Hi, and welcome to the Boss Energy FY 2026 results and new feasibility study. All participants are in a listen only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. In the interest of time, participants are requested to limit the number of questions to two per turn. If you have additional questions, you are welcome to rejoin the queue and will be able to ask further questions if time permits. If we run out of time and do not have time for your question, we ask that you please call our office on 0862634494 or email boss@bossenergy.com and speak to our team. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Matt Dusci, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Thanks, Kate. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining today's conference call. This marks an important milestone for Boss Energy. We are pleased to be presenting our FY 2026 financial results, the new feasibility study and updated mineral resource estimate for the Honeymoon Deposit, and our FY 2027 guidance. We released a significant amount of information today. During this call, we will take you through some of those key outcomes. Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO, and Olivier Regnault, our Head of Technical Services and Planning. Olivier joined Boss in September last year, bringing extensive international uranium ISR experience to the business. Olivier, I will just hand across to you if you can give a short introduction. Yeah. Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. I am Olivier Regnault, Head of Technical Service and Planning at Boss Energy. So I hold a PhD in hydrogeology and geochemistry from Mines Paris, PSL University, France, and I have more than 15 years of experience in uranium in situ recovery, with particular expertise in well field design, reactive transport modeling, and the optimization of ISR operations. Before joining Boss Energy, I spent most of my career within Orano Mining, where I held a range of technical and management position and worked on ISR operations and development projects internationally, including the KATCO operation in Kazakhstan and projects in Uzbekistan and Mongolia. I am very pleased to be part of the Boss team and to contribute my experience of the development of Honeymoon and Boss other projects, and I look forward to answering any of your question at the end of this presentation. Thank you. Thanks, Olivier. It's great to have Olivier as part of Boss, complementing our strong operational technical capacity that we have in South Australia. As you can see throughout today's presentation, strengthening our technical capacity and deepening our understanding of the Honeymoon Deposit and how we mine it effectively has been central to the work we've been completing this year. I'll just turn to slide two, which is our disclaimer slide. I'll just draw you to attention to some cautionary statements on this slide, particularly a relationship to targets of production on inferred and indicated mineral resource. Also, unless otherwise stated, all currency amounts referred in today's presentation are in Australian dollars. Turning to slide three. FY 2026 was a significant progress in which we made material strength in the foundations of our business. Today's presentation is structured around three key areas. First, our FY 2026 financial results. We've doubled revenue, delivered our first year of positive free cash flow, and further strengthened our debt-free balance sheet. We did this in a capital-intensive year. Second, the new feasibility study. The NFS is the combination of an enormous amount of technical work and confirms a robust pathway for continued economic uranium production at Honeymoon. Importantly, it establishes a fundamental improved well field design and cost structure, underpinned by our operating experienced advanced modeling and deeper understanding of the deposit. Third, FY 2027 guidance. FY 2027 is a transitional year. It builds the foundations for Honeymoon's production ramp up and long-term value that follows. We will progressively move from the legacy well field design to a new wide space design. I'll talk about our capital allocations choices behind this profile in this presentation. Boss enters FY 2027 with a strong balance sheet, a robust plan for Honeymoon, significant opportunities for optimization, and exciting growth options while being strategically levered to a strengthening uranium market. With that, I'll hand across to Justin, who will take us through our FY 2026 financial results. Turning to slide four. Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. I'll now step through the FY 2026 results. Turning to slide five. FY 2026 was a year of significant operational and technical progress, supported by a strong and debt-free balance sheet. Sales revenue doubled to AUD 151.1 million, and with the AUD 15.5 million uranium loan repayment contributed to an average realized price of AUD 111 per pound or $74 per pound. We delivered a net profit after tax of AUD 2.5 million. We finished the year with 1.58 million pounds of uranium inventory. At the 30 June spot price, that inventory had a market value of approximately AUD 195 million. We also reinvested AUD 66.6 million at Honeymoon in well field development, infrastructure, and technical work. This was a substantial investment during FY 2026. Despite that investment, we closed the year with AUD 207.3 million in cash and liquid assets and no debt. We have a strong debt-free balance sheet and are generating positive operating cash flow, providing the financial capacity to fund Honeymoon's transition and pursue broader optimization and growth opportunities. Turning to slide seven. This slide shows year-on-year comparison. Revenue doubled from AUD 76 million to AUD 151 million, and the business moved from a AUD 34 million loss to a profit of approximately AUD 3 million. Operating cash flow increased from AUD 17 million to AUD 74 million. At Honeymoon, production increased 61% to 1.41 million pounds, compared with 872,000 pounds in FY 2025, and was within our revised production guidance. Full year C1 cost was AUD 39 per pound, and all-in sustaining cost was AUD 61 per pound, both within revised guidance. Importantly, we achieved these outcomes while continuing to build inventory and invest in the operating platform. The results demonstrate the cash-generating capacity at Honeymoon, while also highlighting the value of increasing production and spreading the largely fixed operating cost base over more pounds. Turning to slide seven and the financial summary. Operating cash flow for the year was AUD 73.6 million. That funded AUD 66.8 million of mine development across Honeymoon and Alta Mesa. And we increased cash by AUD 13.1 million to close the year at AUD 49.7 million. In other words, in a year where we invested heavily in well fields, NIM CIX Columns 4 and 5, the East Kalkaroo trunk line, and the technical work behind the NFS, the operation paid for that investment while adding cash and inventory to the balance sheet. That balance sheet remains a key strength. We closed FY 2026 with AUD 207 million in cash and liquid assets and no debt. Within that, uranium inventory grew by 172,000 lbs to 1.58 million pounds drummed inventory. As I mentioned, that inventory is carried at a book value of AUD 116 million but