Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Lundin Mining Project Update. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would like now to turn the conference over to Jack Lundin, President and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. It's an honor to be here today to be able to present the results of the preliminary economic assessment for the Vicuña Project. I will be making forward-looking statements, as well as the team that will be with me today and answering questions, and so therefore, we encourage you all to look at this press release, look at this slide, and go onto our website for more details on the cautionary statements. So the agenda today is as follows: We're going to walk through the highlights of the PEA. We're going to get into the details of the full-scale Vicuña Project. We'll also talk about the recently updated mineral resource estimate that supports this preliminary economic assessment. We're going to get into the details of the stage development plan, so Stage I, Stage 2, Stage 3, which will get us to full scale, including and incorporating Josemaria and Filo del Sol deposits. Then at the end, we'll get into a summary, followed by next steps before jumping into a Q&A session. I'm pleased to be joined today on the call with members of both the Vicuña Corp and Lundin Mining executive teams. So Ron Hochstein, who will be calling in from Argentina, is on the call, and in the room with me today is Dave Dicaire, the GM of Vicuña Corp, Teitur Poulsen, our Chief Financial Officer, and Juan Andrés Morel, our Chief Operating Officer. We have a couple other members of the Vicuña Corp project team to help with answering any questions if necessary. So jumping into the highlights of the preliminary economic assessment. So what we can say with these results is that we are clearly delivering on our strategy, outlining a pathway to become a top 10 copper producer by pursuing a clear and disciplined growth strategy. We hope to, you know, really acknowledge that and demonstrate the viability of this plan through the update of this project. What we're classifying and what we're identifying here is a giant metal district. The study that we released the results of yesterday outlines a Tier 1 status project. We call it multigenerational because of the mine life that stretches beyond 70 years, and the stage development plan offers significant upside and optionality, which we'll continue to refine as we get through later stages of the study. But also because of this stage development, there's huge upside in terms of optimization work that we can focus on, particularly in the later stages. With these results, the project is, is marked as what has the potential to be the largest-ever mining project in Argentina. I mentioned that Ron is currently in, in Argentina right now. He's in Buenos Aires, meeting with President Milei to discuss the highlights of this study, and this follows on a meeting where our partners, BHP, along with myself at, and Lundin Mining and, and Ron, were able to go to Buenos Aires and meet with Milei to discuss the updated status of where we're at with the project. I think it's very important for us to state that we're committed to working with local and national authorities to put the best plan in place to maximize value for all stakeholders associated to the Vicuña Project. Before getting into the results of the PEA, a refresher on the stage development plan and the overall district concept, I think is very important for everybody to be re-familiarized with. So we're breaking this project down into three stages. Stage 1, which outlines the Josemaria project, building a sulfide concentrator that will get to 175,000 tons per day of mineral processing capacity, or about 64 million tons per annum. That will be the size of the sulfide concentrator for Stage 1, contemplating three initial lines feeding material into the processing facility. The first five full years of production from Stage 1 will outline about 200,000 tons of copper and 400,000 ounces of gold before introducing the Filo sulfide ore. Stage 2 is the oxide circuit, so we're contemplating a 60,000 ton per day heap leaching process to treat ore initially blended material to recover the copper, followed by a 30,000 ton per day heap leach to recover the gold content. And so that is what we've identified as Stage 2. The oxide material is the overburden on top of the Filo sulfide deposit, and that is outlined in Stage 3, and Stage 3 is what brings us to full scale. expanding the concentrator by adding two lines, to get us to just under 300,000 tons per day, or about 100 million tons per annum. This would also include, which we'll show in a video, building a conveying system to get the material from Filo to the centralized processing facility in Josemaria. And Stage 3 is what really enables us, to get to a peak production of well over 500,000 tons per annum of copper and over 800,000 ounces of gold per annum. To achieve this full scale, we've developed an infrastructure strategy whereby we'll outsource the components of the off-site infrastructure to a third party. This is common for projects of this scale, and we'll talk to it a little bit later in the presentation. Our partners, BHP, have experience in this at other large-scale operations in their portfolio, and we'll look to leverage that knowledge. This does not materially impact the NPV as capital savings are offset by operating costs. Now, touching on the highlights. So the first row of this slide is showing the 10-year average during peak production for copper, gold, and silver. So as mentioned, over 500,000 tons of copper, over 800,000 ounces of gold, and over 20 million ounces of silver. You know, putting this at a large scale, Tier 1 district development, which is very exciting for a company like Lundin Mining to have 50% of such a large scale and exciting project. In the second row, what we're outlining is the first 25-year average before the full scale. So still very impressive numbers over 25 years of over 400,000 tons of copper, 700,000 ounces of gold, and 22 million ounces of silver. So you'll see that the silver production profile is actually heavier weighted to the initial years of production when compared to copper and gold. In the third row, a couple other important metrics. So Stage 1 CapEx right now is earmarked for $7.1 billion. So that gives us a very strong capital intensity of approximately $21,000 per copper equivalent ton. You know, thanks in large part to the strong precious metal by-product that we're generating, as you can see on this slide. But what's really impressive as well is the 25-year average annual free cash flow. So, subtracting the growth CapEx or the Stage 2 and three CapEx from this average, 25-year free cash flow assumption, $2.2 billion, using our base case commodity price assumptions, and so very impressive cash flow generations. And that's really, again, in large part, due to the commodity mix that's gonna be produced from this asset, and that generates or translates into a negative C1 operating cost over the first 25 years. On this slide, showing kind of the continued highlights of the overall project. So there's other key metrics that are important to show here. As I mentioned, the generational nature of this project being over 70 years in mine life. When you're adding now Stages 2 and 3 to Stage 1, the overall initial capital is envisioned to be just over $18 billion U.S. capital requirement, and that gets us to a capital intensity on full scale of about $26,000 per ton copper equivalent. You know, so still very, very attractive figures here, even given the large-scale nature of this overall combined project. All-in sustaining costs, so the sum of refining costs, third-party royalties, site operating costs, sustaining CapEx, and closure costs, subtracted by byproduct credits and you know, and divided by the pounds of copper sold, is $0.47 a pound, so very attractive over the life of mine, all-in sustaining costs. And lastly, here, what you can see, the last, the lower two figures, and these are the benefits to Argentina in terms of taxes and royalties, will be approximately $1 billion per annum. What's not mentioned on this slide, but we'll talk to a little bit later on, is the direct and indirect jobs that will be created from this project for the country. So over 5,000 direct jobs to be created during the construction period, and that translates into nearly 20,000 indirect jobs. You know, so very impressive from an employment standpoint, and I'm pleased to share that the support will be provided for this by the Vicuña Foundation, a newly formed foundation to support capacity building, construction and operation readiness, and local supplier development programs. So here on this slide, what you can see is the leverage to commodity prices. The lighter-colored bar is our base case assumption. You can see strong internal rate of returns being generated from our base case commodity prices. But I think it's also very important to highlight at consensus or, sorry, at spot prices today, the project of this size and scale generates very impressive returns. And I think that, you know, the payback period, the ability to, you know, fund the later stages through cash flows, shows that not only does this project have strong leverage to commodity prices, but also at conservative price assumptions, we have the ability to get to full scale without stretching the balance sheet too significantly for Lundin Mining and its 50% share. Most of you that have been following the story would be familiar with this slide, where we're showing how the Vicuña project stacks up against the mining giants today. These are compared to existing mining operations, and what you can see when we get to that ten-year peak production average, the Vicuña project does get into top five category for copper, for gold, and for silver. And that, you know, really, I think, is what attracts us to really pursuing this project at a rapid pace. You know, phenomenal numbers that we're generating, and what's unique about Vicuña is that it gets to be top five status across all three of these commodities. And that's unique when you compare to the other large-scale operations that are producing in the world today. This also demonstrates the Tier 1 nature of Vicuña. So the global cost curve shows first quartile, first quartile pricing, as well as, you know, in many years, first decile, cementing this as the potential to be that true Tier 1 operation. And so I think we see, you know, significant upside today to even refining those costs and, and improving as we refine the studies. But already looking at the preliminary economic results for this project, we, we are comfortably within first quartile and in many years, first decile of the cost curve. And this slide is very important to demonstrate the disciplined approach to our staged construction strategy. What you can see here is the cash flows being generated already in the first full year of operation. So in 2031, following expenditures for Stage 2 and 3 CapEx, we're going to be in a positive cash flow position. So these are showing unlevered cash flow figures, which essentially means that we're going to be in a position to not only fund our, our growth, but also to pay down any debt that would be taken on to advance this project. And this does not include any cash flows from Lundin Mining's other operations. So I think, you know, the disciplined approach aligns very well with our partners, BHP, on being able to, you know, support getting into first stage operations and then using those operation returns to fund Stages 2 and 3. Now, I want to spend a little bit of time touching on the on the resource, the mineral resource estimate that we're outlining and forming the basis of this study. We're going to show kind of the comparison here, but from the May 2025 mineral resource estimate, which was the maiden resource estimate for Filo del Sol, and an update to the Filo del Sol and Josemaria mineral resources. So when combining all categories, what you see here is now a combined mineral resource of 46 million tons of copper, nearly 100 million ounces of gold, and nearly 1.8 billion ounces of silver. You know, so we've added 9 million tons in all categories of copper, which is another 1.5x Josemaria's mineral resource in the M&I category. Looking at gold, we've added 16.5 million ounces of gold, so basically another 1.7x Fruta del Norte in less than one year of drilling, which