I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Jim Beyer, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead. Thanks, Mel, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for the Regis Resources June quarter FY 2026 results. Joining me on the call today are our CFO, Anthony Rechichi, our COO, Michael Holmes, and our Head of Investor Relations, Mathew Collings. Through this session, we'll refer at times to figures and tables in the quarterly report and the FY 2027 guidance that we put out last week. You may find it useful to have those documents at hand. I'll kick off first with safety. During the June quarter, our operations continued to perform strongly from a safety perspective. The 12-month moving average lost time injury frequency rate finished the quarter a little bit further down at 0.3, which continues to be well below the Western Australian gold industry average, which, is always a bit delayed in its timing, but is currently running at around 1.0, which is from nearly two years ago. We continue to focus on leadership, discipline, and continuous improvement to support safe and reliable operations across our business. This is in support of our objectives to provide a workplace that's free from serious injury. Turning now to production performance. Delivery to plan through FY 2026 has been consistent, and the June quarter was a standout performance for both Duketon and Tropicana. Operationally, the group production for the quarter was 101.5 thousand at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 3,244 an ounce. That was carrying a non-cash charge of AUD 181 an ounce. Annual production hit the top end of guidance at 379 koz. The top of guidance was 380 koz, so pretty well bang on the top. The consistent delivery of production and cost across our operations, despite some macro headwinds since March, has seen our cash build continue, along with our returns to shareholders. During the quarter, Regis increased its cash and bullion by AUD 56 million. Note that that was after the payment of a AUD 0.15 share, fully franked, for AUD 114 million in dividends and also AUD 64 million in tax. Anthony will talk some more on this in a moment. The Regis cash and bullion balance remains at a competitive advantage for our business at almost AUD 1.2 billion at the end of June. An increase of AUD 667 million for the full year. That was after paying a total of AUD 151 million in fully franked dividends and AUD 156 million in tax payments. To maintain this momentum, Regis remains unhedged and continues to invest in growth and exploration. Thanks to a strong operational performance, has the capacity to balance disciplined investment and reinvestment with our returns to shareholders. Our message and our actions remain consistent. Regis operates quality assets, strongly leveraged to gold price, and we have a disciplined approach to investment and capital returns. I'd like to think that you've seen some of this disciplined approach in investment reflected in our decision not to continue in the Vault sale process. Back to where I was. Regis operates quality assets with strong leverage at the gold price, as I said, and a disciplined approach to investment and capital returns. When combined with the continued rolling life extensions of our underground mines, as demonstrated in the recent exploration update and this year's R&R report, we're extremely well-positioned to consistently deliver ounces and cash flow well into the future. With that, I'll now hand over to Michael, who will then subsequently pass to Anthony. Both of them will provide details on our operations and our financial performance. Over to you, Michael. Thanks, Jim. Good morning, everyone. Operationally, Regis finished the year strongly with safety, focusing on the critical hazards, supervisor interactions, and a workforce-led safety program. We will continue these programs, striving for further improvements in FY 2027. The June quarter for production was in line with expectations across both Duketon and Tropicana. This meant that we finished at the top end of guidance for the year. In line with our strategic pillars, reliable delivery, our teams continued to consistently execute to plan across the business. This remains a key strength for Regis. At Duketon, open pit and underground operations produced 62.5 thousand ounces. Open pit mining continued at King of Creation, the Moolart Well laterites, Ben Hur, and some minor pits, delivering 25.9 thousand ounces at an average grade of 0.85 g per ton. The performance was in line with plan. Our underground operations at Garden Well and Rosemont continued to perform reliably, producing 37.6 thousand ounces at 1.99 g per ton. Development rates across both undergrounds were pleasing and supported steady ore delivery through the quarter, as well as unlocking future production sources. Total underground development at Duketon was 3,803 m, with approximately 50% classified as capital development, reflecting investment in Garden Well Main and Rosemont 3. Rosemont Stage 3 development continues and is progressing as planned towards commercial production. During the June quarter, we continued with the advancement of the underground Rosemont Stage 3. The construction of the Garden Well paste fill plan, which is planned for commissioning in quarter 2, which is key to increasing the ore body recovery in the future. Spend was also done on the BuckWell open pit. Both sources have the potential to provide gold production for the next five years, with Rosemont orebody continuing further to the south. At BuckWell, pre-strip mining rates continued to exceed expectations with the addition of a large 3,600 ton digger to the open pit fleet, proving its worth. The higher productivity reduced unit mining rates and allowed for the accelerated development, bringing forward ore exposure. The Duketon mills performed to expectations with open pit and underground ore feed supported by planned stockpile feed. Now turning to Tropicana. At Tropicana, Regis attributable production for the quarter was 39.1 thousand ounces, a very strong quarter to finish the year. Open pit operations delivered 21.9 thousand ounces at an average grade of 2.02 g per ton, with performance in line with expectations. Underground operations delivered 13.2 thousand ounces at 2.97 g per ton, again, consistent with plan. Tropicana mill feed was the combination of the open pit, underground, and supplemental stockpile feeds. Overall, both Duketon and Tropicana continued to perform reliably during the quarter, delivering consistent production while progressing key underground and near-term growth projects. With that, I'll now hand over to Anthony to take you through the financials. Thanks, Michael. Good morning, everybody. As Jim outlined earlier, the June quarter was a fitting end to a very strong financial year, with consistent operational delivery of high margins, which converted into significant cash generation. Gold sales for the quarter were just over 102,000 oz for an average realized price of AUD 6,241 an ounce, generating AUD 639 million in revenue. Operating cash flow for the quarter was AUD 376 million, with AUD 194 million generated at Duketon and AUD 182 million coming from Tropicana. Also, in cash and bullion, and referring to figure two in the ASX release, the piggy bank grew in size by AUD 56 million during the quarter, taking the total balance to AUD 1.2 billion as at the 30th of June. Now, that cash build might not look quite as much as we've delivered in previous quarters, but importantly, the AUD 56 million increase was achieved after the payment of AUD 114 million in dividends and AUD 64 million of tax installments. For growth and sustaining capital, we spent AUD 131 million in the quarter. At Duketon, this included underground development, pre-production mining activities, and waste removal, as well as investment in plant and equipment. A significant portion of this spend related to the mine development of Garden Well Main, Rosemont Stage 3, and BuckWell. At Tropicana, expenditure related mostly to underground development at Boston Shaker, pre-production costs at the Havana undergrounds, and sustaining capital across the operation. Exploration expenditure during the quarter was AUD 18 million, reflecting the continuing high levels of activity across both Duketon and Tropicana. AUD 9 million was spent during the quarter at McPhillamys. Remembering McPhillamys costs are expensed through our profit and loss account. Jumping back to my earlier mention of tax installments, there was AUD 64 million of that in the June quarter, whereby we commenced monthly installment payments in April. These payments have been approximately AUD 20 million per month and are forecast to remain at that level for the rest of this calendar year, 2026. A final catch-up tax payment is forecast for the December quarter this year, the value of which is being estimated and will be included in our 30 June 2026 annual financial report, which will be released next month. As a final point, I note that we received the Vault transaction break fee earlier this week, amounting to just over AUD 50 million. That's most of the headline results from me, and I look forward to providing you with our full suite of financial results in August. Thank you. Now I'll hand back to Jim. Thanks, Anthony. We've gone through the quarter in a bit of detail, but let me pull the year together for you. The first point is capital management. Alongside our half-year results earlier this year, we introduced our new dividend policy whereby Regis Resources expects to pay fully franked ordinary dividends on a semi-annual basis, having regards to its prevailing cash and bullion balances, of course, business cash flows, the available franking credits, and capital allocation priorities. In particular, the ordinary dividend payments are expected to represent between 25%-50% of the group cash increase over the preceding half financial year. This quarter, we paid a fully franked interim dividend of AUD 0.15 a share, as I mentioned before, for a total of AUD 114 million returned to our shareholders. I think the policy makes our intention clear to be a reliable but responsible dividend payer. I would note that with our estimation modeling, with regular tax installments now a fact of life for us, the adjustment for tax accruals should become less material over time and the forecast is much more simple. Importantly, our dividend payments have resumed all the while remaining unhedged, investing in growth and exploration, and still building our balance sheet up AUD 667 million this year, and that's even after dividends and tax now. The second point that's worth noting, pardon me, is our growing resources and reserves. Our group update this year showed mineral resources up 10% year-on-year to 8.3 million ounces, while our ore reserves were also up nearly 20% to 2 million ounces. This is to the end of December, 31 December 2025, before we reinstated the 1.9 million ounces of ore reserves from McPhillamys. Our underground mines continued to deliver with increasing reserves and also are showing their potential. The sections in the release of Garden Well and Rosemont, and I think they're figure four and five, four for Garden Well, I think, and five for Rosemont, really illustrate the growth in both volume and confidence and the mid-year exploration update only reinforces it. What is particularly important to observe are the holes that are down plunge that show good intercepts. Garden Well Main has a hole 10.4 m thick at 2.9 g a ton, and that is 500 m down plunge from the nearest resource modeling. This is really pointing to the sort of continuity like we see at Tropicana. Garden Well South is similar. It's got an intercept, 3.9 m at 4 g a ton, about 300 m or so down plunge from nearest resource modeling. These are exciting and telling results, anyone who thinks our undergrounds are short in life, I would ask that they carefully consider these results. In addition to the underground, we have the initial 270,000 oz of resource or mineral resource declared for the new discovery at Beamish South, with drilling still continuing. We're seeing great progress at Ben Hur, where the step-out drilling has shown mineralization continues well outside the current resource shapes. A key point to note here is that at Beamish South, that 270,000 oz, that is a new or a fresh greenfields-type discovery. The interesting thing is it's nearby to existing pits and infrastructure, it's not an extension. It's greenfield-like. The valuable outcome illustrates how our refreshed exploration strategy confirms that opportunities still exist at Duketon in areas previously considered to be unprospective. What it does is it validates the decision to lift our exploration spend back at Duketon back in December last year, in the December quarter. Despite what some might say about the mine life at Duketon, the reality is we keep adding life year on year. In fact, if you look at the Duketon reserves, at the end of 2025, they're essentially unchanged from 2021. They're sitting at the same level, which I think is just around about 1.4 million ounces. In that time, we've pulled out 1.2 million ounces at production. The great thing is that our exploration team and our res dev team have got a pipeline of targets at Duketon, and we intend to chase them. At Tropicana, the good news keeps on coming, too. The operation has delivered extensions to known mineralization at Boston Shaker, the Tropicana underground, the Havana underground, also in the Swizzler area. This is building the underground pipeline and reinforcing the long value that we see at that asset. On McPhillamys, as previously flagged, the judicial review of the Section 10 declarations has been heard, the court has reserved its decision and we sit and wait. In parallel, we made real progress on the alternative permitting pathways during the quarter. We released the PFS back in June, that supported the reinstatement of ore reserves at 1.9 million ounces. It confirms a robust project with the integrated waste landfill and the electrical transmission line and the water pipeline being granted state significant infrastructure status in New South Wales. Should the judicial review succeed, the TSF pathway from the 2024 DFS remains our preferred option at this point. Either way, we have a permitting pathway and we're pushing ahead, and we're targeting a final investment decision in the first half of 2028. The work at McPhillamys continues methodically, broadly speaking, on plan and on budget. Finally, some comments on guidance. FY 2026 landed where we said it would. Production at the top end, while all-in sustaining costs was also towards the top end, impacted, of course, by the diesel price, as everybody understands, but also impacted by our decision, which we flagged and telegraphed clearly, to pursue opportunistic production ounces through the idled Moolart Well mill. Something that I hope everybody sees and understands is sensible in the current gold price environment. These factors, of course, carry us through into FY 2027 guidance, which we released last week. Pursuing these opportunistic ounces has allowed us to declare a production growth and a range of 360,000 oz-400,000 oz for the group. Also with our all-in sustaining costs guided up, driven by factors that I mentioned before, the fuel, as I said, the diesel, and also the increasing proportion of the BuckWell ounces. We're also seeing a different proportion of ounces coming from Duketon and Tropicana compared to FY 2026. In conclusion, to summarize, Regis has developed another quarter of consistent production, capping an FY 2026 that hit the top end of guidance at 379,000 oz. We continue to generate strong, reliable cash, underpinning a competitive balance sheet and our commitment to responsible capital returns. Our resources and reserves keep growing at both Duketon and Tropicana, giving us an ongoing pathway to extensions well into the thirties. At McPhillamys, we continue our dual path process, progressing the IWL technical work while we wait for the outcome of the judicial review. FY 2027 guidance points to higher production for the group underpinned by Duketon and the fantastic work of the operations and the exploration team at the site. Overall, Regis remains very well positioned to keep delivering long-term value to our shareholders. With that, thanks for listening and your time. I'll hand back to Mel, who will open the floor up 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 Jonathan Sharp with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, Jim and team. Thanks for taking my question or questions. I have two questions. First one just on costs. Group all in sustaining costs came in within guidance, but at the top end, and 4Q was much higher. Trying to understand. I know you said there was some diesel impact there, just how much of that is diesel impact? Are there any productivity impacts over in W.A. with maybe contractors? How should we sort of think about this? Is it temporary or structural? Well, I certainly wouldn't say that the pressure on the costs came from productivity issues per se. I don't think that was a key point for us. Certainly, the costs in the fourth quarter were significantly impacted by diesel. I think in the prior nine months, we were paying about AUD 1 a liter, and in the last three months of the year, from April and May, we were paying AUD 2 a liter, and I think we were paying about AUD 1.60 or something like that, or AUD 1.30 in June. As a result, for that quarter at Duketon, the costs were an additional AUD 300 an ounce off the back of that diesel price. For the group, it was AUD 220. There wasn't much we could do. There was no restrictions with our availability of diesel. It was well supplied, our suppliers have been doing a great job keeping us topped up. It was expensive. Of course, we have, as everybody has seen, that come off. I think we've assumed about AUD 1.35 for diesel price for this year. That year-over-year, that alone accounts for about AUD 135 an ounce increase, if everything else was unchanged from one year to the next. Okay, great. Diesel was a big impact. Yep, AUD 100 an ounce for this year if all things unchanged. The productivity piece is not quite so material. Okay, great. No, I just had heard in W.A. there had been high turnover of contractors, but maybe not impacting you guys. Just second question, now with Vault no longer happening, how do you think about the strategic plan from here? You're sitting on quite a bit of cash, strong free cash flow. McPhillamys is some time away from FID. What are your priorities, Jim? Are you looking elsewhere or focusing on accelerating organic growth? How do you think about that sort of buy versus build? Thanks. Yeah, good question. Certainly, we look at McPhillamys as being something that's close but not so close to be sitting around and waiting for it. In any event, our job is not to assume that McPhillamys is the best investment opportunity that we've got. Our job is to go out and continue to look. It's not as if we've just started, but continue to look for capital opportunities that might be a better return. We'll continue to do that. Obviously, Vault was disappointing, but frankly, not a real surprise for us that things played out the way that they did. We understood that risk, and we felt that it warranted it, but we weren't going to get involved in any kind of bidding war. You talk about how do we think about things. The number one thing that we consider in anything external is it value accretive for our shareholders? If we can't see a way that through an acquisition, be it an operation that's underway or be it a new construction project that we could put in front of McPhillamys, it's got to be value accretive for our shareholders. We think about the others, but that's not our responsibility. If we think that it's value accretive, then that's something that we give serious thought to. If it isn't and it's destroying value for our shareholders and we can't see any way of it making any sense, we just won't do it. Are we looking? We were looking before and we're looking again. Obviously, a little bit of disappointment, but as I said, not a huge shock, just disappointing. We think we've made the right decision. We've demonstrated over the years, I think we've demonstrated to the market. Tropicana, we got a lot of criticism that we invested in that. Looking at it now, I think we've got all our money back and we've still got years of life left in it or pretty close to it. That was a critiqued investment that actually has turned out to be an absolute cracker. Now we exercise similar discipline and understanding. We like the assets, but not enough to pay any more than we already had on the table. We exercise discipline and not going off very irresponsibly. The reality there was we just couldn't match the synergies that were real. We'll continue to look, we'll continue to apply that discipline, and see what we can engage with. Thanks for your insights, Jim. I'll pass it on. Thank you. No worries. Thanks, Jon. Your next question comes from Matthew Friedman with MST Financial. Please go ahead. Sure thing. Morning, Jim and team. Firstly, can I dig into the FY 2027 cost guidance at the asset level in a little bit more detail? If I look at your Tropicana guidance, the midpoint is about 10% higher than what you just delivered in Q4. Conversely, if I look at your Duketon guidance midpoint, it's about 9% or 10% lower than what you just delivered. Obviously, across the group, diesel a pretty significant driver there to that sort of elevated Q4 base as you've just discussed with Jon. Maybe can you expand on the differing drivers between the two assets looking into FY 2027? Is that predominantly a denominator effect of production and the mix of production sources across the two sites, as I think maybe you mentioned? Is there anything else in particular in terms of mining sequence or differing cost inflation effects between the two sites going on there? Thanks. Yeah. Thanks, Matt. I'll keep it pretty high level, right? Tropicana is reasonably straightforward. You've got a lower denominator. It's lower production, similar cost base. That's just a nuance of the year. We're not producing as much from the pits this year, which means we're taking more from the stockpiles. It's just a sequence in the pits that sort of starts to swing the other way in subsequent years. We're not running around in circles panicking about it. It's just one of those scheduling things that you've got to live with. Nothing there that's causing any dramatic trends that we worry about unnecessarily. In terms of Duketon. Yeah, certainly relative to last quarter, the big difference, as I said, is the fuel. The fuel has had a significant impact at Duketon alone. I think we're pushing it up AUD 130 an ounce. The other thing to recognize, too, is that as a proportion of our production, take a step back and we actually think Duketon is a good story because we'd always envisaged it being somewhere between 200,000 oz- 250,000 oz per annum, and this year it'll be above that, and that'll be thanks to Buckwell. Of course, Buckwell comes with higher costs, as we've sort of belabored the point. That's dragged up Duketon a little bit as well. If we wanted to reduce our costs, we'd just shut down Buckwell, and we'd see our all-in sustaining costs dropping. Why in the blazes would we do that? Those ounces at today's price still make good money. We'll just keep running that plant. We think that Duketon continues to play out. I think the Buckwell investment, you have a look at it, you can see in one of our old releases, even at a pretty modest gold price, it's 121% internal rate of return on a project. We like it. We're prepared to sort of answer the questions on why the costs at Duketon are going up, it's quite sensible. We're utilizing a plant that was underutilized. We're putting through lower grade, high cost ounces, we still make good money on it, and why wouldn't we? They're really the key things that are driving up FY 2027 or driving the FY 2027 unit costs. Got it. Thanks, Jim. Maybe a quick follow-up on your comments on Tropicana. You talked about the lower denominator in FY 2027 or the lower production, I should say, in FY 2027 being a function of, I guess, the sequence of the open pits and swinging the other way in future years. Is it right to say in terms of our thinking that potentially that kind of lower open pit production, that's maybe a sort of 12 or 18 months story, as you said, it swings the other way for, again, maybe another sort of 12 or 18 months as that final open pit life depletes? Or is that a sort of three-year journey, or is there anything I'm missing there? It's probably not that long for the open pits without us finding more material. There's definitely just in this 12 months, it's a cycle scheduling thing, I am anticipating that in subsequent years we'll see it swing out. It's not going to be a wild swing. We're not going to see twice as many ounces out of it, of course, it'll be back to similar levels that we've seen in the past while the pits, Havana, 5 and 6, the other stages all start to run out. Run out, run through. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Thanks for that. Maybe finally, second question on McPhillamys, the FID decision that you've kind of penciled in for the first half of 2028. Again, at a high level, can you talk through, I guess, what work needs to be done to, I guess, complete that DFS and bring the project to an FID point? What are the key work streams, I guess, given that really most of the study, as I understand it, is fairly well unchanged from the 2024 DFS. I guess the question is, could that FID decision or could those work streams be accelerated, in the event that you got some kind of earlier resolution on the judicial review? Thanks. Yeah, look, I'd like to think that they could. What I think and what actually happens sometimes don't always align. Yeah. You and me both. Yeah. Look, I think fundamentally, really there are two different ways that the project will go. We'll either go back to this sort of this gravity-based tailings disposal, where gravity settles it all out, or we'll go to the integrated waste landform or this form of co-disposal in the waste rock dump. The judicial review, when we do get an answer, it actually won't be all bets are off and we're off to the races again. The way that the process runs is the judge, and we obviously think there's a reasonable case for it, but the judge will say, well, there was an unfair process and it needs to be rerun again, and the decision gets set aside. It doesn't get overturned. The new minister, Minister Watt, would presumably get the department to go back, right whatever wrongs the judge felt didn't happen in the process, do the review, and then reconsider the application by the group. Also, no doubt, consider the comments that come from the Orange Land Council, who have got more than a vested interest in that part of the world, more than probably, arguably anybody else, but on the heritage front. We don't expect that to happen quickly. I would anticipate that could run well into next year, for that work to be redone, revisited, and to be done in a manner that everybody is comfortable won't also go through another challenge, right? On the co-disposal side with the IWL, it's an application of known technologies, but it's new to the state of New South Wales. So there's quite a bit of work that we're doing with the department to satisfy the really quite important aspects of the design and the implementation and the operation of that waste mass or waste landform to make sure that it's appropriate and it's safe in its design. That too takes time. The other interesting little bit that just popped up in the middle of all of this is just because time drags on, thanks to all of these issues with permittees and approvals, there's a little part of our water pipeline that a group wanted to build a renewable energy farm on top of. We got pushed around a bit there, we redirected our pipe by 10 km or 15 km or something like that. We have to get that all checked and confirmed from an environmental and heritage point of view, which is what we're doing now. Again, it just takes time. Of course, the irony is that whatever that farm was, last we've heard is that they're not funding anymore. We've made the change. All of those things, Matt, are all pointing to us saying, regardless of whether I mean, we'd love it if the Section 10 was overturned and a new decision made quickly. Realistically, we think that'll take time. If we do get a negative response there, we've still got work to do to get the final tick off of confidence that we're going to operate it and run it right and we've got the designs right for the IWL. All of that's just pointing to tell us that don't expect anything before the end of next year, calendar year. We're looking and thinking, all right, well, that'll be early 2028 for FID, first half of 2028 FID. We could push it and run harder, but it's probably more important just to pace ourselves. Of course, if the Section 10 is successful, we'd probably drop the other work that we're doing. Just focus on it. Got it. Thanks, Jim. Yeah. No, it sounds like either way, 18-ish months plus is a hopeful outcome either way. Yeah. That sounds good. That's pretty much the way we view it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Adam Baker with Macquarie. Please go ahead. Morning, Jim. Just maybe following up on your comments to Jon, just on the growth aspirations and pressing you a little bit further here and on the inorganic front in particular. Just wondering, and obviously you look at all assets which might potentially come to market, but in your view, what could Regis add the most value to? Are these old development or sorry, old assets which might require reinvestment and turnaround, or could you potentially look at resource and development stage assets which could compete for capital against McPhillamys? Thank you. Good question, Adam. The answer is, well, yes, both. We have an ability to understand how to build plants that are fit for purpose in terms of our plants at Duketon are good for the type of, they're low cost, relatively cheap plants. Is there an opportunity for us to apply that somewhere? McPhillamys is a different. We've obviously just got quite a bit of experience in the engineering side there, and individuals in the team have got experience in the much bigger size plant in a complex area. Look, we look at them all. It's pretty hard for me to be any more definitive than just publishing a list of the things that we look at, which obviously we're not going to do and can't do. Would we