I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Ivan Vella, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm here with Kath Bozanic, our CFO in Sydney, for this call. First time we're outside of WA, and a bit earlier in the day. It sounds like it's going to be a busy period for the markets in general, with lots of results coming through. So we're right up the front end of the queue. It's been a busy half for us as well, as you note out, looking through our results. And we'll, I guess, walk through the key messages and headlines from that now and then get into some Q&A. Firstly, on safety, look, there's nothing more material to report quarterly, but we continue that focus. I'm very pleased that we've got a new Head of Health, Safety, Environment, and Heritage on board. He started a week and a half ago. Adam Meyer's got a long pedigree in the industry. And we'll just lift us further, I think, with his experience coming to the fore. But look, we're focused on a suite of programs to improve our performance. At the moment, the lagging results are steady and I think not showing the shift yet. But I'm very pleased to see the improvements on the leading indicators, which I guess is the beginning of the change that we're looking for. And we'll continue to amplify our focus as we continue through this calendar year. In terms of results, let me just sort of touch some of the high points. I'm going to throw to Kath to walk you through the numbers and just draw out some of the things that we want to make sure we focus your attention on. I'd certainly, over the last six months. And there's been a lot of challenges. I get asked that question, "How are you going? One year in, how are you feeling?", and it was a tough year. 2024 is a calendar year. It was a difficult period. There were a lot of challenges in the business to walk through. There were a lot of things that I guess I didn't expect at the outset when I joined, and that's the way it rolls. Things that we work through, and I'm very proud of how the teams address those issues and work through them. I feel like we've been taking hard decisions that needed to be taken. They all, I guess, are positioned to set the business up for success in the future. Our focus, I guess, naturally is on the core value in the business. In the first instance, it's Greenbushes and working through the joint venture with TLC to make sure that we're bringing our best to that asset. And I'll talk more to that later. Broadening out our position in lithium, obviously. News on Kwinana today. We signposted the impairment. Kath talked through more of the specifics. It's significant and it obviously has a massive impact on our results. We don't shy away from that. But again, it's one of these hard decisions. We've walked through very thoughtfully, very carefully. I think the team's done a very thorough job. And that's reflected in the decisions that we've taken and the results that we're presenting. Coming back then to the core of the business, and I guess where IGO has been performing and known for a long time is our nickel business and Nova. It is getting harder. We've had a tough half. I think we're going to see a better half looking forward. The team's doing some excellent work as we get to the edges of the ore body, and it does get more challenging to manage that more proactively and get the best from it, but there's no question that our results have been impacted in the last half because of the declining grades and other challenges there. Exploration, look, we've been working on it now for some time and a lot of change there. I'll again come back to it further in the call and talk through some of the work that's well progressed. I wouldn't say quite finished, but not far. In terms of a massive review of our portfolio, and again, you'll see the impairment that we've taken up on a number of exploration interests. And that reflects, I guess, that reset that we're going through on exploration and obviously a step down in the amount of resources that we're allocating. But I want to be clear that there's no dial back in our conviction. It really is about being very focused with how we allocate our resources and our focus. For me, all of these things line up behind the strategy that we announced in September. We've got a strong focus on that. We're tracking well. We've got a very diligent set of activities and teams working through those aspects. And the vast majority of the work, of course, is about the existing business. Once that's in great shape, that positions us so well to do things looking forward from there. And we are continuing, as we've talked about, working on the playbook, which is a way of capturing how the business runs, how we enshrine and really capture all of the ways of working, the processes, the management operating system into one single place that reflects the discipline and the operating performance that we'd expect from the business and the repeatable ways of working right across the organization. And for me, that's about bringing that owner's mindset to life. You hopefully see that through the hard decisions that we're taking, that we are working with that approach in what we do. I'm going to pause there, throw it to Kath, who will talk you through the next slide on financial results in the summary and call out some of the headlines and the cash flow as well. And then I'll come back and pick up some more specifics beyond that. Thanks, Ivan. Hi, everybody. As you'll see, we reported a substantial net loss of AUD 782 million, which has been significantly impacted by impairment charges. The IGO share of impairment of the Kwinana Refinery is AUD 525 million, which was foreshadowed a few weeks ago. There was also a deferred tax asset at TLA of AUD 58 million not recognised, impacting the tax expense. In addition to that, we recognized AUD 115 million of impairments related to IGO's exploration assets. Specifically, this related to Fraser Range and West Gawler projects, which have been deprioritized as part of our review of the exploration and portfolio and