Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing up. Welcome to Teck's Second Quarter 2025 Earnings Release Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star then one on your touchstone phone. Should anyone need assistance during the conference call, they may signal an operator by pressing star then zero on the telephone. This conference call is being recorded on Thursday, July 24th, 2025. I would now like to turn the conference over to Emma Chapman, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, Operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for Teck's Second Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Today's call contains forward-looking statements. Actual results may vary due to various risks and uncertainties. Teck does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Please refer to slide two for the assumptions underlying our forward-looking statements. We will reference non-GAAP measures throughout this presentation. Explanations and reconciliations are in our MD&A and the latest press release on our website. On today's call, Jonathan Price, our CEO, will start with highlights from our second quarter. Crystal Prystai, our CFO, will follow with a financial and operational review of the quarter. Jonathan will then wrap up with closing remarks and a Q&A session. With that, over to you, Jonathan. Okay, thank you, Emma, and good morning, everyone. Now, before we get into the quarter, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the incident earlier on Tuesday at one of our peers' operations in the northwest of our home province of British Columbia. Our thoughts are with the three workers that remain in the underground work area, as well as their families, friends, and colleagues and the emergency response teams, and we hope for their safe and speedy rescue. Turning to our second quarter 2025 results, starting with highlights on slide four. Overall, we are advancing our strategy of proper growth while returning cash to shareholders. Our profitability improved compared to the same period last year to $722 million of Adjusted EBITDA. We had strong performance in our zinc segment, with Red Dog sales above our guidance range and a significant improvement in our zinc net cash unit costs, as well as another quarter of profitability and cash generation at Trail. Across our established operations, production is on track to meet our annual guidance. At QB, we had previously noted that we would be at the lower end of our guidance of around 230,000 tons for the year. Whilst the team is working hard to achieve this, we acknowledge that there could be risk from possible external factors or, of course, any delay from the TMF development work. As a result, we have revised our outlook for QB to 210,000-230,000 tons for the year, but continue to target design rates by year-end. Earlier today, we announced that the board has sanctioned the Highland Valley Copper Mine Life Extension project in British Columbia for construction. This is foundational to our strategy to double copper production by the end of the decade. Given the strong demand for copper as an energy transition metal, the project will generate compelling returns, with an IRR far surpassing our cost of capital and secure access to this critical mineral for the next two decades. The project extends a core asset to 2046, with average annual copper production of 132,000 tons over the life of mine. We are continuing to return significant cash to shareholders, with elevated daily share buying levels in the quarter resulting in a total of $487 million, or $ 9.8 million Class B shares. Year to date, we have returned a total of $1.1 billion to our shareholders through dividends and share buybacks, and we have completed approximately 70% of our authorized $3.25 billion buyback, which is the equivalent of $2.2 billion. Finally, we are maintaining the resilience of the business, including through our strong balance sheet, which enables us to navigate uncertainty and continue to create value. We currently have $8.9 billion in liquidity, including $4.8 billion in cash. Turning to slide five, we continue to be committed to safety and sustainability. Across the operations that we control, our high potential incident frequency rate remained low in the first half of the year at 0.09, below our 2024 performance of 0.12. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the fatality that occurred on April 22 at Antamina, in which Teck holds the non-controlling interest. We are deeply saddened by this event and offer our condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of the deceased. Teck fully participated in the investigation, which was led by the team at Antamina, and learnings will be shared across our company and across the sector. We were honored to be named as one of Corporate Knights' 2025 Best 50 Corporate Citizens in Canada. It is the 19th consecutive year that we have received this recognition, which is based on an evaluation of up to 25 sustainability indicators, including board diversity, resource efficiency, financial management, sustainable revenue, and sustainable investment. Now turning to QB on slide six. QB's second quarter performance was impacted by the ongoing TMF development work. We are advancing multiple TMF development initiatives to improve sand drainage rates and accelerate mechanical movement of sand to achieve steady-state operation. This work impacted mill online time in the quarter, as previously disclosed. The planned post-QB2 construction pace of TMF development was based on design assumptions for sand drainage rates that have subsequently proven unachievable. Modifications to cyclones alone, while showing an improvement in sand drainage rates, were not sufficient to allow us to fully catch up on TMF development work in the quarter. As a result, we are implementing a range of additional measures to improve sand drainage rates and accelerate the mechanical movement of sand, including enhanced sand placement techniques and optimization of the grind size of the concentrator. Importantly, the TMF development work and the transition from starter dam to regular ongoing sand lifts is a one-time milestone related to the ramp-up of the operation. When it is completed, the TMF development work will be behind us for the life of the facility. While the TMF development work will continue in Q3, we continue to target design rates by the end of the year. Throughput increased from the prior quarter, and we expect to see consistent grades of approximately 0.61% in the second half of the year. Work is ongoing to improve recoveries by year-end, which will also be helped by more consistent mill runtime. The outage of the shiploader at QB's port facility announced on June 2 is expected to be extended into the first half of 2026. We have been successfully shipping concentrate through our alternative port arrangements and have maximized shipments to local customers so there has been no production impact. Alternative sales logistics have had some incremental impact on our net cash unit costs, which is expected to be approximately $0.10 per pound. We had a good step up in molybdenum production as a result of some key process improvement initiatives implemented during the quarter. We expect to continue to see molybdenum production improvements, and we continue to target design throughput and recoveries at the Moly plant by year-end. Once we have completed the TMF development work, QB will be able to run at steady state, showcasing it as a tier-one asset that will be a cornerstone of Teck's portfolio for generations. We continue to work on defining the most capital-efficient and value-accretive path for future growth of QB through optimization of the mill and low-capital debottlenecking opportunities that could collectively increase throughput by a further 15%-25%. The foundation of QB is its large long-life deposit that can support multiple expansions, and it offers multiple potential paths to create value for our shareholders, including assessing adjacencies or synergies with Collahuasi. The operation also has the advantage of a very low strip ratio, which enables competitive all-in sustaining costs. We successfully achieved completion testing requirement under QB's $2.5 billion project finance facility earlier this year, which provides independent verification confirming the robustness of the design, construction, and operational capacity, and we have a taxability agreement in place through 2037. Taking all these factors into account, we are well-positioned to generate significant future cash flows from this tier-one asset for decades to come. Turning to the Mine Life Extension at Highland Valley on slide seven. Highland Valley is Canada's largest copper mine and a core asset in our portfolio, and we are excited to announce the sanction of the Highland Valley Copper Mine Life Extension, or HVC MLE project. This is a lower-risk and lower-complexity brownfield project that is 100% owned by Teck. The MLE is an extension of the operation to 2046 and is expected to produce 132,000 tons of copper per annum on average over the life of mine. Based on additional technical and engineering work, we have optimized the structure of the project. As a result, the project capital estimate at sanction is CAD 2.1 billion-CAD 2.4 billion in nominal terms. Compared with our prior estimate of CAD 1.8 billion-CAD 2 billion, this now includes project-level contingencies, accounts for inflation, input cost escalation, and the impact of potential tariffs on construction materials, and reflects the accelerated procurement of mobile equipment originally planned for later project phases. It also incorporates additional scope and indirect contract requirements identified through ongoing project refinement. The MLE project consists of development of site infrastructure and facilities, grinding circuit upgrades, increased tailings storage capacity, and enhancements to power and water systems, as well as a mine pushback that requires additional waste stripping to access high-quality resources within the valley pit. The project economics are attractive, including generating a robust internal rate of return that is significantly above our cost of capital and a positive net present value using an 8% discount rate. The capital intensity of the project is expected to be low, at $11,500-$13,200 per ton of copper on an