Thank you for standing by. Welcome to Hudbay's Copper World Pre-Feasibility Study Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may signal an operator by pressing star, then zero. I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded today, September 8th, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. Eastern Time. I will now turn the conference over to Candace Brûlé, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Good morning, and welcome to Hudbay's Copper World Pre-Feasibility Study conference call. This morning, we announced the results from the Pre-Feasibility Study on Phase I of the Copper World project and filed the detailed technical report on SEDAR+. A corresponding PowerPoint presentation is available in the investor events section of our website, and we encourage you to refer to it during this call. Please note that comments made on today's call may contain forward-looking information, and this information, by its nature, is subject to risks and uncertainties, and as such, actual results may differ materially from the views expressed today. For further information on these risks and uncertainties, please consult the company's relevant filings on SEDAR+ and EDGAR. These documents are also available on our website. As a reminder, all amounts discussed on today's call are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. Our presenters today include Peter Kukielski, Hudbay's President and Chief Executive Officer; Andre Lauzon, our Chief Operating Officer; Eugene Lei, our Chief Financial Officer, and Olivier Tavchandjian, our Senior Vice President of Exploration and Technical Services. In addition, Javier Del Rio, our Senior Vice President of South America and the U.S.A., will be accompanying the team for the Q&A portion of the call. On today's call, we will be reviewing the highlights of the Phase I Pre-Feasibility Study, provide further details on the new simplified project design, the steps taken to de-risk the project since the PEA was issued last year, and a discussion of the many optimization and upside opportunities. And now, I'll pass the call over to Peter Kukielski. Thank you, Candace. Good morning, everyone, and thanks very much for joining us. We are very pleased to be here today to present the results from our Copper World Pre-Feasibility Study for Phase I. This study significantly enhances the economics and de-risks the project through higher levels of engineering, a simplified project design, lower upfront CapEx, and a longer mine life. Copper Phase I is a standalone operation requiring state and local permits only. Over the past 12 months, the team completed extensive technical work Phase I, and the results are summarized on slide Phase I has a mine life of 20 years, which is 4 years longer than the Phase I mine life that was presented in the Preliminary Economic Assessment published in June 2022. Phase I Pre-Feasibility Study demonstrates attractive economics with a $1.1 billion net present value, or NPV, and a 19% internal rate of return, or IRR, using a $3.75 copper Phase I has a simplified project design as a traditional open-pit truck and shovel operation with conventional flotation to produce copper concentrate and molybdenum concentrate. In the study, the processing facilities are expanded to include a concentrate leach facility in year 5, producing copper cathode and silver/gold doré. Phase I contemplates average annual copper production of 85,000 tons of copper over the 20-year mine life at average cash costs of $1.47, and sustaining cash costs of $1.81 per pound of copper. A variable cut-off grade strategy allows for higher mill head grades in the first 10 years, which increases production to approximately 92,000 tons of copper at average cash costs and sustained cash costs of $1.53 and $1.95 per pound of copper, respectively. Phase I has an anticipated initial growth capital expenditure of $1.3 billion. The project contributes meaningful annual EBITDA, with $372 million on average over the mine life and more than $400 million on average over the first 10 years at a copper price of $3.75. Copper World is located in the southern part of Arizona, in the Santa Rita Mountains, Southeast of Tucson, as shown in slide 5. The deposits are within the Laramide Belt, a major porphyry province that includes several other world-class deposits. It's well-positioned near other large-scale copper mines in a region with excellent access to infrastructure and labor. Moving to slide 6, I'm very proud of the team's efforts to successfully execute an alternative strategy for Copper World since 2019. After we received the Rosemont court decision in July 2019 that withdrew the federal permits, we embarked on a new approach by focusing on a project located primarily on our patented mining claims and one that would require state and local permits only. In 2020, we began exploration and condemnation drilling on adjacent patented mining claims and continued to hit mineralization, which we call the Copper World Discovery. The drill program continued to expand following steady positive results, and in late 2021, we announced an initial mineral resource estimate on the new discovery. The success of this strategic pivot in Arizona was solidified with the release of our PEA in June 2022, where we defined a two-phased mine plan. The strategy was designed to allow us to focus on Phase I, requiring only state and local permits to advance the project and separate out the federal land permitting requirements needed for expansion in Phase II. We have further de-risked the project with the completion of our Pre-Feasibility Study that incorporated advanced technical studies on Phase I. The second phase of the project is expected to involve an expansion onto federal lands with an extended mine life and even higher project economics. The state permitting process was initiated in 2021 with the receipt of one of the three key state permits. We submitted the remaining state permit applications last year. These de-risking efforts have resulted in what I consider to be a highly robust and attractive project that will create meaningful value for all of our stakeholders. With that, I'll pass it over to our technical team to take you through the Phase I PFS results in more detail. Over to you, Andre. Thanks, Peter. Good morning. Jumping to my first slide, slide 7, a key focus area for the Pre-Feasibility Study was on evaluating several different site layout and flow sheet options for Phase I, through additional test work and detailed technical studies. This resulted in a simplified project design for Phase I that consists of four open pits and is now optimized solely on flotation of both copper sulfides and oxides. The work also led to a simplified processing flow sheet in the Pre-Feasibility Study, with a conventional sulfide flotation concentrator producing copper concentrate that is sold to market for the first four years. As Peter mentioned earlier, in year 5, the processing plant is expected to be expanded with the addition of a concentrate leach facility to produce copper cathodes and silver/gold doré. The plan contemplates a simplified site layout with the construction of three tailings storage facilities, and provides increased storage capacity for 385 million tons, sufficient for 20 years of mine life for Phase I. Phase I requires state and local permits only, which simplifies the permitting process and avoids the requirement for federal permits. We have been working closely with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, or ADEQ, gathering supplemental information to ensure a robust and solid process is followed, and we expect to receive the two remaining key permits by mid-2024. Moving on to slide 8. The work we did on simplifying the project design has resulted in a highly robust project with enhanced economics. The deferral of the concentrate leach facility to year 4 provides Hudbay with the financial flexibility to fully fund the development of the facility with operating cash flow or potential government incentives for critical minerals processing. We conducted detailed test work on different concentrate leach technologies, including Glencore Technology's Albion Process, as well as low- and high-temperature pressure oxidation, or high-temperature POX. The tests indicate Albion and high-temperature POX yield the highest copper extraction rates in the range of 97%-99% for all samples. Albion was selected as the preferred concentrate leach technology because it's simpler to operate. It's modular and offers flexibility to scale the plant and has significant lower acid neutralization requirements when compared to the high-temperature POX. Advanced technical and engineering studies improved the project design with a simplified flow sheet that reduced the initial CapEx to $1.3 billion, the increased copper grades and extended mine life to 20 years in Phase I. Not only did this work enhance the project economics, but it also significantly de-risked Copper World. But we didn't get here overnight. This path to de-risking Copper World is a result of the achievement of many significant milestones over the past several years, as outlined on slide 9. Our exploration drilling, completed in 2020 and 2021, successfully identified mineralization in areas northwest of the former Rosemont deposit, which is now called the East deposit. Based on positive drill results, we acquired an additional 2,400 acres of private land to support the infrastructure and tailings for the state permit plan. In late 2021, we defined the initial mineral resource estimate for Copper World, which showed higher grade areas closer to surface than the East deposit. We completed the PEA in 2022, which combined the East deposit with the newly discovered deposits in a two-phase plan, with the first 16 years on private land before extending onto federal lands, to bring the total mine life to 44 years. We commenced the permitting process with the approval of the Mine Land Reclamation Plan in 2021, which was revised for the larger plan in 2022. This approval by the Arizona State Mine Inspector was challenged in state court, but the challenge was dismissed in May 2023 as having no basis. We submitted applications for an aquifer protection permit and an air quality permit to ADEQ in late 2022, and expect to receive these 2 outstanding permits in mid-2024, as I mentioned earlier. We also released our 3-P plan for sanctioning and financing Copper World, and Eugene will provide more color on that later in the presentation. With today's release of the Pre-Feasibility Study, this de-risk plan demonstrates an attractive project for a minority joint venture partner, and we continue to expect to complete a JV partner process upon receipt of state permits and prior to commencing a definitive feasibility study. A Made in America copper cathode produced at Copper World is expected to be sold entirely in to domestic U.S. customers and would make Copper World the third largest domestic cathode producer in the United States. Producing copper cathode would reduce the operation's total energy requirements and greenhouse gas and SO2 emissions by eliminating overseas shipping, smelting, and refining activities. We estimate the project will reduce total energy consumption by more than 10%, including a more than 30% decline in energy consumption related to downstream processing when compared to a project design that produces copper concentrates for overseas smelting and refining. The pre-feasibility base case is expected to result in an approximate 14% reduction in Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions compared to the flotation-only scenario. We plan to target additional greenhouse gas emissions as part of our company emissions reduction targets. The Copper World project is expected to generate significant benefits for the community and local economy in Arizona. Over the anticipated 20-year life of operation, we expect the company will contribute more than $850 million in U.S. taxes, including approximately $170 million in taxes to the state of Arizona. We expect to create over 400 jobs directly and 3,000 indirect jobs in the region. We intend to engage in partnerships with local apprenticeship and workforce training programs across the skilled and technical levels to enable locals to access these technical positions. And now Olivier will present further details on the Pre-Feasibility Study. Olivier? Thank you, Andre, and I will start on slide 11. When looking at the PFS compared to the PEA, we've made several design improvements that have increased the production and economics. The total copper production increases from 1.4 million-1.6 million tons, despite removing oxide heap leach processing due to higher grades and longer mine life. While the average annual production over the mine life is relatively unchanged at around 85,000 tons of copper, the high grades in the first 10 years increases the annual production to 92,000 tons on average. The operating costs were also updated to reflect the current pricing environment, and the cost increased due to a reduction in the size of the low-cost concentrate leach facility, an increase in the strip ratio, and longer haulage distances in the mine. Phase I has a mine life of 20 years, which is 4 years longer than the Phase I mine life that was presented in the PEA, due to an increase in the capacity for tailings and waste deposition as a result of optimizing the site layout. As Andre mentioned, the initial CapEx decreased to $1.3 billion from $1.9 billion as a result of changing the size and timing of the concentrate leach facility to be at 50% of the maximum design capacity, or 70,000 tons, starting in year 5, as well as all associated leaching infrastructures, such as the SX/EW facilities, and also due to mining fleet financing. Given the modular nature of the Albion technology, there remains the opportunity to increase the scale of the concentrate leach facility up to a maximum design capacity of 140,000 tons in the future, which will allow for the processing of additional internal concentrate or third-party feed and further support the production of domestic copper cathodes in the U.S. Together with a Pre-Feasibility Study, we updated the mineral resource estimates for the project, which increases the global measured and indicated mineral resources to 1.2 billion tons at 0.4% copper, representing a 4% increase in total in-situ copper. On slide 12, you can see that the project generates attractive value and returns in all scenarios. For example, at $4.25 copper, the Phase I NPV increases to $1.7 billion, and the IRR increases to approximately 26%. In the flotation-only scenario, and using a copper price of $3.75 per pound, the project has an NPV of $863 million and an IRR of 19%. At a copper price of $4.25, the flotation-only NPV increases to $1.5 billion, and the IRR increases to 26%. These economics demonstrate the project is robust even without the concentrate leach facility, providing Hudbay with the flexibility to optimize the project in the future through funding the concentrate leach facility with operating cash flow or potential government incentives for critical mineral processing. Slide 13 shows the year-by-year production profile for Phase I. You can see an improvement in cash costs and sustaining cash costs starting in year 5, when the low-cost concentrate leach facility commences operation. You can also see the higher production levels in the first 10 years associated with variable cut-off strategy and expected higher grades earlier in the mine plan. As part of the work on the Pre-Feasibility Study, we updated the mineral resource estimates, as summarized on slide 14. It shows the 4% increase in contained copper in measured and indicated, I mentioned earlier. In addition, contained copper in mill feed increased by 41% in the PFS compared to the contained copper in milled resources in Phase I of the PEA mine plan, due to higher grades and the flotation of both copper sulfides and oxides. We have identified many opportunities to further enhance project economics, reduce environmental impacts, increase annual production, and extend mine life, which are in addition to what is shown in the Phase I PFS. Some of these opportunities are noted on slide 15. There is significant potential for Phase II mine life extension, as approximately 60% of the measured and indicated resources are not included in the PFS and would be unlocked through additional land acquisition or expansion onto federal land. There exists optionality around flexing the size and timing of our concentrate leach facility. If the Albion is sized at 100% capacity, it is expected to increase the base case NPV to over $1.3 billion and reduce total GHG emissions by 25%. We will continue to explore options for government incentive programs to help fund the concentrate leach facility construction. This may allow us to move construction earlier or to enable us to build for a larger capacity with improved economics. We believe we will secure federal permits well before the end of the 20-year mine life Phase I, which would allow mining of more higher value tons earlier in the mine life and significantly increase annual copper production, enhance project economics and IRR. We will also look at renewable energy sources to reduce additional costs and to further reduce our environmental impact. I will now pass it over to Eugene. Thanks, Olivier, and good morning, everyone. Copper World Phase I has 385 million tons of proven and probable reserves at a reserve grade of 0.54% copper, as Olivier mentioned. This is the highest grade open pit copper mine when compared to other development projects in the Americas at the advanced PFS or FS stage, as shown in slide 16. Not only does it have the highest copper grade, but it also offers the best combination of low financial and low execution risk. Slide 17 shows that Copper World Phase I is one of the lowest risk copper projects when compared to the same list of copper projects in the Americas, with a lower level of aggregate construction CapEx and a lower level of development complexity, given the project's advantageous location at low elevation and in the U.S.A, just 26 miles south of the mining hub of Tucson, Arizona. The 3- P plan for sanctioning Copper World that I laid out in October 2022 is shown on slide 18. This plan ensures that Hudbay will be in the optimal position to advance the project with the lowest cost of capital and highest risk-adjusted return on investment. Our three- prerequisite plan includes specific targets and milestones that would need to be achieved prior to making the next significant investment in this, in this project. The first prerequisite is permits. We will need to receive all key state-level permits required for Phase I, which is well underway, as Andre already noted. The second is a plan, and this includes the completion of a definitive feasibility study with an IRR greater than 15%. Today's PFS is an affirmation that we're also well along the way on that plan. The third is a prudent financial strategy, and this multifaceted strategy contemplates a committed minority joint venture partner, a renegotiated precious metal stream agreement, a net debt to EBITDA ratio of less than 1.2x at the corporate level, a minimum cash balance of $600 million, and no more than $500 million in project- level debt. We intend to complete a minority joint venture partner process after receiving the key remaining state permits and prior to commencing a definitive feasibility study, which will allow the potential joint venture partner to both participate in the funding of the definitive feasibility study activities in 2024, as well as the final project design. The opportunity to sanction Copper World is expected in 2025, based on current estimated timelines. Slide 19 illustrates Hudbay's funding requirement for Copper World. It shows that with the new upfront CapEx of $1.3 billion, this project is easily fundable within the confines of our 3-P financing strategy. Under the existing precious metal stream agreement with Wheaton, we are entitled to receive a deposit payment of $230 million for the delivery of gold and silver production from Copper World. The estimated initial funding requirement for Phase I, Copper World, net of the stream agreement, would be $1.1 billion. We also expect to put in place up to $350 million of non-recourse financing below the $500 million 3-P constraint, representing 25% of the total CapEx, in line with our reduced financial leverage approach. This further reduces the funding requirement to approximately $740 million. With the proceeds from the minority joint venture partner sale and the JV share of the capital contribution, Hudbay's remaining fund requirement is now estimated to be just $250 million-$350 million, again, prudently below the 3-P limitation. This significantly enhances Hudbay's development project risk and the return, and the IRR, increases to more than 35%. Lastly, the development of Copper World fits well within Hudbay's disciplined approach to capital allocation and our focus on building the company's enhanced copper production profile with strong capital efficiency. Complementing our recent acquisition of Copper Mountain in B.C., the development of Copper World Phase I has a capital intensity per ton of copper that compares extremely favorably to similarly staged development projects, and also recently constructed copper mines in the Americas, as noted on slide 20. I'll pass it back to Peter for his closing remarks. Thanks, Eugene. All right. Slide 21 shows that global copper market fundamentals are expected to be strong, with a structural deficit emerging in the medium term. Global mine production and available smelter capacity are expected to struggle to keep pace with metal demand, boosted by the green energy revolution. The United States is expected to remain a net copper importer during this period, and domestic supply will be required to help secure growing United States metal demand related to increased manufacturing capacity, infrastructure development, bolstering the country's energy independence and domestic EV battery supply chain and production needs. The supply side deficit is further exacerbated by the lack of new copper projects. Slide 22 shows that Copper World is one of the few projects with significant copper production located in a stable jurisdiction, and it is estimated that only 8% of the new global supply is coming from North America. This provides a real opportunity for Copper World to be a meaningful copper producer in the United States. Copper World Phase I is the next leg of significant copper growth at Hudbay, and positions us to become a more than 200,000-ton copper producer by the end of the decade. I'll conclude on slide 24 with key takeaways from the Copper World PFS. Copper World is an attractive copper growth project for Hudbay and our stakeholders, generating strong project returns and adding significant copper production. Phase I plan is de-risked and offers a simplified flow sheet that provides project optionality. Copper World is expected to be the third- largest cathode copper producer in the United States, with Made in America copper that brings many benefits to the community and local economy in Arizona. Copper World phase 2 offers significant upside potential to further enhance project economics and to extend the mine life well beyond 20 years. With that, we're pleased to take your questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question- and- answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Our first question comes from Dalton Baretto of Canaccord. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, Peter and team, and congratulations on getting this done. A couple of quick questions, if I can. Just first of all, I noticed that you deferred the SX/EW plant in addition to the concentrate leach facility. And I'm just wondering, you know, does the economics of the plant depend on the concentrate leach facility, or is that just a function of kind of reducing your upfront CapEx? Well, Dalton, morning to you, and thanks very much for your generous comment. I think the answer is best addressed by Andre with respect to why we deferred the oxide leach facility, and Eugene can touch on the economics. Sure, sure. I'll start off, and I'll hand it off to Olivier. Thanks for the question. So I believe the first part of the question was around the SX/EW and then related to the concentrate leach. So in this phase of optimization that we went through, as we've discussed many times, we're constrained about the footprint, if you will, of the land that we own on our private land. And the teams have gone through an optimization process on what is the most profitable ore that we can potentially mine on this, call it restricted footprint. So what was done in this stage was going through and it actually made sense because the grades were so high in some of the oxides, it—we made more money in processing it through the milling facility. And so we targeted much higher grades going through the mill. And so the SX/EW plan is not in this plan right at the moment, and we focused on using the land for higher- value material. Well, the plan is, though, to stockpile that material in an area for future potential production. Again, but it's not included in the economics because we just used up all of the land for the best value material. In terms of the timing of the leach plant, the intention was for it to you know de-risk it in the sense by paying for it out of our operating cash flows. And as we mentioned, you know, there's lots of money going around for government incentives and the like, and so we wanted to take the opportunity to look at that as well. Olivier, is there anything that you wanted to add that, No, just, just quickly. So in terms of Dalton, in terms of the SX/EW, there were two components of the SX/EW. One was needed to, basically follow on the, on the leaching of the, the concentrate, the copper concentrate, the leaching of the copper concentrate, and the other one was the leaching of the oxides in the PEA. Obviously, the SX/EW, part of it is linked to the start of the, the concentrate leach facility, which occurs in year 5. So it makes sense to push the start of the SX/EW to time it at the same time than the construction, the leaching of the concentrate. And then the other component was the leaching of the oxides. For the oxides, we kind of changed and simplified the layout and the design of the project. Now, about half of the oxides are now milled, and the other half is actually stockpiled for potentially further processing later on. Then it didn't make sense to start building an SX/EW from year 1, so now SX/EW enters the fray in year 5. Eugene? And maybe just to wrap the project design is economically designed to produce the highest NPV at an earlier stage with the lowest level of capital intensity. And so by deferring the concentrate leach and the SX/EW at the same time, that achieves the higher EBITDA and cash flow at the front end of the project. Both facilities are actually needed in this project to make the project economic. As you can see on slide 12, the flotation-only design has a $850 million NPV without both options in year 5 as well. And Dalton, if I can just add one more comment. As you know, I'm also a project guy, and so when I look at this through a project development lens, you significantly de-risk this project by separating the two. So in the first, the beginning of Phase I, all we're doing is we're building the same concentrator effectively that we built at Constancia, although we're doing it right next to infrastructure, and not at altitude. So it becomes extremely simple. So we've de-risked the project execution methodology significantly by doing this too. Understood. That's, that's great context, guys. I just want to jump onto the, the cost side of things then. I noticed the mining cost jumped substantially from the 2022 number. I know Olivier mentioned longer haul distances, but is that really just it, or is there something else that's going on there? Olivier. Yeah, I can take that one. So basically, one thing that we've introduced in this PFS compared to the PEA is the concept of the variable cut-off strategy. And with the redesign also of the tailings and waste rock facility disposal, we gained some more space. And so we're mining a lot more from the East deposit in the PFS than in the PEA, which increases both the strip ratio and the haulage distance, because the East deposit is further away from the mill. So that is the main reason for the increase in mining costs, in addition to adjusting to the inflationary environment, adjusting diesel price and other adjustments, just to reflect the current pricing environment. Thanks. Maybe one last one before I jump back in queue. Peter, I noticed that you're now guiding to receiving your permits mid-2024. I think as recently as May, you were guiding to year-end this year. I'm just wondering what's going on in the background there that's causing you to delay your guidance there? Yeah, I think, look, Dalton, it's out of an abundance of, I'm just trying to be as realistic as we can, and we're looking at what sort of the most realistic scenario is. And the state permitting process is pretty simple in the sense that it provides for a specific timeline with respect to what the time that the state has available to issue those permits. And they also have a period during which they can make a request for clarifications, which stops the clock for a little bit. We understand what that means. We understand those clarification requests have been made. We've engaged very significantly with the department of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. And what, when we're guiding towards the middle of the year, that sort of represents our estimate of what the maximum timeline could be. It could come earlier, but our estimate, we're just trying to be conservative with saying that it's mid-year. Olivier, anything you can add to that? Just as the process has been very, you know, active, we've been working together with the ADEQ since the time that they accepted our administrative review and back and forth. In fact, we initiated a drill program over the course of the summer to provide some additional information, to have that much better of a confidence in terms of the defensible permit, if you will. So we've been working very, very closely back and forth. It's very detailed, and we're very confident on the outcome that we're going to get when we get the final permit. Thanks. I've got a few more. I'll jump back in queue. Thanks, Peter. Thank you. Our next question comes from Matthew Murphy of Barclays. Please go ahead. Hi. Yeah, Peter, I'll agree with your comments that it's nice to see a simplified approach up front that de-risks things. So and then, you know, on the flip side, I guess the two detrimental impacts that Dalton's questions raised were the run-of-mine leach being removed and the mining costs being higher. Were there any other detrimental changes? I'm just trying to figure out, I guess, at $350 million copper in the PEA, the IRR was 17%, now it's 16%. So, you know, very modest change for lower CapEx, but wondering if there's anything else in there. Thanks very much for the question and for your generous comment, Matt. I actually don't see those elements that Dalton raised as being negative. In fact, I think what we're trying to do here is be conservative with our estimation of the timeline. It in no way impacts the timeline associated with sort of the 3- P plan that Eugene outlined back in October last year. We still estimate that we will be in a very strong position to be able to sanction this project on the same timeline as we estimated back last year. I just think that, you know, I would rather be a little bit more conservative with what we put in front of you than sort of get by a thousand cuts if it does take a little bit longer. This is what we estimate is true. Olivier, anything else you would add? I just want to add that the higher strip ratio and the longer haulage distance to mine the East deposit is a plus. So the reason why we're mining an area which is higher strip ratio and longer haulage distance is because it has higher grade. So the net impact on the project is actually positive. We would not do that if it wasn't having a positive impact on the project. So it is a positive impact, in fact. The benefit of mining sulfide only to start is a positive impact to cash flows and NPV, and the deferral of the oxides is a economically positive decision to ensure we have higher grade at the front end. If you look at where the cash costs of this asset are, at approximately $1.50 per pound, it's in the first quartile of new development projects, particularly in at low elevation. Yeah, and if I just add to both of them as well, it's by not only on grade and metal production, what the configuration of not having the SX/EW, which is a layered pad engineered at a slope, we're able to put significantly more material in mine, an additional four years of mine life on that smaller footprint. And so I think it was done with reason, as like Peter had mentioned, we see it as a positive thing. Okay, thanks for that. And then could I just test the CapEx number? I guess, like you say, it's pretty low capital intensity. So does that number reflect a current cost, you know, of building a new mill, or might we see some inflation in that, when you ultimately go to definitive fees? Yes, please. And it, so we escalated and went and did studies to today's dollars. So it's – so this is a today price. You know, there's the major reductions on CapEx are mostly with the association of the deferral of the leach facility, which simplifies it. The SX/EW, which had some significant capital expenditures to process the oxides and leach oxides, is not in this plan as well as the leasing of equipment. And, Olivier, if you wanted to comment on this. You know, the scope has changed, so, you know, of the initial CapEx, of the initial investment. So it's not the lower CapEx than in the PEAs, you know, scope for scope, but it's a different scope, so of the initial investment. So, as Andre just mentioned, it's basically pushing out by 4 years or 5 years, actually, the concentrate leach facility and associated SX/EW and also the financing of the mining fleet that was initially purchased in the PEA, which is now financed and taken out of the initial investment. Yeah, I mean, that's a big difference, too. And you know, I'll stress again what Andre said, is that the estimate is based on current pricing. So all the pricing was updated to incorporate inflation since the time of the PEA, and the operating numbers include current labor costs, et cetera. So, and then on top of that, we've added what we think is reasonable contingency, too. So its costs are very current. It's a much more robust estimate than we had in the PEA, which is why it's called a PFS. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ralph Profiti of Eight Capital. Please go ahead. Hi there. Good morning. Thanks, operator. Peter, thanks for the detailed presentation. Andre and Olivier, you've both talked about this stripping ratio and seeing also there's a higher amount of pre-stripping and as well as a higher strip ratio in the early years. So my question is, after the permits are received, but before the financing package is put in place, could we see some sort of a phase of construction de-risking ahead of that financing package, that you're going to be prepared to, on a 100% basis, put some money towards that higher spending that's going to be done on CapEx in those early years? I'm not quite sure if I understand the question. Are you asking, is there early works? Is that. Yeah, the degree, the degree of spending on early works, post-permitting but before financing package. Just wondering if that quantum, given that it's significantly amount higher pre-stripping and higher strip ratio, in the early years, yes. So the answer is no. Right now our plan is get the permits, get a partner. Partner is going to participate in doing the definitive feasibility study, and then at that time, you know, once we work with our partner, we'll decide if there's anything, any early works or that we would consider, but at the moment, there isn't any plan to spend any money or early works prior to sanctioning the project. Okay, fair enough. Thanks for that. Eugene, it sounds like the $230 million from Wheaton Precious is sort of in the, you know, comfort zone of the quantum of what a renegotiated stream may look like. Just wondering if that sort of fits into how you're thinking about how that new deal is going to look, where numbers may move around, but the actual quantum is within your comfort zone. Yeah, the $230 million number is under the current agreement, which was struck, I think, back in 2010 by Augusta. So, but it does apply to the lands and the project, and, you know, the stream is a very good stream for Wheaton. They, and they haven't paid a deposit yet, so, we expect with this project, we will renegotiate this agreement as we've done with other agreements with Wheaton, to optimize it to our advantage and their advantage. But, in terms of quantum, we don't expect extreme variance from the $230 million. And, Ralph, if I may add, I mean, Wheaton has been a good partner. You know, we've had very, very successful outcomes of negotiations with them when things vary in the past, so we don't expect anything to be different this time. Well understood. Thanks, Peter. Our next question comes from Alex Terentiew of Stifel. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, everybody. Great to see how the scope has changed on this project to optimize the land use. My question relates to that. You know, I appreciate that this is going to be built on private and state lands. But I guess my question is, all the roads, ancillary infrastructure, you know, any sort of, you know, power lines, access to the site, will all that be on the state and private lands as well? When I look at the maps for the project, right now, it pretty much goes, you know, it takes up every, you know, every last bit and goes right to the boundary. So I'm just wondering, will everything be on that, or will you need to go off of that? How does that work from the permitting perspective, to get, you know, I understand accessing or using those lands for those sort of things is not nearly as just as much of a disturbance as developing the mine. But from a permitting perspective, how does that stuff work? Sure. Thanks for the question, Alex. It's a good question. So we are using up all of the private lands for all of the facilities on site for milling, processing, infrastructure, concentrate, leach and the like. The services that are provided to the site that are offsite, you know, we have free access to the county roads for hauling material in and out, much like the quarry is next door. So there is actually a mine directly next door to our property. It's a limestone processing facility, and they use the same road that we would to haul materials in and out of the site. For other ancillary infrastructure offsite, the pipeline to feed the water and the power line, those go across state land, and we already have existing right-of-way agreements with the state for those. They're already in place, and so there's nothing new on that. In fact, we also just, you know, extended the agreement for the power line agreement with the electrical authority as well. So those are all in place, so there's nothing outstanding. Okay. So even, you know, there would be no need to deal with the U.S. Forest Service or BLM to secure permits for any of that stuff? No, the power line goes across the state land. It goes across state land. So it's, so there's nothing, there's no BLM or forest land in those areas. Phase II, I think what we described earlier, so Phase II does expand the footprint of the mine pit and potential tailings facility onto federal lands. And then at that stage, we would look at the federal permitting process. But right now, with the land that we have right now, there's enough for everything on private land for a 20-year mine life. And all of the power lines and all the like are across state land, and we have rights of way for those. Okay, perfect. Thank you. This concludes time allocated for the question- and- answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Candace Brûlé for any closing remarks. Thank you, operator, and thank you everyone for joining today. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to our investor relations team. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.