had a market value of approximately AUD 195 million using the 30 June spot price. That inventory position matters strategically. Boss remains deliberately under-contracted. We have chosen to retain uranium rather than sell it into the market as we believe it is strengthening, and that inventory gives us substantial flexibility on the timing of future sales, as well as direct exposure to uranium price upside. During the year, we also received 162,000 lbs from our 30% interest in the Alta Mesa joint venture, and also received the loan repayment from enCore in August 2025. Total net assets were AUD 477.6 million at 30 June. In summary, the business is now profitable, was cash generative through a heavy investment phase, debt-free, and holding a large, flexible uranium inventory. With this solid platform, we expect to continue to organically fund the ongoing transition to a wide-spaced well field design, which Matt will take you through now. Back to you, Matt. Thanks, Justin, for taking us through the FY 2026 financial results. I'll now move on to the new feasibility study. Turning to slide nine and the headline outcomes from the new feasibility study. The work that we've done has confirmed Honeymoon has a robust and economically viable pathway to long-term uranium production. The wide-spaced well field design supports production until at least FY 2034, with planned drum production of 13.8 million pounds over the nine-year period. This is a significant milestone for Boss. The work completed over the past year has transformed our understanding of the deposit and enabled us to establish a fundamentally improved development plan. At the center of this plan is wide-spaced well field design. It allows us to access more of the resource with fewer wells, less infrastructure, while increasing the residence time and supporting higher PLS grades and recoveries. The result is a material step change in Honeymoon's cost structure. On a like-for-like basis, applying the previous well field spacing to the updated mineral resource, the new design reduces life of mine all-in sustaining cost by approximately AUD 30 per pound. The plan is supported by Honeymoon's favorable ISR characteristics, including high permeability, effective aquifer confinement, low natural groundwater flow, low acid consumption. Our design and operating assumptions have also been benchmarked against established ISR operations globally. Importantly, this is a capital-efficient pathway. The majority of the required infrastructure is already in place with only approximately AUD 58 million of additional facilities capital planned over the life of the mine. This can be comfortably funded from our existing balance sheet and operating cash flow. The new feasibility study does more than confirm economic production. It establishes a low-cost, capital-efficient foundation for Honeymoon and provides a strong platform for future optimization and regional growth. Turning to slide 10. To understand the new feasibility outcome, it's important I just return back to the challenges identified during the Honeymoon Review. The assumptions underpinning the previously enhanced feasibility study did not reflect what we were seeing on the ground as we progressively developed and operated wellfields. We were not seeing the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization, and we were encountering mineralization within low permeable clay materials. Collectively, these factors were resulting in a smaller production wellfield, greater development intensity, and increasing unit cost. Ultimately, incremental improvements to the previous design was not going to be enough. We needed to fundamentally reset the cost structure of the operation. The wide-space wellfield design provides that pathway. We recognize the opportunity to fundamentally change the operations economics. Confirming the technical and economic viability of this approach of the wellfield design therefore became the center focus for the new feasibility study. This design approach is only possible because of the underlying deposit characteristics. Turning to slide 11. This slide shows the work undertaken from first identifying the deviation through to the delivery of the new feasibility study today. I'll not go through every step, but this timeline demonstrates the significant work completed in a highly accelerated timeframe. Over approximately 12 months, we materially improved our understanding of Honeymoon, strengthened our technical ISR capacity, and delivered a new feasibility level pathway on the wide-space design, all while continuing to operate the mine. I'm extremely proud of what the team has achieved. This work provides us a stronger technical foundation and a clearly defined pathway forward for Honeymoon. Turning to slide 12. I'll now step through an update on the mineral resource for Honeymoon. Turning to slide 13. The updated Honeymoon mineral resource is 21.4 million tons at 440 ppm for 20.8 million pounds of U3O8, reported 100 ppm cut-off grade. 66% of the resource is classified as indicated and 34% is inferred. The estimation was completed by RSC Global and forms the basis of the new feasibility study. Across the Honeymoon District, Boss has a now combined mineral resource of 65.9 million pounds, including 45 million pounds at Gould's Dam and Jasons Deposits, which is outside of this feasibility study. Turning to slide 14. The updated mineral resource is informed by a substantially larger, higher quality, and more integrated dataset than that was encountered in 2019 estimate. Within the modeled area, we have completed an additional 685 drill holes and approximately 87,000 m of drilling, a 34% increase. As the map shows, the work has substantially increased drill density across the main resource domains. The database integrates calibrated gamma, quality rank PFN logging, validated against sonic core assays, and deposit-wide nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR measurements. The NMR data is particularly important because it allows us to model permeability across the deposit rather than assuming all material mineralization is equally amenable to ISR extraction. Those permeability models have also been calibrated against our actual operating ISR performance. The result is a much more detailed and understanding of the grade distribution, geology, and importantly, the extractability of the mineral resource. Turning to slide 15. The Honeymoon mineralized system extends over approximately 6 km of strike, is up to 650 m wide and generally occurs at depths of about 80 m - 120 m. The resource is divided into four principal domains: East Kalkaroo, Central Kalkaroo, Honeymoon, and Brooks Dam. Most of the mineralization is hosted in the basal aquifer of the Eyre Formation across the Honeymoon and East Kalkaroo domains. At Brooks Dam, it's more commonly hosted in the upper portion of the sequence. Mineralization is laterally extensive and can occur across stacked horizons, reaching a combined thickness of about up to 34 m. Importantly, the updated resource only includes material considered amenable to ISR extraction and satisfying the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Material has been excluded where the required permeability and extractability criterias are not met. Turning to slide 16 and the