Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Pilbara Minerals June Quarterly 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. Please note Pilbara Minerals will be taking one question per person, with one related follow-up question permitted. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star 11 on your telephone. Pilbara Minerals will be taking some questions from the webcast towards the end of the call. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Pilbara Minerals Managing Director and CEO, Dale Henderson. Please go ahead. Thank you, Maggie, and a warm welcome to those who have joined us on the call today, in particular to our long-term shareholders. Thank you for your ongoing support. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners on the lands on which our businesses operate, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar Nation in Perth, where we are undertaking a call today, and the Nyamal and Kariyarra people, where our operations are located in the Pilbara. We pay our respects to their elders, past and present. With regards to introductions, I'm joined on the call today with Luke Bortoli, our CFO. Also in the room, I have a number of teams supporting the call. For the call today, we have an hour, and we'll step through a presentation followed by a Q&A with the remaining time. We'll aim to keep our comments brief. We have approximately 25 minutes for analyst questions and 5 minutes of questions from webcast. Now, the June Quarter. Well, the June Quarter was one of strong operational performance and on-track project delivery. In fact, it was a record-breaking quarter to close out what has been a very successful growth year for the company. Now, as all will be aware, it's been a softer market to operate in. We've had a decline in pricing through 2023. Then, in the December quarter last year, it was still declining. As we went into March quarter of this year, we saw a reversal in that trend, and then it's essentially been flat pricing since. Now, the team has kept focused on controlling what we can control, discipline delivery, delivering on our commitments, and the June Quarter speaks to exactly that, finishing off what has been a very strong year of performance. Moving to Slide 2 for the highlights. Here we are. So, 26% increase in production to 226,000 tonnes achieved through strong throughput, strong runtime, and healthy lithium recoveries, averaging at 72% for the quarter. 43% increase in sales to 236,000 tonnes. This step-up is a function of shipment timing and strong production volumes. 12% reduction in unit operating costs from the combination of volume uplift and ongoing cost down efforts. As to revenue, a 58% increase owed to the strong volumes and small improvement in average pricing. Pricing for the period was slightly up at the start of the quarter before leveling. As it relates to the projects area, the expansion pre-feasibility study, the P2000 project, was delivered, offering the potential of 2 million tonnes per annum future production capacity. A highly accretive project delivering optionality for the business and positioning Pilbara as a supply partner of choice. Also, in the projects category, the P680 and P1000 projects tracking on time and on budget. Great to see these scale expansions moving forward safely and with momentum. This brings me to guidance for FY 2024 and FY 2025. I'm pleased to advise and confirm that FY 2024 guidance was achieved and exceeded across all metrics. As it relates to the FY 2025 guidance, we have taken the decision to bring this forward and release this today. The basis of this early guidance is due to the unique year ahead. We have the combination of expansion project integration in combination with continues to drive operational and efficiency improvements. We'll take you through this shortly. Now, I'd also like to note, you know, for those who are reading the Word document, under the section of guidance, table 1 and table 2 of the document, the unit cost units are incorrect. This should be Australian dollars per tonne, not U.S. dollars per tonne as currently listed. So, we will get that correction out very shortly if it's not already out at this time. Apologies for that correction. Now, moving to Slide 3. As it relates to safety, pleased to report further improvement in safety with the reduction in TRIFR from 3.73 in the prior quarter to 3.63 for the June quarter. A lead indicator for safety interactions also trending well above target. Moving on to Slide 4. Strong quarter for production performance, where the built capacity and optimized capacity of the P680 primary rejection facility are yielding strong benefits during the quarter. High points for the quarter included solid lithium recoveries of 72%, on-plan mining performance of 9.2 million tonnes versus the March quarter of 9.3 million tonnes, and a huge quarter of sales with 235,000 tonnes. Well done to Melody and all the shipping team. Moving now to Slide 5, the P2000 project. A quick reminder of this. We announced our P2000 PFS. It's a highly accretive project offering highly value accretive returns with an IRR of 55%. It provides expansion optionality. It provides further improvement in unit operating costs. And of course that affords potential partnership opportunities to which we have a number of major partners making inquiries. Now, I'd like to stress we'll only expand when this expansion makes sense for our shareholders and partners, of course, taking into consideration the market outlook. Pilbara Minerals' growth strategy to date has been one of phased and incremental step-ups with the market. We will continue to follow this philosophy. This potential expansion presents a powerful option that reinforces Pilbara Minerals' position as one of the leading scale low-cost operators globally. Next steps is the next level of feasibility study, which is due in the December quarter next year. Now, moving to Slide 6 for a quick update on our joint venture with POSCO. Our progress with the downstream joint venture with POSCO is progressing well. Initial production volumes of technical and battery-grade lithium hydroxide were produced during the quarter, and Train 1 achieved 45% of nameplate, targeting full capacity by the end of September quarter. Train 2 commissioning activities expected to commence in the second half, with ramp-up scheduled for next year. Now, moving to Slide 7 for FY 2024 guidance. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the outcomes against guidance were very pleasing, with all metrics meeting or exceeding the targets we were chasing. This is a fantastic set of outcomes of what's been a challenging year building out the base. It's timely to reflect that scaling up any operation is bloody difficult. This has made more challenging when it's in a remote location and even more challenging when it's a hard rock lithium operation, with limited expertise. The Pilbara Minerals team has really delivered. The team at Pilbara has both lithium project delivery and lithium operations know-how, accrued over six years of operation, and a unique culture focused on outcome delivery care of our great people. To this end, I'd like to thank the full team at Pilbara Minerals and our contracting partners who have pulled together to deliver these fantastic outcomes. Special thanks to Brett McFadgen and his operating team, our projects team, and all the back-office support that has come together. Great set of results delivered by our great people. Now, with that, I'll now hand over to Luke for a review of the June quarter financials. Over to you, Luke. Thank you, Dale. Good morning and good evening to those on the call. Please turn to Slide 9 of the presentation for a summary of the group's key financial metrics for the June quarter. The group was pleased with its performance in the June quarter across both physicals and costs. Group revenue in the June quarter was AUD 305 million, a 58% increase on the March quarter. This was driven by a 43% increase in sales volume combined with a 4% higher average realized price. Average realized price increased from $804 per tonne in the March quarter to $840 per tonne in the June quarter. Production volume was 226,000 tonnes in the June quarter, 26% higher than the prior quarter. As previously disclosed, FY 2024 production volume was weighted towards the second half of the financial year in line with the ramp-up of the P680 primary rejection facility. June quarter performance was underpinned by the P680 primary rejection facility fully ramped up and operating at optimized levels. Sales volume was 236,000 tonnes, 43% higher than the March quarter. This period-on-period increase was higher than production volume and was enabled by focus on optimizing shipment timing before year-end and utilization of our inventory stockpiles. Looking at unit costs, unit operating costs on an FOB basis improved by 12% in the June quarter compared with the March quarter to AUD 591 per tonne. This improvement was driven by production and sales volume enabled by the P680 primary rejection facility. Importantly, unit operating cost FOB of AUD 591 per tonne is lower than both the March quarter at AUD 675 per tonne and the half-year period ended 31/07/2023 at AUD 691 per tonne, showing a trend of improved unit operating cost performance throughout FY 2024. On a CIF basis, unit operating costs were AUD 733 per tonne in the June quarter, a 7% reduction period-over-period. This reduction was driven by the improvement in unit operating cost FOB, partially offset by an increase in royalty expenses from higher average realized prices and sales volumes. Finally, the group's cash balance at 30 June was AUD 1.6 billion and remained strong. I'll speak more about this on the next slide. Turning now to Slide 10. The group continues to maintain a strong cash position with a closing cash balance of AUD 1.6 billion as at 30 June 2024. The June ending cash balance was AUD 156 million lower than the prior quarter, primarily due to continued gross capital expenditure primarily directed towards the P680 and P1000 expansion projects. Focusing on cash margin, our cash margin from operations defined as receipts from customers less payments for operating costs was AUD 123 million in the quarter, reflecting the strong cash generation of the business, notwithstanding the lower spodumene prices we see today. In addition, cash margin from operations less ongoing CapEx than capitalized mine development costs and sustaining CapEx was also positive in the quarter at AUD 59 million. Turning now to Slide 11. Slide 11 provides a summary of the group's key financial metrics for the full year ending 30 June 2024. Full year 2024 performance is headlined by a set of strong results, again notwithstanding the lower price environment. This includes AUD 1.3 billion of revenue as well as positive cash margin from operations. As Dale mentioned earlier, guidance was also met. Group revenue of AUD 1.3 billion in FY 2024 represented a 69% decline on FY 2023, almost entirely driven by the 74% lower average realized price period on period. It's worth remembering that the FY 2023 period captured the historical peak in spodumene concentrate prices, with an average realized price in that period of $4,447 per tonne versus $1,176 per tonne in FY 2024. FY 2024 delivered production of 725,000 tonnes of spodumene concentrate produced, 17% up on the prior period. This was also approximately 105,000 tonnes higher than the prior year and exceeded the top end of guidance for FY 2024 by approximately 35,000 tonnes. Again, this was achieved through expansion of P680 with peak Q4 performance underpinned by the primary rejection facility. Moving down to costs, unit operating costs on an FOB basis were 7% higher in FY 2024 at AUD 654 per tonne. This increase period-on-period reflected the previously disclosed advanced investment in operating costs to support P680 commissioning and ramp-up and was in line with our guidance. As mentioned earlier, the investment in production-related costs to support the ramp-up of P680 is now delivering the benefits of operating leverage via higher production volumes and lower unit costs, as shown in the June quarter with a unit operating cost of AUD 591 per tonne. Unit operating costs on a CIF