Would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Ian Purdy, CEO. Please go ahead. Thank you, everyone, for joining our fourth quarter conference call. With me today in Sydney are Paul Hemburrow, our Chief Operating Officer, and Anna Sudlow, our Chief Financial Officer. Paul and the whole team have delivered an outstanding quarter with strong production at the Langer Heinrich Mine and another key milestone progressed at our PLS Project in Canada. The Langer Heinrich Mine finished financial year 2025 strongly, with the commencement of mining executed successfully and safely during the quarter. The expected benefits from the introduction of fresh ore into our processing plant were realized, and the performance this quarter is evidence of a significant step taken forward in our ramp-up of the Langer Heinrich Mine. Noting the progress made in the ramp-up during the quarter, the company has also pleased to provide financial year 2026 guidance for the Langer Heinrich Mine. The guidance sets the roadmap for Langer Heinrich as it transitions from its continued ramp-up during financial year 2026 to expected full operations in financial year 2027. At our PLS Project in Canada, the final Environmental Impact Statement was formally accepted by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment and is currently undergoing a public review process. The acceptance of our final EIS is the culmination of many years' work by the Canadian team and is a credit to their consultation processes and the quality of the work which has been completed. Finally, I'm also incredibly pleased to report that the Board of Paladin has appointed Paul Hemburrow as the next CEO and Managing Director of Paladin Energy, effective from the 1st of September. Having worked closely with Paul for the past two and a half years, I can confirm he is an incredible leader who has the skills and experience to drive our company forward. The entire global senior management team share my excitement with Paul's appointment. Thanks again for attending. I'll now hand over to Paul to run you through the operational highlights for the quarter and also step through the Langer Heinrich Mine guidance for financial year 2026. Thanks, Ian, and good morning, everyone. What I'll do is I'll talk through the quarterly results at Langer Heinrich Mine. I'll move into the Langer Heinrich Mine guidance and we'll conclude with the remaining highlights from other parts from the company. I'm pleased to report that Paladin achieved a number of significant milestones in this quarter. Our Langer Heinrich Mine recorded a 33% increase in quarter-on-quarter production, producing just over 993,000 lbs of U3O8. This is the highest quarterly output since the mine's restart and brings our total production for the financial year to GBP 3 million. Additionally, we achieved the highest quarterly crush or circuit throughput in the history of Langer Heinrich Mine operations, with 1.17 million tonnes processed, beating the previous record of 902,000 tonnes in the March quarter of FY 2014. This result was achieved on the back of mobilizing the mining fleet, which brings us to nearly 50% of the planned mining operation. More importantly, however, we delivered primary ore from the pit to the crusher, complementing the medium-grade stockpile feed with coarse high-grade material. We've also seen continued stabilisation of our overall recovery at 87%, as well as an increase in the grade of crusher feed to an average of 477 ppm for the quarter. This exceptional performance is a testament to the hard work, problem-solving capability, and dedication of our team, and the team's results have proven three key things, and they are: the project delivered what we thought it would, an increase in the process stability and de-bottlenecked throughput. Secondly, that our hypothesis about adding fresh ore from the mine and optimising blend strategy to improve handleability and grade will deliver an uplift in production of U3O8. And thirdly, that we have the capability to mine efficiently and effectively to deliver the results that we need. I could not be more pleased with this quarter's performance, and I look forward to building on this capability in the year ahead. Our financial performance remains strong, with the cost of production at $37.50 per lbs, which largely reflects the increase in volume and continuation of low-cost stockpile drawdowns, as well as access to mining in previously bluffed and uncovered ground in the GP. We achieved an average realised price of $55.60 per lbs for the quarter, which is a function of the timing and composition of the contracts that we delivered against in the quarter. For the full financial year, we received an average realised price of $65.70 per lbs, reflecting the company's balanced portfolio contract with a mix of basis-related fixed and market-related pricing. Our cash and cash equivalents stand at $89 million, with an undrawn $50 million revolving debt facility. This does not include a cash receipt of $29 million received in July for revenue recognised in the June quarter. I'll now move into the FY 2026 guidance for Langer Heinrich Mine. Let me start by reiterating where we are at today. Langer Heinrich Mine has approximately 49% of the mining fleet in operation today. The processing plant is delivering at record production rates, and we have a medium-grade stockpile of approximately 2.2 million tonnes remaining. The Langer Heinrich