demonstrating our laser focus on focusing on commercial opportunities in that portfolio. Our underlying net loss, which removes the impact of these items, was an AUD 85 million loss, reflecting soft lithium prices received by Greenbushes and lower operating results from both Nova and Forrestania operations. Forrestania going into Care and Maintenance during the period, and Nova impacted by lesser sales and the lesser sales price, as well as some challenges on growth. Our balance sheet remains strong. We've still got AUD 247 million in cash, and we've got available facilities of AUD 720 million. Just specifically on the Kwinana impairment, which is IGO's assessment of this, we've gone through a really thorough process to assess the value and worked closely with our auditors and our partners. The impairment testing requires us to make a range of assumptions, and we've utilized what we believe are very reasonable assumptions based on our understanding of Kwinana, and if you look into our financial statements in note 10, we actually provide information on the key assumptions there. The impairment is reflected in IGO's share of net loss from TLA, so you won't see it as a separate line in the profit and loss, and this is aligned with the equity accounting, and the impairment also relates to both train one and two, for clarity, post-impairment, IGO is valuing Kwinana at less than AUD 200 million, and that's Australian on a 100% basis. The impairment recognizes the current market conditions as well as the ramp-up challenges of train one. It also recognizes the cessation of train two activity, as we announced last month due to the project being deemed uneconomic by both the partners. If we move to the next slide, which walks through our cash flow or reconciliation of cash, cash movements of note include we still generated AUD 80 million of cash from Nova and Forrestania despite challenging market conditions. There was a small outflow from Cosmos, given that it's in care and maintenance, and that's aligned with what we guided for those costs. Exploration and evaluation includes AUD 31 million, which relates to pure exploration. The remaining is Business Development and Project Evaluation expenditure. And that includes things like commercial evaluation of the South Ironcap and Cosmos projects. I'm going to spend a little bit of time on corporate and other costs because there's a lot in that. There's a number of one-offs, so that's AUD 37 million, but there's a number of one-offs. For example, as we've restructured exploration and corporate, there were a number of people who left the business. And as part of leaving the business, we paid out their annual leave and long service leave. They're one-offs. There's a number of things that aren't corporate overheads, and examples of that are legal costs associated with the Tropicana matter and also technical services, which is fundamental for our delivery of our strategy. There's timing issues. So there's actually quite a large working capital adjustment, which relates to timing of payments of accounts payable. That's in the order of AUD 3-5 million, just to give you an order of magnitude. And lastly, as part of resetting the organization, we actually changed our operating model to a centralized model. And therefore, we're actually allocating less to the business units under that model than we previously had. So the AUD 37 million isn't the run rate going forward. It's got a lot of noise in it. But you'll get a better idea of what the run rate is in the next half. I can assure you that we're very focused on cost control and continuing to rationalize that as time goes by. The cash outflows include our dividend from FY24, AUD 197 million that was paid during the half. I also just wanted to note the absence of dividends received from the TLA joint venture in the half. This reflects the weak lithium market, capital spend associated with completing CGP3 at Greenbushes, and the cash requirements to support the Kwinana ramp-up. And generally, just taking a prudent approach given the current market. As previously announced, we don't anticipate paying dividends or receiving dividends from TLA in FY25. While we don't guide beyond FY25, our financial statements provide a consolidated balance sheet for TLA in note 10, which indicates there's AUD 481 million cash, with the majority of this sitting in Greenbushes. Windfield dividends have remained broadly consistent. I think that kind of covers everything on those two slides. I'll hand over to you. Well done. Thank you, Kath. Let's I guess start with Greenbushes. Another sort of strong performance from Greenbushes over the last half, a step up in production, which we were pleased to see, and I'll talk more to the guidance in a minute, but they're right at the top of our guidance for this financial year. Obviously, the planning for Windfield or Talison cuts across that because they plan across a calendar year, but really pleasing to see that continued focus. Rob is well settled. He's doing a fabulous job. I'm just so pleased to see the fresh eyes that he brings and the way he's rallying the team, lifting the focus on productivity, and I'm trying to understand the full potential of Greenbushes. He's asking the questions through the business, which I think we'll see enormous lift right through the team as they get into it and understand what they can do. Costs, AUD 300 a tonne, so we're sort of in line there, which is great to see. And the sales was a focus in the last quarterly look. I guess I just restate right up front, there's nothing to see there other than just there's a lot of logistics challenges getting out the Bunbury Port, getting through the roads and managing that. They are doing well. Naturally, I'm eager to see the tonnes out there and not have any inventory at all. But there's really no concerns that I have looking forward in Greenbushes production and getting that through to our two customers. The margins, fantastic. Despite this being a weak point in the cycle for lithium, 68%, pretty impressive even Darren. Just