Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Boss Energy Update. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a 30-minute question-and-answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. In the interest of time, participants are requested to limit the number of questions to two per turn. If you have additional questions, you are welcome to rejoin the queue and will be able to ask further questions if time permits. If we run out of time and do not have time for your questions, we ask that you please call our office on 0862634494 or email boss@bossenergy.com and speak to our team. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Matt Dusci, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Thank you, Darcy. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining the call today as we talk through the Honeymoon Review and our pathway forward. We appreciate you taking the time, particularly given how busy this time of year can be. Joining me on the call is our CFO, Justin Laird. Justin and I will be both available to answer questions at the conclusion of this presentation. There has been an extraordinary amount of work completed over a very short period of time, not only to undertake the review, but more importantly, to clearly define our pathway forward. I acknowledge that this has been a difficult time and period for the company, particularly following the recognition of the challenges associated with delivering to the Enhanced Feasibility Study, or EFS. We recognize and share the disappointment that comes with that. For the team and me, this period has been focused on developing a deeper understanding of the medium to long-term challenges we are beginning to see, and importantly, identifying how we address them. Through this work, the company is developing a unique level of technical capability and intellectual property in uranium in situ recovery. This capability is now being applied to the pathway forward, which will unlock value. Turning to slide two. As part of this presentation, I'll talk to the Honeymoon Review, our pathway forward, and next steps. In terms of the Honeymoon Review, we have sufficient data and understanding to indicate that the execution of the mine plan as set out in the EFS would likely result in a material and significant deviation from the EFS in terms of life of mine production and cost. I know that this is disappointing, and I'll talk to this in some more detail. As part of this review, we have identified a pathway forward via a fundamental change to our wellfield design. This involves a new wide-space wellfield design where we could increase the residence time of the lixiviant, reduce our cost structure, unlock lower-grade mineralization, improve the production profile, and extend the mine life. This dynamic is unique to ISR mining and a Honeymoon style of deposit. There is a lot of technical detail to support this concept, and I'll talk about this during the presentation. In essence, this is a step change in both our thinking and our technical approach to work out how to best extract what we know of this deposit. Widening the space between wells in the wellfield reduces the number of wells, increases the distance the lixiviant travels in the aquifer, which ultimately increases the residence time, which in turn increases the efficiency of the leaching process. It is exciting, and we believe that we are really onto something that really transforms our thinking and the opportunity to add value. There is obviously a lot of work to be done. We are committed to a new feasibility study, which will be the basis for this redesign. This will be done in Q3 of next calendar year. As a company, we are in a strong financial position with AUD 212 million of cash and liquid assets. We will not need to raise any capital for the development and execution of this potential change to wide-spacing wellfields. In parallel, we have a strong operating team who are continuing to deliver at Honeymoon as we remain on target to achieve FY 2026 production guidance of 1.6 million lbs drummed and tracking below on C1 cost of $41-45 per pound, and all-in sustaining cost of $64-70 per pound. We are on track to deliver FY 2026 guidance. Turning to slide three. As part of the Honeymoon Review, we identified the key impacts were driven by less continuity of high-grade mineralization, the lack of overlapping mineralization, the impacts of uranium in clay horizons, or low-permeability material, which affects our ability to leach, and wellfields, which are smaller with fewer pounds under leach per wellfield. These all had an interplay with each other, which ultimately impacts life of mine, annualized production rate, and cost structure of the operation. This would have resulted in a material and significant deviation from the assumptions underpinning the Enhanced Feasibility Study, hence the withdrawal of this study. There is more information in the release. However, my preference is to spend time to talk through our pathway forward. Turning to slide four. With the review and our improved understanding of Honeymoon, the challenge was we needed to bring in low-grade mineralization into the wellfield inventory, and we need to fundamentally shift our cost structure to ensure that we can make margin on low-grade material. The potential solution is to change our approach to wellfield design to a wide spacing, which appears to be more appropriate for the Honeymoon style of mineralization. Turning to slide