Get your Q&A open, mate. Your chat. All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. My name's Tim Young. I look after the IR and capital markets side of things for Far East Gold. On behalf of the board and management team, we thank you very much for joining us today. Before I hand over, a couple of housekeeping points. This session will be recorded, and will be made available on the company's website afterwards. We'll close with a Q&A, so please submit your questions through the panel at any time during the presentation. We'll get to as many as we can. It's been a busy three months for the company and a lot of you have been busy with us through every step. In late July, we obviously had Xingye Gold's takeover offer closed, which without really reaching its minimum acceptance conditions. That outcome was only possible because of shareholders and backed by the board's view that the offer's significantly undervalued for the company. We thank you for that support. Since then, the focus has really shifted back to the assets. We've completed the 51% ownership of Idenburg. In late August, we re-released the independent scoping study on the Idenburg project. We've also done a significant porphyry system at Mount Clark West, and we've received two non-binding indicative offsets for Wonogiri and Trenggalek totaling AUD 85 million. So a figure that, for itself, speaks against where the company is currently valued by the market. Today we'll be looking at the strategy, which is pretty simple. Create and realize value across the portfolio and invest that value in our flagship Idenburg. Shane will walk you through how we're going to deliver on that. The resource upgrade drilling, pathway to Indonesian feasibility study, and the 80% ownership of Idenburg, and the maiden resource at Woyla, and where all the transactions processes stand at the moment. So a good sequence of catalysts coming through for the next half of the year. He'll also address the board developments directly. Shane Menere is the Founder of Far East Gold and has led the company through from its earliest days from listing and through everything that's happened. There's never a better place to give you this update. Shane, over to you, and welcome everyone, and thank you for attending. Thanks, Tim, and, wow, what a really good overview there. A really good summary, and I'll just dive into a little bit more detail to build out what Tim was saying. Welcome everybody, and thank you so much for joining. I'm Shane Menere, the CEO, and one of the original founders of Far East Gold. I want to use today to give a clear account of where FEG stands, what we're doing over the next 12, possibly 18 months, and why the recent corporate activity doesn't change the work underway across our projects. The most important message is simple. FEG is operating. FEG is progressing its projects and evaluating opportunities as usual. Our technical teams, Indonesian partners, and advisors all continue to work, so nothing has changed there. The Idenburg program continues. The independent Woyla resource work continues. Wonogiri and Trenggalek transaction processes continue. We are also continuing to consider the asset-level transactions, strategic investment, and any other funding alternatives where they can create appropriate value for shareholders. Our strategy is equally simple. Create value, realize that value from the broader portfolio. Where the terms justify it, we reinvest that capital and management focus into Idenburg as our flagship development asset. This is not a strategy built around one bidder, one transaction, or one source of capital. It is a strategy that is built around a portfolio of quality assets and several potential pathways to fund and advance them. I know shareholders also want clarity on the upcoming meetings. I will address those matters near the end, and I will be direct about it. But what I will stay with the announced facts and the formal processes. Today's central purpose is really to show that FEG has a business to build, a development pathway to execute, and multiple choices to evaluate. Let us dive in. Obviously, standard disclaimer there, guys, but you can look at that at your own leisure. I will not bother death-by-PowerPoint reading some of these points out. This slide captures the whole strategy in one page. First, advancing Idenburg. We now have an independent scoping study, which was quite impressive as far as the internal team is concerned. The immediate program is targeted resource conversion at the Sua prospect area, and progression of permitting and completion of the Indonesian feasibility study. That feasibility study is not merely another report. Under the project arrangements, commercial arrangements that is, its submission is the milestone on the pathway for FEG to increase its ownership from 51% to 80%. Even by mutual decision, we could go as high as 100% with a few other milestones to achieve. That is the first. The second, create and realize portfolio value. Woyla, Wonogiri, Trenggalek, and our Australian assets should not compete indefinitely with Idenburg for every dollar and every hour of management attention. We intend to undertake the work that most efficiently defines