Thank you everyone for this afternoon, coming to Boss Energy's Market Day here in Sydney. Thank you for joining us today. I am pleased to have the team here with me today, and we will share some of the progress that we have been making and the opportunities that we see within Boss Energy. Today is an opportunity for us to talk a little bit about what we have learned, what we have changed as a company, and how we see those changes translating into strong performance and growth for Boss Energy. Over the past year, our team has completed an incredible amount of work. We have strengthened our understanding of Honeymoon, we have developed a new operating plan as part of that New Feasibility Study, and we continue to advance our opportunities across how we look at our portfolio within the business. We recognize there have been some difficult decisions that we have had to make during the last 12 months, when we had to go back and revisit some of our fundamental assumptions associated with the operation. I recognize that we have to continue to rebuild confidence, and that confidence ultimately comes back to us. That confidence will come back when we continue to deliver and perform over time according to these new plans. One thing as a business we do have is a stronger foundation, and we also have a clear direction of what we need to do as a business as we move forward. We have that deeper understanding of our deposits and how to operate them. We have a stronger team with technical and operating capacity to level up. We have clear opportunities of how we will drive a larger, low-cost, and a longer life business. Today, we will have an opportunity for the team to talk directly about the plans, priorities, and how we will plan to embed those into the company. A couple of slides, standard disclaimer slides for us as a business that we will have as part of the presentation. It is great to have the team again here. A number of key partners that we have brought as part of the team. We consider them part of Boss as well. We place a high value as an organization on strategic partnerships, and we also take a flexible approach on how we bring expertise into the business. One of the things we have needed to do is bring that expertise in, given that we are an ISR producer. Effectively, we have the right people working for us for the right opportunities for us in the future. As an introduction, Justin Laird, who the majority of you met. Justin is based in Perth with myself. We have Kathryn Walker. Kathryn Walker has been with the business now about four weeks. General counsel for us based in Adelaide. Ex-partner for Piper Alderman, ex-GC for Symphony Infrastructure Partners. Brings a lot of experience associated with land access and permitting regimes for us. Guillaume Lorilleux. Guillaume basically seconded out of RSC for us based in New Zealand. A PhD in uranium, ex-Orano. Competent person for us working on all the mineral resource and resource estimations. Conrad Wilkins, general manager for Honeymoon. Joined us in September last year based in Adelaide. We also have Olivier Regnault. Head of our Technical Services, joined us in September. PhD in hydrogeology geochemistry, ex-Orano, working out of Kazakhstan as well. A leader in ISR. We are also pleased to have Scott Lawrence with us today as well, managing director of Numerco in London. Scott has been working closely with us over the last two years as well as a business. I think that gives you a little bit of a snapshot on how we think as a business, and how although we are a predominantly South Australian company, it is the global expertise that we have brought into our business. I will just provide an overview and a little bit about the company, and then also a little bit about where we see that pathway or that strategy plan going forward for us as an entity. Personally, we are in a stronger position to outline those plans, and because we have got greater confidence in that immediate operating plan after delivering that New Feasibility Study. Some of that we will talk to over the next hour or two. As a company, we are uniquely positioned to drive shareholder value. We have established uranium producer with the operating infrastructure in place. We have the strength of our teams, and we have built that specialized uranium and ISR expertise. We have a strong balance sheet with financial flexibility. We have a clear pathway to grow. Given our production base, inventory, and uncontracting position, we are also exposed to that tightening uranium market. The way I look at the business is we have the foundations now in place. A little bit about how we see that future and some of our strategic priorities as a business. Our strategy ultimately is to build a reliable, low-cost, long-life uranium business. We are doing that through four key strategic priorities, all working in parallel. The first one is we have got to continue to deliver and optimize Honeymoon. That is mainly about safe, reliable production. It is about transitioning to that wide-space well field design. It is also about continuous improvement. The other element to that is how we leverage Honeymoon infrastructure, and that is about building a production hub. Honeymoon as a deposit is only one of three deposits in our portfolio in close proximity to each other. That really provides us an opportunity to take a step further than what is in that New Feasibility Study. We also look at how we continue to grow those resources, and I will talk a little bit about that growth of those resources today. How we test for extensions, how we continue to confirm those confidence of those mineral resources. Ultimately, how we continue to add to resources within that Honeymoon hub. Beyond Honeymoon, we need to continue to optimize and maximize our existing portfolio. Each asset needs to contribute to shareholder returns and justify the capital we spend on all of our portfolio. Ultimately, as a business, this is really driven by the ultimate enablers, which ultimately are our people, technical and operating expertise, and our culture that we develop within the organization. As a business, we had a challenge, and we have gone through that challenge. That challenge was associated with the Honeymoon resource. Effectively, we just did not see the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization that was within the EFS. We also saw more mineralization associated with clays. As a result of that, we have redone our resource estimate on Honeymoon. We saw a 35% reduction in metal, and that a like for like, that was around about 63% reduction on a metal. Collectively, these factors were resulting in smaller producing wellfields and greater production intensity, and we just weren't an increasing unit cost. We just weren't seeing margin and how we continue to drive that asset. What we did recognize is we had to fundamentally change our cost structure. We liked the resource. The resource was there at a low grade, but we needed to do something different. The way that we changed that cost structure is ultimately through this wide spacing, and Olivier will talk a little bit more about that wide spacing. Wellfield design is about how to optimize spacing or how do you optimize extraction of that resource, recognizing the characteristics of that resource. The result of the feasibility study saw us drop our all-in sustaining cost by about AUD 30 all-in, on a like-for-like basis. We increased our PLS head grade by about 28%. We reduced our wellfield infrastructure around about 50%. Ultimately, we lower our cost basis for how we develop that asset. As a result of that, it provides us with a strong foundation on how we look at Honeymoon. The other element to that is now that we have that approach, it provides that foundation and it provides that learning on how we can actually optimize both all of the deposits within the Honeymoon catchment. We look at these deposits differently to when we started with these deposits. So effectively, we're looking at these deposits were too low grade. It's all related to permeability, recovery characteristics, how the reagents consume, and how you develop wellfields. Although grade is important, geology characteristics are also important in terms of optimizing from a wellfield design perspective. As a result of that, we look at our portfolio different. We have Gould's Dam adjacent with 45 million pounds in resource proximal to Honeymoon, about twice the size of the Honeymoon resource. We look at how we can develop those assets differently into that production profile. We see an opportunity to extend Honeymoon, to develop Honeymoon as a regional production hub. We see the opportunity to bring three producing sources into one processing plant. We already have the processing plant and infrastructure in place, and the opportunity is to make Jason's and Gould's part of that production mix. At Jason's, a new trunk line would connect Honeymoon approximately 14 km away. At Gould's, we would look at a resin loading facility, trucking loaded resin about 80 km away. It would avoid the capital infrastructure associated with pipeline. Ultimately, these provide a low capital growth opportunities utilizing the existing infrastructure we have. They provide staged investment as we can bring in those assets in time. They also lower our unit sustaining cost, provide greater flexibility, and a higher sustainable production run rate for longer. Together, these deposits with Honeymoon make up around about 65 million pounds, and we can demonstrate the scale that we need to continue to drive cost and margin at Honeymoon. Aspirationally, with the New Feasibility Study and the robust plan we can see where—the New Feasibility Study was based off 1.9 million pounds. We can see where we can get to 2.5 million pounds. We can see how we reduce our all-in sustaining cost to around about $65 a pound, another $12 a pound below where we came out at Honeymoon. We see an opportunity for a longer operational life, extending production beyond the NFS of a New Feasibility through to 2040s. Ultimately, this materially improves the business as we look at how we optimize not just Honeymoon as a source feed, but the three source feeds together. Providing higher production through the hub ultimately will result in spreading fixed cost over more pounds. Our aspiration is clear, and that is about how we become a larger, low-cost, and longer life business. Ultimately, these are all enabled by our people. So our people bring the depth, experience, and specialists' uranium expertise into the business. We have developed that technical and operating capacity as a business, connecting geology, well field design, and processing, and utilizing that experience to make better decisions for us as a company. It is also about the culture that we develop in the company, putting safety first, taking accountability for our actions, and ultimately, about how we challenge assumptions, raise issues, and find better ways to do things. Much of the team is new to Boss, and they bring different and significant experience. So it is an opportunity for them to talk about how they view this plan and how they see these assets moving forward. Coupled with people, it is just a philosophy about how we think about the business and how we generally make decisions about the business. We are focused on margin. We need to understand the cost of every pound, and we have got to continue to look at ways to improve. We are committed to capital where it generates a return. There is no point in spending decisions on capital if we do not have the information to make those decisions, but if they do not generate the return. We are looking at how we leverage our existing infrastructure and capital. When we talk about Gould's and Jason's, these