Hey, Fidelity. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us for the Regis Resources December Quarter results. In the room with me, I'm joined by our CFO, Anthony Rechichi, our COO, Michael Holmes, and our Head of Investor Relations, Jeff Sansom. Please note we will at times be referring to figures and diag in the quarterly document that we just released, so you may find it useful to have it at hand. I'd also note that the sound quality might be a little bit sketchy. We are actually on the side of Duketon at the moment, so you may hear noises in the background of people doing real work. To kick off, our safety performance saw us finish the quarter without any lost-time injuries. Our 12-month moving average lost-time frequency rate is sitting at 0.4, a great result. Our goal is to provide a workplace that is free from serious injury, and we keep working on continuous improvement opportunities as we seek to deliver on this goal. As for the operational and financial performance, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Looking back to our messages over the last few years, it hasn't changed. Our business has robust fundamentals with great leverage to the gold price, and if you understand the rolling life extension potential of our underground gold mines, then you can see our assets are capable of delivering consistent answers well into the future as we continue to build a sustainable underground capacity. Looking at this quarter, and in fact over the past four quarters, the team has consistently delivered into our plan. The result of this is another solid operational performance, which, when paired with record unhedged gold spot prices, has delivered a fourth consecutive quarter of strong cash generation, surpassing our previous record cash and bullion build by AUD 40 million. Operationally, the quarter was similar to the prior quarter. The group produced just over 101,000 oz of gold at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,317 an ounce, and this includes AUD 47 an ounce of non-cash costs associated with stockpile movements. The average gold price received for the quarter was AUD 4,076 an ounce, and we generated AUD 149 million worth of cash and bullion. By these numbers, our business generated a margin of nearly AUD 1,500 per ounce produced. Now, have a look at Figure 5 in the release, and you can see quite clearly the cash-generating trend of our business, which is a trend that we expect to see continue as we deliver into our full-year guidance, of course, assuming that the gold price stays where it is. I don't think we're seeing anything to suggest the gold price isn't staying where it is, or more to the point, perhaps even increasing. Now, on that positive sentiment, I'll pass over to Michael and then on to Anthony, who will both provide more details to the specifics of our performance. Thanks, Jim, and good morning, everyone. Operationally, I agree with Jim. Our teams have continued to deliver to plan, and our consistency continues to remain strong, delivering on what we said we would. At Duketon, our open pits and undergrounds produced 58,000 oz at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,667 per ounce. During the quarter, we continued to mine from our Garden Well, Ben Hur, Tooheys Well, and Russells Find open pits. These were stable and performed well and produced 23,000 oz at 1.34 g per ton. Our Duketon undergrounds, Garden Well South and Rosemont, performed well and delivered 22,000 oz. As we discussed in the last quarter, as a result of the persistent buoyant gold prices, we commenced the project to test our long-standing low-grade stockpiles in the north. This is an excellent example of our team's agility. However, at this point, its production is not material enough to update our FY 2025 production guidance range. The Duketon mills performed to expectations, and low-grade stockpile material supplemented Duketon mills throughout the quarter, and this will continue for the remainder of FY 2025. Looking at our progress on the development of Rosemont Stage 3 and Garden Well Main underground projects, these works are tracking to schedule, and we are very pleased with the development rates and progress. Duketon is performing to plan, and we are comfortable with the current FY 2025 guidance range of 220,000-240,000 oz at an all-in sustaining cost of between AUD 2,500-AUD 2,800 per ounce. As for Tropicana, this was a production record under Regis's ownership and a very strong quarter, producing 43,000 oz at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 1,773 per ounce. The open pits performed well with persistent good ore production with higher grades of the Havana open pit, particularly within the Havana Stage 5 area. As a result, the open pits delivered 24,200 oz at 1.22 g per ton and in line with expectation. The undergrounds delivered 16,000 oz, which was again in line with expectations. We do note that Tropicana delivered a high quarterly production, resulting in 80,000 oz for the first half for FY 2025. We do still expect FY 2025 guidance at Tropicana to remain unchanged at 130,000 oz-140,000 oz at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,300-AUD 2,600 per ounce. As announced on the 9th of September, the Havana underground development was approved, and this was commenced and is progressing during the quarter, with the project remaining on track. The Regis proportion of the capital cost allocated for this project for this financial year is approximately AUD 6 million. The Tropicana mill performed well to expectations with no unplanned downtime and low-grade stockpile material supplemented mill throughput, which will continue for the remainder of FY 2025. I will now hand over to Anthony, who will discuss the quarterly financials. Thanks, Michael, and good morning, everybody. As Jim mentioned earlier, this has been another quarter of terrific operational performance, with our gold being sold into record spot prices. We sold just over 118,000 oz of gold during the quarter at an average price of AUD 4,076 an ounce, receiving AUD 482 million of gold sales revenue. These revenues resulted in operating cash flows of AUD 215 million, with AUD 101 million from Duketon and AUD 114 million from Tropicana. Now, let's take a look at the cash and bullion movements on Figure 2 in the ASX announcement. We released our cash and bullion balance early in January, so you're aware of the outstanding increase figure of AUD 149 million in the quarter, taking our total cash and