I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Ivan Vella, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning, good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us again to run through our December quarterly results we've just released. Kath Bozanic, our CFO, is with me again, as per usual. I'd also love to wish you a Happy New Year and definitely a Happy Chinese New Year as well, the Year of the Wood Snake. We recognized the start of that yesterday. Let me start with safety and look how persistence is starting to pay off for focus there. While the headline lagging numbers are flatlined, they aren't changing. Under the covers, the team's doing some fantastic work to improve our safety maturity, and steadily, step by step, those leading indicators are starting to turn. So it's an area of focus and something that I'm confident through this calendar year we'll be able to show some steady improvement. If we start with the lithium business and look into Greenbushes, it was good to see another strong quarter of production. The team's finished the calendar year well, beat their own plans, and after a very slow start in the calendar year, I think shows the capability of that operation. It's been really good to see Rob Telford settling in as the new CEO there. He's been getting a lot of time in the field with his team, deeply understanding the business, connecting with the team, and I think setting a really good foundation and set of priorities for him to focus on through this calendar year as he starts to make his influence felt. I'll come back to more details on Greenbushes' performance in a minute, but look, overall, their progress is fantastic, and that includes CGP3. That's tracking well now to the revised date that we shared late last year, and there's a variety of other optimization improvement work underway there. Kwinana, we've obviously made several announcements in the last month, and most importantly, the announcement around Train 2, which I think everyone's absorbed and understood. I'll come back to that in a little while. It was, for us, a fairly important decision to clarify. We know that we were getting a lot of questions around it, and to be able to provide that guidance after extensive conversations with our joint venture partner, some deep reflection, and a really clear decision, I think that's been helpful. The production out of Kwinana has improved, and that was signposted following the shutdown in October, November. The results of that aren't fully realized yet. I'll come back and talk more about that as we go. But I think the important, I guess, residual work that we've signposted is the impairment testing that's ongoing. We've recognized, obviously, Train 2 is part of that, but there is an assessment on Train 1 as well, which is ongoing, and we'll share more on that in the half results coming up in a few weeks' time. Nova, look, it was a tough quarter. A number of factors driving that, largely mine-grade related and our understanding of the ore body at its extremities. That's impacted recoveries. We did have some plant availability issues through part of the quarter as well. Ultimately, that led to a lower nickel output and, obviously, a flow through to our costs or unit costs. And at a time when the nickel price was also subdued, it certainly impacted our financials. That's, I guess, the quick headlines. Let me spend a bit more time on Greenbushes and just dig into that. As I said, look, production was pretty consistent, and I'm sure I'll get questions again around guidance. At this stage, look, remember, Greenbushes plans on a calendar year. We provide guidance across a financial year, and so I wasn't in a position to update that. We're working through the budget and plan, finalizing that with the joint venture participants, and with that, we'll be able to provide some update. But there's really nothing more to see other than an operation that is running well. It's continuing to improve. Recoveries were continuing to be sustained at good levels. The team's driving and focusing on productivities, and obviously, with two strong quarters under the belt in this financial year, it bodes well for the next half. Sales were down. That's really just shipment timing and nothing too much to see there. That'll wash out through this quarter. Again, it's not a signal of anything more than just the timing and the management of the business. And cash costs were a difference to Q1, and we've explained in our notes that was really about, I guess, a one-off differential against the prior quarter, given some deferred stripping adjustments that we'd noted in the prior quarter and some high maintenance costs, but that should level out to our guidance as well. So look, overall, a good quarter from Greenbushes. I'm still focused very heavily on that forward runway for improvement. There's still a lot of productivity opportunity in front of the team. There's also work going on, as we understand that ore body better and better and how we think about the growth, particularly as we bring CGP3 online and make sure we get the very best out of that ramp-up later this year. So lots of positive work going on, still generating extremely good margins at this sort of lower point in the cycle and with a lot of upside. We're very encouraged by the performance there, and all credit to Rob and the team for their continued diligent performance. Kwinana, look, to dig in a little more depth there. The uplift in production performance was good to see and was obviously a flow-on from that shutdown that we had. We still haven't hit the expectations or the targets that the team had set for themselves based on those projects and improvements that they made in the plant that we expect to flow through in the next couple of months, and there's obviously an ongoing focus on the performance and the ramp-up. We're in that same budget cycle at the moment for Kwinana and looking at what the plan ahead looks like, what changes still need to be made to that plant to bring it up to operational nameplate capacity, what the kind of costs are, and so on. There's a lot of work going on. The Train 2 decision, I guess, to spend a few more minutes on that. We have looked at, obviously, Train 1 ramp-up. We've looked at the broader market. We've looked at the CapEx and OpEx and that sort of investment decision, what that would take, and it just didn't make sense. And so TLC and IGO were very aligned on that decision to cease all of the activities around