five. The first part of this understanding is the grade tonnage metal relationships. We know that the Honeymoon resource is sensitive to cut-off grade. If we can change our cost structure and reduce our cut-off grade, then we know we can bring sufficient inventory into the production profile and life of mine. The Honeymoon resource, when looking at low cut-offs, is relatively extensive and laterally continuous. Turning to slide six. The second part of this is the Honeymoon deposit characteristics, including we know that we have sufficient metal at low grades with good continuity, as just discussed. We have good permeability across the deposit, in which we can maintain high flow rates for extraction and injection wells. We also think we have good control on the path for lixiviant over greater distances. We have relatively good hydraulic connectivity. That is, there is no natural barrier that would disrupt or block flow. Our current understanding is that the mineralized horizons are relatively tight in the vertical sense, which prevents excessive dilution of the reagents. We also believe that we have relatively low acid consumption, given low carbonate content and low acid-consuming clays. Turning to slide seven. The image is an illustration of the Honeymoon wellfield. I thought it'd be useful to step through this quickly. The current wellfields consist of extractor and injector wells. Our current wellfields are set up on a five-spot pattern with four injectors on the outside and an extractor in the center. The injectors are spaced 40 m apart. A well house connects all of these injectors and extractor wells back to the plant. The wells are screened over the mineralized horizon. The lixiviant, which is our barren leach solution, or BLS, is injected into the mineralized formation, as shown in blue, via the injector wells. The lixiviant is passed through the formation and extracted via the extractor wells. This is called our pregnant leach solution, or PLS, which is our feed to our plant. Turning to slide eight. Although this is at an early stage, we have completed some preliminary reactive transport simulations, which essentially couples hydrogeology with chemistry for different wellfield spacing, as shown in the images. This is using leading software and science. The work is being done by Livio Renaud, who joined Boss in mid-September as our wellfield technical lead. Livio, who has a PhD in hydrogeology and geochemistry, has held roles as mining director for KATCO in Kazakhstan and previously head of technical mining department in Orano. He is our lead on this study. Turning to slide nine. The slide shows initial results from the first pass modeling. Given the characteristics of the Honeymoon deposit, we are seeing is that wide-space wellfield designs would lower our pore volume, or the number of times we have to pass the lixiviant through the volume of rock, lower our reagent consumption. Time to recover the equivalent metal is relatively insensitive and only starts to increase from about 100 m wellfield spacing, and there is significant increase in head grade of the pregnant leach solution being extracted and fed to the plant. This dynamic has all got to do with increased residence time, which is the time the lixiviant has to make contact with uranium due to increasing the wellfield spacing. This is ultimately improving the efficiency of the leaching process. Again, this is relatively unique, and we are dealing with in-situ leaching and Honeymoon deposit characteristics. Turning to slide 10. This table illustrates the key drivers between our current wellfield design and what would be our path forward as we look to optimize the designs in our wellfields. The proposed concept to increase our wellfield spacing would decrease the pore volume exchange, increase residence time, deliver similar recoveries, lower flow rates. The recovery times from total metal would be roughly similar. Decrease the capital intensity by putting more pounds under leach and spreading this capital over larger surface area, i.e., less wells and less warehouses. Lower our reagent consumption and decrease our operating cost. Provide a higher PLS head grade to the plant. That is, we would not be chasing flow to the plant, but head grade going into the plant. This all ultimately transforms our cost structure, enabling us a margin on lower-grade resource. This really is a step change. Turning to slide 11. With this pathway forward, we still have a lot of work to complete. One of these key work streams is continuing to build our understanding of the resource. We have commenced an accelerated delineation drill program in mid-September. The drilling program consists of 55,000 m at approximate drill spacing of 35 x35 m. To date, we have completed over 20,600 m with the initial focus on East Kalkaroo and Central East Kalkaroo. Turning to slide 12. We now need to take this concept, this potential pathway forward, and deliver a new feasibility study. To do this, we will execute a series of work streams in parallel to further understand and de-risk the wide-spacing wellfield design. Without going into the technical detail today, there is a substantive program of work required to support the new feasibility study. Importantly, this is a business that has successfully resolved complex technical challenges in the past, and I am confident that through this program of work and the capability in this technical team, we will be able to deliver a robust new feasibility