Good day, and thank you for standing by. welcome to Iluka Resources' 2025 half-year results conference call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising that your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd like to hand the conference over to Mr. Tom O’Leary, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director. Please go ahead. Good morning. With me, Adele Stratton, Matt Blackwell, and Luke Woodgate. Thank you for joining us. Both internally and externally, it's been an eventful first half for Iluka against a general backdrop of global economic uncertainty. Ongoing trade disputes among the world's largest economies have affected our mineral sands and rare earths businesses in different ways. We have subdued demand for mineral sands at present, with customers reluctant to hold inventories given the broad range of potential economic outcomes they confront. This has been accompanied by important industry developments on the supply side, including the consolidation and closure of some pigment capacity in China and Europe, the imposition of tariffs and anti-dumping duties, and a material reduction in zircon production from Indonesia. Rare earths have been at the forefront of trade tensions, serving to highlight once again the fragility of the existing supply chain and the pressing need to diversify. It was instructive that among China's first actions in response to U.S. tariffs was the introduction of export controls on rare earths, which saw the idling of production lines by some Western automotive OEMs. This was followed by a significant partnership being struck by the U.S. Department of Defense and MP Materials, which included a price floor and explicit recognition that higher prices for separated rare earth oxides are essential to establishing a sustainable Western and like-minded industry. In the context of an external environment that's evolving considerably, continuity has been central to Iluka' s approach. Continued discipline in safety, costs, and markets is reflected in the results we've published today. We also continue to invest in key capital projects that underpin our future, Balranald and Eneabba in particular, and we've continued to develop our rare earths business, a business we believe is well-positioned with respect to global developments observed over many years, including those over the past six months. On our path to Adele to step through the result. Thanks, Tom, and good morning. Production was strong in H1 with 280,000 tons of zircon, rutile, and synthetic rutile. This is ahead of guidance, driven primarily by zircon in concentrate volumes, which we prioritize given market conditions. As a reminder, zircon in concentrate, or ZIC, is residual non-magnetic material that we've accumulated over time and which has historically been difficult or economic to recover fully into zircon sand. Production of zircon in concentrate is recognized on sale. We've already achieved full-year production guidance for ZIC, producing 60,000 tons in the first half, and we expect to produce a further 30,000 tons in H2. That will accelerate the rundown of available material, and production of ZIC in 2026 will be limited as a result of this pull forward. Revenue in the half was AUD 558 million, with EBITDA margins of 39%. Unit cash costs of production were lower than forecast, the result of the higher ZIC production volumes on the unit cost absorption method. Operating cash flow generated by the mineral sands business in H1 was AUD 115 million, partially funding mineral sands CapEx of AUD 223 million, which included AUD 196 million of execute capital expenditure on Balranald. The mineral sands business has a net debt position of AUD 164 million at 30 June. We remain committed to targeting no net debt through the investment cycle in our mineral sands business, and slide nine in the pack documents our history of drawing on commercial debt facilities to fund new developments before paying down that debt quickly from free cash flow generation. Iluka also contributed AUD 55 million equity to the rare earths business. Just to recap, Iluka's total equity contribution to the Eneabba refinery is AUD 414 million, and it's in two tranches. The first tranche is AUD 200 million, contributed on a 1-3 ratio with the EFA debt, resulting in total funding of AUD 800 million to the project, and then the original EFA loan is fully drawn to the AUD 1.25 billion before Iluka begins to contribute its second tranche of equity of AUD 214 million, once again on a 1-3 ratio, including to cover AUD 82 million of working capital during commissioning in 2027. To date, Iluka has contributed AUD 161 million of equity to the rare earths business, and we expect to contribute a further AUD 39 million during the remainder of 2025. The non-recourse net debt for the rare earths business unit at the end of the half totaled AUD 338 million. We deployed capital expenditure of AUD 178 million on the refinery in H1, and Tom will cover our progress at site shortly. Our rare earths business will operate with a different leverage profile due to the flexible and non-recourse nature of the Australian government's financing. It is really important to view our two businesses and their corresponding balance sheets as distinct, and that is how we're managing them. In line with our dividends framework and reflecting