change from the 2019 mineral resource. After adding back mining depletion since 2019, the updated mineral resource contains about 4.6 million pounds less uranium, a reduction about 35% compared to 2019. When both estimates are compared at a higher 250 ppm cutoff, the difference is more pronounced. We see a reduction around about 63%. The updated MRE is consistent with the findings of the Honeymoon Review. Put simply, we do not see the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization considered amenable to ISR extraction as assumed previously. The changes principally reflect significantly more drilling and commercial operating data, a revised and more tightly constrained estimation approach, and the application of permeability extractability criteria when assessing the mineralization. The comparison at 250 ppm clearly demonstrates why continuing with the previous wellfield approach was not an option. The design wouldn't support a high grade, or the deposit would actually support a high-grade approach. Ultimately, in terms of forecasting life of mine production, we're around about 26% lower than what the 2017 EFS, which was withdrawn in December. I'll just talk through a little bit about the wellfield and wellfield design. We'll go to slide 18. This slide summarizes why the Honeymoon Deposit is suitable to wide wellfield spacing. The wide spacing wellfields only works if the deposit characteristics support them, and Honeymoon has favorable combinations of characteristics that do. The approach that we're taking is deposit dependent. We have high permeability flow capacity, we have strong lateral hydraulic connectivity, we have lateral extensive mineralization with favorable vertical continuity. We have favorable mineralogy and effective confinement and hydraulic control. Honeymoon, Gould's Dam, and Jasons Deposits are all similar. Although low grade, they are favorable deposits from an ISR mining perspective. Turning to slide 19. One of the most significant technical advances underpinning the new feasibility study is the use of the reactive transport modeling as an integrated mine planning tool. We are no longer building mine plans based on historic ISR assumptions and averages. We are developing mine plans based on science, engineering, and actual historic operating data. This is a fundamental step change in how we're forecasting wellfield performance and the life of mine schedule. We're now at a level of technical sophistication compared to what is applied across more mature mining commodities. The model integrates the resource permeability, porosity, hydraulic connectivity, mineralogy, wide well spacing, flow rate, screening tools, and lixiviant chemistries. It then simulates how fluid moves through the reservoir, how uranium dissolves, how PLS head grade changes over time, and how much acid and oxidant are consumed. The model has been calibrated against a rich data set across both historic Uranium One production and our current commercial operating data across different wellfield spacings and designs, and across different operating chemistries. Each planned wellfield therefore receives its own production curve, reflecting its local geology, permeability, hydraulic connectivity, and geochemistry. These individual curves feed directly into the life of mine production schedule and reagent forecast. The modeling itself is highly sophisticated, but the outcome is clear. We have a materially more predictive, technically rigorous and defendable basis for wellfield design, production forecasting, and reagent planning. This capability is central to our confidence in the new feasibility study. Turning to slide 20. Wellfield spacing involves an important trade-off between recovery performance and development intensity. If the wells are too close, the lixiviant moves quickly from injector to extractor. This results in rapid breakthrough, shorter residence time, lower solution enrichment, and sub-optimal recovery. It also requires substantially more wells and infrastructure. As space increases, the lixiviant remains in contact with the mineralization for longer. This improves uranium dissolution and PLS grades, while reducing the number of wells and associated infrastructure. However, spacing cannot increase indefinitely. At larger distances, recovery becomes progressively slower and increasing dependence on hydraulic connectivity and operational controls. Using the reactive transport model, we assessed the injector to extractor spacings from 35 m - 70 m across the Honeymoon Deposit. The 49 m injector to extractor spacing was selected as the base case for the new feasibility study. It captures the material economic benefits of wider spacing while maintaining a controlled hydraulic response. This is scalable, and increased spacing beyond 49 m remains a genuine optimization opportunity, which we'll continue to evaluate. Turning to slide 21. This slide demonstrates the material change delivered by the wider spaced wellfields. Historically, we were operating under an injector to extractor spacing of 35 m. The new feasibility study adopts a 49 m injector to extractor spacing as a base. By moving to 49 m, the number of wells fall by 46%. The number of eight pattern wellfields falls by about 54%. The average residence time increases from approximately 80 to 150 days, allowing lixiviant more time to interact with the mineralization. Modeling recovery increases from approximately 80% to 90%. Uranium recovered per extraction well more than doubles from 15,400 lbs to 33,000 lbs, and the average PLS tenor increases by 28%. We expect acid consumption to increase modestly from approximately 6 kg to 8 kg per ton under leaching, but it remains low by ISR standards. Collectively, this represents fundamental reduction in development density while improving recovery, PLS tenor, and uranium recovery per well. The 70 m case shows further potential to optimize beyond the 49 m new feasibility base case, which we will continue to test. Turning to slide 22. This slide shows a subset of some of the benchmarking we have done. We have benchmarked Honeymoon's design and operating plan against established ISR operations globally. Note that our plan did not come from benchmarking. We are testing it against benchmarking. The 49 m injector to extractor spacing sits within the range used by large-scaled ISR operations in Kazakhstan. Honeymoon's modeled extraction well flow rate of approximately 32 cu m per hour is substantially higher than typical global rates, reflecting the strong hydraulic connectivity and permeability demonstrated by our operating data. Acid consumptions compare favorably due to our low levels of acid-consuming minerals and reactive clays. We will require, on average, approximately 26 pore volumes equivalent to achieve 90% recovery, consistent with Kazakh benchmarking and significantly below benchmarking assumed in earlier Honeymoon studies. We are confident of the work we have done. Turning to slide 23. Slide shows the wide wellfields plan for Honeymoon Deposit on a 49 m injector to extractor spacing. Currently in production are B1 to B5 at Honeymoon and B6 at East Kalkaroo. The plan delivers approximately 13.8 million pounds of drum uranium over nine years through FY 2035, with annual production peaking at 1.9 million pounds. It includes 59 