Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the call over to your first speaker today, Mr. Dale Henderson, Managing Director and CEO. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thanks, Desmond. Good morning, and thank you all for joining us today. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which PLS operates. From where we are joining the call today in Perth, we acknowledge the Whadjuk people of the Noongar Nation. We also recognize the Niyamal and Kariyarra peoples on whose land our Pilbara operations are located. We pay our respects to their elders, past and present. Joining me today is Luke Bortoli, our CFO, and Brett McFadgen, our Executive General Manager of Operations. We're also supported by other members of the senior team. This call will run for approximately an hour. We'll begin with a presentation on our March quarter performance, followed by Q&A. We will address questions submitted by the webcast at the end of the session. The March quarter has been a transformational period for PLS. We delivered on several major strategic objectives: the successful implementation of the P850 operating model, yielding tangible cash cost savings, the on-plan ramp-up of the P1000 expansion project, marking the completion of a major investment cycle, and the acquisition of the Colina Project through the Latin Resources acquisition, adding another high-quality growth option to our portfolio. These achievements were delivered while maintaining our fortress balance sheet, setting us apart in a volatile environment. We operate in a sector known for its cyclical nature. Our strategy has always accounted for this volatility, not just to mitigate the risks, but to capture the opportunity. While lithium prices are currently at cyclical lows and geopolitical tensions have created uncertainty, we remain confident in the medium to long-term outlook for lithium. Today, while our focus is the March quarter results, we will also highlight some of the longer-term structural foundations that underpin our resilience and our future growth. Please turn to slide two. PLS is the world's largest independent hard-r ock lithium producer. Our independence gives us the flexibility to respond with agility in a fast-changing global market. Our foundation is the long-life, high-quality Pilgangoora operation in Western Australia. Our investments in the P680 and P1000 projects have established a leading lithium processing platform with increased capacity and expected operating cost improvements to follow, strengthening our position on the global cost curve. We continue to diversify geographically and downstream with our POSCO joint venture in South Korea and new growth options in Brazil. We also maintain a strong balance sheet, ending the period with AUD 1.1 billion in cash and undrawn facilities, providing a foundation of strength and flexibility. This balance sheet position is the product of disciplined capital management decisions over the past few years. Luke will recap on this history a little later. Turning to slide three, our strategy is anchored by disciplined reinvestment through the cycle. Over time, this has delivered scale and can provide meaningful reductions in operating costs, care of that scale, and care of the new processing capability within these expansions. With the P1000 expansion now built and ramped up, we are moving into the optimization phase. This marks a shift from construction to performance improvement, setting the stage for enhanced margins in FY 2026 and beyond. Turning to slide four, some key highlights for the quarter include in the operations, TRIFR reduced to 3.22, reflecting our continued focus on safety. Production of 125,000 tons and sales of 125,500 tons were on plan after accounting for the six days of Tropical Cyclone Zelia, which was the cat 5 cyclone which came into close proximity near Port Hedland. We also had the ramp-up of the P1000 project successfully completed and, as I said, has now entered optimization phase. As it relates to our projects and joint ventures, completion of the Latin Resources acquisition, adding the Colina Project to the PLS stable, and the POSCO PLS joint venture, also called PPLS, progressed well with production ramp-up and customer certification progressing. Lastly, as it relates to financials highlights, revenue of AUD 150 million supported by a 7% increase in the realized price to $747 per tonne, operating cash margin of AUD 39 million despite ramp-up headwinds and a lower part of the pricing cycle. This, of course, laddered down to a robust cash position of AUD 1.1 billion. FY 2025 guidance, we're reaffirming across all key metrics. With that, I'll now hand over to Brett for a deeper look at our operations. Over to you. Thank you, Dale. Start with safety. In the March quarter, we delivered a solid safety performance at Pilgangoora with a 12-month rolling average TRIFR dropping from 3.58 in the prior quarter to 3.22. We did, however, report three recordable injuries, which was disappointing, and we continue to implement safety program initiatives such as the Visible Felt Safety Leadership program. This program of work resulted in over 800 hours of safety-related training with our leadership group, empowering our people to create a safe work environment. The March quarter spodumene concentrate production volume decreased to 125,000 tons compared to the prior quarter. Adjusted for Tropical Cyclone Zelia, this was on plan with the difference between the last quarter primarily due to no contribution from the Ngungaju plant for the full quarter under our P850 operating model, planned downtime for P1000 tie-in, and the impact of the ramping-up activities. Total material mined was 5.6 million wet tons, with the reduction compared to the prior quarter in line with the P850 operating model. I'm pleased to advise good progress continued in our transition to an owner-operator mining model through the March quarter, with a number of excavators and ancillary mining equipment commissioned, realizing further improved operating efficiencies and cost improvements. We look forward to the addition