Thank you, and good morning and welcome to Dalrymple Bay Infrastructure's results for the six months ended 30 June 2025. I'm Michael Riches, CEO, and with me today is Stephanie Commons, our CFO. Today, we'll be providing an update on our financial performance for the first half of 2025, detailing our organic growth opportunities, as well as setting out some of our key strategic priorities for the remainder of 2025. For those of you less familiar with our business, DBI, through its foundation asset, the Dalrymple Bay Terminal, provides 84.2 million tonnes per annum of port capacity to customers that ship predominantly metallurgical coal through the terminal. The terminal is the largest metallurgical coal export terminal in the world and represents over 14% of global seaborne metallurgical coal exports. The port is fully contracted at 84.2 million tonnes per annum of volume via 100% take-or-pay contracts. The terminal services 21 mines owned by 11 customers across the central Bowen Basin, Australia's premier metallurgical coal region. Now I'll move into the first half of 2025 highlights. During the first half of 2025, we continued to improve our financial performance and grow distributions to shareholders. EBITDA rose 5.3% versus the comparable period in 2024 to $143.8 million, and our funds from operations, which I'll refer to as FFO, increased by 13.8% to $84.1 million. On 1 July 2025, our Terminal Infrastructure Charge, or TIC, increased to $3.72 per tonne and uplifted 3.6% compared to the TIC that applied from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. We continue to invest back in the growth of our business with approximately $405 million of capital projects underway via the Non-Expansionary Capital Programme, or NECAP. We generate a return of and on our NECAP investment, which will be seen through a higher TIC and thus higher revenue and cash flows in future years. The strong financial performance has allowed DBI to announce today a Q2 2025 distribution of $0.05875 per security, resulting in $0.1175 per security being returned to security holders in respect to the first half of the year, in line with our guidance. Importantly, we continue to operate in a safe and environmentally responsible way with zero incidents that cause serious injury and zero environmental incidents. We have just received results from our safety review through Centres, which rates DBI at a citizenship level for safety, the highest rating issued by Centres. DBI is the only company to receive this rating from Centres, who has rated over 150 companies globally. I'd like to take a moment to highlight some of the key attributes of our business model that delivers a predictable revenue and cash flow stream. Firstly, our take-or-pay contracts, where regardless of the amount of coal shipped through the terminal or the coal price received by our customers, DBI receives the TIC on every tonne of contracted terminal capacity. The terminal's capacity of 84.2 million tonnes per annum is fully contracted to 2028, with all customers having evergreen renewal options. Secondly, we have CPI indexation. Through the agreed pricing arrangements with customers implemented under the Light-Handed Regulatory Framework, the base TIC increases annually by inflation to 2031, providing long-term revenue certainty. Pricing beyond 2031 will involve direct negotiations with our customers. Our NECAP expenditure on sustaining capital at the terminal receives a return on and return of the capital invested. Through the process of obtaining strong customer support for all NECAP projects, DBI has never had any capital expenditure not included in the NECAP asset base. On 1 July 2025, a further $30.4 million was added to the NECAP asset base. DBI takes no operational risk. All costs of operating and maintaining the terminal are passed through to our customers. DBI takes no operational performance risk, nor any risk on increases in operating costs. We have strong force majeure protection for terminal disruption, including for weather events and events arising from Operator performance, which ensures continued receipt of contracted revenues despite terminal disruptions. Finally, DBI's revenue is protected if terminal capacity is not fully contracted through a socialisation mechanism. For example, if capacity due to non-renewal of contracts at the end of mine life was to occur, the TIC is proportionally increased for continuing customers to ensure revenue not received on uncontracted capacity is fully compensated. These core components of our business model deliver a highly predictable cash flow, which underpins our commitment to distribution growth to our security holders. DBI receives the TIC revenue on every tonne of contracted capacity at DBT, which is, as I mentioned before, 84.2 million tonnes per annum. The TIC is take-or-pay and provides a predictable revenue and cash flow stream. Under our pricing agreements secured with customers through to 2031, the TIC is adjusted each year and comprises three elements: the base TIC that is indexed annually in line with the March to March Australian All groups CPI, the NECAP charge that reflects the return on and of the NECAP asset base, as I've described above, and finally, the QCA fees, which are a pass-through of the Queensland Competition Authority's costs. The TIC to apply for the year from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 is $3.72 per tonne, which is up 3.6% versus the TIC that applied for the same period over 2024 and 2025. The chart on this slide 11 illustrates the positive impact of our inflation-linked pricing model and how our investment in NECAP will lead to future revenue growth. To place the base TIC uplift and NECAP contribution into perspective, every $0.50 uplift in the TIC adds approximately $42 million to our revenue base. The unique nature of our business, where operating and maintenance costs are passed through to the customers, delivers DBI an effective EBITDA margin above 95%. Through disciplined cost management, we've continued to be able to deliver a reduction in our G&A costs, which is 9.2% lower in the first half of 2025 than in the first half of 2024. DBI's operating model provides considerable cash flow