Whitehaven Coal full year FY 2026 financial results. All participants are currently on mute. Following management commentary, we will open the call for questions from sell-side analysts. To queue for questions, you may press star one on your touch tone keypad. Thank you for joining us today. I will now hand the conference over to Managing Director and CEO, Paul Flynn. Please go ahead. Good morning, everybody. Thanks very much for joining us today. I know there is a bunch of calls with the other companies releasing results today, but appreciate you taking the time to dial into our full year 2026 financial results presentation. As usual, I will go through a presentation quickly. I am joined by my colleagues here, our CFO, Kevin Ball, our COO, Ian Humphris. We will go through the presentation between Kevin and myself, and we will move on to Q&A very shortly. Thanks very much again. Just flick over the page. We have got our disclosure, our disclaimer there, because we do have forward-looking statements in this document. So I bring that to your attention for your reading pleasure. I will just move over to our highlights. But first and foremost, safety and environment performance is front of mind for us at all times. In the expanded business, our safety record has actually been very positive. So our TRIFR at 3.3 is a record for the expanded footprint now, which is very positive to see. And we will continue to push that as the years progress. Environmental performance, we have had no events in this particular year. Although I do note that one event, which was recorded in last year, FY 2025, has migrated into the form of a penalty notice, which we will retrospectively report in our FY 2025 year. But that did occur this, but there were no other events in the course of the year. Our team remains dedicated to ensure that that is the case, and overall, our environmental performance and compliance has been very good. Just moving over to the highlights. I know some of these numbers are already familiar to you with the quarterly reporting that you have seen along the way. We rounded out a very good year operationally at 40.3 million tons. Quite a milestone to cross the 40 million tonne line. And so that was broadly at the top of our guidance. And the split between Queensland and New South Wales at 20.1 Queensland, 20.2 marginally crept over the top for New South Wales. Equity sales at 26 million tons, slightly down on last year, although last year, if you recall, the joint venture was formed during that year, so it is not a like-for-like comparison in that sense. Revenue at AUD 5.4 billion, 57% metallurgical coal, 43% thermal, achieved a price of, in Aussie dollar terms, AUD 202 per tonne, reflecting some softer coal market dynamics and of course, a currency which has moved adversely over that period, which I am sure we will talk to a little bit later on. The cost outcome for the year has been excellent, and AUD 132, I'm sure, was taken a few of you by surprise when we reported that unaudited as it was during the quarter report. That's a terrific result, down from AUD 139 in FY 2025, certainly at the lower end of guidance. EBITDA at AUD 1.25 billion underlying as it is, AUD 677 million for Queensland, AUD 596 million for New South Wales. The underlying NPAT of AUD 227 million and our statutory NPAT at AUD 385 million reflects some post-tax non-recurring gains of AUD 158 million, which Kevin will cover shortly for you. The board has seen fit to declare a fully franked dividend of AUD 0.06 per share payable on the 15th of September and to allocate an equal amount up to a further AUD 47 million in our buyback program, which will be executed over the next six months. Just flipping over, just the year itself in terms of pricing, FY 2026, it was a period of softer pricing overall, but we did see improvement in the second half, which was positive. As I've mentioned there before, the full-year average of AUD 202 per tonne in Aussie dollar terms was down 6%. As I say, the price has recovered in the second half, but the currency, as you can see on the chart here, has moved significantly over the years that we depicted here. So in Aussie dollar terms, that's actually been a negative for realized coal pricing in Aussie dollars. Metallurgical pricing has actually been a little bit better in more recent times. Thermal price also the same, been range bound for a good period, but obviously energy security concerns related to the Middle East conflict certainly had, in the second half, improved the price and been quite robust since that time as that conflict unfortunately continues to go on. Demand for our products has been very strong, so no issues there with our customers. They continue to take all the contractual commitments and in fact, asking for more. So we are a little constrained in that sense, but that's a positive underpinning for the market. Our outlook on the medium to long term remains unchanged and positive. Flicking over quickly just to the spread of our sales. 90% of the sales you can see for the year were in Asia. Japan obviously remains the heart of the business with over half of our sales. India at 11%. The remaining third is broadly across Malaysia, Korea, Europe, and Southeast Asian countries, plus China and Taiwan. So a nice spread of the sales mix across the non-Japanese sales, and we see that continuing to expand in this new year. 57%, I guess to say, of the sales revenue was met coal in this year. Flicking over to the commodity insights data. We've represented this for you. The timeline for this has been extended a further 10 years just to highlight for that. So it looks slightly different from what you've seen in the past, but both sides of this equation highlight growing demand and a shortfall of production. I am sure that is no surprise that everybody sees that in terms of 162 million tons shortfall projected out to 2050 on the metallurgical coal side, and 118 million tons on the thermal side over the same time horizon. No surprise here, approval timelines are blowing out and supplier response hasn't been meaningful at all, despite the fact we've been through periods of decent pricing and underlying demand just continues to truck along, which is very positive for us and positive for anybody who's obviously got productive assets on foot already. In terms of the operational results, I'll just skirt over this relatively quickly because you've seen this in the quarters. Queensland, the split there, and New South Wales. The total 40.3 million tons, again, quite a milestone for us to cross that threshold. And our sales at a managed level, 32.7 million tons for the year compared to 30.2 tons million in FY 2025. Production, Queensland 20.1 million tons. Did a reasonable job. We obviously had a weather-affected quarter, heavily weather affected, and that manifested itself particularly at Blackwater in the year. But the recovery from that actually was quite good. And to round out at 13.9 million tons for the year, was a positive result for Blackwater. Daunia had an outstanding year results-wise, so 6.2 million tons of ROM was certainly a highlight. And you can see the trajectory in our ownership here has been very positive. The momentum we've been able to gain over the period of our ownership of the Queensland business has been really good. Our focus for this new year really is just to make sure we continue to rebuild the inventories for the dragline operations at Blackwater. Setting down a life of mine plan that we're satisfied with for that asset. Then of course, Daunia, as we've spoken about, we want to make sure that the AHS productivity gains, which we think are possible, we want to see more progress on that over this next 12 months in particular. And particularly as it's important to us because we are moving into the southern domain of Daunia, and so those hauls become a little longer. So we want to make sure that the productivity benefits are there from potential benefits are there for the AHS system there. New South Wales at 20.2 million tons, as I said, just crept over the Queensland 20.1 million tons, so won the State of Origin this year. Very good to see the continuation of improvement there at Maules Creek in particular. All the open cuts did well, but Maules Creek, it's nice to see that building momentum and that momentum is carried into this new year, which is positive. Narrabri we talked about through the quarters, has had a couple of difficult times. We are seeing very positive production performance as a result of some of the work we've done to improve the health of the longwall. So that's positive to see. But the year itself in total, yes, from our perspective, it was less than we would have expected, given that bumpy ride and the geotechnical conditions that we found in the last quarter in particular that gave us a little bit of heartburn. Moving over. Sorry, I'll just comment there. For our new year, we haven't focused on this before, but we have just received an approval to go to 4.1 million tons for our GOC operations, which will be bedded into this new financial year. Even though the open cuts between Vickery and Tarrawonga have done a very good job, this year we'll be able to take that a little bit further, with the 4.1 million tons approval just recently received. With that, I'll hand over to Kevin. Thank you, Paul. This slide, I think, Paul referred to the good cost management. What you'll see in here is the impact of softer coal prices. In 2026, our average U.S. dollar price was $137 against $140 in the previous year. The other impact there is the FX went from 65 in FY 2025 to 68, and collectively that's almost AUD 300 million worth of revenue that didn't turn up in 2026, that turned up in 2025. Sales volume, a little lower at AUD 24 million. But the real issue or the real paper on the year is the AUD 182 million in costs out and the program of work to deliver AUD 132 million as a unit cost for the business. That really is the piece that helped to deliver AUD 1.25 billion in EBITDA for the period. It was a lot of hard work by a lot of people focused on a range of initiatives in the business to deliver that outcome, so we're pretty proud of that outcome. Turn the page. Underlying EBITDA, as I said, AUD 1.25 billion, converted to an underlying NPAT of AUD 227 million after depreciation, amortization, net finance expenses, and tax. I apologize for this, but it's a little complex in here when you get to the non-recurring items on the next line, AUD 158 million. But you'll also see in the back of this pack some information around where we think interest is going to be and where depreciation's going to be in years to come. Depreciation was AUD 534 million, amortization AUD 148 million, that's about 680 million. Our CapEx for the year was about half that, or about AUD 349 million, AUD 350 million. Our underlying net finance expense of AUD 254 million really reflected the acquisition funding in place in April 2026, because the refinance of that only ever really kicked in in about April. So we'll get about a quarter of that. You should see a little bit better this year because of that refinance. The non-recurring post-tax gains of AUD 158 million. These are the non-cash remeasurement of contingent consideration. You know we have to pay BHP or we've had to pay BHP a share of coal price appreciation or coal price outperformance. We remeasure those and we remeasure the value of the deferred. That's largely what falls into the non-recurring items. Statutory NPAT AUD 385 million, and you will see that note 2.2 in the financial report for those of you who want to read the report, there's a reconciliation between underlying and statutory NPAT. If I turn the page, this was a really interesting slide for me. A AUD 48 million margin. It is down a touch from the previous year, and when I say a touch, it is down about AUD 2 million, I think, AUD 48 million plays 51 million. Really, a softer price. Average revenue after royalties was AUD 180 million a ton, compared with AUD 190 million in FY 2025. Average cost of sales, though, was down AUD 7 million a ton. I think there is about AUD 2 million in diesel in that, so it would have been about AUD 130 million had diesel continued to perform in the way it did in the first seven or eight months. Together with inflation, diesel, and a range of things, I think that is why you would say, or we would say, lots of work went into delivering AUD 132 million for the year. We are pleased with that. EBITDA margin, as I said, AUD 48 million or 27%, so it is a good outcome. Turn the page. Cost of coal improved AUD 7 million. Unit cost improved AUD 7 million from 139 million-AUD 132 million. We were AUD 135 million at the turn, at the half year, so that is good. There is some benefit here from a sales mix between New South Wales. New South Wales volume, so it is about AUD 4 million in that. There are also savings of about AUD 9 million- AUD 10 million delivered through a range of initiatives and cost restraints. The 2025 cost outcomes or cost savings that we put in place in FY 2025 continued to roll through into FY 2026, and we delivered around AUD 65 million of annualized saving in FY 2026 through more than 100 individual projects across the business, from corporate, logistics and marketing, and operations. As I say, it was an effort of everybody across the business. Significant savings and volume benefits were partially offset by inflationary impacts and higher diesels. Between diesel inflation, we think that is about AUD 6 million- AUD 7 million that would have pushed up from the previous year. Again, a good outcome. Turn the page to the segment results for FY 2026. Queensland, AUD 2.9 billion in revenue, underlying EBITDA of AUD 677 million. New South Wales, AUD 2.4 billion in revenue and underlying EBITDA of AUD 596 million. The Queensland EBITDA was about 22% down on the previous year, which reflected the 30% sell down to Blackwater that took place in April 2025, or in March 2025. New South Wales EBITDA was up 11%. Good cost performance and an improved coal price contributed to those two things. The net finance expense reflects the underlying component of the total finance expenses. We are really pleased to have AUD 900 million fixed at AUD 6.5 b illion, and the variable component, the AUD 475 million of drawn bank debt, is pretty much matched or exceeded by the cost on the cash that is on deposit. Our interest cost should be pretty easy to pick on our borrowings in future years. The number of 254 should come down to around 215 in FY 2027 as the full year benefit of that lower cost comes through. If I turn the page, net debt at AUD 1.3 billion. If I have AUD 1.25 billion in EBITDA and AUD 1.3 billion in net debt, then I am about one turn of leverage at what would arguably be the bottom of the cycle. It fits within the guidance that we've set to market on how we look at our debt. To be honest, look at that and say that's a pretty good outcome given we've paid AUD 738 million or $500 million to BHP at the start of that. I'm pleased with that. If we start, AUD 1.4 b illion, AUD 1.3 b illion during the year. Net cash inflow from operating activity is AUD 857 million. We spent AUD 349 million on CapEx, as I said, about half the depreciation amortization charge. AUD 119 million on leases. We gave shareholders AUD 156 million. There was some other investing activity, which is us putting money into the rare earths end of town in Brazilian Rare Earths, Rare Earths Americas. That pretty much explains how you get from an adjusted AUD 1.372 billion at the beginning of the year to AUD 1.327 billion at the end of the year. Come across into the capital structure. The refinance completed in the second half. We now have a AUD 1.5 billion capital structure comprising AUD 600 million of bank funding, of which AUD 475 million is drawn and AUD 125 million is undrawn, and AUD 900 million of senior secured notes that are fixed coupon rates. The refinancing lowered the cost of debt, diversified the funding sources, and extended the tenor, and you can see that in the graph that's on this page where you can see maturities in FY 2031, 2032, or 2034. That refinancing will save about AUD 50 million-AUD 55 million a year. We're really proud now that we have an investment grade-rated senior secured debt instrument, and we're focused on maintaining those strong credit metrics. The other thing I'd say to you about that is that if you look at those bonds since issuance, they've traded tighter since we sold them, and they're now back inside 6%. That's been really well received by the market and really well received by the investors. They've done well out of it, as have we. Turn the page. We always maintain strong liquidity, and this slide should tell you no different. AUD 778 million of cash on hand. Our gearing was about 18%, which is within our 10%-20% rate. As I said before, we're about 1x levered on our EBITDA. Well-placed through the bottom of the cycle. No real pressure on the business in terms of tenor or in terms of refinance or in terms of liquidity. We're looking forward to April 2027 when the three-year deferred and contingent payment arrangements for Daunia and Blackwater stop. Then the cash flows from the Queensland assets are entirely flowing to Whitehaven Coal shareholders, which will be a good day. Further strength in the balance sheet. Let me hand back to Paul. Thanks, Kevin. I think that is a very good summary of some excellent work that has been done during the course of the year to position the company well from a financial structure perspective. As you say, great to see the company with investment grade debt instruments, certainly a rarity in our sector. The capital allocation framework, as you know, is very important to us and portrayed here on this slide as it was in the past. No change there. As Kevin summarized for you, our current situation fits firmly within the metrics described here in the center of the page. That is very good positioning for the company, and it gives everyone a clear understanding as to how we think about the deployment of the incremental dollar of capital. Balancing, obviously ensuring that we provide shareholder returns through the balancing of the various alternatives to use that dollar, be that for divi's and buybacks. Obviously, our organic growth options that we have and of course M&A episodically when something compelling is on the table. Moving across, as far as this year goes, AUD 159 million of capital returned in respect of the FY 2026 year and split evenly between franked dividends and our buyback. The year's result does round out our payout ratio at 70%, which is slightly out of bounds from our 40%-60% range. That really is a function of the fact that we paid a divi in the first half with meager, strong balance sheet but meager underlying NPAT. The addition of our AUD 0.06 fully franked dividend as our final brings us to around 70% of an FY 2026 underlying payout ratio. AUD 64 million has already been returned, and so a further AUD 95 million is to be returned via that dividend. Then we will complement that, as I mentioned a little earlier, with a buyback of similar proportion over the next six months. That is about AUD 47 million. The split between franked dividends and buybacks certainly reflects the composition of our register. Also we do often take feedback from our shareholders in terms of what their preference is from a dividend and buyback perspective, and we get pretty much equally weighted feedback, I must say. That is not a domestic to external split. That is actually domestic shareholders giving that feedback as well, so that the buyback is meaningful to them. Over the course of the year, I think we have delivered a very, very solid performance for the business. If you look at it just on a year-on-year basis itself, our total shareholder returns for the year to 30 June 2026 is 41%, ranking Whitehaven at 16 of the ASX 100. Which is not a bad performance given that we hover around scale wise, around the 80 million tons -AUD 90 million tons in the ASX 100. So not a bad effort from all the team here I think you would agree. I will flick over to guidance now if I can. Looking at the guidance ahead for us now, we are now into our third year of ownership of the Queensland assets, and so that bigger portfolio. We feel like we have bedded that down to a good degree, although we have got plenty of work to do to optimize the portfolio even further. The confidence that we have in the Queensland business now two years in, entering this third, allows us to narrow the managed ROM guidance slightly. Similar to last year, last year was 37 million tons - 41 million tons. We have tightened that up a little bit to 38 million tons - 41 million tons as our guidance for managed ROM production for this new year. We feel that the downside we understand better, and so that is why we have tightened that up a little bit better. Relatedly, managed coal sales reflects that change as well. So our guidance there at 30.4 million tons- 33 million tons for the year and cascades through to the equity coal sales as well at 23.9 million tons- 26 million tons on the upside. Unit cost, this is obviously the one which is quite challenging and whilst we have done very well in this year to bring ourselves into AUD 132 million for the full year FY 2026. The 2027 year, as you see, we enter the year not as we entered last year. We enter this year with an ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which makes it a little bit difficult for us to estimate where to locate our assumptions around diesel pricing, say for instance, which is material to us and our cost base. We have left the spread for our cost guidance across a AUD 15 million range in Aussie dollar terms. So AUD 132 million at the low end to AUD 147 million at the high. I am sure everybody accepts that trying to predict that at this point in time is a difficult exercise, so we have chosen to leave that at that AUD 15 million range. But as you can see and as Kevin described well, our efforts during the course of the year to bring our costs down despite the turbulence that affected us, not just the Middle Eastern conflict effect on diesel pricing. But also the weather impacts that we had obviously in Q3 and the recovery of that and the excellent work that the team has done in reducing our costs across the business, gives us confidence that we can certainly trend down towards the bottom end. But I just provide that caveat that the diesel pricing assumption is something that we have taken our best attempt at performing, but I am sure one way or the other, it will be a variance to what it is that we have forecast for the year. CapEx, we ended up as we said, at AUD 349 million, so below our CapEx. Our range this year is slightly higher, so we are AUD 390 million- AUD 490 million for our CapEx guidance for this new year. As has been in the past, and as Kevin has highlighted again, we have spent less than depreciation amortization in aggregate. We are not attempting here to compromise any of the prospects for the business, but we are making sure that we measure out the capital in judicious fashion and make sure that the dollars are going to the right projects to make sure that the business is sustained and well-maintained. And that we are balancing the needs of the competing requests for capital across the business. A gain, we have taken a conservative position in terms of our guidance for this new year. We think we are carrying good momentum into the year, as you can see, volumetrically and cost-wise. We feel it continues to be prudent to make sure that conservative approach is embedded in our guidance for this new year. So, that rounds out pretty much where we're going for this year. Now, in terms of the focus for this new year for us, continued safety and environmental performance is front of mind at all times. I mentioned the cost discipline, we feel like there's potential here, and as we've commented in the past, we have upside in terms of cost reductions associated with our recent renegotiation of our rail contracts, which is very positive. And in the case of Queensland, the elimination of surplus take-or-pay, similarly to what we did with our New South Wales recontracting of that same service. But we want to make sure that the business continues to deliver reliably and sustainably over the out years. Our focus is making sure that we've got a robust platform that delivers consistently across the year. And of course, our guidance is paramount to us, so we want to make sure that we deliver that in good form in this new financial year. So, thanks for taking the time. We're very pleased with the year that we've rounded out, and look forward to the questions from our Q&A session. Thank you. Thank you, sell side analysts. 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 speaker phone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Rahul Anand with Morgan Stanley. Oh, hi. Good morning, Paul, Kevin, and Ian. Thanks for the call. Can I perhaps start with CapEx? So, in terms of the CapEx guidance this year, we do have a bit of a bump up, and I know it's coming mainly from Narrabri, and I think there was a bit of deferral from last year into this year. But I guess my question's more focused on how we should think about the maintenance CapEx on a go forward basis. Do you think there's any one-offs here that we should exclude besides the Narrabri impact? Anything to call out at all to note for the CapEx going forward? Thanks. Thanks, Rahul. We have been cautious with the CapEx, as you know. Then obviously with the expanded footprint, that has been part of the cultural sort of journey, if you like, in terms of making sure that we have got discipline around the requests for capital and how it is deployed across the newer part of our business. As you rightly point out, Narrabri has been in need of deployment of capital here. We are partway through a two-stage process of refurbishing our longwall. We did that the last change out. First part of two. Of course, with the next change out, there is a decent amount of capital that goes into completing that reversion of the wall itself. There is capital also involved, obviously, in opening up, if I can put broadly, the stage three areas from an infrastructure perspective. That requires capital as well. But we have put this off. That work needs to be conducted during the course of this next year, which will put us in a very solid position, we feel, going into panel 205. Because we will get through the bonus panel, conduct that second stage of that work, and get into a new panel, which we know has got less geotechnical concerns. A wall which will be fighting fit in terms of for being able to lift our productivity and production levels at Narrabri. But no other one-offs that you should be concerned about. Got it. Basically, expect the CapEx to be a bit lower going forward after adjusting to that, is the right way to think about it? Well, I think absent- Okay. Yep. Yep. Sorry, go ahead. No, I was just saying. We're not forecasting lower CapEx going forward. We're not giving guidance over multi years. All we're highlighting is that the one at Narrabri, obviously, is episodic. It's obviously not a reoccurring expenditure that we need to make for a refurbishment of a wall. But into the out years, I'm sure as fleet replacements and things take hold, we will guide you in future years as to when those things come. Understood. Okay. For the second one, you touched on it a bit in your introductory comments as well, Paul, and that's related to the diesel price. Obviously the assumption this year is, in large part looks flat with FY 2026 in terms of the assumption of the diesel price. Can we just maybe get a quick refresher on just that sensitivity to the diesel price? Where you think the diesel spot is currently? Are there any measures that can be taken to perhaps changing mine plans or something else in terms of work index that can help shield you a bit in terms of periods where the price for diesel might be significantly higher? Yep. Thanks, Rahul. Broadly, the consumption of diesel across our business is 1 L/ BCM. You can see the total movements of dirt for our business. Diesel prices, as we've commented on over the, particularly last quarter, May was pretty eye-watering in terms of the price per liter. We've got nearly up to AUD 2 a liter on a net basis for us. That's moderated further down, probably now, what, AUD 1.45 to AUD 1.50 type level at the moment. Our assumption for this year, the midpoint of our guidance, and I think it's important just to state this because it is in the footnote, but let me just highlight it just for a moment. Our assumption for this year, our midpoint of guidance cost-wise is predicated on AUD 1.16 on a net basis per liter for the year, average for the year. We've tapered it, obviously, from where we are today versus where we might end at the end of the financial year. That's what I was referring to in the challenge of trying to forecast this thing, given that we are captive to whatever goes on over there, and we observe it and have as much control as you do over what goes on over there. That's the challenge of it, but that is the context for where we've been in the past. Pre-conflict, we would have hovered around the late 90s to AUD 1 per liter. We are predicting a return to, hopefully, peace and normality by the end of the financial year, which allows us to get from a tapered basis down to AUD 1.16 on average for the full year for the midpoint of our guidance. Got it. That's very clear. Thank you, Paul. I'll pass it on. Cheers. Your next question comes from Paul Young with Goldman Sachs. Morning, Paul. Morning, Kev. Hope you're both well. Can we start with the production guidance for FY 2027? Looking at the Queensland guidance, which implies a bit of a fall at the midpoint year-on-year. I know you've stepped through Blackwater having to catch up a little bit in stripping in the second half and Daunia moving to some of the southern pits and longer hauls and the auto haul, or automated trucks, sorry, just commissioning those and getting comfort, etc. Are both operations falling a little bit in FY 2027 or is it more one than the other? Yeah. Thanks, Paul. Look, yeah, the guidance is, as we said, conservatively positioned. As you rightly point out, the midpoint is less than what we've done for this past year. That's not our aspiration, of course, in this year. I could say that Blackwater will be doing a bit more of the heavy lifting this year. Daunia does have to go through a transition here, so there's a bit more dirt being moved in this new year as we start to extend ourselves now and open up the southern domain of Daunia. So there's a bit more dirt being done there, and so the mix of the two does change. But we feel like, well, Blackwater is certainly performing reasonably, and we feel like that'll year-on-year will be an improvement. AUD 13.9 last year wasn't where we wanted to be, and that was weather affected, so we feel like there's upside there. But you will see a moderation in the mix as Daunia focuses on the dirt. Yeah, okay. Understood. And then a question on costs. I know you guys split out Queensland and New South Wales within the guidance and the result, but I think a quick calc on the second half for Queensland. I think unit costs are about AUD 145 million or AUD 148 million, or in that sort of ballpark. Obviously, volumes are going, midpoints going backwards a little bit. Diesel, we've just run through. Previously you've guided to medium-term, I think around AUD 145 million or thereabouts. Anything to comment on those numbers as far as Queensland reporting AUD 145 million- AUD 148 million in the half as a new starting base? We haven't engaged in this because we don't provide a breakup on, but your arithmetic is not a world away from where it is, Paul. We feel like we've got good momentum coming into this year from a cost reduction perspective. I think that's evidenced by the AUD 132 million. I think we've done well. Our objective here is to carry that into the year, but we're not going to. There's lots of execution risk that goes around all these things, and you've got the diesel prices we've talked about ad nauseam already hovering over us. So our view is that we can work on this cost base in this new year. Absent diesel price, we feel like we've got some momentum to drive some further cost out of our business. Queensland in particular, relative to New South Wales. New South Wales obviously is not immune to the laser focus that the team is applying on the cost side of things. But it's, I have to say from a production improvement perspective, it's got less upside, if I could say that. Yep. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Your next question comes from Adam Martin with Evans and Partners. Yeah. Morning, Paul, Kevin, and team. Just back on the costs. You previously flagged things like maintenance as a medium-term opportunity. Perhaps you could just step through. We put the diesel thing to the side. We can all make an assumption around diesel price. But what sort of structurally can you work on over the next one to two years, please? Sorry, from a maintenance perspective, Adam? Yeah, maintenance and then anything else you think is out there from an operating cost perspective. Yeah. Look, I wouldn't say maintenance-wise. We certainly made a lot of improvements in action maintenance programs that have been run over the last 2 years. So there's been a handsome amount of savings that have been brought to bear through that. But I wouldn't say going forward we're going to be driving material change in that regard. The CapEx and maintenance and rebuilds programs are crafted around maintaining the quality of the gear and the operational utilization of the gear that we're striving for. So we're not cutting any corners there. But we do want to make sure that every AUD spent is well spent. So that is definitely the focus for that. But nothing material to change there. Yeah. We run a condition monitoring program and, as we get to know the assets better, particularly the Queensland ones, we're continuing to push sort of lives out there. So there will be savings in that area. Yeah. No, and to your point, we've spoken about at least the big ticket items with the dragline, say, for instance. There's been a little bit more money applied to the rebuilds as we've got a closer examination of the condition, as you say, of some of that equipment. We've spoken about in previous quarters about having to apply a little bit more money to each of those rebuilds as they occur. But other than that, I think we should be in reasonable shape. Okay. The only other thing that I mentioned there earlier. Sorry, Adam. The only other thing that I mentioned earlier there, of course, is the rail outcomes as being upside for us in terms of cost savings. New South Wales, of course, we did a very good job there, I think, initially in terms of bringing down the surplus take-or-pay exposure on the above rail and matching that better to the sales profile of our mines in New South Wales. Now we've complemented that with obviously an outcome on the Queensland side of things. Aurizon has been successful in winning the business for our Queensland operations. We've been able to eliminate surplus take-or-pay from that arrangement as well, which has been very positive and also achieved a cost reduction as well per ton over the contractual period, which is a couple of years, obviously, on the tail of this existing contract, plus the 10 years that followed for the new arrangement. In aggregate, yeah, very positive to see those cost reductions coming to the table. Okay. Thank you. Just second question. Arguably, your cost of capital's reducing, your interest cost 9% down to 6%. That's, as you've pointed out, over AUD 50 million annually. Are you sort of thinking about that as being extra that's going to be returned to shareholders? Or is now the time to sort of consider growth? Maybe you could update on some of the growth options there, please. Yeah. Well, look, I think less expenses, interest or otherwise, results in higher NPAT, which will drive better return to shareholders. There's no doubt about that. We're very pleased with those outcomes. As Kevin's mentioned earlier, we're now entering the last year, have entered the last year, not just of the deferred payment, which is $100 million US that we need to pay, but the last year of sharing the revenue as part of that deferred consideration structure. One quarter has obviously passed already of that arrangement. We've got three more to go of that revenue-sharing exposure. As mentioned earlier, those dollars will now form part of the collective coffers of the expanded group. I think as we guided in the first quarter, so in the June quarter, I think we estimated it was the exposure was about $50 million, $53 million, I think, US in the quarter. So if pricing remained the same as that over the course of the year, then there's some $200 million, $210 million, $215 million. The price has come down since then. If you think about that, after this last year of the three-year structure, that money finds its way into our bank account, which will be great. And stays there. And stays there. So, that's very positive. So it's nice to come to the end of that period. Obviously, prices have moderated from the calculation I just gave you slightly. So it may be more in the annualized $170 million- $180 million type number. But the point here is that after the end of, once we get to April, all the upside in revenue is ours, not shared. So that's the positive part that we would like to get to the end of, to conclude what has been otherwise a very successful structure to the acquisition consideration payments. Okay. Thank you. That is all for me. Your next question comes from Jon Sharp with JP Morgan. Good morning, Paul, Kevin, and Ian. Thanks for taking my question, and congratulations on FY 2026, those costs. Just back to costs for FY 2027. Can you just remind us, or maybe let us know what you are currently paying for diesel? I think you get about AUD 0.53 off of rebate. Is that correct? I think it is really hard to do that. This is Kevin. It is really hard to do that when you look at the bowser price. Today we are in the AUD 1.30, I would say, AUD 1.30, AUD 1.35. The real question that is driving this at the moment is crack spreads. If you take a Singapore gas oil price, that actually gives you a reasonably good proxy for the diesel price that we are paying, I think. But crack spreads, because crack spreads have gone from traditionally, say, a year ago, they were about $20 a barrel to now $50, $60, $70, $80 a barrel, depending upon where capacity exists on the planet. Crude is a contributor, but crack spreads have become an increasing contributor. As Paul said, we have got a budget in there that says we expect this conflict to settle over the next year and diesel prices to come back to something more reasonable. That is how you get AUD 100 and AUD 1.16, I think, is the guidance that we have got in there that underpins the midpoint of guidance. Down from, which is a little more elevated in this first half. That is the story. Okay, great. Thank you for that. Second question, you finished FY 2026 at the top end of ROM guidance. FY 2027 range is a little bit tighter. Possibly, do you have greater confidence in the Queensland assets now that you have had them for three years to tighten that guidance range? What is stopping you from hitting the top end of guidance again this year? Yep. Jon, it is a good question. We feel like we have good momentum. There is a mix of productions, as I mentioned there earlier, just in terms of Blackwater and Daunia in this new year. But we feel like we have got good momentum. New South Wales, as I mentioned before, has actually done really well, bar Narrabri. Narrabri is actually performing better, so that is very encouraging to enter the new year on that basis. We would love to see that continue on. But we are cautious to bank all these opportunities formally in that sense. I think our objective here definitely is to get to the top end of our guidance, if not beyond. That would be our objective. But how do you set that up at the beginning of the year, given that we are sitting here having had a bumpy ride with Narrabri? We've had some significant weather in this past year. We've reflected that in our budgets for this new year. The corollary of all that is the basis upon which we provide conservative guidance, although we think we've all got no momentum. I understand the point that you're making that we have, with that momentum, we should have a positive year volumetrically, and that will also drive a positive year cost-wise. I think the thesis, the hypothesis is sound. Okay, great. Just quickly, I want to make sure I get this one right. Just on the last call, Ian, I believe you said that all the supports are coming out to the surface for the longwall move. I didn't know whether you meant all the supports that require maintenance. Can you just let me know, yeah, is it all the supports or is it just the supports that require maintenance? No, all the support. No, all the supports will come out, but there is, I guess, a varied maintenance requirement on those supports. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yes. Some have had the birthday already, and there's a smaller effort per support to be undertaken, whereas others didn't get the benefit of the first stage of the work, so they need a more intensive overhaul. All of them are coming. Yeah, all of them. I mean, some have some structural stuff that need fixing up, and some of that will be, I guess, determined as we get them out and have a look at them. Okay, great. Thank you for that. I'll pass along. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw with UBS. Morning, Paul, Kevin, Ian, and team. Thank you very much for your time, and thanks for the questions. Two from me. I just wanted to, I suppose, start at Narrabri. Obviously, there is a bit more capital coming up. But last three years it has been below 5 million tons a year. I am sure you would prefer it to be running at a higher run rate than that more reliably. Can you remind us, when you think about this capital program, refurbishing the longwall, the next change out, etc, getting into the new panels, are you confident there is a pathway back above 5 million tons? Is it 5.5 million tons? Could it get to 6 million tons in two, three years' time? Thanks, and I will come back with my second. Yeah, thanks, Lachlan. Yeah, look, our expectation is that once fully overhauled and as we move into panel 205, where we know the geotechnical concerns diminish, our view is, and we got asked this question a quarter ago, do we still feel confident that Narrabri can return to a 6 million tons -7 million tons per annum range? We do have that confidence. So there is no reason to think that we cannot achieve that. We know and we have lived the experience of the underperformance for the last few years. So we are all very mindful of that. But it is encouraging to see the work that the team are doing and the productivity improvements that we are seeing come from that. And that momentum needs to be maintained, obviously, to return to a 6 million tons -7 million tons per annum outcome. But I think in panel 5, I think there is the convergence of still being shallow, a wall in good shape, and less geotechnical and geological things to concern us. The aggregate of those, I think, will see us do much better in 2025. Great. Thank you. That is helpful. And then just a second question. So, I do note a little bit of capital in the guidance for 2027 for Vickery extension project. I suppose the question here is, given the better fiscal regime in New South Wales normalizing thermal coal markets, is the thinking internally around Vickery extension changing? Are you considering potentially accelerating? Or saying differently, where would you want to see GCNEWC trade sustainably to get more positive on Vickery extension? Thanks. Yep. Yeah, thanks. Lachlan, I think our view on Vickery hasn't changed. It's prospective and we feel that the opportunity is there before us. It's really about timing in a lot of ways and financial capacity. We want to make sure that we've put behind us the cashflow demands that came from the Queensland acquisition, which I think everybody will accept has been excellent for our shareholders. The next opportunity would be something like Vickery to come forward. We're using the opportunity now to look at the various ways in which that might be funded. We have expressions of support from customers and suppliers who'd like to be involved, so we are examining all those things over the next 12 months. Price-wise, do we need to see more than AUD 130 million? We'd love to, but we don't need to, is the answer to that question. Again, inflation has taken its part in our industry, as you know, in more recent times. So we are taking this time to refresh our view of the costs of running the bigger Vickery version. It's more expensive than Maules Creek, as you know. The strip ratio there is 8: 1, so it's more expensive. So we just want to make sure that our view of the robustness of that project is updated to reflect the run rates that we're seeing and cost rates that we're seeing in this environment, not when the last time we looked at it. Right. Thanks. Makes sense. I'll pass it on. Your next question comes from Chen Jiang with Bank of America. Good morning, Paul and Kevin. Thank you for taking my questions. My first question may be for Kevin regarding your payout. So including buyback, your payout from the underlying NPAT is around 70% up- Yep. ....above the target ratio 60%. I am just wondering, what is the thinking from the board paying above your target ratio? Is this just a one-off, like you are doing this above payout? Also by looking at the split of buyback versus dividend, it is kind of evenly splited, but I feel like the market doesn't reward companies doing buyback. Plus you have AUD 1.2 billion of franking sitting there, so why not just distribute more franked dividends versus buyback? Thank you, Kevin. I think I am going to answer the question this way for you. I think you look at the balance sheet, it is in really good shape. You look at the business, it is in really good shape. You look at where we are in the price cycle, and you look at the non-cash charges that are coming through the P&L, and you sort of sit there and say AUD 0.06, AUD 0.05. You look at it and say it is actually time to give shareholders a little bit more and signify that the world is in pretty good shape. I think that is probably what I would say to you about that dividend payment. I don't think AUD 0.01 at 800 million shares at AUD 8 million is that onerous an ask, Chen. I think that is good. The balance of your question, I am not sure how to answer that, to be honest with you. I think the dividend approach that we have done, Paul talked about, which is, I know we have got AUD 1.2 billion in franking credits sitting on a balance sheet, but that is largely sitting there because you have got no access to off-market buybacks anymore, and that was a change in federal government legislation. Paying more dividends, I think some shareholders would have a different view about dividends versus buybacks. I think you will see us stay within the measured approach that we have got and that we have explained to a market. I think we think this business moving forward is in pretty good shape to provide returns to shareholders. Sure. That 70% above payout target of 60% can happen again whenever you think your balance sheet is strong and you have, I guess, good earnings or good free cash flow going forward? I think you should think where we are in a cycle. Coal prices are relatively low and recovering, so that number is sensitive to the NPAT being delivered from a coal price cycle. At this point, the coal price cycle. I think the 70%, we are not changing our policy. 40% to 60%, it has only recently been revised and has been represented here today in consistent form from what it is. But we have paid over the upper bounds of that payout ratio, which is largely a function, Chen, as you recall, having paid a dividend in the first, in our interim, off a period when there was meager to little NPAT being recorded in an underlying basis. But we have a strong balance sheet, so we thought it was the right thing to do with an improving outlook. That outlook did materialize, so I think that was the right perspective to take on the interim. As a result, we have taken, as Kevin said, a sensible approach to the final dividend, which in aggregate lands us at 70% of the underlying NPAT. But I do not think we should be inferring necessarily that because we have done that this year, that there is a change to the upper bounds of our policy. It is just the opportunity that was presented to us as a result of improving conditions and a good balance sheet. Got it. Yeah, got it. Thanks for that. The second question, I know a lot of analysts have asked about your cost guidance. Sorry, just to dive deeper into your cost guidance FY 2027 with the big range of AUD 15 million per ton. I think that range is similar to what you provided for FY 2026, despite you delivered at lower end of the guidance for the last financial year. However, looking at the FY 2027, you have AUD 5 million saving, like lower year-over-year from the renewed rail contract. Plus, you also mentioned you have cost out initiative to continue in FY 2027. You mentioned again, you can trend lower end of the guidance. So I am just wondering what is the underlying assumption for that range? Is that mainly because of diesel? Because you are not sure how the Middle East conflict is going to end? What is the assumption for the lower end and the upper end? Thank you. Yeah, look, I think the one important aspect of that Chen which you've not mentioned is underlying inflation. If you look at our business and the inflation rate that is in our industry as opposed to the country as a whole, you start the year knowing that you are going to have to counter 3%-4% inflation in your cost base. If you apply that 3%-4% to the AUD 132 million, that works out of the numbers you just referenced there as being up. We need to counter that, and all the efforts that we are bringing into this new year and the momentum that we had, is necessary in order just to counter that alone. The volumetric upside will certainly give us, as we are shooting for the upper end of guidance as we did last year, we are shooting for that. To the extent that we can do that puts us in the bottom end of the range for sure. That is the way the guidance is structured to make sure that there is integrity. The top end of ROM guidance and sales equals the bottom end of cost guidance. You rightly point out that there is some opportunities for savings. Most of that is banked into that. But it is there at least, to counter inflation, as we say. We have taken a view on diesel, which we have embedded in the budget at the midpoint at AUD 1.16. We hope that that is better, than where we have assumed it to be. But again, that is something outside our control. We feel comfortable. It is conservative. We are accepting of that. We have said that at the outset. And we look to outperform the range that we have given you. Great. Thank you. Thanks for the color, Paul and Kevin. I will pass it on. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock with Barrenjoey. Morning, Paul. I was wondering if we could talk about something completely different to coal and maybe talk about rare earths, because Kevin dodged my question last month when he said you spent all your free cash flow on rare earths. Just trying to understand what is your intention. Is this a passive investment, an active investment? Are you thinking you want to be a producer of rare earths at some point or a silent partner and just provide funding? If you could maybe help us spend a couple of minutes talking about where you and the board think Whitehaven fits in the rare earth picture, because I notice you have now changed your name just to Whitehaven, dropped the coal, so obviously you are thinking of diversification. Maybe just help us out a little bit. Thanks. You are starting to sound like a media organization there, Glyn, rather than the analyst. The dropping of the coal name has got nothing to do with that, first and foremost. That is just a contemporization of branding of the company. Everybody knows who we are. Everybody knows there is no notion that we are not something else other than a coal company. We love being a coal company, very proud of it. But the branding Whitehaven, everyone just refers to you as Whitehaven. Nobody says actually Whitehaven Coal. So that is just reflective of that. Look, we spent a few dollars on holding our position there on our rare earths investments. That has paid well, and so that is very positive use of funds in that sense. As we have talked about in the past, this is a longer-term strategy, looking at the opportunities of diversification and particularly as it relates, as I have mentioned in the past, and I know we have talked about, what trends would manifest themselves in a reduction say, for instance, consumption of, say, for instance, thermal coal. Our thermal coal business is excellent, and if you want to project yourselves out to the future into some darker scenarios, then we will be the last ones to turn the lights out because we have got the best quality and the longest lives. But those same trends, we shouldn't just ignore them. We should think about them and think about how do we position the company relative to those trends, and where would the company otherwise be if we use those influence of those trends and continue to be obviously mining, where would we position ourselves to do that? So we have given ourselves a small, this is de minimis in terms of the overall size of the company, but it is important to hold a position whilst we do the important work of analyzing these individual opportunities and where they go. Clearly, in more recent times, changes from a geopolitical perspective has put a, excuse the pun, a fire under the rare earths sector and drawn a lot of focus to it. So in more recent times, it is probably taken on a greater prominence than it probably should, given the size of it relative to the business. But there's lots of momentum, obviously, behind the discussion to try and, for the Western world, if I could say that, gain more independence from the dominance of the Chinese, particularly not just production, but obviously more importantly, the processing side of rare earths. We've taken a position here. It's small. We continue to study it and the market and where it goes. We like what we see in the investments that we've taken, small as they are. But as I say, this is a longer-term objective that we want to explore greater opportunities in this space. And we continue to do our homework and learn as we go. But so far it's been a very productive exercise from that perspective. And the investment has been rewarded in the short term whilst we're doing that important work. Paul, does it mean you could see yourself as a producer one day? It's quite a capital-intensive industry and quite technically challenging relative to coal, I would've said. Yeah, sure. But it's not capital intensive as all mining is, but not capital intensive like the likes of large scale mining in the coal sector is. Not at all, in fact. And a lot of those smaller companies don't have the ability to solve those capital asks themselves. And so oftentimes, well, more than oftentimes, they seek a larger partner to assist them in that. Now, a scale of Whitehaven size business could assist in that regard. But it's all about having the right seat at the table with the right deposits. So that's the potential in the future, Glyn, in terms of us assisting to solve that. I don't think we're here just to be a passive investor longer term, I can say that. If there wasn't prospects of our mining skills being useful in that regard, then that would change the nature of how we view these things. But we don't profess to be the experts of beneficiation of rare earths. We're not doing that. This is definitely an opportunity to learn more about it. And in the meantime, the investments are returning well whilst we're doing that. Okay. And then maybe just Daunia. You have talked a lot about the challenges with Daunia moving to the new mining area in 2027. Does that mean it is permanently downgraded relative to 2026? Or is 2027 because of the move just mean you step backwards temporarily? Just trying to think about how does it feel longer term or medium term. Thanks. Yeah, good question. No, we do not feel like longer term we have got any issues. I mean, at our current rate, we have done well, and that has exceeded the average of the five years that we gave at the time of the acquisition. So that is very positive. But we do want to balance. If we do not put any more gear in there, say for instance, which we are not, we need to then balance the total material movement balance between dirt and coal. And if we are going to open up the southern region, which we must, the weighting of that changes in the short term for sure. So yeah, a little less out of Daunia, but you will get more out of Blackwater. All right. Thanks, Paul. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw with UBS. Oh, morning. Thanks for taking my follow-up. I just wanted to ask the cost question, but perhaps a different way. If you look at the guidance for 2027, at midpoint, how much of the lift year-on-year would you say is controllable, that is, things that you can do something about or versus the uncontrollable exogenous factors? Thanks. Broad question. Oof. You want to try and narrow that down a little bit, Lachlan? I think we spoke about the diesel part of it, and so we've given you a sense of where that is. That certainly speaks to, that's an important piece. Yeah. So sorry. Yeah. So let's say diesel, FX, these are things outside of your control. Industry inflation, yeah, I get. But I suppose I'm thinking about productivity, cost out, technology. Not sure. I suppose that's the question really. Embedded in that guidance, what sort of programs or measures can you take, are you planning to take to sort of mitigate those broader industry-wide and exogenous factors that are perhaps going against you? Yeah, look, it broadly covers those things that you've mentioned and more. The whole business. Whether it be organizational structure. Whether it be maintenance practices that we talked about earlier, streamlining those across different fleets, different approaches, different ages of equipment. There's a whole range of areas where we look at productivity as the key to driving change across all our assets. We're seeing improvements in New South Wales, as you can see. The Queensland assets have responded nicely. The challenge for us is to keep that going, right? Because the 80/20 rule does apply here. You take the easy licks quickly, and then the nitty-gritty of sustaining improvement over time then is what you need to focus on, and that's where we are I don't think we're going to be making the big strides that we'd made volumetrically in the first two years in years three and four. But we're certainly going to improve, and productivity is the place, and productivity will bring our costs down. That's not to say in the absence of another cost target in this third year, we're not focused on absolute cost reductions. We still are. But that's in our guidance rather than being a separate area that we commented on in the first two years. We felt that was necessary just because the cost base that we inherited versus the one we now have. But we'll just normalize that now in our cost range. Ian? Yeah, Kevin touched on it earlier on. Nothing's off the table. Well over 100 initiatives, and I can go all the way from have we got too many buses coming to and from site to the bigger ticket items of the productivity, major contracts and everything in between. Yeah. I'd probably finish that by saying the 2025 and 2026 program are really building within the business a culture of scrutiny on costs. That's probably the thing that I'd look at and say is the thing that'll actually deliver in years and years to come. Well, I think the rail example that you've used, and you've cited another one there, Ian, just in terms of buses. Rightsizing the contracts for services to these two assets in Queensland has been a significant body of work and will continue in this year. When I say rightsizing, they were part of a bigger portfolio, which was part of bigger contracts. So it had a different disposition in terms of tailoring or matching the day-to-day needs of a particular service or contract to your underlying needs. You mentioned buses, that was a good example. Camp accommodation is another good one. Camp accommodation, there's a baseline of people that go in and out of the site on a daily basis. But there are surges which occur when you've got major shutdowns and things for contracts and so on that turn up to do that important work. But you don't need to be carrying rooms for those people throughout the entirety of the year. You get them when you need them. If you can get them when you need them, that's how you should approach that. There are other examples where we've been able to take savings, where we're again, just right-sizing these contracts for the nature of the business we've acquired. Understood. Look, that's really helpful color. Thanks again, team. Thank you. Your next question comes from Paul Young with Goldman Sachs. Yeah. Hi again, gents. Just a housekeeping question on the guidance, actually, of sales volumes. Just noting or observing that managed coal sale guidance in New South Wales is falling, I think, 700,000 tons of sale at the midpoint year-on-year, yet production's not expected to fall. I am looking at your inventories and your balance sheet, Kev, and they were sort of flat half-on-half. There are obviously movements on how you measure those inventories from a cost perspective and etc. Is this simply just having to rebuild some run of mine and just stocks along the chain at both Maules and Narrabri in FY 2027? No, I don't think so. My sense of New South Wales or my understanding of New South Wales is there will be a little more. Sorry, the Maules Creek numbers are fine. The Narrabri numbers we have talked about. The question is what is the yield that comes out of the Gunnedah open cuts and how hard do you wash that? We are carrying good stocks into the year, Ian. Yep. No, I would not be trying to read too much more into this haul. Right. Okay. Yeah. But in that case, the bottom end of the ranges seems a little bit really conservative in that case, you are saying. Based on everything you are seeing across the chain and the outlook for yields, etc. I do not think really conservative is the answer. I think what we have given you is a range of production, and we are shooting for the top end of that guidance. Exactly. Okay. All right, thanks again. That is all the time we have today for question and answers. That concludes our question and answer session. I will now hand back to Mr. Flynn for closing remarks. Thanks very much, everybody, for attending today, listening to the presentation, and the good question and answer session that's ensued. Appreciate all the interest in the results for the year. We're happy with the outcomes of the year, as we've mentioned. We look forward to having more discussions with you over the next couple of weeks as we engage individually with you and talk through your questions, not just about this past year, but also the outlook for this new year. Thanks all for attending. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.