value and improves transaction readiness. Depending on the asset and the proposal, that may lead to a sale, a joint venture, a farm-in, strategic partnership, or another structure. We are in a very fortunate position in Far East Gold that we have got a solid portfolio, a very interesting portfolio, some relatively greenfield and some really quite advanced down to that potential production pathway. That gives us a lot of options commercially. The third is to recycle the capital. Where we can still realize appropriate value, the intention is to strengthen FEG and support Idenburg's continued advancement. Words appropriate value really matter. We will not pursue a transaction simply to say that we completed one. We will weigh the price, certainty, timing, retained exposure, counterparty capacity, the interest of shareholders as a whole. That produces the flywheel effect that you see here, create value, realize value, reinvest into Idenburg, and build FEG. It also gives us that strategic flexibility I just mentioned. We remain open to credible investment at company level and project level, and we will assess each of these opportunities on their individual merits. Next slide, please, Tim. Thank you. These are the reasons that I described earlier. This is a real inflection point for us. First is the scoping study is complete. It established a technical pathway based on two conceptual staged open pit cases and supported moving to that next stage of work. Importantly, the study is based wholly on inferred mineral resource, so that's that lower-level economic assessments. It is not a production forecast and the normal scoping study cautions still apply. What it does provide is a disciplined basis for the next program. The second is resource conversion. At Sua, 20 drill holes totaling about 1,720 m are planned. The program is designed to support a target of around 220,000 ounces in the indicated category. We have done quite a bit of work to understand how much drilling is required to take that economic certainty to the next point, back up to that indicated. We believe with our third-party consultants that we are looking at roughly 220,000 ounces. That is not a target. Sorry, that is a target, certainly not a guaranteed result. All of that geological interpretation and independent assessment will come together and determine the outcome. We are really quite relatively confident, I will choose my words carefully, that this next round of drilling can deliver those results. Third, we have received non-binding indicative interest totaling AUD 85 million across Wonogiri and Trenggalek. So AUD 45 million and AUD 40 million respectively. Now, those proposals are non-binding, so I do not want to oversell them at all. They are not cash in bank, shouldn't be treated that way. What they are is a very meaningful external evidence that sophisticated third parties see the value in the Far East Gold portfolio and assets. That public market may not presently be fully recognizing that value. For us, it is a big uplift and now it is up to us to convert those into something meaningful. The fourth then is that Indonesian feasibility study is well underway. I kicked that off quite a number of months ago now. A lot of the scoping study information goes in to create the feasibility study. I am targeting that for the first half of 2027, which I think is very achievable. When the relevant milestone is achieved under the project, conditional share or the share purchase agreement, I should say, FEG has that clear pathway then from that 51% to 80% by the completion of the feasibility study. The company is not waiting for one dramatic event. We have a sequence, technical work, resource conversion, permitting, ownership progression, and potential portfolio transactions. Each can improve confidence, value, and funding flexibility along the way. Next one, Tim. Idenburg is our flagship because it combines grade scale, infrastructure access, and that defined path towards development studies. The current mineral resource, 780,000 ounces at 3.1 g per tonne of gold in the inferred category. Within Sua, there is a high-grade core of approximately 390,000 ounces at 9.2 g per tonne. This is really impressive stuff as far as I am concerned when you look at market comparables out there. The scoping study considered conventional gravity and CIL processing with approximately 95% recoveries in the study assumptions. Conceptual stage open pit development cases were also considered. The images that you see here, I guess they are a reminder of the geological system. You have got that coarse visible gold, VG. That is always a good thing. That was in hole 24, amongst other surrounding holes as well. That was associated with almost a half-meter interval, assaying around 280 g. It was 280 g per ton. The historical surface results of 3 m at 73 g per ton. These are wonderful assay results we have observed here. As always, they are visual, so they are not necessarily a substitute for intercepts and assays and so forth. The infrastructure position is unusual for Papua. Sua is approximately 5 km from the Trans-Papua Highway, which is a sealed north-south highway in Indonesian Papua. It does not remove the challenges of