shows you how unparalleled this asset is. It's an amazing ore body and lots more potential that we're working through. On that, the optimization work that we've signposted is well underway now. Rob's championing and leading that work with a very strong team. And I think that will surface both or help us better understand the potential, but also deal with that broader detailed optimization and that life of mine view and all of the strategic challenges you naturally have with any big mining operation in terms of waste, water, tailings, and so on, and how we need to think about infrastructure and managing all of the impacts associated with the mining activity in a very professional way, being very sensitive to the local communities and supporting and making sure their interests are at the forefront. I'm really looking forward to seeing the impact Rob has through 2025. I think it will be pronounced, and I look forward to reporting more on that as we go. Probably the only other point is CGP3. As I said in the quarterly look, it remains on track for the last quarter of this calendar year commissioning, and it'll be great to see that come up and start producing into hopefully what is a more buoyant lithium market. Looking forward, Kwinana, look, this has been a challenge. When I started, I said, "Look, let's not talk about let's pause on guidance. Let's pause on putting numbers out. Give the team space and time to work through the challenges and try and give us a better sense of what's possible with the asset and how it might look in this market." We've done that, and I think worked through it very diligently, as Kath called out. The team's been extremely thorough looking at the asset, its potential, the decisions. And our focus on capital allocation here is right at the forefront. We are crystal clear on the criteria and how we manage our capital. You can see that with a decision on train two. We continue to have a very strong focus on train one. We've impaired it, been through the process, albeit that accounting treatment. There is still an asset there that is operating and running every day. The team's down there doing their best, but we will continue to focus all of our energy to make sure that we've got the very best pathway worked through with TLC for Kwinana going forward. The Nova site or operation, what a great ore body it's been. I wish we had another 10 years ahead of us. The team are dealing with that challenging tail now with less than two years to go. That's tough. And I was out there early last week for one of the shutdowns on the plant, sitting with the team and working through some safety interactions. They're continuing to do a great job managing the challenges they're faced with in grade and the change in ore characterisation. I think they've got a good piece of work going on to really deeply understand that and revise our life of mine. And as I said, we'd share that with the market as soon as possible so that you've got a very clear view of the metal and the performance we expect from Nova through to the end of its life. We can then track against that in a much more predictable way. Underlying free cash flow, AUD 70 million, obviously slightly weaker nickel prices, but the grade and the lack of metal that flowed through was the biggest impact there. And that's hot in focus. And I guess most importantly is coming back to the people and focusing on safety and engagement. And that's right there top of mind for the whole leadership team right across the business. Look, going back to guidance I mentioned, we're not changing any of our guidance parameters, but just to give you some more clarity or color on it. On Greenbushes, we're saying, "Look, we expect to land right at the top end of guidance on tonnes." So the AUD 1,550 cash costs and CapEx are at the bottom end of the guided range. So that should give you a bit more clarity there. Nova remains unchanged, but we expect production at the lower ends. And you can obviously see with the first half that doesn't make that easy, but we do expect to hit the lower end of guidance there. And cost because of that will be at the higher end. Kwinana is, I guess, to my earlier comments, the first time we've provided any directional guidance on that in some time. And we'll obviously refine that and update that as we go for the new financial year. But to close out this financial year, we've given you some numbers to work with and sort of outlines our expectations for that asset. There was also, I guess, just a note, an unplanned shutdown in Kwinana in January, which we've taken into account in our numbers as we roll forward. The Kwinana capital guidance remains unchanged. We had given you a signal on that, but we expect to come in right at the bottom of that guidance. As I look forward, sort of the outlook and the priorities, our strategy is at the forefront and I think gives us a really clear path of the areas to focus on. Naturally, Greenbushes is in a strong focus and working through the joint venture to do what we can to support Rob and the team and help them set themselves up for the very best performance is a strong focus. There is lots for them to work through, but I just see more and more momentum building, and I'm so pleased with the way that team's rallying. Getting CGP3 across the line will be a big piece of work this year. Naturally, while the day that starts is one thing, but all the lead-up in terms of commissioning and ops readiness is critical, and there's a huge amount of focus on that. As a team also works on the existing operations and plants to make sure that we're continuing to lift and creep their performance and improve recoveries and other factors like that. I guess the overall results today, headline levels are disappointing, and it's a challenge to turn up and report a net loss of that scale, reflecting impairments on assets, predominantly Kwinana, but also exploration. But I guess I take some comfort that we are really getting under the covers of the business, working through these issues and taking the hard decisions in