are low capital cost growth options for us. We continue to strive for operational excellence and business resilience, and then we take ownership of how we do that. Ultimately, as a business, we want to remain unleveraged to this tightening uranium market. So we will continue to remain strategically uncontracted with significant uranium inventory. Our plan is to grow production, operating margins, and long-term value, and being strategic on capital and how we think about capital in a business. So that for me is just a little bit of an introduction. What we will do is the team will talk through some elements of the business, and I will introduce Scott to stage. Scott is from Numerco, as I said. We have been working closely with Scott, just come out of the WNA, some good insights for everyone on uranium business. Thanks, Matt. My name is Scott Lawrence. I am the Managing Director of Numerco Limited, which is an independent commodity broker-dealer focused on the energy complex. My personal area of expertise for the last 20 years within the firm has been nuclear fuel, within which I have been focused specifically on the front-end nuclear fuel cycle, U3O8, through to enriched uranium product. During the two decades, I have been directly involved in transactions of over 100 million pounds U3O8 with pretty much all the major market participants. In the last two years, I have had the privilege of representing Boss's commercial interests in the market, layering in sales of the Honeymoon production when the management deemed the conditions to be optimum and in line with the sales strategy. From that activity, I really wanted to share with you an update of some of the prevailing market conditions that we've been observing, not just at the macro supply-demand level, which I recognize is extensively researched and many of you will have modeled in detail, but also at the micro market transaction level for which we've seen some significant positive changes over the last few months that I really wanted to share with you. At the macro level, ever since I started in the industry in 2006, uranium demand could be pretty much modeled on the back of an envelope, slowly shrinking Western fleet, steady Asian growth, and a market that was often traded on cyclical inventories. That world's definitely gone, and we're now looking at a structural repricing of the role of nuclear within the energy system, and those changes are coming from several different directions simultaneously. Firstly, the existing fleet, which is definitely the most immediate part of the story and definitely the one that I witnessed most in last week's WNA event. The cheapest nuclear capacity in the world is the reactors that you still already own. Instead of the wave of reactor closures that were priced in a few years ago, we're now seeing reactor life extensions out to 60 and 80 years, such that most of the operating reactors that are in operation today will still be running in 2050. On top of that, there's the new build pipeline with 80 reactors under construction globally, where China really is still leading the pace there. Then there's the new demand that nobody really saw coming, which is the AI data centers looking for the clean, reliable, round-the-clock power at the gigawatt scale. These hyperscalers have identified nuclear as the solution, and we've seen some of the largest technology firms in the world directly invest in the sector, both at the large scale and also at the SMR level technology. At the SMR level, I've got to admit, I didn't think that they would really move the needle much for the balance of this decade. But I think as the uranium picture has been evolving, I can see a scenario, and to some degree, we're already seeing that, where the investors want a clear view of their fueling costs when they're concluding new capital raises. This may result in simultaneous fuel commitments that I probably wouldn't have expected to occur until a bit further down the line. And to be frank, there's already a few that have made purchases, even if they've been relatively small. In contrast to supply side, which has been a little bit more fragile until recently. It's had many years of underinvestment. Supply has disproportionately rested with the two major producers, and the narrow, concentrated production base has resulted in this kind of hypersensitivity to any operational hiccups that either of these guys have. Beneath those two, the broader producer picture has, until recently, been a lot thinner, and years of sub-incentive pricing had definitely hollowed out the development pipeline. And those that were financed were done often more so in debt, and often secured against good credit utility forward purchase commitments. And that sort of change in resource financing, especially with the new demand growth picture, where we're seeing a lot more resources that are ultimately financed with equity. And that, in turn, has had some wider observable market impacts that I'll touch on. But outside of the production picture, I guess the quiet shift in the supply is the steady depreciation of the secondary supply sources, inventory drawdowns, the underfeeding in the enrichment process. These cushions are being consumed. The enrichers, in fact, recently flipped from underfeeding uranium into their plants and selling the residual product into overfeeding them and essentially becoming a much bigger consumer. In the backdrop of this dynamic, we've got the geopolitical reshuffling in the Western nuclear world away from Russia, which has in turn created constraints both in conversion and enrichment, which is another bottleneck in its own right. In summary, the demand is compounding across policy, life extensions, new build, AI, and the supply side has been drawing down on secondary supply sources, and we're left with a potential gap, which will not really have a linear direction in the process of filling. But actually, in doing so, leads us more into the micro market environment that I'd like to go into, which is specifically around the contracting of that forward supply to cover some of that future requirement, along with some of the positive changes that we're observing in that space. To understand the shift that's taking place, it's worth recapping on how contracting has typically been done historically at the utility level. Unlike hydrocarbon power production where the lead time is immediate, utilities don't ever really need immediately delivered uranium. The lead time to consumption is long, often years, and contracting regularly happens in reverse. The utilities choose the fuel design and the assays around the fabricated fuel assembly that they require. They then contract to the enrichment needed for the EUP that will go into that process. In contracting to enrichment, you define the amount of uranium that you require through the tails assay, and then you finally backfill, knowing that information, with a uranium contract purchase, which is generally delivered for a future date in line with the subsequent processes. Quickly to summarize, in the backdrop of a well-appreciated macro picture, we're really beginning to see the signs of some significant transaction-level enhancements that are assisting a rapid evolution of the physical uranium environment, limiting that soft ceiling and providing the spot price with the space to grow. I'm excited to be part of the new chapter, and I've waited 20 years for it. With that, I shall pass to Justin. Thanks, Scott. Good morning, everyone. For those that I haven't met before, my name is Justin Laird. I commenced as CFO at Boss Energy in March 2024. Initially today, I'll talk to our sales strategy. As Scott mentioned, a supply deficit continues to be forecast, and we want to maintain our position to benefit from this. I'll then talk to our capital management framework, which sets out how we will remain disciplined on capital while delivering the strategy that Matt outlined in the opening. Starting with our sales strategy, which is to remain under contracted. Based on the NFS life of mine production and our inventory balance of 1.58 million pounds, 73% of total volume is uncontracted, 16% is contracted, and 11% is reflected as drummed inventory on hand. Our inventory on hand mostly covers our contract book. Note that this also excludes any aspirational production from Gould's Dam and Jason's Deposit. Our strategy is to remain under contracted and has remained consistent over time. It enables us to better balance sales, production, and market conditions. So far, this sales strategy has been the right one as term price is now three times higher than it was five years ago. Our strategy has been adopted based on two primary drivers. The first is that we expect uranium prices to continue to go even higher. As Scott talked to, demand is forecast to exceed supply with a deficit that continues to increase over time. The second driver is that we are not as big as some of the other major global producers. Our strategy is not appropriate for all producers, and equally, a sales strategy adopted by a major global producer is not appropriate for us based on our size and maturity. Our sales book is smaller, and that enables us to be more nimble and less conventional with our pounds. The primary benefit of remaining under contracted is that we retain significant exposure to increases in uranium price. You can see from this realized price table on the slide that under a uranium price of $140 a pound in 2033, we would expect to achieve a full realized uranium price of $140 a pound. In the shorter term, we expect to achieve a realized sales price that is in the low- to mid- 90s as a percentage of the market price. Now, some will rightly point out that this approach of retaining high exposure to movements in uranium price also increases the downside risk if uranium prices do decline. This is, of course, a fair observation and correct. But we believe that shareholders invest in a uranium company because they also believe that the uranium price is going to go higher, and they want undiluted exposure to that expected increase in uranium price. While the primary benefit of our strategy is exposure to potential further increases in the uranium price, there are several other secondary benefits. It enables us to execute sales at a location and date that suits both us and our customer. Under a traditional Western contract structure, a utility will have all of this control. It also helps to minimize balance sheet risk in the event of unexpected impacts to production. Again, under a traditional Western contract structure, a producer will sign up to a deliver or pay arrangement, which carries significant balance sheet risk in the event of unexpected interruptions to production. The benefit of mitigating potential compounding balance sheet risk can be seen as Boss has preserved its balance sheet while production did not meet initial expectations. Whilst we avoid conventional long-term offtake agreements, we don't want to sell into the spot market, and instead, we prefer to sell on a rolling forward basis. Often, these sales are either directly to a utility or they are to a financial intermediary who will carry the pounds for a duration that better matches a utility requirement. Together, our sales strategy and contracting mechanism continues to enable Boss to retain exposure to further increases in the uranium price or selling uranium at terms that suit both us and our customers. Turning to our capital management framework. As Matt mentioned, we are determined to remain disciplined on capital and only deploy it when we are confident that we can generate acceptable returns. We have a strong balance sheet with AUD 207 million of cash inventory and other liquid assets at year-end and no debt. We