of operational efficiencies and cost improvements this will provide over time. Lithium recovery of 67.1% in the March quarter was lower than the prior quarter, as expected, due to the impact of P1000 tie-ins and ramp-up. The commissioning activity can negatively impact recoveries as the plan is interrupted frequently by the very nature of commissioning, with parts of the circuit undergoing flow rate and durability testing to ensure construction was to design. This is outside of the normal steady-state operations pre and post P1000 integration. Despite this, recoveries did exceed external forecasts. We expect to see recoveries trend upwards in the June quarter as commissioning activities have concluded. Turning to slide six, as Dale mentioned, we've now substantially completed a two-year investment in the Pilgan plant via the P680 and P1000 expansions. P1000 was commissioned in the March quarter, with first ore achieved on the 31st of January 2025, and all performance test required criteria achieved in February. Aside from the impact of Cyclone Zelia, the Pilgangoora plant has operated to plan, delivering daily targeted production volumes during periods of expected plant availability. We will continue to further optimize the plant in the June quarter and expect to see key metrics continue to improve. It's not an understatement to say that these two projects have completely transformed the Pilgangoora operation. We've added an additional 420,000 tons per annum of production capacity and, via the ore sorting facility, increased our ability to capture more lithium units from our ore body. We've also added new technology, which gives us greater operational flexibility to react to market conditions. Most importantly, we've created scale and efficiencies, which will enable us to reduce unit operating costs and capture margin through the cycle. Thank you, and I'll now hand back to Dale. Thanks, Brett. Just to add, the ramp-up quarter has been a fantastic success when you consider what's involved in integrating and bringing online one of these circuits and what is a very large brownfields expansion. The success has actually been set up by a fantastic construction builder during the course of the year, on time and on budget. The rubber really meets the road in ramp-up when you are integrating. To do that in a live operation and what is a material step-up in volume, as Brett mentioned, is quite a feat. Just to remind everyone, and this is pretty obvious, building in the Pilbara is not easy. Doing hard- rock processing is not easy, and it's even harder when you are bringing to life what is probably the most complex integrated processing circuit, which has been built to date. A hell of a feat to deliver this on plan despite the impacts of what is one of the largest cyclones we've seen in the region for many, many years. Well done to the projects team, well done to the operating team and all the team at PLS. It's been a great outcome and really proud of the result. Moving to slide seven, PLS has steadily built a portfolio of strategic growth options, each designed to provide flexibility, diversification, and value creation. As it relates to Australia, and as mentioned, the P850 model is delivering cost savings as expected, and the Ngungaju processing plant remains on standby, ready when market conditions are appropriate. As it relates to the midstream demonstration plant, construction has resumed, made possible care of the WA State Government grant funding that we received to us in Calix. Thank you to the Cook Government for that support. The P2000 feasibility study, we are deferring that to FY 2027 to preserve optionality. Moving to South Korea, our PPLS joint venture with POSCO is progressing well. Train 1 has certified production serving two customers so far, and that is set to increase. Train 2 is advancing towards certification. Great to see that progress. We have also agreed with POSCO to defer the PLS call option on our equity step-up from 18%- 30%, and we are deferring this potential point into FY 2027. Grateful for that agreement from POSCO. I would also add that as it relates to South Korea, we had a team in Korea last week to catch up, and fantastic to hear all of the positive news around how POSCO is traveling, but more generally, the South Korean battery market as one of these emerging western hubs. Really excited to hear the discussions coming from those meetings last week at the Fastmarkets Conference. Moving to Brazil, we completed the acquisition of the Colina Project, a countercyclical all-scrip transaction. We believe this will be highly accretive to shareholders over time. A small target drilling program and study work is underway with results due in June 2026. Of course, all of these initiatives are considered through a capital management framework focused on long-term value creation. Of course, intrinsic within that is making sure any investment is timed appropriately with the market. With that, I'll now hand to Luke for a review of the financials. Thanks, Dale, and good morning to those on the call. Please turn to slide nine of the presentation for a summary of the group's key financial metrics for the quarter ended 31 March 2025, or Q3 FY 2025. Group revenue in the March quarter was $ 150 million, a 30% decrease on the December quarter. This was driven by a 39% decrease in sales volume, partially offset by a 7% increase in the average realized price. The average realized price increased from $700 per ton in the December quarter to $747 per ton in the March quarter. Production volume of 125,000 tons in the March quarter was 34% lower than the prior quarter. As has been mentioned, lower production volume was driven by the impact of a full quarter of the Ngungaju plant in care and maintenance, P1000 expansion in ramp-up, and unplanned downtime caused by Cyclone Zelia. Sales volume of 125,000 tons in the March quarter was 39% lower than the prior quarter, driven by the lower production volume. Looking at unit costs, unit operating costs on an FOB basis increased by 10% in the March quarter to $685 per ton compared to the prior