Train 2, and I guess we've announced that last week. The impairment will include that, of course, but also test for the forward performance on Train 1 as well. The other, I guess, key takeaway from Kwinana is the flow through to our financials. Even a large loss there resulting from NRV adjustments on our spodumene and lithium hydroxide inventories. As we've noticed, inventories have built. Sales have been slower than expectation due to weaker market conditions and a number of other factors. Ultimately, that's leaving us in a difficult position in terms of that flow through to our financials. On to Nova. The production performance there was certainly lower than our expectation. As I said, as we mine and get further into the extremities of the ore body, we're certainly finding that more challenging. I think we'd signpost that in the last couple of quarters, and we're really feeling that. Equally, if I talk to just the last couple of weeks, for example, in January, we're seeing some layering in parts of the ore body here that then has resulted in a real uptick in grade as well. And so the team's doing quite a lot of work to try and get a better understanding of the ore body in these areas, more drilling, looking at our mining technique, managing for overbreak, underbreak, and ultimately trying to deliver a much more reliable or predictable production performance that we can depend on. Again, as I've signposted in a couple of quarters now, as we work through this, we wanted to get to a place where we have a confident view to the end of mine life that we can provide that production guidance all the way through. So for the rest of this financial year and all of next financial year, we'd be able to give you that view. I don't think that's too far off now, and that, for me, is important to just give the market clarity on what to expect from Nova as it moves towards end of life. I think the rest of the focus at Nova is just continue to deliver safe and stable production, so we'll leave it there. On the financials, look, the results don't obviously tell a wonderful story, and as you can imagine, with the impairment signposted for the half, that's going to have a heavy impact as well as flow through. The factors driving the majority of this, of course, are coming out of TLEA and the impact from the NRV adjustments. Also, some FX losses on U.S.-denominated debt at Greenbushes are all factors flowing into that. That's not necessarily a cash impact, but it does flow into our accounts and is reflected in the EBITDA that you see there. The performance in Nova, of course, is lower than expected, and that's also had an impact. I think the other key takeaway in our financials is that we've also indicated we don't expect to be paid any dividend from TLEA in the second half of this financial year. And so in terms of our cash position, that's also going to be taken into account. We finished the quarter with AUD 247 million cash, so broadly in line. We're managing our corporate costs closely. OpEx is trending down, as we indicated, and all of those factors are being managed proactively through this period. Just to wrap up then, in summary, Greenbushes, I think some real highlights there: steady improvement, two strong quarters, and good control of the costs, continuing to deliver fantastic margins and lots of optimization work going on, productivity, and I guess getting a deeper understanding of how we can really bring the best out of that mine. CGP3's progressing well, and we expect that online later this year. Kwinana, spend a bit of time on. I'm sure there'll be lots of questions, and there's a lot of work ongoing there. And then back to our core of our nickel business, Nova. The team are working hard to get the best out of the residual ore body there. I didn't talk about Cosmos and Forrestania in any depth. I think it's important to note that Forrestania's obviously finished mining and was closing out sales of their product and just wrapped up in the last quarter. They're well and truly into care and maintenance now, and we're working through what the next steps are for that site. Our exploration team has still been active there and pursuing a number of targets in that area, as they are at Cosmos as well. We've also been working through our drilling and testing around the Cosmos project so that we can make some final decisions there. I won't go into too much depth there. It's still too early to say, but I guess the piece I can share at this point is we're not at a point of flooding that mine or moving on from it. So we've still got some question marks there that we need to work through, and we'll provide an update on that, I expect, in the next quarter. So that's, I guess, covered the headlines, key messages, and leaves us with some good time for Q&A. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question via the phones, you will 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. We will be addressing phone questions first, and if time allows, we will then address any webcast questions. We ask today that you please keep to one question and one follow-up per person. Your first question comes from Hugo Nicolaci with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Morning, Ivan and Kath. Thanks for the update. Obviously, lots to discuss. So just keeping it to that two questions. Firstly, you've called out the Windfield debt revaluation on FX, and inventories at Kwinana are driving those EBITDA losses out of the JV. Can you maybe just quantify the magnitude of those impacts for us and maybe also just confirm the level of spodumene and hydroxide you have in inventory at Kwinana now? Hi, Hugo. We actually don't provide that level of detail in our quarterlies. You'll get a little bit more detail in our financial statements and when the entities in TLEA release their financial statements later in this quarter, possibly early April. What I can say is the FX was substantial, and if you actually remove the FX and the NRV, the numbers would be substantially better and back in the positive regime as an order of magnitude. Got it. Okay. And then just on the Kwinana impairment piece, obviously working through with auditors in terms of magnitude there, but I guess strategically, what does the Kwinana impairment and the stopping of Train 2 mean for spodumene sales going forward? If I look at the mass balance for Tianqi, it looks like the ramp-up of their own conversion facilities will continue to reduce their net long spodumene position over