expect to preserve this balance sheet as we continue to execute the transition to a wide-spaced wellfield design. Our priority for capital allocation is to focus on capital investment in maintaining day-to-day operations, which are cash flow positive and generated AUD 74 million in cash operating cash flow in 2026. With the benefit of significant technical work that has underpinned the New Feasibility Study, we now have more confidence in our ability to plan and make capital decisions today for the future. With substantial sunk infrastructure, our focus is on maximizing and leveraging that infrastructure by bringing on new wellfields. Based on the new resource and reactive transport models, we know that each wellfield we are bringing online is value accretive. We want to keep bringing them online, and we plan to do this in two ways. The first is that we are investing in wellfields around Honeymoon. This capital represents 84% of the New Feasibility Study total capital and is staged incrementally as each new wellfield is brought online. Learnings from the previous wellfields are incorporated into the next one. We see opportunities to optimize and potentially reduce this capital, and the team will talk to this later on. The second is to invest in the optimization and long-term future at Honeymoon. We know that the plant is capable of producing a lot more than it currently is, which makes the adoption of a broader strategy to turn Honeymoon into a larger production hub, a relatively low capital value accretive opportunity. As we pursue this strategy, we will stage our spend to ensure that we first gather the data we need, incorporate learnings from Honeymoon before meaningful capital is deployed. Finally, as noted, we currently hold 1.58 million pounds of physical drummed inventory, which has grown from the 1.25 million pounds of inventory that was purchased in 2021. We see this inventory as a major strategic benefit beyond just its market value today. To briefly wrap up, we have a strong balance sheet, and we expect to continue to preserve it as we retain exposure to a growing supply deficit and remain disciplined on capital. Now handing back over to Matt. Thank you, Scott and Justin, on both the market and then our view on capital and our contracting strategy. For me, I will just talk a little bit about people and culture. Ultimately, as a business, it is one of the fundamental drivers of value. From my perspective, it was one of the immediate priorities that we needed to do within the business, is how that team looked and build that team out. For us, people are key. We are a largely new team, and we have brought together new perspectives, deeper experiences, and expertise in uranium operating environments. We have brought capacity across that whole organization. That has been at all levels. We are looking at board renewal, and I will talk a little bit about Peter Botten joining the board. We have strengthened our leadership teams. We've materially strengthened our technical capacity, and you'll see some of that with Olivier talking as well. We're improving decision-makings on how we make those decisions, ultimately to make right capital calls and how we drive margins. All of that is important on how that teams and how those teams operate and function together. A little bit of a snapshot. Relatively small, 140 people in the business. About 35% of our business had uranium and ISR experience. Most of that had come from Heathgate up the road and then a little bit from BHP. One of the things we're also trying to do is bring that experience globally into that team. There's a lot more learnings that we need to take. A high technical team. 22% of our workforce have degrees. It is actually quite a technical business that we run. You don't have the trucks. You don't have that whole labor force typical of traditional mining. It's a very technically orientated team that we do have. 89%, 88% of that based in South Australia, and then the rest either in Perth or globally. Part of that is ultimately for us, and we talk to that, is that really that experience that we needed and that experience in ISR. It's a little bit different. We've got exposure in the U.S. We've got exposure in Australia, but we really needed to bring that global experience to us. The leadership team, as we said, all relatively new. What we do do is bring that deep operational technical capacity and corporate experience into the business. I think Justin's the longest-serving person. Been with the business. Been in the role now for about 12 months, been with the business probably six months beforehand. On the board side, also significant renewal on board. Peter Botten joins the board end of September, 1st of October. Brings an incredible amount of experience to that board, stepping in as chair-elect. Peter, ex managing director for Oil Search, experience on the governance but also experience from an operating perspective. Part of his experience originally was started in uranium. His first part of his career was uranium, working with French, COGEMA at the time, in that uranium experience. Conrad will talk a little bit about the team that's been built out at Honeymoon, so I'll leave that. One of the new additions to that team that will start in November will be Alibek out of Kazakhstan as well. Again, trying to bring that experience into that ISR capability. As noted, technical capacity is key for us, and we've significantly built out that technical capacity. We look at it at two levels. We look at it from an ISR perspective, so that geology, hydrogeology, chemistry background. We're also looking at it from a processing background, so processing engineers, chemical engineers, et cetera. That's part of that technical capacity that we continue to build within our organization. Ultimately, as an organization, it all comes down to culture and the values that you live in the organization. One of the things that we've set and set by the team and our people is our own values. That's one of our priorities that we've set relatively early. When we look at our values, one is just do the right thing. We'll always do the right thing. It's just a non-negotiable for us. That's integrity and all those buzzwords. But fundamentally for us as leaders of the business and for all of our business, we'll come back and just do the right thing. We have to be successful by working together. It's all about teamwork. It's all about how we integrate, how we continue to learn. We also will be successful because we'll own it, we'll deliver it, but we'll also celebrate it, and we'll celebrate our successes. We look at how we break new ground. This is how we look to challenge ourselves, how we learn, how we continue to find better ways to do things. That's at all levels, from operator level right through. Empower people to find different ways to improve. Then we have to think big and act bold. We have to have conviction on our decisions. That conviction of the decisions is really about the information that we have and how we build those plans. With those convictions, we can actually make better outcomes for the decisions for business. A little bit about people, a little bit about culture and just how I think about that. Conrad Wilkins, General Manager of Honeymoon now, will give you a little bit more depth into Honeymoon and Honeymoon operation and some of the drivers there at Honeymoon. With that, Conrad, do you want to take everyone through Honeymoon? Thanks, Matt. Good afternoon. My name's Conrad Wilkins, and I'm the general manager at Honeymoon. I joined Boss Energy in September last year, after initial contract role at site, during which, I guess the opportunity at Honeymoon really stood out to me. I have more than 20 years of experience across mining operations, process engineering, and project delivery, including uranium operations at Beverley and Olympic Dam. My background is in leadership, hydrometallurgy, and process optimization. I focus on converting operating discipline, technical understanding, and structure improvement programs into safer, consistent, reliable, and lower-cost operations. Today, I'll take you through the Honeymoon operation, what has been established since the restart, how the operation works, the constraints currently limiting our output, and practical steps underway to improve our performance. Honeymoon is now a producing asset with substantial infrastructure in place, and the current improvement program is focused on converting that installed capacity into reliable, lower-cost production. Honeymoon is located in South Australia, approximately 80 km northwest of Broken Hill. It's an in-situ recovery operation using continuous ion-exchange processing, where uranium is recovered from mineralized groundwater rather than through conventional open pit or underground mining. In FY 2026, Honeymoon produced 1.4 million pounds of U3O8. The operation restarted in April 2024 and achieved commercial production in January 2025. It now has a nine-year mine plan established through the New Feasibility Study, which has just been released. The site workforce comprises about 115 employees, supported by an experienced corporate and technical team. That capability is important because ISR delivery depends on disciplined well field development, operation, and process control. Honeymoon is also positioned as a future processing hub with established plant, utilities, infrastructure, and workforce that can support production from additional deposits over time. As Matt pointed out, before I turn to the technical details, it is worth addressing the execution capability we have on-site. In a producing ISR operation, the quality of site leadership directly influences safety, production reliability, cost control, and pace of improvement. Over the past 12 months, Boss has selectively strengthened the operational leadership team across well fields, processing, projects, health and safety, environment and radiation, and people and culture. The team now combines international ISR experience with Australian operating experience. That includes capability from established ISR operations in Kazakhstan and relevant operation experience from Heathgate and Olympic Dam. The team has direct experience operating and improving uranium and ISR assets, and that experience is now being applied to continuously improve safety, reliability, production, and performance at Honeymoon. Honeymoon is only one of three producing uranium mines in Australia and only one of two Australian ISR operations. In a market environment where new supply is difficult to bring online, existing production has great value. The production plant restart has been successfully completed. First production in 2024, commercial production in January of 2025. Five of the planned six IX columns are commissioned and operating, as are both calcine and kilns. We have achieved record flow rate through the IX columns in the recent months, operating on average at 2,500 cu m per hour. The drying and packing area has also been running at the equivalent of 2.5 million pounds per annum rates, albeit intermittently as we are constrained by input from the well fields. The majority of the capital base is already in place. Our allocation of capital is therefore not for greenfield build. It is optimization and increased utilization of existing infrastructure. The operating history demonstrates a genuine ramp-up. First production in 2024, 871,000 lbs in 2025, 1.4 million pounds in FY 2026. From restart to June 30 this year, Honeymoon has produced 2.31 million pounds of U3O8, commissioned six well fields, five ion-exchange columns, and one trunk line to open up a new mining area. That represents a substantial transition from the restart through to an established operation. FY 2027 guidance