our significant capital investment in H1, the interim dividend of AUD 0.02 per share passes through the cash received from our 20% deterrent royalties holding. Back to you, Tom. Thanks, Adele. Before opening up for questions, I'll spend just a moment on our progress at Balranald and Eneabba, respectively. Balranald remains on schedule for commissioning this half, with mining planned to commence in the fourth quarter. Recruitment of the operational workforce is 90% complete, and construction work has continued to progress safely. All modules for the concentrator structure have been installed and are currently being connected. All four mining and development rigs are on site and assembled, with development of the first mining stope completed in July. Development of the second stope has commenced, with mining to commence once three stopes have been completed and the above-ground facilities are ready to receive ore. First, heavy mineral concentrate will be produced this year, with this material processed to finished goods at Narngulu in the first half of next year. At Eneabba, detailed earthworks are complete, and concrete installers are on site and making good progress. Equipment continues to arrive on site for placement, including mixer settlers, agitators for the SX building, and the pylons for the rotating kilns. Total spent and committed capital expenditure has reached AUD 1 billion. As set out on slide 25, approximately AUD 270 million remains allocated to contingency, growth, and escalation allowance. We're looking forward to shareholders visiting these key projects, and we're hosting a site tour of Eneabba in October. Balranald will follow in 2026. With that, over to you for questions. Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, please star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Once again, star one one for questions. We will now take our first question from the line of Austin Yun from Macquarie. Please go ahead, Austin. Morning, Tom and team. Two questions for me, please. The first one is on the Eneabba, given that you have spent AUD 1 billion, including the committed to date. Do you have a visibility of how much contingency funding you need to tap into when you finish this process? Any view on that? I'll come back with a second. Thank you. Sure. Thanks, Austin. As I touched on, on slide 25, we've set out, as you've observed, that we've spent and committed AUD 1 billion, and with the remaining capital to go, we still have that AUD 270 million allocated to contingency, growth, and escalation. We continue with our guidance of AUD 1.7 billion- AUD 1.8 billion capital expenditure overall, so you can draw your own conclusion. We, as I say, remain committed to that total number. As you'd expect, there will be puts and takes as we go through the remainder of the build. As I said back in February, the key contracts that are yet to let are the structural and mechanical, piping, electrical, and instrumentation contracts. We're looking to place equipment broadly as it comes to site to reduce the scope of those larger SMP E& I contracts to mitigate risk associated with those. We're not going to give specific guidance on how much of that AUD 270 million would need to be tapped into. As I say, there'll be puts and takes as we go through to completion. A couple of things that may give some level of assurance is that we're very advanced with our engineering, and have had around 75% to date in terms of detailed engineering, and the equipment is, as we've said, largely procured. Thank you, Tom. Just to switch to the mineral sands business, keen to get an update and a view on the production plan for SR1, which has remained offline, and note that your inventory has, suspect the HMC inventory continues to increase. What's the decision point for the HMC production to slow down, or is there kind of at what time you need to have a view on the SR business plan? The question is kind of in the context of your commentary around the mineral sands business, which remains challenging. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Austin. As you know, we have the 200,000 tons of take or pay contracts that go through to the end of next year. That underpins our synthetic rutile business to a large extent. We have built inventory of SR, and we're well placed to respond to improvement in market conditions. Given those market conditions and the inventory we have, we're very much more likely to prioritize the drawdown of inventory over the coming period rather than a nearer term restart of SR1. I would note, though, that the industry commentator is forecasting a 10% increase in demand for titanium feedstocks over the period 2024 to 2029 to the equivalent of some, that's effectively 1 million tons of high-grade feedstocks. There are certainly outlooks in the marketplace of stronger demand ahead. Thank you, Tom. We'll pass it up. Thanks, Austin. Thank you. We will now take our next question from the line of Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Please ask your question. Yeah, morning, Tom, Adele. Hope you both well. Tom, I'm going to start with the refinery, the offtake from the refinery, and starting with NdPr. First of all, stating the obvious that the MP transaction is overwhelmingly positive and sort of draws a line in the sand, if I can say that, providing the floor price