bullion balance past AUD 500 million. Last week, we put this cash to good use, retiring our AUD 300 million syndicated loan facility several months early. We're finalizing the establishment of a revolving credit facility at the moment, and we expect this to be wrapped up in the coming weeks. On the capital expenditure front, we spent AUD 54 million all up. Included in that, at Duketon, AUD 23 million was spent in development and pre-production costs across the underground mines, of which AUD 12 million relates to Garden Well Main and Rosemont Stage 3 growth capital, and AUD 6 million spent in plant and equipment, and at Tropicana, AUD 4 million was spent on development costs at the Boston Shaker and Tropicana underground mines, AUD 2 million of pre-production costs at the Havana underground mine, another growth project, and AUD 5 million on plant and equipment. Exploration expenditure included in that capital expenditure amount was AUD 14 million. At McPhillamys, we spent AUD 2 million, and Jim will give you an update on progress there a bit later in this call. So they are the main messages on the financials, and back to you, Jim. Thanks, Anthony and Michael. Now, shifting to Growth and Exploration, during the quarter, we released our biannual Exploration update, and as you will have seen, our Exploration team has been very busy as we continue to demonstrate extensions of known mineralization across our portfolio. We are confident that the drill bit will provide ongoing growth, particularly in the underground. A good case in point is the drilling at Ben Hur, which has highlighted underground potential to the point that we've now established an Exploration target there of 300,000 oz-550,000 oz. We consider that should drilling continue to be successful, this could become our fourth underground mine. At Garden Well and Rosemont, infill drilling is extending known mineralization, increasing our confidence in what is there and also demonstrating the near-term growth at each of these sites. At Tooheys Well, mineralization has been demonstrated to continue down plunge from the pit, where we will now undertake further drilling to test this opportunity. In terms of surface opportunities, surface pit mining, Kintyre, and another Gloster cutback are shaping up as potential additional open pit prospects. Across at Tropicana, the Exploration story is very similar. The more we drill within the undergrounds, the more we find, nice formula. Boston Shaker continues to present impressive widths and grades, extending the limits of mineralization deeper. At the Tropicana underground area, drilling has also identified extension potential both at depth and laterally. Interestingly, follow-up drilling at the Cobbler underground target has also intersected more mineralization, which is very encouraging for an area with no historic drilling activity. And then, from an open pit perspective, the Tropicana team has been active, exploring to the north with encouraging intersections that will be the subject of follow-up drilling in the future. So what does this all mean? Well, for Regis and our shareholders, it provides us with increasing confidence in our ability to deliver on our plans for longer-term life extension. At Duketon, this involves establishing four underground mines and operating them in a way to sustainably deliver 200,000 oz-250,000 oz per annum into the future. At Tropicana, this involves continuing to deliver life extensions of the existing underground and potentially open pit, with a real bonus of some very early indicators of potentially completely new underground production areas. This is a good reminder that while some might currently value us primarily on reserves, our Exploration drilling successes continue to provide us with confidence that our undergrounds will continue to grow in value. McPhillamys, well, I don't have to say I don't have a lot to say there that hasn't already been said, but the two key points of note are that we certainly continue the process of the legal challenge of the Section 10 outcome, and also that we have commenced the long process of developing an alternative tailings storage solution. This is a process we still feel could take a number of years to fully assess and make a final decision. So with this in mind, let's turn to our cash and what we'll do with it. Well, as Anthony talked about, we are now debt-free. Regis is unhedged with no debt. It feels great to say it's actually the first time since we started production back in 2010 that we've been in this situation. I also note that we were well advanced in negotiations for establishing a revolving credit facility, as Anthony mentioned, and once established, this will provide ongoing flexibility and additional liquidity. In terms of the use of this increase in cash, last quarter we stated that our options included debt repayment, internal growth, M&A, and returns to shareholders. Now we've paid off our debt, and what remains is growth and returns to shareholders. So firstly, we'll continue to allocate funds across sensible internal growth options, some of which we've touched. We are now also in a position where we've got more flexibility to pursue inorganic growth options, and of course, there is also the consideration of the returns to shareholders. Our approach will be disciplined and will do what is in the best interest of our shareholders, and we will continue to build long-term value in the company. So to summarize, production in line with expectations, cash generation capacity was once again demonstrated with a AUD 149 million build quarter-on-quarter. We progressed the development of our underground both projects that are both on track. Exploration continues to highlight the near-term growth opportunities embedded across our portfolio, and after the end of the quarter, we snuck in the repayment of the AUD 300 million of debt from our existing cash reserves. Looking to the future, the immediate actions and focus for the Regis team are to continue to grow the balance sheet strength with on-plan operational delivery, continue to deliver in our underground growth strategy by building on our Exploration success to identify new approvable underground mining areas at Duketon, complete the establishment of the revolving credit facility, pursue all legal options to challenge the Section 10 outcome, continue the long process of developing alternative tailings storage at McPhillamys, and leveraging our strengthening balance sheet and strong internal professional skill sets to evaluate options for the next stage of value-driven growth. The team here at Regis should be very proud of what they've achieved over the recent years. This effort is now delivering and resulting in the strong financial outcomes that are now being delivered. So now I'll hand over back to Darcy for Q&A. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Levi Spry from UBS. Please go ahead. Levi? Yeah, good morning, Jim and Team, and happy new year. Thanks for your time today. I don't want to be too greedy, but I've actually got a fair few questions today, so jump straight into production, I guess. Can you just maybe talk us through the half-on-half trends across both production centers? Maybe start with Tropicana. So why haven't you upgraded guidance there? What's the driver of potentially weaker production in the second half? Is it grade-related? And maybe at Duketon, can you give us a little bit more detail on what's happening at Duketon North? I know you say it's not material, but just trying to understand how we think about the trend there. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, there's detail, but the high-level picture at Tropicana is the end of their financial year is the December quarter. It was a very strong quarter, and it's pretty, as we've somewhat seen in these cycles, the following quarter tends to be a bit of a slower one as ounces get dragged around from one year to the next. So we're seeing that in the profile, and basically, I think that's crystal clear as to why Michael pointed out that it was a strong first half, but we're still maintaining our guidance because that's what we're expecting to see. There's detail behind that on different elements of what pit and what we're mining, where and why, but the reality is that we had a strong quarter because decisions on timing of production was a conscious one, and we see the outcomes of that. Duketon and Duketon North, I think our position there is, as we said, at this point, we don't see it being material enough to warrant shifting our guidance, so we're holding our guidance steady. Obviously, we'll review that, and we'll see how that's looking in the next quarter, but that's where we've left it for now. Okay, thank you. And just on underground mining, I think I've asked before, but can we get a bit more clarity on your underground mining costs as that's becoming a bigger part of the business? Can you give us some rates for the two hubs? Look, I think generally what we like to say is that our undergrounds are pretty similar in nature. Sure, Rosemont might be at times, a little higher grade, but it's a narrower vein, and Garden Well is maybe slightly lower, but broadly speaking, the costs are fairly similar. So once the capital establishment's out of the way, like at Garden Well Main, there isn't anything to suggest that the cost at the high level, as in per ounce, is going to be anything materially different. From From what we've said, that's basically as much guidance and detail as I think we need to provide at this point in time. Otherwise, we disappear into the minutia, Levi. Okay. All right. Thanks. CapEx, so CapEx half-on-half sort of trends, can you talk to that? It seemed a bit light in the first half versus guidance. Yeah, good point. You'll note that we haven't changed guidance, so clearly there is a weighting in the second half. Michael, you want to talk through what's driving that? Yeah. Hi, Levi. It's Michael Holmes. It's mainly around timing and scheduling, and particularly the majority of the capital that we've got there is the growth capital of the underground. So getting the equipment on site, we've got sort of the raise bore holes that are currently being drilled. So we have four large raise bore holes. We have four fans and the development. With every sort of new project, as you start development off, you start with single headings, and then you just multiply those headings as you're going further through the project. So there'll be an increase in the capital based on the increasing of the development that we have got to do, as well as the infrastructure that we're putting into the project. It's just timing and schedule. Yep. Got it. Thank you. Yep. Nice one. And have you given us any D&A guidance at all? Anthony? Levi, it's Anthony, how are you? No, look, so similar to last quarter, I remember we were answering a few questions on this as well. Look, we're expecting to start at similar levels, but what you can see on table one there at the moment, year-to-date, we've got AUD 1,090 an ounce there. We expect for it to come off slightly, but remain at similar levels for the year. Okay. Yep. Thanks, Anthony. And I'll squeeze one more in. So I mean, the big one is returns. How's the thinking maturing around this? So revolving credit facility, how big? How are you thinking about sizing it? How's the board? And And you thinking about potentially the returns with the interim? Yeah. How's the thinking around that matured, I guess? Just can you give us a bit more of an update rather than just that list of four elements? Sure. Well, I'll give you an update as much as it's appropriate for me to give you an update because the board has made no decision on this at all, so I've got nothing. Your questions, the revolving credit is definitely something that's an important part of giving us that flexibility and liquidity. Once we've finalized it, we'll let the market know what scale that's at. I have to say, as Anthony mentioned, it was certainly nice having AUD 500 million plus on our balance sheet. But I think we've done the right thing there in certainly paying down the debt. Really, I guess the key question is, what does returns to shareholders mean? And there's no doubt we're in a strong cash-generating position, and profitability is okay. There's a capacity there. I would point out we don't have any franking credits remaining, so that's just one element of it. Not that that's what a decision turns on, but that's an element that considers. The board is considering what the options are and how we might approach that. Obviously, we've got some thinking to do as we approach the half-year results, whether that's the appropriate time or whether the full-year results is a more appropriate time to consider. Any form of dividend there is probably something to give some thought to. So look, Levi, good question. All I can answer you is with the way I've said it, I can't say much more than that. But it's safe to say that it's