the next few years. But is there any scope now for IGO to maybe get marketing rights over your proportional share of the volume, or is there maybe a greater willingness to sell extra volume into the spot market longer term there? Hugo, look, good question. Obviously, Train 2 was still a way off, even if it had gotten financial support to progress. The current volumes that Train 1 are consuming are also not that material. So, I mean, I think Tianqi's been consuming most of the production share from Greenbushes and plans to continue to do that. We don't see any indication that that's an issue or challenge. In terms of wanting to market it more broadly, I think that'd be something that we'd have to discuss with the JV and determine if that made sense and added value. But at this stage, there's no concerns with the offtake and demand there. That's still very strong from the JV partners. Excellent. Thanks for that, caller. I'll pass it on. Thanks, Hugo. Your next question comes from Kate McCutcheon with Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, morning, Ivan and Kath. Thank you for reinstating some disclosures and the cash waterfall. Just Kwinana Train 1 has been challenging. When do you think you'll be in a position to update the market on some of those metrics like costs? How much longer do you give Train 1 to get somewhere where it resembles something that's closer to nameplate? Is there a scenario where it doesn't make sense to continue that? And I guess how long until we have some clarity there? Is it a couple of quarters? Is it a year? Is it too soon to know? Okay. Look, first of all, thanks for the feedback on our quarterlies, and we're happy that we could make that easier for you. We certainly weren't looking to make it hard. We're just trying to get more in line with the market, but that's great. Any other feedback out there, let us know, and we'll adjust as appropriate. I mean, Kwinana, as you call it out, it's obviously very material for our business and the cash that that's demanding to sustain and develop that asset. We are obviously working through that very proactively, not just because of the impairment. It's budget time, and it's also something that's been a strong focus through 2024, and we really need to be clear about what the plan and the future for it is. It's something that we need to get to a place where we've got alignment with TLC. They bring obviously huge expertise in the lithium refining market, in those operations across China and beyond. And so we rely on that and, I think, draw on their expertise, but equally want to have our own view on the economics and the plans and make sure that that's been considered as part of the planning and the thinking there. To get to your specific question on timing, I can't give you a date yet, but look, it's hot discussion at the moment. It's got a lot of focus, as I said, not just because of the impairment. So at the very least, I do expect, and I know how material it is for our business to be providing guidance on Kwinana going forward. So it's something I didn't do in the last calendar year because it was too uncertain for me. It was too new for us to be able to do that consistently or with confidence. I know that we'd sort of put some numbers out in 2023 and just missed them, and it didn't really help with anyone's understanding or confidence around the asset. So we will put some more numbers out. We'll work through that for the next quarterly and ongoing. And taking the, as I said, calendar year 2025 budget into account, give you that extra set of clarity to work with. Okay. That would be helpful. And then CapEx at Greenbushes looks to be running below guidance unless there's an accrual versus cash nuance there. Is that CapEx then 2H-weighted, or is it fair to assume that comes in below for the year? Look, I wouldn't read too much in. We've got obviously a huge focus on CGP3, which is in the pipeline and set and obviously largely constructed. It's certainly very well progressed. They're into the hard parts of cabling and piping and so on. We naturally, at a point low in the cycle, will be frugal with our capital, and I think Rob is thoroughly testing that. We're into the new budget cycle or the new budget period as well, and that's just gone through the JV partners as well. It's an asset or a business where we want to continue to invest and grow and develop and make sure that we're getting the very best from it, but do that in a frugal manner. I wouldn't suggest you should take any signals from a quarter as to how that's going. We're still tracking to our guidance and to our plans. Okay. Thank you, Ivan. Thanks, Kate. Your next question comes from Rahul Anand with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Good morning. Thanks for the call. Look, two for me, largely focused on Greenbushes, I guess. First one, in terms of your sales, you flagged that there were other factors beyond the market that impacted the sales. Are you able to highlight that perhaps a little bit more, mainly because I've seen some of your peers report the past couple of days that have had strong sales performances recently? And I just wanted to understand whether it's related to your offtake partner or your partners that market the product basically in the process of adding conversion capacity and basically wanting to supply that product to themselves. And then secondly, just on Greenbushes, given that's the most profitable asset in the group and, as you mentioned, has good margins, how are you thinking about expansions beyond the current CGP into CGP4? Are you starting to have those conversations and thinking about any early work there, or if there's an update there, that'd be much appreciated? Thanks very much. Okay. Thanks, Rahul. Look, in terms of sales, strong demand from the two JV partners that are also customers. The timing of sales is purely logistics and shipping and berth availability and very practical things. It isn't anything more than that. And they actually will have some faster periods and slower periods, and it really is just the wash of all of those factors. It wasn't or isn't anything more than that. So I don't expect you to sort of try and read through into any other broader market issues there. I guess second question around growth and capital for CGP4 and beyond. The work around full optimization and that life-of-mine view for Greenbushes is underway. Rob's obviously just in the seat and getting his arms around the business. I think once he's