developing a project, of course, but it is a genuine logistical advantage, and really quite rare in these parts of the world. Only four of those 29 identified prospect areas across the district of Idenburg have been tested. That gives that significant long-term exploration exposure. Our immediate discipline, however, is not to chase every target at once. It is to really focus on the Sua conversion program. Permitting Indonesian feasibility study, focus right in on where we are sure there is very good grades. That planned drilling, that is designed to test that conversion of inferred to those higher-confidence classifications. As I mentioned, that is indicated and measured. To what extent, of course, that is up for the drill tip to decide. But we are really quite buoyed by that 220,000-ounce target that I mentioned a little bit earlier. Next slide, please, Tim. The development sequence. The scoping study is now complete. Next comes that Sua drilling. These results feed into an updated resource, and that updated resource can then support the next stage of technical and economic evaluation and inform into that Indonesian feasibility study. You can see everything is rolling in that one direction. We are on that clear pathway of project development. The ownership dimension is a particularly important one. On the current project pathway, completion and submission of that Indonesian feasibility study is a milestone towards increasing from 51% to the 80%. In parallel, we progress production-related permitting. Civil and hydro type of studies that also roll into that scoping study. This is a sequence and a regulatory and technical step. Exact dates do vary, but we are well progressed with getting this all underway now. The current program indicates approximately six months from the scoping study through to that central resource conversion work stream, subject to the variable, of course. What should investors watch? In the fourth quarter, Sua drilling results and updated mineral resource work across that second half of 2026 and into 2027. Progress on Wonogiri tenure restoration and the Wonogiri and Trenggalek transactions, of course. In the first half of 2027, the targeted Indonesian feasibility study milestone and that pathway towards 80%. The point is that value creation is not dependent on a single binary outcome. We have several visible work streams, each with a defined commercial purpose. Next slide, please, Tim. This slide brings together two independent external signals in the portfolio. For Wonogiri, FEG received a $45 million non-binding indicative proposal. Wonogiri contains 1.15 million ounces of AuEq gold equivalent, with 996,000 ounces of gold and 190 million pounds of copper. Tenure restoration remains a critical work stream, and that is well progressing now. The status of that IUP is being progressed through the Indonesian process. Discussions on the transaction partnership alternatives continue in parallel. For Trenggalek, FEG received that $40 million non-binding indicative proposal. There has been a number of proposals for Trenggalek, actually. Trenggalek contains a non-JORC but a local equivalent of JORC reporting called KCMI, and it contains 120,000 ounces. It is important to understand that it is a good measure, but it is not a JORC. That counterparty engagement is in site due diligence, I should say. It has been well progressed. That independent exploration target has been commissioned to help the project define its potential scale and support those strategic discussions. Neither NBIO is a binding agreement. There is certainly no certainty that either have become a transaction, although we are getting a heck of a lot of interest, actually. The second external signal is the independent expert valuation prepared during the Xingye bidder takeover process. Lonergan Edwards, independent firm, valued FEG shares at between AUD 0.324 and AUD 0.444, with a midpoint of AUD 0.385, and concluded that the then offer was neither fair nor reasonable, to use their words. That valuation was supported by SRK's technical work, and actually, this is a good point. This was all completed before the Idenburg scoping study was actually completed nor available. That valuation arguably is now on the lower side, given completion of that scoping study. Bit of a disclaimer. No valuation is a guarantee of the trading price or any sort of future transactional outcome. But it is really important in context. It shows why the company should evaluate proposals carefully and why shareholders should not assume that the prevailing share price defines the underlying value of the portfolio. Next slide, staff. Woyla is the next resource value catalyst. Company has already completed substantial drilling there quite some time ago. There is a question about why we have shifted focus from Woyla to Idenburg, which I will answer. I just saw it pop up. It is a timing thing with Idenburg. I will go into that in a little bit more detail. Woyla has reported exceptional high-grade gold and silver results, a lot more silver than we expected, across several prospect areas. The selected peak assays on this slide include 81 g per tonne of gold, 734 g per tonne of silver. I refer you to the 24.9s. You