for discussion. I know the offtake in theory has to be done by next August. This may be working in your favor, sir, but any update you can provide on those offtake discussions, please. Look, the offtake discussions continue, but I think, as you've observed, the MP deal is really a significant development, and that is the context in which those offtake discussions are being carried out at the moment. I think what that deal, though, demonstrates is that to establish a successful rare earths industry upstream as well as downstream to magnets, some really significant measures are called for. As I said at the opening, the MP deal with the U.S. government is really an explicit recognition that higher prices are essential to establishing a successful rare earths industry. For some years now, we've debated on these calls the possibility of the emergence of a pricing paradigm for rare earths that's separate from the Asian Metals Index. That's a narrative we've been pursuing generally and with customers over the last several years. The U.S. government has now set that floor price, as you said, of AUD 110 per kg for MP's product. While we're yet to see how that's going to reverberate through the market downstream to customers, it's evidence that we've moved to, at the very least, a bifurcated market. That product will now be rewarded with a price totally disconnected from the Asian Metals Index. That much is clear. I'd also note the U.S. government's floor price of AUD 110 a kg is very close to Adams Asset's long-term view of AUD 108 a kg over the next 10 years, which formed the basis of the project economics we published back in December. You know, we engage with a wide range of industry consultants, and we've consistently used Adams Asset in our forecast as its analysis is grounded in an incentive pricing approach. As for our own business, we're encouraged by the U.S. government's actions and by the reaction from customers in recent times. Certainly, the level of customer engagement has ratcheted up following China's export controls being imposed back in April. Going to the offtakes and the specific question you asked, we remain very focused on delivering those arrangements that reflect the underlying value of what we're offering, just as we've done for decades in the mineral sands business, that value and use equation. That's what the team is very much focused on. The MP deal, just to close, is really a clear step in the right direction, but there's still work to do. We're not getting ahead of ourselves. It's also worth noting, I think, the Australian government's approach is also very encouraging. Yeah. Thanks, Tom. I have to ask also on heavy rare earths because there's some unbelievable prices for terbium frozen being traded in Europe and U.S. at the moment versus the Asian metal prices. It does seem that some panic has set in with some OEMs. You can't get terbium frozen at the moment. This obviously underpins, it's very, very positive for the economics, I should say, of not only Eneabba, but certainly Wimmera. How are you thinking about the contracting of heavy? Is it just going to go together with the NdPr? I'm just wondering about your strategy there. Thanks. Yeah, look, it's always been the case that a key competitive advantage that our rare earth business has is the endowment of heavies in our feedstocks, whether it's the monazite from Eneabba or the much, much more heavy weighted deposits, be they in the Wimmera or Northern, which is almost an exclusively heavy feedstock. It's certainly a key competitive advantage, and we're certainly seeing the appetite for heavies in the marketplace. It's been observed by the Minister for Resources, the importance of the heavies globally and the strategic positioning that results for Australia. Okay. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. We will now take our next question from the line of Reg Spencer from Canaccord. Please go ahead, Reg. Thank you. Good morning, Tom. Thanks for the opportunity. Just asking about your offtake with Lindi an, the Kangankunde project in Malawi. I was just hoping you could help me out on when you might expect to take first delivery of concentrate there and how that slots into your planned ramp-up relative to your feed from the stockpile and Balranald. The second question would be, with that feed, can you change the profile of those various feed sources to maximize oxide production in those early years, given that there's not an insignificant amount of rare earth coming out of that Lindia n feedstock? Thank you. Yeah, look, thanks for the question. It's, you know, we're really pleased to have entered into the arrangements with Lindian, and as we've said before, there are some really key drivers of the value of the rare earth business: capital structure, project delivery, operational performance, pricing, and longevity. The concentrate supply deals, like the Lindian deal or like Northern, contribute to that longevity. We're not going to be guiding specifically on the timing of use of different feedstocks at the moment. That'll be something that we develop as we approach commissioning and beyond. We'll inevitably be commissioning the refinery on Eneabba feedstock alone, but we'll be happy to introduce other feeds as soon as they're available. The comment you also asked about the ability to maximize oxide