study. Turning to slide 13. This change in approach to ISR with wide-space patterns at Honeymoon would be applicable to Gould's Dam and Jason's Deposit. Such an approach would be material to increasing the recovery uranium metal and reduce capital intensity and operating cost. We will continue to accelerate programs of work at Gould's and Jason's to unlock value by baseline data collection, securing permits, continuation of resource delineation, and extensional drilling, along with technical studies. An update on Gould's and Jason's will be provided in the next quarter. Turning to slide 14. As noted, the Honeymoon operating team are doing a great job. We are on track to deliver FY 2026 guidance. Production up to 10 December has been 357,000 pounds of drummed uranium. C1 cost and all-in cost are tracking favorable against FY 2026 guidance. Under the current wellfield design, FY 2027 production and cost estimates would be approximate to FY 2026 guidance, with the exception of increasing sustaining cost. All-in sustaining cost would likely be approximately 15% higher under such a production scenario. Turning to slide 15. There are several key catalysts as we work through this pathway and execute the programs required to deliver a new feasibility study by Q3 of calendar year 2026. We have designed the work streams into packages to provide ongoing updates as we execute this study. Turning to slide 16. In summary, I acknowledge the disappointment associated with withdrawing the EFS. Despite this challenge, the team has identified a clear path forward, one that we can generally be excited about. While we recognize there is significant work ahead to deliver the new feasibility study, this pathway has the potential to unlock value for the company. An alternative wellfield design approach has the potential to reduce our operating and sustaining cost, unlock lower-grade mineralization, improve our production profile, and extend the life of mine plants. Successful delivery of the new wellfield design at Honeymoon would also have a positive impact on our satellite deposits. In parallel, we continue to deliver strong production from Honeymoon and remain on track to meet our FY 2026 production and cost guidance. Importantly, we are in a strong financial position and are able to self-fund this pathway forward. I look forward to speaking to you again at the end of January when we come out with delivery of our quarterly results. With that, I'll now hand it back to Darcy, open for questions. Thanks, Darcy. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Branko Skocic from E&P. Please go ahead. Hey, Branko. Yeah, thanks. Good morning, guys. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity. Just a couple of quick ones from me. Obviously, a lot of things used on this new wellfield spacing design. Can you just talk about your level of confidence in this working? Is this a 50/50 probability? Maybe also some examples where this is applied in other ISR operations globally, please. Yeah. I won't give a probability because ultimately we will work through to a feasibility study. W e are confident that this is robust. Obviously, we don't have all of the data that we need to confirm it into a feasibility study, but in terms of a concept, we are confident in the concept where you're utilizing the best technical capability that we can, and it fundamentally changes our thinking. In terms of like-for-like examples, very difficult to provide like-for-like examples. There's elements of what is being proposed that work elsewhere. Ultimately, this is all coming from a knowledge base that's been built up by having people like Livio and his connectivity into the industry helping us navigate this through. It definitely hasn't been done in Australia. Why it can be done and why it's been supported by the simulations and the modeling to date has largely got to do with the geological characteristics and ultimately by improving our leaching performance, which drives a whole series of factors. I think that has to do with the complexity of actually in-situ leaching. We're combining both the mining process through the hydrogeology, but we're also combining the processing component with chemistry. Great. Yeah, second question, just on East Kalkaroo and Brooks Dam, can you just talk about the economics of developing those parts of the resource if the new strategy around wellfield spacing doesn't prove commercial? Is it economic to develop these areas under the current framework? Again, it's too early for me to comment whether it would be economic or not under an existing plan. The concept for Jason's, it would be a pipeline. It's about 12 km from Honeymoon. Capital cost into Jason's is not significant. Gould's is a larger resource, especially when you're looking at lower cut-off grades. One of the parts of the study is how do we not necessarily do pipelines, but have modular resin loading facilities that can be done cheap and cheap and also be quite mobile. That will all form part of the study. We'll be in a position to talk a little bit more about that next quarter. Maybe for point of clarification, I might miss the opening comment there, but on East Kalkaroo and Brooks Dam specifically, obviously the nearer center targets, have they all come to be a current framework? Okay, so for East Kalkaroo and Brooks Dam, that will all come under this existing feasibility study. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Regan Burrows with Bell Potter. Please go ahead. Hey, Regan. Thanks for taking my questions. Speaking on slide 10, I guess the comparison to a wider space pattern versus a tighter space pattern, obviously looks like that wider space footprint performs a lot better under your understanding. Just curious, why wasn't this viewed in the first place? On those operating metrics, Branko just asked the question before. Is anyone else employing a similar style strategy? From my understanding, the max is up to about 50 m spacings. You guys are now targeting 75 m to potentially 150 m. What confidence do you have that this is going to work? First question: why hasn't it been considered previously? I don't think we had the understanding of what we do now. It wasn't considered previously. I think with this understanding and wellfield performance, understanding how the reagents are working, understanding the hydraulic connectivity that we do have has enabled us to actually take those real values that we're seeing and feed that through this simulation. We are actually utilizing what we're seeing now and feeding that into this simulation to test this concept. In terms of like-for-like, I couldn't give you a deposit and say, "Go and visit this deposit to see that." You are correct where most wellfield spacing is probably up to 60 m, 70 m on the largest spacing. Why we think, why we believe that this will work again has to do with real-life information that we have got out of Honeymoon and the work we've done to date to test this concept. Right. If I could just squeeze one in there, could you just remind us where you are in terms of the permitting timeline for Jason's and Gould's? If this doesn't play out the way you're seeing it, what's your fallback option? Yeah. What we've talked to the market previously is we said we're accelerating Gould's and Jason's. That will still be the case. We will continue to accelerate Gould's and Jason's as a production source. In terms of timeframes, what we'll do in that Q1 next calendar year is provide a detailed breakdown of all of that. Okay. Thanks. I will rejoin the queue. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Milan Tomic from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah, good afternoon, guys. Thanks for the call. Just a quick point of clarification. Notice that in the release, you're saying all-in sustaining costs quoting at 75-80. I believe the previous guidance was 64-70. Has there been a downgrade on the cost, or is this just a mistake? Have I missed something? Yeah, hi, Milan. Justin here. There was a typo in the previous announcement, and so we've lodged a correction of that on to the ASX. There's been no change to FY 2026 production or cost guidance. Okay. We'll use 64-70 then. J ust appreciate that you are in the midst of a revised study, but I guess until that's released, how should we be thinking about longer-term production rates and costs moving forward? Obviously, you're saying it's going to be at the 1.6 million for FY 2027. Moving forward, how does that kind of number look like if you were to keep the operation running as is without the new study? Yeah. Again, this is very early so we haven't matched that profile and obviously got that production profile out of that wide spacing drilling. You mean the concept of that wide space drilling or wide space wellfields would be trying to get all of Honeymoon resource under leach, and it would transition from this current plan to this larger plan. Having larger surface areas under leach are the same and larger pound under leach are the same capital cost because you can step out that drilling means that you can turn your flow rates and still have higher PLS and get higher production rates. I'm not sure. What we provided guidance is FY 2026. Yep, we're on track for 1.6. If we're not able to deliver a successful feasibility study, then FY 2027 would look at 1.6 with all-in sustaining cost increasing. However, with the new feasibility study coming, there would be a transition from that FY 2027 as we put some level of direction in the release to this new plan. Having all of the pounds under leach and having no constraint, assuming the new feasibility study is successful, then there may be a pathway to get back to that 2.4. Understood. Maybe just one more from me. You say the wide space wellfield design is at a concept study stage. Can you maybe just elaborate on what work have you actually done to come to this alternative? Yeah. A lot of the work is through some simulation. This is software simulation with our understanding of the hydrogeology conditions that we're seeing at Honeymoon and the chemical conditions and kinetics that we're seeing at Honeymoon. That's based off the data that we have to date from Honeymoon. All right. Thanks very much. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Bullen from CGF. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Just coming back to this. I'm just struggling to understand with stepping out to 150 m. As was previously noted, most of the guys, if we look in the U.S., they're all tightening up their spacing. What is it about your resource? You've highlighted the hydrogeology, but you still. Potential for battles here and just making sure that you know where the lixiviant is going. Correct. Yeah. All of that is correct. Probably 150 m is probably too far. We're not saying we're stepping out 150 m. I think if you start to look at those curves that we're showing, somewhere in the area of 75-100 m may be appropriate. We're not in a position to say what that is yet, but when you start to step out too far, your time becomes an issue. Now, in terms of control, that is one of the variables there we have to work through. Now, what we would have to do is have more control on our wellfields. At the moment, for example, we don't have variable speed drives. Most wellfields don't have variable speed drives on their pumps. We would have to implement the smarts across this wellfield so that we would have very good control on our lixiviant, which is possible. Now, why other deposits don't is typically most of these deposits are roll front, are very tight, so they're not naturally dispersed similar to, so especially in the U.S., very tight roll front mineralization, which is constrained, not like this homogeneous low-grade mineralization over a larger aquifer as we're seeing at Honeymoon. Also at Honeymoon, it's basically running sands, so it's a very good aquifer. We get very good flow through that aquifer, unlike other deposits. There's a lot of variables in there, but that gives us the confidence to come out today on this pathway forward. Understood. Just given that you're going to have lower flow rates if this does work, do you need the extra IX column? No. What happens there, James, o you have lower flow rates, but you'll have more pounds under leach and potentially have that through. The key driver is your head grade goes up. L ess pore volumes, but higher PLS head grade. If anything, we may need less columns to get the same. You probably need less columns to get the same production rates in terms of metal units. Right. You're going to have to prep these wellfields well ahead of time if you're going to have residence for 40-90 days. Yeah. How we do the conditioning of the wellfields is a consideration, and we'll work through that. We'll still have to do some form of conditioning of the wellfields, b ut because you are pushing through less pore volumes, then our reagent costs also drop as well. Thank you. I think it's just when it's all come out of the review, and it is because there's lots of drivers in all of that, and there's lots of technical, but that's the value proposition, and that's why we believe that this will work once we can get it through. Thanks, James. Thank you. Your next question, it comes from Daniel Roden with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I'm just asking a bit of clarity because I'm still a little bit confused. You've had increased discontinuity and separation between some of the mineral horizons. Usually the way you look at the US guys and how they do it is you step it in. When you're stepping out, you're losing the selectivity through your hydraulically isolated areas, and you're not going to generate flow. Aren't you sterilizing a large portion of potential resources there? I guess being specific to Honeymoon, some of your higher grade areas are on your plate. How do you think about this in terms of the resource and potentially sterilizing some of your higher grade areas and why are you dividing the resource? Where's my thinking wrong there? Yeah. Okay. What happens is that we'll still inject that same sort of lixiviant through those aquifers. It's just that over lower pore volume, so lixiviant will be in the ground longer. Without modeling today, we don't need close spacing to get that connectivity between extractors and injectors. By passing that lixiviant through slowly, you're basically saturating that. You're allowing the lixiviant to be in contact with that uranium longer. You're also allowing the lixiviant to potentially circulate and stay in solution longer through the clays as well. That's why effectively through the modeling, we're saying recovery is about the same. We're not losing metal, and we'll get the same recoveries no matter what the drill spacing or the wellfield spacing is for the Honeymoon. I guess in this part of that, you're assuming that the lixiviant flows into areas outside of the flow path because it's a slower rate. You'd be able to reclaim that outside of the flow path again. Yeah. It's all got to control with the injectors and the extractor. One of the downsides of having close spacing and close spacing is once you've created a fluid flow pathway between the injector and the extractor at a high velocity, then once that flow path is created at a high velocity through, then you don't actually leach some areas of the other aquifer. By slowing everything down, you're actually potentially not creating these super highways and making sure it actually percolates through the aquifer more homogenously. O ne of the things we've got to do under the 40x40 m wellfield process is we've got to change injectors to extractors, and we've got to do all these role reversals because all of those role reversals are designed to create new flow paths for the lixiviant. Yeah. Okay. Maybe just hammering the point, but I guess that hasn't been demonstrated anywhere else. Taking a view that this theoretical hardening exercise and slowing down the rate will not create the flow pathway and will turn that into lower flow rates, but we've not seen that demonstrated at any other location. Is that [inaudible] We haven't delivered a feasibility study today, if that's what you're asking. Yeah. Okay. No worries. I know you touched on post FY 2027, but the framework today, it's hard. I know you talked to potential pathway to get to 2.45 million lbs, but I guess do you see any what timeframe could we expect that? I