is 1.25 million - 1.3 million pounds, a slight reduction from FY 2026 due to our transition to the wider space wellfields in this financial year. Production in FY 2027 will be limited by water treatment capacity and the rate at which new wellfields can be conditioned and brought online. The weather events we had in February and March this year resulted in around 26 lost days. However, the plant has demonstrated its capability with record quarterly production of 456,000 lbs in Q2 FY 2026, and that was only utilizing three IX columns that were installed at the time. Our operations path is therefore well-defined: increase our water treatment capacity, accelerate wellfield development, and utilize that processing capacity that is already installed. This slide shows the Honeymoon mining lease with a processing plant as a central hub. Sorry if you are on the wrong side, but I am not sure this is going to show up. Processing plant is there. Wellfields will be progressively developed around the plant over the life of mine. Each new wellfield is incremental development that connects into existing infrastructure. That is a key feature of ISR operating model and supports a staged capital discipline execution for growth. East Kalkaroo has recently commenced mining. That area is at the far right of the mining lease and is connected to the plant via a purpose-built trunk line. That is the same method that we will use to connect Brooks Dam to the northwest and then Jason's Wellfield up to the north. The operation is straightforward, proven, and continuously utilized. Now on to the processing plant. With minor capital improvements in known bottleneck areas, the Honeymoon plant has installed capacity up to 2.5 million pounds per annum. Against FY 2027 guidance of 1.25 million - 1.3 million pounds, that provides meaningful headroom within the existing processing infrastructure to achieve our life-of-mine plan, not only that but more. The process has three main stages. First, the uranium-bearing leach solution is pumped from the wellfields to the plant, where continuous ion -exchange columns load the uranium onto resin. The barren leach solution is therefore refortified with reagents and returned to the wellfield to continue the leaching and loading cycle. Second, the loaded resin is eluted, which effectively means the uranium is stripped of the resin. That is precipitated and thickened into a yellowcake slurry. Finally, the slurry is washed, dewatered and calcined to produce U3O8, which is drummed on-site for transport to our customers. This is proven processing technology that is operating today. The opportunity here is to feed that plant more from the wellfields at a higher utilization and take advantage of that installed capacity. This slide explains where the value is created and where the current operating constraints sit. Honeymoon operates as one continuous ISR circuit from wellfield to drum. It does not require crushing, grinding, or conventional tailings dam. That is the fundamental advantage of ISR: low capital intensity, low operating complexity, and a smaller surface footprint than conventional mining. The front end of the circuit, the solution movement through the wellfields and resin loading, is volumetrically flow constrained by the wellfields and the capacity of the IX columns. The back end, precipitation, drying, calcination, drumming, and packing, has available capacity up to 2.5 million pounds and is constrained by the amount of uranium-bearing solution that we can deliver from the wellfields. In practical terms, current output is set by how quickly we can bring new wellfields into production via the commissioning process, and in effect, the uranium grade that we feed to the plant. Our investment case is therefore focused and measurable. Remove that front-end bottleneck, improve wellfield delivery, and increase the utilization of the infrastructure that we have already built. Now moving on to one of those bottlenecks. The water treatment plant is one of the most important enabling pieces of infrastructure at Honeymoon. New wellfields require conditioning before production can commence. It is done to remove calcium and chlorides, and the rate at which this can be achieved depends on that water treatment plant capacity. Calcium removal eliminates the risk of scaling that can lead to constrained operations. Chlorides compete with uranium during the ion -exchange capture, which affects the recovery. Removing these elements prior to the leaching ensures our operation maintains capacity and recovery. The life-of-mine plan assumes approximately eight new wellfields each year, each conditioned over around 45 days. Water treatment capacity is a key driver of the rate at which that new production can be brought online. The water treatment process itself is very well understood. Neutralization to remove heavy metals, softening to remove the calcium, and reverse osmosis to remove the chlorides. With permeate or clean water reused across the plant and those wellfields. Two capacity initiatives are underway. A debottlenecking the existing plant by Q4 of FY 2027, and a second water treatment plant to more than double the treatment capacity and permeate production by Q3 FY 2028. Stage 1 of the water treatment upgrade is a near-term debottlenecking program for the existing water treatment plant. These are practical targeted upgrades, so no bottlenecks. Our objective is to increase water treatment capacity to approximately 130 cu m per hour, with the upgraded plant expected to be operational in Q4 this financial year. Stage 1 is being delivered in parallel with the Stage 2 project to improve near-term capacity while progressing the expansion required to support the life of mine schedule. Stage 2 is the major capacity expansion, designed to sustain reverse osmosis feed at 300 cu m per hour and produce approximately 210 cu m per hour permeate, with delivery targeted for that Q3 in FY 2028. This project includes duplication of the neutralization and softening capacity, increased raw water supply, and liquid disposal capacity. It also includes the lixiviant bleed preconditioning and iron recovery, which will reduce our ferric sulfate consumption while supporting increased plant capacity. Stage 2 is the key infrastructure upgrade underpinning the planned life of mine production schedule. In parallel to that capital program, Boss is progressing a disciplined business improvement program focused on cost reduction, productivity and operating reliability. So far, we've delivered four programs that have positively impacted cost recovery and production. The optimized lixiviant chemistry project alone has reduced wellfield leaching costs while also increasing wellfield recovery rates. We have a number of initiatives currently in progress or planned to commence in the near term. One of these opportunities is recovering first fills. First fills include sulfuric acid, ferric sulfate, and peroxide. Over the planned life of mine at Honeymoon, first fills will cost in the order of AUD 100 million. By recovering or reusing these, or even a portion of which, you can do the numbers. Individually, these initiatives are incremental. Collectively, they are expected to support a more reliable operating platform and a lower unit cost structure as production volumes increase. I'll close this section with safety, which remains our highest priority. Honeymoon's total recordable injury frequency rate, or TRIFR, remains elevated. Honeymoon is a young operating business with a modest hours work base. Despite that, we don't accept this as our benchmark. Boss has deliberately strengthened its safety leadership and reporting culture to encourage transparency and accuracy in reporting since the transition from a construction site to a predominantly operational site. This has led to an increase in TRIFR, but more importantly, it's identified areas for targeted safety improvement. We're setting the correct platform to improve our safety performance through leadership, hazard identification, risk mitigation, and safety-critical controls. Safety performance, including both leading and lagging indicators, is incorporated to all employees' KPI frameworks. Our commitment is clear: a safe, healthy, and supportive workplace for our people. Consistent operational performance depends on that foundation. Thanks, everyone. I'll now hand over to Olivier, our Head of Technical Services and Planning, to take you through wellfield design and operations. Thanks, Conrad. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Olivier Regnault. I joined Boss Energy last year in September 2025. My background is in hydrogeology, geochemistry, and mining engineering. Prior to joining Boss Energy, I held a range of technical and managerial roles with Orano Mining with a strong focus on in-situ recovery operations. For example, I spent five years in KATCO in Kazakhstan, one of the world's largest ISR ore mine, where I was overseeing the wellfield operation, production forecasting, and development of new mining projects. Throughout my career, I have worked extensively on wellfield design, reservoir characterization, reactive transport modeling, mine planning, providing technical support to both operating assets and development projects. Today, I'm going to take you through the wellfield design underpinning the Honeymoon New Feasibility. But before getting into the detail, I would like to explain why this subject, wellfield design, is so important for an ISR operation. As you know, in conventional mining, we extract the ore, we bring it to the surface, we crush it, and we process it through a plant to release the commodity we want to produce. In ISR, we do most of that underground in-situ. Rather than bringing the rock to the chemistry to be processed, we are bringing the chemistry to the rock. The wellfield is therefore not simply a network of pipes and wells. It determines which memorized volume are contacted, how effectively the lixiviant moves through the reservoir, how long it remains in contact with the ore, how much uranium is dissolved, and ultimately, how much uranium can be recovered. That's why wellfield design is such a fundamental value driver in ISR. It directly influences the recovery, the production rate, reagent consumption, number of wells we need to drill, capital intensity, operating cost, et cetera. The purpose of this presentation today is to explain how we determine the preferred wellfields for Honeymoon, why the deposit can support wider space wellfields, and how we have used the production data and reactive transport modeling to build confidence in that decision. Before discussing wellfield design, I'd like to briefly return to the fundamental of ISR. Do not worry, I will not overwhelm you with science today, but I think it's worth spending a couple of minutes on a few simple concepts that sit at the heart of everything that follows. During my career, I have had the opportunity to work on ISR projects in different geological environments and geological and operating environments. In Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, and Canada also for some field trial. One thing I have learned is that every ISR operation is ultimately governed by two fundamental processes that are intrinsically coupled. The first is flow and the second is chemistry. Flow tells you where the solution goes, and chemistry determines what happens when it gets there. The pressure difference between the injection wells and extraction wells move the solution through the permeable mineralized sand. But moving the solution is not enough. The solution also needs sufficient contact with the uranium-bearing minerals. It needs time to overcome the natural buffering capacity of the rock, oxidize the uranium, and bring it