basis declined by 25% to AUD 818 per tonne in FY 2024, reflecting lower royalty expenses in line with reduced revenue. Turning now to Slide 12. Slide 12 shows the cash flow bridge for the FY 2024 period. As mentioned earlier, the group ended FY 2024 with a cash balance of AUD 1.6 billion. The AUD 1.7 billion reduction in cash during the FY 2024 period reflected a number of non-recurring items. These included an FY 2023 income tax catch-up payment of AUD 763 million and gross capital expenditure of approximately AUD 493 million related to the P680 and P1000 expansion projects. Capital expenditure for the period was AUD 865 million, as measured on an accruals basis. This included AUD 493 million to spend on P680, approximately AUD 140 million on mine development, approximately AUD 89 million on sustaining CapEx, and another AUD 140 million on infrastructure and projects. Cash margin from operations calculated as receipts from customers minus payments for operating costs remained strong during FY 2024 at AUD 513 million. Additionally, cash margin from operations after deducting ongoing capital expenditure being deferred, stripping, and sustaining CapEx was also positive for the year, totaling AUD 282 million. As mentioned, for the June quarter, these metrics underscore that even with lower spodumene prices over the FY 2024 period, the group's cash flow positive based on the metrics outlined above. I'll now hand it back to Dale. Thanks very much, Luke. Moving to Slide 13. As we look forward at the FY 2025 year ahead, it is centered on completing construction and integrating new capacity that brings us further down the cost curve. While also simultaneously continuing to drive operational improvements, the next few slides paint the picture for these integration steps for the year ahead, how this translates to the production profile, and lastly, the flow through to guidance for the year. Moving to Slide 14. A reminder that the P680 crushing and ore sorting circuit is sized for the P1000 expansion with 5 million tonnes processing capacity. This facility, as the name suggests, has ore sorting capability that will provide the benefit of mine reserve support and lithium recovery benefits. This is the largest facility for whole-of-ore feed for hard rock lithium processing. Now, you can see from the photo, construction is largely complete. Cladding is still to go, as you can see in this photo. First ore was achieved from this facility in July, and the project is on track for schedule and budget, with ramp-up now underway during the September quarter. Now, in parallel with this, the team is progressing the next leg of expansion, which is due for time this year, the P1000 project. Moving to Slide 15. The P1000 expansion provides approximately 1 million tonnes in aggregate production capacity across the total operation. The facility comprises a new flotation circuit with a processing train that wraps around the existing facility at the Pilgangoora operations that you can see in the photo. The project is approximately 60% complete at the end of the quarter and first ore targeted for the March quarter next year. Now, as I mentioned, both the P680 and P1000 expansions are being tied in and ramped up this financial year. This requires dedicated shutdowns for tie-ins and has a degree of impact to headline steady-state lithium recoveries. Now, to better illustrate these parallel activities, the team has pulled together a timeline. Moving to Slide 16. Now, at the top of the page, you can see the parallel phasing of the two expansion projects across FY 2025. Both projects require plant shutdowns or tie-ins, and there will be a level of operational impact until optimization is complete, as we saw this past year with the P680 primary rejection circuit. Now, these impacts, of course, translate to an impact on total forecast production volumes for the year. Now, we've provided a visual to illustrate the relative difference from the four quarters. You can see at the base of the graph, base of the slide there. You can see from this that the September quarter volumes are lower, and you can also see that the volumes are back-ended in the second half of the year here of the new capacity coming from the P1000. Now, translating these activities into the guidance for the year, moving to Slide 17. This slide sets out the guidance across the metrics of production volume, unit cost, and CapEx consistent with prior periods. Now, as mentioned in my opening, we have taken the decision to provide this guidance today rather than the FY 2024 results, full year results announcements, given the very exciting but intense execution and ramp-up year we've got for FY 2025. Now, stepping through each of the subcomponents, starting with production volume, our production volume guidance for FY 2025 is 800,000 tonnes-840,000 tonnes. These volumes, of course, reflect the integration requirements of the P680 crushing and ore sorting circuit and the P1000 processing facility. The integration of these two circuits requires additional processing plant shutdowns. It also requires a derating of lithium processing recoveries until such time commissioning ramp-up and optimization steps have been completed. By comparison, the June quarter for FY 2024 represents P680 production volume rates at optimized levels without any impacts from project commissioning and ramp-up. As such, this does not provide a representation of expected performance into FY 2025. However, it does show run-rate production volume of the P680 primary rejection once optimized. Now, moving to operating costs, FOB unit operating cost is AUD 650-AUD 700 per tonne. As noted in my opening remarks, there will be some corrections to the Word doc under guidance for tables 1 and 2, correcting the unit cost from U.S. dollars per tonne to Australian dollars per tonne. So, to repeat, this is AUD 650-AUD 700 per tonne for guidance. Our brownf ields project expansions, of course, in fact, these unit operating costs, as explained earlier here, of this integration and ramp-up. Now, FY 2025 also includes a number of non-recurring costs such as operating mobile ore sorters during