leverage to rising revenue, which in turn continues to support distribution growth. Our new revenue initiatives are beginning to deliver additional revenue beyond the TIC revenue. DBI today announced a Q2 2025 distribution of $0.05875 per security, taking total distributions referable to the first half of 2025 to $0.1175 per security. The first half 2025 distributions reflect a FFO payout ratio of 69.3%, in line with DBI's distribution policy, which includes maintaining a payout ratio of 60% - 80% of FFO. DBI continues to target DPS growth of 3% - 7% per annum for the foreseeable future, subject to business developments and market conditions. I'll now hand over to Stephanie to talk through our financial results in more detail. Thanks, Michael, and good morning, everyone. Turning now to slide 14, the profit loss and cash flow statement, DBI's first half 2025 revenue, EBITDA, and net profit are all up on the prior period, demonstrating the resilience of DBI's business model and our disciplined focus on costs. Our TIC revenue increased to $151.1 million, driving an uplift in EBITDA to $143.8 million for the half year. As a reminder, handling costs represent the amount invoiced to DBI by the third-party Operator of the terminal, noting that the Operator is owned by a subset of the terminal customers. Handling costs represent the operating and maintenance costs at the terminal, and these costs are fully recharged to customers at the terminal, as can be seen in the matching handling revenue line. Accordingly, these costs have no impact on DBI's EBITDA. Our general and admin expenses reduced compared to the prior half year, demonstrating our ongoing cost focus, and our net finance costs were down compared to the prior year following the repayment of the USPP notes that matured in September 2024. These two factors, in conjunction with the uplift in revenue, delivered a $10.2 million uplift in FFO to $84.1 million compared to the first half of last year. For the first half of 2025, DBI reported a net profit after tax of $43.1 million, which was 17% up on the prior comparative period, and DBI ended the period with $43.1 million in cash and cash equivalents. Turning now to slide 15, capital allocation options. DBI maintains an investment-grade balance sheet with S&P and Fitch, who both reaffirmed their ratings during the period at BBB and BBB-, respectively, and both ratings are stable. DBI has $2.3 billion of total debt facilities, of which $1.8 billion was drawn at 30 June 2025, leaving $510 million undrawn. Of this undrawn $510 million, $410 million is general purpose revolving bank facilities, and $40 million is a liquidity facility. The remaining $60 million is restricted and is held as a debt service reserve facility in compliance with our debt documents. DBI's debt level has remained stable since listing. During this period, through increased revenue and disciplined cost management, the business has been able to invest over $200 million in NECAP and grow distributions substantially. The steady reduction in gearing is evident in the net debt to EBITDA chart in the lower middle of the slide, where net debt to EBITDA has reduced from almost 9x to just over 6x today. Despite the $200 million of NECAP spend over the past few years, the business has only just started drawing on its revolving bank facilities this month. The $405 million in committed NECAP projects are forecast to require approximately $283 million in future funding to complete those projects over the next two years, noting that $122 million has already been spent to date. If the business were to fund this future $283 million of committed NECAP from operating cash retained in the business and then draw the remaining funds using the available revolving debt facilities, the profile of future funding could look similar to the illustrated profile shown on the chart at the top middle of the slide. There are several options available to DBI as to how the future spend required on committed and as yet uncommitted NECAP projects are funded. As shown on the illustrative slide scenario on the net debt to EBITDA chart at the bottom middle of the slide, continuing to fund currently committed NECAP using available operating cash after distributions before drawing debt and assuming a distribution profile in the mid-range of the existing target would result, by the end of 2027, all things being equal, in a lower gearing in the business and continuing significant debt headroom for future NECAP. DBI has commenced a capital allocation review to assess the most effective allocation of debt and operating cash going forward, taking into account future potential NECAP projects, long-term security holder value, and rating agency thresholds. DBI will assess as part of this capital allocation review whether the current approach continues to be appropriate or whether enhanced security holder value can be achieved through an alternative capital allocation approach. Moving on to slide 16, 100% of all of DBI' s foreign currency debt remains swapped back to AUD, so DBI holds no FX risk for either the interest or principal repayments. DBI manages interest rate risk via a mix of fixed-rate debt issuance and interest rate swaps. We are continuing to transition to a longer-term hedging strategy to align with the move to Light-Handed Regulation. Post the change to Light-Handed Regulatory Framework in 2021 and the 10-year pricing agreement out to 2031, DBI introduced a policy to target 90% of drawn contracted debt to be fixed either via fixed-rate issuance or interest rate swaps. The chart at the top showing the profile of the hedged position is based on the currently drawn debt position at 30 June, which comprises all USPP notes, and the chart does not include any assumptions around refinancing. At present, DBI is around 92% hedged out to mid-2029. DBI 's weighted average all-in interest rate for its drawn debt, including the overlay of the swaps, is currently 5.6%, and that will remain the case until mid-next year when the five-year interest rate swaps that were put in place in mid-2021 roll off. At this point, the weighted average all-in interest rate will increase close to 8%, noting that this represents the rate for the