production, we certainly will be looking to ramp up the refinery as quickly as practicable and obviously safely. We're very much focused on maximizing oxide production, and there's plenty of scope for the Lindian material and other material. The Lindian material at 6,000 tons per annum over 15 years would be about 10% of Eneabba's capacity. There's plenty of scope for further feed from Lindian, but also feed from our own reserves in Australia and further third-party feeds. That's excellent. Thanks very much, Tom. Appreciate it. Pleasure. Thank you. The next question comes from Jonathan Mills from Morningstar. Please go ahead. Yeah. Morning, guys. Just two questions. Firstly, in terms of the finished goods inventory of about 325 kt, is it possible to get a breakdown between zircon and titanium dioxide feedstocks? Oh, yeah, Jonathan, we don't provide that breakdown. In terms of from a competitive position, it's not that helpful to the business to be that specific in relation to that breakdown. You can obviously see which products are building because we disclose production and sales. You can sort of see where that movement comes. If you notice in the first half, there's been a little bit of build in SR, but that's because of the timing of shipment. We're pretty flat on finished goods as to where we were in end of 2024. Okay. No worries. The other one is in relation to ZIC. Presumably, once Balranald ramps up, you'll have material that could potentially become ZIC down the track. Would that be a correct assumption? Yeah, good morning, Jonathan. It's Matt here. Now, the ZIC are more historical stockpiles of material from the vicinity of Narngulu. As Adele commented on earlier, we've monetized or taken the opportunity at this point in the market to monetize as much of those stockpiles as we can. You would expect less ZIC production going forward. There is always a small amount of material that comes out of the MSP as we continue with Balranald, but it's not going to change in any material way. The thing that Balranald does do is gives us another source of premium-grade zircon. Murray Basin zircon, and particularly the material that's going to come out of Balranald, is a highly sought-after, high-quality, high-opacifying zircon. That will introduce some material to the market that it hasn't seen for a number of years and provides us with a competitive advantage at that premium market end. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question. Tom, Adele, team, good morning. Thanks for the call. I wanted to start maybe with the ZIC first up. Just following on from the previous question, I wanted to understand sort of what's the thought process in terms of next year's sales being lower. Is it mainly being driven by the fact that the demand is not really there, or is it because you want to focus on trying to draw down some of those inventories? I guess I'm trying to understand the risk of competitors potentially providing or feeding into that vacuum that you create and perhaps creating a bit of a negative impact. If you want to also provide a bit of understanding on how you think about Balranald ramp-up as well, just sticking to that demand piece. I mean, do you think that potentially demand is still looking challenging and you've got enough inventory that potentially makes sense to delay ramp-up for Balranald once it's built? I'll come back with a second. Sorry, that's the big first question. Okay. There are two questions there. The first one I can answer pretty quickly. As I said in my answer previously, we've exhausted most of the ZIC role. It's not about choosing to sell less ZIC next year because of market conditions. It's because we don't have as much of that material to sell as we have this year. That's why we'd expect a step down in ZIC sales next year. It's simply a function of taking that opportunity to monetize the material at this point in the market. I don't think it'll create a vacuum per se that others will step into. It's an area that we have stepped into opportunistically during this stage of the market and quite deliberately, not so opportunistically, but also deliberately. When it comes to Balranald and the ramp-up, I'll just remind you that the products that we're expecting from Balranald are a high-grade rutile product. Our rutile offering is more limited at the moment, particularly was more limited after the demerger of SRL. We have had significant interest in the Balranald rutile from both the pigment market and where it is eligible for the welding market. That gives us an opportunity to reestablish a rutile position with the pigment market. The second product, as I just mentioned, is the premium zircon. Murray Basin zircon, extremely well-regarded. It's a high-quality product. That gives us an opportunity in the premium-grade market. There is sulfate and chloride ilmenites, a primary and secondary ilmenite. The primary ilmenite is a product that we really haven't had a lot to sell of recently. That gives us an opportunity to move and supply sulfate or primary ilmenite to the sulfate feedstock route or sulfate pigment route. The chloride ilmenite will be used either in our kiln as a feedstock blended with Cadmi or sold to customers who consume chloride ilmenite. I don't see an appetite for Balranald. Okay. No, that makes sense. Thanks for that, Matt. The second one's