the September quarter and high maintenance costs related to extended shutdowns for project handover commissioning and demobilization costs. Now, you'll note that the midpoint of the FY 2025 guidance at AUD 675 per tonne is broadly in line with the March quarter for FY 2024 performance, which is also impacted by the project integration of the P680 primary rejection facility. Now, moving to capital expenditure, the capital expenditure guidance of AUD 615 million-AUD 685 million is a reduction on FY 2024. The four areas of CapEx spend, I'll step through these now. Firstly, we have gross CapEx of AUD 195 million-AUD 215 million, which represents the remaining spend on the P680 and P1000 projects. Secondly, we have mine development costs of AUD 120 million-AUD 135 million, which is broadly in line with FY 2024. Thirdly, we have sustaining CapEx of AUD 60 million-AUD 68 million that includes maintenance, spares, and upgrades. And finally, we have infrastructure CapEx of AUD 240 million-AUD 267 million to support the existing operations, expanded production capacity, and to drive efficiency. This CapEx category includes new, longer-life tailings facilities, new access roads, new warehouses, and new workshops. Okay, now moving to some market commentary on Slide 19. As to the market, well, it appears there's never a dull moment in the lithium market. The industry remains a young industry growing quickly from a small base with continued developments in lithium-ion technology, lithium-ion technology use cases, government support and changes, and, of course, supply chain response. Now, as done in previous calls, I'll touch on some of the major developments in the quarter and offer our observations as a major industry participant. Now, starting with demand, EV growth continues to show broad strength despite some of the headlines. Notable facts for global EV sales per Rho Motion estimates include year-to-date estimate to June, 7 million units sold or a 20% increase year-on-year. The June quarter, 3.1 million units or a 21% increase quarter-on-quarter, or the June month, 1.4 million units for an 8% month-on-month. As it relates to China being a key subset of demand, the EV sales here of the CPCA include year-to-date for June, 4.1 million units or a 33% increase year-on-year. The June quarter, 2.3 million units, which is a 32% increase quarter-on-quarter. And then the June month, 856,000 units at a 6% month-on-month. Further, I would say that for China, EVs have been noted to be cheaper now than combustion equivalents, as reported by Bloomberg NEF. I'll also draw your attention to the two graphs which we've displayed here. On the left-hand side, you can see the EV growth sales estimates. Note the green column there showing a very robust level. And on the right-hand side, you could also see the breakdown of the submarkets. And I'd highlight there that the U.S. and the rest of the world submarkets remain relatively small components of the total demand to date. And the point of highlighting this is you'll note that the U.S. market continues to get a lot of the headlines, but frankly, it has a disproportionate representation of the demand to date. Ultimately, a very important market, but as I say, to date, it's a small market in terms of its total demand contribution. Other demand cases, of course, is global energy storage systems, particularly grid installation. This continues to be increasing. And I note that there's been a 70% increase in the last month, as reported by Rho Motion. Now, moving to government changes, a bit of a mixed bag in this regard. We have seen a level of industry protectionism emerging in the form of tariffs. We saw the U.S. government on the 13th of May quadrupling tariffs on Chinese EVs from 25%-100%. And a month later, on the 13th of June, the European Commission applying tariffs on Chinese EV imports ranging from 17%-38%. However, on the other side, there's also continued stimulus continues to occur. So, a couple of announcements during the quarter. The European Commission, on the 8th of April, approved a EUR 267 million grant to Volvo to build a $1.6 billion, sorry, $1.2 billion EV plant in Slovakia. On the 26th of April, China also announced another subsidy regime for trade-in of old vehicles for new electric vehicles with that subsidy support up to RMB 10,000. On the 11th of July, we had the U.S. government providing $1.7 billion funding support to conversion of ICE factories to EVs. As you can see from these demand indicators, these government responses, the bottom line is some of the doomsday headlines just don't reconcile with the broadly strong growth markers that you can see. Now, moving to the supply side, at current price levels, the supply side appears to be dominated by the larger low-cost suppliers, including ourselves. Higher-cost supply sources are moving out of the supply base, and there appears to be less access to capital for new projects, which, of course, could set up good conditions for ultimately a potential price run in the future. Now, a level of supply is coming from Africa. However, reporting suggests some of these supply sources are also very much cost-constrained. Moving to pricing, well, as noted earlier, the market has seen a softening in pricing across the second half of the quarter, which has continued into July, but it's been broadly pretty level, and it hasn't seen some of the volatility we've experienced earlier. Now, what does all this mean for Pilbara Minerals? Well, as it relates to Pilbara Minerals, well, we continue to see strong demand across all our customers. We continue to field approaches from a number of major suppliers. Supply chain participants are seeking to secure long-term contracts and looking to partner with Pilbara. Now, given this backdrop, we remain focused on maximizing our strengths. This is all about further reduction in cost performance, Pilbara expansion and further cost and efficiency improvements. It's also about retaining our strong balance sheet. Lastly, it's about positioning for the future. And ultimately, what we expect to happen is ultimately higher-priced environments at some point in the future. Now, this is, of course, all achieved through a couple of our key attributes: a tier-one asset, continuing to build and extend our operating track record, a low-cost position, and, of course, a strong balance sheet. With that, that completes our commentary, and I'll now hand back to Maggie to move to Q&A. Thank you, Maggie. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you'll need to press star 11 on your telephone. Please stand by as we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from Kaan Peker of RBC. Please proceed with your question. Hi, Dale and team. Thanks for the opportunity. Just the first question on FY 2025 guidance, 800,000 tonnes-840,000 tonnes it seems like there's quite a lot of conservatism built into the P1000 turn, which is obviously at the second half of the year. Given that you've done above 220,000 tonnes this quarter, how do we sort of think about that conservatism? And is it mainly in 3Q and 4Q that you've sort of baked in possible reductions in quarter-on-quarter production? And I've just got to follow up. Sure. No, thanks, Kaan. Thanks for your question. And as you heard from our commentary, we have emphasized the scale of integration and talked about recovery impacts. And both the integration requirements and recovery impacts are not immaterial. And just to provide a bit more color, the P1000 project is the integration of a much larger circuit, and it's a flotation circuit. It's different from the year just past where we have integrated the P680 primary rejection facility, which is a density system. A density system is, frankly, quicker to optimize as the response time is effectively immediate. Flotation is a different story. Firstly, it's much larger. We've got much more unit step processes connected, and further, that cause and response time is actually longer. What that plays through to is a longer time period required for optimization. That longer time period equates to recovery impacts. That's what flows through ultimately to the volumes for the year. So, frankly, you can't compare the year we've been through to FY 2025 because they're two different years. But I thank you for the question, and I appreciate that it does kind of stick out relative to the strong quarter performance we've had in June. Does that answer your question? Yes, it does. And just to follow up, I think in the quarter, you've mentioned that two renegotiated contracts with clients. So I was just wondering if you can provide a little bit more detail around those, the implications, and essentially, is it more towards index pricing? Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Kaan. Yeah. So two pricing formulas renegotiated during the quarter. That occurred at the back of the quarter, so we'll see the benefits of that flow through moving forward. As to the specifics, obviously, I cannot share that because they're commercially sensitive. But what I can confirm is this gets these particular references back to market pricing. And as a general comment, across our contracts, we have been migrating more to spodumene references at this time. But of course, as mentioned in previous calls, it's always been a bit of a moving feast as it relates to the pricing. And this is they do move around. And as a function of that, we continue to renegotiate periodically to ensure that we maximize our full value for our shareholders for the product we sell. Does that answer your question, Kaan? Sure, it does. I'll pass it on. Thank you very much. Thanks, Kaan. Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Dale, Luke, James, thanks for the call and congratulations on the strong FY 2024 finish. Look, I've got two questions. First question's on recoveries. So what is the recovery target for next year? But then more importantly, recoveries for the midterm, still expecting 72.5% for 5.7% product and 1.25% grade at the mine. That's the first one. And then the second is a general question on pricing, perhaps a follow-up to Kaan's question. It did come in weaker in the fourth quarter of this consensus. I wanted to touch upon that. And perhaps if you can help me understand, is that largely because you've seen a grade discount widening for the 5.2% product across industry, or is it related to perhaps contract structures and you've got rapidly rising volumes which are leading to further discounting? Thanks. You can Rahul, thanks. Thanks. Starting with the recovery, now, we haven't provided guidance on that. But the recovery, of course, as was mentioned in the comments, very much impacted as a function of tie-ins and optimization, which, of course, is built in and ultimately flows through to the production volumes. If we look backwards in the June quarter numbers we've had, the 72% average recovery reflects, obviously, what can be achieved across the two circuits when optimized. And certainly looking forward to, in time, continuing to improve beyond those levels, certainly as we think forward and look at the additional tools that the big ore-sorting circuit will give the team, including online analyzers and so on and so forth. So ultimately, on the other side of all of this expansion, the team will have not only a scale operation but be equipped with superior tools, which ultimately enable the team to continue to improve outright recoveries from what are already very strong recoveries compared to our peers in the market. Now, moving to pricing, now, just to confirm here, there is no additional grade discounts. We apply a pro rata to grade from the headline SC6 prices, so just to square that off. And as to the realized pricing for the quarter, obviously, the two renegotiated outcomes will improve the realized pricing, but the total realized pricing for the quarter is obviously comparable to market references depending on which ones you choose. So as I've mentioned on pricing, it's always been a moving feast depending on indices at different points in time that move out of sync. And I appreciate that that's really challenging for the market because it gets really difficult to try and find an understanding of, well, what is the prevailing market price? And until such time as