done that work, he'll be in a position to lay out what that growth plan looks like. I mean, obviously, CGP4 is something that's been considered for some time, and it's been sort of penciled in in the outer years of this decade by some people. For me, it's just too early to tell. I think what we need to do is finish that work, understand the ore body, understand what might be appropriate for underground when Kapanga comes online, how that whole mine develops. It's a much larger scale now than it's ever been, and equally as the productivity's lift, and we start to get more out of the existing plants. It's something I think I talked about in the last quarterly, CGP1, 2, and then 3 when it's online, the Tailings retreatment plant. All of these assets can offer up more capacity, more grade, and more potential. So that needs to be taken into account before you then prioritize other new growth capital. That's the work that Rob's stepping through at the moment. I think until he's had time to think that through, it's been through the JV. We're just not in a position to provide a lot more clarity, unfortunately. Got it. Okay. Thanks for that, Ivan. Just one quick follow-up on that sales performance, if I'm able to sneak one in. Just wanted to understand just following up from the initial question around your marketing contract with your JV partners. Is there any color you can provide if you had to take that over yourself? What is the process? Is there a first right of refusal? Is there a payment required? What can get you back in control of your product if at all that's a possibility? Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure what you're referring to in maybe a prior set of information or comment, but the way that Greenbushes is structured is it's got two customers, Albemarle Tianqi, and that's been the case for a long time by design. Obviously, Kwinana is an exception in that TLEA will prioritize spodumene requirements for Kwinana first before then selling anything onto TLC. But that model's defined, and we're pretty comfortable with it. That works well. And obviously, we're serving both customers and effectively shareholders of the asset that have got a joint interest in making sure it's very successful and the costs are low and it's performing well. The marketing around TLEA was for the hydroxide that's produced, and TLEA provides that service as well. Both TLC and IGO provide input and direction on that. We haven't contemplated any change to that either. So hopefully that's helpful. Got it. Okay. Yep. I was focusing a bit more towards the spodumene side, but I think you've answered that, so thanks for that. Okay. Your next question comes from Levi Spry with UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah. Good day, Ivan and team. Thanks for the call and happy new year. Can I just sort of quantify that question on the inventory build-up, though? So what are the stocks on site? How big was a ship that was missed? And do you expect all inventory to be cleared by the end of the FY or end of the Tianqi's FY, the calendar year? I don't have the shipping schedule, but I think Levi, in terms of getting the tons out, that's a priority, right? The team, they know that, and they actually caught up through the quarter but didn't kind of clear it all, and I can't give you an exact schedule and say what the inventory would be by the end of this coming quarter or Tianqi's year-end, effectively, but all I can say is that Rob and the team will be working hard to move the tons as quickly as they're producing them. There's no intent for any inventory build-up or holding there or buffering around that. Yeah, but you get the angle of the questioning, I guess. They've got form in not taking it, so that's, I guess, the risk that we're trying to understand. Sorry, Levi, you weren't super clear there in the line. Just repeat that. What was your concern? That Tianqi's had form not taking the concentrate. Sure. Look, there was one quarter this time last year, and that was on a fairly unique set of circumstances coming out of a period of very high prices without falling. They had high inventories, and their plants were still ramped up. But let me give you some confidence. There is no pushback on tons and nominations from either customer. They're both pulling the production through as quickly as it's made. Yep. Good. Thank you. Thanks for that answer. And I guess we're kind of keen to understand and overgrade things, but I'll keep it to one more question. So Kwinana, obviously, there were some assumptions that went into the decision-making around T2. So you mentioned OPEX and things like that. What are the targets and assumptions and decision points for T1? Yeah. Look, Levi, as I said, Kate sort of covered this as well. We're working through those details at the moment, and that's part of the impairment testing, but more broadly, budget and just plans and decision-making on what's the best for that asset, how we see it growing and developing, and what happens with Train 1 given the Train 2 decision, because obviously that affects its fixed cost amortization and sort of broader production capacity. I can't give you the detailed numbers at this point. We are going to look to include more guidance going forward, given how material this is in our business, and we'll provide an update, I think, through the impairment. You'll also get a sense of our analysis on that. So, I'm sorry I can't give you a whole lot of comprehensive details there, but certainly you can take the thinking that's gone into Train 2 is also relevant for Train 1, albeit they're different. One's an operating asset, one's producing, and the other was obviously, albeit partly constructed, but very much a project still. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Thanks. Your next question comes from Kaan Peker with Royal Bank of Canada. Please go ahead. Hi, Ivan and Kath. Thanks for the call. Yeah. I'll just lead in with the question that sort of Levi hinted to. Just obviously, first half sequencing issues in lower grade at Nova. When does the plan have grades improving? And I'll circle back with a second. Look, well, and this will be something maybe we cover in more depth in the next quarter. I'm hoping we'll have that full plan through to end of mine life. What we're seeing is that it's quite variable even within a month. We've seen just a tick up in the last week and a half, and I think some of it is a bit about how we're actually understanding the edges of the ore body and areas that we have in mind for a very long time. There was one section that we're getting back to almost from the beginning of the mine. So rather than dealing with it sort of week by week, month by month with you, what I'm hoping to be able to do is lay out what that guidance looks like through to the end of the life of the mine and give you confidence even if we see part of the ore body or the timing slip or change due to the way that we want to process the ore, that you'll understand the total nickel metal contained and therefore can anticipate that more accurately or more reliably. That's the work that's going on. I expect that we'll complete that work this quarter and probably look at using next quarterly for an update on that. Sure. Thank you. And the second one on Kwinana, with the build-up of hydroxide inventories, should we assume these are obsolete and are they battery-grade? And with the CapEx impact for ceasing Train 2 work, is there any to FY25 guidance? Thanks. Okay. First of all, on the hydroxide, look, once it's been stored for a while, you do get some agglomeration, which isn't preferred or looked on favorably by the refiners or by the battery makers, CAM makers, and so on. So you tend to see some discounting to place that product. So naturally, why we want to turn it over more rapidly as we're producing, particularly with the increased production we've seen in the last eight weeks. It doesn't change the grade spec in terms of the actual chemistry, but that agglomeration certainly isn't well-rewarded in the market, and that's reflected in our realized price. The CapEx, I guess, on Train 2, the work that was ongoing through the first half of this financial year was around the feed and study work. It was fairly minimal in CapEx terms. The bulk of the CapEx was Train 1 related and was tied in with the shutdown that we've just completed. We expect that Train 2 CapEx or expenditure, obviously, which will be now OpEx only, it'll all be expensed, comes down, and that's what we're working through in the budget and plan is really about to what extent we want to preserve and sustain any of the assets that have been built. So it's fairly negligible costs. As I said, that'll go to OpEx. And then CapEx for the second half of this financial year, we expect will be trending down by comparison with the first half, given the scale of the shutdown that we saw in October, November last year. Sure. Thank you. Pass it on. Your next question comes from Daniel Morgan with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hi, Ivan and team. Firstly, just you outlined earlier in the call that the Greenbushes business planning process was still not finalized. Can you just outline sort of how that works? I imagine you'd be in the throes of it, and I guess you'll get that data soon. And yeah, just when will it be finalized? Okay. Yeah. Look, we're very close. We worked through that late last year. As you can imagine, any budget process is always a bit of to and fro, and the team's just finalizing that work, and we'll sign that off. That'll give us something that we can look forward for this calendar year with and talk through with the joint venture partners to our expectations and then update any guidance as appropriate for the market. So we're talking weeks, I guess, is probably the short answer. Right. So potentially something that might be updated in the financial results, or is that too soon? Possibly in the half year. Thank you. And I guess just my follow-up question sort of relates to Levi's question a little bit. So it sounds like Greenbushes, I mean, operationally it's doing very well this calendar year at its budget or plan. The sales volume was below production, which you're saying is not nomination-based. That's how the shipment sort of happened through the port. So there's no reason to believe that there should be any change in how Greenbushes is running operationally or financially. Is that a fair thing for us to include? Yeah. That's exactly right. We expect it to continue running strongly and producing well and great margins. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Daniel. Your next question comes from Jonathan Sharp with CLSA. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, Ivan and team. Thanks for taking my question. Just a question on the productivity focus you mentioned there at the start, Ivan, that there's a focus on improving productivity at Greenbushes. Can you just break that down into more specific areas? Where are you seeing the biggest gains coming from? Is it process efficiency, equipment optimization, maybe change in feed or feed? And can you quantify the expected impact on throughput recovery rates or even unit costs over the next 12 months? Yeah. Look, great question. And you've pointed to some of the obvious levers that are all being pulled. I'll give you an anecdotal example as truck hours. Rob's been working with a team, and I mean, they've been at it now all through 2024 and just made really good steady improvements at getting more productivity from the truck fleet, moving more tons every day and so on, which is really pleasing to see. As some of you will know, Macmahon is in there as our mining contractor, and as they got established and found their feet, they've just continued to improve productivity, which is fabulous to see. Recoveries through the plants, plant availability and reliability, all of those levers are quite material, not just because of the scale of the operation, but also because of the leverage and the amazing grade ore body that we're starting with. So that's just ongoing productivity work. Can I give you details at this point? No. I think we'll work that through once Rob's sort of got to a place where he's comfortable with his forward targets and plans. I think we'll look at how best to share that. And that, I think, I'd hold separate from the broader optimization, which then looks deeply at the ore body and how to get the very best from that, which is work that he's also doing. And that'll take some time. Anyone who's been through those kind of processes knows that that's quite a big exercise. Again, Rob's got a fantastic team around him, great technical input, some real fresh eyes and independent input as well to support him. And as he completes that work and we're able to share more, we'll certainly do that. But I think both are kind of linked but independent in a way, and both will, in my view, deliver significant benefit for Greenbushes as