definitely on the agenda of discussion. But it's got a factor into a number of other things that we're looking at too. Yep. Okay. And last one. So are you paying some cash tax this half? I think that's still something that we're working over. Anthony, you want to add some more color on it? Yeah. I mean, we had, Levi, you're saying that the financials for 30 June 2024, we had some considerable tax losses available to us there. Obviously, we're profitable at the moment. Everyone should expect that with the gold prices that we're getting. So we'll get through those tax losses earlier than we did at the gold prices that we saw six months ago. Don't necessarily expect to be paying any cash payments this financial year, but at these gold prices, we eat those losses quicker than we might have otherwise. Nice one. Thanks, and sorry to be so greedy, but well done. Thanks. Thanks, Levi. Thank you. Your next question comes from Kate McCutcheon from Citi. Please go ahead. Morning, Kat. Hi, Jim. Hi, morning. I think everyone has the what-to-do-with-the-cash question. At Duketon, just the comments that mining continues from the pit through 2025. Can you just clarify? I thought that the pits wound down in 2026 and ended in mid-FY 2027-ish. How should we think about those open cuts there currently and a reminder on how to think about the underground volumes when the other undergrounds come on? What does that ramp-up look like in million tons over the next couple of years? Yeah. Our position hasn't changed. If you look at our, and it's not on this material, but if you look at our most recent presentation, we show we're anticipating a range of production from Duketon North between 200,000 oz and 250,000 oz out to around about FY 2028. And that's a combination of both underground and open pits, with the open pits, obviously, depending on what we bring in, starting to trail off. Our target and our objective is to get the fourth mine running from a production point of view out beyond that so that we can sustain that purely from underground. But at the moment, there's still, I mean, our production comes from a combination of undergrounds, open pits, and stockpiles. And that's the way we see it running in that combination out to FY 2028. Now, obviously, it's not dead flat. There's some years it's low, some years it's high. That's why we provide a range. Okay. And then, as well, the low-grade stockpile project that you're putting through the mill at Duketon North, just remind me how you're thinking about that in terms of how material it could be and when can we expect an update? I think, as Michael said, it's going well, but those grades are pretty low. We see them contributing to our production, but the numbers aren't material to warrant a change in our guidance range. That's basically why we haven't changed it. We'll sit on that. The project's been running for a while. We'll have another look at it. Yeah. It's not something that at the moment we expect to run out into future years. I think it's about an eight-month project, actually, from start to finish. That's really why Michael's point. It's not material enough, but the team's doing a great job just making it work. Okay. And then maybe just a quick question for Anthony. Coming into your financials, are there any exceptionals or anything to call out? No, Kate. I mean, it was after the half-year that we paid out our debt. It's the biggest cleanup you see on the balance sheet. Besides that, you can see things tracking pretty good on the production front. So nothing untoward there. Obviously, that's going well. Gold price is high. You guys know what the average has been over the last six months, and we're unhedged. So outside of that, we're not seeing unusual transactions, if that's what you're sort of getting at. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Meredith Schwarz from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning, Jim and team. If I could just ask a question on Duketon and the CapEx spend. So Michael went through and sort of mentioned that the raise borer is on site, and that's where predominantly the amounts of CapEx would come from in the second half. Can you give an idea of whether that raise borer is started now, what your likely start time is, and then if there's potentially any risk for that CapEx to go to FY 2026? Look, I don't know if it's likely then. So it's not just the raise borer. We've got two raise borers, one at Garden Well and one at Rosemont at the moment, and they're basically doing two holes each. On top of the raise borers, there's going to be two large exhaust fans, and that will set us up for the projects that we have: the Garden Well main project, Rosemont Stage 3, and possibly Rosemont Stage 4. The main spend is, as we sort of develop a mine, you start off with a single heading, and then you expand the mine with the decline and then all the multiple headings off that. So the majority of the spend will be for opening up the project, but the project capital continues. The big spend then comes, and then you sort of then continue with the decline development as we extend the mine further down. The capital profile will continue for these projects. There is another spend as well, which is the paste fill plant that we're going to put at the Garden Well mine as well. From our initial announcements, there was about AUD 80 million in Garden Well and about, I think, AUD 50 million-AUD 60 million at Rosemont. You'll have that sort of ramping up spend through the second half of this year and next year, and then it then sort of continues to a steady state sort of once the infrastructure's in place and the development and all the headings go. It then comes down to a steady state sort of spend year on year as we extend the mine further down into the depths of the underground. Okay. So Q4 CapEx to be higher than Q3 over the second half. Okay. Perfect. Yep, and second question on. Sorry, Meredith. Just Just to be clear, we don't give guidance on a quarter-by-quarter basis, but what you can surmise from it is that the second half is certainly going to be stronger. And the reality is the raise borer vent shafts are enablers for us to really get into the development. So it's as simple as that. It's ramping up, yes. Yeah. Yep. Absolutely. And then the second question on Duketon North, I understand it's not material, as you say, but are you able to give a bit of a guide as to potentially how many tons you're looking to push through from Duketon North? Just trying to get