annualized basis. Overall, we expect to generate significant EBITDA and cash flows over the life of mine. We have operated Highland Valley for decades and have successfully executed several Mine Life Extensions there. Importantly, project readiness for construction has been confirmed through independent assurance activities, including an external construction readiness assessment and a review of the technical scope, capital cost estimate, and execution strategy and planning. We are well-positioned for solid project execution of the Highland Valley Mine Life Extension with a strong and experienced team in place, all major permitting complete, engineering nearly 70% complete, and all contracting and permitting well advanced. Construction mobilization is underway. We plan to start construction in a few weeks, and we look forward to delivering on this value-accretive project. We have summarized the changes to our guidance on slide eight. Production changes are driven by the revised outlook for QB based on the TMF development work. We had previously noted that we would be at the lower end of our guidance of around 230,000 tons for the year. Whilst this is still possible, we acknowledge that there could be risk from possible external factors or from any delay to the TMF development work. As a result, we have revised our outlook for QB to 210,000-230,000 tons for the year, but continue to target design rates by year-end. Production guidance for all other operations is maintained. As such, the impact of the revised QB outlook is the only driver of flow-through changes to total copper production, moly production, and therefore net unit cash costs. We have also incorporated the increase in copper production in 2028 and the start of the growth capital investment associated with the sanction of the Highland Valley Copper Mine Life Extension project. Please refer to the MD&A for further details. Turning to the near-term growth on slide nine, our ongoing growth trajectory is underpinned by our established portfolio of operating mines. The sanction of the HVC MLE project is foundational to our copper growth strategy and a significant milestone in the growth of Teck's copper production into the future. Our high-returning greenfield projects at Zafranal in Peru and San Nicolás in Mexico are progressing as planned, and we are targeting sanction readiness by year-end. At Zafranal, we initiated advanced early works in May, following receipt of the advanced works permit in April. This will enable construction to start immediately following project sanction. We are targeting receipt of the construction permit of stage eight approval, with a further two approvals required in Q3, and the earliest date for a potential sanction decision is late in 2025. At San Nicolás, engagement with government authorities and other stakeholders is ongoing to support our permit applications. We plan to complete the feasibility study in the fourth quarter, which is the earliest date for projects to be positioned for a potential sanction decision, following the receipt of necessary permits. These projects are significantly less complex and smaller in scope than QB, with lower capital intensities, attractive project economics, and well-balanced risk-return profiles. In addition, we are working to define the most capital-efficient and value-accretive path for further growth of QB, through optimization of the mill and low capital debottlenecking opportunities that could increase throughput by 15%-25%. Our priority at QB remains completing the ramp-up, but optimization plans are also progressing, and detailed planning for debottlenecking is underway. This should enable us to submit the declaration of environmental impact or DEIS permit application in the second half of the year. All of our growth projects must meet stringent criteria, delivering attractive risk-adjusted returns and competing for capital in alignment with our capital allocation framework. Overall, we expect to be able to double copper production by the end of the decade, with a path to annual copper production of up to 800,000 tons through these near-term projects. With that, I will now hand the call over to Crystal. Thanks, Jonathan. Good morning, everyone. I will start with our second quarter 2025 financial performance on slide 11. Our Adjusted EBITDA increased by 3% in the quarter compared to a year ago to $722 million, primarily due to another profitable quarter from Trail operations, lower smelter processing charges, and reductions in corporate overhead costs, partially offset by lower copper and zinc prices and higher operating costs at Highland Valley due to increased production and at QB. The improved performance from Trail operations reflects the implementation of initiatives to improve profitability and cash flow, including increasing byproduct revenue. While the current low smelter processing charges are a headwind for Trail, Teck overall has a net benefit from them. We successfully reduced our corporate overhead costs by 21%, reflecting our ongoing efforts to reduce costs across our business. We continue to expect lower annual corporate overhead costs compared with 2024. Importantly, we continue to return cash