USPP notes that are currently on issue, which was all that was drawn at 30 June. I'll now hand back to Michael. Thanks very much, Stephanie. I'd now like to take some time to talk you through DBI's growth initiatives and how we are thinking about leveraging our core competitive advantages to drive further security holder returns. DBI has a range of organic growth opportunities with varying degrees of capital intensity that are anticipated to underpin a continued uplift in revenue, ultimately driving improved FFO to support growing distributions. Our optimization initiatives represent the first opportunity with no additional capital or ongoing operating costs. Initiatives focused on optimizing the use of terminal capacity have been implemented with further initiatives in train, including the potential for a capacity pooling mechanism to be applied at DBT. The initiatives currently implemented are anticipated to deliver a further meaningful uplift in revenue in the second half of the year, with an additional uplift in FY26 expected. Secondly, our NECAP program continues to be a strong driver of growth. We have an active NECAP investment program of $405.5 million of committed CapEx, with approximately $122 million invested to date and around $283 million still to be spent on those projects over the next two years. These NECAP projects are anticipated to contribute to an uplift in TIC of approximately $0.63 per tonne when completed and added to the NECAP asset base on 1 July 2026 and 1 July 2027. Beyond the current committed NECAP program of $405 million, we have identified through our asset management planning further NECAP projects of a similar capital investment quantum to existing committed projects that are required to be undertaken by 2031. Thirdly, the ADEX project represents an expansion of terminal capacity, which will involve significant capital. The ADEX expansion project provides the option for a staged expansion of capacity to meet additional demand for coal exports that are currently not contracted through our existing 84.2 million tonnes per annum of capacity. The ADEX project can be undertaken in stages to meet capacity requirements as they evolve. DBI will, however, explore all options to meet the demand for capacity through measures that are less capital intensive prior to embarking on the ADEX project. I now take you to slide 19, talk in a bit more detail about the non-expansionary capital expenditure we have underway. Our NECAP program has been and will continue to be a source of organic growth and uplift in our Terminal Infrastructure Charge. As mentioned previously, it is important to remember that DBI earns a return on and of that NECAP expenditure, with the TIC adjusted each 1 July to account for NECAP projects commissioned during the previous 12 months. NECAP also includes an interest during construction component, ensuring a return on capital expended whilst projects are being undertaken. DBI has successfully delivered over $430 million of NECAP projects since 2008 and has never had any capital spend not approved for inclusion in the NECAP asset base. All current committed NECAP projects have received unanimous customer support. DBI's capital allocation, operational expertise, and relationship management has ensured an efficient delivery of the NECAP program, adding meaningful value to customers and security holders. With approximately $405 million of committed projects underway today and based on current asset management plans, a similar amount of capital spend projected but is not as yet uncommitted in the next five years, NECAP remains a significant growth driver for our business. Turning to slide 20 and the ADEX project, the terminal retains significant expansion optionality to support increased metallurgical coal exports from the Bowen Basin. ADEX is expected to deliver up to 14.9 million tonnes per annum of additional capacity, with the option of delivering that capacity incrementally via a phased approach. With demand well in excess of 15 million tonnes in the DBTQ, we believe there is potential demand for the project. The timing of that demand is subject to a variety of factors associated with current mine expansions and new mine developments. The development of ADEX will involve a cost per tonne of capacity that is more than previous expansions. DBI will therefore likely require, subject to the structure of financing, a TIC per tonne that is higher than the existing TIC. A range of alternative financing options, in addition to traditional debt and equity financing, are being explored. As mentioned, we continue to explore opportunities to optimize the utilization of existing capacity in parallel with the ADEX expansion. Ultimately, the provision of capacity in the most efficient manner available will deliver the best long-term outcome for DBI, its customers, and its security holders. As we focus on generating total security holder value, we will naturally explore opportunities to grow our business in alignment with our current risk profile. Our competitive advantages will be key guides in the opportunities we consider. Those competitive advantages include our regulatory expertise, where we have demonstrated an ability to navigate complex regulatory situations to deliver substantive value. Our capital deployment capability, demonstrated through a strong track record of successful execution of multiple major projects. Our operational expertise, where through our substantial oversight for the terminal operations, we've been able to create positive operational benefits, particularly where balancing of the interests of multiple stakeholders in the supply chain is required. Our funding capacity, where our successful execution of numerous debt programs has created access to multiple debt capital funding sources. Finally, our key relationships, which have been developed with customers and key stakeholders over many years, allow constructive and positive negotiations that have delivered win-win outcomes. Applying those skills and capabilities to enhance and/or unlock the value in other businesses or assets will be the lens through which we assess opportunities. In doing so, we remain mindful of the key attributes of our