volumes come into the market and the industry matures, we remain, frankly, a bit challenged and that will be more of the same. Rahul, does that answer your question? Yes, it does on pricing, Dale. Just one, perhaps, on the recovery follow-up. I'm more worried about sort of the midterm, mainly because you have a 10% increase in your product grade. You're expecting to 5.7%, and then you have a 20% drop in grades where they are. You're sitting at 1.5% currently. You're expecting 1.25% once you've ramped up P1000, and your reserve grade is even lower. So that's, I guess, the reason for my question. But if there's any further color you'd like to provide in that context, that would be great. But otherwise, I think you have addressed my question. No, Rahul, all I'd like to reassure is that, firstly, recoveries continue to get stronger and stronger when we look in the rearview mirror. And what lies ahead, frankly, will be further improvement. There's nothing which gives us cause for concern around the combination of head grade coming from the mine or what we're seeing in performance or any of the continued work. In fact, I'm delighted with the work the team is doing to further improve. Frankly, I think Pilbara Minerals is, in many ways, I'd like to think, leading the way in terms of some of these recovery improvements. We remain focused on continuing to build on that strength because we're in the business of concentrating lithium to achieve the lowest unit cost of production. So we're going pretty well. More upside to come and look forward to taking the market through that as we deliver those outcomes. Thanks for your question, Rahul. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Kate McCutcheon from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning, Dale and Luke. Just on your sales versus production for the quarter, you've been producing at 5.2% product consistently, but then your shipments this quarter were at 5.3% product grade. Not a huge delta, but I'm just sort of wondering how does that work? And going forward, do we assume that they match? Okay. Yeah. So the target grade is 5.2%. We do see a little bit of variation around that and the order of 0.1% as a function of, effectively, the error bars through assays, etc., etc. But the target grade is 5.2%, and we're not looking to move from that. 5.2% is, for us, we think, a sweet spot, which enables us to maximize yield from the mine, which, of course, enables a lower unit cost of production. We know that at that level of grade, that's readily processable by our customers and doesn't invite any penalties or so on and so forth. So for that reason, we don't see any reason to change from 5.2% at this point. Sorry, but the question was, you sold, weren't your shipments at a 5.3% grade? Are you saying that's just a rounding? Yeah. Not so much a rounding. There is a target grade of 5.2%. 5.3%, or what gets communicated here, is ultimately from the assays which come from the shipments. And there is a level of inaccuracy which emerges, which is in the order of 0.1% maximum. Got it. That makes sense. I understand it. And then perhaps a question for Luke, the AUD 80 million other investing activities for the quarter, can you just give some color on what that was? Thank you, Kate. It relates to the receipt of proceeds from a minority investment that was sold, but we haven't provided any further detail on that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Kate. Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Rob Stein from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi, Dale and team. Just to follow up to the pricing questions, I'm sure you're enjoying answering. Just if you're able to just give us an indication of the provisional pricing impacts in this quarter, and then similarly, what you expect to fly into next quarter, noting the 84 kt that was in transit at that quarter end. And then I've got a question about P2000, if that's okay. Thank you for the question. I'll take the first part. The provisional pricing impacts for the June quarter were relatively immaterial given the consistency or relative consistency of pricing between March quarter and June quarter. We expect the same impacts going into the next quarter. Okay. Thank you. That's very clear clarification. And then a follow-up just regarding P2000. Can you give us a clarification on the strip ratio profile of your P1000 base case that you've talked about in the previous release and then your P2000 base case? The 7.7 life of mine average is a big, bulky figure. Can you perhaps give us a more granular build-up of how that strip ratio evolves over time in both cases? Yeah. Sure, Rob. Thanks for your question. The strip ratio doesn't change. Life of mine's 7.6 to 1, but much of that is back-ended. Certainly in the next few years, it's more like 4 - 5 to 1, a little bit higher. But it's right at the back of the mine life that we see the strip ratio step up. But as I mentioned, there's not a change in strip ratio between the two cases. It's just more a case of the rate of mining, if that makes sense. Yeah. So for how long should we hold that 5x strip ratio for in that, say, P2000 case? Are we holding that for 10 years? Are we holding that for 15 years? How do we basically, how do we make 5 over a short time period equal 7.7 over life of mine? Yeah. So the team are telling me 10 years. They're holding up their hands. 10 years. And what we'll do, Rob, is the next Strategy Day we will offer some deeper insight into the outlook to help with these lines of questions. But yeah, in the next 10 years. Does that answer your question? Yeah. No, that does. That's good clarification. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rob. Thank you. Our next question comes from Timothy Hoff from Canaccord. Please go ahead with your question. Hi, Tim. Thanks for the question here today. I was just going to dig into that stripping a little bit and particularly how you're apportioning costs on that basis. And thanks very much for providing a lot more detail around cost. We're getting close to an all-in sustaining cost that might sort of actually add up. But just on that AUD 120 million of deferred stripping, how's that line up versus the life of mine strip ratio? Should that cost start to filter into your actual unit operating costs? Thanks, Tim, for the question. What I can say is that the deferred stripping recognized in this year, circa AUD 140 million, is based on an approximate 5x strip ratio. What else are you seeking clarification on? If your life of mine strip ratio is closer to 7, should it be deferred? Or should it be running through your unit operating costs? It's probably a nuanced point. No, the way that deferred stripping is calculated is on a stage basis within pit. So at the moment, the approximate strip ratio for FY 2024 for the stages and the pits is around about 5x. Now, that strip ratio will change through time as we move into different stages, different pits. Yep, yep. No worries. Thank you. Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Hugo Nicolaci from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Morning, Dale and Luke. Thanks for the update this morning. Just maybe want to look on the cost outlook, and I appreciate you giving FY 2025 guidance on costs, but we're hoping to get a better understanding of how much of that cost guidance reflects a step up in fixed costs for P1000. And as we move to FY 26, would you expect another material step up in your absolute costs, or should we start to see P1000 drive significant unit cost benefits once it's ramped up? And I'll come back with a follow-up. Thanks. Thank you for the question. So there's a few components to this. The June quarter FY 2024 cost performance is illustrative of the potential for the operation when it is in a quarter and a period of unhindered production volumes and unhindered by project commissioning and ramp-up and things of that nature. So that is sort of illustrative of what the operation can achieve. Going into FY 2025, there are a few things to note. The total cost base will increase, and that total cost base in dollar terms will increase to support the fact that we've got two projects which are being integrated. So there are some higher costs that relate to that, a lot of which are one-off, and we've noted in our guidance that there are some one-off costs. So what we should see by the end of FY 2025, all going to plan, is that P1000 is commissioned and ramped up. And by that point in time, we'll see the operating leverage benefit of both P680 and P1000. And again, going back to Q4 FY 2024, that is illustrative of the efficiency in the operation we can achieve when we're running unhindered without the impacts of commissioning and ramp-up. Great. That's helpful. Can I just another follow-up on costs, but more on the CapEx side of things? And kind of a two-part question. I mean, initially following on from Tim's question, I mean, that mine development spend, I mean, is that something you the FY 2025 guidance the level you expect then to continue for the next few years? And on the infrastructure projects that you've highlighted, I mean, tailings dam, obviously a significant build, how much of that do you expect to continue into, say, FY 2026 and 2027 still? Thanks. Thank you. So on the first part of the question, in terms of mine development, I mentioned in the call that for FY 2024, mine development cost was approximately AUD 141 million. We're guiding to AUD 120 million-135 million in FY 2025, which is, let's call it, broadly in line with FY 2024. We'd expect those types of numbers to continue going forward over the next several years. And we've made mention of that before. As it relates to your second part of your question, infrastructure and projects, there are projects which are ongoing at site that are necessary to support P680 and P1000 production volumes. We've listed out a few of these. They relate to a much larger tailings facility. Our existing tailings facilities are, by comparison, small and require significant ongoing sustaining CapEx. So that's one component. The second is there are new and larger access roads that are being built, again, to facilitate mining volumes. There's a number of other initiatives like new warehouses and workshops which will support the expanded operation, but also moving to an owner-operator fleet. So this bucket of spend is really around supporting the expansion of the operation, but also driving operational efficiency. And hopefully, some of that color came through in the commentary I gave. There will be some further spend in this area, but we're not guiding beyond FY 2025 at this point. Sorry. And just to confirm, the deferred CapEx that came out of FY 2024, is that all now captured in FY 2025, or are some of those projects still deferred beyond the next 12 months? No, they are deferred beyond the next 12 months. When we revised our guidance in December quarter, there were some CapEx efficiencies that we obtained, and there are also some projects that we deferred. Those projects, in a low-price environment, can be deferred for an extended period of time. Thanks for that. Luke, I'll pass it on. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Al Harvey from JP Morgan. Please proceed with your question. Yeah. Morning, Luke and Dale. Just a quick follow-up on the off-take pricing reviews. Just want to get a sense of how much of the book those two contracts might represent. Hey, Al. Thanks for the question. I'm just checking. It's about 1/3, so not immaterial, those two customers. No worries. Thanks for that, Dale. Thank you. Just a moment for our next question. Next, we have Levi Spry from UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah. Good morning. Thanks, Dale and Tim. Maybe just a question on the Slide 16 ramp-up. Thank you for that. So just thinking about the sort of exit run rates in the June quarter pushing over into FY 26, which sort of let us think about a little bit. How do we think about that in the context of P1000 still ramping up, but probably annualizing already in million tonnes? And I guess markets and how you're thinking about, I guess, the wave of African supply that seems to be out there. Yeah. Thanks, Levi. So firstly, as it relates to run rates, what I