perhaps for Tom. Just on the rare earths piece, Tom, obviously, you talked a bit about your negotiations with potential offtake parties and how you're progressing with that. Obviously, there's no time pressure here because you've got a bit of time. Have you seen the inbound in terms of, you know, governments, I guess, because the MP deal is obviously a very different type of a marker in the sand here in terms of, you know, government stepping in and providing that assurity. Are you seeing any other governments starting to engage with yourselves beyond perhaps the Australian government? I mean, any sort of conversations with the U.S. government or otherwise looking for that heavy rare earth supply for defense purposes or otherwise just to look at potentials to, you know, secure a bit of supply from yourselves? Has it mainly been commercial parties and offtakers that the, you know, negotiations have been focused on so far? Thanks, Rahul. I just take the premise of the question. There's no time pressure. We're certainly not complacent about offtakes, and we are applying a fair bit of time pressure to the team that's responsible for delivering those, and they're working very hard at it. In terms of engagement with government and governments around the world, I wouldn't be drawn on specific discussions, but it's safe to say that we continue to engage with a range of Western governments about their requirements for their industry and more strategic purposes. I think it's also fair to say that it's pretty evident to all the shortage of heavy rare earths that's already been touched on the call. That's pretty evident to everybody now. On our own government, the Australian government's approach is evolving, and you'll no doubt have seen the comments made by the Minister for Resources on the Australian government's intentions in relation to a strategic reserve. The industry consolidation is really just getting underway, and I wouldn't want to look to preempt that consultation, you know, what it may comprise nor what outcomes are likely or being considered. I won't really provide any detail there. I am encouraged by the minister's public statements, which illustrate the focus on establishing a successful rare earths industry in Australia, as well as the importance of value addition to our mineral endowment here in Australia. That's a consistent theme. In particular, as you've pointed out, the strategic value of our heavy rare earths, which, as we've touched on, is a very key competitive differentiation for Iluka and for Australia over other sources of Western world supply. Oh, that's really good. Thank you. Thanks for that detailed answer. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thanks, Rahul. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please ask your question, Glyn. Good morning, Tom. Two questions from me. Thanks. Firstly, just the zircon market. I mean, you're guiding AUD 80 a ton down for Q3 now, and you've only sold 30,000 tons to date in the quarter, which is down 40% on what you'd done at the start of Q1 and Q2, even earlier in the quarter. I know we touched on this at the strategy day in May, but I just wanted to hear a little bit more. I mean, is this just a demand, or is this really a big issue with China separating HMC coming from Africa? This is really becoming more of a structural problem. Despite it being lower quality zircon, as Matt touched on in May, this is becoming a bigger problem for you, or is it too early to tell? Thanks. Oh, look, I'll hand over to Matt, Glyn. Yeah, I mean, some subdued global demand is an issue. You know, we're, as we've noted, exercising discipline in the marketplace as is appropriate, given the uncertainty both on demand and supply. Matt, do you want to take that one? Yeah, thanks, Glyn. Look, there's a couple of forces at play here. Clearly, as Tom said, you've got demand, which is a bit subdued at the moment, right? Customers are reluctant to hold inventories, given the broad range of potential outcomes that they face. We haven't seen a lot of stimulus, but you probably picked up as well. The Chief Engineer in the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China recently stated that there were work plans to be expected to be introduced soon that would stabilize growth in 10 key industries, which included things that would have demand for zircon, which was steel, non-ferrous metals, petrochemicals, and building materials. We are seeing in Europe that customers are just not holding inventory because they're purchasing on a just-in-time basis. India, big emerging market, uncertainty currently due to the tariffs that are being placed on their exports for tiles. India's rapid urbanization is growing growth in the construction sector. That's due to housing, infrastructure, and commercial spaces. We see this as a long-term growth and demand story. The other side I'd say on that is that we've seen important industry developments on the supply side. For zircon, we've seen the imposition of tariffs and separately that material reduction in zircon production from Indonesia. We actually highlighted in July that there was sales from Indonesia being curtailed with authorities enforcing stricter compliance measures on miners, new tax regime. We're unclear on the duration, but it's continuing. In fact, there was an ASX announcement this past week from a small miner there saying that all production in central Kalimantan has ceased. There's this supply and demand dynamic going on. TZMI is still forecasting somewhere between demand of 1.1 million tons- 1.2 million tons in 2025, production of 1.2 million tons. Sand production still remains the dominant form of way of getting zircon to market with over 800,000 tons of sand being produced and consumed this year. Now, as I think about those numbers, 800,000 tons, if we park aside those concentrates which are going to China, which, as you rightly point out, has been a little bit disruptive. Let's be clear about that. They're taking some of that material to China. It's not all the same quality. Of that remaining 800,000 tons, if consumers aren't holding inventory, and they'd normally hold between one to three months, but let's say conservatively it's one to two months, they're going to need to purchase pretty quickly in excess of 70,000 tons of inventory once the market starts to tick up again. We're alerted to what's going on in China. We're alerted to that HMC, but that is one market. To date, China has not been exporting zircon or opacifier. The sales of Chinese tiles and their exports of those tiles was also reduced as well. I see a continued strong demand dynamic for zircon sand throughout the rest of the world and into China. Okay. Thanks, Matt, for the color. Tom, just a second question. On the MP Materials on their calls have said discussions with OEMs fall well short of AUD 110 a kg price. They're going to be relying on the government to top up. I know it's way too early and you still have a long way to go in the journey. Do you think that is the case, that it's, you know, the OEMs aren't going to pay the price that the governments are willing to underpin? You'll need that backstop. Thanks, Glyn. Look, as I said in the earlier answer, it's really, we're really waiting to see how the MP deal is going to reverberate through the market. I think it will have implications. The U.S. government isn't minded to, I don't expect to subsidize either foreign OEMs and consumers of rare earths nor the EV industry in the U.S. I think we will see in time that this will have a significant and positive impact on recognized and accepted pricing required for acquiring rare earths and for delivering a sustainable rare earths industry in the West. I think, Glyn, the only other thing to add to that, just to note, you know, as you say, in terms of historic pricing mechanisms, and you know, as Tom's alluded to, we've been very focused on not linking our prices to the Asian Metals Index, you know, for all the reasons that we've articulated many times before, including, is this really a spot price? Is it a rational market? That spot price that people referred to yesterday was AUD 89 a kg. If that's how people have priced their contracts historically, the delta isn't that big between what the U.S. government has done. We're very focused around value and economic returns back to Iluka, and I'm pretty sure that's how MP are thinking about it too. Adele, that's an including VAT project is quote AUD 89, is it not? Yeah, it includes VAT. Yeah. Okay, thanks very much. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Glyn. Thank you. Our next question comes from Al Harvey from JP Morgan. Please ask your question. Yeah, morning, team. Just on the Eneabba feedstocks and the Lindian arrangement, I suppose it's good incremental feed. Just wanted to get a sense of how you think about the trade-off of developing internal projects like Wimmera and obviously the associated CapEx versus these feedstock arrangements where, you know, you're not stumping up the CapEx, but perhaps take a bit of a hit on margin. Just kind of trying to get a sense of where you might see the optimum split of internal versus external feeds settling out in your view at this point in time. Yeah, look, I don't think we're going to settle on a specific percentage as an optimum for internal or external. I think we're going to evaluate opportunities as they arise and compare them to others, both our own and other third-party feeds. That's the way we go about it. I mean, we take into account the sort of factors you've talked about in terms of capital deferral and the like. What I'd say is that probably the thing that one really needs to focus on is that we're building not a feedstock program for 5, 10, or even 20 years. We're building a multigenerational business here, and we have significant capacity and a lot of opportunity to facilitate developments here in Australia, whether they're our own or third parties, as well as developments like this. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Tom. I suppose maybe then just on those feedstock supplies, just want to get a sense of how you're thinking about geographic diversification. Obviously, you've got Northern Minerals in Australia. You've got all your projects in Aus, Lindian in Africa, Mrima Hill potential from Africa. Maybe just trying to get a sense of where else, if you have a preference from where feedstocks would come from. Look, we've certainly, the reserves and resources in our own portfolio are all in Australia, and we're working very hard on those. Clearly, we understand those the best. They kind of automatically have a priority, if you like, from that perspective. Other deposits in Australia kind of have a similar de facto priority in the sense that we understand those well, and we understand the risks associated with them well. Beyond that, I think we need to evaluate opportunities as we see them. Thanks, Tom. If I could sneak one more in. Sure. Just with the take-or-pay contracts on the synthetic rutile, it's going to end in 2026. Is there any scope there that you could extend those take-or-pay contracts, or will that all roll to swap pricing? I suppose how you're thinking about risk management given the uncertain market outlook. Yeah, look, we certainly look to have a portfolio of contracts that underpin the business. At the appropriate time, we'd look to extend those. We've extended them in the past at the appropriate times, and we'll look to do that going forward. Matt, do you want to provide some further? Al, good question. As Tom said, there are times that favor extending contracts and times that don't. It's probably the former right now, or sorry, the latter right now. On balance, these contracts have been really positive, not just for Iluka, but for the industry in terms of reducing some volatility. Pigment prices are held up okay considering where we are with the cycle, and particularly given there's been no paint season in North America for a number of years. As we would expect, an uptrend in pigment pricing, and there's a slide in the pack, number 16, which shows, you know, if you look at prior history, you could draw a view that the worm should turn pretty soon. Let people draw their own conclusions on that. That's a pretty good time to think about renegotiating contracts. Great. Thanks, team. Thank you. Our next question comes from Chen Jiang from Bank of America. Please go ahead, Chen. Good morning, Tom, and Adele. Thanks for taking my question. Firstly, I would like to ask about your project sequencing, especially for Wimmera. Wimmera is so long dated. The final visibility study results are due end of next year, and you still need FID and the construction, etc. I'm wondering, are you able to run Wimmera and Eneabba, you know, in parallel? There's a big gap when Wimmera starts commissioning in 2027 versus when Eneabba starts. I'm just wondering how you are going to close the gap because your heavy rare earths, Dy and Tb, when Eneabba starts, will be running well below the designed capacity. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Chen. The feasibility for Wimmera, as you say, is due next year. We do have a fair amount of flexibility in terms of when that is brought on, and that flexibility is brought about by the monazite stockpile we have such that we can run the refinery for, you know, for quite a while without having brought on additional feeds, third party, or our own. As you point out, we will have excess capacity in our heavy circuits prior to bringing on either of Northern or Wimmera. Certainly, the Northern feed would, you know, go a long way to filling those circuits. Wimmera slightly less so, but would certainly materially increase our heavy production. You know, it's a bit like the answer I gave to Al a moment ago, Chen. We'll evaluate our decisions, our investment decisions, and our acquisitions of third-party feed as we, you know, as those opportunities are presented and it's time to make decisions on them. Sure, Tom. Just to follow up on your answer. your answer. The Wimmera feasibility study is due next year. The sequencing of the Wimmera project, is that more like a CapEx decision because you have heavy CapEx coming over the next two years, or is it more like an engineering and, I guess, there is a lot of work you have to do, and it's very, very early stage. You are trying to find economics from the mineral sands of that project. I'm just wondering what it is. Is it a CapEx, or is it more like a resources decision? Yeah, it's both of those, but also importantly, the environmental process is going to be a driver of the timing at which point we'll be able to make that CapEx decision. All of those trains need to come to the station, and the environmental process is potentially the slowest of those trains. Right. Thanks for that. My second question, Tom, is your third-party feedstock, I guess they are all very early stage. When your Eneabba refinery is ready, and I guess you are in the process of designing, engineering, building the refinery, your refinery will be viewed from an engineering perspective as being able to process the majority of feedstock regardless of monazite or hard rock mining. I'm asking this because also, is there any regulatory requirements of moving feedstock across different states in Australia or across countries, especially the rare earth stocks sometimes contain radiation? It's very different to other minerals. Thank you. Sure. Thanks, Chen. Yeah, just for clarity, the engineering is locked down. We're very clear that we are building the refinery so that it is capable of processing that wide range of feedstocks. That was a critically important piece of the government support that was granted by way of the non-recourse loan and the strategic partnership we entered into. In that, this refinery really facilitates the development of a broader Australian rare earths industry with value addition occurring here in Australia. In terms of regulation and moving material around, we're moving