to shareholders, with $548 million returned in the second quarter. This includes $61 million of base dividends and $487 million of share buybacks, which equates to $9.8 million shares and reflects elevated daily share buying levels through the quarter. Year-to-date, we have returned over $1.1 billion to our shareholders. Turning to slide 12, which summarizes the key drivers of our financial performance in the second quarter compared to the same period in 2024. Our Adjusted EBITDA increased by $19 million- $722 million, driven by another profitable quarter from Trail operations, lower smelter processing charges, reductions in corporate overhead costs, and lower royalties. It also reflects higher sales volumes and an increase in commodity prices for our byproducts and positive foreign exchange impact. Trail's approved results reflect higher byproduct production volumes, such as silver, germanium, and indium, and higher refined lead production as compared with the year ago. These factors were partially offset by a $91 million reduction in settlement pricing adjustments and higher operating costs at Highland Valley due to increased production and at QB. Now, looking at each of our reporting segments in greater detail, and starting with copper on slide 13. In the second quarter, gross profit before depreciation and amortization from our copper segment declined by 3% to $673 million compared to the same period last year, primarily due to lower copper prices and higher operating costs, partially offset by increased coproduct and byproduct revenues from zinc and molybdenum and lower smelter processing charges. Copper production remained similar to the same period last year at 109,000 tons. At QB, the online time was impacted by the TMF development work required to complete the ramp-up of the operation as expected. Our established operations are performing in line with guidance, and our outlook remains on track for the balance of the year. Production improved significantly at Highland Valley, driven by higher grades and mill throughput as we advanced mining in the lower Next pit. Production at Antamina was lower, reflecting a shutdown of approximately one week due to the fatalities, as well as the processing of a lower proportion of copper-only ore as expected in the mine plan. The site returned to full production in June. Carmen de Andacollo had higher production in the quarter, driven by higher grades and recoveries as water availability improved compared with the same period last year, which was impacted by drought conditions. The improved performance in Q2 2025 was despite maintenance at the SAG mill for approximately one month for repairs. The operation has been running at full rates since it successfully restarted at the end of June. Our net cash unit costs improved by $0.14 per pound to $2.02 per pound. While cost of sales increased, particularly at QB and Highland Valley, this was more than offset by increased byproduct credit, including significantly higher zinc revenue from Antamina and additional molybdenum revenue from Highland Valley and QB, as well as much lower smelter processing costs. In the quarter, we signed labor agreements at QB and Carmen de Andacollo. QB's third labor union signed a new three-year collective bargaining agreement in early April, completing all labor negotiations for QB's workforce and ensuring that labor agreements are now in place through 2028 across our QB operations. At CDA, both union contracts were ratified in June and July, with each covering a three-year period. Looking forward, we continue to target design rates at QB by the end of this year. We also continue to expect higher quarterly copper production at Highland Valley through the balance of this year as we process increasing proportions of higher-grade lower Next ore. As mentioned earlier, we've updated our annual production and unit cost guidance based on our revised QB operational outlook. Copper production has been revised to 470,000-525,000 tons, and copper net cash unit costs have been revised to $1.90-$2.05 per pound. Turning now to our zinc segment on slide 14. Performance in our zinc segment was very strong in the second quarter. Our profitability in zinc improved substantially, with a 137% increase in gross profit before depreciation and amortization compared with the same period last year to $159 million. This improvement was driven by higher byproduct revenues as a result of our updated operating strategy at Trail and lower operating costs. Red Dog performed well despite lower grades that we expected in the mine plan. Red Dog sales of 35.1 thousand tons were higher than our guidance range of 25-35 thousand tons due to the timing of sales. Our net cash unit cost for zinc improved significantly, decreasing by $0.20 per pound to $0.49 per pound, primarily due to lower smelter processing charges and higher byproduct credit. At Trail operations, profitability was strong in the quarter, reflecting our updated operating plan to improve profitability and cash flow generation in challenging smelter market conditions. We have curtailed our refined zinc production and increased production of byproducts such as silver, germanium, and other critical metals compared with the same period last year. We also implemented cost reductions in Q4 of 2024, the benefit of which continued into Q2. Overall, this strong performance led to a 13% improvement in our gross profit margin before depreciation and amortization for our zinc segment, 28% compared to the same period last year. Looking forward to the third quarter, we expect zinc and concentrate sales from Red Dog of 200-250 thousand tons, and with Red Dog shipping season commencing on July 11, we expect reductions in Red Dog inventory in the third quarter, reflecting the normal seasonality of sales. Our annual production and unit cost guidance for our zinc segment is unchanged. The zinc and concentrate production of 525-575 thousand tons, refined zinc production of 190-230 thousand tons, and net cash unit costs of $0.45-$0.55 per pound. Looking at our cash returns to shareholders on slide 15. We continue to build on our strong history of cash returns to shareholders. We have returned a total of approximately $6 billion since 2020. This includes over $1.1 billion year-to-date, reflecting elevated daily share buyback levels in the second quarter. We have now completed $2.2 billion, or approximately 70% of our $3.25 billion authorized buyback, leaving approximately $1 billion remaining. With the strong cash flow generation potential of our business, we could see further cash returns to shareholders in line with our capital allocation framework. We remain committed to returning between 30% and 100% of future available cash flows to our shareholders. Looking now at our balance sheet on slide 16, we remain focused on maintaining the resilience of our business, including the strength of our balance sheet. As of yesterday, our cash balance remains significant at $4.8 billion, and our liquidity is strong at $8.9 billion. We also continue to maintain investment-grade credit ratings. We have moved into a small net debt position in the quarter as we've continued to deploy the proceeds from the sale of the steelmaking coal business to shareholder return, but we do expect a release of working capital build of Red Dog inventory to unwind in the third quarter, reflecting the normal shipping season. Since 2024, we have reduced our debt by $2 billion, and our $1 billion outstanding term notes are long dated. We made a semi-annual repayment of $147 million on the QB project finance facility in the quarter, and through these payments, we are further deleveraging our balance sheet on an ongoing basis. Our near-term growth projects, including the HVC MLE project, remain well funded, and we are strongly positioned for continued value creation as we execute on our strategy. With that, I'll turn it back to Jonathan. Thanks, Crystal. On slide 18, we remain focused on our priorities to create value for our shareholders, completing the TMF development work at QB and ramping up the operation, targeting design rates by year-end. Driving operational excellence, including growing our copper production, reducing our unit costs, and improving our margins. Continuing to return cash to our shareholders through execution of our authorized share buyback program and through our base dividend, and progressing our value accretive near-term copper projects to create options for our next phase of copper growth, and maintaining the resilience of our business, including our strong balance sheet. We are committed to continuing to balance investment and growth in copper with cash returns to shareholders. Turning to slide 19, we can continue to significantly impact the accretive growth potential of our metrics on a per-share basis. Last year, with the ramp-up of QB and with a significant portion of our $3.25 billion share buyback completed, we increased our copper production per share by 54% compared to the prior year. By 2026, our copper production per share could increase by a further 33%-50% as we stabilize QB at full production while completing the remaining authorized share buyback. And our copper production per share could increase substantially beyond that as we bring on near-term value accretive growth projects. And this does not consider the impact of any further share buybacks that could be authorized under our capital allocation framework, given the strong cash flow generation potential of our business. Our copper production has the potential to increase rapidly long-term on a per-share basis. So thank you. And with that, operator, please open the line for questions. Certainly.To join the question queue, please press star then one on your touch-tone phone. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. We ask that you please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. If you're using a speakerphone, please ensure you lift the handset before pressing any keys. If you wish to remove yourself from the queue, you may press star then two. The first question comes from Orest Wowkodaw with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Some questions on QB2, please. Firstly, the tailings issue that's limiting throughput and then the new investment required here, is there any knock-on impact to 2026? I mean, will tailings still be a constraint next year? Hi, Orest. Thank you for that question. Yes, as you point out, in the current quarter and to some extent as well expected in Q3, the TMF development work has been limiting online time for QB. Actually, throughput at the plant and the recoveries of the plant have been good considering these constraints, but online time is an issue. Our expectation here, Orest, is that we can work through the TMF development issue and put that behind us so that it won't constrain operations on an ongoing basis. On that basis and based on what we see in terms of throughput and recoveries and grade, of course, at the operation, we have maintained our guidance for 2026. Of course, as we noted, we'll continue to monitor the progress of the TMF development work through the balance of this year. Is there potentially more investment required in the tailings next year? At this point, we've guided to the capital, incremental capital spend for this year. We don't expect additional investment next year. We expect normal operating conditions around the TMF and its ongoing development, but we don't expect to signal additional capital, essentially, as we have done in the current quarter. Okay. Just, I mean, given the state of the ramp-up, I mean, at this point, I'm having trouble understanding how realistic it is for QB to even reach the low end of its guidance for 2026. I mean, that would imply monthly production required of 23,000 tons a month. The operation hasn't done that in a single month to date. At this point, what gives you confidence that you can exit the year anywhere close to that kind of run rate? Yeah. Our view, Orest, is that when we can put the TMF issue behind us and we can therefore improve the online plant, that we see from a throughput, recoveries, and grade perspective the potential for on the guidance for 2026. These are assumptions that we are able to underpin by operating parameters that we have experienced and delivered at the plant. Of course, it requires us to run the operation consistently through the year to achieve those numbers. They're consistent with design, of course. At the low end of the range, we have seen operating results already that give us confidence that those numbers are achievable. As you can imagine, we continue to interrogate both the operational parameters at QB, and we continue to interrogate the forward guidance for QB. At this point in time, we don't see any changes to 2026 and believe with a period of consistent operation without the constraints of TMF development that we can move forward and deliver. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from Matthew Murphy with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hi. I have a question just on the piece of CapEx this year. So first half of the year, you've done almost $700 million CapEx. That's growth and sustaining, not including capitalized stripping. And then your guidance is around $2.4 billion, if I'm not mistaken. So you have to spend $1.6 billion-$1.8 billion, call it, back half of the year. Am I thinking about that right? Yeah. I'll let Crystal speak to the details behind that. Of course, we have increased our capital guidance for the second half of the year, in large part based on the sanctioning of HVC MLE, which goes to both capitalized stripping, but it also, of course, goes directly to the growth capital as well as some of the additional capital that we've just discussed for TMF development at QB. But Crystal, over to you. Yeah. Thanks, Matt, for the question. You're right. So year-to-date, we've spent $700 million on capital expenditures, excluding capitalized stripping. And our total for the year is at the low end, $2.3 billion. So that's a reasonable run rate in terms of what you're thinking. That would put us around $1.6 billion over the second half of the year. Again, a large portion of that is in relation to growth. And that number, again, has increased because it previously didn't include the sanctioned capital associated with HVC MLE over the balance of the year. So we have now embedded that spending for the second half of the year. And that's why I think we're seeing that increase in the run rate. Of course, we also have embedded the TMF expected cost associated with that work into the plan. And you'll see some of that coming through in the third quarter as well. Okay. Yeah. It's just the magnitude of the step-up. I mean, do you worry about being able to get that done this year? Or are there some big-ticket items in there that you're confident you'll see that spend? And is a lot of the tailings spend, therefore, yet to come in the back half of the year? Yeah. I think the run rate is reasonable. We've done a detailed scrub through the projects to understand exactly what is remaining ongoing. We do have a few larger projects in the sustaining side that we expect to kick off, including the Antamina tailings lift associated with the mine life extension. We have the QB truck shop that we're continuing construction on. We also have some demobilization of QB facilities as we move into the next phase of mining there. That, in addition to HVC MLE, which, of course, we have a rigorous schedule associated with the project and the CapEx that we've articulated is in line with that schedule. In the context of TMF, we have spent cash today. We haven't disclosed what that figure is, but we can get that out to folks as required. Do expect that spending to continue through the second half of the year. Really, maybe to articulate a bit more about why that number is the number that it is. We did have spend associated with TMF embedded in our sustaining capital guidance for this year. The amount and distance of mechanical movement of sand related to the TMF and the related cost of that work has increased that expected cost and hence increased our guidance in relation to that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. The next question comes from Carlos de Alba with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Just on QB. Could you please provide a little bit more comments around the ship loader repairs? How long would it take, if you have already started? Also, if there is any—maybe you mentioned this, but I might have missed it—if there is any impact on CapEx that are material because of the repairs? Yeah, Carlos, thank you for that question. As you know, we disclosed the challenge with the ship loader back in June of last year. Essentially, the cause for that was a brake failure on the shuttle, which caused an overextension of the ship loader and, of course, some damage associated with that. It took some time to be able to access the ship loader to even assess the repair work. That was because we were required to apply for and obtain some marine permits. The assessment of that damage is ongoing, and the repair plans are being finalized associated with that work as well. As we've said, we do think that's going to be an extended shutdown now that will extend into the first half of 2026. We haven't got a finalized capital number for that repair at this point in time because that assessment is ongoing. Importantly, as we've said, the work on the ship loader and the downtime of the ship loader is not impacting our production here. As you'll recall, previously, we had in place trucking arrangements while we were awaiting the completion of the ship loader originally that was allowing us to move material to either smelters in Chile or to other ports in Chile. We've just reactivated that, and we have that truck in place operating daily. No production constraints, and that's allowed us to minimize any buildup in inventory at the port. All right. Fair enough. Then just, if I may, a second question. Just on the sequence of the projects for Zafranal and San Nicolás. While both are likely to be sanctioned or may be sanctioned by the end of this year, at the earliest, is it fair to think that Zafranal probably is ahead and maybe will be developed earlier? I mean, I think it's fair to say that Zafranal is more advanced in terms of t he permitting status, in terms of the construction readiness of that team, for example. However, we consider both of those to be options. While we're saying we would like to get them ready for sanction by the end of the year, of course, those are decisions that are yet to be taken. There is a range of factors that will play into those decisions. I would not give any particular guidance now on the sequencing of those projects. Think of them as options that we have in the portfolio as we look to de-risk and progress those options to the point that we could take sanction decisions when ready. All right. Thank you very much. You have a good one. Bye. Thanks, Carlos. The next question comes from Craig Hutchison with TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning, guys. Just on the Highland Valley extension, now that you guys have made a final investment decision, is there a plan to file a technical report? And just maybe as an interim, can you give me a sense of what throughput you're looking at to achieve that annual production rate of 132,000 tons a year? Sorry. Yeah. We will publish a technical report. We expect that to happen in August of this year. Of course, you will get all the detail associated with that. The throughput throughout the life of the future mine will be variable, of course. It is going to be a product of the ore we are mining. You will see in our disclosure that we go through various phases here where we are mining different pits. There are different ore hardnesses associated with the ore coming from those pits. There will be variable throughput is the answer. And variable grade, of course, that goes with that. Craig, we did disclose in our investor day in November what a production profile would look like for HVC MLE. I just encourage people back and look at that as you think about it. It shows the variability, Which is, I guess, is the 132,000 tons per year and I would assume the throughput has to be materially higher just based on your reserve grade, unless I am missing something. I mean, I think we are adding capacity to the circuit. We are adding mills there to increase the throughput of material and also to improve recoveries of material, I should say. I mean, last year, you saw our production at HVC come in just below 100,000 tons. This year, of course, that production guidance is materially higher in the sort of 140-150 range. You see variability