Thank you for standing by. Welcome to Mineral Resources Call, covering today's release of its June 2026 Exploration and Mining Activity Report. Your speakers today are Mark Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, and Chris Chong, General Manager, Investor Relations. A little bit of admin before we kick off. Participants will be able to ask both text and live audio questions. To ask a text question, select the messaging icon, type your question in the box towards the top of the screen, and press the send button. To ask a live audio question, press the Request to Speak button at the top of the broadcast window. The broadcast will be replaced by the audio questions screen. Use the dial-in number and access PIN provided to ask your question via the phone. Alternatively, for those on a home or personal network, you can ask your question via the web by pressing Join Queue. If prompted, select Allow in the pop-up to grant access to your microphone. If you have any issues using the platform, dial-in details can also be found on the homepage under Asking Audio Questions. Text questions can be submitted at any time. The audio queue is now open. This call is being recorded with a written transcript being uploaded to the MinRes website later today. I will now hand over to the MinRes team. Thanks, Michelle. Good day, everybody, and thank you for joining us. My name's Mark Wilson. I'm the CFO of Mineral Resources. Joining me in the room today are Malcolm Bundey, Independent Non-Executive Chair, and Chris Chong, General Manager, Investor Relations. I'll start this morning with a few opening remarks on the quarter and on the full year before we move to questions. The June quarter closed FY 2026 on a record note. We had our strongest quarterly Mining Services volumes on record. Onslow Iron averaged a run rate of 38 million tons per annum, and we had record quarterly attributable spodumene sales of 158,000 tons on an SC6 equivalent basis. For the year as a whole, FY 2026, we exceeded volume guidance at Onslow Iron and across both lithium operations. We delivered Mining Services volumes above the top end of upgraded guidance, and we maintained cost discipline throughout. That's a strong result by any measure, and it reflects more than just one quarter of delivery. It demonstrates the quality of the business we have built, the benefits of deliberate investment decisions made over several years, and the performance of assets that are now maturing towards their potential. I do want to acknowledge the significant efforts of our teams across every part of the business to deliver that outcome. To put FY 2026 in context, across our three operating pillars, we delivered records in Mining Services volumes, lithium sales, and iron ore shipments. We did that while significantly reducing our cost of debt and strengthening our liquidity position by AUD 1.3 billion. This is a business that is executing well, generating stronger cash flow, and entering the new year from a significantly stronger position than a year ago. Looking ahead, we enter FY 2027 with positive momentum, a materially improved balance sheet, and a clear set of priorities. Starting with the balance sheet, which continues to rapidly strengthen. Liquidity improved to AUD 2.4 billion at 30 June, up from AUD 1.8 billion a quarter earlier, with our cash position up AUD 600 million. Net debt reduced approximately AUD 200 million to below AUD 4.3 billion, continuing our positive deleveraging trend. The distinction between the AUD 600 million improvement in our cash and the AUD 200 million reduction in net debt reflects the refinancing of our iron ore prepayment, which was previously classified as a non-debt liability. Regarding the refinancing in April, we issued US$1.3 billion of new Senior Unsecured Notes at our lowest-ever rates of 6% and 6.25%. This transaction reduced our weighted average cost of debt from 8.4% to 7.4%, extended our weighted average tenor from 3.1 years to five years, and saves us approximately AUD 48 million per year in finance costs. On completion of the POSCO transaction, the residual $750 million of bonds due October 28 are expected to be redeemed, reducing our weighted average cost of debt further to 6.9% and saving approximately a further AUD 100 million in interest annually. The Onslow Iron carry loan reduced by AUD 124 million over the quarter to AUD 335 million, and as Onslow Iron continues to generate strong cash flows, we expect this balance to continue to reduce materially through FY 2027. Additionally, we had a working capital inflow in the quarter of AUD 250 million, which was primarily related to an increase in payables as a result of timing and also increased activity. This is expected to largely unwind in this new quarter. FY 2026 capital expenditure came in at AUD 1.1 billion, net of asset financing of AUD 110 million and in line with our guidance. We will provide guidance for FY 2027 CapEx at our full year results later in August. Our capital allocation remains