can go ahead and read them. I do not need to bore you by reading those. They are very impressive results out. But these are selected peak assays from all of those previous public announcements that FEG has been made. The immediate objective is not indiscriminate new exploration spending. It is to convert that existing drill database and geological interpretation into an independent JORC framework. That maiden mineral resource estimate has been well advanced, and we could produce that relatively swiftly. I would suggest, not that I would suggest. It is only desktop work from here to finalize off that JORC mineral resource estimate. We are also intending on doing an exploration target, where it may support an asset-level transaction or similar. That work is being built on substantive technical foundation. That initial resource was prepared by one of our external consultants, a local Indonesian fellow who we have used extensively, and he is really quite experienced in developing or pulling the information together. Then we go to the third party, such as Mining One or SMGC, who you can see here, to complete the JORC work. The resulting independent estimate is, in turn, going to feed into a scoping study down the track on Woyla at some point. Why does that matter? Because an independently quantified asset is easier to value, compare, finance, and transact than a collection of what is really exciting drill results. Woyla creates a resource catalyst, while Idenburg provides that development catalyst. Wonogiri and Trenggalek provide transaction catalysts. These work streams complement one another. This slide shows how the portfolio can help fund the flagship. At Wonogiri, our priorities are tenure restoration and advancing a transaction or joint venture alternatives. At Trenggalek, the priority is defining scale and progressing credible transaction or partnership alternatives. At Woyla, it is establishing an independent resource framework and then evaluating the strategic choices available. At Mount Clark West and Blue Hill Creek in Australia, the emphasis is on some disciplined low-cost value definition and transaction readiness. Importantly, this does not mean every asset must be sold. We are evaluating a range of structures, outright sale, staged sale, joint venture farming, project investment, possibly even royalty or retained equity exposure. The right answer may be different for each asset, and we are currently looking at all of those as well. The commercial objective is potential sale proceeds, partner funding, or strategic capital that can be directed towards Idenburg and strengthen FEG's balance sheets. If the portfolio can progressively fund value-creating development, that can reduce, although maybe not eliminate, reliance on future equity capital. We will remain very tight and very disciplined. We will access counterparty's funding capacity, conditions, timing, execution risk, and value. Consider all of the above. Because these processes are commercially sensitive, there will be times when we cannot necessarily provide a running commentary. But silence in between announcements shouldn't necessarily be mistaken for inactivity. Next slide. We are already there. Bringing the work streams together. The next 12 months have a visible catalyst runway. In the fourth quarter of 2026, as I mentioned, the focus is targeted on Sua drilling and resource conversion program at Idenburg, the maiden independent resource work at Woyla, and progress towards more advanced agreements for Wonogiri and Trenggalek, where acceptable terms can be achieved. In the first half of 2027, the focus moves to the updated Idenburg resource, and hopefully, earlier, the next stage of technical evaluation also, and that Indonesian feasibility study milestone supporting the pathway towards that 80% ownership. Over the same period, portfolio value realization initiatives may progress or complete, and subject to negotiation, diligence approvals, and binding documentation. We are well on that pathway. Thereafter, the Idenburg pathway includes production permitting, updated technical and economic evaluations, and where evidence supports it, a development decision or another value realization outcome. That is what business as usual means. I guess, in practical terms, we are not standing still. But continuing a disciplined program, despite the noise around the register and the boardroom, is continuing and robust and ongoing. Now I want to address the recent board developments directly. Xingye owns 34.57% of FEG following its unsolicited takeover bid. It is important to know that that is, let us call it fundamentally from one shareholder. That was the vendor of our other projects. Now, why is that important? Well, shareholders on the hold by volume are overwhelmingly supporting the current position for Far East Gold, and it was only that one shareholder and another related party, as far as I am aware, that actually sold those shares to take Xingye's shareholding from 19.99% to 34.57%. That offer closed after the independent expert concluded that it was neither fair nor reasonable using those words again. Xingye has now convened a general meeting for the November 3rd. I am sure you have seen. They