a feel for perhaps what the percentage breakdown is in terms of that all processed. So you hit the 2 million tons in the quarter. What sort of percentage was from the Duketon North? The Duketon North mill has got basically a couple of million tons per annum of capacity. The stockpiles are going to last, and in this form of project, it's about eight months. I can't remember what the. Start to finish, i t's about six months a million. Half of it grades a bit less than 5%. About 0.5%. About 0.5 g. About 0.5 g. So when it runs, it's good. The guys have really gone and done a great job in finding opportunities there, which every AUD 1 million helps. But in terms of the overall scale, we don't see it as being material at this point. It will give us an indication of what we think some of the other. We've got other low-grade stockpiles, but they're even lower grade. So whether they turn into something, you see how successful and how well we manage recoveries at these low grades that we're seeing because that's the real trick. Recoveries tend to be driven by the grade of the tailings, and so the lower, the greater the fee. Yeah. Perfect. T hanks for that clarity. I'll hand it over. Thanks, Meredith. Your next question comes from Alex Barkley from RBC. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Question about Tropicana and noted that AngloGold's probably just had a good Q4. The mining ore volumes were up a bit in that quarter, strip ratio down. Is that something we might expect to continue over the next few quarters? Is that a function of Havana just getting up and running, or was that, again, maybe just a very strong quarter there? Just an idea on, yeah, the ore mining over the next period would be helpful. Thanks. Sure, Alex. It's sort of your question is a good question, and it relates to the ebb and flow of the schedules that the guys have got there, right? December was a very strong quarter at Tropicana. In fact, it was a record quarter since we've had ownership of it. It was the end of their financial year. And as we know, last quarters of everybody's financial years tend to, you do what you can. And so I think when we watch this and see tonnes, part of that performance will be the timing of ounces that may have originally been planned for this quarter were pulled forward over a year. We're okay with that. But what that means is that we expect the second half. If you take the number, I think it was Michael was saying in his notes that I think we've got about 80,000 oz out of Tropicana for the first half of the year, keeping in mind that that's their second half, so they run hard at the end to get their numbers. We're seeing 80,000 oz for our first half, but we are still maintaining the guidance of, I think it's 130,000 oz-140,000 oz. So do the math. It's obviously going to be a softer second half. Is that kind of like? Still the low-grade ounces? Yeah. Look, it's just scheduling of the pit, mate. They bring ore in from different places. They're just adjusting their schedules in the short term to deliver the improved December quarter. Now they'll be swinging back and doing some more waste movement. And we'll see it all over from quarter-to-quarter, you see these variations, but it'll smooth out over the year. Yeah, Alex. Yeah, Michael. It's basically a function of the stages they're working in. And so one of the big things they were focusing on was Havana Stage 5, which is basically the majority of the ore. So the strip ratio there, there's hardly any waste coming out with that. So they're focusing on that in the final quarter. They will now be moving into and bringing down Havana Stage 6 as a cutback, which basically links up with Havana Stage 5 and then Havana Stage 4. So the predominance of the work will be in these two areas for the second half of the financial year. And so you'll see the strip ratios change as a function of the schedule. If you're looking for how we expect it to play out, I guess just look at our guidance. Look at what we've given for production and what we've given for the all-in sustaining costs, and those remain unchanged. So if you sit down and do the math, you can figure out what the second half of the year is likely to look like relative to the first half. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. That's very helpful. And a different kind of question about the Duketon North stockpile. Sounds like it's maybe not the most material. Just on the Exploration potential there, is it not worth kind of leaving it around to maybe, if you do, get a discovery or a new mine kind of thing when that ramps up? Is this in any way a comment on that discovery potential that you're seeing in the region and maybe just how that's going? It certainly is. I mean, there is no reason that we will never process stockpiles if we're not making cash. I'll say that for a start. We're not doing this for practice. We're making a little bit of money. If the gold price continues to go up, then the impact might be even material. A rising gold price can make immaterial numbers material. But the team is working on that. I mean, keep in mind that we did put Duketon North into care and maintenance at the end of last year, and then we saw the opportunity and we brought it back out again. When, not if, but when our Exploration team is successful and finds an opportunity up that way, then we will swing the focus. If we're still processing low-grade stockpiles at that time, then we'll probably swing around and put higher feed from a new pit. If they aren't and we run the stockpiles down, then we'll park it up and we'll put it back into care and maintenance, and we'll wait until the Exploration team give us another new pit. Yeah, we have no plans to decommission and disassemble that plant. That would just not make sense. There's too many opportunities in that part of the world. It might take us six months. It might take us 18 months to find another fresh pit to go in there, but we will find something. We'll keep that plant in good condition, and it's great at the moment. We can keep it running and use that to help keep it in good condition and make a little bit on the side as well. Okay. No, that's helpful. Thanks very much, everyone. Thanks, Alex. Thank you. Your next question comes from Hugo Nicolaci from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, Jim and team. Happy New Year and thanks for the aupdate. Following on from earlier questions. Thank you. I just wanted to dig into Levi's question earlier on the