existing business, and any opportunities pursued will take into account those factors. Our competitive advantages frame the external growth opportunities that we assess to drive shareholder value beyond DBT. We have a range of growth filters that guide what diversification opportunities we assess. Ultimately, we are looking for assets with the following characteristics: high barriers to entry with outsourced operations, presence in the fossil fuel supply chain where our cost of capital is likely to be more competitive, opportunities within the assets acquired for organic growth and/or the deployment of capital to improve asset efficiency and customer outcomes, and a quality customer base. These filters are designed to guide growth in our business while retaining the key attributes that define the value of DBI, including long-term contracted or regulated revenue, stable and predictable cash flows, high credit quality to support debt funding, and limited operational risk. We are incredibly conscious of the unique investment proposition of DBI at present, with our strong distribution growth and low risk, and our assessments of growth opportunities will be done with a focus on increasing security holder value. Finally, the strategic priorities over the remainder of FY2025. With our take-or-pay contracts and future earnings profile, DBI is well positioned to continue to deliver growth in total security holder returns. Our priorities over the remainder of FY2025 will include delivering organic revenue growth through new revenue initiatives and the implementation of approved NECAP projects, pursuing opportunities to service long-term capacity needs of metallurgical coal producers in the Bowen Basin through a continued review of terminal capacity utilisation, including the optimisation of existing capacity, and the economic assessment of the ADEX project, identifying opportunities for diversification through disciplined acquisitions informed by DBI's competitive advantages and defined growth filters, retaining our investment-grade credit rating through the optimisation of DBI's debt capital structure, including in relation to tenor, pricing, and the diversity of funding sources. We will continue to explore and assess opportunities for future alternative uses of DBT. As we move to the new sustainability reporting, we'll continue to focus on delivering whole of terminal ESG and sustainability initiatives. Thank you, and I'll now hand back to the operator and look forward to answering any questions you have. 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 are on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Our first question today comes from Anthony Moulder at Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning all. If I can start with this capital allocation review, obviously there's a lot of growth options ahead. ADEX optimization, I guess, doesn't take a lot of capital, but ADEX would be the most capital intensive. Can you give us some more timeframes on how you're thinking about the timing of the ADEX expansion first and foremost, please? Yeah, sure, Anthony. I think ADEX has certainly been delayed from when we expected it to occur. I think that's a function of two key factors. Obviously, the current coal market, as a result of sort of global geopolitical influences, is, yeah, pricing has been a little bit depressed, and that has certainly been a factor in some of our customers' views on their existing expansion projects and new mine developments. Secondly, I think generally, you know, the approvals environment and litigation proceedings have certainly slowed some of our customers' development planning. I would expect that in the first half of FY2026, we would see customers becoming more engaged on ADEX and looking to negotiate with us on both the timing, the size, and the pricing around ADEX. I think that'll happen during the first half of FY2026. Probably it's been a year, 18 months delayed from where we would have expected, and it could be further delayed depending on what happens in the coal market. Obviously, people have seen results that have been put out by a number of customers over the course of this result season, which suggests that there are a variety of factors that are impacting future investment. Linked to maybe optimisation, you're delivering or talking to $2.1 million of revenue optimisation benefits in the second half. There's not a lot in the first half, but growing, obviously. Is it the potential of the benefit of optimisation delaying the ADEX project further than one year, 18 months? No, I don't think so. I think the optimisation, as I've described, is incremental. It will add value to us and to customers, but it won't be huge amounts of additional capacity for customers. If we do see new mine developments, for example, like Whitehaven's Winchester South or Stanmore's Eagle Downs, the amount of capacity they will require will necessitate an ADEX expansion. The size of that expansion, I guess, will be very much determined by the needs of those particular customers. I don't see optimisation impacting ADEX in any meaningful way. It's more getting better utilisation for existing customers. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Thanks, Anthony. Our next question today comes from Cameron McDonald with E&P. Please go ahead. Good morning. Quick question just relating back to the ADEX project. If you've got that additional 14 million tonnes, what are the other components within the supply chain that would need to be expanded? Could that further delay any potential delivery of that additional 14 million tonnes? I'm thinking more around, does the network have that level of spare capacity? Are there available train sets to service that? Would you need a horizon to actually further develop the network and/or other suppliers of the above rail haulage to invest further as well? Yeah, thanks, Cameron. I think if I can take it in two components, I think first on the rail network, if you look at the utilization of capacity of the network compared to actual available capacity or the amount of capacity in the network, there's certainly potential, I think, for there to be sufficient capacity in the network to support an ADEX expansion without any material expansion of the network. That will depend on customers' utilization of their existing capacity. I think the network has an even bigger issue around underutilization. I know from statements that have been made by Horizon that they are looking at ways that that can be better addressed. If it wasn't, contracted capacity certainly meets the current capacity of the network, and that would therefore mean that there would be need to be an expansion of the rail network. Similarly, I think there is probably some underutilization in above rail rolling stock capacity at the moment. Whether or not there were required expansions in that space, I suspect is a matter for those customers who are looking to expand as to which rail operator they want to work with, what that rail operator's contracted position is, and their rolling stock capacity. I suspect there may need to be some enhancement of rolling stock capacity. Again, there's underutilization at the moment, and it'd be a question on the extent of the overall capacity that was required. In short, I can see over the next 12 months- 18 months the potential for this process of optimizing capacity across the whole system, facilitating a situation where we may need to expand the terminal, but other elements of the system, whilst needing some expansion, perhaps don't need the same expansion capacity as required at DBT. Okay, thank you. On the $60 million you've spent in CapEx for the period, can we get a more sort of granular breakdown of the larger components of that? How much did you spend on the ship loader and the reclaimer during the period as an example? Most of that would have been on the ship loader and the reclaimer. Those two projects in total are about $280 million. Most of the $60 million will have been spent on those. We have spent some on completing some NECAP projects, which were included in the asset base on 1 July 2025, and some that are contributing to ongoing NECAP projects like pile driving and the like. I don't have the exact numbers, Cameron, but it's probably in the vicinity of $40 million- $50 million of the $60 million would have been on those two major projects. Just a last sort of more granular question from me, in terms of the expectation for the full year with your interest costs. Maybe Steph, can you give us a guide on, obviously you're spending more capital, so you're thinking that the interest rate or interest costs should be incrementally higher than the first half? Yes and no, Cameron. The amount of interest that we're paying will be higher, and we'll be drawing it from the revolving facilities. To the extent that we are spending, we are drawing to fund the NECAP programme, we continue to capitalize interest effectively into the cost of the intangibles that sit on our balance sheet. That doesn't get expensed through our P&L until such time as those projects are commissioned and earning revenue. What you'll probably see is the more construction WIP, if you like, that we have building up, the higher the amount of capitalized interest that we'll be recording in our accounts. The amount of interest expense that goes through probably won't change a lot. In terms of the amount of interest we're paying, yes, that will go up. As I said, the amount going through our P&L for expensed probably won't change that much. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question today comes from Owen Birrell with RBC. Please go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to get a bit more color around the NECAP opportunities that you're talking to by 2030. I'm assuming that provides a bit of that uplift in the NECAP chart that you've got towards the back end of the decade in terms of that sort of gray block in, was that slide 11? I'm just wondering whether you can give us a sense of what those projects are. Yeah, sure, Owen. We're doing some work right at the moment, in fact, it's a NECAP project in itself, assessing the requirement for a new ship loader potentially at the terminal. We expect that at least one new ship loader will be required by 2031. That'll be a similar cost to the existing ship loader that we're building. Secondly, probably the other major component of the NECAP over the next sort of period from 2027 to 2031 will be a project which we describe as gallery wrapping. As you'll be aware, the jetty runs 3.8 kilometers out to the berths. We have the conveyors along there, which are all supported by steel structures. We're currently doing some work on assessing whether it is better to wrap those structures like we do with the piles effectively as a way of preserving them from corrosion for potentially 20 years- 30 years rather than painting them every 10 years. That work is ongoing. We expect to put a proposal to customers in the second half of this year. If that were approved, we would expect the NECAP for that to be over the course of at least the next five years in the vicinity of $100 million. You'll have our general NECAP programs of somewhere between $25 million- $50 million per year as well. That takes you from, you add the, call it $165 million of a new ship loader, $100 million potentially in gallery wrapping from 2027 to 2031, and annual NECAP projects, you get sort of close to or around that $400 million range. That's excellent. Just a second question from me with regards to potential future opportunities. It was good to get the criteria in which you're filtering your options with respect to future opportunities. I'm just wanting to get a sense of scale. In other words, what's how small is too small and how big is too big in terms of potential acquisition opportunities that you'd be looking at or investment opportunities you'd be looking at? Yeah, I think in terms of too small, I think anything sort of less than $100 million doesn't make a lot of sense to us unless it was something very easy and very adjacent and we thought, oh, well, yeah, it's worth doing and it delivered a return more than our NECAP return. Anything over $100 million we think is well worth doing. Obviously, we'd assess the amount of effort that was required to both undertake that transaction and then execute on the returns on that transaction. In terms