quarter. The potential for an increase in unit operating costs was outlined in the December quarterly and primarily reflects the impact of P1000 times in ramp-up. Pleasingly, the increase in unit costs was better than our internal plan due to continued operating efficiency improvements, including from the transition to the P850 operating model. Total operating costs in dollar terms were lower quarter- on- quarter. However, lower production volume offset that benefit and resulted in higher unit costs. Unit operating costs on a CIF basis were also 9% higher than the prior quarter at $796 per ton, with the higher FOB unit costs partially offset by lower royalty costs and lower shipping costs. Turning now to slide 10. Slide 10 shows a cash flow bridge for the March quarter FY 2025. The group's ending cash balance as of 31 March 2025 was $1.1 billion, as mentioned earlier, and remained strong. Cash declined by $ 109 million in the March quarter, primarily due to planned capital expenditure of $ 101 million. Focusing on cash margin, our cash margin from operations defined as receipts from customers, less payments for operating costs was positive, and $39 million in the quarter. Cash margin from operations, less capitalized mine development costs and sustaining CapEx, was also positive, $12 million in the quarter. The cash flow improvement benefits of the transition to the P850 operating model are now being reflected in cash margin. Turning to investing cash flows, total spend of $ 101 million was made on CapEx in the March quarter. CapEx on an accruals basis was $ 103 million and comprised growth CapEx related to the P1000 expansion project of $ 40 million, infrastructure and projects of $ 37 million, mine development costs of $ 21 million, and sustaining CapEx of $ 5 million. Turning now to slide 11. Over the last 18 months, the group has proactively implemented a series of cost reduction initiatives. Slide 11 summarizes those initiatives. Notwithstanding the group has had a strong net cash position over this period and was not facing balance sheet pressure, the group made a strategic decision early in the cycle to focus on maintaining its strong balance sheet. This is a competitive advantage which PLS holds in the lithium sector. These initiatives have included pausing on dividend payments in January 2024, reducing planned capital expenditure in January 2024, implementing a workforce reduction in March 2024, and transitioning to the P850 operating model in December 2024. In aggregate, these initiatives have delivered reductions across operating costs and capital expenditure. Lithium is a fast-growing and constantly changing sector with a strong growth outlook, which Dale will speak to in the next section of the presentation. Fast-growing sectors often feature volatility. The group was an early mover on cost reduction initiatives in response to this price volatility. Today, the group remains highly committed to balance sheet preservation. It is strongly positioned to manage through the cycle, given past decisions and a continued focus on prudent financial management going forward. I'll now hand it back to Dale. Thanks very much, Luke. Moving to the market on slide 12, pricing over the quarter has moved to the right with limited fluctuation for the period. Pricing for spodumene concentrates is approximately $800-$820 per ton on an SC6 basis at this time, depending which price reference you're referring to. I note that this level remains well under the expected long-term price averages that are being projected, including those estimates that have recently been revised downwards. As it relates to supply, from a supply side, market share appears to be consolidating amongst the lowest cost operators, and of those, some are certainly reporting margin pressures or outright losses. Given this, it's reasonable to assume pricing moves upwards. The big question is when. Historically, the lithium market has tended to respond rapidly and catch the market by surprise. Time will tell if this occurs. From the demand side, there are some very, very strong indicators which I'll now touch on in brief. Moving to slide 13. EV sales have started the year very strongly. This graph details the monthly EV sales trend for the past four years. The green columns indicate the sales this year. EV sales for March 2025 are up an estimated 29% year- on- year. A pretty remarkable feat in the context of some of what you read in the papers around EV adoption at this time. Of course, this indicates the underlying trend continues to remain strong. Moving to slide 14. The battery energy storage system, or BESS, as it's called, continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Installed capacity grew by 52% last year and is predicted to grow by approximately 68% this year. To date, the capacity growth has concentrated in just a handful of countries. As such, this is potentially the toe of a very large global market as other countries seek this energy solution. Moving to slide 15, this graph on the left is a representation of the breakdown of lithium demand between calendar year 2024 and 2025, and on the right-hand side is a projection for the next six years. Now, moving to slide 16. To close, this slide outlines the longer-term outlook for lithium demand. Forecasts indicate demand is expected to grow by 89% between now and the end of the decade, a compelling signal of the sector's underlying strength. On the topic of tariffs and broader trade uncertainty, the potential impact on the lithium industry remains unclear. That said, there are a few important factors to consider. Firstly, the U.S. currently represents a relatively small share of global lithium demand, less than 10% as it relates to EV sales last year. While it's an important future growth market, it is not the major driver of global demand today. Secondly, growth in lithium demand continues to be strong and organically driven in key markets, most notably China, where EVs have passed price parity with internal combustion engine vehicles last year, driving broader adoption. This appears to be a sign of what's to