a thoughtful way. We're doing it very calmly and very professionally to make sure that we've taken these decisions by taking all the information into account. The impairment is, of course, a challenging moment, but it reflects the work that we've done there and the deep understanding we have of the asset and its future potential. I want to, again, thank the team and recognize them for the challenge that they've been through. I'm here with Kath sharing the news, but there's a big team behind us doing really hard work to get us to this point and positioning us for future opportunities to position our business for more success and obviously to continue to chase our purpose and our strategy. Beyond that, look, I think the best thing to do is open up for some Q&A. I'm sure there's lots of questions built up as you've absorbed the results and some of the headlines we've covered, and I'll come back and wrap up after that. So let's turn it over to Q&A, please. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question via the phone, you'll need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to ask a question via the webcast, please type your question into the ask a question box. Your first question comes from Hugo Niccolai from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Morning, Ivan and Kath. Thanks for the update this morning. Busy day, so I'll just skip two questions. Just firstly, Kath, the six-monthly clarification on JV debt, can you just confirm whether TLEA as a standalone has any debt drawn, please? As a standalone, we actually don't disclose that in our financials. But if you actually look at note two, you can work that out because we actually disclose underneath the table in there what Greenbushes' debt is, which pretty much will give you the answer. Perfect. Thanks for that. And then, Ivan, just one on Greenbushes. Obviously, Albemarle's annual technical report is out, and I appreciate 12 months ago we went through that there's a lot of differences in reporting standards that will impact the life of mine assumptions. So we'll leave those. But there were some comments in there just looking at the water balance, and standing out to me was that potentially the risk of not having enough water on sort of a 12- to 24-month view was probably a bit sooner than maybe what we were expecting. However, it looks like the technical grade plant actually consumes about 50% of the water balance at Greenbushes despite being less than 10% of the volume. So my question is there, can you just remind us of how much of the technical grade volume is currently contracted and until when? Is there any flexibility in those volumes? And is water maybe the reason why technical grade utilization on that plant's been less than 55% for six of the last seven quarters? Okay. There's a lot in that question. Maybe let me try and deal with some of the real specifics the best I can, and then we'll come back to water on the whole. Look, tech grade is largely driven, and it's a trade between obviously the grade available and the mine plan and the demand from the two customers. In terms of what's contracted, I won't comment specifically on that, but it's fair to say the volumes are pretty modest in the scheme of the whole business, and they kind of manage that for each customer too, Albemarle and TLC, to sort of meet their needs through time. In terms of the water demand from the tech grade plant, you're saying 50% of the total water. I hadn't noticed that. I'll double-check. I didn't see it that way because obviously the total water balance recognizes mine water usage for dust control, for a variety of different demands. I'd be very surprised if the volumes reflect 50% of the total, if that's what you meant. But maybe coming back up a level though to water, look, it's a key strategic challenge for the business to work through. Greenbushes has grown rapidly in the last five or six years and, of course, consumes more, particularly the mine, as it's expanded its operation. And so Rob and the team are working through what are the steps they take to make sure that we deal with that. And of course, it's compounded by variable precipitation. They had a very dry couple of years just past, and naturally, we don't know what the future holds. The variability is the issue, and they're building some plans or walking through some steps to give us some more headroom there and mitigate those kind of challenges. I think it's a key risk. Equally, I think as the mine grows, we have to make sure we've got a good long-term plan on tailings, a good long-term plan on water, a good long-term plan on waste management from the mine. And I mean, I think the RPM report calls out water, singles it out more so than others. I'm not sure I agree entirely with that. I think Rob's got mitigations in place right now. I think the issue is, as this mine continues to grow and CGP3 comes online, that challenge only gets harder. He’s really got to move with some real focus over the next 12 to 18 months and get a lot of those strategies implemented and things in place. Thanks for that, Ivan. So can I just clarify then? So it's IGO's view that as CGP3 ramps up at the moment, water won't be an issue there, or you have enough mitigation in place that if it is a risk, you don't see that actually disrupting the ramp-up? I think that's what Rob's working through. I mean, the thing I guess I'm saying is I can't predict the rainfall, right? So obviously, if you have an extreme weather period where you're very, very significant drought, then that's going to be a challenge that we've managed that's going to affect a lot of other people as well. That's the piece that we don't have a source of groundwater or a pipeline or some other backup at this stage. So we're relying on surface water and obviously recycling and management through the tailings facilities. So I can't guarantee the weather, but what I can say is that Rob and the team are working very diligently on the plans to make sure they've got more headroom and they can manage that challenge looking forward. Great. Thanks for that. I might follow some of that up later, but I'll pass it on for now to you guys. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matthew Friedman from MST Financial. Please go ahead. Yeah, sure. Thanks. Morning, Ivan and Kath. I might, I guess, continue on with some of those comments in the reserve and resource statement. And it's good to see some detail on the plans for the strategic option study and also good to see the detailed assessment of that report versus the other technical reports that are out there. So thank you very much for compiling that and putting that together. Just picking up on some of the comments, obviously, you say there that future reporting from Talison is likely to be more conservative, more aligned with U.S. reporting requirements. I guess one of the features of the Albemarle technical report was that it didn't include CGP4. And obviously, despite that, the CapEx is around 20% higher than the Talison estimates, which I guess is worth noting. But I guess the question is, how is the strategic study thinking about approaching maximizing the value of Greenbushes versus any sort of volume or market constraints? I mean, obviously, Greenbushes' volumes have an important bearing on the market as a whole, and you're hoping to sort of complete the study before the end of this calendar year. So I guess how is Greenbushes, sorry, how is the study thinking about Greenbushes' options around volume growth versus value maximization? Thanks. I think look, Rob's mandate and the focus is, of course, on value. And so I sort of feel a bit of déjà vu, value over volume, but some history there. The team working on it will look at that mine. And as I said, it's grown rapidly. It's a really good point to take stock and say, what is the optimized pathway for that entire resource? How do we best manage it? How do we grow it? What's the right pace? And what's the sort of Goldilocks level of production that that mine can sustain given the infrastructure and the other resources that would demand? So yeah, I want to give you confidence that it is about value. It's not about trying to meet some particular tonnage target up or down or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. That makes sense. And yeah, certainly déjà vu in terms of the phrasing. Maybe secondly to Kath, if I look at that again, that sort of consolidated TLEA balance sheet, I know you don't separate it out, but if I do the math, to me, it seems like there's probably about AUD 90 million of cash sitting in TLEA itself, and the rest is in Windfield. I guess the question is, is that sufficient if you look at that outlook that you've given and what you expect at the asset over the second half of this year? Is that a sufficient level of cash, particularly in the context of obviously a AUD 160 million EBITDA loss in the last quarter? Obviously, not all of that was cash, but pretty significant cash draw from the asset and potentially not a lot coming in in the way of dividends from Windfield. Is that level of cash sufficient in TLEA? Thanks. We've got. I think it was just before Christmas that we don't expect a dividend. And equally, we're not guiding to where we're expecting to put cash in. So I think that answers your question. Yeah. Okay. Maybe the extension of that is what other mechanisms would TLEA look to draw upon in order to continue funding Kwinana if required? Or in other words, would you draw down debt in TLEA if required? If required, yes, we would. But that would require going through boards and approvals. And at certain levels, that's at board level and shareholder level. But obviously, Greenbushes has got cash, and there are other avenues to get cash into TLEA. Okay. That's clear. Thanks very much, Kath. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mitch Ryan from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Morning, Ivan and Kath. Thanks for joining. I've just got the one question today. You've talked to the fact that with regards to Kwinana, you are negotiating an outcome that's amenable to both parties. I guess what are your non-negotiables? You called out capital allocation as a key focus, Ivan, but what are your non-negotiables, and what do you think would be the key outcomes of all JV partners? Mitch, yeah, it's a difficult question to answer in that way. Saying non-negotiables, I mean, we're in a partnership that JV is very important to us in that relationship. We are not likely to see everything through the same eyes, and that's like any relationship or partnership. I think then it's about having those open conversations and working through the perspectives and the different issues in a really candid and pragmatic way. We've done that on train two and found alignment, and I think made a very responsible decision, albeit hard. I think one of the headlines "when bad news is good news." I don't know, can't remember who wrote it, but it summed it up so well. As we look at train one, there are a bunch of variables. We've taken a view on it. And then it's a case of working through all the trade-offs and all the back and forth about what's the best path and how we see that asset performing looking forward. So I don't know. I'm trying to find a way to give you some more substance there because it's not about drawing red lines. I just don't think that's helpful in a partnership where we're in it together. Neither party can. Could I frame the questions? Sorry to interrupt. Could I frame the questions slightly differently then? Then rather than non-negotiables, what are some of the key issues that are on the table being discussed? And if you could also, is there a timeline that you're working to as such on those discussions? Yeah. Well, look, let me talk about things from my point of view. So what I like to see in any asset that I've ever worked with is a clear understanding of the current status of the asset, the performance of the asset. So the more clarity in data, in a factual basis, the better. So that's key. So I guess I like to make decisions from a good fact base. Secondly, what