of maximum size, I don't really have a maximum per se. We think it really depends on the nature of the asset. If it was something very much familiar to us, it was aligned to our existing business, then it could be quite substantial because we'd understand it very effectively and very well. If it was starting to shift away from our existing business, we're clearly going to be more disciplined and size somewhere in the range of $500 million may be the sort of cap that we might look at, $500 million - $1 billion. It really depends on the nature of the opportunity. I think the more familiar we are with the nature of the asset, the more it's aligned to our existing risk profile, the lower the execution risk on it, I think the more comfortable we get that there could be, we could potentially invest to a significant extent. We'll be very disciplined about how we think about those things. I guess what you could take from that is if it's close to what we're doing, it could be a substantial amount. If it's other assets in the fossil fuel supply chain, it's probably somewhere between $100 million and $1 billion. The size will be very much a factor in determining whether we do it would be how we feel about the execution capability in delivering overall long-term returns to security holders. I guess in terms of the execution capability, a lot of that would obviously come down to the potential to raise capital from your existing shareholders and the broader market, I would imagine. Have you had any discussions? I imagine with Brookfield, you've already had those sorts of discussions around their willingness to support transactions of a certain scale. Just wondering if you can give us any feedback you've had with the existing shareholders with regards to their willingness to fund very large sizable acquisitions. Yeah, probably nothing specific that I can disclose. What I can say is, I mean, Brookfield, as a substantial shareholder, has always been very supportive of the business over the long term. We feel confident that if, like every other shareholder, if the opportunity represents good long-term value, which supports our distribution growth and is accretive, that they would be supportive. There's certainly nothing to suggest anything to the contrary. In terms of the debt markets, I think one thing we're certainly seeing is those markets are definitely more open and available than they were, say, two years ago. There's definitely greater appetite for funding of coal-related assets and particularly metallurgical coal, where I think a lot of lenders are seeing it as part of the transition to a decarbonized future, as opposed to probably two to three years ago, people were just looking at coal as coal and saying, we're not going to lend. Clearly, there have been some banks that have moved away from some of the, and equity institutions as well, that have moved away from the stricter approach that they had to coal investment in the past. We certainly see the debt markets as being in as good a position as they've been in over the last probably four to five years, and therefore significant amounts of capital available both across capital markets and banks. I think the funding will absolutely be a key element to execution. At this stage, I think we're better placed as a business than we ever have been before to be able to execute both from a debt and equity perspective. Apologies, one very last question, if I may. Your appetite to work as part of a consortium? Yeah, always open to all options. We don't discount anything. I think if it's the right partners who can bring the right attributes to the business case, then absolutely happy to work with them. There may well be opportunities in that space, particularly if the funding requirements are significant. Working with partners represents a very good opportunity to reduce some of that execution risk into the future. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you. Our next question today comes from Sam Seow with Citi. Please go ahead. Morning, Michael. Morning, Steph. Thanks for taking the question. Just quickly on NECAP, my understanding was, or my working assumption was that kind of $0.60 odd uptick in FY2027 was relatively fixed, but noticed in your NECAP schedule you've kind of got that NECAP X there for $40 million. Just wondering, you know, is there any more kind of uncommitted NECAP in the backlog that could kind of drop into that scheduled new term? There may be a small amount. NECAP X will definitely finish all of it by 1 July 2027, I think, or if not all of it, substantially all of it. That will drop in, which is why we've got $405 million, whereas if you looked at the half year, we had a $300 million odd number, which took out the amount that has been added on 1 July 2025, and then the new NECAP X. There will be some new projects next year. For example, gallery wrapping, we think will start next year, and there'll be some of that added to NECAP in 1 July 2027, we expect. That $405 million could be, and I expect will be, slightly higher than that. It won't be substantially, Sam. I would think the $0.63 represents the $405 million. We may get another $25 million, $30 million added to the NECAP base on 1 July 2027, potentially, which would increase it slightly more. Got it. That's helpful. Just in terms of capacity pooling and optimisation, just to clarify, this is revenue above and beyond the TIC. How material can we get that? It looks like, you know, obviously, I might annualize it, what, $5 million in 2026, but just any kind of high-level thoughts around whether that line can be material above the TIC? Yeah, look, I think the way I describe it is we view it as material because it doesn't, there's no capital involved, there's no ongoing operating costs. It is revenue that will go straight to FFO and then be available for distributions. As we've indicated, we expect for the full year to be around $2.7 million. There's still a run rate that'll happen over FY2026, and we're still working on some other initiatives. This year, you can call it we've hopefully increased revenue by $2.7 million. I'd expect us to continue in a similar sort of profile and gradient. It will go up in FY2026, is our expectation. I