underground mining costs a little bit. Just looking at both assets, it looks like mining costs have remained elevated on a per-ton basis this quarter and last. Last time we touched on, obviously, the open pits, as they get deeper, start to get a bit more expensive. But is there anything to call out on the underground for driving those costs? And I guess just directionally, where do you see that moving maybe on a per-ton basis going into the second half? We're not seeing that. Yeah. Okay. So I'll break that question down a little bit. You need to keep in mind that quarter-on-quarter, we're going to see variations in the unit rates on a cost per ton basis. In part, that can be driven by whether the scheduled development is to be higher or lower. It depends on whether it's stope development or it's capital development. It also depends on the grades. I mean, as we've talked through over the last couple of years now about the mines, on an annualized basis, these mines can produce anything from, say, 40,000 oz a year to 70. Now, obviously, that variability that we're talking about is partly driven by just the nature of they're not huge, so they do tend to sort of surge and fall back and surge and fall back fairly quickly, which is why we'd like the idea of having at least four underground mines, maybe even five running, because then you can smooth your production profile out. And once you smooth your production profile out, you also smooth your unit costs out. Now, we'll see that as the tons go up, we'll see the unit rates drop a little bit through productivities. Over time, is there anything of substance in the underground that will drive up the unit costs? I mean, there's a little bit of cost associated with increasing depth, but it is certainly not material, not in the near term, particularly when you sit down and work out what proportion of costs sort of look at relate to haulage. The best thing that we can say about what we expect our costs to look like in the second half is we still believe that we haven't changed our guidance. We think our overall cost per ounce is going to stay within the range that we've guided, as will our production. So that's probably as much that it's useful to give on that front. That's helpfu l color. Thanks for that. And then second one, also a bit of a follow-up. You touched on the dividends piece being more of a consideration for the full-year result. Though, obviously, you've now paid off a debt, your net cash, and second half cash flow outlook still looks good despite that gross spending that you've got. So are you able to just maybe talk us through maybe a few reasons why you might wait till August on the dividend? I mean, is there any remaining uncertainty in terms of upcoming growth spend or maybe keeping some of the optionality if opportunities come up? Just sort of any reasons there? Well, look, the board will make a decision on what might be in the first half and what might be pushed to the full year. But certainly, if you don't pay dividend, then your optionality is much more significant, particularly at a time when your cash balance is down. Obviously, that changes a bit if the revolving credit gets resolved. Sorry, when it gets not resolved, but when it gets finalized and formalized. So yeah, as I was talking through, they're both options. Certainly, the longer you don't do it, the more liquidity, the more optionality you've got. But that's the balance. That's the trade-off that we're assessing, and the board will decide. Got it. That's clear. Thanks for those. I'll pass it on. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matthew Frydman from MST Financial. Please go ahead. Sure. Thanks. Morning, Jim and team. Can I ask you about the Exploration activity across the portfolio and how you expect that will feed into mine plans over time? I guess looking forward towards a resource and reserve update probably later in the year, around the middle of the year. And you've highlighted that you've got multiple underground targets there that you're working through. So can you talk through which of those you expect to see will be sufficiently advanced to maybe fall into that update in the middle of the year? And then maybe more broadly from there, can you talk about, I guess, the development life cycle of these opportunities, whether it's from initial drilling, studies, regulatory or board approvals, etc.? Is there a sort of consistent lead time there across these various targets that you're pursuing in terms of converting them into mine plan and mine life, or is there anything that you're confident in really fast tracking, maybe particularly given the balance sheet strength of the business that you've just talked to? Anything where you can really accelerate the time to get that into production? Yeah. Well, I mean, interesting. I was reading a report online last week that said that the average time from initial discovery to production around the world is 18.3 years from the first hit to the first ounce. I think we're doing probably a little bit better than that. Look, if you look at, I mean, having said that, there is a reasonable time difference between declaring an Exploration target versus then we've got to drill it out and get it to measured and indicated status within the resource so we can then give it a reserve. And sometimes we did that on a pretty quick turnaround, I think, if that's the right word for it, at Garden Well for Garden Well Main. But the reality of that was we'd been sort of building that whole area up over the years. If I look at Ben Hur, for example, that's got no existing work that it can lean on or rely on. It's actually a picture that's being painted as we speak while we just do more. Drilling holes and building confidence just takes a bit of time. We know that once we've announced FID on a project, it's usually about 14-18 months before something comes online as a production unit, as in production meaning scoping, usually get a few ounces out as part of development. So we've, I think, I'm just trying to remember what the exact date where we're expecting Garden Well Main to kick off with stope production. It'll be towards the end. It'll be in the first half with the kickoff of stope in the sort of first half of next financial year. Yeah. So it takes a while. You can't just we're talking about Ben Hur, will we have reserves in the R&R update? I'd like to think that would be the case, but I'm not sure whether we will because you've got to drill. There's a lot of holes