into solution. The distance between the injector and extractor, therefore, affects both the transport time and the chemical reaction time. If the wells are too close together, the solution may move rapidly from the injector to the extractor without contacting enough mineralized material or having enough time to react effectively. If they are too far apart, more rock may be contacted, but the production response becomes slower and more dependent on the continuity of the reservoir. Well field design is therefore about finding this right balance between flow time and reaction time. That leads to the central question behind the entire study. How do we determine the balance for real three-dimensional, spatially variable deposits? Just before to come on this slide. When I first became involved in ISR, during my first mission, my first trip to KATCO in Kazakhstan, I was R&D engineer, and I was asked to work on a field leaching trial for a new deposit at the mine of KATCO mine. One of my first question was to experienced engineers working there for years already, was how we are going to choose the geometry of the pilot patterns we wanted to drill. And the answer came immediately, "Oh, that's easy. It will be 42 m, maybe 43 m." And I remember asking, "Yes, but why?" And the answer was just direct, "Because that's what works here." And I was just keeping wondering why and asking why. Surely they had some, let's say, more scientific explanation to that. And the response was also as direct, "Because science said so." Scientists have spent decades studying ISR system. There are entire books dedicated to groundwater flow, geochemistry, uranium recovery. If you have the chance to travel to St. Petersburg, maybe there is library where you can find these books. I haven't been there actually, but had a chance to read some of these books, not all of them because at this time we haven't the AI thing allowing us to translate immediately and summarize everything. What eventually realized is that those engineers were not guessing. Their confidence came from decades of field experience, pilot trials, and commercial production. Over time, ISR engineers had progressively developed design rule, operating practice, and performance benchmark that became the industry standard in Kazakhstan. And those standards worked quite okay, which is why somebody could, let's say, look at a new deposit and say, "Okay, let's try 42 m. Most probably it will work." But I also learned that the answer was more profound than it first appeared, and that is there is no universal ISR design. There is no simple rule that tells you what is the optimum spacing, the ideal lixiviant chemistry, and there is absolutely no recovery factor that can be simply transferred from one deposit to another. Every reservoir behaves differently. Historically, wellfield configuration were often developed through extensive field characterization, but also a lot of pilot trials and years of operational experience. Some of the best ISR engineers I have worked with developed a very good understanding of reservoir behavior from years of field observation on decades of operating wellfields. The challenge here is that this learning process takes time, especially when you are dealing with a new deposit. What we are trying to do at Honeymoon is accelerate that learning process by combining field observation, production data, and predictive reservoir modeling. To do that, we simplify the problem into four fundamental question. The first one is, where can the solution flow? What is the geometry of your system, the geometry of your reservoir? The second one is, how does the solution move? Meaning that what is the hydrodynamics parameters, the constraints of your reservoir? What is the priority, the porosity that will control this flow? The third one is, what uranium can it contact? Meaning so what is the uranium inventory, but more than that. How this uranium is distributed within the reservoir. This is a key parameter we need really to understand before starting to design anything. The fourth one, which is a key one also, is how does the reservoir react? What is the chemical reactivity you will find when you will start to inject something into the reservoir? None of these question can be considered in isolation. A highly permeable reservoir is not necessarily a good ISR reservoir if the grade of acid-consuming mineral is too high, for instance. Or a high-grade resource may not perform well if the hydraulic connectivity is poor. The advantage we have at Honeymoon is that we are not trying to answer these questions from exploration data alone. We now have production data from both the historical Uranium One operation and the current Boss Energy oil fields. That gives us a substantial operating data set to understand not only what the reservoir looks like, but how it actually currently behaves. The next question is: what are we actually trying to determine through wellfield design? It is not only about choosing the distance between wells. Spacing is important, but it is only one part of a much larger interacting system. First, we need to choose the pattern geometry. It, that can be a five-spot, a seven-spot, a line drive, or a locally adapted even configuration that fits the geometry of the resource. Second, we need to determine, yes, the spacing, so the distance from injector to extractor. Third, we need also to understand how each well will be completed. Where will the screen will be positioned? The screen being the active part in the well in contact with the ore within the reservoir. Also how will we manage areas containing several stacked minerals horizon because we cannot have screen more than, I don't know, 10, 12 m. If we have thicker mineralization, we need to understand how we will deal with that. Also, it is related to the operating conditions. There is the geometry on one hand. On the other hand, you also need to understand what flow you will be able to apply in your system and what will be the chemistry of the leaching solution you will use. What will be the amount of acid and oxidant you intend to inject in this reservoir. All these decision interacts, as I've said already. If we increase spacing, we increase the volume to be contacted, but we also increase the residence time. The time the solution is interacting with the ore, and that may improve the contact and ultimate recovery, but it can also delay the production response. If we increase the flow, you can accelerate this response, but you will also reduce the residence time. If we change also the injection chemistry, you can change the conditioning time, the uranium dissolution kinetics, and the reagent demand, obviously. We are not searching for the best spacing in isolation, once again. We are really searching for the best overall system for one specific reservoir. Because all of these interactions are complex, we need a method capable of testing them together, and this is where reactive transport modeling becomes particularly valuable. Reactive transport modeling, it is not a new or specialist concept. The underlying science has been developed and used across the industry for more than four decades now. It emerged at the end of the 1980s from the need to understand systems where groundwater movement and chemical reactions occur simultaneously. Over time, it has been applied first to radioactive waste management, and then groundwater remediation, carbon dioxide storage, geothermal reservoir, oil and gas system, and obviously mining. ISR, if you look at it, is particularly natural application because the flow and the chemistry are inseparable. My own involvement with reactive transport modeling goes back more than 20 years, including work associated with CO2 storage and ISR systems. What has changed over that period is not the basic science. What has improved is our ability today to apply it at a reservoir scale in three dimension using detailed geological models and large operating data sets. Thanks to the increase also of the computation capacity. At Honeymoon, the objective is not, of course, to create a sophisticated model for its own sake. The objective is practical, as we want it to move beyond empirical rules and support well field design with a data-driven understanding of how the reservoir physically and chemically respond to ISR. In simple terms, the model combines two calculation. It calculates how the solution moves through the reservoir. If you remember the first slide, Darcy's law. Basically, it's Resolve this equation to describe how with the difference of pressure between the injectors and the extractors, combined with the distance between these two wells, the solution will move through the porous media. At the same time, for every time step of the calculation, it will also calculate how that solution, which is moving through the reservoir, reacts with the minerals it encounters. That is what allows us to move from a static geological resource model to a time-dependent production forecast. This slide shows how the RTM, or reactive transport model, connects reservoir characterization to mine planning. We start with what we know about the reservoir, and it will be most of our input data when doing the simulation. First, the resource model, including uranium grade, thickness, inventory. As I said, uranium grade distribution in 3D is really fundamental to have a good description of what will be the, say, efficiency of the leaching. The hydrogeology parameters, including permeability, porosity, and hydraulic connectivity. We have the chance at Honeymoon to have a very detailed description of the permeability distribution based on the acquisition we have with NMR probe. It is, to my knowledge, quite unique for an ISR operation. The geochemistry and mineralogy, of course. Based on all the mineralogical characterization we have done, it will control. It will explain. It will describe how will be consumed the acid, the oxidant, and of course, how will be, let's say, kinetically control the uranium dissolution. It is all about the description of this reservoir. As input also of the simulation, we need to describe the operating conditions, such as spacing, so where are located the wells and the screen of the wells within the reservoir, and what is the leachate chemistry. What is important to understand, it is not independent data sets. There are all these different data. There are different description of the same reservoir. The RTM combines them into a three-dimensional computational model and simulates how each proposed well field is expected to behave through time. This is where the approach differs for more traditional ISR planning methods. We do not assume that every well field behaves the same way. Each well field has its own geology, reservoir geometry, hydraulics, geochemistry, and sometimes operating conditions. Therefore, the RTM generates a production response for each well field. At the scale of each well field or even at each extractor. It will describe when uranium arrives, how quickly recovery develops, what tenor can be expected from these wells or these well fields, and how much reagent is required to operate these well fields. Those individual well field response then become the building blocks of the life of mine schedule. Ultimately, the value of this workflow is simple. It is to connect the geology of the deposit directly to the production forecasting and mine planning. An additional value of this approach is that the model has the potential to become a digital twin of the reservoir. One of the practical challenges with ISR is that we cannot directly observe what is happening between the wells. In a conventional mine, geologists can inspect a pit wall or directly observe the ore being mined. In ISR, the mining process takes