draw your attention to is just the annualized production outcome for the total year. We didn't want to break that down on a quarterly basis because inevitably, the team might choose to move some shots or etc., etc. So we'd like to retain that flexibility. But yeah, so all I could draw your attention to is the total production rate for the year. But of course, as we move into the following year for FY 26, we might not be a full P1000 run rate. It'll depend a little bit on how the ramp-up goes for P1000, but we shouldn't be far off, would be my expectation. But of course, we will guide that closer to the time. Moving to your question on the market, yeah, as I sort of covered in my commentary, the current pricing levels, it looks like the market's matured. And to the extent that we have this decent base load coming and supporting the market. So base load in terms of, obviously, demand has continued to increase, and that demand's currently supported by the larger suppliers. It looks like at the current pricing level, it appears to be closest to maybe a swing price, given that we've seen a number of other supply sources come out of the market. In terms of Pilbara's insight, as I noted in my commentary, all of our customers continue to push us for product. There's certainly no issues around any of that. But of course, I'd highlight we are partnered quite deliberately with what we think are the best in the business and some of the strongest groups who are deeply integrated through into Western markets. So we think we're in good standing there. But as I say, we're quite comfortable with what we're seeing. We're not seeing any cause for concern. And for us, it's about keeping focused on delivery. Does that answer your questions, Levi? Yeah, kind of. What about the, so you mentioned marginal sort of supply there. Are you seeing other producers coming out at $900? Yeah. So our insight in this space is not particularly deeper than what others see, just what we hear. So if we go back in time, I think we've seen during the March quarter, some lepidoli te come out of the market. No surprise around that. Closer to home, of course, we've seen one of the Aussie suppliers pull up stumps. As it relates to Africa, speaking with one of the reporting houses this week, she updated me on the fact that she was very effectively letting me know that all the petalite stuff is out of the market and can't compete. All the artisanal stuff, no surprise, is out of the market. And what seems to be left there are some of the lower-cost integrated supply sources owned by the bigger battery guys, etc. So no surprise that they might keep running. But those would be some of the data points I'm aware of. Yeah. Does that help, Levi? Yes. Thank you. Thanks for the extra color. Thanks, Dale. Okay, Dale, we might move to some online questions now. What percent of global lithium production is currently taken up with building storage batteries, and do you see this becoming a potential major use for lithium? Yeah. Thanks for the question. So in terms of demand for the market, it's absolutely majority through EVs and e-mobility at this point in time. But as to mass energy storage and the energy storage systems, it has the potential to be a bit of a sleeping giant. What we have observed over the last few years is its growth rates are significant, enormous, in fact, but it's coming from a very small base relative to the EVs. But as I say, it has the potential to be a bit of a sleeping giant. One of the challenges of mass energy storage as it relates to forecasting is it's a whole brand new use case. So different from EVs where the addressable market for cars is very, very clear in terms of total combustion engines and sort of one in, one out. As it relates to mass energy storage, it becomes much harder because this is about adding in effectively batteries to the side of solar plants and so on and so forth and trying to forecast for how many solar farms there's going to be, etc. It's a much harder job. Anyways, we continue to watch that area with interest. Good question. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Dale. Another question here. Any update on the Calix JV? Yeah. The Calix JV continued to move forward. Construction's underway, as we've noted in the release, and that's moving forward. So look forward to updating in the future on that one. Thanks, Dale. Another question here. Can we expect a dividend announcement in the full year results? Ultimately, that will be a decision for the Board. Under the Capital Management Framework, of course, it contemplates dividends. We'll address that at the full years. But I think it's unlikely dividends will be paid. But as I say, ultimately, that's a decision for the Board, and we'll update it at the full years. Okay. Thank you. Another question here. Can we expect any BMX auctions in FY 2025? Good question. As it relates to the BMX, it's there. It's available. We will consider it. In the very near term, no plan to roll it out. But yeah, it remains there. Okay, Dale. Last question from online from the webcast. Have lithium prices bottomed? Thanks for that question, Trevor. I love the pricing questions. Yeah. Obviously, incredibly hard to predict what is the bottom of the market. However, I do take a lot of comfort from the fact that we've seen other supply sources come out of the market, in particular during the March quarter. And as per Luke's comments to Levi's question earlier, it does look like there is price support around the current level care of swing supply coming out of the market. So of course, there's always downside risk, but we're not seeing any reason for it to go lower. But at the end of the day, this is a young growth market. It's been volatile historically. Incredibly hard to predict. But Pilbara is a low-cost operator, strong balance sheet. We feel we're incredibly well positioned to carry on building on our strength. Okay, everyone. Thank you very much for your time this morning. And I really appreciate all those who've dialed in. And we look forward to future updates. Thank you very much. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect.