous market engagement with key equipment suppliers and constructors over the past two years. This positions the company to accelerate the execution of the competitive tendering process right post-FID, noting that some long lead and specialized items are readily available and were already secured as part of the company's early works program. Thirdly, standardized project controls and reporting have been implemented, and a project advisory committee has been established with a monthly condense. The committee has been designed to lean into the experience and mega-project expertise of key stakeholders, including members from the board, Hatch, and select experts as required. In summary, we are doing the work and implementing the systems to ensure we best position the company to safely execute the Nolans Project with best commercial outcome for the business. Thank you. I'll now hand back to Darcy to close. Thank you. If you'd like to ask a question via the phone, you need to press the star key followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. For the sake of time today, we kindly ask that you please limit yourself to two questions per person and then rejoin the queue if you have any further questions. If you would like to ask a question via the webcast, please type your question to the Ask a Question box and click Submit. Your first question today comes from Daniel Morgan from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hi Darryl and team. Offtake discussions appear to be, you know, pretty key to next steps. Can you expand on these at all? You know, how many parties are left in the process? What can you say about them, if anything, i.e., are they OEMs or governments or related entities? What can you expand on offtake? Look, we have engaged with multiple parties, right? It's obviously won't go into specifics. What I would say is, you know, we've got off-takes into Korea, we've got off-takes into Europe. We are focused on getting a off-take into the, into the U.S. and engage with multiple parties to do that, and they're all progressing with some sort of competitive tension to get this done, which is why we are confident we believe we'll land it this quarter. Just might add there, Darryl. Thank you. for the European engagement. The discussion is primarily with the tier ones, with the component makers, but it's actually a co-coordinated engagement along with their OEMs as well. The OEMs in particular, there are a number of them who want to build diversified value chains, and they're encouraging their tier ones to come with some non-China solutions for magnets. We're working along the value chain with the tier ones, some coordination with the OEMs and then also engagement with the magnet makers and the tier ones to build up a value chain solution and a pricing solution that can be put to the OEMs as part of a project quote. Probably gives you a bit of an insight as to the engagement in Europe. U.S. is a little bit different. As Darryl mentioned, we've probably seen some opportunities emerge there out of the activities within the U.S. that we hadn't really seen prior to this. We're looking to sort of capitalize on that as well alongside that European engagement. Thank you for those perspectives. Is, as part of these discussions, a final equity piece gonna be linked or planned to be linked to these off-takes, or is that a varied discussion? Thank you. No, so yeah, that is definitely part of it. Daniel, in some cases it comes with strings attached, right? We will take the equity if it's, I'm gonna call it clean, but if it comes with strings attached, we actually don't need it, right? We'd like it, but not if it comes with strings attached that make it difficult to progress the company, difficult to progress to phase two, et cetera. I think we're in a good position to take the equity if it's clean. Very, very clear. Thanks Darryl and team. Thank you. Once again, if you'd like to ask a question on the phone, please press star one and wait for your name to be announced. Your next question comes from Graham Mazatelli, who is a private investor. Please go ahead. Hi Graham, your line is now live. Pardon me, there seems to be some technical difficulties with Graham's line. Once again, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Thank you. We have a follow-up question here from Daniel Morgan from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hi, hi team, back again. Just, once we do have finance, and we reach FID, what is the timeline from that moment through to execution? How, you know, how ready are you to start, clearing and, pouring concrete, et cetera? Yeah. Let me make a comment, and then Tommie jump in, right? What we flagged previously was that, four months, we expect to start construction about four months after calling FID, which gives us enough time to go out and get competitive tenders on critical path items such as the early earthworks. We'd expect to see activity on site in about four months. Tommie, any other comments you'd like to make? Yeah. Just Daniel, the planning, the project execution plan has been completed very recently, and I think it's got a pretty serious focus on procurement and how the competitive procurement process is gonna work out. We are gonna focus on getting the best commercial value for Arafura, and if that takes a little bit longer to get to execution, so be it. This will be a competitive process. We will focus on capital efficiency and intensiveness, and that is really the first focus. As Darryl said, construction start within four months of FID is a very reasonable target and very achievable, and we're comfortable we'll reach that, but not at the cost of making poor deals. Thanks, Tommie. It's very clear. Thanks for your perspectives. Mm-hmm. Thank you. There are no further phone questions at this time. I'll now hand