underground, and we can only observe it indirectly through flow rates, basically, and chemistry of the extracted solution. It is all we have of the response of the mining process, I would say. That is where the reactive transport model can provide a digital representation of that hidden process. The slide shows one example of what can be evaluated inside the reservoir during the operation. At start, on the left part. The slide show, you will see the initial uranium distribution and the wells, the position of the screens. Here. Thank you. Of the screens for a given well field. It is a zoom on a specific place of the well field in East Kalkaroo, if I remember well. At the start, we see that the initial uranium distribution. Yeah. It is the start. After six months, the most accessible uranium among the main flow paths has started to be recovered. Then after 18 months, when for this wellfield, we are close to the final recovery, we can identify where residual uranium remains within the reservoir. This is very valuable output because production data alone tells us how much uranium has been recovered, has been extracted, but not necessarily why some uranium remains and where. The model help us distinguish, for instance, between areas that have not been contacted yet or areas that lie outside the effective sweep volume, helping the operator to support future optimization opportunities. That is nice picture, and for any, let's say, modeling processes. It is sometimes very easy to produce these nice, beautiful 3D images. But the real test is whether it can reproduce what actually happened in the field. Coming to calibration of the model. This is most probably one of the most important step in the entire workflow. Before asking the model, of course, to forecast future production, we first ask it to explain the past. Can we reproduce the pH at the outlet of the wellfield, the uranium tenor, and ultimately uranium recovery? As I said before, we have an important calibration data set that covers different wellfield and, most importantly, different operating periods. The historical Uranium One operation and the current Boss Energy wellfields. The two operators used a different approach, different wellfield design, conditioning approaches, and operating strategies. We are therefore not calibrating the model to one specific set of conditions, we are testing whether one consistent representation of the reservoir can reproduce different operating response. This is particularly important for this study because we want to test the behavior of future design decision. If the model can reproduce performance under different operating strategies, wellfield configuration, and conditioning approaches, we can have greater confidence when using it to evaluate future spacing and development scenarios. As shown in this slide, the model reproduce pH, uranium tenor, cumulative production, and recovery with a very good level of consistency, when looking at the overall production. In orange you have what has been observed on the wellfield. In blue, you have what is calculated by the code. Here you can see the two different operating periods, Uranium One time and now, what we are doing with Boss Energy. What is particularly important is that you can see on this slide that it captures, for instance, that the pH response observed during the Uranium One period together and was quite higher compared to the pH we can achieve now. In the opposite, the uranium tenor in the PLS solution was quite lower compared with what we can achieve now with our wellfield. This constructing response reflect real differences in operating strategy between the two periods. Again, the fact that the model successfully reproduced them suggests that it is capturing the underlying physical and geochemical behavior of the reservoir, rather than simply matching production trends. We then make the calibration test more demanding. Rather than looking at the overall mine response, we move to the individual wellfield scale. This is an important step because life of mine is forecasted and scheduled wellfield by wellfield, not from an average reservoir. As shown in this slide, the model continues to reproduce with a satisfying level of accuracy the observed production response across individual wellfields despite these differences. This is showing the comparison between the simulated cumulative production versus observed cumulative production for seven of the wellfields, Uranium One and Boss Energy. At this scale, we can see that we still have a very satisfying reproduction of the response with range sitting in the, let's say, a ±15%, which is quite a very good achievement for these kind of modeling works. It demonstrate that the model is not only capturing the overall performance of the version, but also can capture the local variability between the wellfields and the difference also in term of operating conditions. So give us the confidence we need to use this model for the future wellfield design and development scenarios. What's now about the Honeymoon deposit that supports wider space wellfields? It comes down for a combination of favorable reservoir characteristic. First, we have a remarkably high permeability and a strong well productivity, providing the flow capacity needed to sustain circulation over greater distance. Second, the reservoir exhibits a strong hydraulic connectivity, so operating data already confirms the effective communication between the wells, which is essential, of course, if wider space patterns are to perform as intended. And third, mineralization occurs within a laterally extensive mineralized envelope, allowing larger patterns to maintain contact with mineralized material. In addition of that, the deposit benefits from favorable vertical continuity, low acid-consuming mineralogy, and effective confinement provided by basement and the underlying Namba Formation. If I had to summarize this slide, I would say that Honeymoon possesses most of the ingredients an ISR engineers would look for when considering a wider spacing wellfield. So high flow capacity, strong connectivity, extensive mineralized envelope, and favorable mineralogy. Well field design constraints, or before evaluating alternative design, we first need to convert the resource model we have into a practical and minable well fields. We therefore apply a series of geological and hydraulic constraint to ensure that every design contains sufficient uranium inventory, adequate mineralization continuity, and hydraulic connectivity required for efficient ISR recovery. This includes criteria such as minimum grade thickness, minimum vertical continuity, and minimum mineralized surface coverage for each of the pattern we draw and we intend to drill. Together, these criteria define the framework within which future well fields can be designed and evaluated, and they ensure that all scenarios of well field are built and compared on a consistent geological and operational basis. We can now begin evaluating well field design alternatives. Throughout this study, multiple scenarios were constructed, varying pattern geometry, well spacing, vertical configuration, operating condition, and injection strategy. Each scenario were then modeled through reactive transport simulation. The production response curve of each of the well fields were used to build the mining sequence and a production profile. Ultimately, each of these scenarios was evaluated using the same scorecard, including well count, reagent consumption, production timing, average payload tenor, and uranium recovery, of course. The preferred design is therefore not the design that performs best against one metric. It is the design that provides the best overall balance across the complete operating system. This, we will have a movie break. This video, not sure it will work like that. Yeah. Provide a broader view of one full plan well field development. It shows one of the output of the simulation, obviously. It shows the reservoir, the bottom of the reservoir. There are approximately 1,250 planned wells of the NFS base case and the progressive startup of each well field through time. We begin this. I can replay it. Yeah, we are getting in 2025 with Honeymoon, so the area that we are currently operating. Then progressively we move into East Kalkaroo. Conrad was saying that we have the first well field under operation now, followed by Central Kalkaroo with Brooks Dam developed later in the sequence. As each well field comes online, the model simulates the corresponding development of reservoir acidification and then uranium dissolution, leaching, recovery, et cetera. The key message here is not the animation itself, is to also make it clear that the approach has been applied across the entire development plan, covering all the planned well fields at all stages of operation. You may also see that it is kind of important to have this overall approach when doing the simulation and not simulate well field by well field. Obviously, it is what we see on the field, but it is kind of well represented in this video. A well field is not a separated unit, so there is no impermeable barriers all around one well field. There is a lot of interactions between the well fields. Having this overall approach allows also to take into account these interactions of the well field when calculating the operating response. These slides illustrates how changing the well field design change the production response. What you are seeing on the top part of the slides and bottom part, it is the production response, so the result of the simulation for two different well field designs. The 49-m design, 49 m, distance between injector and extractor, and the 70-m design. The two set of graphs, the first one is showing the evolution of the uranium tenor in each of the extraction wells. The second one, on the right, is just the aggregate of all these extractor wells for one well field that shows the recovery curve. How fast we are recovering the resource below the well field. On the top example, for the 49-m design, the uranium response arrives earlier with a relatively narrow production profile and a faster buildup in cumulative recovery. In the 70-m design, bottom of the slide, each pattern covers a larger area, and the flow path is longer, and as a result, the uranium response is delayed. But the production is sustained over a longer period of time and reaches higher peak tenor. It is all linked to the residence time in the reservoir. We also see for the 70-m design, broader recovery curves with the recovery continuing to increase for longer before approaching this final value. In other words, changing the spacing affects not only how much uranium is recovered for one wellfield, but also when it is recovered. Changing spacing fundamentally changes also the timing and shape of the wellfield response. This slide helps explain the trade-off we observed on the previous slide, and how we have selected our 49-m basis for the one NFS. Here we are comparing the 35-m spacing, which is basically the historical spacing we were using in Honeymoon. The 49-m spacing in the middle, the one we have picked up for the baseline of our New Feasibility, and a spacing, let's say, larger, close to 70 m, the distance between injectors and extractors. At relatively tight spacing as we were operating before, 35 m, solution moves quickly between the injectors and extractors. You now have understood that you will have a breakthrough that occurs early, but the residence time is shorter and uranium dissolution efficiency remains suboptimal. As the spacing increases, the solution remains longer in contact, the residence time increase, and the leaching efficiency improve and more uranium can be recovered for each wellfield. This relationship is illustrated