look at a project that is waiting to be built? Yes, we would. We'd probably take a very careful view of how well permitted that project is, because there's plenty of interesting-looking projects or resource projects around, but are they late in the permitting process and almost there, or just beginning, or naively sitting in the middle thinking that they're just about to finish but not really because experience tells us that it takes time. That's certainly something that we look at with projects. In terms of operations, definitely, we're looking to see whether there's some. One of the benefits of building your portfolio of operations is you can take assets and bring them in and where they might be regarded as being volatile in their production or you put it in a portfolio and you start to have the ability to manage the risk by consolidating. We look at those as well. Once again, I revert back to, I think it was the question that Jon asked. We look at a lot, but it's got to be value accretive for our shareholders. That's the first filter it's got to go through. That's clear. Thanks. Just on Boston Shaker, some pretty encouraging down-tip extensions to the inferred resource there. Just a quick one, maybe you can remind us when we should be expecting an R&R update for Tropicana? Yeah. I think Tropicana finished their drilling around about now, the R&R for Anglo usually comes out early in the calendar year. I think it's usually late January or February, something like that. Then we obviously, or we don't finish our drilling, we cut off our drilling generally at the end of December and we put ours out in April, May. The Anglo results will come out in February. Okay. Thank you. Yep. I'll hand it on. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Levi Spry with UBS. Please go ahead. Good day, Jim. Good morning, Levi. Thanks for your time. Just two quick ones, please. Just on the growth capital in the guidance for next year at Duketon, can you just tell us where you'll be spending it? Yeah. Look, in broad [audio distortion], there's probably about AUD 150. You probably got a little bit over half of it, probably 60% or so is just associated with things like the pre-production at BuckWell and a number of other open pits that we're doing work on. We're looking at, we haven't made a final decision, but really, there's a Stage 8 that we're looking at for Garden Well, and there's a number of other pits that are just being pre-developed and included in that. The other, the rest of it, probably a bit less than AUD 100 million, is tied up with the underground Stage 3, the Garden Well paste fill plant, which will be commissioned during the period, I think Michael mentioned. That's in bucket terms, that's where it is. I don't see much more value in breaking it down, but probably about 60% or so is, a little bit over that, is in open pits and various open pits, and the rest is associated with the undergrounds. Yeah. Got it. Thanks. Just on this new one, so Beamish, what are the next steps there? When could you get into that? Yeah, that's a good question. Well, we're working on that now. We're sort of trying to figure out whether it's okay for us to get a design going and pull that into the plan right now or whether we should let the drills keep going because 270,000 oz is not considered to be the end of it. There's still more to do. It's probably at least a couple of years away for us to really bring that into the schedule. Our mills are full, so if we do bring it in, and we do bring it in earlier rather than a little bit later in the schedule, we'll be doing it to displace lower-grade material rather than a whole new production point on top. We're just working all of that through at the moment, Levi. We're excited about the fact that there's two things that we like about it. Well, there's lots of things, 270,000 oz things that we like about it, actually. The two things are, it was a really interesting piece of work by the exploration team. There was one hole that somebody had looked at in the past and gone, no, don't understand it. There's nothing here. The team went back with all of their fresh understanding, and they looked at it and said, no, this is actually something that fits in with our model. It was effectively an area that had been looked over and considered to be a little bit of the old pasture. Here they go, they find 270,000 oz and still drilling and still going. It's right near existing infrastructure. It's a great story. I've talked it up, but we're still working on the detail of when we'll bring it into production. Got it. Understand. Thank you. Thanks, Levi. Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. We'll now pause for any final questions. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Beyer for closing remarks. Thanks, Mel. Thanks everybody for joining us. We do appreciate it. As always, if you've got any follow-up questions, please give us a call, give Matt a call, and we'll help where we can within what we can talk about. I hope everybody has a good day and enjoy your weekend. Thank you and take care. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.