back over to Penelope Stonier, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, to address any webcast questions. Great. Thank you, Darcy. I'll run through the questions that have been submitted. There are some consistent and, regular questions that are coming through, so I will group some of those together. First, we have a question from John Parkinson of Rare Earth Exchanges. Darryl, given China's impending restrictions on sulfuric acid exports, a critical reagent, as we know, for many rare earth processing flow sheets, can you please explain why the Nolans Project is structurally advantaged relative to other deposits? Secondly, are you seeing customers recognize the value of this reduced exposure to reagent supply risk in their procurement decisions, especially when comparing the Nolans Project to other ex-China producers, say, such as Lynas and MP Materials? John asked the question. He knows the project well, you can see that by the question. Thanks, John. Just for everyone on the line, we have a sulfuric acid plant as part of the scope. What that means is we import sulfur, and we turn it into sulfuric acid. We have done that for commercial reasons. That plant has a very short payback, improves our internal rate of return. Hence why it's part of the CapEx. I think where John's question goes is if sulfuric acid is difficult to obtain, the pricing is volatile. We're somewhat protected by that because we don't import sulfuric acid. We import the sulfur to make the sulfuric acid, which is I think John's point. I think the most important thing to say here is about timing too, right? Sulfuric acid is a problem today. It's not to say it's a problem in, you know, three and a half, four years' time when we're moving into production. Just need to keep timelines, I guess, into perspective there. Just, John, on your second question, do others appreciate that? I would say no. I would say that most, you know, most investors are getting up to speed in understanding rare earths. It's, as you know, quite a complicated sector. You've got projects that some go to concentrate, some go to mixed rare earths. I would say generally the awareness, the understanding of the rare earth sector, it's growing rapidly, but it's probably coming off a relatively low base. To answer your question, probably don't understand the sort of implications of having a sulfuric acid plant versus not. Great. Thank you, Darryl. I've got a question here. I've got a couple of questions from Heath Middleton. I will ask two, and then time permitting, I'll come back and ask another of his follow-up questions. Darryl, as a long-term and sometimes suffering shareholder over the last four years, and one who has participated in every share entitlement offer that has been made, we're feeling the sense, we're feeling the dilution that has been occurring over time and only just breaking even to be slightly up on investments. I'd like to understand how the board thoughts and decision-making on the last three share placements. What is their process and how are they thinking about it, particularly when these were done at a significant discount, somewhere between 12.5%-20% discount to the last prior capital raises. Why should we vote yes to this placement? If you could start with that. I'm assuming that question, Heath, is really to EFA and German Raw Materials Fund coming in. That was below the AUD 0.28, which I guess is your question. I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from on this. With EFA and the German Raw Materials Fund, the terms were a 20-day VWAP and a 10% discount, which is actually reasonable terms. However, our share price was lower when this agreement that took many months to land finally landed compared to the share price that we're seeing today. You kind of can't determine that, the timing, right? You can't determine what the share price is at any particular point in time. You can determine how the offer price was determined, which is 20-day VWAP and the 10% discount, which I would argue is actually quite reasonable. The other thing I would add, Heath, is part of the reason why share price has strengthened since the deal was done with EFA and the German Raw Materials Fund is because we made that announcement. I understand your point. I would just look to the terms that they came in at, which I think were reasonable terms. It just so happens that the share price was lower when that agreement concluded. Darryl, I might just add the other placement that perhaps Mr. Middleton is referring to, which was done at a higher discount. That was at a point where there was a significant run across all of the market. The share prices increased significantly and then there was a pullback as and when we did that last capital raise, and therefore it did impact the final discount. Yeah. Okay. The other question from Heath, and we'll return to his other questions at the end. With the turmoil going on around the world at the moment and talk about price rises, is this going to affect the project development budget? Again, it comes back to timing, right? If the Middle East, if the Iranian war was resolved in the next few weeks, it's hard to believe that that's going to have a significant impact on a project that's for three years. That's starting in a number of months' time. It depends on how long this war goes on. Tommie's done some work on the impacts of diesel as an example. Diesel prices have an indirect and a direct impact. Direct being that, you know, you've got to pay more for diesel to run equipment, and then an indirect impact in terms of high density piping costs more if diesel prices are high. In terms of the indirect impact, that will be again influenced heavily by how long this war goes on and how structurally it impacts the long-term supply of diesel. It's very hard to answer the indirect