seek to remove Justin Werner, myself, Paul Walker, and Chris Atkinson together with any other director appointed before the meeting, other than a director appointed under Xingye's nomination rights. The members of the former independent board committee, which was established for the takeover bid and no longer exists, but no longer exists now that the bid has closed. They have stated that their position to those resolutions clearly will be considered. I personally believe shareholders should vote against the Xingye resolution. My reason is straightforward. Removing the directors who have led the response to the bid and who are advancing the current strategy would create disruption that at the very time FEG is progressing Idenburg, that independent work at Woyla and potential portfolio transactions. We are at that very critical point where value realization is potentially imminent. That timing was considered by Xingye, I am sure, cleverly as well, to make their bid when they did. I do not intend to personalize this. Xingye is a substantial shareholder and a potentially important industry participant. FEG remains willing to engage constructively with Xingye, of course, but just as we will with any other credible party. But where a proposal recognizes only appropriate value, is capable of completion, and treats all shareholders fairly. A professional willingness to engage does not require the company or its directors to accept a proposal that we consider inadequate for a governance outcome we consider contrary to shareholders' interests. Separately, shareholders, you would have seen shareholders holding approximately 5.5% of Far East Gold shares have requisitioned another meeting after the Xingye EGM calling. That meeting is seeking the removal of Monique Tang, Justin Hastings, and Michael Thirnbeck. I want to distinguish carefully between company statements and my personal view as a director and shareholder. The formal meeting materials will be set out. We will set out, I should say, the relevant recommendations and reasons once finalized. But my present personal view is that shareholders should support the removal of Justin Hastings and Michael Thirnbeck. Their appointments arose in the context of vendor-related arrangements and representation. It is important to say that again. Their appointments arose in the context of vendor-related arrangements and representation. The relevant vendor shareholding that supported the rationale no longer exists. As I mentioned, the vendor of the projects who did sell their shares in the bidder process over to Xingye no longer has shareholding in Far East Gold, therefore no longer has that representation requirement as a part of their share purchase agreement. In my view, the board should now be structured for FEG's next phase, with directors whose contribution, alignment, and mandate match the company's current ownership and strategy. As to every resolution, shareholders should read those notices, the explanatory statements and proxy materials in full, when they are issued. I encourage you to not rely on rumors and selective extracts that may be presented out there. The company will continue to communicate the voting processes, the deadlines, and its formal position very clearly and very professionally. The broader point is this. These meetings concern who should govern FEG. They do not stop the projects. That is important to know. Management is continuing to execute. That is very important to know. The company is continuing to assess asset and investment options. That is very important to know as well. The board and management remain accountable for protecting value and acting in the interest of shareholders as a whole. Nothing has changed from our position. Next slide. Oh, that is the last slide. Maybe I will just wrap it up there, but with a reminder that Idenburg has got the 780,000-ounce resource that we are looking to progress down a permitting pathway. The rest of the portfolio is being looked at from a value creation perspective and what that means for potential credible commercial exchanges or outcomes. We might move into some questions here, Shane, if that works for you. Sure. Just around, obviously, just on that 222,000 ounces at Sua, is that an additional 220,000 ounces to the one announced in the scoping study? Around the financial metrics of the scoping study, they will be able to be released once we get that resource up from inferred to indicated, correct? That's right. It's not necessarily an increase of 220,000 ounces. There could be an increase experienced on top of those 780,000 ounces. What we intend to do is take those ounces in inferred and increase the economic certainties by doing some more infill drilling and increasing that economic certainty, like I said, to the indicated and measured categories. So those financial metrics will be released once the indicated resource for these 20 holes is done, correct? Yeah, that's right. That allows us to start to get to a point where we've got some real surety around the economic numbers. Obviously, we have an internal series of calculations that came with the scoping study, but without a while, it's only inferred. ASX guidelines don't allow us to release