guess the simple way I look at it is if it's $5 million of additional revenue, it'll be $5 million more of cash available for distribution. If that were distributed, it would be an additional $0.01 per security in terms of distributions. Our focus is to continue to grow that beyond the current levels and the current initiatives we have in place. Will it ever be material against the TIC? No, I don't expect that to ever be the case. Because it doesn't have any capital allocated to it, nor any operating costs associated with it, it is actually very meaningful when you get down to the FFO line. That's helpful. Just one more, if I may, on the capital allocation slide and potentially even review. I just want to clarify and maybe confirm what exactly are you reviewing in terms of capital allocation? I think what we're looking at is, as Steph mentioned, up until basically 30 June, we'd funded all of the $200 million-odd of NECAP we've done over the last sort of four years or so purely through cash that had been generated in the business. We actually hadn't had to draw on any of those available debt facilities. I guess what we're looking at is, is that the right way to think about the way to utilize our capital going forward? Given that we have $450 million of undrawn available debt facilities, we know we have $283 million of CapEx to do over the next two years, plus any of the additional stuff I mentioned. There's still a significant amount of debt available beyond our existing committed NECAP. Therefore, the question is, should we be potentially using the cash that we have in the business above distributions for NECAP and drawing less debt than the $283 million? Or should we be pushing the amount of debt we're drawing up further towards funding, you know, most, you know, if not all of that NECAP, and having the cash available for other purposes? I think if you look at our gearing, which is on slide 15, we still, even with the drawing of debt that is proposed to fund the committed NECAP, by FY2027, we'll be still down at 6x net debt to EBITDA. I think the key question for us as a business is, given the nature of the asset, the nature of our contracted revenue streams, and the certainty associated with that, is 6x gearing or 6x EBITDA to net debt the right way to think about the gearing in the business? Could we be using our balance sheet more effectively? What that could be for? As I've indicated, we don't have any acquisitions planned. We're going to be very disciplined about those. That could be one use of them if it made sense. Alternatively, there's other ways we can think about making sure that shareholders receive appropriate returns on their investment over time. We'll go through the whole process. No, that's helpful. Thank you so much for that. Really appreciate the extra cover. No problem, Sam. Thanks. Our next question comes from Nathan Lead at Morgans. Please go ahead. Good day, Michael and Stephanie. Two or three questions, if you don't mind. First up, just interested if you've had a chance to dig a little bit deeper into the request for coverage for Abbot Point Coal Terminal and just whether you see that as being an opportunity or a threat to DBT. That's the first question. Yeah, no, thanks, Nathan. We've spent quite a bit of time looking at both the submission for declaration that was made by QCoal. We have made a submission that we actually lodged on Friday with the QCA. I think NQXT will no doubt lodge their submission in response tomorrow. It's due, so I suspect it'll be lodged today or tomorrow. Our view is that there are a lot of challenges that QCoal may have in presenting a position that would indicate that declaration is necessary or warranted. We'll obviously keep a close eye on the submissions that are made, any further support that QCoal has, and obviously anything that ultimately comes out as a recommendation from the QCA. I guess ultimately we think about NQXT as very much a different proposition to DBT, but at the same time, there are elements that are similar, and we would obviously be hoping that there was not a declaration of that terminal, and we think there are strong reasons as to why the terminal shouldn't be declared. We're certainly quite engaged on making sure we put a position that reflects what we believe is the status of the competitive element of NQXT and DBT. Okay, great. Second question just comes just for clarification, if I could. There's just a couple of indications within the slide pack about when you expect to be rolling NECAP into the asset base. Footnote 3 on slide 18, you're talking about $46 million going in at the end of FY2026, and then I think it's virtually all the remainder going in in FY2027, whereas slide 19 seems to suggest it's more of a later sort of rolling in based on the completion dates. Can you actually get some of it rolled in before full completion of the project? Is that what that slide's saying? Secondly, the $0.63 increase in the TIC says it's based on the $405 million of NECAP, but that table once again on slide 19 shows that $105 million of that NECAP's already gone in. Just wanted to get consistency. What's the $0.63 increase getting teed off? Is that the current TIC or from a? That will be off the $0.63, should be off the amount we expect to add to the NECAP asset base over 1 July 2026 and 2027 from the projects that'll be completed then. All of the committed projects, that'll be the additional $300 million that hasn't been included in the asset base to date. In terms of the profile of that, I think certainly there will be, it won't be the two major projects, so NECAP, the reclaimer, and the ship loader. Their completion dates are end of calendar year 2026 and the beginning of 2027. They will only be rolled in on 1 July 2027. There are some projects, including some of these that are still ongoing, NECAP W in particular, which will get rolled in on 1 July 2026, which represents that $40-odd million that you mentioned. Steph has another... To clarify on slide 19, that $405 million is still to be included in the NECAP asset base. It's exclusive of the $105 million. The $105 million is what's already been added. Sorry, thank you, Stephanie. The $105 million is what's already