Mine will continue its operational ramp-up during FY 2026. Over the course of the year, we'll transition from processing stockpile medium-grade ore to processing primary mined ore. We expect the operational ramp-up to be completed by the end of FY 2026, with full mining and processing operations planned for FY 2027. We intend to provide annual guidance FY 2027 in July 2026. Key aspects of our FY 2026 guidance: U3O8 produced 4 million lbs- 4.4 million lbs, sales between 3.8 million lbs and 4.2 million lbs, a unit cost of production between $44 per lbs and $48 per lbs, with capital and exploration expenditure betw`een $26 million- $32 million. I'll talk to these numbers directly, and I'll start with U3O8 produced. Production is primarily a function of three things: crusher throughput, grade, and overall recovery. In crusher throughput, we've seen a significant uplift in plant performance, which has been driven by a number of factors, the most significant being the ability of the mining operations to deliver tonnes. In the year ahead, we will observe three key performance aspects. Firstly, mobilisation of the remaining fleet in the first half of the financial year and subsequent commissioning of that fleet during the second half of the financial year to give us full mining operations. Secondly, concentration of the mining fleet in the GP area with a significant proportion of time spent on overburden removal and low-grade stockpiling in the first half. This means the first half of the year will be largely processing of medium-grade stockpile and lower levels of primary mined ore feed to the crusher. Thirdly, opening up productive lower benches of the GP for the second half of the financial year. Looking at these three performance aspects, while we expect a strong first half of FY 2026, aligned with the performance that we saw last quarter, we expect a stronger second half to deliver in the guidance range. On grade, I'll provide transparency at the end of every quarter going forward and provide verified grade numbers. What we know, though, is that as we feed stockpile ore into the crusher and optimize the blend as we go, we see two primary impacts: improved grade and improved throughput. The grade is reconciled after crushing and following a mass balance from the plant. The actual grade input into the plant will vary as we change blends and access different parts of the stockpile and the mine. I'll do the work, optimize the performance, and report grade after that work is complete. As I mentioned before, quarterly production blends are expected to vary during FY 2026, mainly due to reduced primary mined ore feed into the processing plant in the first half of FY 2026. Production is expected to be higher in the second half of FY 2026, with a high level of primary ore feed available to blend with a medium-grade stockpile material. This brings me to the third component: overall recovery. Improvements in processing plant performance achieved FY 2025 are expected to be sustained in FY 2026. Our guidance is based on considered plant availability and utilization assumptions and includes allowances for expected water supply disruptions, estimated planned and unplanned maintenance activities, and general plant disruptions based on historic performance. During FY 2026, Paladin expects to continue delivering uranium to its global customers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. We continue to look for opportunities to layer new contracts with high-quality counterparts. Sales volume, cash receipts, and realized uranium pricing are expected to vary quarter on quarter due to the timing of shipments, individual contract terms, and prevailing stock prices. We do not expect to buy or sell material on the spot market during FY 2026. Based on our contract book as of July 2025, the forecast to realize uranium price sensitivities for FY 2026 under a range of spot assumptions are in the table within the announcements. To wrap up the commentary on guidance for Langer Heinrich Mine, I'd like to reiterate that the last quarter has given us confidence that we can deliver full processing and mining operations by the end of FY 2026. This is the final ramp-up year, and while the first half will be strong, the second half will be stronger. We're confident in our plans for FY 2026 and look forward to achieving our operational and financial targets. Let me quickly cover the other aspects of the quarterly performance report before we move to questions. At the Patterson Lake South Project, the final Environmental Impact Statement was formally accepted by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. As Ian had mentioned earlier, our winter drilling program delivered the most significant radioactivity results ever recorded on our tenements outside of the Triple R deposit. These results enhance our understanding of the flume trend and reinforce the long-term strategic value of the project. Safety and sustainability remain our top priorities. We record an average total recordable injury frequency rate of 2.7 million hours, exceeding FY 2025 safety target. We also continue our investment in local communities, supporting the establishment of a breast cancer clinic in Swakopmund State Hospital and partnering with Cricket Namibia to develop the Mondesa Cricket Hub. Ian covered off on our leadership changes, and I'm extremely pleased to be taking on the role of Managing Director and CEO in September. I'd like