those numbers. What I can say is FEG's very, very happy with the results, actually. Now it's our job to do a little bit of infill drilling with this additional information that's come back for the scoping study and increase the economic certainty so we can get out some net present values and some real calculations around the economics. I just see a few other messages pop up. I see a few of- Very, very similar. Yeah, very, very similar. One question, which is a bit of a tough one. Several shareholders have asked which companies have approached FEG and which assets they are interested in, and whether there is competing parties or whether there is any interest in the Australian assets. There has been genuine third-party interest across the portfolio. I need to distinguish what has been announced or what remains commercially confidential. We have got those non-binding offers that we have already spoken about. We are engaging with other credible parties about potential asset-level transaction, joint ventures, strategic investments. In some cases, more than one party has expressed interest in the same asset or different parts of the portfolio. Obviously, I cannot identify parties or discuss their individual proposals unless they have just consented or it becomes binding. Yeah, a little bit premature to be naming. There has been interest in the Australian assets as well, although it is much earlier stage. Our approach with Mount Clark West is to limit that exposure and Blue Hill Creek and improve the transaction readiness, not only those assets, but also right across the portfolio. We are considering several potential pathways. There is also a question I see of probability to one or both of the proposed Wonogiri transactions being completed. I don't think it would be responsible to assign a percentage probability while negotiations are still underway. Both proposals are non-binding, and there are others that we are speaking with now as well. It has been slightly. Obviously, they are early stage, but they are solid, they are looking good, and we are investigating what the companies may their real true capabilities. Some Indonesian, some non-Indonesian companies. What I guess I can say, that the interest is truly genuine, and site visits and counterparty engagements have progressed, and we are working to move the discussions towards that more advanced ultimate binding agreements relatively soon, we hope. Yeah, we are assessing each of the proposal based on value, certainly timing, funding, those sorts of things, including execution risk. I am really encouraged by the level of interest. Another question about the ownership. I am just mindful of the time, and I will take five more minutes if I may. Can FEG ultimately achieve 100% of ownership of Idenburg? What is required to increase ownership, and does FEG intend to become a producer? Okay. FEG currently owns 51% of Idenburg, and under the existing project arrangements, the share purchase agreement, FEG has a defined pathway to increase the ownership to 80% by completion of that and submitting of that Indonesian feasibility study. It is a bit different to the feasibility studies that we may all know. It is a genuine economic feasibility study, but economically quite sensible, that works very closely with, obviously, community and the local environment. As soon as we can complete that off, as I mentioned, early in the new year, then we are on a pathway to increasing that to the 80%. Regarding the 100%, there is not a clear defined pathway, but the steps are there should the vendor and Far East Gold align and agree. The remaining 20%, at decision to mine, the vendor has the election to contribute in an equity position, that 20% moving forward or has the election to accept a 2% net smelter royalty. Far East Gold could negotiate in theory with her and agree with the commercial realities of taking on the additional 20%, developing the whole project ourselves. Then we pay a vendor 2%. We do have potential options there. But that is a separate negotiation entirely. Just one thing on the board and the governance going on, it is obviously a bit of a pointy end. If the Xingye EGM did get approved, then the company would be run by one shareholder, effectively. Just some clarity around the probability of, you can assign the likelihood one or more assets from achieving sales fruition, and then controlling the board back, et cetera. Yeah. Just a bit more clarity around that board situation. Yeah. There's not many companies who are controlled by one shareholder, that's for sure. Yeah, that's right. Obviously, I don't want to go too deeply into the mechanisms behind everything, only because it's really quite long-winded. But the reality is simple. As Tim said, controlled by one shareholder, it's basically no longer a listed company. It means acting in a much more personalized interest capacity. Obviously, that's been done before. You just have to look at a bit of a history out there, and you'll see what those outcomes look like. As far as the potential asset sales, and going down that potential pathway. If it's a non-core asset, if it's considered a non-core asset under corporation law or ASX rules, then we, as a board, can decide