been added. The balance, if you read it, the balance still to be included is $405 million. If you add them together, that is sort of how much is the way that... That makes a lot more sense. I read it wrong. Okay, we'll change the heading going forward. Yeah. Final question from me is just when I'm looking at the net working capital movement, last two halves, consecutive halves, we've had a negative working capital. I just expected that might have reversed. Is there something that's going on there that just means that consistency of cash EBITDA versus accrued EBITDA is falling away? It's a combination of the sort of where the operator is sitting at any given time in terms of their OMC invoices. There's collections from customers and payments to suppliers. It's a range of things in that working cap. I can probably take it offline, Nathan, and drill into it a bit more for you. Yeah, I mean, you'd expect it to reverse. It actually helps with the net deposition, or is it a more permanent thing? It varies. It can, so the operator's invoices, depending on how they're coming through and where the truck with customers sit. Sometimes though on the TIC trucks, the HCF/HCB trucks, that can impact on sort of where we sit with working cap at any given time. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Steph. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ian Miles of Macquarie Equities. Please go ahead. Hey guys, a couple of quick questions. You talked about the WIP. I was just wondering what size the work in progress is at the moment on your books. That is a good question. We are leaving it, Ian, we were looking at splitting it out in our accounts this year, this half year, and we're probably going to do it for the full year. It is not in there during this half year kind of review accounts. We are looking at putting it through. I can't remember off the top of my head what it would be. It does build though. Yeah, it's certainly going to build quite a bit over the, while we're undertaking all of these projects. From memory, it's about $130 million. Don't sort of... Okay, that's cool. If we sort of look at the projects you've got, you've talked about the ADEX project, you've talked about your ship loaders, replacement ship loaders, and the wrapping. I appreciate some of them will come in ahead. You probably have up to $700 million or $800 million of projects which could all sit in that WIP at some stage in the next two to three years. I'm just sort of intrigued. Do you, and I'm not only talking about capital management, does the balance sheet, given your headroom, can it carry all of those projects without you going to the rating agencies for a bit of relief, temporary relief on your net debt to EBITDA ratios? I think the answer to that is yes, and probably a function of two things. I wouldn't expect us to have $700 million- $800 million of projects underway and being funded. For example, when we start the new ship loader, if that happens, that'll start in 2027 at the earliest, probably 2028. We will have finished the existing ship loader and the existing reclaimer. That $400-odd million will have already been incorporated into the asset base. Obviously, we'll have also been debt funded to a significant extent. There is additional debt there. When you look at how that translates through to all of these things, they add to the asset base, they add to EBITDA. We think there's definitely capacity within our existing both our debt covenants and the rating agency covenants to certainly ensure that we are well within those covenants, even if we had significant uplift in spending. Do you think that's true with ADEX as well? Because I assume ADEX is a three or four-year bill. Yeah. That puts up to $500 million into that need. Yeah, look, if ADEX, and I certainly look at ADEX separately, I would look at ADEX as a, that's sort of like a funding project in itself outside of our general funding of the NECAP projects. It would definitely, I think, the way we would see ADEX is how definitely a project, particularly if it was the full amount, where we would be funding it separately and independently. We would be going to banks and potentially rating agencies at that point in time and saying, yeah, yes, we get IDC through that project, we'll have fully committed contracted revenues once it's built. Yes, we may need some headroom on overall debt covenants at that point in time, but... Yeah, just on that, I mean, we went through the 7X Project, which was about $1.4 billion, and S&P were with us through that. They were very familiar with how that works. All of our debt covenants are set up in such a way that it accounts for large capital projects. Both the rating agencies and the debt lenders, everything's structured around the fact that we do undertake these capital projects. You know, when we show you the net debt to EBITDA, obviously that. Slightly different. Even when we, and that's one of the rating measures that Fitch uses, even talking to them, they look through that, particularly, and they look really at the strengths of the offtake contracts, etc., that are there. We've already had, in principle, S&P certainly has been through it all because they've been rating us since 2006. Fitch has been rating us since about 2019. We've had theoretical discussions with them, and they're fine with that too. Okay. Do you have any measures on FFOs and their debt in your metrics? Not in any of our debt docs or our rating agencies either. Okay. No. Okay, look, that's great. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Riches for closing remarks. Thank you everyone very much for participating today. Really appreciate the questions. Obviously, if there are any follow-ups that we can help with, please feel free to send them through to Steph or myself. We appreciate the opportunity to talk to you all about the business. We're very pleased with the half-year result. It's, you know, I guess, very much steady as she goes with some opportunities that continue to become available for the business. We see the ability to continue that growth in our distributions going forward. Thanks, everyone. Much appreciated. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now discontinue.