really shows the uniqueness of this deposit. Continuing to grow in all directions and, you know, with the amount of drilling that we've done only in the last, you know, few months, we've substantially increased the size of this mineral resource. Here's another slide showing the resource comparison from our May update to the now newly updated PEA resource model. So we're taking a cross-section so you can see the lateral expansion of the mineral resource estimate, showing that both to the east and to the west, mineralization continues to expand, and that we've already, you know, seen that the deposit is continuing to grow in all directions. So, you know, to support this updated study, in the last eight months, we've drilled 35 holes over approximately 45,000 meters. And really, it just demonstrates the remarkable resource growth from that amount of meters drilled. As I've said, the resource is open in all directions, and in 2026, we will continue to follow up with another approximately 50,000 meters of drilling, focused on supporting, really optimizing the mine plan to generate improved early cash flows, to support mine plan optimizations. So now we're gonna show a video that really shows kind of the overall scale of the project and puts kind of what we've been talking about into perspective. Starting with the Caserones open-pit mine, which is located approximately 40 kilometers away from the Vicuña project on the Chilean side of the Vicuña District. This is Lundin Mining's operating mine in the Atacama region, in the Vicuña District on the Chilean side. If you follow the project south, you'll get to the border between Chile and Argentina, and you'll enter into the Vicuña District in the Vicuña project on the Argentine side. Here, we're showing the Josemaria deposit, which forms the basis for Stage 1. You can also see now the associated infrastructure and the location of what will be the centralized processing facility. Now, stepping out and looking at the proximity of Josemaria in relation to the Filo del Sol deposit. Stage 2, contemplating the oxides or the capped mineralization over the Filo sulfide deposit. You can see the location of the leaching pads and the associated waste rock facilities. As mentioned earlier, this will be a sequential leaching circuit so that we can capture both the copper and the gold. Now, what you'll see is the mineral resource for the Filo sulfides and the final pit outline. The high-grade core of Aurora is. We anticipate to get into the Aurora zone within the first eight years of operating these sulfides at Filo. This demonstrates the scale and high-grade nature of the deposits continue to expand in all directions, and for us, the importance of optimizing the mine plan to get into the high-grade material as soon as possible. We will be sending the crushed material from Filo sulfides via a network of conveyors to the central processing facility, which is located near Stage 1, Josemaria. You can see the Josemaria pit, and now you'll see adding another two lines from the ore stockpile to the processing facility. This is where we get to approximately just under 300,000 tons per day or over 100 million tons per annum of processing capacity. Okay, just a couple more slides before opening it up to Q&A. As mentioned before, the off-site infrastructure strategy here, there are a few components that are important to mention. Water supply for Stage 1 is expected to be sourced from the well fields in the project area. But to accommodate the Stage 3 Filo del Sol mine expansion and mill expansion, a desalinated seawater system has been proposed along the Chilean coast, and this is engineered to deliver 2,000 liters per second to the Vicuña project. This initiative includes the development of a dedicated seawater intake, a desalination facility, and a pipeline extending across to the freshwater pond at the project milling site in Vicuña. To accommodate the increased throughput associated with Stage 3 as well, a new concentrate pipeline and associated pumping system will be installed to link the concentrator with a designated roaster to deal with the arsenic content from the Filo sulfide material. All works associated to the off-site infrastructure strategy will continue to be matured through the advanced project phases and advance in parallel to all of the on-site project work that we're doing. And as mentioned, the costs associated to the infrastructure are embedded as operating costs, and the overall project economics are maintained through this strategy. Now, touching on next steps. So this PEA forms the basis for us to advance through project definition and eventually to what we would see as a sanction decision as soon as before the end of this year. But there are significant opportunities that exist to improve overall project economics. So engineering for stages two and three will continue. Trade-off studies, as I mentioned, drilling and mine plan optimization will all continue. Mineral processing flowsheet optimization, and the stage sequencing is all looking to be advanced in these parallel work streams. And Stage 1, which is Josemaria, is advancing now through a Class 2 Estimate, which will be ready prior to year-end and will form the basis for our sanction decision. The RIGI application that we submitted in December is going through the formal review process, and so we anticipate to receive approval on that application, and that would be, of course, a requirement prior to coming up with a final investment decision. And as mentioned, all of this work will support the FID coming as soon as the early, or the, as soon as the end of this year. So with that, I'd like to open up the floor to questions and allow some of the team to support with some of the responses. Thank you very much. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one, one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one, one again. And our first question will come from Orest Wowkodaw with Scotiabank. Your line is open. Hi, good morning, and congratulations on the update. I was wondering, could we get some clarification on the infrastructure assumptions? Just how much CapEx is involved if you, if the project did have to build the infrastructure? And then corresponding, I'm wondering how much is that impacting the cash costs, either per pound or per ton, by assuming, I guess, user fees for the third-party outsourcing? Hi, Orest, thank you for your question. So as I mentioned, the offsite infrastructure is embedded within the operating cost, and so we're actually not publishing the capital cost estimate. You know, this plays into the strategy for us to be able to to spin out that infrastructure into a new entity, and therefore, we would be a receiver of that infrastructure by utilizing it via a tariff. And so we're actually not providing the capital estimate for the offsite infrastructure at this time. Okay, how much is it impacting the user fee? How much, or tariff, how much is that impacting the cost per ton or the cost per pound? Yeah, no, it's tied here. So I mean, there's obviously some commercial sensitivities around this, given that we are looking to potentially spin this out into a separate vehicle. And obviously, the rationale here is that these infrastructure investors are requiring a lower rate of return than what mining companies normally are looking to achieve. So without the cost of capital offset, we believe there is economic benefit to the project to allow, you know, a lower risk and lower returning asset to be held by somebody else. So there are certain commercial sensitivities around this, which is why we are not disclosing these metrics. Okay. No, fair enough. I mean, obviously, your balance sheet's well-positioned here, with negligible net debt and, your credit facility, but I'm just curious whether, you would consider streaming any of the precious metals, to help finance this project from a Lundin perspective. Obviously, we just saw BHP do a very large silver stream, overnight. Is that something that Lundin's considering? Yeah, I mean, what needs to happen from now until we sanction the project, potentially as early as late this year, is that we do need to agree with BHP on the exact funding mechanism and strategy around Vicuña. I mean, as you saw last week, we raised $4.5 billion in our new upsized RCF. So if the decision is that each shareholder is gonna fund this project from their respective balance sheets, we are fully funded to do that already. But there is a scenario where the project itself, as you mentioned, raises some debt, whether it's project finance or whether it's streaming or whether it's something else. And there's also a third scenario where it's gonna be a blend of shareholder funding versus asset-based funding. So all those details are still to be worked out and agreed with BHP prior to sanctioning. But whichever avenue we take, we, at this point, are fully covered to fund our share of it. Yep, I would agree. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question is going to come from Ralph Profiti with Stifel. Your line is open. Thanks, operator, and thank you, team, for the detailed presentation. Jack, I got a question on the updated mineral resource estimate at Filo. And just wondering, on some of your learnings, on how well-defined the transition zone is between those two domains there. And just- I'm just trying to quantify the risk of you know, acid-consuming sulfides entering you know, the leach pads and you know, it doesn't seem like the recovery's changed that much, but just wondering what the new MRE is telling us about that. Yeah, thanks for that question. We've actually got the Director of Resources for Vicuña here, Vicuña Corp here, Cole Mooney, so I'll hand it over to him to answer that. Hey, good morning. Yeah, it's a good question. Thank you. The transition zone has been a will be a major focus of the 2026 studies going forward. We're currently working on a lot of geometallurgical test work and studies. So currently it's the transition zone is defined, but it's not fully defined. We're gonna continue to advance that understanding throughout the year. Okay, great. Helpful. Thank you. And just coming back to the last question. Jack, can you talk a little bit about the landscape and the appetite for third-party infrastructure development plays? And because it sounds like that once this is spun out into a new entity, that we may see the joint venture provide some or part of the funding, or will these truly be standalone entities? Yeah, I think it's really too early to conclude on any of that. I mean, it will be, first of all, we need to agree on the details with our partner, BHP, in terms of how we go about this. I mean, it's fair to say we've already received inbounds from infrastructure investors, you know, inquiring about this. It's obviously pretty big pieces of infrastructure. So this, I think, registers on anyone's radar screens. But it's a process we need to go through, and you know, whether we launch an official tender process around this or how it's done, it's still to be-- Details are still to be worked out. But as I said, you know, the rationale part, I think, is very sound, and we've had preliminary discussions with BHP. In fact, you've seen BHP doing something similar on other assets already. So I think we're fairly well aligned with BHP in terms of how to go about this, but, details still to be worked out. Excellent to hear. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Thank you, and our next question will come from Ioannis Masvoulas with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Yes, thank you very much for the presentation, and congratulations on the update. Couple of questions from my side. The first, we've seen several mining companies looking to develop projects across copper and other minerals in Argentina over the coming years. How do you anticipate to manage the potential scarcity around labor and other resources during the construction cycle? Do you expect to bring over contractors from Chile or further afield? Some color on that would be very useful. Thank you. Yeah, this is Dave Dicaire from Vicuña. One of the benefits we have as Vicuña is we're kind of the first ones of the large-scale projects that are gonna build, so we're not seeing any issues with labor sourcing. You know, Argentina has relatively high unemployment right now. We already are in the midst of our training programs to ensure that we have adequate skilled labor and also prioritizing local labor. We've