wellfields and approximately 134,000 wells and around eight new wellfields commissioned each year and an average of 16 operating at a time. Each wellfield is based on an eight times five spot pattern using a 49 m injector to extractor spacing with approximately 45 days allowed for conditioning. Around 85% of the planned production is located within the mining lease. The remaining 50% is in the Honeymoon mine extension area, principally Brooks Dam North, and requires relevant approvals before development. I now cover plan and associated infrastructure required to deliver the plan. We are now on slide 25. The whole plan leverages Honeymoon's established operating infrastructure, requiring only targeted additional investment. Existing processing plant, trunklines, power pond, workforce, and broader site infrastructure remains the foundation of the plan. Processing flow sheet is unchanged. Since restarting in April 2024, we have drummed more than 2.3 million pounds of uranium, demonstrating the performance of the existing lixiviant chemistry resin loading elution columns. Under the plan, we will bring NIMCIX Column 6 into operations during FY 2030 to match flow from the wellfields. This will increase normal flow capacity by 20% to approximately 2,940 c m per hour. The other key investment is staged water plant expansion. Water treatment is the principal enabler on how quickly we can condition and commission new wellfields and ultimately lift flow. Turning to slide 26. As just mentioned, water treatment plan is the enabler for the wellfield development rate. It supplies the permanent water required to condition and flush each new wellfield. The new feasibility study assumes around eight new wellfields each year, with approximately 45 days of commissioning per wellfield. The availability of the water treatment therefore sets the pace at which new wellfields can be brought online. Stage 1 debottlenecks the existing plan and lifts treatment capacity to approximately 130 cu m per hour, with completed target in the first quarter of FY 2027. Stage 2 is an additional duplicate Water Treatment Plant, lifting RO capacity to around 300 cu m per hour. This is targeted for completion third quarter FY 2028 under the new feasibility study. This is an area of the new feasibility study that we have not yet optimized, given the accelerated timeframe of the study. Noting the following: the plan is based on the requirement to flush one pore volume, while our operating history has averaged closer to 0.7 pore volumes, and through optimization, we should be able to do better than third quarter FY 2028 for a new Water Treatment Plant. The ultimate goal is to push forward our ramp-up production profile. Turning to slide 27, I'll just talk a little bit about capital and the schedule, so we'll jump to slide 28. Thanks. The new feasibility study sets out a stage production ramp-up aligned with the delivery of the required enabling infrastructure. Production increases from approximately 1.3 million pounds in FY 2027 to 1.5 million pounds FY 2028, or 1.7 million pounds in FY 2029. From FY 2030 to FY 2033, production stabilizes at about 1.9 million pounds per year. The water treatment expansions are designed to deliver in parallel and support the initial ramp-up. Construction of Column 6 begins in FY 2029, with the column coming online in FY 2030, increasing that flow capacity in the plant by about 20%. From FY 2031, we also start beginning to reuse well house infrastructure, reducing our sustainable capital requirements. There are two important steps to note. The first is our FY 2027 to FY 2029 ramp up. It's not yet been fully optimized. The second, the schedule is based solely on the Honeymoon Deposit. Gould's Dam and Jasons Deposits are not included in this base case. These deposits will provide a pathway to sustaining or increasing production, extending production beyond what's currently presented today. Turning to slide 29, and on looking at our unit cost. The unit cost profile reflects the stage production ramp-up. C1 costs are higher during FY 2027 to FY 2029 transition period, given the fixed operating cost base. From FY 2030, when production reaches approximately 1.9 million pounds, C1 cost falls, averaging around AUD 47 per pound. Reagents are the largest cost component, around 40%, followed by labor and G&A at around 36%, which is the largely fixed component of our cost base. Accelerating the water treatment capacity will allow us to reach higher production rates sooner and potentially bring forward and lower unit costs, and this is our ultimate objective. Turning to slide 30. Most life of mine capital related directly to sustaining development of the wellfields, making up approximately about 87% or 84% of the total capital over the life of the asset. This comprises the production wells, wellfield equipment, and first-fill reagents. A typical wellfield costs approximately between AUD 5 million- AUD 7 million. This spending is phased in advance of the new wellfields coming online and is committed as required to support the production profile. There's about AUD 58 million of processing enabling capital, including the Water Treatment Plant and completion of NIM CIX columns, GIPS and ponds, and associated pumping and trunk lines with Brook Dam. The majority of this enabling capital is spent the first three years and associated mostly with the Water Treatment Plant. Turning to slide 31. This slide demonstrates the material improvement in wellfield economics delivered by the wide spacing. We have been disciplined in limiting capital investment in wellfield development under the previous design, where the expected returns did not justify further investment. It has been a difficult balancing act. The comparison between the historic B7 and part of the B9 wellfield and the wide-spaced EKT1 design is striking. It demonstrates a genuine step change between the previous design and the new design. Under this comparison of the two wellfield designs, the new wellfield design sees a sustaining capital fall of approximately AUD 22 per pound. It sees a C1 cost reduction around about AUD 12 per pound. It sees all-in sustaining costs about AUD 34 per pound or 31% decrease. At the state of the uranium price, we see revenue less all-in sustaining costs increased by about AUD 33 a pound, and we can see the returns delivered on a relative basis between both wellfield designs. The specific outcome will vary with each well field, but the conclusion is clear. By recovering more uranium with substantially fewer wells and less infrastructure, the wide spacing design materially improved unit cost and overall value to a Honeymoon operation, and it ultimately enables us to reduce that lower cutoff grade and drive that 100 ppm. Turning to slide 32. The new feasibility study establishes the, sorry, we'll jump to the next one as well. It establishes the new pathway forward. The outcomes of the new feasibility study are really clear. The study was completed on an accelerated timeframe and with a deliberate defined scope. Our focus was on establishing a robust technical and economic case for the wide space well field design. This plan itself is not optimized. We have identified a number of areas where we can continue to improve and value enhance what we have delivered today. The first is water