by the dissolution efficiency curves shown at the bottom of the slide. Initially, increasing the residence time delivers successional gain in uranium dissolution efficiency. However, beyond a certain point, the curve progressively flattens and the incremental benefit from additional spacing becomes smaller and smaller. The NFS base case was directly selected in the lower end of the preferred balance region, where we capture most of the available benefit while maintaining a controlled production response and operational flexibility. Importantly, these curves, however, also highlights that the optimization window exists between the 49-m base case and the 70-m configuration. The modeling suggests that additional value may still be available in that range, although the gains becomes progressively smaller and smaller, and must be balanced against lower response time and greater reliance on hydraulic continuity. We'll see later that we are evaluating spacing configuration within this opportunity window in order to determine how much additional value can realistically be captured beyond the NFS design. This is where we start putting numbers behind the concepts we've been discussing so far. Basically, it's what you have presented, Matt, when introducing these talks. The key result is the step from 35 m, our historical wellfield design, to 49 m. By increasing spacing, the project requires almost half of the number of wells and wellfields, while delivering higher uranium tenor, higher ultimate recovery, and more than doubling the uranium recovered per extraction well. In other words, we're not simply reducing development intensity, we are also improving the efficiency of the wellfield. The 70-m scenario extend that trend and delivers some additional recovery benefits. However, as shown on the previous slide, those additional gain are progressively smaller and are achieved over a longer production response and are more reliant also on this geological continuity. What this analysis clearly demonstrate is that the wider spacing has the potential to significantly improve both capital efficiency and wellfield productivity relative to the historical design. Benchmark against global ISL operations. People sometimes ask whether a 49m or 50 m injector to extractor spacing is unusually wide for an ISL operation. The short answer is no. When benchmarked against major ISL operations worldwide, the NFS base case sits within the range commonly used across the industry. The potential 70-m spacing sits towards the upper end of that range, which is why we view it as an optimization opportunity requiring field validation rather than as the NFS design basis. What is, once again, particularly interesting at Honeymoon is not the spacing itself, it is the combination of spacing, strong well productivity, and favorable geochemistry. Average extraction well flow rates are around 32 cu m per hour, which is significantly higher than many of ISL operations. When I was operating a well field in Kazakhstan, we were more, let's say, the order of magnitude was more close to 8 cu m - 10 cu m per hour. We really have remarkably high flow rates, and we can achieve the flow rate supporting us that this greater distance are not an issue at all. At the same time, acid consumption remains relatively low because the deposit contains very little acid-consuming minerals, so carbonate and reactive clay. I haven't seen all the ISL operations existing, but really the acid consumption in Honeymoon, and it is a key driver for the ISL operation, is very, very low. What gives me confidence is the fact that we don't have only one, but multiple independent indicators that are all pointing in the same direction, that increasing the distance between the well is not an optimization actually. It is what we need to do to properly operate these well fields, this reservoir. The NFS design sits within an established ISR operating range, while the underlying deposit characteristic compare very favorably with many industry benchmarks. Continuous optimization. You've understood that the NFS is not the end of the optimization process, quite the opposite. It provides a robust design basis against which future optimization opportunities can be assessed. It is already the case on site, so the current field program gives us the opportunity to test several spacing configuration under real operating conditions. EKT2 provides the 49-m reference response aligned with the NFS design basis, so already drilled and coming soon into production. EKT1 is already testing 60 m, so something beyond our NFS base case and already drilled and under flushing under weights. HMT1, our last, let's say, large, trial is testing the 70 m, so the top end of the range we want to explore. Over the coming months, we'll monitor the evolution of these well fields, obviously, of course, as they move through conditioning and to production. We'll have a very close look at both the transition phase, so when we are starting the flushing, the acidification of the reservoir, looking at the pH and uranium breakthroughs, that will give us a lot of indication about the probability continuity, the connectivity between the wells. We'll look at the flow stability, the peak tenor we will develop, and the recovery rate, of course, compared against RTM forecast. We'll obtain this first comparison database to evaluate the optimization opportunities beyond the NFS design basis. Last but least, this bring me to the final part of this section. The NFS establish our robust base case, but it should not be viewed at the endpoint. The optimization works continues. The most obvious I just discussed about that is spacing, of course, but we also see opportunities in multi-horizon development, infrastructure reuse, and reagent optimization. You were mentioning that, Conrad. Most importantly, every new well field generates new operating data. In ISR, operating data is one of the most valuable asset you can have. It improves forecasting, reduces uncertainty, and helps refine future design, especially when you have a simulation tool that allow you to test ideas, to quantify opportunities, and better understand how the reservoir respond over time. If I leave you today with three key messages. First, the wider space design at Honeymoon is supported by the physical characteristic of the deposit. Second, the design is supported by both operating data and calibrated reactive transport model. It is not theoretical study, if I can say so. Third, the 49-m NFS design is not a limit. It is a robust starting point that delivers substantial value today while preserving additional optimization opportunities for the future. Ultimately, our objective is simple, continue improving the value recovered for every well field we develop. Thank you. Thank you, Conrad and Olivier. I think, just give you a little bit of context of how much and how quick we've developed in our understanding over that short period of time since November. Make a start on the next section, and I'll talk about Gould's and Jason's. After Olivier and Conrad's conversation, it better links to about how we view these assets and how they fit into that production profile for Gould's and Jason's. A little bit of context, regional map there or regional image showing locations of Gould's, Honeymoon, and Jason's. Jason's Deposit is located around about 14 km away from Honeymoon. Gould's a little bit further, about 80 km. One thing that does stand out on that image is the scale of Gould's Dam. If you look at just purely from a footprint perspective, how big Gould's Dam is. It is around about 15 km of non-mineralization that we have at Gould's Dam. Total resource that sits within that portfolio is at 66 million pounds, of which that 45 million pounds within Jason's and Gould's. Just Gould's Dam in itself, about 33 million pounds in Gould's Dam, 15 km of strike of non-mineralization. The image here shows where that 33 million pounds sit. As you see here on this image, the 33 million pounds only sits within these two areas. The areas shown in color. That's the resource for 33 million pounds at Gould's and Jason's. There's a significant extent of mineralization outside of our known resource at Gould's and Jason's. You can see that on that image. The image there also shows some of the drilling outside of that mineral resource, color-coded based on grade. From a business perspective, what Honeymoon has given us is really given us a tool, with the work Olivier's doing, and an understanding of what really drives value in these ISR deposits. We know Gould's Dam, for example, is amenable to wide-spacing ISR, very similar. We have done leach test work, et cetera. Previously as a business, we were focused on grade. Therefore, when we looked at these assets before under a business, we just saw a very poor resource to mine plan conversion, because when you looked at it just did not convert under that same sort of operating parameters that we were running under the EFS. Within the context of Honeymoon and the New Feasibility Study, you can understand why, as a business, we now look at these assets differently and look at them potentially as a system. Gould's Dam, as a mineralized system, is actually larger than Honeymoon. That gives you some of that context and then what we will do is about continue to develop both Gould's and Jason's. Similar story for Jason's. Like I said, 14 km from Honeymoon. The outline here shows where that resource of that 12 million pounds sits within that colored area. Again, significant room to extend that resource beyond that. Again, very similar in terms of amenability to ISR. Same sort of geological characteristics as we see at Honeymoon. One of the things that we have done within the business was really accelerate Gould's and Jason's. In parallel to the New Feasibility Study and the work that we are doing on the New Feasibility Study, we wanted to make sure that we were advancing Gould's and Jason's as an option to the business. With that plan, Honeymoon review, we also at the time were looking at Gould's and Jason's. We made a decision to defer coming out with a resource on Gould's and Jason's at that time. We then put more learnings into that mineral resource that we took to the market in March this year. We made sure what we were seeing at Honeymoon, in terms of the resource and ensuring we captured permeability and some of the grade continuity questions, we partially addressed as part of that last resource update for Gould's and Jason's. In parallel to that, we also accelerated all the environmental baseline information that we needed so that we are actually in a very good position. I talk about pressing go on permitting process. We are really at that fine end now to start that final push on that permitting process for both Gould's and Jason's. How we see those assets being developed. We talk to a capacity at Honeymoon of 2.5 million pounds per annum. That is what the plant was built at. How do we actually get up to 2.5 million pounds? That is before we have to invest additional capital. That is why when we talk to this aspirational target of 2.5 million pounds, it is because that is the step before we do not have to spend a lot of capital in the business. Beyond that 2.5 million pounds is a step of capital to continue to improve. Not to say it will not happen, but it is just an easy step to do at this point in time to maximize that sunk infrastructure and that capital that we have at Honeymoon. In terms of development options. It is all about trying to be capital light, and utilizing that existing infrastructure. The simplest development options for both of those deposits, for Jason's, it is a simple trunk line, 13 km, 14-km trunk line. We have got trunk lines running all over the place. Quite easy to do. I