guess FY 2028 onwards, is that still an immediate step? As far as I understand, and yeah, I guess how are you thinking about FY 2028 and beyond? Yeah. Look, I'd hope to give more. As part of the study, what we've tried to do is break the study up into packages. What we can try and do is give more resolution as we work through this study. One of those parts of those packages would be that same question you just asked. It's a little bit too early for me to get into that. We will try and get those answers out and provide a little bit more clarity as we work through this study. Yeah. Okay. I might just try one more time with a different approach, but I'll look at consensus at the moment around 2-2.1 out to 2030. Do you think that's an appropriate number for production? Yeah. I'm not going to comment on that production. We'll work through this. We'll work through it. What I will do is I'll continue to say we'll work through this. M y commitment back to the market is we'll keep the market informed as we work through this, and we've designed the study to ensure that we can actually do that. All right. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question, it comes from George Ross with Argonaut. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Most of my queries have been answered. Just did want to query though on reagent consumption. You're saying that there's going to be lower consumption of reagents. Could you expand on that, please? Just so I understand, is that on a per unit of resource basis, or is that a product unit basis? Yeah. George, I'll take this question. On the reagent consumption, the chart that we put in the presentation in the announcement compares the reagent consumption for 40 m spacing as compared to a wider spacing for a lower grade wellfield. What we're seeing through this new wide space design is that you get lower reagent consumption by two aspects. The first is, as Matt said, there's a longer residence time. By reducing the number of injector and extractor wells, we reduce the velocity of flow underground, which means that the lixiviant is in contact with uranium for longer, which means that it extracts or leaches more of that uranium underground. The second point is that by increasing the spacing, it increases the distance that the lixiviant travels, which increases the amount of uranium that the lixiviant comes into contact with, which again increases your PLS grade as it's extracted. We also know that based on what we know currently at Honeymoon, there's a low carbonate content, and there's a low quantity of acid-consuming clays. What that then means is that while the lixiviant's underground, our current understanding is that lixiviant or the reagent will mainly get consumed by uranium rather than other carbonate content or acid-consuming clays. T hat favorable mineralogy enables us to have a longer residence time of that lixiviant. Okay. Great. The implication of a lower capital intensity, you're potentially saying lower reagent costs, so potentially saying lower all-in sustaining costs. Is that the way to read that? Is this all theoretically correct? Yeah. What we're saying is this drives a step change in our cost structure, which means that we can change our cut-off grade, which means that we can put the whole Honeymoon deposit under leach rather than having these selective wellfields, rather than the current path, which is selectively taking out just the higher grade, ending up with very small wellfields, ending up with a problem where we're ending up with a high sustaining capital cost and having challenges in terms of because of the low volumes or low pounds under leach with those wellfields, then having to do a lot of them. Yeah. No. Great. Okay. If this all works, a lot of upside. Thanks very much. Thanks, George. Thank you. Next question, it comes from Jacob Li with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hey, Matt and Justin. Thanks for the questions. Just eyeing on FY 2027 sale [inaudible] with all the existing costs up to 2025. How much do you think the CapEx and your current assessment will be on 2027? Is there any other CapEx that you're planning to submit to some profile beyond 2027? That was my first question. Thanks. Yeah. Justin here. We've provided that qualitative indication of what 2027 would look like from a production and all-in sustaining cost perspective. Beyond that's based on the current wellfield design. We haven't provided any guidance beyond FY 2027. Really, what we would be if we see FY 2027 as a transition year, subject to successful feasibility study. Beyond FY 2027, we would be hoping that the fundamental change in cost structure would start to come through, and that FY 2028 number would look different on the amount of CapEx and the pounds under leach in 2028, if this new feasibility study is successful, would look quite different to what we're seeing now. Thanks, Justin. You're saying that all-in sustaining cost is only supporting that 1.6 million lbs of pricing for 2027 and not really providing any benefit for pricing beyond because you have already been spending that CapEx on wellfield development that might be used in the future? Yeah. Under the current wellfield plan, the FY 2027 CapEx wouldn't support substantial production beyond FY 2027. It would support some, but not a substantial amount. If we are able to implement this new wide-spaced concept, then the CapEx that we'd potentially be investing in FY 2027 could actually be putting