that are required to go from Exploration target to measured and indicated resource. The R&R update will come out in the June quarter, and that's where we'll give the you'll certainly be able to see what's trending in the short term from R&R replacement from our undergrounds. Look, the timing of these things, if Ben Hur was successful, it's at least a couple of years out just by the time it takes another year of drilling, I suspect, at least if it's there. And then we've got to finalize it, and then we've got to approve it and start development. I don't see anything immediate on the regulatory front that's holding that up. There are always the usual things that we have to work through in terms of heritage clearance and the like, but undergrounds tend to be a little bit easier on that front by and large. So yeah, look, I can't give you any more. It's a good broad-ranging question you asked, Matthew, but in terms of specifics, there's not a lot I can give you, really. Yeah. No, that's helpful, Jim. I guess, yeah, just trying to get a picture philosophically on kind of how the business is treating these opportunities. And not saying that one approach is right and one approach is wrong, but potentially, if there was something that you had high confidence in, you could just bang an Exploration decline in and go from there, right? And maybe something like a two as well where you've already had open pit mining there, and maybe you've got a bit more drill data or something, and potentially you could take that kind of approach. But it sounds like that's not the case, and it's really more about this methodical approach of getting the drill data, doing the studies, going to a final investment decision, etc. As I say, it's not saying one approach is right and one approach is wrong, but that sounds like philosophically where you're at. Yeah. Look, I mean, I've come back to what I was talking to. I'm not sure. I think it was Meredith's question, or I'm not sure who asked the question earlier, but it was about what do we look like out to FY 2028 and beyond? We're comfortable that we can see this range that we've been talking about, but we need to have another underground or even more open pits to help us maintain this 200 to 250 out beyond FY 2028. And so we sort of have a look and say, "Well, that's how long we've got to find more material," which is actually quite a bit of time. And by the way, that range out to FY 2028 that I'm talking about doesn't include things like Ben Hur. It's just basically the existing reserves and plans that we've got in our existing mines that we've already told the market about. So we don't have any sort of hairy assumptions sitting in that, if you like. Our Exploration budget this year across the group is AUD 25-30 million, and a chunk of that is focused on chasing the Ben Hur, chasing the Tooheys Well, chasing the Baneygo, looking underneath all our old or existing pits. A chunk of that, and then of course, exactly the same thing's happening at Tropicana. A chunk of that is more greenfield-ish or brownfields where we're looking for open pits to add like Kintyre, which are not huge, but they all help, particularly at today's gold price. While the team is really focused on finding the next 400,000-500,000 oz deposit that would mean overall production at Tropicana at Duketon would lift back to where it was back in four, five years ago at plus well over 300,000. But we've got to find the pit deposit to give us that. So we've really got two strategies running. Let's find and get at least a fourth underground to give us that sustainability out beyond FY 2028. And also, let's keep looking for the wildcat open pits that gives us the potential and would give us the capacity to get back well over 300,000 again as a site, and that's at Duketon. That's the plan we're running to. Yeah. Got it. Thanks, Jim. And then maybe, I guess, tying that in conceptually with, I guess, you've had quite a few questions on shareholder returns and what does the balance sheet look like and all that sort of stuff. But obviously, the reserve position and the mine life position on paper clearly influence the board's thinking and management's thinking in terms of the capacity for shareholder returns versus, I guess, what you might need for investment in the future. So, I guess from your perspective, where do you think that the cash balance or where do you think the balance sheet needs to sit in order to have enough comfort in maybe progressing those internal opportunities that are maybe more well understood and more sort of clearly defined versus is that the kind of threshold for where you want the balance sheet to be, or is it that you need more dry powder sitting there if there is an M&A opportunity on the horizon? Or yeah, I guess what's the kind of default setting for the business in terms of prosecuting those growth options versus potential capital needs in the future? I don't think that there's any, yes, all of the above. We certainly want to keep our balance sheet strong and give us the potential to act on external growth opportunities as they arise. I mean, obviously, McPhillamys was a substantial project for us that was coming towards us. We'd always said that we would develop it when we were ready. I guess the markets perhaps didn't believe that, but to a degree now it's out of our hands either way. So I mean, McPhillamys was a big project, right? In its current form, it's AUD 1 billion of construction. But as I've said to a few people, if McPhillamys was running today and running at its average production rate and its average all-in sustaining cost, it would be generating, I think the number was, I'm just trying to remember, over AUD 100 million a quarter, right? That was when the gold price was back at 4,100. Because I think the average production rate out of McPhillamys is about 180,000 oz, and the average all-in sustaining cost is about AUD 1,600 an ounce. You can do the math. If it was producing today, it would be overshadowing everything in its cash generating. So it's not a bad project, particularly in the current price environment, but it's not on our immediate radar. But we're looking at other options. So yeah, there's definitely a reason why we would want to keep our powder dry. But converse of that is the idea of being a business is to make some returns to our shareholders, and that takes the form of dividends. So that's definitely part of it. I mean, I'm telling you how we're thinking, but I'm not telling you what we're thinking. Yep. No, that's fine. Thanks very much, Jim. Thank you. Your next question comes from Andrew Bowler from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Yeah, Jim and team, probably not too many more questions to ask, but maybe one for Anthony. Your all-in sustaining cost guidance for the year includes that approximate $150 an ounce in non-cash stockpile. I was just wondering if that number changes with processing in Duketon North, or are those historic stockpiles off balance sheet, and that number won't really change a lot? Obviously, keeping in mind that you're tracking under that for the first half, please. No, yeah, Andrew, you're right on predicting those stockpiles that are going through at Duketon North. There are old historic stockpiles that we've already taken all of the hit for in the past, so they're not coming through at any additional cost. So was that all of the question, or? Yeah. I think that's it. Guidance remains the same on the cost. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So Duketon North stuff is not a huge amount coming through from it, but nonetheless, we've previously worn those stockpiles. They go back however long, to be honest. Yeah. No worries. Thanks very much. That's all from me. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Hayden Bairstow from Argonaut. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. Just a clarification on D&A. When it ran at around AUD 830 an ounce for the last couple of years, it's now sort of around AUD 1,100. Is that sort of the run rate? Looks as though that's probably right based on where book value is for the rest of the life of these assets as they sit on reserves. Yeah. Anthony, you want to put some color on that one for Hayden? Yeah. I mean, you're saying historically, Hayden, you're saying it was running around the 800, all-in sustaining cost for Duketon North. That's what you're saying? No, D&A was. Oh, sorry. D&A. [crosstalk]. DNO, Duketon North Operations. DNO. Sorry. No, look, so the D&A, yeah, look, it is continuing to still run around that, like I said, year-to-date, 2019. We're expecting it to come up a little bit by the end of the financial year. Look, the couple of big things that you said historically, I think historically you're talking about last year, I think it was in that 800 mark there or thereabouts. I don't know 100, can't remember the exact number now. But look, one of the key differences this year is that we've got Ben Hur and Russell's Find open pits that are being amortized into that cost over a relatively short period of time in the financial year. In the prior financial year, we didn't have those two areas in production and being amortized in our accounts really for a lot of the financial year in the 2024 financial year as a comparative. So sure, a couple of mining areas did drop off last year that aren't being amortized this year, but they also didn't have the same amount of accumulated pre-production mining costs that needed to go with them. So hence why it sort of steps up from one year to the next. So that's not just that Duketon. There's some at Tropicana too, but I just called out the sort of two big ones that are contributing as well, which is Russell's Find and Ben Hur. So yeah, expectations continue on for the rest of the year at similar values. Okay. Can I just circle back on tax? You should remind me where you are now on that. What's the shelter left and when do you take cash tax? Yeah. So if you go take a look at our June 2024 financials there, Hayden, and you'll see there we've got in the order of about AUD 230 million of gross tax losses. It's about AUD 70 million of tax affected when you take it at 30% of cash offsets there. As I was saying earlier in the call, these gold prices, we're obviously chewing through those tax losses a bit quicker than we were thinking we would have six months ago or so. But nonetheless, still not expecting to actually be cutting a check this financial year. We're obviously profitable. Production's good. Our costs are within guidance, and the revenue is strong from the record gold prices, but still don't expect that this year we'll be cutting a check. We'll be using those tax losses. Wholly dependent on what, if any, alternative directions the gold price takes. Sure. Yeah. Just going up, Jim, you know that. And just on your comments on McPhillamys, I mean, gold prices have shifted a lot since when you did the studies. Do you think that base development plan is still the best one, or is there other options that you had looked at that you didn't pick that would give you a pathway to a lower CapEx faster to production type development scenario? Yeah. Look, that's a damn good question, Hayden. We are looking at that. It's an interesting project in that one of its strengths was the fact that it was completely independent from a water point of view. It did not draw on local Belubula River or any of the local groundwater. And we still have a plan of bringing the water in from the coal mines over in Lithgow that are trying to get rid of the water, which is great. But the downside of that is that we've got to build a AUD 160 million pipeline. And whether that pipeline's 12 in, 6 in, or whatever size it is, the actual cost is probably not going to change that much. So you do tend to, at the moment, with its current configuration, it does tend to sort of drive it to being as big as it reasonably can. And that's been the historic driver of the scale. But having said that, now we're going back and we're actually using some alternative, well, some more sophisticated approaches just to check that we're satisfied that there isn't an alternative approach to take. We do that, take the opportunity while we can. Whether that changes materially the scope or not, that remains to be seen. But we're looking at it. But at the moment, the current scale still is, as far as we're concerned, still the most sensible development structure for it. But we'll know in six months' time or so, or even less than that, whether there's other opportunities. And obviously, if we do spot that, then we'll let the market know. Yeah. Okay. I'll leave it there. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Hayden. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Beyer for closing remarks. All right. Thanks, Darcy. And thanks, everybody, for joining us. As always, if you've got any follow-up questions, please touch base, and we'll do what we can to help you out. Thanks very much, and have a good day.