disciplined, in line with our updated capital allocation policy, with FY 2027 growth CapEx focused on brownfields opportunities with assets we already own and operate. That growth CapEx in FY 2027 will include brownfield investment at Mount Marion and Onslow Iron to support productivity, capacity, and long-term operational capability. Turning to Mining Services, the growth engine of MinRes, the division had an outstanding quarter. Quarterly production volumes were a record 94 million tons, driven by an increase, well particularly increased volumes at Onslow Iron and increased activity at Mount Marion. For the full year, FY 2026 production volumes were a record 341 million tons, up 22% year-over-year and above the top end of our upgraded guidance range. In iron ore, Onslow Iron produced 8.8 million tons and shipped a record 9.6 million tons in the quarter on a 100% basis. That's an extremely strong finish to the year. It is equivalent to achieving a shipped 38 million ton per annum run rate for the quarter. For FY 2026, attributable shipments of 19.7 million tons exceeded the top end of our upgraded guidance. Total FY 2026 shipments were 31.1 million tons on a 100% basis. Realizations for Onslow in the quarter were 82%. This remains consistent with broader market conditions. FOB cost for the quarter was AUD 53 per ton, bringing full year FOB costs to AUD 52 per ton, below the lower end of FY 2026 guidance. This result confirms Onslow Iron is a large scale operation now performing consistently and generating cash at scale. Other highlights worth noting, including the arrival of the sixth transhipper in May, with the seventh transhipper now due to arrive in early August. With the seventh transhipper, our marine logistics system will have greater flexibility and redundancy as we move into FY 2027. Post quarter end, unplanned maintenance works are being conducted at the port and load-out. This is expected to have a minimal impact on Q1 volumes, as other planned maintenance works scheduled for August have been brought forward. In the Pilbara hub, shipments increased to 2.7 million tons, of which 34% was lump, with the ramp up of Lamb Creek progressing well. Realizations in the quarter were 83%, reflecting the widening of discounts, partly offset by sustained lump premiums. FY 2026 shipments of 9.9 million tons achieved the upper end of guidance. Full year FOB cost came in at AUD 79 a ton, in line with guidance. Lithium. Our lithium division closed out the year strongly on volumes. Sales from Wodgina and Mount Marion totaled a record 158,000 tons SC6, as I said earlier, achieved an average realized price of $2,425 per ton SC6 basis. At Wodgina, sales for the year were 317,000 tons SC6, outperforming our upgraded guidance. This was driven by increased utilization of the three processing trains. FOB cost for FY 2026 at Wodgina was AUD 738 per ton SC6, achieving the lower end of guidance. At Marion, sales for the year totaled 242,000 tons, exceeding the top end of upgraded guidance. The FOB cost of AUD 847 a ton for the year on an SC6 basis was within guidance. As we've said previously, FID was taken in May with our joint venture partner, Ganfeng, on an investment in the flotation plant and a recommencement of the underground development. Earlier this month, Macmahon was appointed as our underground mining contract partner. Bald Hill operations restarted in May. This is a meaningful step in our ability to flex according to market conditions. Subsequent to the quarter, we shipped our initial parcel of spodumene concentrate, and ramp up to full capacity of 140,000 tons SC6 per annum remains on track for Q2 this new financial year. Across the lithium portfolio, the key point is that the work undertaken through the cycle is now translating into higher volumes, improved operating flexibility, and a stronger platform for future returns. Turning to safety. On safety, as flagged in the previous quarter, the company has completed a comprehensive review of its injury and illness classification procedure. Following this review, the procedure has been revised to align with global industry standards. This does not reflect a change in underlying safety performance, but is a deliberate decision to hold ourselves to a higher reporting standard as our business matures. In closing, FY 2026 was a year of significant progress operationally, financially, and strategically. We remain fully focused on delivery. We achieved or exceeded guidance across every segment. We strengthened liquidity to AUD 2.4 billion and net debt has reduced to AUD 4.3 billion. Our cost of debt is materially lower, our maturity profile is extended, and our debt reduction trajectory is clear. We enter FY 2027 with well-established earnings drivers in Onslow Iron, lithium and mining services, strong liquidity, and a pipeline of low risk, high return brownfields investments and mining services opportunities that we are progressing with discipline. With that, I'll now hand back to the facilitator to arrange questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. If you have not yet submitted your text question or joined the live audio queue, please do so now. I will introduce each caller by name and ask you to go ahead. You will then hear a beep indicating your microphone is live. Our first question comes from Kate McCutcheon from Bank of America. Kate, please go ahead. Hi Mark. Let me try that again, being off mute. Well done on a strong finish. Just at Onslow, we've got the TMM which has stepped up 1 million tons quarter-on-quarter and ore is down. Is that how we should think about the strip ratio into next year? Does the mine become the constraint per se into next year? Hi Kate. Thanks for the question. This is just one of the features of the mine planning at Onslow. We're moving into some new areas up at Upper Cane and bringing some material there. We're seeing a little bit of a change in the strip. We'll have more guidance, obviously, in August when we give you a better feel for 2027. I have an accounting question for you. The POSCO sell down is still expected to complete this CY. When that's done, do you expect to report 50% of EBITDA from those two mines through EBITDA, or will it be the 35%? Just remind me of the early call fee on the bonds you intend to repay early. In terms of the accounting for POSCO, we'll still control the assets, we'll still deal with them the same way. We'll be shifting our focus in terms of the way we communicate with the market to be more focused on an attributable basis that people can tie it back to cash and cash in our bank more easily. You'll see that change come through in our reporting in August. In terms of the October 28th, steps down to a couple of percent to pay off. It steps down materially every six months. It'll be a couple of percent. Thank you. Our next question comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Paul, please go ahead. Thanks. Yeah, good day, Mark. I hope you're well. Just on that increase in Mining Services volumes, which are really strong in 4Q. You're putting that down to waste stripping at Mount Marion and then Onslow volumes. Was there anything to call out there on external increase in external volumes at all in the quarter? Hi, Paul. We had a great quarter across all aspects of Mining Services, including the external operations. The performance there on each of those contracts for our clients was at or above where we expected it to be. The sizable volumes are across Onslow and Marion. Okay, thanks. Mark, on realized pricing for the quarter, don't want to get caught up in too much in quarter by quarter, but probably beat a little bit than based on what we're seeing within the market. Just a more broader question around getting caught up in the CMRG negotiations and maybe getting dragged along by some others that are actually negotiating at the moment. I know you've got Baowu in there as a partner, but ultimately, your grades probably will get marked and marketed to some of the other low-grade producers and their negotiations. Anything you can share around observations around how this might impact your discounts going forward? You're right that we have a great relationship with Baowu. We've got a great relationship into China. Our volumes that we sell, our own volumes that we sell into China represent a very small portion of Australian iron ore going into China. We don't have any direct engagement or connection with CMRG. To the extent that there are conversations happening with other producers that affect the price, and we do get pulled along by those. Generally speaking, the point that I'd like you to remember is that Onslow, as a product's been in the market for a while now. It's very well-received, and the mills want to take it. We've got great demand for it. We are going to see the discounts that reflect the market. They tend to apply to our product. The next question is from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Rahul, please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the call. Mark, I wanted to check firstly on Onslow. That's the first one. Very strong run rates to finish the year, obviously. You clocked nearly 40 million tons per annum there. You don't really have a sixth transhipper operating at the moment. It arrived in May. You also had a sweeping campaign, I think, in June. You've obviously got the seventh transhipper coming in in August. I guess the simple question is there sizable upside to that 40-million-ton target? What have you done differently that has gotten you to basically close to the 40 million tons per annum without the two transhippers as we sit today? I'll come back with a second. Thanks. Hi, Rahul. Thanks for the question. Just to remind you, of course, that we see a fair bit of seasonality in the shipments over the course of the year at Onslow. The quarter that we've just gone through and the quarter we're in now are the quietest months, and we need to be running up at or above 38 million if we are to achieve the opportunity that sixth transhipper represents. We've talked previously about the sixth transhipper helping us get towards 38. That's an average for the year. We've touched on an average of 38 for the quarter, and we did have the sixth there for part of the quarter. The seventh transhipper gives us redundancy, as we've said previously, it doesn't really give us significant extra capacity. Got it. Okay. Look, the next one was around costs. Obviously, quite a strong performance quarter on the cost side. A lot of them are driven by volume. If I look at the Pilbara hub as well in terms of production, it was a bit below, but still your cost performance was quite good for the quarter. I just wanted to understand what is driving that. Is it mainly the royalty going into Lamb Creek, or is that basically a royalty delta, or what is leading to the strong cost performance of that asset? Yeah. In terms of the production at Central Pilbara, we saw obviously the transition out of Wonmunna into Lamb Creek, as Lamb Creek came on board. That sort of explains the production. We are in that transition phase. In terms of the royalties, they sit outside FOB. It is more to do with the scale and the operation, the extra tons that we got through the quarter, above and beyond what we thought we were going to do when we gave some guidance three months ago. The next question is from Mitch Ryan from Jefferies. Mitch, please go ahead. Hi, Mark. Just on Onslow, you have said obviously this quarter is one of the ones where you have to operate quite strongly, then you have called out maintenance work ongoing at port. Can you just help quantify the risks around that and/or just explain what has occurred there? Yeah, sure. As you would know, we have maintenance works scheduled through the year. Obviously, we try to sequence it as best we can with the weather. You are talking about moving lots and lots of people in to do the work and lots and lots of gear needed, so you have to plan a fair way in advance. The work that I called out that is happening at the moment is unplanned, what it has meant is that we have had to resequence the works for the quarter. We did have some planned maintenance works, in August. We have brought those forward effectively to combine with the unplanned stuff that we are doing at the moment. We are not expecting it to have any real impact this quarter or this half. Yes. Thank you. My second question just relates to Mount Marion, specifically the integration of ore sorting. Can you just give us a bit of color? Will that be a permanent placement or is that mobile equipment? How will it interact with the operation of the new flow plan? In terms of the ore sorting, I think we flagged previously that we are moving into a phase where we are going to be more heavily reliant on contact ore at Marion. That is just through the transition, the mine development as we head towards bringing those underground tons in. We see more of a need for the ore sorting this year through that transition phase. Once we get into that new feed source from underground, I think it is going to be less. That is something we will continue to monitor. The next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS. Lachlan, please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, Mark, Chris. Thanks for your time. First question would just be on Mining Services. I just wanted to understand, obviously a pretty strong June quarter, great finish for the year overall. How are you seeing the book ahead for external activity next sort of six, 12 months in terms of potential new interest coming through, but also current contracts ending, potentially renewing? Then I'll come back with my second question. Hey, Lachlan. Really not a lot different to what I said three months ago. The performance of the business in Mining Services has been exceptionally strong. We've got a lot of interest in terms of what we're doing. I've said previously that Onslow's been a great demonstration of capability. You can assume that that's led to a whole range of opportunities and conversations. I think I've also foreshadowed that some of these conversations tend to take a while, given the nature of the opportunities that we're talking about. Yeah, we're seeing strong interest. We've got a strong forward pipeline, and we'll be able to give more flavor to that when we talk in about a month's time. Great. Thank you. Then just maybe stepping out a little wider lens with Mining Services. You've spoken about potentially targeting other commodities in the past, copper. Maybe I'll just ask the question, how do you see gold? I suppose for both copper and gold, how do you see those sort of opportunities fitting in your sweet spot and your core capability? In terms of gold, we've been crushing gold sites for decades. In terms of float experience and so on, we've got deep capability off the back not just of lithium, but also in-house capability that we have with design engineering in that space with some very strong copper experience. We