a substantial number of pounds under leach in FY 2027, which could actually drive substantial production beyond FY 2027 as well. The outcome is really dependent, again, on the success of this new feasibility study in the wide-spaced wells. Yeah. I think that again shows the value of this feasibility study. Under that feasibility study, if we are successful, then we would be similar all-in sustaining cost for a few years and then just go into a harvest mode. Thanks, Matt. Second question, you mentioned longer residence time in the new wider-spaced wellfield development. Given you may build more across different wellfields over time as you develop these reserves within the Honeymoon [inaudible], does that mean you may have a lower throughput but have lower costs to help you assess lower grade areas to maximize their current resource space? For example, the current wellfield design is expected to produce 1.5-2.5 lbs less uranium than what your EFS had. Would there be a scenario with revised wellfield design where you'd be able to recover that lost pounds and produce more? I understand it's still early study, but just trying to understand aspects of what Honeymoon overall deposit might look like beyond FY 2027. Yeah. They're all good questions, and they'll be provided as part of it as we work through. From a conceptual perspective, essentially, you would be spending the same sort of capital but putting more pounds under leach, so putting the whole Honeymoon under leach. Given that you're having higher PLS head grades, then you see a pathway back to 2.4. Coupled with Gould's and Jason's, then you'd see additional production profile coming in, but it's all subject to the study. Thank you. Your next question comes from [Neeraj Singh] with UBS. Please go ahead. Thanks, guys. I think most of my questions have been asked already. Just one, I think not in the presentation, but in the release, you talked to a total of on the current wellfield design, expected to produce a total of 1.5 million lbs less than EFS. Just to clarify, is that like a total life of mine estimate? That's the number that we use effectively if we're trying to figure out what happens if this change in strategy going on wide-spaced drill doesn't work? Yeah. That's based on current forecasts for the Honeymoon domain lower horizon. In the EFS, that considered a total production of 9.3 million lbs for that domain. That variance of 1.5 million-2.5 million lbs represents the variance to that 9.3 million lbs that was in the EFS. It is still early days for Honeymoon. As we set out in the announcement, we have only leached approximately 20% of Honeymoon. We believe that there's a number of optimization activities that we can do at Honeymoon, which include optimization of the lixiviant, the injection and extractor roll reversals that Matt previously spoke to. We've identified some potential additional patterns that we can install around B1 to B5 at Honeymoon. Some of those patterns might start to both act as getting additional pounds from Honeymoon as well as starting to trial some of the aspects of this new wide-spaced wellfield design. Ultimately, we also believe that there's a potential further benefit from that longer residence time that we don't fully understand yet. We could have a bit of a hybrid approach for Honeymoon where at the end of that domain life, we move to a slower or a longer residence time, and ultimately, we could leach more pounds from that area. The 1.5 -2.5 is based on our current best estimate of where we're at with having only taken 20% of the resource, but we feel like there's a long way to go for Honeymoon. Thank you. Your next question, it comes from Matt Hope with Ord Minnett. Please go ahead. Thanks, guys, for taking the call. Just first question, I'm just trying to clarify some of the data that you put in the release. Are you suggesting actual high grade, or ISR mining is cut out of the new plan, and you'd only be extracting the low grade? Is it extracting both the high grade and the low grade? Both, Matt. We wouldn't not extract the high grade. What we wouldn't do is just design our wellfields on only extracting high grade. Okay. The high grade, I think you indicated that was 40% of the mineralization at the current cut-off of 400 ppm. If you went down to 100 ppm, you said that would have another 49%. Are we talking about the potential ore more than doubling in size if you went down to 100 ppm is what you indicated? Yeah. That's illustrative. Again, it's a little bit illustrative, and we've still got to do the work to get to the exact. What we're trying to demonstrate in there is what you were talking about. Fundamentally, what we're doing is if we can change our cost structure and make margin at 100, for example, ppm, which we think we can because of this wellfield, then all of a sudden, material that wasn't economic becomes economic and becomes into the production plan. Okay. On slide 10, you said the total recovery would be the same as the current design, and the recovery time is the same as the current design. I'm just trying to understand what does that mean. Does that mean that total recovery just means the same total funds come out over the same time so that nothing changes in the plan? What does that actually mean? Yeah. I'll take that one. In terms of that total recovery rate, the way that we think about it is when we design a wellfield, we estimate the number of pounds that would be put under leach for that wellfield. We then