come. Lastly, tariff-related uncertainty may also create headwinds for funding and development of new lithium supply. In this context, companies like PLS, with scale, a strong balance sheet, and established operations, may be well placed to benefit from tightening supply dynamics over time. Time will tell. As for PLS, I can confirm we remain in full off-take compliance and hold no concerns regarding our sales order book. As a signal of market health, we recently placed a small cargo, which attracted strong buyer interest and achieved market-aligned pricing. Before we move to questions, I'd like to leave you with a few closing reflections. The March quarter marked a major step forward for PLS. We successfully implemented the P850 operating model. We completed and ramped up the P1000 expansion, and we welcomed a new growth asset with the Colina Project in Brazil. We've now entered a new chapter, underpinned by a more scalable, efficient, and lower-cost operating platform. Combined with our strong balance sheet and a strategically diversified portfolio, we are well positioned to navigate the current environment and capitalize as the market turns. While near-term volatility remains, the long-term fundamentals for lithium are compelling and continue to strengthen. We remain confident that our disciplined execution of our strategy, our operational track record, and financial strength will provide a strong foundation to deliver long-term value for our shareholders. With that, I'll now hand back to you, Desmond, to open the floor for questions. Thank you. As a reminder to ask questions, please press star one one and wait for a name to be announced. To cancel your request, you can press star one one again. First question comes from Jonathan Sharp from CLSA. Please go ahead. Hi, Desmond. First, you mentioned a dedicated team identifying and implementing cost reduction initiatives. Can you just elaborate on that a bit? What are you focusing on, and what are the potential magnitude of sort of further cost savings? Thanks. Sure. I'll start on that, and Luke might want to fill the details. It is worth just reflecting, going back in time, as the company grew and we were moved into a position where we could get on with investment back into the base, central to that was the same of taking us further to the left of the cost curve. Historically, that was about improving processing capability. Much of that investment, we are at the back of completing the new crushing ore sorters, the online analyzers, and other tools to improve recoveries in the plant. That has been happening. We have improved our power this year in the form of LNG coming online. That is both a carbon reduction and cost reduction. Brett mentioned in the mine that we have been moving through a transition to own or operate for mining. Our own excavators, we've got our own people in the whole fleet. We've taken over drill and blast. By the way, all of that's happened over the last 12 months. Outside of that, as it related to the plant, CSI, of course, departed side care of the new crushing ore sorters. We're self-performing crushing and ore sorting. There's been this trend of taking over the core business as we've moved from contractors to own or operate. That all ladders through to cost reductions. That brings us to really the outlook. Luke and team have set up a very robust continuous improvement regime, which hunts for and implements further cost reductions. There's a bevy of smaller value items which are being pursued, but there is quite a long list to work with over time. Of course, the highest order cost-out initiatives are scale, improved processing capability, taking over the core business, and achieving higher recoveries. Luke, have you got you want to add to that? I'll add a little bit. I'll just be repeating a lot of what Dale said. At the moment, we're going through the FY 2026 planning process, and the focus is across-the-board cost reductions. A key driver of the cost reductions in the next period will be the maturity of the operation. Now that we're moving to a larger production profile, the transition to the own or operator mining model, which Dale mentioned, reductions to capital spend, and also looking at supporting overhead costs and how we can reduce those as well. It's really an across-the-board focus on cost reduction. For FY 2026, it'll reflect an organization that has reached a nameplate capacity and maturity, which allows us to turn the dial further on cost reduction. Okay. Thanks for that. Just a quick question on recoveries. I know they dropped this quarter, and you mentioned it was due to P1000 time and ramp-up. What specific recovery rates are you targeting after the optimization in next quarter? Thanks. Yeah. Thanks, Jonathan. The recoveries that we have started to see coming out of our ramp-up periods are certainly exceeding the mid-70s, low to mid-70s. That is where we know we can target that 75%. Now it comes down to, as Dale and Luke attested to, as some of the cost-saving initiatives is adding in some of the additional content material, which will affect recovery, but actually provides us with a cheaper unit cost as well. In terms of the plant, it can do the mid-70s, and we think we will be able to get it higher in the next 12-18 months. It is really about what the quality of the feed that we can send it to and just making sure that we are targeting the right unit costs for the right outcome. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the insights. I'll pass it on. Thank you for the questions. One moment for the next questions. Our next questions come from Hugo Nicolaci from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Morning, Dale and team. Thanks for the update this morning. Just firstly, a question on strategy. I look at the growth projects. The Pilgangoora extension study has been deferred about 18 months. The Colina timing seems to be slipping a little bit as well. I appreciate the current market conditions do not support the original timelines of either of those projects, but you are still $ 700 million net cash at the quarter, and you are still highlighting the positive operating cash margins that you are generating now and expect to continue to generate as the P1000 project ramps up. I guess beyond the cash conservation strategy, how do we think about strategy near-term? Do you still see yourself as a countercyclical acquirer, or do you already have enough optionality in the portfolio? G'day, Hugo. Thanks for the question. As it relates to the project timing, as it relates to the Colina Project Brazil, we're continuing to progress that with the target of drilling and studies, and there's quite a detailed review process and train. That timeline is principally driven that we think we can achieve more with that asset, but we need to do more to understand that in terms of studies and drilling. That's the principal driver of that. Although studies are very early stage, we also like the idea of lower capital entry for that project. It's too early to confirm that, but that's a potential development. There is a potential development pathway there that the team needs to work through. We are exploring that. As it relates to P2000, yeah, obviously, it's a big step up. We're pushing that to the right. One of the related factors is approvals timelines, but it makes sense for a number of reasons to push that to the right. To your point on countercyclic acquisitions, well, we've got a full plate, and right now, the focus is really consolidating on the base, ensuring we achieve this good ramp-up, which we've done, making sure the June quarter is successful as it relates to optimization, and really cementing our position as a low-cost operator. That is the high priority. So that's what's giving our focus at this point in time. All right. Thanks for that, color Dale. Just a second one if I can, just around some of the exploration targets and drilling. Obviously, resource update comes out in a couple of weeks, but just around the extension of the northern system, I guess, what are you hoping to achieve there? I mean, if the northern system extends, does that help you recut the mine plan and access some shallower material and maybe push out into the, well, longer term, the need to go underground, or is it too early to tell? Yeah, too early to tell. Yeah, there is potential for some beneficial tons for the mine plan, but yes, too early to confirm that. Much like the drilling we are doing at Colina, we have been very targeted around what we are looking to do there. The good news about the Pilgangoora asset is it is an incredible system. In the years to come, when the time is right, we will get the rigs back out there in force. For now, it is just very much targeted because we think it potentially is in our interest to improve the mine plan in the near term. Thanks, Dale. I'll pass it on. Thanks, Hugo. Thank you for the questions. One moment for the next question. Is there a question? We seem to have an issue. Can we go to webcast? We seem to be having some technical problems with the queue, so we'll just move to webcast questions while we get those sorted. Dale, one question here from a shareholder is, in your opinion, do you think the shares in PLS have been oversold, and where do you see the company in five years from now? A couple of big questions now. For the first part, of course, I think they're oversold, but of course, I would say that. As to where do we see the company in five years, that's a really exciting question when you consider the growth outlook for the lithium industry and PLS's position within it. We have an enviable position given the strong foundation we've built, the absence of really other major players supporting this massive growth industry, that coupled with the pipeline of growth options that we can navigate to market over time when the market best supports it. That sets the company up, I think, for an incredible trajectory over the next five years. Now, what that could lead to, that's the exciting question the executive and board get to work with. Thank you for your patience. We now have the questions from Kate McCutcheon from Citi. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks, Desmond. Hi, morning, Dale. Hi. You've got the government funding for the midstream. Do you have clarity around the 10% production tax credits and whether that's applicable to spodumene processing, or is there any government benefits played in the medium term? Just tying in, are we still going to get an update on medium term how to think about the P1000 or P850 costs, or will FY 2026 guidance be a good guide for that? Yeah, sure. Thanks, Kate. As it relates to midstream, I'll have to come back to you on the production tax credits. I'm pretty sure it does qualify for that. However, as it relates to that midstream demonstration project, that was sized as a demonstration project, not necessarily with the expectation of a large revenue earner. Obviously, it's price-dependent on the overriding lithium market. If a tax credit is attributed to that, of course, that helps. The underlying driver for that demonstration project is to prove up the concept, validate unit cost, validate price of product, and from that, use that as a stepping stone to a larger deployment. We'll happily take production tax credits and any other benefits the government would like to provide. As it relates to the second question, I'll hand to Luke. No problem. Hi, Kate. With respect to a midterm view on cost, we will provide guidance for the full year 2026 period at the full year 2026 results. It will be a view to what our midterm cost structure is because the Pilgangoora operation will have achieved nameplate. Obviously, over the midterm, the mine plan will fluctuate, which will have an impact on cost. We do not intend to provide a midterm target, but FY 2026 will be indicative of that. Okay. Got it. Just to clarify, going back to the production tax credits, putting aside the midstream, do you need to clarify if there's anything for Pilgangoora, or there's not at the moment? It's just the downstream? Yeah. For the spodumene concentrate, Kate, my understanding is no, the production tax credit is not attributed to spodumene