have a whole range of options available to us. One of the things we haven't really spoken about much in the last few months is the strategy work that the board and management did a few months ago. You'll see some of that come through in the next month when we release our annual report and we give updated guidance or give guidance for 2027. We'll talk about those topics a little bit more in about a month's time. To ask a text question, select the messaging icon, type your question in the box towards the top of the screen, and press the send button. To ask a live audio question, press the Request to Speak button at the top of the broadcast window. If you have any issues using the platform, dial-in details can also be found on the homepage under Asking Audio Questions. The next question is from Ben Lyons from Jarden Securities Limited. Ben, please go ahead. Thanks. Good day, Mark and Chris. Maybe drawing about on Lachie's last question there about the opportunities in the Mining Services business and triangulating back to your closing comments in the intro that you're looking at pursuing some of those opportunities with discipline. Now that the business is on a much more stable footing and you've got greater confidence, I guess, in the degearing trajectory, just checking in on the appetite for offshore contracts. Thanks. Hi, Ben. Yeah, look, I think Chris Ellison was clear through a lot of FY 2026 that we were very focused on delivery, and that's been the mantra inside the business. We've been very determined to deliver the tons and the outcome that we've reported today. In terms of the commentary around with discipline, as I said, we'll talk a little bit more about strategy next month and future opportunities. I think we've talked about an interest in exploring new commodities. We've also raised the prospect of exploring offshore new opportunities. I think the key message there is that we would only do this with discipline. Sitting over the top of all this, as we've talked about before, is the capital allocation framework that was put in place with the board about nine months ago now, or maybe 10. That's been a key driver in the way that we think about allocation of capital. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Does that make sense? Cool. Thanks, Mark. I was just going to say. And then just- Sorry, mate, I was just going to say, you'll see over the last few months where we focused announcements of capital allocation, it's been brownfields with Mount Marion, for example. Yeah, that all needs to feed into the way that we think about next year and beyond. Sorry. Yep. Got it. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Just maybe secondly on the POSCO sell down, the transaction does seem to be dragging on a little bit. Maybe you can update us on the progress with the various regulators that POSCO's dealing with and just give your view about the most likely effective dates for the transaction, which I think from memory will align with the date the transaction actually closes. Thanks. Yeah, thanks. We still expect the transaction to complete this half. There's still some regulatory approvals required. There's still a couple of documents that need to be finalized. As I said, we still expect it to close this half. The next question is a written question from Michael Orphanides from Paladin Capital. Michael said, "A color on the lithium market and the recent weakness. What is MRL seeing from a demand side? Do you think Bald Hill restart was premature? Thanks for the question, Orph. The answer is no, I certainly don't think the Bald Hill restart was premature, if you were watching us closely, you would've seen that we spent a fair bit of time before we made that call. We'd previously flagged we were looking for 1,500, we wanted to make sure that that market was going to be there, not just a blip. We're also careful, given the uncertainty around diesel at the time. We took our time with that decision. In terms of how we see the market today, we continue to see consistent demand for our lithium spodumene, particularly in China. I'd refer you and the market back to the release by CATL late last week and the messaging they offered around demand growth in the market, which is significant. That's what we're seeing. I don't want to get into speculating as to what's happening with the prices. Underpinning all of this is continued growth in demand. That's what's key for us, and that's what gives us the confidence around Bald Hill. The next question is another written question from Ken Wan from DKAM. Ken said, "How should we think about the cost outlook? Costs were managed very well in the June quarter. Should we expect elevated cost pressures, whether energy-related or labor-related income in FY 2027? Ken, the answer is that MinRes has had a pretty strong record over the years of managing its costs very well. Particularly within the Mining Services business, to the extent that we have any sort of cost escalation pressures, they typically get passed