impact. To give you some sort of sense on the direct impact, if diesel prices increase by 50%, that has an impact of increasing our CapEx in the order of 5%. Thank you. Whilst we're on CapEx, perhaps this is one that Peter can answer for us. In the Q1 report, this has come from Ming Sun. In the Q1 report, increase the construction cost to $1.9 billion from $1.6 billion. Can you please clarify what the actual capital costs are, and do you have guidance as to when we can expect Hatch to finalize their CapEx bill? Yeah. Without knowing the detail behind the question, I'm assuming we're talking US dollar values. There's a $1.6 billion is the total funding requirement for the project. Which consists of the direct capital, which is roughly about $1.2 billion, but then includes financing costs, working capital costs during construction, and also includes our $80 million equity contribution to the cost overrun, which is matched by the lenders. That's a total of just under $1.6 billion. In addition to that, we have effectively contingent type facilities that we can use during construction, which includes a $80 million cost overrun account. On top of that, there's a $200 million strategic liquidity facility which can be drawn during construction and commissioning in the event of a cost overrun. There's nearly $280 million of additional facilities that are there to be drawn in addition to contingency and in addition to the $80 million cost overrun that we have. That gives us total funding available of up to $1.9, but bearing in mind the base case is a total of $1.6, including all of those working capital requirements. I'm hoping that answers the question. It just maybe going to the heart of what might have been behind it. Our CapEx estimate has stayed stable. It has not increased. Yep. I think perhaps the second part of the question is, you know, is there a point where we have a firmer view on CapEx as we execute the project? It's probably more of a question for Tommie or Darryl, I suspect. Your question was around when Hatch will have a more accurate, clearer picture of the CapEx, and that will happen after FID, a couple of months after FID because we have to go through the competitive tendering process where we get the actual prices that will influence and determine what our CapEx at that point will be. That will be a couple of months after FID, and we simply can't do it until we get those prices in for all the different aspects. Tommie, just to clarify then, just in terms of that timing. For the time being, though, there is a high degree of confidence around that CapEx number that is there, noting that through the period that there's been some market testing and engagement to confirm sort of those numbers are still relevant. Is that correct? Yeah, absolutely. The work has continued, the trending has continued, and engagements with the market-specific key suppliers, potential business partners has continued, and it at this point definitely indicates that that CapEx that we have at the moment is stable. Great. Next question. Can I- Sorry. Can I paint? Go, Darryl ... just one other comment. The reason what's behind what Tommie said is we know we will get the sharpest prices possible when everyone knows this is on. When we ask for a price, they will win or lose based on the price that we get. If we ask for a price now, it is just gonna be an estimate, because they know it will not lead to whether they're getting chosen or not. That's why we're doing this immediately after FID. Great. Thank you. The next question comes from Kim Nyong. Is the technology used by Arafura similar to that of Lynas or better? Yeah. Good question. A lot of it is similar. If you look at Lynas, they process a monazite, we process an apatite and a monazite. What we've done is we've looked at, we've looked at the challenges Lynas has had during their ramp-up, and we've changed our design. We've changed some of our equipment selection. They had a ramp-up essentially of three years. We're assuming two years, even though we're funded for three years. We're confident in two years off the back of the learnings that, you know, we've been able to, you know, learn from Lynas's ramp-up. It's always toughest for the one that goes first. I would say there's lots of similarities, and nothing with our processing technology is particularly novel. The trick is how you bring it together in an integrated way and operate it in a very stable fashion. That is, that is the challenge. Also just adding on to that, we did not just look at lessons learned from Lynas. We also looked at lessons learned from the lithium industry and other rare earth peers. It has been a comprehensive focus on learning lessons from all that came before us. It has had some significant value in how we design and how we put together our execution strategy. Thanks, Tommie. That's probably a good segue into the next question from Dave King. Firstly, I noticed that you said when the FID flag drops and not if, but when. Thank you for that certainty. It's been a long time coming. What, in regards to the EPC schedule, you touched on the ramp up of four months. In terms of the actual schedule to completion of construction and commissioning, how confident are you in the commission efficiency? And then I think sort of where this question has been coming from is referencing, as you've pointed out, Tommie, IGO taking 3.5 Years to ramp up to 50% of nameplate. You also had, Lynas took a bit longer than anticipated. Can you elaborate on that for Dave? Tommie, do you want to answer that? Yeah, sure. On our, on all our planning and all our engineering design, looking at all these lessons learned that we got and incorporated into our plan, we're pretty confident in the construction, the way we see it at the moment and the schedule that puts, that will take. Also very confident in the commissioning because starting firstly with the people we have on board. The people we have on board, specifically in the Hatch team, has been around the commissioning of Hydro-Met facilities extensively. This will not be the first time they go through this. Many of the lessons learned, these people have learned before. Because those individuals are involved, it's incorporated into the design, into the planning, into the schedule. We're pretty confident that we're gonna get the ramp up as we've planned it to way less than three years at this point. We also have the benefit of AI and improved modeling, right? Just by way of something that Lynas didn't have. Just by way of example, when you commission a solvent extraction plant, it typically takes four to six weeks for every cycle. You change your variable, and you need to see the impact of that change in variable over four to six weeks. With the use of AI and improved digital models, you can start to see that trend inside a week. There's tools available today that Lynas didn't have with their ramp up. I'd like to think again, you know, one of the first roles that Tommie's recruiting for is a commissioning director. Now that is bizarre, right? If you talk, look at most projects, they don't recruit a commissioning director three years out from commissioning. Why are we doing it? Because we want to nail it. We will change our project schedule to bring parts of commissioning forward because we see that as the highest risk part of the ramp up, and we're planning for it, we're recruiting for it now. Thanks, Tommie. Thanks, Darryl. Taking that into consideration, this question's coming from Dietrich George. When is the plant going to be operating and selling product? Did you want to answer that, Tommie? Currently the planned construction date. If we just take a very high-level view of the schedule. Whenever FID is called, four months after that, construction will start. The first four months is for mobilization and making sure we complete our competitive tendering process. The schedule is going to be around that 37 month mark. We are looking at commissioning taking anywhere between that 12 and 24 months right after that, with that additional 12 months of funded commission that we hope we will not need. Depending on when FID is called, you know, if we do the maths, where does that take us? It is about, it is around 2028, 2029. Okay. Thank you. Peter, this one's probably best directed to you. This is in terms of, from James Frankenfeld. Looking at the specific numbers, the interest of AUD 3.5 million for the quarter is that satisfactory? It equates to around 2.6%. It just seems quite light on. Would you be able to provide any comments on that? Yeah. I think I'd have to check the numbers. I know, I think the average rate that we have funds invested at was probably about 3.5% over that quarter. There's probably slightly better rates that we're achieving now. I think I'd have to check through it. I know on the schedule that we prepared in our as part of our board pack, those rates are fairly competitive that we're managing to secure. Thank you. Next question is from Andrew Ballard. Hello Darryl, Peter, and Tommie. A question regarding the US government $300 million of support. Can you confirm the use of phase two implementation, what that looks like in a way, in way of a possible secondary circuit for heavies only? Or is in toll treat in combination with Nolans increased resource processing? Are management advanced in any discussions with third-party concentrate suppliers? If so, can you provide some information regarding what the board would look like to see in phase two? Yeah. Andrew, let me answer that and Tommie, Pete, jump in. Right. There is, there's a few things going on, right? Firstly, there's the additional heavy rare earths recovery and processing that to a heavy rare earths separated oxide. There is with flagged phase two, and we've also flagged becoming a third-party processing hub. Those three projects are somewhat independent. There'll be different decision points on that. The most pressing one though is the additional heavy rare earths oxide, which I mentioned because we want to get the best pricing, right, for a bundled light and heavy rare earths. We're doing that because we've got a commercial, some commercial agency there. The other two we're in no rush to proceed with. They will be separate decision points. In terms of third-party FID, there's multiple sources for third-party FID, whether it's Mineral Sands, other rare earths projects. I don't think there's a shortage of third-party feeds. We haven't been engaging with any parties on that. Our focus is getting this last offtake done so we can secure FID and start constructing this thing. Andrew, in addition to that, what Darryl said, does not mean we are not putting together a strategy and a plan to make sure that we position the company for a regional processing hub or additional FID in the future. What's happening at the moment is. Mm-hmm as Darryl said, our focus is primarily on making sure we get FID for the Nolans Project and execute the Nolans Project. In parallel, we are preparing, shortly after FID, we will be moving on implementing a early stage study element to the project's portfolio. That will provide the structure and the discipline to go through a traditional best practice study process to make sure that we develop the additional, the additional opportunities in phase, for example, a potential phase two, a regional processing hub, third-party FID, and how all of that fits together. We have to sit back and systemically prepare for that, and then execute a proper process of studying the opportunities and make sure we find the best possible solution on how to unlock value from that. Thanks, Tommie. Thanks, Darryl. I'm going to apologize in