will talk a little bit about what you need at site, what you need at Jason's, but it is just an extension to Honeymoon. It is just a little bit further, piping solution around the place. Gould's is a little bit different. The best route for Gould's probably will be a resin loading facility. That photo there is an example of what enCore Energy does in Rosita. I will talk a little bit about that. But you effectively truck loaded resin back to Honeymoon. The advantage of that is you do not invest this significant capital on a trunk line that is constrained, because once you have got a trunk line, size is constrained, so you get a volume constraint, which is ultimately a pounds constraint. But the other advantage then is you decoupled Honeymoon from a flow perspective, and then you can actually maximize pounds at Honeymoon. You have automatically decoupled your constraint because we have lowered head grade. Our head grade is lower than EFS. But by trucking resin, then you are decoupling Honeymoon from a flow, therefore, you back end constrain on metal. Low capital sequence staged. As we look at that, how we optimize not just one production source, but three production sources into a centralized processing facility. That in itself gives us comfort to look at how we as a business get to 2.5 million pounds. Although we talked to 1.9 million pounds in the New Feasibility Study, that 1.9 million pounds was the maximum we could do out of the Honeymoon resource. That was the basis of the feasibility study. But when you start to look at optimizing three ore sources, then the next constraint will be your processing plant. That is why 2.5 million pounds from a production level is a low capital entry to go up to 2.5 million pounds. Timing on that, early 2030s, and I will talk a little bit about the timing. But then that also means that there is significant resources feeding in, so you end up with a long life production at 2.5 million pounds out to the 2040s quite easily. Again, shifts you down the cost curve, and the line there shows Boss Energy looking at AISC. When we get to a 2.5 million pounds, we actually start shifting ourselves quite a long way down that cost curve, which is where we want to be also in a business as well. It shows you that advantage. Image here of Jason's. Trunk line. No challenge with the trunk line. Typical trunk line. Be PLS and BLS, and plus permeant water, so probably flowing back and forward. At Jason's, as the central image shows, you need a tank and a pumps. Everything else would be exactly the same as what we do at Honeymoon. So well field is exactly the same, et cetera. The only additional infrastructure you would just need is a couple of tanks and pumping, just because of that distance. Again, and we are not talking capital per se yet, but we need to cut low capital cost options to bring into the business. Like I said, Gould's Dam, a little bit different. Gould's Dam does require a little bit more capital at Gould's Dam, and that capital is a trade-off between trunk line versus satellite resin loading facilities. Typically, these satellite loading facilities consist of some fixed-bed reactors. We need a little bit of reagent storage on site, and we would need water treatment at Gould's. Trucking resin, it is done across U.S. You roughly get around about 3,000 lbs - 4,000 lbs per truck. You are not talking a lot of truck movements. You do not need a lot of trucks to offload resin to build that production profile up to that 2.5 million pounds. Again, capital light, and these studies, as you can see from the layout drawings, are quite well advanced in terms of our thinking about how we do this. Baseline studies are well progressed. We have been cracking hard at baseline studies behind while we are working in parallel with the New Feasibility Study. We are completing most of the groundwater, done most of the environmental and fauna. We are doing engineering. Completed preliminary metallurgical work on Gould's and Jason's. We are in a position now to start wrapping all that up to submit for environmental. Nothing out of that test work or work to date suggests that when we are looking at Honeymoon, there is no fatal flora or fauna issues associated with both Jason's or Gould's. Nothing different than what we would be doing at Honeymoon. We did that decision at the time just to continue to give ourselves that option, and grateful we have, because otherwise we would be probably 12 months further back. That is the ability for why we have advanced that in the background. In terms of indicative timetable, just shows here. Ideally, under the permitting regime, it is an EPBC, so we will get EPBC referral. We plan to submit that first of that, which really sets the timetable up for. We are probably in a position to do Jason's in next quarter, so last quarter of the calendar year. We will do Gould's early in the next calendar year. Stage those sequencing of those EPBC referrals. Then that triggers timing. A lot of the times if you have done the work in the background, then you can ensure that you try and get to a consolidated timetable. So there has been engagement with stakeholders, regulators already in terms of development of this timetable and processing route. Both those options allow the business to bring in Jason's and Gould's in that early 2030s, in that production profile. That is the timetable that we are working towards. The earlier that we bring that into the production profile, the easier and the quicker it will be to get that 2.5 million pounds and the value. There is a real impetus on us as a business to continue to ensure that we accelerate as much work as possible on Gould's and Jason's. A key part of that, ultimately too, is all about resource. So committing to increased resource confidence, with 33 million pounds at Gould's, so get to get that into indicated. Same at Jason's, but also about that resource extension opportunities. Then with that, we will also look at re-energizing our regional exploration around Honeymoon Hub and how we continue to bring in new feed into this production hub concept. A little bit on exploration at Gould's Dam. Committing to 70,000 m, 71,000 m, 72,000 m for this financial year at Gould's, Jason's, at Gould's Dam. Most of that drilling will go into both resource extension and continuation. That yellow or that orange area around there just shows you the area that we plan to drill. A lot of that area, we will continue to see. We are excited about actually growing this resource. We see that potential to grow that resource now that we understand this ISR and how low-grade and what the potential of ISR really means. We know that we have got good permeability, we know we have got low acid-consuming rocks, good continuity on mineralization, good thicknesses on mineralization. It is about getting that confidence on that resource to get that into mine plans. Very similar at Jason's. We will prioritize Jason's in terms of that drilling, should start this month for Jason's as we continue to push through. Committing to around about 15,000 m of drilling at Jason's, to bring that into that production profile and make sure we have got the right information that we need to continue to progress some of these studies that we are doing. In parallel to the activities we will do specifically at Jason's and Gould's is, the team is excited again. The team kind of thought, "Oh, those assets would never do anything." All of a sudden, we are identifying new opportunities, new areas to drill. We are also looking at around about 16,000 m of drilling that we will commit to looking at both regional resource extensions to both in the Honeymoon area, which is all about flow and then what really Gould's area does look like from a mineral systems perspective. Two images here show those areas. What the team has done is re-gone back through some of our interpretations of where we look for paleochannels. The passive seismic being really important in that. We have reinterpreted spaces that host these channels that are just not tested. Stepping back to really some regional air core to go and test some quite large spaces for potential mineralization, similar to Gould's and Jason's and Honeymoon in terms of style. That just gives a little bit of context about how we see Jason's and Gould's being part of a production hub for us, and then why we feel aspirationally that 2.5 million pounds for the early 2030s, is what we as a business are striving for. It is not the New Feasibility Study. The New Feasibility Study was done for a purpose. With the assets in our portfolio, how do we actually maximize and leverage that infrastructure? That is ultimately through Gould's and Jason's and bringing them into the production profile as quick as possible. Gould's, depending on the scale and size of Gould's, you may have to think about that, but, ultimately, that will come out of studies. Just before I wrap up, talk to the other asset in our portfolio with one slide. From an Alta Mesa perspective, as a business, we really have been focused on Honeymoon and delivering that New Feasibility Study. We also need to work with enCore Energy on how we get Alta Mesa, in terms of Alta Mesa. Production for FY 2026 was 161,000 lbs. You saw in the last quarter how production is decreasing, largely due to both timing of permitting and but also the ability to look through a planning process. So we've got a lot that we can help with enCore Energy in terms of taking a step back to really get these good plans in place for ISR, so you're not just chasing your tail and developing a well field at a time. It's an area that we'll work with enCore Energy to look at how we continue to understand plans and make better capital decisions for Alta Mesa. In terms of, and we'll just jump to Q&A in a second, but what I'll just do is quickly close. I think today has given everyone a good opportunity to understand the team, understand what we're working on as a business, understand the foundations that we've got now, and how much work has gone into both the New Feasibility Study. Which has ultimately given us a different lens to look at our regional exploration portfolio, a different lens to look at how we mine both Honeymoon, but then also a different lens to look at the value proposition of both Gould's and Jason's Deposit within our portfolio as well. So, for us as a business, the focus and the priorities are quite simple, really. It's deliver and optimize Honeymoon. We've got a plan for Honeymoon. We will continue to transition to this wide-spacing well field design at Honeymoon. Lots of talk about having to wait for trials, et cetera. There's a lot of science and a lot of work that's gone into that, a lot of comfort that we've got as a business to make that decision to progress to the wide spacing. The value proposition for us is how we quickly build Honeymoon into an operating hub, how we integrate Gould's and Jason's Deposit into that production mix. We're well advanced with permitting, and we'll continue with studies and that resource delineation drilling. Then it comes back to delivery of those is really about the value proposition that we deliver as a business through those steps and growths. You can see a little bit about that potential of Gould's that we're excited about as a business that we can take forward. So overall, as a business, we've really got a stronger foundation, and it's about converting that foundation really into performance and growth and shareholder value. That's how we kind of look at that, what we've done over a period of time with the New Feasibility Study and what we're moving forward with. Thank you, everyone. Thanks for coming today, and hopefully I gave you a good snapshot for us as a business, and we appreciate it. So thank you very much.