to quickly take this opportunity to acknowledge Ian's outstanding contribution to Paladin over the last six years. We'll now open the floor to questions. There are a lot of questions registered already, and I ask that you limit your questions to two per person. If you have further questions after the close, please follow up with Paul or our team. I'll now open to questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Alistair Rankin from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Good morning, Ian, Paul, Anna. Well done, another consecutive quarter of solid production growth, and also congratulations to you, Paul, on your appointment and to you, Ian, on building the company to where it is now. Good luck with your future endeavors. For my first question, you mentioned that for the FY 2026 guidance, you'd factored in allowances for expected water supply disruptions based on the historical performance. Performance over the last couple of quarters seems to have been, or the last quarter has been, okay, but are there any further work streams to improve the consistency for water supply from Nam Water planned over the near term? Yeah, thanks for the question, Alistair. We have seen an improvement in the performance of Nam Water and the Orano Deep Salt Plant. We've also improved our unit of water consumption on site, and we have both of our bladders up and running successfully. During the course of the year, we also commissioned a second Swakop River extraction bore, and we have our new TSF Palan Dam in operation. This means that we've improved the capability of the water balance on site, and we're in reasonably good shape moving into the year ahead. For the last outage that Orano had, we had very, very minimal disruption to the processing facility due to the installation of these infrastructure changes. Perfect, thank you. Just my second question, could you give an update on how you're going with the dewatering of that GP? I know you've stated that you're targeting by the end of the CY 2025, which seems to line up with when you're expecting the final few with the final mobilisation of your mining equipment, just looking for an update on where it is right now. Yeah, Ian and I were in Namibia a couple of weeks ago and had a look around the GP in detail. There's actually only one very small part of the GP that still has some water in it. There's a little bit of seepage, but it's not a huge volume. What we're able to do is over the next couple of months, we'll do the topsoil clearing, we'll pre-strip the pit, drill and blast, and I don't anticipate any significant challenges from that small pit with some water in it still. Okay, perfect, thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Ian, Paul, and Anna. Thanks for taking my questions. My first one, I just wanted to ask FY 2026 sales guidance is $200,000 lower than production. I just wondered if you could provide a bit of color and commentary around what that discrepancy is pointing us towards, please. Daniel, thanks for your question. Nothing in particular other than our current schedule of expected shipments. As you know, Dan, we get periodic really large value shipments out of Walvis Bay to our global customers. We take a view with our customers on a high-level shipping schedule over the forthcoming about 18 months. We've based our guidance on that, but it is subject to variability depending on when the actual ship arrives or if the customer can move a shipment a month forward or back. I think it's a realistic estimate that sales may be a little bit lower but close to production. Having said that, it could quite easily swing the other way with the timing of one particular shipment. It's our best estimate. We think it's appropriate for the market to assume sales are a little bit lower than production at this stage. Okay. I've noted that the unit costs provided in June and the FY 2026 guidance exclude low-grade stockpile costs. Should we expect that to be consistent over the life of mine? I guess when was the decision made to start excluding those? I guess the costs associated with stockpiling low grade, has that been provided in historical CapEx forward guidance estimates as well, please? Hi, Daniel, it's Anna. What we've provided in the June quarterly is the actual cost for the low-grade stockpile processing. We haven't provided guidance on it because it is quite variable quarter to quarter, but we are committed to providing that actual number to you in our quarterly result. I think historically we have provided that information. If you look back at our PDFs release, the low-grade stockpile will be included in there. I believe the NI 43-101 has the low-grade stockpile build cost in as well. I don't think there's necessarily a change in treatment. It's more about how we're disclosing that for you. Dan, maybe the only other thing to mention is this is a new item, right? Because we've commenced mining. We haven't had these costs up until this quarter. Thank you. Appreciate your answers. I'll hand it over. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Bullen from Canaccord. Please go ahead. Morning, all, and congrats on that quarter. You produced close enough to 1 million lbs of uranium for Q4, but the bottom end of your guidance for FY 2026 is 4 million lbs. Is there some maintenance or other things that we should be factoring into our numbers? I was just a bit surprised that for the bottom end of your guidance, you're not anticipating any improvement going forward. Yeah, thanks, James. What we're anticipating in the first half is a performance that is aligned with what we saw in the last quarter, which I think will be reasonably strong and then stronger in the second half. We've factored in a number of days for planned preventative, planned corrective maintenance, as well as water outages. We think this is a number that's been developed quite rigorously. It's a bottom-up build, and I think it's a number that we can confidently achieve. Got it. Understood. Thank you. I was hoping someone else would ask about the average realised price, but I guess I'll have to. Pretty low, clearly driven by one of your contracts or maybe more. Do you expect this lumpiness of realised price to occur in FY 2026, or do you think it'll be closer to your sort of average matrix performance dependent on the spot price? Hi, James. Yes, it was 55 for the quarter, but as I think Paul noted, 65, 70 for the year. We do expect that our price outcome will be aligned with that realised price table guidance we've provided. I agree it will be very lumpy and variable because, as you'd appreciate, it's a function of deliveries in the quarter. What you can assume is, for this quarter, we were delivering into one or more of the earlier contracts. Looking forward, what we've done in our marketing strategy is to layer contracts over time. We would expect that pricing would potentially go up in the future as we strike contracts into the future. We've taken that balanced approach to the portfolio around pricing. What you're going to see is a mix of mechanisms every quarter. What we've tried to achieve here is really good downside protection with considerable upside exposure. I think the guidance table on realised pricing is our expect for FY 2026. Does that low price contract end soon? James, all of our contracts are a duration between three to five years. That contract would have started this year, would have been potentially, let me just, yeah, it's three to five years. On average. Yep. Thank you. Your next question comes from Milan Tomic from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi. Ian, thanks for the call. Just interested, at the current rate that you're going, when do you expect to deplete the medium-grade stockpile? I guess if I can ask it another way, what do you expect the split to be between fresh ore and stockpiled ore in FY 2026? Maybe just the second one, is the fresh ore performance as it relates to the grade in line with your expectations? I appreciate you can't give a specific number, but just interested in if that's performing in line with your expectations. Thanks, Milan. The second question first. Yes, it's performing in line with our expectations. I've been really pleased with the contribution to an uplifting grade. Your first question, when will we deplete the stockpiled ore? What we've been doing is creating a blend as we uncover the stockpiled ore based on how we judge the handleability characteristics of that ore. The blend ratio has been changing quite a bit. Over the next half year, as we strip GPs, we'll have a bit less prime ore available. We're just going to need to be a bit careful about how we blend the ore to get the best economic outcomes from that stockpile. What that means is the stockpile could be depleted sooner or later, potentially as late as the end of this calendar year. Great, thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Regan Burrows from Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead. Good morning, all. Congratulations, Ian, Paul, and Anna on a good sort of finish to the year. Just following on from James's question earlier with regards to performance over that first half. If we're to assume a continuation of the 4Q in terms of processing tons and potentially a little bit better, does that mean you expect a declining grade over the first half? I guess what visibility do you have on that? Yeah, thanks, Regan. What we will process in the first half is more stockpiled ore than fresh feed ore. The stockpile has continued to surprise us on grade. I guess we'll see what happens as we progress through that stockpile. We'll have some prime ore coming out of GPs in this next half. I'm pretty confident we'll have it stronger the second half than the first half. The current half, I think, will be in line with the previous quarter. Great, thanks for that. Just on the sensitivity to uranium prices, if you compare that table to what was initially provided at the beginning FY 2025, particularly at that top end as the uranium price starts to go up, you have sort of a decreased sensitivity to that increased uranium price. Is that just a layering in of lower fixed price contracts, or are there additional volumes that have been signed since then? In C, it's primarily due to the mix of contract deliveries to various contracts. In the first year, we obviously left some flexibility in our contract book and had a more flexible arrangement with one of our customers that provides market pricing. It's a very similar contract book between the two years, but in the second year, there's just more deliveries to different pricing mechanisms. Great, thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Dim Ariyasinghe from UBS. Please go ahead. Sure, thanks, Anna. Congratulations on finishing the year for wet sale. Just following up on that previous question on realised price. If I was to just