also gone down and got early contractor involvement to discuss with the contractors the planning of the project, the labor sourcing. And some of these contractors, Argentine contractors, are also looking to JV with other larger foreign companies to assist them in managing the workload. So we're not seeing it as a high risk or an issue at this time. Okay, very clear. Thank you. Just second question, going back to the funding topic. If there were to be streaming as part of the funding solution for the JV partners, how could that work? Could it be the case that streaming only happens on the 50% share of the BHP, while you use a different funding mix, given that you don't really need the capital? And then related to that, how do you feel about hedging during the development phase to backstop the balance sheet or the cash flow on any downside scenarios? Yeah, I mean, on the streaming part, you know, obviously there's a big contingent of both gold and silver here, but I do believe if we were to enter into streaming arrangements, it would be done at asset level. I mean, the arrangement is that the offtake here is allocated 50/50 to BHP and Lundin. So we will market our 50% net attributable share of the copper, and if we get the gold and silver as well ahead of streaming, then we will market all of that on our account, and BHP will market their 50% share on their account. But I think normally you would expect a streaming arrangement like this to be implemented at asset level. And the second part of the question was? Hedging. Hedging. Oh, hedging. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, as you've seen, we. You know, if the scenario is that even if we fund 100% of this project from our respective balance sheets, parent company balance sheets, with our facility of $4.5 billion, even in a very, very low copper price environment, we are fully funded to do that, so we would not envisage entering into any commodity price hedging. We have traditionally done some FX hedging, just to protect our operating costs in Chile and Brazil, so we might continue to look at that. But in terms of commodity price hedging, that's not gonna happen. Very clear. I'll-- thanks very much. I'll rejoin the queue. Thank you, and our next question will come from Lawson Winder with Bank of America Securities. Your line's open. Yeah, thank you, operator, and good morning, Jack and team, for today's update, and congratulations on moving this project a long way towards an ultimate completion. If I could just get a sense of the CapEx and the contingency applied. Can we think of that as accounting for inflation, or is there, you know, other more design-related considerations that make up that contingency? And then, I guess actually where I'm coming from is, you know, what's the risk that once we get to a feasibility level that, you know, ultimately CapEx is higher than what we are today? Yeah. Thanks for the question. This is Dave Dicaire again. We've updated the estimate based on where we were at with a couple of years ago. And we're right in the middle right now of doing a complete bottoms-up estimate. We have done some factors and where we had done provisions for expansion and things like that in those areas. So we're doing a complete bottoms-up estimate. We're very confident in the CapEx numbers. We've had pretty in-depth reviews of those. And we've also benchmarked them against other projects and other capacity factors and things like that. So we're not concerned. We have current pricing. We're actually seeing very competitive pricing right now in the market, also on things like bulks and commodities and equipment. So we have a lot of confidence in our CapEx number. And maybe we should add also that, you know, all the costs you see here and all the economics are based on real 2026 money, so there's no escalation on either cost or on commodity pricing. So the IRR you're seeing here is in real term, ahead of inflation, before inflation. Okay, great. Thank you both. And then as a follow-up, with respect to the infrastructure company, to what extent could the existing diesel port and other infrastructure at Caldera that's now associated with Lundin Mining and, and Candelaria, be part of that infrastructure company, or, or is that just not something that's being contemplated? Hi, Lawson. Yeah, that definitely is, you know, part of the strategy that is being contemplated. So we do have a significant amount of infrastructure already that is supporting our Chilean operations. And so, you know, this is something that we're looking at right now that could be, you know, added to this strategy, whereby we are, you know, ensuring that we have sufficient spare capacity at the Caldera port. We'll look at pipeline routing as well. We'll look at, you know, key locations for infrastructure, such as pumping stations, and we'll see if we can, you know, tap into economies of scale through the assets that we already have in the Atacama region. So all of that is being contemplated and further refined through these advanced studies. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. And the next question will come from Johannes Grunselius with SB1 Markets. Your line's open. Yes. Hello, Jack and team. I have one question on the tax environment. When you present and provide us the, you know, different NPV values, you say it's after tax. How should we think about that? Have you sort of applied existing tax law, in other words, 35%, or the most likely coming tax of 25% in your models? That's my question. Yeah. Hi. Hi, good morning, or maybe good afternoon, your-- And Johannes, it's Teitur here. So the tax, or after-tax cash flows have been modeled on the RIGI PEELP framework, which we have in the slide deck. You can see the key, key factors in terms of tax rate and, and the other aspects of that. So it's a 25% corporation tax rate, and we have assumed the RIGI to be applicable for 40 years, which is the, the current rule. And obviously, the mine life here is, is 70 years. So after the 40 years, we revert back to the current framework, which is then getting back up to 35%, and, there's an export royalty, applicable from that point, onward. So that's how we have modeled it, and all the numbers you see here are on a standalone, unlimited project basis. So this is before, you know, dividend is streamed out of the country, which would attract certain, smaller withholding tax, numbers as well. Yeah. Maybe you have discussed this in the earlier presentation, but, are... Is that like, how should we considering the lower 25% tax versus existing tax law? Is that a done deal to you, or is this discussed, or have you sort of-- What's your discussion? Where, what, what's the status on that? Yeah, so we submitted the application for fiscal stability under the RIGI scheme in December, and, you know, upon receipt of approval of that application, we would then be, you know, working from the, updated kind of fiscal regime. So we feel comfortable and confident that you can be modeling under the, benefits from the RIGI regime when you're looking at the, economic parameters for the full-scale project. Okay. Very clear. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question will come from Craig Hutchison with TD Cowen, and your line is open. Hi, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Just regards to the concentrate, roaster plan for Stage 3 to deal with the elevated arsenic levels, how critical is this from an economic perspective? Like, have you guys, I'm sure you've looked at the alternative of just doing a blend and taking the penalties, but in the event that permitting a roaster is challenging, just kind of curious, like from an economic perspective, how critical it is to have it in the project? Thanks. Yeah, this is Dave Dicaire. We're in early stages on a lot of the test work, and, you know, the roaster is a proven technology, and we will continue to test and look at alternative scenarios. There are scenarios looking at different leaching technologies of the concentrate also, and we'll have a better idea on that as we get closer to sanction, as that test work comes out of the labs. Okay, great. Let me just take a follow-up question. Just on the CapEx, the $7.1 billion, does any of the spend this year credit against that $7.1 billion, or should we just assume it's $7.1 billion from project sanction? Thanks. No, none of that $7.1 billion isn't including costs for this year. This is kind of pre-CapEx period, and so we've classified CapEx following the sanction decision and starting in our model in January 1, 2027. Okay, great. Thanks, guys. Thank you. The next question will come from Anita Soni with CIBC. Your line is open. Hi, good morning. A few questions. First question, I guess, is next steps. Will you file this PEA on SEDAR? And, after that, will you do an updated feasibility study? Yeah, we will be filing this technical report on SEDAR once it's fully completed within the 45-day window of when the results were published as of yesterday. And then we will continue to refine and update studies for all stages as we continue to advance the project, and we'll likely have another published estimate prior to sanction. Right. And could you give us a timeline for construction on how long you think it will take once the project gets sanctioned? Yeah, I think we're outlining and what we've stated in the press release and what will be outlined in the PEA is around a 40-month construction period from when you start to when you get first material through the mill and start commissioning. So about a 40-month period, and we're obviously looking at opportunities to improve that timeline, as well as opportunities to improve and refine the timelines for Stages 2 and 3 as well. So all of that is part of the work program that you know continues to advance as we're moving towards the end of this year. Okay, thanks. Secondly, or sorry, I guess this is third. Can you give us a CapEx breakdown by year? You've given us the $7.1 billion, but I don't see anywhere where you've... And then you've broken out Stage 2 and Stage 3, how much it is per annum in CapEx spend, but I don't think there's a breakout of the $7.1 billion for each year. Yeah, that, that information will be readily available when we, when we publish the results. And I think, as well as an updated presentation online that we're gonna be sharing, which will get into more details on the cash flow, for, for expenditures for all phases, but spending a lot of time and, demonstrating the viability of Stage 1, as that is the most advanced kind of stage for us with, with the most definition. So, that will become available to you, Anita, and we can have a follow-up call if you have more questions on specific details of staged, CapEx or, or any components to the, the different phases. Okay, a couple more. Just, in terms of the mining rates, is it fair to assume that it's direct ore feed? There's no stockpiling going on or any of that? Thank you for the question. Yeah, the majority of it is direct ore feed. There always is some stockpiling in any operation, especially of this scale, but the majority of it is direct ore feed. You're correct. And then lastly, on the tailings management. Between all of the phases, there's 300 million in tailings. Is there something, can you just explain what the, the tailings philosophy is there? Yeah, it's Dave Dicaire again. You'll see that when the report comes out, that there is three proposed tailings sites, and they're all within the vicinity of the plant site, so they're all very close. So there is good sites close by for expansion. So there is a capacity for the tailings, and you'll see those when we produce the drawings in the report. Okay. Thank you. That's it for my question. Thank you. And the next question will come from Stefan Ioannou with ATB. Your line is open. Yeah, great. Thanks very much, guys, and congratulations, the study looks great. I was just curious, when you talk about optimizing Stage 2 and 3 going forward, and maybe more so Stage 3, is that really focused on the existing deposits, or do you start to maybe think about things like Cumbre Verde potential and/or other opportunities in the immediate region? Yeah, great question. I think, you know, those would be classified as later stages at this point in time. Like, when we go across and look at the level of maturity of the various stages that we've outlined, you know, it's a lot of work that goes into ensuring that we've got the optimal kind of mine plan and the supported drilling