through to the client under the rise and fall provisions of the contracts that we have in place. We have a fair bit of sheltering from that cost pressure. More broadly across the commodities portfolio, we'll be giving guidance on costs for FY 2027 when we talk to the market in about a month's time. The next question is from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Paul, please go ahead. Yeah. Hi again, Mark. Just a follow-up on the cash movements and accounting. Just to confirm, as far as the working cap movements, when you're talking about payables inflow, you're talking about an increase in payables by work that you have to pay for. You have seen an increase in payables on your balance sheet. Yes, that's correct, Paul, that comes from a number of different things. It's increased royalty obligations because of the increased revenue in the quarter. It's timing in terms of payroll. It's increased amounts to Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners. It's not one particular large number, but it comes from a number of different sources. I guess the underlying message, though, is that this is a business that over the years has delivered around 100% cash conversion to operating cash flow, and we expect that to continue into the future. Yep. Understood. Thank you. Another sort of minor question is around the camp at Onslow, the AUD 120 million, which will come through in FY 2027. That's on 100% Mining Services. I presume there's going to be, I guess, some earnings and some charge to your JV partners for that project. No. There won't be. Well, we'll have some operating revenue there in terms of the accommodation and so on, but no material incremental revenue. It's basically being deferred. It's a balance sheet item. The next question is from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Glyn, please go ahead. Good morning, Mark. Or good afternoon. Just wanted to see if you could give us a little bit of an update on, a quarter ago, you were kind enough to give us the diesel impact, AUD 4 a ton Onslow, AUD 7 at Pilbara, AUD 60 within the lithium business. Is any of that still persisting at the moment now? It feels like you obviously had a very good quarter relative to, I guess, what we thought, and we've seen that across a number of your peers where the diesel price didn't hang in there. Is there any of that still hanging around through your business? Hi, Glyn. Look, the diesel price that we're paying today still remains elevated relative to where it was four or five months ago. We are still seeing an impact. In the quarter that we've just had, we were able to absorb that largely through the expanded activity that we had, so in terms of shipments and so on. It still remains an underlying impost in terms of the numbers. As you would see, it's been a fair bit of volatility over the last few months. It's been down and then up, and it doesn't seem to take much in the way of rumors for the oil price to move five or 10%. We've tried to be conservative in the way that we think about the future and our planning. I will say that the numbers are lower than they were four months ago, three months ago. It would be like a quarter of what you previously told us, you think, or half? Any sort of sense? Maybe half. All right, cool. I understand it's outside your control, but appreciate it. It's great color. Yeah. Thanks. The next question is from Matthew Costa from CLSA. Matthew wrote, "Thoughts on longer-term strategy for Bald Hill and capital allocation there relative to de-bottlenecking Trains 1 to 3 at Wodgina or executing at Train 4. In terms of sequencing, would these expansions be mutually exclusive at a given point in time? I think the question is a great question in the sense that it really demonstrates the optionality or some of the optionality that sits within the portfolio across our assets. In terms of Bald Hill, we've only just got our first parcel on a ship, and we're ramping up towards having nameplate the end of this half or in that quarter at least. We do believe there is opportunity to expand Bald Hill. We're doing some work on those options. We see the potential to. That plant is quite simple, so the incremental capital cost of doing that expansion won't be significant. That's one of the things that we're working on. Wodgina, I think we've talked about before. We talked about that in May. That's a fantastic asset. That's something that we're working on at the moment in terms of progressing the design. We're looking at the options there. We're doing that in conjunction with our great JV partner, Albemarle. Those two decisions are separate decisions. Obviously, they fit within the overall capital allocation framework, and one of the things the board will want to think about is where it's pointing, where we collectively are pointing capital into the future. They are separate decisions. Thank you. There are no further questions, and that concludes today's call. Please reach out to the MinRes team if you have any follow-up.