allocate or estimate how many of those pounds can be leached before your PLS grade reaches a cut-off that it becomes uneconomic to leach that uranium. When you compare the tighter spaced wellfield design and the wider spaced wellfield design, what we're saying is that total recovery of that wellfield, the amount of pounds of uranium that we've estimated to be in that wellfield, the total recovered will be comparable between the two wellfield designs. In terms of the recovery time, we estimate that there would be a small increase in recovery time as you step out into that wider spacing, and it does step up a little bit once you start going out further from 100 m. Essentially, that means that all you'd really do if you have a higher recovery time for a wellfield is that you just have more wellfields online at the same time to support your production profile. That recovery time doesn't necessarily really have a material impact on your production profile. It just means that you would be having a wellfield online ahead of when we need to ensure that we've got adequate pounds under leach to support the production profile. Okay. Even though the amount of ore that you have in each wellfield may increase if you lower the cut-off grade, you think the amount of pounds you would recover from that wellfield would be the same as the current target? Yeah. That's right. Yeah. So me of it would not come out, presumably the high grade that's in pods, which wouldn't get back, is that what you're saying? No. The recovery on a like-for-like basis would be the same. We're not losing mineralization in high grade pods. Just on a like-for-like basis, it would be the same. All right. Okay. Thanks for that. Thank you. Your next question, it comes from Regan Burrows with Bell Potter. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my additional question. S truggling to understand that the greater spacing means less control over the flow direction and theoretically, as you said, a more dispersed flow. You're potentially picking up more lower grade uranium mineralization, how that doesn't lower your PLS grade. I assume that is capped at a capacity limit based on flow rates. Struggling to understand how if you're leaching lower grade uranium, that doesn't impact and results in lower leaching figures for PLS. Yeah. A lot of PLS. The variable there is that because you're slowing, you're not accounting for residence time. If you had the same residence time, then you're correct. If you're slowing your residence time down, you're leaching more material. Therefore, your PLS head grade goes up. You're getting a more efficient, as you would in any processing route, increased residence time, higher head grade. Yeah. It's not thinking the market, it's more like the processing chemical side where basically we're letting low grade mineralization sit in that lixiviant for longer. Therefore, head grade is going up. That's why there's a relationship between spacing, lower pore volumes, and higher PLS head grade now. Okay. On the initial issues were that lack of continuity in the ore bodies. My understanding was that by increasing the spacing rather than reducing the spacing. I assume that you guys are comfortable that there are fluid pathways that go through and connect up these ore bodies, but it just might mean that the lixiviant's going through a barren patch for a longer period of time. Is that the way to understand it? The way to understand it is when we talk about continuity, we're talking about at a higher head grade. If you filter the model, if you filter it on a high head grade, then you'll end up with these blobs. If you filter the model, you filter the ore body and look at a lower head grade, then it's continuous. What we were given, we're seeing less continuity in high grade mineralization. Our wellfields are getting smaller and smaller. We're leaving low grade mineralization. There's no [inaudible] behind. That's largely dictated by our cost structure. Change our cost structure, then we're back in the game. Yeah. In the announcement, Regan, we provide quite a bit. There's the visual map on the delineation drilling results that we've got, and then at the back of the announcement, there's all of the delineation drilling results. You can see all of the intercepts for those drill results, and they're all intercepting grade. There's the odd one that doesn't have a significant intercept, but for the most part, they're all intercepting grade, which supports our understanding that there is extensive but lower grade mineralization throughout Honeymoon. Yeah. It wasn't historically a situation where there was no mineralization in between two pods. It's just that it was considerably lower than what you had originally modeled. Right, or considerably lower than what we can effectively extract or put a wellfield design on because of our cost structure. Okay. Great. All right. Well, right. Well, thank you very much for that. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll hand back to Mr. Dusci for closing remarks. Thanks, Darcy. Just to close out, I do acknowledge the disappointment associated with withdrawing the EFS. On the converse, we are excited about our pathway forward. We look forward to continuing to demonstrate that progress as we make our work execute these workstreams towards a new feasibility study. We'll take the opportunity to wish you and your families a Merry Christmas and a safe and happy New Year. Thank you, everyone, for joining the call.