I'd now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Lucas Dow, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Hello and welcome, everyone. I'm Lucas Dow, Managing Director at Sayona Mining, and I'm pleased to present our financial year 2025 half-year results. I'm joined today by Dougal Elder, our CFO; Sylvain Collard, our President and Chief Operating Officer of Canadian Operations; and Andrew Barber, our Director of Investor Relations. As we move through the presentation, I'll be advancing slides, and I'll be describing that as we advance the slide. Moving to slide two, today we will cover our operational and financial performance, an update on our merger with Piedmont Lithium, and a market outlook as we position Sayona as a leading North American lithium producer. I would also like to mention that, unless otherwise stipulated, all dollar amounts quoted on the call are Australian dollars. Moving to slide three, key achievements for the financial year 2025 half-year include a number of production milestones. Namely, we saw spodumene concentrate production reach 103,000 tons, up 57% year-on-year, and concentrate sales volumes increased by 59% year-on-year to 115,000 tons. These production outcomes were achieved on the back of strong underlying operational efficiencies. Specifically, we achieved a 90% mill utilization rate at NAL, and in doing so, we improved plant stability and throughput. Lithium recovery has also increased to 67%, up 7% from the previous corresponding period. These key achievements and production milestones resulted in revenue reaching AUD 122 million, supported by increased sales volume. As a consequence, we ended the period with AUD 110 million in cash. In relation to capital raises and our growth strategy, we successfully raised AUD 38 million in November 2024 at merger announcement and expect an additional AUD 69 million upon merger completion with Piedmont. This funding importantly supports our project development strategy, particularly as it relates to NAL and Moblan. Moving to slide five. Now, shifting to operational performance at North American Lithium, we saw a number of operational improvement outcomes. On the safety front, we're seeing improved performance in relation to our leading metrics and look forward to continued improvement in safety performance outcomes as a result. Operationally, we saw ore mined increased 12% year-on-year. Process plant utilization averaged 90%, ensuring stable plant performance. We also saw consistent lithium recoveries at 67%, a 7% improvement year-on-year, and costs continued to decrease on a good solid basis on the back of stable production. We also saw a record sales period with sales to customers hitting 115,000 tons, with improved logistics and ongoing demand for NAL product. Moving to slide six, exploration efforts at NAL saw us complete 53,444 m of drilling in calendar year 2024. Drilling was focused on resource extension with high-grade lithium mineralization confirmed. These results supported potential brownfield expansion options. A new mineral resource estimate, an MRE, is expected in 2025, reflecting this most recent drilling activity. Moving to Moblan on slide seven, at Moblan, we drilled 76,202 m in calendar year 2024, again confirming the deposit's high quality with further drill results expected in the coming months. Moblan is well positioned as a significant greenfield development project, and a new MRE is scheduled for 2025. I'll now hand over to Dougal to take you through the financial results. Thanks, Lucas. Moving to slide nine. In the first half of FY 2025, we delivered strong production and sales growth, with continued focus on managing cash, driving cost reductions across the group whilst maintaining a disciplined capital allocation strategy. Revenue for the first half was AUD 122 million, up 3% compared to the prior period, with sales volume growth of 59% offsetting a 35% decline in realized selling prices. The increase in production volume and cost control measures implemented by the NAL operations team saw unit production costs fall 42% compared to the prior period. On a year-to-date basis, unit production costs are now approaching break-even with average realized selling prices. Sayona ended the first half with a cash balance of AUD 110 million, underpinning a solid financial position to provide flexibility in managing the business through lithium market price volatility. Turning to slide ten, in the first half, Sayona 's financial performance was driven by higher revenue and cost savings across the business compared to the prior period, which were offset by the flush-out of high-cost inventory carried over from the NAL ramp-up. Revenue growth of 3% was supported by high sales volume, which offset lower lithium prices. Despite the increase in production volume, NAL's operating expenses reduced by AUD 10 million compared to the prior period, excluding inventory movements, due to improved operating efficiencies and cost control measures implemented by the NAL operations team. Cost savings were also delivered at the corporate level, with a AUD 7 million reduction in corporate costs versus the prior period. The group EBITDA loss for the first half of AUD 37 million was impacted negatively by AUD 36 million of inventory movements, resulting from the flush-out of high-cost inventory carried over from the NAL ramp-up. Importantly, however, average unit costs of inventory on hand at the end of December 2024 were significantly lower than in recent periods. Moving to slide eleven, prior year underlying EBITDA has been adjusted in this slide to remove the non-recurring prior year benefit related to capitalized development costs in FY 2023. Controllable factors improved underlying EBITDA by AUD 61 million compared to the first half of FY 2024, primarily driven by a AUD 43 million increase from higher sales volume net of operating costs. Controllable costs decreased AUD 15 million, with cost savings delivered at the NAL operation and corporate functions. Improved commercial sales terms and seaborne freight optimization led to a AUD 3 million improvement in realized revenue. The improvement in controllable factors offset the significant decline in realized lithium prices, resulting in H1 FY 2025 underlying EBITDA being broadly in line with the adjusted prior year result. Turning to slide twelve, unit operating costs produced declined by 42% compared to the prior period, to AUD 1,102 per ton, driven by a 57% increase in production volume, in addition to a AUD 10 million reduction in cash expenditure at NAL. In U.S. dollar terms, the average unit operating cost produced in the first half of FY 2025 was $728 per dry metric ton. Unit operating costs sold remained stable compared to the prior period, at AUD 1,303 per ton. Unit operating costs sold were impacted by AUD 36 million of inventory movements relating to the flush-out of high-cost inventory carried over from the NAL ramp-up. Taking a look at slide thirteen, our cash balance increased by 22% during the period to AUD 110 million. NAL operating cash flows were AUD 34 million as NAL approached operating cash break-even, supported by the receipt of customer prepayments against committed future sales of spodumene concentrate. Outside of NAL, operating cash flows included a AUD 13 million outflow for the group and a AUD 5 million outflow associated with merger transaction and implementation costs. Investing cash flows were AUD 36 million for the period, which related to AUD 13 million spent on primarily sustaining capital projects at NAL and AUD 23 million spent on flow-through share-funded exploration at NAL and Moblan. Finally, the group received AUD 38 million from a capital raise completed in November 2024. Moving to slide fourteen, the group maintains a strong liquidity position at the end of the first half of FY 2025, with AUD 110 million cash at bank. The group's net asset position at the end of December 2024 was broadly in line with the closing net assets at the end of FY 2024. That concludes the financial section. I'll hand back to Lucas. Thanks, Dougal. Now for a quick recap of our merger with Piedmont Lithium. Moving to slide sixteen, the Sayona-Piedmont merger will create a North American lithium powerhouse. In terms of post-merger ownership, MergeCo will be comprised of 50% Sayona shareholders and 50% Piedmont shareholders. MergeCo's primary listing will be ASX, with the listing also on the NASDAQ in the form of ADRs. We saw strong support for the recent capital raise from existing Australian shareholders and also new shareholders providing enhanced liquidity and investor reach. Moving to slide seventeen, MergeCo will create a North American spodumene champion with an enhanced North American footprint, potential for increased operational scale, and flexibility to optimize development across multiple projects. MergeCo will have the potential to be significantly larger than any other North American producer. On to slide eighteen, MergeCo will have an enviable pipeline of development options consisting of an array of projects at different stages and with complementary timing. The development pipeline also has significant flexibility and optionality within excellent locations and will provide multiple funding and partnering options. On to slide nineteen, in terms of the progress of the merger, we're pleased to advise the ICA clearance has been achieved. CFIUS, HSR, and SEC filings are progressing. The shareholder vote and approval are anticipated in mid-2025. Integration planning, inclusive of refining synergies and cost savings, are underway, as are activities such as rebranding. Project prioritization and integrated MergeCo strategy are also being refined. Now, moving to slide twenty-one, we want to spend a few moments looking at the macro state of the lithium market. More specifically, strong demand growth is predicted to continue, as reflected by Benchmark Intelligence's December 2024 supply and demand forecast. Specifically, battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to grow at 20%-25% annually in 2025, resulting in sustained high lithium demand growth. Long-term projections indicate the EV market will grow at a 17% compounded annual growth rate, or CAGR, from 2024 through to 2034. Forecasts also reflect increasing battery pack size, with the average battery pack size for light-duty EVs expected to increase from 48 kWh in 2024 to 62 kWh in 2030, thus driving higher lithium consumption on a per-vehicle basis. On the supply side, we've seen a tightening of lithium supply, as evidenced by mine curtailments and project delays, which have led to a 9% reduction in 2025 lithium supply forecasts as compared to earlier projections. This supply squeeze supports the recovery in lithium prices. Slide twenty-two, in relation to near-term pricing trends, we've seen that spodumene prices have rebounded from lows as supply curtailments and project delays impact material availability. Lithium hydroxide futures remain in contango, meaning opportunities exist to forward sell at higher prices as compared to spot pricing. Slide twenty-three, as we look to the second half of FY 2025, we remain on track to deliver on the guidance we provided at the financial year 2024 full-year results across production, sales, OpEx, and CapEx. Shipping will be skewed to quarter four to take advantage of higher prices from forward sales contracts we have strategically put in place. Finally, with our expanded production capacity and strategic merger, Sayona is well positioned to lead in the North American lithium market. That is to say that Sayona is delivering strong operational results despite market volatility, and our merger with Piedmont positions us for long-term leadership in lithium. We encourage investors and shareholders to follow our progress as we continue to build value. Thank you for your time, and I'll now hand back to the operator for any questions. Thank you. If you do wish to ask a question, please press star then one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two, and if you are on a speakerphone, please pick up your handset to ask your question. We'll just pause momentarily to allow any questioners to register. We're showing no questions at this time. Pardon me, we've just had one. Noel Parks is your first questioner. Noel Parks from Tuohy Brothers Investment Research. Please go ahead. Hello. Just had a couple. I wonder, could you talk generally about the practical differences between brownfield expansion, for example, at NAL and potential greenfield projects? Clearly, I mean, is there sort of like a linchpin as far as the economics that where you can see the value delivered on the brownfield side that you couldn't see on the greenfield side, whether that's capital costs or depreciated infrastructure? Just any thoughts on the differences there? Yeah, thanks, Noel. I think a couple of comments. I think clearly NAL, fantastic resource base in the order of 88 million tons of resource. We've still got to incorporate that latest round of drilling into that as well, so we'd anticipate that that will be favorable. Moblan, 93 million tons, and again, without all the drilling results in there as well. They are both fantastic deposits. As we're working through, and Sylvain's spending quite a bit of time just thinking this through right now, each of those projects has got particular benefits. If I look at Moblan, Moblan's sitting there with higher grades, lower strip ratio. Contrast with NAL is that obviously we've already de-risked it from a metallurgical perspective. We know how the material handles, how it floats. The extension of the resource body is very much along strike rather than going deeper, so that's encouraging as well. From a construction and capital efficiency perspective at NAL, you've got all the utilities and the infrastructure there. It's very much about being able to put potential additional capacity on the processing side of things. There are a number of elements. I think importantly that the timing horizon for permitting, there's probably some differences between a brownfield versus a greenfield project. Noel, I think in short, Moblan's probably got a natural timing sequence associated with its permitting process given it's a greenfield project. We are very excited about the prospect of NAL, but we've got to do our homework on it. The key advantage for us at NAL, established workforce, great location, we know how the ore handles. We think hands down it'll have to be the most capital-efficient project in Québec to be able to bring additional spodumene volume onto the market. We are going to certainly have more to say about this once the merger closes. Right. You did mention that integration planning is underway, and I tend to think of deals varying a little bit depending on the regulatory hurdles that are involved. Are there any meaningful limits on how deep you can go in post-merger planning while the deal is still technically pending? Yeah, I think obviously one of the advantages we've got, particularly around NAL, is that we're joint venture partners there, which makes things a little easier. Obviously, we've got to respect our legal obligations outside of that. Things about preparedness for around organizational structure, they're all sort of activities that we can get into that don't provide any limit. I think an important aspect on the shipping front, and we've described this in previous calls, but we've already started being able to club cargoes together to be able to realize freight savings as well. We're seeing some of those benefits already flow through. There's more work for us to do. As I said, we expect to complete mid-2025, so there's still quite a bit of work for us to do, but we are sort of getting into meaningful work, and there's work streams set up that are driving those forward. For example, that project prioritization that you touched on earlier, Sylvain's leading that with one of his Piedmont counterparts. Right, right. Just to clarify, are you at a stage where you can begin engaging with officials in North Carolina for the Piedmont Lithium project? There's been sort of preliminary introductions and so forth and all, but I think we've got to be crystal clear that Piedmont has still got their hands on the wheel for all their projects, whether that's North Carolina or Ewoyaa as well. We are working through that, obviously keeping each other informed as we did through the DD process. Good enough. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Noel. Thank you. There are no further phone questions at this time, so I'd like to hand over to Andrew Barber to read some previously submitted questions. Thank you. Thank you. Lucas, first question is, in 2024, Piedmont pushed their off-take volumes towards the end of the year. Do you expect that to happen in 2025 as well? Yeah, 2024 was a bit of an aberration. There was some hangover and moving around. We've endeavored to spread volumes out more equally throughout the calendar year as well, so we typically wouldn't expect to see that repeat moving forward. Thank you. The second one is that through the merger with Piedmont, they have a number of off-take agreements, and one of those is for them to take 50% of the spodumene produced at the Ewoyaa paying market prices. Do you expect this will be renegotiated or restructured in any way? It's certainly a point of discussion with Atlantic Lithium. I think if we just take a step back, as we understand it, when Piedmont first entered into Ewoyaa with Atlantic, Piedmont were contemplating taking their off-take and converting that at their Tennessee facility. That plan's now on the back burner, so it probably doesn't make a lot of sense for Piedmont to take that volume on and then effectively go into the market as a trader. I think it'll probably be a—it's a point of conversation with Atlantic, but I think it'll probably make more sense that from an Ewoyaa project perspective that volumes sold directly into the market rather than each of them trying to—each of the respective joint venture partners trying to trade on that. That's something for a future conversation. As I said, the underlying thesis that Piedmont had entered into Ewoyaa has changed somewhat, so we'd certainly expect to have a conversation with Atlantic about that. Okay, thank you. You've redefined the Sayona downstream strategy. Could you just delve into that a little bit and describe hypothetically what an acceptable partnership and structure would look like for that downstream processing? Yeah, thank you for the question. I think really, if I was to boil it down, there's two key components. One is getting the right technical component and partner. I think, unfortunately, what we've seen is that where companies have endeavored to go downstream, particularly in the west, and even when they have partnered with Chinese partners, technically and commercially, those projects have not been a success. That's not to say they can't be in the future, but history has shown that that's been challenging. Having the right technical partner and ensuring that the process is going to work technically and it's going to be commercially viable. I think the secondary component is that these sort of investments are significant. They're large investments, so you need a partner or a group of partners with the financial clout of being able to bankroll these projects. Importantly, it's not just about the upfront CapEx, but the working capital while you're going through certification of your product and so forth. It's really twofold. The right technical partner, ideally, comes with a funding solution as well. Alternatively, you need someone with the appropriate balance sheet to be able to support that. What that means for Sayona moving forward is that if we were to participate, it would largely be as a minority partner and probably principally in a free carry perspective in a processing facility where we wouldn't be the operator, but we'd be providing feedstock to the plant. We're certainly keeping a close eye on this area. In recent times, we've had approaches from people that are looking to propose conversion facilities in both North America and also in Europe. I think it's probably a case of watch this space. Those conversations are preliminary, so nothing to disclose at this point. We're certainly actively looking. Again, our core capabilities are very much around developing and operating upstream spodumene concentrate assets rather than downstream. Okay, thank you. According to the agreement signed by Sayona in 2021 for the purchase of NAL, Sayona may be subject to some form of penalties if it doesn't refine spodumene to hydroxide or carbonate. Do you still expect this to happen? Yeah, so we've disclosed, if you like, the conditions that had been established. In working with Investment Quebec, we've received extensions on those requirements, and we're currently still working those through with Investment Quebec. Obviously, the landscape has changed significantly from when we'd entered into those agreements, and we're working collaboratively with Investment Quebec. We clearly understand the Quebec government's desire to see a battery ecosystem developed, and we want to understand how we can play our part. As I'd said in the previous question, we see our strengths very much sitting in developing and operating upstream spodumene concentrate assets as opposed to downstream. We certainly want to play our part, whether that's in the form of a minority partner and/or providing feedstock to plants. Thank you. We're now 2/3 of the way through this quarter. Do you feel we're on track with the cost and price guidance that's been provided? Yes, as we described, you'll see that shipping is weighted towards quarter four. You can anticipate there will be a dip in volume shipped during this quarter, but a strong quarter four. A short answer to our guidance is yes, we've reiterated guidance, and we expect to deliver upon it. Another question was, according to recent media, Sayona was announced that Sayona had been awarded some money for Moblan infrastructure. Was there a reason that wasn't announced to the market? Yeah, I think look, a couple of things. Just given the quantum, it wouldn't have fit the category of material. I just want to be very clear, a million dollars is a lot of money, so we're certainly not saying that. From just a disclosure perspective, it wouldn't trigger our materiality threshold. On top of that, it's very much an option, so we haven't been granted the money to spend now. It's effectively contingent upon a number of actions, and it would be preconditioned on what we decide to do in terms of develop a pathway for Moblan. Okay, thank you. In the recently published Lithium Universe DFS, it describes tax credits that are available in Canada. Would these be available for items that we put in place in 2024, like the crushed ore dome and the jaw crusher? Yeah, so Sylvain's actually got a dedicated resource that scales and keeps a very close eye on what sort of benefits might be available to us and so forth, and we've got quite an effective system. Our evaluation to date, unfortunately, represents that we wouldn't qualify for those areas. As I said, it's something that Sylvain and the team keep a very close eye on, and I want shareholders to rest assured that we're doing everything we can to take advantage of any of those benefits we might be able to obtain. Okay, just a question further to that on exactly those CapEx items that were put in place. Is it possible to quantify the savings and cost benefits and production benefits that have been achieved from those capital items? Yeah, I'm going to pass to Sylvain. I think just at a high level, really what shareholders really should be looking at in terms of things like the crushed ore dome is the improvement that we've seen in mill utilization and so forth. It is very much being reflected in the increased volume and then the subsequent sales that Dougal had outlined earlier. Sylvain, you might want to describe how the crushed ore dome has contributed to an increased mill utilization. Yes, for sure, Lucas. The crushed ore dome is giving us flexibility around 6,000 tons. If we compare with the prior, let's say 2023, 2024, we didn't have the flexibility to stop the crushing area and continue the operation at the mill. The crushed ore dome has been able to give us, you see the utilization of 90%, so the payback is direct, going from 75-ish% of utilization going up to 90%. It is a huge increase and having a huge impact on the operating. Mostly this is the most positive outcome of it. Thanks, Sylvain. Okay, there's a couple of questions with regards to potential tariffs for products being sent to Tesla. The question is to whether tariffs will be placed on that material. In a more general sense, what your view is on the sales and pricing of concentrate into the U.S. market with potential tariffs? Yeah, I think President Trump obviously suspended those proposed tariffs. I think the deadline for that is around 3rd of March. Based on what we understand, the tariffs for lithium would fall under the energy tariff, which would be at 10% rather than 25%. The consequence of the tariffs would be that any customers in the U.S. would actually pay the tariff, so it would be to their account. I think it is probably a case of watch this space in terms of whether those tariffs do come to pass. If they do, it is very much at the cost of the customer. Okay, thank you. Can you comment on any potential impact of lithium, in particular lithium, of any deal between the U.S. government and Ukrainian government around rare earth minerals and what sort of timeframe that might occur in? Yeah, so we've seen a recently announced deal with the Ukrainian government and the U.S. government, which includes critical minerals and lithium. At present, there's no substantial lithium operations in Ukraine, as I understand it. Much of that then would be longer dated type projects. Clearly, we have to watch this market, but it's only recently been announced and sort of been a little bit off the radar. It's something that we will spend a little more time on. I think in terms of near term, we don't anticipate there being any impact on the market from a supply perspective. Thanks. Lucas, that's all the questions. Thank you, Andrew. At that point, I'd just like to thank everyone for joining us, and we look forward to hosting our next call, which will be in April. Thank you all, and we'll speak to you in April. Thank you. That concludes our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you. Thank you.