to transact on that asset. Different if it's a core asset, such as Idenburg. We'd need shareholder approval for that. But we've got options and the ability to move around to transact at that asset level, and potentially bring in other investors as well. Yeah, we do have options down that pathway. I think there was a number of shareholders asked whether Xingye can prevent a transaction, which is obviously what's prompted you to ask that one, Tim. What does all of that mean for the company? Well, to go back over the numbers, Xingye owns 34.57% of FEG, and it makes it a significant shareholder. But that does not give Xingye the general right to manage the company or ultimately veto any asset or every asset sale transaction. Responsibility for managing FEG rests with the board, subject to the Corporations Act and the ASIC rules, as I mentioned. Actually, that's a part of FEG's constitution, and existing contractual rights, and any shareholder approvals, actually, that may be required for a particular transaction. If a proposed transaction requires that ordinary shareholder resolution, Xingye 's 34.5% would give it a voting influence, but not an automatic veto at all. If a special resolution were required, a position to get us into a favorable position wouldn't be unreasonable, actually. The existence of that extraordinary general meeting that's been called doesn't, by itself, suspend the board's authority or prevent FEG from continuing its ordinary operations and evaluating transactions. FEG remains business as usual is the point that I'd like to try and strongly make. Coming back to those, the non-binding indicative offers that we have at the moment, obviously, a few questions around timing of those and what the conditions of those are, and the progress of where they are at. Which I think you have already quite alluded to, but- Yeah. That is right. I know that is- They are progressing. Yeah. It is a tough one to nail down because it would be remiss of me to not update everyone. Also, it is one of those things where until it is signed and the money is in the bank, I am still working on it. Look, I am quietly confident of a couple of these transactions. I think it is really wise of FEG to spread itself out a little bit now, and it is very wise of FEG to put some money in the bank from one of these assets. I think I said at the beginning, FEG has got an amazing portfolio of assets, and we are in a very fortunate position whereby we can move those assets around commercially if we need to. We have decided that that is exactly what we need to do. Some of those assets are greenfield, some of them are really quite advanced down that project development pathway. And we've got options to be able to create value, put some good funding in the bank, and then continue on and develop the flagship. All of that happens while we're also open to any bigger offers. It's important to also know that we're not saying that we won't work with Xingye whatsoever. Not at all. But we do need something that's really fair for our shareholders and really simply rewards our shareholders for the loyalty, and investment, partnership environment that we've enjoyed for these last few years. We're really happy to speak to Xingye. It just has to be fair and reasonable. Well, I think we're Look, through our time, I think, aren't we, guys? Look, everyone, in short, thank you very much for your time. If there's any other questions that come through, please send them to myself at tim.young@fareast.gold and I'll get them answered for you. This webinar will be posted on the website. There will be a recording, and if anyone would like it, please contact me any time. But in short, there's a very simple, very sharp pointed strategy now that we're focusing on. It's all about developing Idenburg and progressing these asset sales and trying to prevent further dilution to the shareholders. But, yes. That's the name of the game at the moment, and we are progressing these very much so in the background. There will be clear updates when those happen. So we'd like to thank you all for attending today. It was great to have you all, and thanks all for your support. Your continued support is needed if we want to realize the real valuation of what Far East Gold could deliver from. It could be developing Idenburg by this time next year, after we take 80% and the feasibility study done. Very exciting times with the way the gold price is going. And it could be quite a few dollars in the bank on the back of some transactions. Thank you for your time on behalf of myself and Shane. Couldn't have said it better. Thanks, Tim, for organizing this, and thank you for everyone attending, and thank you for that continued support. Please do. We've always been closely in contact with our shareholders. Tim's done an amazing job with investor relations and helping keep everyone informed. So please do contact us. Email, phone, whatever you guys need. We've got some things going to be coming out, relating to the EGM soon. So, we'll keep everyone informed and well updated. Thank you for your continued support. I'll just put. Yes, please give me a call anytime. I'm here to help. Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone.