Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Dundee Precious Metals first quarter results conference and webcast call. I would now like to turn the conference over to Miss Jennifer Cameron. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning. I'm Jennifer Cameron, Director of Investor Relations, and I'd like to welcome you to Dundee Precious Metals' first quarter conference call. Joining us today are David Rae, President and CEO, Hume Kyle, Chief Financial Officer, and Michael Dorfman, Executive Vice President, Corporate Development. After the close of business yesterday, we released our first quarter results, and I hope you've had an opportunity to review our material. All forward-looking information provided during this call is subject to the forward-looking qualification, which is detailed in our news release and incorporated in full for the purposes of today's call. Certain financial measures referred to during this call are not measures recognized under IFRS and are referred to as non-GAAP measures. These measures have no standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. The definitions established and calculations performed by DPM are based on management's reasonable judgment and are consistently applied. These measures are intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. Please refer to the non-GAAP financial measures section of our most recent MD&A for reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures. Please note that unless otherwise stated, operational and financial information communicated during this call have generally been rounded, references to 2020 pertain to the comparable periods in 2021, and references to averages are based on a midpoint of our outlook or guidance. I will now turn the call over to David. Good morning, and thank you all for joining us. As you've seen from our news release circulated last night, the first quarter of 2021 was a solid start to the year as we continue to generate significant free cash flow, driven by strong gold production and impressive costs. Highlights from our first quarter include solid production of 70,000 ounces of gold and 7.2 million pounds of copper, excellent all-in sustaining cost performance of $522 per ounce of gold, continued strong free cash flow generation of $51 million for the quarter. With a higher quarterly production forecast for the balance of the year, our mining operations are on track to achieve their 2021 guidance. We expect our all-in sustaining cost to be at the lower end of the guidance range. We're also expecting stronger performance at the smelter for the remainder of the year, following the completion of the planned maintenance shutdown during Q1. We continue to build our financial strength, exiting the quarter with a cash balance of $176 million. Earlier this week, we also announced the closing of the sale of MineRP, generating cash proceeds of $41 million. We continue to retain upside from the sale of MineRP through potential earn-out payments payable on the achievement of certain revenue targets in 2021 and 2022. Turning now to the highlights of our operations, I'll start with Ada Tepe. Since Ada Tepe reached full capacity in Q3 of 2019, the mine has established a track record of impressive performance, which continued in the first quarter as the mine delivered a new record for quarterly production of over 33,000 ounces of gold, ahead of our expectations. Ada Tepe also achieved strong cost performance during the quarter, with cash costs of $43 per tonne of ore processed and all-in sustaining costs of $450 an ounce, which highlighted significant potential to drive free cash flow generation in our portfolio. We are continuing our exploration efforts around Ada Tepe with 23,000 meters of drilling planned for 2021, including 9,000 meters for additional resource and conceptual target expansion on the mine concession, as well as advancing the Chatal Kaya and other prospects on regional licenses. In Q1, drilling activities continued at Surnak, Synap, Gökliçe prospects, which are located approximately three kilometers southwest of the mine. At Surnak, drilling is close to completion, with modeling planned for the second quarter. Additional drilling is also planned at Synap and Gökliçe in Q2, and we expect to commence target generation and scout drilling on our other licenses. At Chelopech, we produced 36,900 ounces of gold and 7.2 million pounds of copper. This performance in the first quarter was slightly lower than the forecast due to lower copper grades as well as lower copper and gold recovery performance with certain ore blends. However, cost performance continues to be strong with first quarter cash costs of $41 per tonne of ore processed and all-in sustaining cost of $589 per gold ounce, both of which are at or below the low end of Chelopech's 2021 guidance range. I'm pleased to say that since the end of the quarter, Chelopech's performance has been trending better, and the mine continues to be on track to achieve its 2021 guidance. At the end of March, we're pleased to announce an updated mineral reserve and resource estimate for Chelopech, which reflected a net increase to mineral reserves and mineral resources, as well as a two-year mine life extension for Chelopech. We continue to focus on extending the mine life through our in-mine and brownfields exploration program with an intensive program planned for 2021, which includes approximately 38,000 meters of brownfields exploration, in addition to the normal 44,000 meters of in-mine drilling that we conduct annually. In January, a geological discovery certificate was issued by the Bulgarian Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Bulgaria, which is a significant milestone for the advancement of the Sveta Petka exploration license. Following completion of the formalities on the commercial discovery work plan, we plan to commence drilling and engineering work to progress the geological discovery to a commercial discovery, which is anticipated to take approximately one year. Following an environmental impact assessment, we would be aiming to convert the license into a mining concession. In the interim, we've commenced drilling on the Brevene exploration license, which immediately surrounds the Sveta Petka license. We are testing more conceptual targets within the surrounding Brevene exploration license, which includes a significant evaluation drilling campaign at Bozel, Sharlo Dere, Bridge, and Kazana. With mineral reserves that now extend to 2029 and an updated mineral resource base, an increase in mine and brownfield exploration drilling, we believe there's strong potential to continue our track record of mine life extensions at Chelopech. Turning to Tsumeb, complex concentrates smelted was expected to be lower in the first quarter compared to the remainder of the year, primarily due to the scheduled Ausmelt furnace shutdown. This was originally planned for 30 days. However, this timeline was extended to 45 days, reflecting COVID-19 related safety protocols, travel restrictions, and the use of remote commissioning support, as well as an increase in the scope of the Ausmelt lining replacement and additional converter maintenance. As a result of that maintenance shutdown, the smelter processed approximately 23,000 tons of complex concentrate during the first quarter. Q1 cash costs reflected that lower production at $967 per ton. That's partially volume, and it's also a very good indication of the high fixed cost nature of that facility. As previously disclosed in April, we revisited Tsumeb's guidance and now expect to process approximately 200,000 tons-220,000 tons of complex concentrate. With the maintenance successfully completed during the quarter and the return to full operations at the end of March, we expect stronger smelter performance for the balance of the year. In terms of our future growth, we continue to advance our Timok project in Serbia. During the quarter, we announced a positive pre-feasibility study and have advanced the project to a feasibility study, which we expect to complete in the first quarter of 2022. We also released encouraging exploration results, where drilling has continued on shallow oxide targets and follow-up on high-grade sulfide mineralization just south of the existing reserves. During the second quarter of 2021, drilling activities will continue to support the completion of target delineation and infill drilling in support of the mining concession application. We also continue to pursue our growth strategy by evaluating additional opportunities that have the potential to generate strong returns and enhance the value of the company. Overall, our strong gold production profile and free cash flow generation, combined with our unique skills in innovation and building strong partnerships with local communities, position us well to continue delivering value for our shareholders. We continue to demonstrate the potential of our portfolio to generate significant free cash flow, we are committed to deploying this capital in a disciplined manner. We firmly believe that DPM's strong fundamentals continue to represent a compelling value opportunity for investors. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Hume for a review of our financial results and comments on our 2021 guidance and three-year outlook, following which we will open the call to questions. Thanks, Dave. Good morning, everybody. With the closing of MineRP earlier this week, my comments today will focus entirely on results from continuing operations. As Dave noted, our mining operations performed well and supported strong free cash flow generation in Q1. For the quarter, adjusted net earnings were $31 million or $0.17 per share, representing a decrease of $0.10 compared with 2020. Adjusted EBITDA was $66 million, down $15 million relative to the prior year. These decreases are primarily attributable to the planned furnace maintenance completed during the first quarter, which was extended by 15 days and contributed to lower than expected results from Tsumeb. This was partially offset by solid results from our mining operations that benefited from a 15% increase in realized gold prices and a 47% increase in realized copper prices relative to 2020. Reported earnings were lower than adjusted earnings due to mark-to-market losses on our Sabina special warrants, as well as the reversal of previously recognized loss carryforwards as a result of mark-to-market losses during the quarter in respect of our share ownership position in Sabina, which are recognized in other comprehensive income. Each of these items are not reflective of underlying operating performance and are removed from adjusted earnings. From a cash flow perspective, cash flow from operations in Q1 was $48 million compared to $11 million in 2020, due primarily to a favorable period-over-period change related to working capital, all of which is timing related, and the settlement of the prepaid forward gold sales agreement in December 2020, as well as the same factors that impacted the period-over-period changes in adjusted earnings. Q1 funds from operations, which is before changes in working capital and therefore more reflective of underlying cash flow generation, was $63 million compared to $58 million in 2020. Free cash flow for the quarter of $51 million was comparable to 2020, reflecting the same factors impacting funds from operations, as well as higher cash outlays for sustaining capital related to the maintenance shutdown in Tsumeb and the accelerated grade control drilling program at Ada Tepe. Turning to our consolidated cost measures, we achieved excellent results in terms of the all-in sustaining cost measure, which was $522 per ounce for the first quarter. This is below the low end of our annual guidance and represents a 12% decrease compared to the same period in 2020 due to lower treatment charges, primarily related to Chelopech as a result of increased deliveries to third-party smelters and lower concentrate tons shipped, as well as higher copper byproduct credits. This is partially offset by the impact of a stronger euro relative to the U.S. dollar, higher allocated G&A expenses, and higher cash outlays for sustaining capital, reflecting accelerated grade controlling drilling at Ada Tepe. At Tsumeb, cash cost per ton was $967 in the quarter, up $610 compared to 2020. This increase reflects the low level of throughput in Q1 resulting from the maintenance shutdown and the fixed cost nature of the facility. From a capital expenditure standpoint, total capital expenditures incurred in the quarter were $19 million compared to $10 million in 2020, with sustaining capital representing $17 million, up $10 million from 2020, reflecting the maintenance shutdown at Tsumeb and the accelerated grade control drilling at Ada Tepe. Growth capital spending represented $2 million, down $1 million from 2020. In terms of our balance sheet, we continued to increase our financial strength during the quarter, with available cash resources aggregating $326 million at period end, with cash representing $176 million and $150 million capacity under revolving credit facility. With the recent sale of MineRP, this added $41 million to our cash position. We also have a liquid portfolio providing additional upside potential, comprised primarily of an 8.9% interest in Sabina, a 23.5% interest in INV, and an 8.5% interest in Velocity, which in aggregate have a value of approximately $68 million. From a risk management perspective, all of our key financial metrics and underlying financial exposures are well within established tolerance levels. Based on our current hedge positions, approximately 85% of Tsumeb's projected operating costs for the balance of 2021 have been hedged using zero-cost collars, locking in a weighted average floor and ceiling exchange rate of 15.67 and 18.52 respectively. Approximately 90% of our copper for the balance of 2021 has been hedged at a weighted average fixed price of $3.68 per pound. Each of these hedges serves to reduce the variability of our reported cost measures for 2021. Looking forward, we continue to focus on increasing the profitability of our business by optimizing existing operating assets, which are expected to maintain higher levels of gold production and a declining all-in sustaining cost, as highlighted in our three-year outlook and more detailed 2021 guidance. With higher quarterly production expected over the balance of the year, we remain on track to meet our previously issued 2021 guidance for Ada Tepe and Chelopech, as well as the updated guidance for Tsumeb we communicated as part of our preliminary Q1 production results in April. More specifically, for 2021, we expect to produce between 271,000 and 317,000 ounces of gold and 34 million- 39 million pounds of copper. We expect our consolidated all-in sustaining costs to be at the lower end of the guidance range of $625-$695 per ounce, and we expect Tsumeb throughput to be between 200,000 and 220,000 tons, with a cash cost per ton of $450-$520, which is unchanged from our prior guidance as a result of higher asset prices, which offset the majority of the impacts from lower volumes. Our longer-term outlook issued in February, which covers both 2022 and 2023, remains unchanged and can be found in the three-year outlook section of our MD&A. Looking forward, we are committed to continuing to deliver strong returns to our shareholders and are focused on advancing a number of potential value-generating catalysts in 2021. With a strong financial position, a solid three-year outlook, and the potential to continue to generate significant additional free cash flow, we are in great shape to optimize and grow the business, which we intend to do in a disciplined manner consistent with our capital allocation framework, and as such, expect to continue growing our cash position to support prudent investments in high-return growth opportunities and returning a portion of our free cash flow generation to our shareholders by way of a regular quarterly sustainable dividend, which currently sits at $0.03 per share, representing approximately 13% of our Q1 2021 free cash flow. With that, I will turn the call back over to the operator for Q&A. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. Should you have any questions, please press star followed by one on your touchtone phone. You will hear a three-tone prompt acknowledging your request, and your questions will be polled in the order they are received. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press star followed by two. If you're using a speakerphone, please leave your handset before pressing any keys. One moment for your first question. Your first question comes from Trevor Turnbull with Scotiabank. Trevor, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. David, I had a couple questions, I guess, related to Tsumeb, not with respect to the maintenance. That's obviously behind you. Looking forward, I know that some of the Chelopech concentrates have been going to other third-party facilities, and I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about what that means for Tsumeb's revenue and also for its cost per ton, if that impacts the guidance at all, or just how we should think about Chelopech not necessarily always going to Tsumeb. Thanks, Trevor. Yeah, I'll start, and I'll let Hume continue. As you know, Tsumeb is a facility that is primarily set up to handle high arsenic concentrates, and there are different versions of that, particularly in terms of the amounts of precious metals that are associated. In this particular case, our Chelopech concentrate at about an ounce per ton gold. There is interest in other facilities treating that material at terms which are beneficial to DPM overall. That drives the consideration of the treatment of that material. Obviously, we want to make sure that we are optimizing that for the organization. What will happen is, if we have sufficient concentrates from elsewhere to fill the smelter, then basically all of Chelopech can go elsewhere. We do need to caution that the reason why we purchased the smelter is to make sure we have a home for our concentrate. That's always in the back of our minds. Our preference would be, as long as there are other materials to fill that smelter, then what we would do is we would divert elsewhere. The main difference is that we have a contract which is on a cost-plus arrangement for Chelopech, which means that the terms that the smelter receives from Chelopech treatment relative to other concentrates is higher. Maybe at that point, what I'll do is I'll ask Hume to add any other commentary. Yeah, sure. Yeah, as Dave said, to the extent that we can displace some of the Chelopech concentrate, and rather than sending it to Tsumeb, we send it elsewhere, we will do that. Historically, this is something that we've been able to do. I think as we've sort of said over the years, we expect increasing volumes of complex concentrate to come into the market and actually provide an opportunity to either expand the facility, which is still something that we're looking at and is quite possible. Or alternatively, bring it in on a spot basis and move the Chelopech material elsewhere, which has greater ability to go into other markets than some of the other complex concentrate that's in the market. That is something that we are seeing in 2021 and over the next few years. It has been reflected in the guidance that we provided for both Chelopech in terms of its all-in sustaining cost, as well as Tsumeb on an overall basis. Yeah, that's one of the key reasons I would say that we have lower all-in sustaining costs year-over-year is, A, because of the increase in volume that we've moved to third-party smelters, as well as the higher by-product credits coming from the higher copper prices. Okay. I would assume with the higher copper prices that we've been seeing, that the complex concentrate market is, I would assume, is fairly robust, that people are providing plenty of feed for Tsumeb. Well, I guess what I would say is in the short term, it doesn't really change the short-term market at all. We're contracted essentially to the end of 2023. What it can impact is maybe with existing mines, the proportion of copper that's actually produced because they have options, as well as projects that are in the pipeline and basically making the decision to proceed with the project. In making that decision to proceed with the project, they would want to ensure that they have an offtake for that complex concentrate, recognizing that their concentrate that they're producing is way in excess of the limit. That's a factor. The other thing, Trevor, that I would say that you asked about is Tsumeb profitability. What we've said in the past is from a Tsumeb perspective, we anticipate that we can generate positive free cash flow out of the smelter. Not significant, but positive in the context of supporting the overall strategy of ensuring that Chelopech has a home for its concentrate. To the extent that we move material away from Tsumeb and divert it elsewhere and bring in other concentrate, it can have a negative impact on Tsumeb. As you're observing through Chelopech, it has a very positive impact on Chelopech and has a net overall positive impact to DPM. As you may recall, we took that right off in 2019. That was exactly the reason why we did it, is reflecting the increased diversion of material that we were foreseeing in the marketplace. Right. A question that we get fairly often is, with higher copper prices, how can we think about, is there additional leverage to the copper price that you realize through Tsumeb with higher copper prices? Do you actually capture a bit of that upside in the commodity through Tsumeb? Maybe I can answer that one. The smelter, unlike many, is not a metal gain facility. Many smelters, in combinations with refineries, have a 1% or 2% copper gain as a process, what they end up receiving in terms of value relative to the payable to the shipper. We don't have that at Tsumeb. It's pretty much a break-even facility on that. It's really down to the toll treatment that we get. The leverage to the copper price is minimal to the smelter. It's more in terms of the availability of concentrates. Okay, great. Just two short other quick follow-ups. One, looking at the acid prices, those prices have really changed recently. What's the driver there? I thought that was used potentially for a little bit on the copper belt and also in the uranium industry. Are those just not what they used to be in terms of demand? Go ahead, Hume. Frankly, it's just been, as we've all seen really in the global markets for all commodities, it was really impacted last year by the COVID pandemic. Prices for all commodities, including acid, went down massively. In fact, were basically providing negative returns to people like ourselves that might sell the product globally. That global market has changed dramatically, probably starting in Q4 right through to today. We just saw a complete drop and then a complete reversal. Prices are down from the levels that previously existed in recent times. They're certainly up from the levels of zero to negative returns that we saw in 2020. I think in your guidance at one point, you talked about $74 a ton. Is that still probably a good number to use? Well, that's the number that we've put it to now. We basically sell some material spot and some material under a structured contract with a local party. There's sort of a floor price with a cap. Taking into account the spot prices as well as that arrangement, the new price that we're forecasting is $74, and that's up about $35 from the price that we saw exiting 2020. Okay. Very last question, just quickly with respect to the copper grades at Chelopech. Obviously, the grade was coming in a lot lower than what you saw in 2020. When we look at throughput levels and guidance, it implies to me anyway, that the grades for copper at Chelopech should rebound pretty strongly for the balance of the year. Can you just talk a little bit about what your expectations are for the remainder of the year and those copper grades? Thanks, Trevor. We should be in the nine to 10 million pound per quarter range in terms of production. Yes, we were low in Q1, primarily down to the grade of the material being treated. That has rebounded and is back at levels which we're confident we're going to achieve our guidance for the year. Okay, great. Sorry, just do you expect that grade to kind of continue to trend upwards throughout the year, or is it pretty much flat? It will oscillate. Some of the reason why it was lower in Q1 is down to some sequencing that we changed. Basically what happens is you move higher grade material between quarters when you do that. Not our preferred option, that's certainly something that happened in Q1. You can expect a rebound on that in one of the quarters during the year. If you make the assumption that we're going to be doing nine to 10 million pounds a quarter, that's a good number. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you very much, David. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Cosmos Chiu with CIBC. Cosmos, please go ahead. Hi. Thanks, David and Hume. Maybe my first question is also on Tsumeb here. $960 per ton cost in Q1 was fairly high. I think you partially answered my question in terms of why you have maintained your guidance, and you detailed that in your answer previously as well. I guess my question is, simple mathematics tells me that you need to average below $450 per ton for the remainder of the year to get to your full year guidance. Are you going to get there right away in Q2, or should we factor in a gradual decrease through the different quarters? There's certainly upside in continuity and consistency. Keep in mind that we started up before the end of the quarter, so we weren't coming into this quarter cold. I would say at the moment we're operating a rate which is very typical. We operated five quarters, if you recall, at a rate around 63,000 tons per quarter. We're at that rate at the moment. That's the assumption for the balance of the year in terms of what we can expect with those costs. There's certainly some upside on that. That's why the range is where it is. If you do the calculations, what you'll figure out is that it's a sort of 66,000 or 67,000 ton per quarter average rate to get to the 220. The other numbers are more typical of what we've demonstrated over time. We did have a close look at those numbers on costs when we recast the production outlook to the new guidance, and we were confident they were still the right ones to have in the market. For sure. I guess, we had talked about previously on free cash flow at Tsumeb. Could you give us a bit more detail in terms of what the free cash flow contribution was from Tsumeb in Q1? I'm just trying to get a more normalized number in terms of what free cash flow for the company would've been if it wasn't for Tsumeb. Go ahead, Hume. I'm just thinking about that right now. We were certainly negative cash flow for the first quarter on Tsumeb. Yeah. That's going to turn around, obviously, in the balance of the year. We had approximately, what, a $20 million loss for the period. We had sustaining capital that was $10 million for the quarter as well. Definitely significantly negative cash flow for the quarter, but with no maintenance for the balance of the year. Obviously, the next three quarters are going to be quite strong for Tsumeb. I would expect that we will end up, probably for the year, negative cash flow, in part because of the lower volume, but also because we're anticipating diverting more material that would've come from Chelopech to other markets. As we talked about earlier, that material is going to reduce the revenue from Tsumeb. On an overall basis, it's positive to DPM, but it does have a negative effect on Tsumeb. I expect probably for the year will be negative cash flow on Tsumeb, predominantly because of the increased diversions and slightly lower volume. Of course. Got it. As you touched on the maintenance here, clearly the 45 days of maintenance is behind us, but could you comment in terms of when the next sort of scheduled maintenance is going to be? I think in the past, David, you and I had talked about a 12-18 month maintenance shutdown cycle. How does that kind of fit into this? Yeah, good question. We actually have this monitoring device, which is fairly unique, I think, in these smelters, and we're able to track the projection of the timeline at which we bring this furnace off. That's a very useful device to be able to figure this out. The reason why I say that is that just to give you an idea of how we actually get confidence on where that timing should be. We've demonstrated rates which could take us out to two years. We've operated for 15 months consistently now. Sorry, apologies for that. That was a truck on the outside of the building. No worry. Anyway, for us right now, 18 months is the sort of timeline that we're looking at. What we would do is we would plan to be ready in the event that we end up bringing it down in 15 months, and our ultimate goal is to get to two years. Great. Maybe moving gears a little bit here. At Chelopech, you touched on copper production. I'm just wondering, once again, as you talked about copper's going to be higher in terms of production in the following quarters, but to think of it even more blue-sky potential, given how high copper prices have increased, is there even more leverage in terms of what you can do in terms of exploiting a even higher copper grade? Can you remind us in terms of what the copper grade contribution is? Is there ways of hitting some of those higher copper grade sections within the deposit? Yeah. The ability to change mine plans according to the opportunity that's presented by any movements in prices, it's certainly something we've had an eye to being able to do more, let's say more responsibly than other mines would typically have. At the moment, I would say that with the optionality, it's possible to do something. Obviously, we look at this. I don't anticipate anything other than we're going to get back to the normalized rate in the near term, but certainly something we can consider. If anything, the optionality would lead to more gold grades rather than copper grades, the easy material to get. One of the things that's coming this year in a piece of work that we've been doing over the last two years is understanding better with a dynamic cost model, what the opportunities are for the asset. One of the things that contributed to the increase in the reserves and resources was a different approach. That is actually something that is helping us, and we're set to go through a new initiative now, which I think will further refine. What I was talking about, the ability to be able to respond to what we can see coming at us in terms of pricing environment. We're increasing our ability to do that. I think in short, in answer to your question, can we respond? I think there are some options. It's more gold than it is copper related in terms of the ability to respond like that, but we're increasing our capability to do it. I think it's one of those where it'll be an interesting ongoing conversation for us. Yeah. Great. Those are all the questions I have. Thanks a lot, David. Thanks. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as a final reminder, should you have any questions, please press star one. We have a following question from Ingrid Rico with Stifel. Ingrid, please go ahead. Yeah. Good morning. I have a question on Ada Tepe. David, in Q1, the average mill grade was, I think, the highest since startup, and much higher than the grade in the recent technical report. How should we think about that grade, and do you continue to see some positive grade reconciliation at the mine? Hi, Ingrid. Yeah, we are continuing to see positive grade reconciliation at the mine. It's not as material as it was earlier on, but it's still there. Certainly potential for us to continue these types of grades. As you know, one of the unusual factors with this particular asset is that we have about double the grade in the wall zone than we do in the upper zone. One of the things that we deliberately did here, in terms of the ability to refine the production and the production profile for future years, was we looked at how we could access the wall zone material. At the same time, we were sort of accessing the upper zone in the early years. One of the complications that came from that, and you didn't ask me this, but it may be something that you're interested in. We're running a couple of percentage points below the actual target on recovery. Even though the grade is high, the recovery's a little bit lower. The reason for that is the wall zone material is much harder. Therefore, what happens is that you end up with this grind recovery relationship, which offsets the sort of grade. Anyway, still a positive reconciliation on the recovery. Yes, that grade is higher. It's actually not showing that it's gonna decrease in the immediate term, but I would anticipate that's gonna get back to more the sort of expectation as we move through the future quarters. There's some potential for that to remain elevated, but not at the level of Q1. It's partly reconciliation, and it's partly that we're just in a higher grade zone, and that's in part due to the mix of the wall zone and upper zone. Okay, great. Yeah, I did notice that, the recovery, so that's good commentary there, David. Switching to Chelopech and also on the recoveries you mentioned on just the ore type. Should we expect that to be sort of the case for the remainder of the year, or is the sort of blend going to be slightly different and improving the recoveries for the rest of the quarters? Still a bit of a trade-off between grade and recovery. We're back to a more normal production level, as was already indicated. There's still an opportunity for us to improve. In Q1, what happened was that we had a mix of things going on there. Partly that was bringing in some newer ore bodies, in this particular case, ore body 25, which had a different flotation response than we anticipated. Actually, funnily enough, we used some of the things that we've learned at Ada Tepe to help us control that. That was a specific thing that happened in Q1 that I don't expect to repeat. We also had a situation where we needed to switch some of the blocks we were mining, and that caused some differences in grade and recovery. We had a mix in one instance of block 19, where we had some fill material coming in with the main production material. All of those contributed to an unusual Q1. We're not anticipating that continuing. We still have some upside performance opportunity in recovery, but that's been compensated by grade. As I was mentioning earlier on, we're confident that we're gonna be able to achieve the guidance for the year. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. You may proceed. All right. Thank you everyone for joining us today. We look forward to speaking with you again next quarter, and if you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your conference call for today. We thank you for participating and ask that you please disconnect your lines.