to get us to a reserve base that we could then look at, you know, refining that mine plan and that milling plan. So, anything beyond kind of yet to be discovered material would be seen as later phased opportunities. But it is good to mention that, you know, given the nature of the Vicuña District and continuous mineralization kind of in all directions, there does remain significant upside for us to see-- Future expansions beyond Josemaria and Filo. Okay, great. Great. Thanks, Jack. Appreciate it. Thank you. Our next question will come from Dalton Baretto with Canaccord. Your line is open. Thanks, operator. Good morning, Jack and team. Congrats on getting this out. My first question is on the roaster assumption, this part of this study here. And I guess two parts to that question. The first one, is that roaster part of the Stage 3 CapEx, or is that part of this infrastructure vehicle you're thinking about? And then part B is, you're probably assuming that you're going to build your own, but with something off the shelf, like, you know, Mount Isa is up for sale, would that work as well? Thank you. Sure, I can take that. It's Dave Dicaire. The roaster is in the infrastructure CapEx at this time, and we haven't really looked at details about available facilities. There is available capacity in Chile also with the Codelco that we'll talk to them about also. But right now, that's in the CapEx for the infrastructure or in the OpEx for the infrastructure. Great, thanks for that, Dave. And then maybe just to follow up with Teitur, on a comment that was made earlier around, infrastructure, cost of capital. When you compare that versus the, the implied cost of capital on the, you know, the stream that was announced yesterday on Antamina, is the infrastructure piece still lower or comparable? I mean, because we're talking low single-digit IRRs on the stream here. Thanks. Yeah, I mean, I can't really answer that, I don't think. But, I mean, I think conceptually, as we said, you know, infrastructure investment, whether it's diesel or whether it's port or slurry lines, you know, in its very nature, it's, it is infrastructure, so the risk profile on those assets is significantly lower. Obviously, it's still the offtake is reliant on the Vicuña and potentially other assets in the area. We have a few other assets there, which could tap into some of that infrastructure, so there could be some risk-sharing as such for the infrastructure investors. But it's early days on this, and you know, it'll be first of all, strategically, we need to decide that that's the path we want to go down, which is likely. And then we need to go through the commercial, the negotiation with the infrastructure owners as to how we structure it and what the cost of funding is gonna be. Great. Thanks for that, Teitur. Thank you. The next question will come from Matt Greene with Goldman Sachs. Your line's open. Good morning, Jack and team. Congratulations. I have a couple. Just, you touched on, you benchmarked CapEx against other projects, but the pro-productivity, I guess, just, you know, looking at the timeline and execution, BHP flagged this at Jansen, productivity is being a big issue. So can you just touch on how you've benchmarked productivity, just given the the remote nature of this district and the elevation? Sure. It's Dave Dicaire. I'll take that. The bulk of the estimate was done by Fluor, and we benchmarked a lot of it off their database for labor and high-altitude projects in South America. We've also checked the benchmarks against what was experienced in other high-altitude sites that we're aware of. We've also got some engagement with Techint to review some of the construction planning and some of the productivity. So we're fairly comfortable with the productivity that we've used. It's had a lot of review and a lot of scrutiny. Thanks, Dave. Just my last questions are around the glacial reform. What's the big appeal submission? Are you happy with the proposals, or has the government actually reformed some of the, I guess, ambiguity around the previous glacial reform? Yes, we're happy with what's been proposed in that glacier reform language or clarification. So yeah, we're comfortable with that. We're happy with it. Thank you. Thank you. The next question will come from Daniel Major with UBS. Your line's open. Hi, thanks so much. Couple of questions. You mentioned, you're targeting FID the end of the year. Could you just give us a sense, what, what is the key determinant around that? Is it the RIGI approval timeframe? Is there a specific level of detailed engineering you would need to achieve for the first phase to feel confident in the, in the FID? So is it more internal or external that determines being comfortable and ready to FID? Yeah, thanks for the question. There's a number of stage gates that will get us ready to come out with, you know, an FID or sanction decision. So you've mentioned those. I mean, of course, this PEA is a significant step forward, but it also forms the basis for us now, as Dave was speaking about, to further refine the Stage 1 estimate. And that will give us, you know, more definition and more accuracy in that estimate, which would be something we would use to put forward to, you know, or Vicuña would put forward to the shareholders for an FID. We've got various sectoral and provincial approvals that we're looking at obtaining, and the status of those are moving forward as per our baseline schedule. And the RIGI application, which is working its way through the review process, I would say is on track as well. So, you know, permit approvals, updated estimates, you know, line of sight to financing, and ensuring that we're, you know, hitting all of our milestones that we've agreed on with our partners will be required before sanction. And what I will say is we've been moving on, and hitting kind of our baseline targets from when we established Vicuña Corp back in January 2025, up until this point in time. So momentum is definitely building, and we are making positive progress to that eventual decision to be made by both BHP and Lundin Mining jointly. Okay, thanks. Second question. Can you tell us what the level of contingency is included in the CapEx estimates you provided in this presentation? This is Dave Dicaire. I think on the Stage 1, the contingency is about 17%, and on the other stages, it's probably up around 20%, 20%-22%. Okay, thanks. That's, that's clear. And then, yeah, final one. Just thinking about the latter stages of the project, cross-border, project development didn't work out so well further down south, historically. Have you got a clear legal framework in place for the cross-border requirements for the latter stages of the project? It's the first part of the question. And then the second is, permitting on the Chilean side of the border, historically, has been more challenging. Do you have clear pathway to permitting the required infrastructure, to complete the final stages? Yeah, that permitting strategy is, of course, part of the overall, strategic plan for developing and getting into full-scale operations. There is a binational treaty that exists today between Chile and Argentina. In fact, we have a Vicuña Protocol that exists for this exploration stage that the projects are in, and so we can move in and out between Chile and Argentina without having to clear customs each time. Now, what we would look at doing is escalating that to an exploitation agreement between both countries, and that would enable us to, you know, move product and personnel through this operation phase more freely. So we're working both with Chilean and Argentinian authorities as part of that binational treaty commission to establish this. We do have time to ensure that we, you know, tick all the boxes and get the necessary approvals to really bring that to that exploitation phase. You know, we're seeing as well and understanding the permitting timelines and using those assumptions for, you know, unlocking the full scale. So I think we've got a good strategy in place, a collaborative effort between, you know, people that are working for BHP, Lundin Mining, Vicuña Corp, and working with the Argentinian and Chilean authorities as well. So, no doubt it's a big undertaking, but I think we've got a good plan in place, and we do see it as a feasible and viable option to get to full scale. All right. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Our next question will come from Orest Wowkodaw, Scotiabank. Your line is open. Hi, thanks for taking the follow-up. You've already got a +70-year mine life. Clearly, Filo is probably gonna get bigger. Is there any plans for a phase IV at this point, in terms of expansion? And I'm just wondering if you're—if you feel like you're capped out at the phase III design throughput with respect to your ability to mine at Josemaria and Filo, or do you think the ore bodies could support a future expansion well beyond what you're currently thinking? Great question, Orest, and I think that, you know, given the size, the scale, the life of this project, it gives us flexibility to look at a, you know, multitude of options. And really what we would be trying to do is enhance near-term cash flows and economic viability in the earlier years. So improving mine plan, seeing if we can get the grade profiles up so we can be feeding higher grade material earlier on, you know, establishing that kind of peak production profile earlier on and seeing how long we could plateau that out, rather than trying to extend mine life beyond 70 years. But I think, you know, ultimately, this is a unique district that once you get into production, you're gonna be operating for many, many decades. So we've got the optionality because of the size of the mineral endowment, and I think exploration also, you know, lends to looking at future optimizations. If we were able to find, you know, high grade, near surface mineralization, that could supplement maybe lower grade material that's currently contemplated in the existing resources. These are the types of things that we'd look to kind of pursue, in parallel to all of the ongoing work streams. Thank you. And just one follow-up, if I could. It, it looks like BHP's put out a slightly different number or range, I guess, for phase I CapEx of, they're saying $7 billion-$8 billion, and it looks like they've applied some kind of +10% to the $7 billion number. Is that just a difference in philosophy, or is that essentially putting a contingency on a contingency? Or how, how should we think about that? Yeah, we're all aligned on the initial capital number of being $1.7 billion. And so I think that's BHP's, you know, method of presenting the data. So at Lundin Mining, we're presented the absolute figure and not giving ranges to those numbers. So it's just a difference in reporting standards. But overall, both BHP and Lundin Mining, through the Board of Directors of the Vicuña Corp., have signed off on the results of the PEA, and those are seen the same way between both companies. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our last question will come from Ioannis Masvoulas with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Yes, thank you very much for taking the follow-up, and I think you partly answered it. But if I look at slide 31, where you show the concentrate or feed by source, we do see quite a lot of great variability after the first sort of 10 years of operation. Is that something that, as you indicated, you're planning to improve as you continue your feasibility work and your exploration, and therefore, we might end up with a flatter grade profile at higher levels? Or due to the nature of the mining district, we might have to accept some variability, depending on the phase of our production. Hi, Ioannis. I think it's very common to see during this kind of level of study, grade variability, in the manner that you're seeing on the presentation and the material that we're providing. So absolutely, the work of the mining engineering team together in collaboration with the exploration and geology department, will be to refine that reserve and mine plan to look at having less variability and bringing forward higher grade material. So that all comes down to, you know, further refinements of the updated studies. And we believe there's significant kind of upside to ensure that we can do that. Thanks very much, and good luck. Thank you. This does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect. Thank you very much.