are the issues in an engineering sense? So we know that this has been a challenge ramp-up. So the more clarity I can see with which we look through all of the problems, all of the things that need to be fixed or changed or amended based on what we know. And we've had obviously a lot of time now to learn those things. So that's the second thing that I have a strong expectation on. And then it's about saying, okay, with that clarity, what sort of investment's required to close the gap, and what sort of performance do we think can be delivered from that? And of course, that's where it gets a bit more challenging. You're a couple of steps away from the asset today and how it's performing. And then you start weighing in, well, what do you think the market's going to do? How do you think that things are going to play out globally? There's obviously a lot of moving parts around the lithium and energy storage industry right now, lots of geopolitics. And so it's difficult. So that's, I guess, the pieces that I'm asking for and looking at. I'm always going to come to the table when I talk about capital allocation and say, unless we can see that pathway, or at least with a reasonable sensitivity that generates an appropriate return, then we're going to push back on that capital and say, we want more clarity. We want a different pathway. We want another solution. We want another way of doing things to get to the kind of performance that we expect. And we've got to get a return from every dollar that we invest. That's, I guess, the default position that we're chasing. Thank you very much, Mitch Ryan. That's it for me. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rob Stein from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi, Ivan and Kath. Just on Kwinana. So obviously, the impairment came through, which was, I mean, the quantum can be better, but was reasonably expected. Just on the guidance, $15,000 around about for guidance to cost. How can we expect that to come down in the future? Obviously, that's not going to be acceptable to your Chinese JVPs. It's significantly higher than refining costs in China and even more broadly in some other countries in Asia. How can we sort of expect that number to come down over time? Thank you. Yeah, Rob, look, I think you obviously called out the key challenge there. And it's largely a volume driver. Like anything, when you're operating a big plant like that, as the volumes come up, that will amortize down. I mean, you've probably got models that break out the underlying costs, what's variable, what's fixed. Naturally, not having more tons through train two makes that harder. So the problem's not easier looking forward, but that's the issue in front of the team is to get the volume up as quickly as possible. And that's what will move the dial on the cost per ton processed. In terms of actual guidance, I mean, we've given you this now as a sort of first update, and we'll refine that for the next financial year in due course. Thanks. I'll pass it on given the busyness of the day. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Your next question comes from Tim Hoff from Canaccord. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks for the questions, guys. Probably most of the questions have been answered that I was looking at so far. But in terms of the Greenbushes and CGP4, obviously, whether that's included or not is going to be a fairly large driver. Now, obviously, that comes with a trade-off study as to whether you end up going underground in all likelihood. But it's just interesting that you've got a couple of different studies going around with different partners sort of putting out different information. What work's being done to align that work and I guess provide a consistent view on this asset? Is that what we'll likely see at the end of the year, or is that going to be IGO's view of the world to add into this mix? Tim, it's a really good question. The work that Rob has commenced now on this broader optimization study for the mine will give us a new baseline. That kind of work hasn't been done, and I think the S-K 1300 report and RPM report that come out from Albemarle, normal regulatory reporting cycle, it's not really a study. It's a reflection of a point in time of what they can see based on a set of rules. It's not forward-looking in terms of improvements or changes or plans and how the business thinks about optimizing and growing the value of the business, and so without that update, I completely appreciate you've got all these different pieces of data, but nothing that gives you that full picture, and I think Rob will bring that together. I'd expect that once that's done, then the partners involved in Greenbushes can consider then how they share that with the market and give everyone more clarity. Until that time, of course, yeah, you're just getting these sort of point-in-time regulatory reports that give you some insight, but obviously not the whole picture. I'm very pleased to see the work that Rob's kicked off. I think with the kind of people he's got involved, very, very strong team working on that, I think we're going to get a fantastic result. Excellent. And then maybe moving to Kwinana, could you give us a rough rule of thumb of how you might think about fixed costs versus variable costs within that sort of guidance that you've given? Look, Tim, I can't give you that for Kwinana. We just don't guide or provide that level of detail. I think that kind of information is generally available in the market for benchmark refineries. This is obviously not a benchmark refinery. And so it doesn't necessarily mean there's a parallel, but I think you could start to back calculate based on the tons, work out where it's sitting, knowing the fixed costs, and then going from there. Excellent. I'll have a play around and perhaps just finally on Kwinana, I mean, I think following up on the previous question around the cost base, I guess, do you foresee a drop-dead date for when you've got to make a decision as to whether this asset just gets turned off as well? By the end of the year, we've ramped up to where we're going to get to. The costs are sitting at AUD 15,000 a ton. This is a hypothetical situation, of course. But is that a drop-dead date for whether you continue this asset? No, so there's no drop-dead date. It's a case of us working closely with our partner, with TLC, and working through to find the very best pathway that we both are happy with. Excellent. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matt Chalmers from BofA securities. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Good day, everyone. Just maybe just quite quickly going back to CGP3 and just one question from my end. Perhaps you could just give us a little bit more color. I'm not expecting any guidance for FY26, but just in terms of how you're thinking about those ramping that ramp-up profile, volumes versus margins, just a little bit of color in terms of what we can kind of expect going into the new year. Not quite sure, Matt. I understand the volumes aren't margins. I mean, the team will work through a plan to commission and ramp up the plant in a steady way, effectively as quickly as possible. I mean, there are a set of steps they've got to go through as they bring it online. I think the key measure for me is how quickly Rob and his team get it stable, and that's on two fronts. From a throughput point of view, is the asset stable and is it available and generating the kind of runtime that we expect? We look at CGP1 as a benchmark. CGP2 is still improving. The faster we get that stability, the better. You would normally expect a plant like this; you would achieve that within 12 months. The second issue is obviously recoveries, and again, we have a great benchmark from CGP1. CGP2 is still behind, and you probably saw some of those numbers in the RPM report. The team are doing great work improving that, and they've made progress through 2024. I expect that they'll continue that work and do some more improvements through 2025. That's, of course, a big lever on that ramp-up. And the quicker you get those recoveries up, it is linked, of course, with stability and the residence time as the lithium passes through the plant. But those two areas, I guess, are to effectively move as quickly as possible. We haven't provided specific guidance, as you've called out, in 2026 on what that looks like. And in due course, I'll see what information we can share that might help you understand what that ramp-up looks like. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Ivan. That's helpful. All right. That's it for me. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. Thank you. Your next question comes from John Bishop from Jarden. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. You've obviously called out the Kwinana impairment. There's AUD 200 million of gross carrying value remaining. In terms of, I guess, decision-making on that project going forward, I did note that there was a headline article a couple of weeks ago talking about the Chinese banning export of processing intellectual property. Is that sort of influencing TLA discussions at the moment? And I guess as a negative dragging on the ability to improve the operational performance of that asset? John, it's a really good question. And I'm following that news as well. It's still not entirely clear how that plays out. And I think the intents being stated by China, how that translates into their actions and decisions, I'm not sure. In terms of direct relevance for Kwinana, no, that hasn't come up as an issue or hasn't been a specific area of focus. Could it be an advantage or a disadvantage? I could imagine both looking forward. There's arguments in both ways. And we do rely on providers from outside of China to support Kwinana. It's not a case of it all being based on Chinese input, albeit they have got such deep experience. And most of the, well, virtually all of the working refineries in the world are in China, and they're all performing. So yeah, the quick answer is, look, no, hasn't been in discussion, hasn't been in focus. And how could it play out? I could see an argument each way at this point, but there's a lot of unknowns. Okay, that's fair. And maybe just turning to Greenbushes again then. Part of the optimization study, is it looking and will it capture any underground component? Is that part of the current work? Yeah, look, it will look at the entire reserve resource and how best to access that. Mining method just being one of the factors in that work. So you'll pick up in the reserve resource update that we've issued from Talison, effectively a rebadge of their work. There's been a lot of drilling. It hasn't all been absorbed yet either. So there's a mountain of work the team's got to get through as they think about how they expand that reserve resource, how they access and make more of it economic, how they optimize the costs around it. And of course, mining method, using underground to get under some of the potential ore body underneath infrastructure is something no doubt they will test and consider as they go through it and see what the economics look like. Okay, can I just tease that out a little bit further? I guess, does that have a direct influence on the timing of FID on CGP4? Do you expect, as part of that work, to lay out and cleanse, I guess, the market's timeline for CGP4, which I think FID notionally was to occur sometime fiscal 2026-ish? Yeah. I think all of that work has to be laid out through this work that Rob's leading and that kind of full reset. So yeah, I mean, I take that on notice. We'll take that with us, John, as a key question to give more clarity on. And when we've got some more certainty around how that plays out, we can maybe give some timelines. I'll work that through with the other partners as well. All right. Thanks for taking the questions. Cheers, John. Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone or ask your question in the ask a question box. Your next question comes from Levi Spry from UBS. Please go ahead. Morning, Ivan and Kath. Thanks for your time. Two quick ones, please. So on the exploration, the write-down there, I guess, can you tell us what's left? And one number you have given us for FY26 is exploration well below 50. How do you come up with that number? What's the appropriate exploration spend going forward? Thanks, Levi. Look, what's left? I won't try and go through each of the tenements, but we're rationalizing some areas that we've had a lot of focus over the years. I think the Fraser Range is a big example. Some of the grounds, like the Gorla, which has passed through a few sets of hands. I think it goes way back, WMC, Iluka. I think the Western Areas, we've had it for a bit. So there's some long history with some of this. There's still some strong focus in the Kimberley. Obviously, we've got presence in the Paterson, albeit that's been rationalized. Northern Territory, we've opened up new ground that looks really interesting. We've got near-term work happening in both Forrestania and Cosmos properties, which is quite interesting. There's ground around Greenbushes, which we're continuing to look at. We're working through how we best partner through TLEA and with Albemarle on that to make sure that that's done in a very coordinated way with Talison. We think about that and broader optimization of Greenbushes. Ultimately, the anecdotal view at least is that that whole area offers up a lot of prospectivity and potential, which is no surprise given the scale of the ore body. There's just a quick sort of run-through as we look forward. Maybe what we could do is think about in either the next quarterly or the one after that, maybe just doing a bit more of a deep dive in exploration and give you an update on the forward plan and how we see that playing out. With regard to costs, look, the team are working through the tenements. And obviously, as we relinquish or sell or let go of tenements and the holding costs, that's been a significant part of the exploration spend. And then the commitments associated with that, of course, plus some of the partnerships and JVs that we're in as we unwind some of those in places. All of that's been taken into account, which sort of starts to get us to a new baseline. And then we look forward and say, well, where do we think are the areas of focus that we want to invest? What's the rate of progress we think we can make credibly? And we start to then put the team and the drilling and all of the other costs around that. So that's, I guess, a bit of a build-up. And I can't give you an exact number. It's not a case of defining an envelope and saying, you've got to stay under that. It really is bottom-up as they look at all those pieces and then getting to an investment that we think's appropriate. I would also argue, and I think the message has come through to me through the year from shareholders loud and clear that we were spending well over AUD 80 million a year for a while, and that just was out of kilter with what made sense. I agree with that, and we've adjusted that. To be spending less than AUD 50 million is still a significant amount, and we want to make sure that's spent very wisely. I don't for a second think that this is all science in the sense that you can have an exact spreadsheet model of how that works. Our team are very experienced, very, very capable GOs and scientists. And their guidance in the generative team and the broader exploration team to steer. That's important. So we need to give them some space and let them do what they do best, but equally make sure that we know where that could end up. And I think the biggest change we've said is, look, if we're going to go and drill a target, we need to know what kind of mine we expect that would turn into. And if we can't see what that analogue is and how that might play out, then we need to be cautious on how much we invest until we better understand that. And that work's gone on through the year or through 2024, and I think giving us a lot of clarity and a real way to focus the resources and the expenditure going forward. Okay, yeah, thanks. And just coming back to Kwinana one more time and dancing around these timelines, I guess. Thanks for the assumptions in your impairment testing, but can I just be clear when you have it getting to so I assume it's running at about you're expecting to run at 1,000 tonnes a month for the next couple of months through FY, but then you're expecting it to double at some point in time. When? Yeah, Levi, I'm going to give you guidance as soon as I can. We're just not at that point yet. So look, I hope you find that your guidance we have provided helpful. I realize we've had a bit of a vacuum for a while, and as we have more clarity and come into FY26, we'll give you that update. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Levi. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Vella for closing remarks. Okay, thank you. Look, thanks for the questions. I think we covered the ground that we needed to. Obviously, a very challenging half when you stand back and look at the headlines. Just to reinforce, I think these are tough decisions we had to take. We've been through a very thorough process, and I feel good about how we've gone about that. It does set us up well for the future, and I guess to finish on the highs, I think, firstly, the team, I see through these kind of difficult periods, the very best in our people and how they're turning up and working through the challenges, and I couldn't be more pleased, what a capable, amazing team supporting each other in IGO, and secondly, of course, that potential that we can see being unlocked by Rob and the team at Greenbushes. It's very exciting. I think it's been obviously a long time coming. He's making such a big impact so quickly, and I really look forward to being able to report and share more of that progress as he does that work through the rest of this year. Thanks for everyone's support and listening, and I'll let you get on with your day. I'm sure it's a very busy time. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.