do a straight read of the price sensitivity table that you've just provided, spot price of $100 gets you a realised price of $79. I compare that to what you provided a year ago, and that would have been $85. For me, it's very hard to compare the two and not think that you have a lower realised price going forward versus wherever spot is. Am I incorrect there or can you help us unpack that a little bit more? I think it's fairly straightforward. The realised price that we quoted for FY 2026 is the result of our balance book of our full contract portfolio, which includes market price contracts, floors, and ceilings, as well as both escalated pricing. That's the price we expect to deliver at those various spot prices as per the sensitivity. The sensitivity provided FY 2025, which has just gone by, was calculated the same way based on the mix of deliveries. As I mentioned, FY 2025, our contract with our customer who provides market pricing also provided us with delivery flexibility, which we took up, but we took advantage of during our first year of ramp-up. What I can say is the overall pricing in our contract book has improved year on year with the rising uranium market that we've seen over the last few years. Overall, our book has improved from last year, and the pricing just reflects the mix of deliveries to those various contracts for that particular year. Okay. I guess just on the idea or the intention to provide guidance FY 2027 as the result, can you walk us through the rationale behind that? It just feels like there's still a lot of variability in the ramp-up. If you could expand on that, please. What we're going to do is provide guidance in the same way as our peers do. We've got a lot of work to do this year, and I think what we've provided is reasonable guidance. We will also add our actuals in our quarterly with a bit more detail. By the time we get to the end of this financial year, I think we'll be in really good shape to be able to provide more thoughtful and accurate guidance for FY 2027. Can I also just note that we're providing now under the TSX quarterly financials and MD&A, so you will be getting a lot more detail on actuals on a more frequent basis, quite detailed actuals. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Oh, good morning. Paul, just firstly, I think you mentioned you would give quarter-by-quarter guidance for grade. I thought you said I might have missed whether you actually provided it, but just curious, you did bottom up. Can you provide us with just the throughput and grade expectation average for 2026 that drives your guidance? Thanks. What we're going to do is provide our actual grade at the end of each quarter. What we're doing in the mine is we're producing a blend strategy to deliver optimum throughput and economic outcomes to your plant. We're going to use the existing stockpile, which, as you know, Glyn, has quite a bit of grade variability, but our mine is meeting our expectations in terms of grades so far. I'd rather understand what the reconciled grade is at the end of the quarter and provide a set of actuals based on what we actually did with respect to the blend strategy and the different bits that we open up during the quarter, rather than provide an estimate of what we're going to do in the quarter ahead. Fair enough. Okay, I mean, I guess you had a bottom-up viewpoint. There is a throughput and grade that you're thinking. You're just not going to share that today. The second question was just on the costs, you know, the cost guidance of $44- $48. Is that directly comparable to the $40 a lbs that we just saw? How do I think about that? Does that mean we're looking at a $200 million cost base, and that would move up a little bit more as you pull the full fleet through in the next six months? I'm just trying to think dollar millions-wise because it is confusing a little bit with the costs and what you capitalize. I'm just trying to think about dollar spend to keep for the mining side. Thanks. Yeah, for last quarter, we had a lower production cost, and that's principally because we had a high volume of material produced, but also we were using previously blasted material. That $44- $48 guidance reflects any of the additional costs associated with the ongoing ramp-up. That's our expect for FY 2026 on average. Like a lot of our metrics, we will see a reasonable amount of variability quarter to quarter depending on utilization of the medium-grade stockpile and how much ore is processed and mined. I think the quarterly view will be variable. We're pretty comfortable with our guidance. It's the outcome of a rigorous budget and review process. Thanks, Anna. I guess maybe if I could just push you a little bit further then, if you look at the quarterly cash flow statement, production cash out the door was close to $50 million for the quarter, so annualizing $200 million. Should that pick up, do you think, as we head through this half and you put a full fleet on, or will there be some other offsets to hold you around that $50 million cash outflow for production per quarter? I think, Glyn, you're better off looking at the production cost guidance than necessarily the quarterly cash flow because that was the mining ramp-up. Also, during the quarter, we had the impact of the water. It's probably better to use the guidance for FY 2026 in thinking about that. Yeah, I guess guidance is for $200 million. If I take the midpoint of your costs and the midpoint of your production, I get $200 million for the year. I guess that's what I'm sort of trying to rationalize and understand. I think that's right. All right. Thanks very much. Thank you. Your next question comes from Branko Skocic from E&P. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Thanks for your time. Maybe one for Paul. You've mentioned full mine operations are expected FY 2027. i'd be interested in whether this implies you're comfortable with the original production targets from the 2021 feasibility study, or should we be interpreting this as these will be under review as you move into the CEO role over the next couple of months? Thank you. Thanks for the question. Look, there's a lot of work to do between now and 12 months' time. What we will do is we'll go through a period where we bring in some additional fleet at the back end of this year and optimize a small capacity fleet that we've got currently on the stockpile and optimize that fleet. At that point, I'll really have a good understanding of the overall fleet capability. We'll have 12 months of processing plant performance. We've got a bit more time to further optimize the plant. By the end of this financial year, I would have done the work to really understand the capability of the full mining operation, which is why I'll be giving guidance at the end of this financial year on FY 2027. Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Just a quick one on costs and just how we should be thinking about long-term costs in the context of what was a pretty decent fourth quarter number, but then also some weaker guidance FY 2026 if I compare the guidance versus where consensus is at. Yeah, sure. Obviously, we provided you the 48 for FY 2026, and we'll provide an update FY 2027 guidance next year. We run an annual rigorous process. As we do so, we source the data from the current year. That will be our process going forward. Actual costs are going to vary quarter- to- quarter. Just bear in mind that this is a transition and ramp-up year. We are impacted by the production volume of the year. What you see this quarter is the benefit of that higher volume being reflected in your production cost. Nothing. No worries. Thank you. Thank you. Given the time, we ask that you please limit upcoming questions to one question per person. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden from Jefferies. Please go ahead. I just had a follow-up question on the loan material. I just wanted to understand how much, I guess, the loan material cost was you're inferring FY 2025 and into FY 2026, and if that was impacting, I guess, your health, our final product inventory for reconciliation purposes. Sorry, Dan, it was quite hard to hear you. We're using loans on an ongoing basis. I think we've disclosed that we're basically using it to manage working capital. We expect that loan volume to remain between $400,000 lbs and $500,000 lbs on an annual basis. I'm not sure I missed part of your question, so I'm not sure if I've covered what you asked or whether there was anything else. Sorry, I was just asking if the cost of that loan material and if that was impacting the finished product inventory reconciliation. No, it's not material, and it's not impacting the inventory reconciliation. For us, it's really just a standard tool we're using to manage the working capital cycle. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Alistair Rankin from RBC. Please go ahead. Alistair, your line may be muted. Thanks for the follow-up. You mentioned that the key driver of stronger throughput is going to be delivery of the remaining mining equipment and increased material movement, particularly from the GP. Is that the only bottleneck to reaching your peak annual throughput rate of 5.5 million tons per annum right now, or is there some front-end plant optimization that you can do as well? Thanks. There's always continuous improvement opportunities in a processing facility. I think we've got some work we can do over the coming months in the processing plant. Primarily in mining, it really is the delivery of the remaining mining fleet that's going to arrive at the back end of this year. We'll start assembly of that kit, and as we commission that equipment into the mine, we'll decommission some of the smaller fleet off the stockpile. That ultimately, at the end of FY 2026, gets us to our full operational capability. Okay, perfect. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Regan Burrows from Bell Potter Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks, Anna. You mentioned in the quarterly no disruption to shipments over the past quarter. Are we to assume that you successfully met your contract requirements, or were you sort of successful in collecting those volumes down? I guess if you were successful in collecting those volumes down, are they pushed out to a later date, or are they effectively cancelled? Dami, thanks, Regan. No, we met all those requirements for customer deliveries in the quarter. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Hemburrow for closing remarks. Thank you. Paladin has made significant progress this quarter, and we're well positioned for FY 2026 and FY 2027. this is the final ramp-up year. I'm looking forward to presenting detailed results on a quarterly basis in the year ahead. I thank you all for your continued support. Thank you very much. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.