a world-class ore body to become a world-class mining operation as well. Okay. Thanks for that detail. And then just a quick question on the TLEA dividend, under what conditions can distributions resume in FY26? Thanks. Yeah. So look, I mean, obviously, it's largely price, lithium price, budget related. Greenbushes is extremely leveraged to that. It's already making great margins, but it has its own demands in terms of growth capital and otherwise. And then, of course, the Kwinana Train 1 has some requirements as well. And then the residual gets rolled out as dividends for TLC and IGO. I think the price forecasting in lithium's real crystal ball territory. We talk about it each quarter, and who knows? People are kind of calling it. They call it every quarter. And for me, what we're focused on is just making sure we're allocating capital really well at Greenbushes and obviously focusing hard on Kwinana. And then as soon as those funds start to free up, we'll surface them and pass them on. Okay. Thanks. I'll pass it on. Your next question comes from Matthew Frydman with MST Financial. Please go ahead. Sure. Thanks. Morning, Ivan and Kath. Can I maybe just follow up on some of those comments around the longer-dated optimization work at Greenbushes? You obviously didn't give any sort of particular timing, but in terms of a deliverable, should we expect something like an updated life-of-mine plan or updated technical reports from the JV partners? Is that the kind of deliverable you'd expect from that longer-dated optimization work? And I guess more generally, how do you see the sort of lead times in implementing anything that's identified in optimization studies or even day-to-day sort of productivity work? How much ability on the ground does Rob have to go and execute things autonomously versus going through a bigger JV oversight or annual budgeting process? The limitations around dollars in terms of improvement projects or scale of mine plan changes, I guess, just trying to understand how that works functionally in terms of implementation. Thanks. Okay. Look, maybe start with the last part of your question first. I mean, Rob's got a lot of autonomy. He's a very capable mining operator and experienced leader. He's got a great team around him. First point I'd make is that they've already been making productivity improvements through 2024, even before he arrived, and he's obviously just giving that more momentum and priority and focus. I expect that he'll continue to do that through 2025. He's got a number of those things baked into his plans in 2025, and he's pushing on every day and spending a huge amount of time in the field, working with the teams, understanding the business with his leadership team, and that'll deliver the gains that we're all hoping for. As I said in my last comment, the last set of answers to the questions was, to some degree, that stands separate from that broader optimization work, which he's also doing. How he shapes and presents that, I will come back to you on. I mean, I think that's a work that he's still stepping through. He's going back to basics to do that work, and there's an expectation that that will update our long-run view and the sort of strategic outlook for Greenbushes, so how best we present that and share that is something that we'll discuss with the JV partners and with Rob and come back to you on. I will endeavor to get clarity on how that might look as soon as possible so that we can update you and you know what to expect, and I reflect that probably the last really detailed set of numbers that you've got to work with from Greenbushes was actually from the prospectus when IGO joined the JV with TLC, so it's somewhat outdated now. There's a lot that's changed in the world, and of course, Greenbushes has grown dramatically since that time as well. So it's important for us to give you that broader view. We just need to work through and just do that diligent work, give Rob a chance to sort of get his feet under the desk and really get hold of that optimization, and then we can present that fuller picture and update to the market. Yeah. I understand. Thanks for that, Ivan, and looking forward to that. Maybe secondly, just quickly on Nova, you talked through the work that you're doing in terms of recutting the remainder of the life-of-mine plan. And I hate to use the I word for yet another asset, but is it possible that we'd see an impairment there depending on the outcome of that study? If costs are higher, for example, and the remaining reserves are lower, should we potentially expect a reassessment of the carrying value there? Yeah. Obviously, we go through this in a half-year process, and we're still going through that process. But what I will say is Nova is still cash-generating, and it benefits from byproduct credits, unlike many nickel mines. But it's obvious that as you get to the end of life, it gets harder and harder to justify the cash flows and everything. So we're watching it and working on it intensely. And we'll just call out the positives around the cash generation, but also the challenges around it coming to the end of life and what Ivan's talked about, the difficulties with grade and recoveries. Yeah. Got it. Thanks, Kath. If I can just sneak in one last one quickly while I've got you. Obviously, TLC has already sort of put out their own view on the impairments that they're taking at Kwinana, both from an inventory perspective and also on Train 2. Is there anything that you'd call out there that will be noticeably different in terms of how IGO treats those, or is that a reasonable guide for the market in terms of what we should be expecting? Thanks. Yeah. Look, they have released comments, obviously, and focused on Train 2 predominantly there, and Train 1 is still an area of discussion and review. The auditors still need to go through their process or finish their process on that. So yeah, I guess from our point of view, there's still a bit of work to do before we're in a position to put a number out. That's why we haven't. I guess we sent the signal early that it'll be substantial. It covers Kwinana. We see it as one CGU, and we'll then provide one update with the impairment outcome once that's finalized. Got it. Thanks very much for your answers, yes. Thanks, Matt. Your next question comes from Jon Bishop with Jarden, Australia. Please go ahead. Morning, Ivan and Kath. Thanks for your time. We've sort of danced around a little bit around the budget cycle and obviously sitting the outlook for 2025 at Greenbushes. Obviously, the first half has been exceptional, running above your guidance. You would have some understanding of nominations for this calendar year. Is there anything that we should be concerned about that the second half of production should manifestly be below the first half? No, Jon. As I sort of said in a couple of different ways, I appreciate you all hoping for us to just update guidance. We'll do that as we can, work that through with the joint venture partners. But yeah, there's nothing more to see here. No expectation that production will dial off or change in the second half. Cool. Okay. Appreciate that. And the second one, probably a similar question that's been asked before, but just around dividend flow from TLEA, removing what could have been quite a sizable capital number for Train 2 out of the medium-term outlook, what's precluding sort of a more direct pass-through from dividend distribution out of Greenbushes through TLEA and upwards to IGO? Yeah. So obviously, the money comes from Greenbushes through the normal process, and then it gets utilized at TLEA for the funding requirements at TLEA. Once that has been dealt with, then the money comes back through to the shareholders or the joint venture shareholders being TLC and IGO. It's a fairly easy sort of calculation, but there is some pull still on that cash from Greenbushes at the TLEA level and at the Kwinana level as it ramps up and expends improvement capital. Yeah. Okay. I guess where I'm getting to is in six months' time with the back broken on CGP3 and largely entering commissioning, barring an FID being taken mid-year on CGP4, conceptually, your big capital lumps exposed to TLEA diminished significantly. So I'm just wondering if there are any other mechanisms that would see money banked up at TLEA and not released to IGO. No. No. Good question, Jon, but no. It's a very clear set of priorities. One is funding growth and good investments at Greenbushes. Two is the residual requirements at TLEA, Kwinana and so on. Then everything else is then distributed as dividends to the two joint venture partners, TLC and IGO. All right. All right. Thanks for taking the questions. Your next question comes from Rob Stein with Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi, Ivan and Kath. Just a question a bit more operationally focused. So I noted that head grade dropped significantly in the quarter, and if you trend that over the last couple of years, there's been a gradual decline. Noting that production for mines significantly increased and got back to the levels that you were observing a few years ago, is this something that we can expect going forward that we're sort of prioritizing throughput through the mill and using lower grades to sort of feed that? That's the first part of the question. The second part of the question is, well, what do we expect then from recoveries given that we can't really triangulate that from the data that's looking for an indicative guide for yourself around where recoveries are trending, whether they're impacted? Okay, Rob. I mean, I think we signposted that recoveries have been in focus. The team's done a great job through 2024. They've continued to improve, and they're running well, and that, of course, makes a difference. Naturally, head grade's still king and is a factor. As the team work through and optimize and characterize the ore and think about how best to run that mine and equally the products that they're producing, that gives them degrees of flexibility to manage that and balance it with recoveries. I also note that our tailings are probably more lithium-rich than most, and that's opportunity as well in terms of how we then balance out our ore feed and manage the three plants as CGP3 comes online as well. So I guess probably the most helpful thing I think we're going to be able to do is, as Rob completes more of this broader study work or optimization work, is when we can share that bigger picture that'll give you a better baseline to work with and know what numbers he's achieving and what his targets are. The ore body, it will decline over time, but equally, what we see from Greenbushes is pockets of grade through the mine that are quite variable to some very high-grade sections and then obviously getting back more to long-run grades. So I guess with the information we can give you, it's difficult for you to do that reconciliation. All I can probably point to is the work that Rob's doing. We'll share that in due course. And then the continued productivity and recoveries improvements that the team have focused on, which obviously offsets any near-term grade decline. So maybe coming at it from another way, is it safe to assume that improvements in recovery are helping you or enabling you to target wider sections of the ore body? So we'll see that in head grade drops, but that's not necessarily a bad thing because it means you're extracting more out of what's going into the front end of the plant. So therefore, production should improve. Yeah, of course. I mean, and that's the work that the optimization team will look at, how they get the best out of that ore body, how it's characterized, sequence. There's an awful lot of work that Rob will step through there, and that'll give us a very different picture, I expect, and a lot of upside. I mean, this is not a small piece of work, but equally, the leverage on it is huge. And the good news is that's being done at a time where the team's making good progress on improving productivities and recoveries because that gives you obviously more leverage to open up and optimize that ore body. So I think I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm sharing the information I can. We'll give you more when we're able to do that, but the kind of indications or the direction you're pointing is exactly the work that's ongoing. Thanks for the color. Appreciate it. Thanks, Rob. Your next question comes from Hugo Nicolaci with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for the follow-up opportunity. I just wanted to dig into that Greenbushes performance piece a little bit more just between the trains. Historically, Train 2's had recovery issues, whereas Train 1 seems to have really been shooting the lights out on recovery. Are you able to just confirm where those are at the moment? Now, is Train 1 still kind of in that high 70s, sort of pushing 80% recovery? And I guess what steps are you taking to improve Train 2 recoveries at the moment? Hugo, the team there has been working on that, as I said, for some time, and they've obviously been working on closing that gap between Train 1 and 2. One of the factors that they're dealing with that's impacting Train 2 is also just runtime reliability. So Train 1's older, more mature, more stable, more established, and does take different feed to Train 2. And as they manage that consistency, they're getting better runtimes from Train 1. I know as they focus hard on Train 2, that's going to give them a natural lift, and that'll keep that improvement coming. What I'd love to see and what I know the team are working on is seeing much more consistent recoveries across Train 1, 2, and obviously 3 when it comes online. And you remember that when Train 2 was built, it had a bumpy start, sort of on-off, on-off, and never really got the runway that you would have hoped for a new plant. Train 3, we see a very different startup, and they're working hard on commissioning plans and ops readiness and that whole ramp-up plan to get the very best out of it, and we've got a clear benchmark from Train 1 as to what we can expect to achieve. That's helpful color, Ivan. And then just more on the Greenbushes piece. You mentioned the prudent capital spend as you go through the budgeting process. You historically submitted environmental approvals to add ore sorting to the site. Fair to assume that that's probably not a priority at the moment, and just optimizing what you've got is probably in focus near term? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, our bias will always be to optimize existing assets and capital deployed first before we chase new growth and enhancement opportunities. Excellent. And then just lastly, just on that timing of the Greenbushes optimization work, just to clarify, is that something we can expect towards the back half of this year, do you think, or is it kind of too early to tell? Yeah, I think it's a bit early. Let me get a bit more direction from Rob on how he sees that. We'll work it through with the JV, how we share that information as well, and get that out to you. But it's ASAP. It's just, as you would know, it's a big piece of work. Excellent. Thanks for the follow-up opportunity. Your next question is a webcast question from Matt Chalmers with Bank of America and reads, "Would you mind giving us an update on your M&A strategy, especially with regard to copper? Are you seeing any attractive and actionable targets in the market? Acknowledging the preference remains for exploration and farm-ins. Is reducing or close to production assets still off the table? Thanks, Matt, for your question online. So look, the team are still doing their homework and have been and will continue that work. There's nothing I can report or be too specific on. I guess we talked about what is important in the guidance or direction for the team, and that is not diluting our business given the strength of Greenbushes and the contribution it makes. We've also said we believe strongly that having some copper cash flows in our business would partner very well with the lithium cash flows from Greenbushes. And we remain very flexible in terms of how we look at assets out there, given our strengths in exploration and technical strengths in underground mining, how that could be seen favorably in a partnership. So we're working through the range of options, but I can't give you any more color than that other than that work's ongoing, and if we see the right opportunity, we'd certainly be looking to pursue it. It's a tough market, though, as I'm sure everyone knows. There's not a lot of easy options out there. And the second question? Thank you. Your next question also from Matt Chalmers. This reads, "Also, any color on cash balance within TLEA? In an instance where IGO is required to chip in cash into TLEA for funding of CGP3, will you look to draw down on your existing facilities? What minimum cash balance are you looking to maintain at the IGO level?" Okay. I'll maybe start here and then let Kath add a few comments. We don't share at this point our cash balance in our quarterly at TLEA. Go back to Kath's earlier comments. The Greenbushes returns and cash generated is covering their CapEx requirements. As they meet their liquidity expectations, they pass money up to TLEA, which then supports our investment into Kwinana and so on. And then anything beyond that comes out as dividends. Given where the demands are at and the lithium price environment, liquidity, we've said we don't expect any of that money to flow out from TLEA in this financial year, and we'll see what FY26 looks like. The coverage for CGP3 is there, so we're not expecting any call on us for funding that. The work that's remaining and the CapEx required is very well understood. It's being tightly managed, so we're not expecting any surprises there. And sorry, the last part of your question, I guess, on our facilities doesn't really need addressing. In terms of minimum cash balance in IGO, maybe I'll throw that one to Kath. Yeah. So when we came out about two years ago now with our capital management framework, we gave you an idea of the liquidity that we were targeting at that point, which was around AUD 1 billion, which indicated how much dividend we would consider. Obviously, with where we are right now, Nova coming to its end of life in the next 18 to 24 months and different business in a sense of reoptimizing exploration and the corporate spend, etc., we're going to do a refresh of that capital management in the next three to six months in order to right-size it for our business. And therefore, we'll be looking at that more closely and be able to guide better on that in the future. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand the conference back to Mr. Vella for closing remarks. Okay. Great. Well, look, we're right on time, so I won't take anything further. Thanks for joining. I said a challenging quarter, mixed results. The highlight, of course, is Greenbushes continuing to perform and improve, and there's lots of upside we expect to be able to report on through 2025, and with Nova, look, strong focus on safety and production. That's still the core of our business. It's super important for us to get to a place where we're delivering reliably there, and that's a strong focus for me. All the best for the Chinese New Year celebrations to those who are doing it, and we'll talk again soon. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.