treatment plan and usage, which we talked about, and how we can continue to accelerate that, potentially reducing our conditioning and flushing times, and ultimately bring forward that production profile. Second is about well field deliveries and ensuring that we can accelerate drilling, construction, and commissioning in step with the Water Treatment Plant capacity, while continuing to optimize well field spacing and pattern design. Third is recovery and reagents, increasing PLS tenor recoveries to use spare back-end plant capacity. Also look at how we can reuse first field reagents where practical. Fourth is about plant and capacity efficiencies, including improving well house capital costs, plant availability and throughput, and delivering low capital, big bottleneck initiatives. Together, these work streams provide us with the opportunity to accelerate that ramp-up profile and increase production and reduce unit cost. For us, the feasibility study is the starting point. There is still work to be done as we continue to drive value. Turning to slide 34. I think it's important to remember the new feasibility study is only focused on the Honeymoon Deposit only. It does not include Gould's Dam and Jasons. Together, these two deposits contain 45 million pounds of uranium, more than twice the current Honeymoon mineral resource. Both have deposit characteristics similar to the Honeymoon Deposit. They will be amenable to ISR development and the wide spacing well field design. For us, this is a significant strategic opportunity. We do not see these as isolated deposits requiring complete standalone developments. We see the potential to develop them as part of the broader regional production hub, leveraging the processing infrastructure plan, infrastructure workforce, and the ISR capability we have already at Honeymoon. We believe Gould's Dam and Jasons provide a genuine pathway to take pre-op production beyond the 1.9 million pounds, as we presented in the new feasibility study, and materially extend the life of the broader Honeymoon platform. Let's quickly run through FY 2027 guidance and then our immediate execution priorities. We turn to slide 36, sorry. FY 2027 will be a transitional year as we move from the legacy well field spacing to the wide space design confirmed by the new feasibility study. Production guidance is 1.25 million pounds - 1.3 million pounds. This is based on eight well fields operating across Honeymoon and East Kalkaroo by June 2027, with EKT1 coming online in the second quarter and EKT2 coming in on the fourth quarter. C1 cost guidance is AUD 51 - AUD 56 per pound and all-in sustaining cost guidance of AUD 83 - AUD 92 per pound. Costs are higher than FY 2026 due to the lower grade from maturing legacy well fields. Reagents represent more than half of the FY 2027 C1 costs, while lower production volumes result in a higher fixed cost per pound. Sustaining capital guidance is AUD 33 million - AUD 37 million, spread broadly across drilling, well field equipment, and first-field reagents. This spending is phased in line with the availability of water treatment capacity. Processing facility capital is AUD 25 million -AUD 28 million, covering Stage 1 of the Water Treatment Plant, and progression on Stage 2 and other supporting infrastructure. This gives us a total capital guidance of AUD 58 million -AUD 64 million. We have made disciplined decisions on limiting further investment in legacy well fields where the expected good terms were not adequate. While this constrains near-term production, it has preserved capital for the wide spacing well fields that support the value-accretive ramp-up. I'll just finish with some summaries and conclusions and some of our priorities from here. We'll turn to slide 38. Before wrapping up, just want to recognize the people behind the work. The new feasibility study has delivered on our accelerated timeframe and continues as we continue to operate Honeymoon. The study really does demonstrate the technical capacity we've built within Boss. I'd like to sincerely thank the team, the broader team, there's more people than worked on it than this image, and our partners who worked on this study with us. Turning to slide 39. We have a robust pathway forward for Honeymoon. We have delivered a step change in economics, approximately AUD 30 per pound lower from a like for like and an all-in sustaining basis, with higher PLS grades and around 50% less well field infrastructure. The plan delivers approximately 13.8 million pounds of uranium, with full eight years of production through to FY 2034, and life of mine C1 cost of approximately AUD 50 per pound and all-in sustaining cost of AUD 79 per pound. The plan is underpinned by strong technical foundation. This is a robust case. We have clear opportunities to accelerate the ramp-up and improve recovery and plant performance and reduce unit operating cost. Beyond Honeymoon, Gould's Dam, and Jasons provides a potential capital efficient pathway to increase production and extend the life of the broader platform. The new feasibility gives us confidence in Honeymoon's future and a strong foundation from which we can continue to drive further value. Turning to slide 40. Our priority is straightforward. We need to execute the new feasibility plan and deliver the wide-space production plan. We need to continue to optimize performance, including how we accelerate that ramp-up, increase recovery, reduce unit costs. We need to continue to unlock that regional growth through Gould's and Jasons with the potential to increase production and extend life of mine plan. This is all ultimately enabled by our people, our strong balance sheet, our technical capability, our culture, and a clearly defined plan. Turning to slide 41, I'll just close with leaving you with five key points. We are an established uranium producer with technical and operating expertise, and you'll continue to see this being demonstrated. The new feasibility establishes a clear plan for Honeymoon through to FY 2034 and materially improves our cost structure and defining executing priorities. We have a strong financial platform. We have multiple opportunities to create further significant value, leveraging existing infrastructure. Finally, we're well positioned in our strengthening uranium market. We are producing uranium today, building inventory, and remaining strategically under contract at a time of rising global demand. Thank you for joining, and we'll pass across for Q&A. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Alistair Rankin with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Good day, Matt, Justin, and team, and thank you for the presentation. Just first question on the new feasibility study. It says looks like you're targeting eight new well fields per year at steady state. I think over FY 2027, you'll be getting to about eight in total. So I think the addition of another two new well fields. I guess what needs to happen sequentially to reach that sort of eight-per-year commissioning rate? What is the single biggest bottleneck besides the Water Treatment Plant that you've got? Thanks. Yeah. I will jump in then. Justin could also jump in on some of that commentary. Ultimately, the Water Treatment Plant is the biggest bottleneck. Anything else from that we can effectively manage. We do not see long lead items associated with the establishment of the well fields. Relatively simple, including drilling, establishing casing, purchasing of warehouses and filters, and construction. That real bottleneck that we are seeing is our ability to do that first flush. And why we have to do that first flush is because of the chlorides and calcium. So we are just trying to get that well field into that right chemistry state before we start extraction. We currently have four drill rigs. We would not have to ramp up any more drill rigs or anything associated with that ramp-up profile. Yeah, I will just quickly add to that. Alistair, just on your kind of historical to forecast comparison. So historically, we executed well fields based on a 16-pattern well field. Under the new feasibility study, with that 49 m spacing, we have identified an eight-pattern well field as the optimal design. So just when you are doing that historical to forecast run rate, just recognizing that that future run rate is half the number of patterns per well field. Understood. Second question, just on how that RTM model is going to be tested against actual well field data. I note that EKT1 has a mean residence time of about 180 days. So you will not have a full recovery curve on my numbers until sort of late FY 2027. But I am assuming you will probably have data prior to that to be able to validate the RTM model. So I guess at what point in that recovery curve will you feel you have got enough data to really confirm the economics are tracking that RTM modeling? Yeah. I will pass across to Olivier to talk a little bit about some of that. But remember that we come from already a data-rich environment, so this has been calibrated to all the historic production. We will continue to refine that model. So EKT1 is also at a 60 m spacing too, so significantly larger than what we have chosen for the feasibility study. And we will continue to calibrate the model and our assumptions as we work through. But we are not expecting to see something material come out of EKT1 that changes what we have already seen and what we already understand. Olivier, do you want to just quickly talk about, with that reactive transport model, the calibrations and what gives you comfort? Yeah, sure. You are right. The reactive transport simulation were calibrated based on all the very huge set of data we have from Uranium One history and Boss Energy production. What has been calibrated, the geochemistry first, and then also part of the petrophysics property. So porosity, permeability will stay the same for Honeymoon. There is no reason that will have a different reactivity, a different leachability, from what we already understood. The difference between what we have today in terms of preparation and what will be in the future, it is just an increase of the distance between well. All the other input data of the simulation should remain very close. Pretty confident that we will not have a huge variation. Thanks, Olivier. Okay, thanks, guys. I will jump back in with you. Thanks, Alistair. Your next question comes from the line of Tom Wallington with Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, Matt, Justin, and the team. Very comprehensive presentation today. Thanks for that. Matt, just in terms of talking about FY 2027 as a transformational year, or transitional year rather, on the guidance of 1.25 million pounds - 1.3 million pounds of production, can you just give us a broad indication of how much contribution this will come from legacy well fields and how much from the new wide space well field design? By extension, can you give us any commentary as to what you expect for exit production run rates coming out of FY 2027? Thank you. Yeah. So I do talk to FY 2027 as a transition, and why we do that is, we have been disciplined on capital through this process. It's been something that we've had to navigate, where investment in well fields under that legacy design, we've deliberately made a decision not to. So there's a little bit of catch-up as we try to work that through and then also trying to also work through with that constraint on the Water Treatment Plant. In terms of 1.25 million pounds - 1.3 million pounds, around about 900,000 lbs comes from legacy well fields for that production profile. Where we come out of FY 2027 is our ramp up to ramp up, and we'll start to see that increase in terms of having some of those additional well fields ready for wide space. And we'll get up to that 1.5 million pounds that following year. Yeah, perfect. That's very clear. Thanks for that. And maybe just quickly one more. You talk about a target of 1.9 million pounds per annum in the future. Do you have any sort of broad indication as to when you might expect that and any other broader bottlenecks beyond the Water Treatment Plant? I'm conscious that you have addressed some of these points in the previous question, but any other considerations or constraints that might put at risk that 1.9 million pounds per annum target production level? Thanks. Yeah. We talked to that ramp-up production level. We reached that 1.7 million pounds in FY 2029, and we reached the 1.9 million pounds in FY 2030. That is from the feasibility level study. The constraints on that are relatively. It has all got to do with that Water Treatment Plant. When we do that Water Treatment Plant, what we have done is assumed a one-pore volume. One-pore volume is the sort of volume you need to flush one of those well fields. Currently, we are doing about 0.7. There is a little bit of room there that we may be able to optimize and bring that forward. 1.9 million pounds is just about that run rate. Plant can do about 2 million pounds. There is a little bit of room to move up between that 1.9 million pounds, maybe 2 million pounds. Once you get above 2 million pounds, you may have to invest a little bit more in terms of the precip circuit to get to about a 1.4 million pounds. To get up that production rate further, then we would be looking at how Jasons fits into that production profile, how we accelerate Jasons and continue to bring in that production profile beyond that 1.9 million pounds. Great. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to going through the detail. Cheers. Thanks, Tom. Your next question comes from Dim Ariyasinghe with UBS. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Thanks for the comprehensive update. Just on you talking about Gould's and Jasons, is it a bit too early to discuss on when they could potentially come in to get this new nameplate above two, again, and closer to your export license? Yep. Obviously, now we've come out and we've got a solid base for Honeymoon. That's the big value driver of, is Gould's and Jasons. We did provide an updated mineral resource statement for Gould's and Jasons, I think it was March, April, this calendar year. We took learnings out of Honeymoon when we came up with that mineral resource statement, so comfortable with that position. In that statement, we talked to permitting. So the key timeframe there is permitting, and we say around about two to three years for permitting. That's the timeframe that we'll be working towards. Yeah. Just with, I guess, maybe a second question then, on that resource, does that need to be right-sized again? Given what you've done with Gould's, are you strip out the clay, and lower the cutoff grade or? No. Well, sorry. The resources at Gould's and Jasons are reported at 250 ppm. But we've applied the learnings from Honeymoon to Jasons and Gould's in terms of our ability to understand permeability, consideration of material in clay, resource classification, and making sure that high-grade mineralization is tightly constrained. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thanks. That's my two for now, so pass it on. Thanks, Dim. Your next question comes to the line of Daniel Roden with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks, guys. Thanks for the update as well. I know we've discussed, I guess, Honeymoon's technical biggest challenges and letting for the feasibility, like this new feasibility study for a while now. It's clearly done a very substantial body of work to underpin the new plan. I was just wondering if we could hear a bit more from Olivier. I appreciate you making yourself available for the call for us. Just on, I guess, how the methodology was developed, some of the challenges that were encountered, and I guess where you see some of the residual technical risk. Yeah. Maybe kind of going specifically into the plan extrapolates into some undeveloped areas with different local geology and permeability. How do you see, I guess, the risk of modeling into, I guess, those unknown zones? I might just stop there. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Daniel. The call was pretty hard to hear, so I'll just repeat that back for Olivier to answer. So Olivier, Daniel was just asking if you can provide a bit of a snapshot in terms of, from your experience, how we've used the reactive transport model, how that relates, a little bit about what we're likely to see in terms of local variance. Then from your perspective, what do you think the main risks are? So Olivier, if you just can field that, talk through some of that. Yeah. There was a lot in that question. It was more like- Yeah. Daniel is just asking for some of your views. Yeah, I will try to summarize a little bit. As you have maybe noticed, actually, the methodology to, let's say, underpin all the understanding of the recovery and then to provide the optimized sequence and production profile has changed a lot compared to previous studies. And actually, from the beginning, we have considered all these grids from the very beginning, and they are, most of them, integrated in the modeling workflow. That has been a study really very focused about de-risking. And by integrating all the operating data, hydrology, metallurgic test work, and this work with the calibration of reactive transport modeling, using all the data we had. And we had a very comprehensive set of data since 2011. And interestingly, also, we had this previous database coming from Uranium One time, where they were operating differently with different spacing, also with different chemistry. Having all this data really allowed us to consider from the beginning all the main characteristics that needs to be taken account to de-risk the forecast for the recovery. So, really to make a big effort to have a 3D permeability block model, and then to have the integration of all the mineralogical studies, to integrate of course, the production results, making the calibration of the simulation against these production results. What really gives me confidence is that Honeymoon is operating assets. And of course, from one well field to another well field, we could have some variance because we are not knowing all the uncertainties. But compared with what was done in the past, I think that this study is very strong in term of integrating the risk in the process from the very beginning. I hope I have answered part of your question. Yeah. Thanks, Olivier and Daniel. Olivier will join us in Sydney as well, and will provide really quite a detailed technical overview, as part of that session as well. Yeah. Perfect. I really appreciate the response there, guys. Sorry about the quality before. Maybe just a quick follow-up on that. You have clearly done a lot of variability modeling and sensitivities. I was wondering if you could verbally just describe in some of those different elements and different scenarios that you were modeling, where has the largest sensitivity sat, what would you be looking at as a potential source of operational risk over the coming years? Yeah. So quite a good question. Probably we are in a better position where we have been able to actually model some of that, run those through sensitivities. We have looked at different chemistries, we looked at different drill spacings, we have looked at acid and reagent consumptions. I think ultimately it all comes, I think it is like any mining project, one of the biggest variables is resource. We feel also done an incredible amount of work in terms of that resource model. Still work to be done. We have got to get that inferred into indicated and continue to improve the resource to actually help and improve the modeling so comfortable on an annualized basis, but really get good at forecasting down production and managing the variance on a shorter term intervals. Yeah, Matt, perfect. Thanks, guys. I will hand it over. Appreciate it. Thanks, Daniel. Your next question comes from the line of Khyla Maher with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Could you please confirm the plant capacity versus the 1.9 million per annum production profile for Honeymoon? I believe that the plant was previously going to be able to do 2.4 million pounds per annum, so I am just wondering why that is now limited versus the prior estimates. If you decided to bring on Jasons or Gould's Dam, before Honeymoon resource depleted, what the max production could be and what limits that, and what is needed to increase the capacity further? Thanks. Thank you. Some good questions in there as well. Yes, so nominal plant capacity was 2.4 million pounds, and it gets a little bit tricky because we talk to capacity in uranium metal. What we have done, there is two components to plant capacity. One is flow, and so in the presentation we talked about flow and making sure we have got flow. So flow for an ISR would be equivalent to tons in traditional mining, and then the uranium would be to metal. So back end of the plant, yes, we have got capacity, maybe a little bit more capital we need to do to reach 2.4 million pounds in terms of metal, but we are a little bit, we will be flow constrained from well fields. That is where you get because of the lower grade going in. So that is where you kind of reach that 1.9 million pounds versus the plant really being constrained. Yeah. Gould's and Jasons. So we still got to do work on Gould's and Jasons. So a lot of work by the technical team has been to reach this point for the feasibility study. Now we are shifting that focus onto Gould's and Jasons to deliver the same level of confidence and planning and technical work. So how I talk is just from my experience versus having the studies in front of us. Jasons will likely be a pipeline, so there will be flow, so there is ability to potentially increase grade. So grade out of Jasons matched with lower grade out of Honeymoon and sequencing well fields can get us up to around about 2.4 million pounds if we can bring flow. Gould's Dam would be likely to be resin loading, so therefore the flow does not become constrained. Therefore you'd be back-end constrained, so you could see Gould's adding more production without requiring a lot of capital either. The idea is to talk a little bit more about those once we've advanced some of the studies. Yeah, that makes sense. Just a second one on the capital for development for Jasons and Gould's Dam. Should we assume similar sustaining and well field CapEx as outlined for Honeymoon, plus a trunk line CapEx to transport back to the processing plant? Just if so, what the quantum of that would be? Thank you. Yeah. I won't talk to quantums because we haven't done the studies. But if you were carrying those forward into models, that would be a fair assumption just to assume Honeymoon cost structures. Makes sense. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Alistair Rankin with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thanks for the follow-up, guys. It's been mentioned ad nauseam about the Water Treatment Plant as a pretty key piece of infrastructure. Could you just give us a sense of where you are right now on procurement and engineering for Stage 2, and I guess what the key items on that critical path are at the moment? Yeah, I can, Alistair. So literally just finished the feasibility study. So what we've done in the feasibility study is just carry forward the assumptions in the feasibility study, which assumes about an 18-month period, which also has six months of design procurement carrying forward. We have not yet optimized that plan. What a Water Treatment Plant consists of is a series of tanks, softener tanks, clarifiers, and some filtration. We've got one in place. The plant that's in place was built by Uranium One and been slightly upgraded. They built that plant towards the end of their experience at Honeymoon, recognizing the problem. So we'll end up probably copying the chemistry across from that. Works well, and replicate. I personally think there's room to move on that 18 months, but given that we've accelerated everything in the feasibility study, we just chose to not worry about optimizing it, and that's just part of the work we've got to do going forward. Okay. Understood. Just another one. You've got a pretty solid cash and inventory balance at the moment. You've clearly got a capital program ahead of you with Honeymoon, and that's going to be a focus. But just wanted to ask how you're still thinking about M&A at the moment. You still have that position in Laramide as well. So yeah, just curious how you're approaching that given your focus on Honeymoon at the moment. Yeah. Another good question, and we'll probably talk a little bit more at the market day. But coming in on setting into the role, I think we were more thinking about M&A. One thing that's come out of this feasibility study is how our actual internal portfolio looks. So previously, when we looked at Jasons and Gould's and the team looked at Jasons and Gould's, we never really got excited about them because we were struggling to recognize how we develop them, and how we get that cost structure. So when you looked at it under a cost structure, you got a poor resource to mining or wellfield inventory conversion. But now how we look at Gould's and Jasons is quite material for us. And we like those assets quite significantly. So the best thing we can do for shareholders is bring those to account. And that's really where our focus is. Got you. Okay. Thanks, guys. Your last question comes from the line of Branko Skocic with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Morning, guys. The first question was just around your level of confidence on the life of mine cost outlook. Just given on our numbers, it looks like there is really limited free cash flow margin to work with. So just keen to understand what the potential error band here is as we move forward. Yeah. I will get Justin to talk through that one. Yeah. Thanks, Branko. In terms of that outlook for cost structures, I will just break down the different components a little bit. In terms of that C1 cost between FY 2027 and FY 2029, obviously that production run rate is not optimized, and so we have a higher fixed cost per pound. The opportunity for 2027 to 2029 is really to try to optimize that production profile to reduce that fixed cost base. But overall, as we then kind of look out over the life of mine, we are quite confident in that C1 cost per pound. A lot of that is based on the existing workforce and reagent consumption data that we already have. In terms of that C1 cost, we are comfortable with that. In terms of the wellfield sustaining capital, a lot of that estimate is based on actuals that we see to date. We have been relatively conservative in some of our assumptions in terms of reuse of wellfield infrastructure. As well as another example is for all of the wells that we've assumed in the life of mine. We've assumed all new wells for that. So in terms of wellfield capital, comfortable in our base case assumption. Again, feel like we have opportunities to optimize that. Probably the area of cost that we don't necessarily have actual data to support it is probably just the Water Treatment Plant. You can see in the feasibility study, we outline that confidence interval for the Water Treatment Plant. That total capital for water treatment and other process facilities capital is only around 15% of that life of mine capital. So it's a much smaller proportion. I appreciate that one. The second question, just around the revised resource estimate. Looks like there's a large reliance on the inferred resource, particularly post 2030. I was just wondering if you could talk to how you plan to firm up this resource estimate, and I guess why the measured resource from the original study was removed as a part of the new feasibility outcome. Yeah. Good question. So yeah, that inferred portion makes up part of that plan and production profile. The reason for that declassification is that we're still working through some of that resource, so we still have a lot of confidence on that resource. Gone back through historic data, and we'll continue to update. At the time, we had to come out with the resource to feed into the life of mine and feasibility study. We also didn't have all that drilling completed. So at some point, we'll continue to work through that resource, and provide another update. I don't perceive there to be a lot of risk myself on that resource. I think it's well-informed. I think we've done an incredible amount of work to where we were at with that resource and geological understanding. All right. Makes sense. Appreciate the time. There are no further questions at this time. I will now hand back to Mr. Dusci for closing remarks. Thank you everyone for joining us today. As we have seen through, there is a lot of information that we had to work through in the new feasibility study. Again, I would just like to acknowledge the team for getting us there. Like I have said, Honeymoon, we have now got a solid foundation for Honeymoon, and we look forward to continuing to add value to the asset and bringing forward Gould's Dam and Jasons as we move forward. Thanks, everyone. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.