concentrate production. Thank you. Then just on the P1000 ramp-up, you have given us those metrics in slide six. Thank you. How do we think about the ramp-up to get to that? Is it 4.9 million tons of ore throughput a year? I think it is, and that recovery ramping up towards 75%. What does the next 12 months sort of look like? I know we do not have guidance, but when can we expect those nameplate metrics? Sure. I'll offer a comment, and then Brett can then fill. In the very immediate term, we're stepping into the optimization phase. We're actually running that now. What that means is moving from the ramp-up, so we're now effectively steady-state and tuning the operation. All going well, we expect the bulk of that to be complete in the June quarter. There's potential some of that moves into the September quarter, but the team is certainly working hard to try and complete the bulk of that in the June quarter such that as we step into next financial year, we are at nameplate or close to. As it relates to long-term recoveries, we've not changed our targets there as it relates to long run, 75% of our average head grade. As it relates to the more medium term, specifically next year, that will be a product of the budget process, which we're in the thick of now. We are contemplating different ore feed strategies for the purpose of lowest cost production. Now, there's potential in that and targeting a lower unit cost that might take a minor hit to recoveries. For clarity, we haven't made any decisions around this. We're in the planning phase, and ultimately, that guidance will come later as Luke's mentioned. Brett, did you want to add to that? Look, no, there's not a lot more to add. It's exactly as you said, Dale, but it is pleasing to see that in the early ramp-up parts, we have seen the circuit perform very well, and that bodes well for our budget planning for FY 2026 and beyond. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Thanks, Kate. Thank you for the questions. Our next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Morning, Dale. Firstly, just on the POSCO JV and the exercising of the option extension, have you had to give anything away to get that out of POSCO? You're good, Glyn. There were a few minor commercial matters which were tidied up as part of that. What sort of is more important to trump all of that is the strategic collaboration we have with POSCO. We approached POSCO about seeking this extension to which they've provided that, and we're really grateful for that. Yeah, we're proud of our association with POSCO and excited to see where we can take the relationship over time. Just on the you approached them to have the extension, what was the basis for that approach? Because of the slow ramp-up and everything else that you just wanted more time, and they were quite amenable by the sounds of it? No, no, two items there really. The first is, yes, it provides more time, which is great in terms of being able to observe the performance. More importantly for us, it's about cash preservation and as we think about the outlook for the business. Okay. That's great. Maybe one for Luke. Luke, I mean, obviously, you're leading a team to try and pull costs out to think about the business. I mean, if you think about the business on a whole, operating costs, your sustaining CapEx, your stripping in your lease payments. Do you think with an $800 spodumene price today, if it does not move from here, can you envisage you can get this business as a whole to make cash, or is that going to be a struggle you think on an all-in basis? The suite of cost reduction initiatives that we've put in place and the ongoing cost reduction initiatives that we're examining now across all parts of the business, operating costs, CapEx, overhead costs, are really with the aspiration to limit cash burn as much as possible at the prices that you're referencing. I can't speak exactly to what you're asking for because it will come out in our planning process. Yes, it's certainly with that aspiration over the short to medium term. Yeah. Appreciate it. It's a tough environment. Thanks very much. Thanks, Glynn. Thanks for the questions. One moment for the next question. Next question comes from Ben Lyons from Jarden Securities Limited. Please go ahead. Thank you. G'day, Dale, Luke, and team. Yeah, it's a tough environment, as Glyn clearly pointed out. In your introductory remarks, you referred to your fortress balance sheet, and we continue to observe a cash balance of over $1 billion through this prolonged period of weak lithium prices. Further to that, despite those incredibly robust balance sheet settings, which put you at a clear advantage versus your peer group, shareholders have had to endure a prolonged period of share price underperformance versus that peer group. My question's a really simple one. Has the board considered implementing a buyback? Thank you. Yeah. Tell me to start. Yeah, yeah. Go for it. I will start. We have considered buybacks from time to time, and we will continue to do that. Management and the board continuously make capital allocation decisions within the capital management framework that has been outlined to the market. In the current environment, where the management team and board have landed is that ensuring we have a strong liquidity position to withstand persistently lower prices is of utmost importance. As and when the market improves and there is surplus capital available, we will consider then the most value-accretive options for shareholders, and that will certainly include a potential buyback. Yep. Nothing to add yet. No, thanks, Ben. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Further to the line of questioning from both Kate and Glyn, around the sustainable op cost settings for this business, back in the June quarter of 2024, when the operation was absolutely humming, you achieved FOB costs of less than $600 a ton. As we look forward, fiscal 2026 should be an uninterrupted year of P850 production settings. Is there any conceptual reason why you would not be targeting similar levels below that $600 a ton level? Thanks. Yeah. Ben, we're deep into the planning process now, and we'll reveal all once we've completed that as part of our guidance. We're in good standing. We really are in terms of where I think we will land relative to those levels. I prefer to wait until we've carried the one, done the numbers, and we can come out with confidence. Yeah, we are in a really good position, here, for all the investment we've done. The new fleet taking over drill and blast, the new plant with all the whistles and bells, and the scale. There is an element of economies of scale. All of that adds through to what will ultimately be an improvement in unit costs. I'm sorry I can't give you numbers today. No, that's all good. You can see the unit costs coming down. The balance sheet's really robust, and you're thinking about a buyback. It's all very positive. Thanks, man. Thanks. Thanks, Ben. Thank you for the questions. Next question comes from Rob Stein from Macquarie. Please go ahead. The P2000 expansion, and investment in Colina, do you evaluate that against a buyback and what the IRR of investing in your base business would be? Because I would imagine at these levels, nothing has a better risk-return than buying back your stock here. Yeah. Yeah. G'day, Rob. Yeah, thanks. I think I missed the front of that, but I think I got the gist of it, which was evaluating share buyback relative to the other investment options for the business. The short answer is, of course, we will complete that evaluation in accordance with our capital management framework. Yeah, all of these avenues get sort of evaluated side by side. The short answer is yes, that evaluation will continue to happen. Okay. Just in terms of strategically, how you potentially navigate the down cycle and what you do to use scrip to buy Latin, which proved to be a really wise move given your share price has dropped since your scrip is an asset to you in any type of M&A situation given your strong balance sheet. Is that something that you'll potentially strategically look to manage to, in fact, try to find a point in the cycle over the next one or two years when it does make sense to acquire assets using that scrip to do so? Yeah. You are quite right, Rob. Obviously, that avenue is available to us. As I mentioned earlier, really the key focus for us is the core operations at this point, having got to the back of the investment cycle. What we are looking to do is really capitalize on that investment. That is priority one. We already have sort of a full bevy of options secured that we can pursue for growth when the market supports. As I say, focus is the core operation. Thank you. Thank you for the questions. One moment for the next questions. Next questions come from the line of Levi Spry from UBS. Please go ahead. G'day, Dale and team. Happy Easter, everyone. I'll feel way down the list. I think some of this ground's been covered, but I really just want to understand, firstly, on the POSCO piece and then the planning process around price. The deferral of the POSCO option, is that around price or is it around costs, i.e., how you're thinking about the costs in the downstream? Maybe, Luke, just as you're going through this budgeting process, can you talk to how you're thinking about modeling the price scenarios, I guess? G'day, Levi. As it relates to the POSCO deferral of the call option, which we covered a little earlier. I hope I've got your question right. Please correct me if I haven't. It's about cash preservation. Of course, we get the other benefit of more time to observe the performance of the operation. That's the principal reason there. Does that answer your first question? Yeah, kind of. Or you're still monitoring the performance of it. That means operating costs, I mean. I imagine volume and operating costs and therefore margin. Yeah, I kind of get that. Maybe just on the budgeting process then, how are you managing that cost, your business cost line versus your expectations for price? Is it against spot? Yes. Thanks for the question, Levi. The budgeting process is really a broader planning process that involves the mine planning team, capital team, corporate team, and various other inputs across the organization. It is a pretty thorough and broad process. The reason I say that is because we adopt the same thoroughness to when we think about what are the potential scenarios going forward. We, of course, think about price scenarios that are higher and price scenarios that are lower than spot. I will hand it over to Dale, but I would say, at least in this current market environment and from what we can see, the potential for upside is more significant than downside given that if you look across the cost curve, there are a large number of operators that are operating at a loss at the moment. I will hand it over to some pricing outlook. Yeah. No, I think you've covered it, Luke. I think we're in a good standing. I think the year has sort of to cover in the slides. Your demand outlook looks amazing. As Luke said, supply side's struggling, including what you'd expect to be the lowest cost, largest operators. Something has to give in that scenario. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Happy Easter. Thanks. Happy Easter, Levi. Thanks, mate. Thank you for the questions. One moment for the next questions. Next up, we have Al Harvey from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Morning, team. Just another one on the POSCO JV. Just wanted to get a sense how you're thinking about that. I suppose you've mentioned Train 2 will reach certification later in 2025. Are you willing to put a more, I suppose, firm date on when you think that might occur? I suppose it is important. I think back of the envelope, it's around AUD 200 million bucks to exercise. Correct me if I'm wrong. I suppose just to follow on from that, how are you thinking about how that number could compare to a fair value valuation of the asset if you don't pull the cost option? Yeah. G'day, Al. Yeah. Your timing's obviously for that decision out to the right. The value of that's based on the equity subscription plus a small escalation factor. That would be a lower cost entry point than the fair value. We haven't disclosed fair value estimates, but I think it's fair to presume that would be a value much higher. As to more broadly, the progress of the plant and how the team is going over there, we are very positive on what we've seen. Obviously, the construction itself was well executed. As we've been observing the ramp-up, that too is going very well. As we've noted in the release today, the certifications which have been secured for the first train were some of the best in the business in terms of buyers. Once the train are more certification, not yet finalized, but on its way. That is looking good. As it relates to the second train, and as noted in the quarterly, that production volume is being managed such that we get certification because obviously you get a higher price once the product is certified. Does that sort of fill in some of the gaps for you? Yeah. Thanks, Dale. Maybe just a second one for me. Just wanted to clarify the earlier comments on recovery. Obviously, you're still looking at different feed strategies. I just wanted to clarify, if you did feed in a higher proportion of contaminated material, could you still get to that kind of 75% recovery target, or is that 75% target kind of predicated on optimized clean feed? Sure. I'll hand to Brett on that one. Just to close on the last question, the team's handed me a note. At exercise price for equity today, it would be about AUD 60 million on that one. Hopefully, that helps sort of quantify it's smaller in the scheme of things. As we're moving to the recovery question, you want to speak to that one, Brett? Yeah. Thanks, Al. Yeah. The recovery of 75% in our long-term life of mine recovery is predicated on the work we did with the ore sorters. The advantage we have with the ore sorters is able to add in more of the stockpiled contaminated material, which drops our mining rates, which then gives us that unit cost benefit. That is really the trade-off that we could do with targeting slightly lower recoveries. Having said that, the optimization for the plant will always continue to target higher recoveries. It is the bread and butter of the plant. I would not expect to see the recoveries going down into the late 60s. They will hold pretty well around the 70s, I believe, in the future. Yeah. Probably just to add out on the optimization phase will be key to understanding where we might be able to take things in time. Going back in the years, a lot of test work was done, a lot of modeling. In terms of where can you push the ceiling to, you do not really know that until you start operating at scale. We are early into that process. We are pretty optimistic on where we can take things and the knowledge that we have got some fantastic processing capability that we did not have previously, whether it is the ore sorting at the front end, the online analyzers, upscale, the WHIMS, which is the high-intensity magnets, which can rip out iron-related materials. All of the above are new tools the operating team did not have at this level previously. If you cast your mind back, we were already having very high recoveries in the mid-70% or sort of 73%, around that sort of level pre this capability. Interested to see how we go in time. Ultimately, if it goes well, we will get to re-rate the reserve, which would be pretty awesome if we can do that. Yeah. Thanks, Dale. Maybe just back to the $60 million number. I just kind of thought my understanding was the build was about $900 million. 12% at cost would have been a bit higher once you factor in some interest. Maybe it's one I can take offline. Yeah. We'll come back to you on that one, Al, if that's all right. Cool. Thanks, Dale. Okay. I was going to take some questions from the webcast. First question, when do you foresee prices of spodumene recovering and what impact does the tariff have on production and sales forecast for the company? Great questions. The current price mismatch is hard to reconcile given what we've covered today, the strong demand, the fact that much of major operators are losing money at this pricing. It does not compute. I think part of the reason for that is the market is somewhat dysfunctional given that we're still working with reported prices rolled up through price reporting agencies, not live trading platforms as seen in other mature markets. I think that's part of the explanation for the price dynamics we see today. What we have seen historically, a care of that dysfunction is price has historically snapped back, much to everyone's surprise. Maybe that occurs again. We don't know. As to timing, yeah, incredibly hard to predict. Of course, we're very optimistic given the low pricing deep into the cost curve, the strong demand outlook. It has to move up is our view. Question is when? Okay. Thanks, Dale. Next question, where does PLS sit on the spodumene cost curve and are the petalite resources cost-effective now? As it relates to where PLS sits on the cost curve, really the best indicator of that will come as part of our next set of guidance for the financial year ahead. Why? Because we will be able to build into that the strength we're expecting for care of all the investment that we've made and the new plant and what we've covered in this call. As to the petalite resources, are they cost-effective? Our understanding is no. It's a higher cost of lithium units, much higher than the better spodumene concentrate and better brine sources. Our understanding is some of the operators of those petalite operations are doing so because they can manage out and/or absorb those costs elsewhere within their business. Yeah, our view is the petalite's higher cost. Okay. With that, that completes the hour. I'd like to thank everyone for dialing in today. The March quarter has been a huge quarter for the business, a very successful ramp-up quarter, and we are well positioned for the future. With that, I'd like to thank you all, and we look forward to updating in the future. Thank you very much. That does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.