concentrates around. That's what's proposed, concentrates from, for example, the Wimmera through to Eneabba in Western Australia. We're comfortable that that material can be moved around with very limited inconvenience. Again, I'd refer you to the quantum of material that is to be moved around. The feedstock that can go into the refinery is about 55,000 tons per annum. That's the capacity of the refinery at the front end. It's not as if it's Pilbara style, hundreds of millions of tons. The transport task is not enormous, nor is it particularly complicated given the nature of the material that we're moving. Sure. I understand, Tom. How about across countries? If you are taking third-party feedstock from other countries, any regulations taking, you know, rare earth feedstock that has radiation? Yeah, sure, Chen. Thanks. Yeah, look, as you know, we export mineral sands and concentrates around the place at the moment. We're kind of, we're very familiar with the regulatory environment around transport of these sorts of materials. We're very comfortable that, you know, we can meet the regulatory requirements that are applicable. Sure. Appreciate the answer. Thank you very much, Tom. Adele, thank you. Thank you, Chen. Thank you. Our next question comes from Dean Ayres from UBS. Please ask your question, Dean. Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Adele. Just on the offtake, I'm just wondering if you could just clarify, does it need to be directly with a magnet maker? Could it be with an OEM? Could it be with Apple? Yeah, any context on that? You know, how binding does it need to be? Does it need to be an MOU? Or can it just be an MOU? Or does it need to be a bit more concrete? I'll look, Dean, I'll hand over to Adele, who's leading the charge on rare earth offtakes. You know, we're engaging with a very wide range of potential offtakers. Perhaps, Adele, you could provide some specifics around the EFA requirements. Yeah, thanks. As part of the refinancing that we did last December, it's quite clear that we have lots of flexibility in terms of coming to offtake contracts that meet the needs of the government. There's not a lot of specificity. More to the substance of the question, we're engaging with a whole range of customers throughout the supply chain. Think of that as end-use customers through to the intermediates of the magnet makers, etc. A really broad range of customer engagement, including, as you'd expect, OEMs. In terms of does it need to be a contract or can it just be an MOU, our history has shown that we never really focus on MOUs because they are just that. There's no real contractual commitment. We're very focused around getting commercial agreements that support the economics of the project that we're developing. That's how we're considering all of those negotiations. Yeah, okay. Go on. Thats clear. Just on, you guys are privy to a bunch of government conversations. We're not. Maybe could we get your opinion on how you think the focus is split between improving further oxide or chemical production, western production, versus metals and magnets? Noting you guys actually have driven the water further downstream. Do you think it's the right balance, or are we going to end up with a bunch of NdPr in a few years that we don't know what to do with? Yeah, it's a good question, Dean. Look, as I said earlier, I'm not going to look to preempt the government's approach, but there's certainly a focus on value addition. That's a recurring theme, both here in Western Australia, federally, and there's a growing awareness internationally around that as well. It is a good question, and it's something that we're continuing to work on, metallisation in particular. We've also put some material in the deck around western magnet capacity, which I think you'll find interesting. The consultation with industry here in Australia is really getting underway in earnest, and there'll certainly be developments on that front as the next year, next 12 months unfolds. Yeah. I might sneak one last one in just post the MP deal. Do you guys see the U.S.'s own heavy rare earth supply? Is there an opportunity there? You alluded to competitive advantage in that space. I'm not sure I can add much to what I said earlier. The obvious shortfall around heavy rare earths in the West is evident to many now. You're aware of what they're used for, the strategic nature of them, and the requirements for them being so critical. That does obviously present opportunities for us given the endowment in not only the Northern and Wimmera feeds, but also in the monazite from Eneabba. There's a relatively high proportion of heavies in that material when you compare it with other sources of Western supply. We do have an attractive endowment, and as I said, that gives us a competitive differentiation from others, and that gives rise to opportunity. Awesome. Thanks, Awesome. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Dean. We have now reached the end of the question and answer session. Thank you all very much for your questions. I'll now turn the conference back to Tom for his closing comments. Okay. Thank you again for joining the call this morning. It's been an eventful half, and we look forward to catching up with you over the coming weeks. Thanks again. Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect your lines.