advance if I get Jan's surname incorrect. We have two questions all put together from Jan Suchoparak. Can you please comment on the general situation of rare earths in the current global development? Are there any major changes? Can you please provide some comments in regards to how Arafura is received within the public space and more broadly the worldwide sort of rare earth space? Yeah. Sure, Jan. Just, I think, in terms of developments, firstly in the broader sector, the pricing is a big one, right? You can see, we are getting this bifurcation in pricing. That's important. It's important, I would say, that we don't stop there, that we ultimately move this sector onto an independent index that China doesn't control. If we get that, it's gonna be a lot easier to get these sorts of projects up. The second thing I would say is there's lots of projects out there that I guess are picking up on this rare earths momentum. In my view, they're not well developed. They don't go to an oxide. They're putting out timelines that I would say, personally may not be realistic. They would be short cutting the pilot process at testing, which is not what you want to do. I think we are very, very well positioned because we took from day one an ex-China strategy. As part of that, we go to an oxide, which means you can bypass China. It means that the products that leave our site are radiation free, and we truly are construction ready, right? Peter's lined up the debt. We've got most of the equity in place, two-thirds of the offtake in place. The time is right and I would argue, the current circumstances has highlighted our unique strategy of going to an oxide as being the right ones. Whereas all the other projects, bar one other one, did not pursue an oxide project. I think we're well positioned given everything that's happening. I don't know, I think there's an increasing acknowledgment of where you see a project that's making a concentrate or a mixed rare earth carbonate, and it relies on another party to recover their separated oxides, that's creating project-on-project risk. That's probably becoming better understood by offtakers at least, but also I think institutional investors as well. Just probably in terms of how Arafura is received in public, I think that's probably a nuance that perhaps 12 months ago was not well understood. Also, in addition to that, it's not just project-on-project risk, but the risk of at any time if you do not go from ore to oxide in any position in that process, you typically have to send your product to China and you break that ex-China supply chain that you're trying to create, and you become beholden to the China supply chain again. That's what Arafura, that's where Arafura's competitive edge is in positioning us from in the ore to oxide space, which prevents that. Thank you all. A couple of questions from Heath that I'm going to bunch together. Can you please clarify whether I believe you've talked about previously a potential listing of ARU on the USA markets, whether that's via an ADR or OTC? Can you please update on that process and whether that's proceeding? Separately, with now over 5 billion shares on issue, have you considered a share split or consolidation? Yeah. Maybe let me talk to those two things and then, Penny, you jump in as well. Just in terms of the U.S. listing, so we've obviously been able to pull in US investors being only ASX listed. We haven't seen it as a major barrier. However, on the assumption we secure a U.S. offtake, that will give us a different profile in the U.S. and we're going to specifically reassess whether it does make sense to have a dual listing. Just acknowledging that it does introduce additional burden and cost. You've got to weigh that up. We will assess that off the back of any U.S. offtake. Just on the second question, the share consolidation, yes, we are looking at that. I think we might have spoken to that last time. We think it probably does make sense to do that. The question is when is the right time to do that? So on the- Um- ... on the U.S. or dual listing, I suppose there's always catalysts for that. Probably retail investment is probably not the catalyst for it. Institutional investment is. We've found we've been able to secure US institutional investment without that dual listing. You know, other catalysts may be M&A activity with US assets or as Darryl mentioned, a connection with a US customer. They're probably sort of touch points that we'll look at that might be triggers for considering that as we go. Great. Thank you both. I'm going to pull together a couple of questions again, from various shareholders. Just before we do that, if you don't mind, Penelope, we had the question about the interest and understand I was just quickly back calculating how that. Mm-hmm ... term figure was calculated. 'Cause I think the shareholder mentioned it looked like it was a implied rate- Sure About 2.5%. It's actually our weighted average for funds invested is over 4.5%. I think the difference is that in the cash flow statement, we're only showing interest as it's received, not as it's accrued. That's why it's probably looks like it's lower than that 2.5% rate. 'Cause it's only showing interest that is received on maturity or payment of interest on those facilities as they mature. Okay. I'm sure that answers Frankenfeld's question well. I was saying, I'll group a couple of questions together. Really it's in regards to the final equity that's required. You have mentioned, Darryl, that you're more than 90% funded and that you have multiple pathways to the remaining equity. Can you provide some guidance as to what that may look like? Or as an existing shareholder, what we should expect in terms of potential dilution? Look, there's a reason why I specifically said in the introduction. The main task for us to complete, to call FID, is the offtake. To make sure that we get this offtake this quarter, we're pursuing multiple options that have implications on the equity. The most likely scenario is if they happen at the same time, but they may not. The equity may possibly come later. I can't answer your question because we've got multiple options that have got different implications on the equity front. Ultimately it will go to a shareholder vote. Mm-hmm. We've probably got time for two more questions as we head towards the 9:30 mark. Can you please provide some information in regards to renewable power plant at site, and what is the company considering in this space? Do you want to talk to that, Tommie? Yeah, sure. We are definitely committed to our green energy process and also to introduce as much renewable energy into our portfolio as we can. In the short term, there's definitely a high focus on a solar facility. As we move through the development of the project, and as the project matures more and we start generating revenue, we're also looking at concentrating solar-thermal power. We are looking at various different renewables to introduce into the power mix to make us more to increase the green energy that we use way more. There's definitely a plan and a strategy that will be implemented over the next couple of years, starting out with solar. Tommie, you know, you're well advanced on this independent power agreement, right? That has modular power units. You've done that, right? That you can bring in renewables, it can facilitate bringing in renewables. I think that the target on day one is 10%, but I would be very surprised if we don't do better than that. Mm-hmm. This question's come from Bernard Ho, and perhaps, Pete, you might also want to comment on this given your connections to the market. As we all know, the current high demand for rare earths is largely due to China limiting production and processing capacity. If China suddenly decides to loosen the limitations and the market takes a dive, how would you survive such a scenario? I think, Pete, perhaps if we look at that sort of short term and longer term supply, demand, constraints there, that might be able to help drive some of that information. I think the China controls at the moment are really focused on heavy rare earths. That's impacting the supply that's available to the market. There's not a lot of Western supply of heavies. You know, we're now seeing heavy rare earths for magnet FID materials like dysprosium and terbium at, you know, 5 x- 7 x prices outside of China compared to what's being charged in China. I'm not so sure if those premiums will remain at those points. Whilst there is an overall supply challenge around heavies, because China has the same issues, which is probably a driver for some of those export controls that have been put in place. As Western supply or processing capacity increases, there's probably the opportunity to create more supply there. In terms of NdPr, there are not significant controls over NdPr exports at the moment, so that's not really the driver for pricing at the moment. Really, probably the pricing has been, you know, in our view, there's been policy, particularly around quotas and so on, that has kept pricing in check. What we have seen since the floor prices were introduced is the pricing has crept up to the pricing in China has moved up to more or less align or at a slight discount to that AUD 110 floor price. That looks to be like sustainable pricing perhaps. We'll have to see. I think one of the key things to note is that on pricing, we always see that there is volatility there. We see the dominance of China in the supply chain. We've already touched on the fact that we have a phosphoric acid by-product. We've always had the clear intent to monetize that as a by-product rather than send it to waste and have to neutralize it. Mainly because we know that gives us a cash cost production that is going to be lower than most of the Chinese producers, in particular, the larger producers in China. I suppose whilst it's not our preferred position, we do know we have a cash cost advantage in a in an open market where, you know, we don't have government intervention in operations and so on. We can probably sustain a lower price for a longer period. That's probably where we see our advantage, in that we can be a lower cost producer because of that phosphoric acid product, which is a key differentiator. In the overall scheme of things, we do see that the price of AUD 110 a kilo is probably the pricing that's required for any new production that comes on stream, whether that be in China, outside of China, or a concentrate that's fed into China for processing. That's probably where we would see the natural point at which you need to incentivize new production. Right. Thanks, Pete. In short, sort of well-positioned to be able to sustain any market volatility. I think. Yep. With that, I'm now going to hand over to Darryl to close. Just before I do that, there are a number of questions that we haven't been able to get to. We will look to respond directly to those post the call. Darryl, one question that perhaps in your wrap up you can ask, you can respond to, which has had multiple requests here, is really just reiterating on when that expectation is to be able to provide guidance on FID. No, we're acutely aware that is the number one question. Look, firstly, thank you again to everyone dialing in, and all the questions that were asked. We are, as I said, acutely aware that the number one thing you want us to achieve this quarter is calling FID. We are pursuing multiple options as hard as we can. The progress that we're making gives us a high degree of confidence that we will achieve that this quarter. Anyway, thanks again for dialing in, and thanks again for your questions. Have a great day.