year on year, currently, through the operations at HVC. That has been driven this year by the processing of additional Lornex ore. I think that is what you should expect going forward is variability depending on the ore type that is dominating mill feed at any point in time. Okay. And then just on QB, how are the recoveries progressing? Are you guys, do you feel like you'll be through the transitional ore this quarter, or is that still kind of lagging into four? Yeah. Look, I'll just ask for that to talk about that in terms of the transitional ore, where we are on recoveries and the work we're doing there to continue to drive those higher. Thanks, Craig. Craig, as we had noted last year, we did expect lower recoveries in the first half as we were dealing with more transitional ores. Our recovery performance was just slightly below what we had expected due to the inconsistency in the first half of the down dates. We do expect to have better quality ore in the second half with a higher grade and higher recoveries. The transitional ores will be variable. Yes, we expect a lot less transitional ore in the second half and in 2026. All right. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Craig. The next question comes from Myles Allsop with UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah. Just a couple of questions. Maybe first on QB and Collahuasi, as I mentioned in your presentation. It sounds like discussions are not happening at the moment. Is that right? Or is there any progress in terms of looking at that option seriously? Look, there are discussions regarding QB Collahuasi. I'm not going to go into those because, of course, they're confidential in nature. As we've said before, we recognize the potential of the opportunity there for synergies. We will always do what's in the best interest of our shareholders in that regard. As you can see right now, we have our hands full with ramping QB up to a steady state, which has to be our priority here to make sure we get stable production there and the cash generation that this asset is capable of delivering. As I mentioned, in parallel, we continue to think about, continue to discuss the potential synergies there. I won't unpack those discussions given they're confidential. That's fair enough. Just going back to two issues. At QB, why is it taking a year to fix the ship loader if it's overextended, it's a new ship loader? Seems an awful long time. Obviously, there is a meaningful OpEx impact. With the tailings, when are you hoping to get that complete? Is it right to assume that that will be sorted largely by the end of this year? Or is that going to drag? I'll hand the ship loader question over to Ian Anderson in a moment. I'm just going to talk about tailings. Of course, given the fact that we have maintained our guidance for 2026, our expectation is that we've put the TMF issues behind us this year. That's what we're providing for in our guidance. As I mentioned, it's sort of a one-time event associated with ramp-up. When we get through that phase of work, we move into a steady-state operation. It is not something we expect to be plaguing this operation indefinitely at all. It is something we expect is a discrete piece of work. We will get that resolved and move past it. Then we will be able to secure the online time, essentially, that we need from this operation unimpeded. Ian, would you like to make some comments just on the ship loader outlook, please? Sure. Thank you very much, Myles, for the question. Despite the fact that we said it would conclude in the first half of 2026, that is not saying that it will, in fact, take a year. At this point, we are really carefully defining the nature of that work. As a result of the brake failure, of course, we have to assess all of the structural elements, make sure that that ship loader is returned safely, and similarly, that we complete all the work to get it back into great condition. We will progress that project as we go. Of course, you are dealing with maritime authority. That can cause permit delays. We certainly want to be cautious about how we deal with that in hospital. I want to make sure that that continues at pace, but at the same time, the nature of the incident demands that we work that long. Thank you. The next question comes from Bill Peterson with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions. On the higher CapEx guide for Highland Valley, the mine life extension relative to last year's strategy date, it looks at around 15%-20% higher. Can you provide additional color or breakdown between materials inflation, contingencies you mentioned, or any other factors? Is there any read-through for project sanctioning for Zafranal or San Nicolás, for example? Should we expect some more sort of double-digit increase at this stage just to be prudent or any read-through at all? Thanks. Yeah. On the HVC piece, I mean, I will not specifically give that breakdown. As I mentioned, there is a range of things in there. It is project-level contingency. It is inflation. It is cost escalation. It is the potential for tariffs on construction materials, which we think is a real driver, of course, particularly between the U.S. and Canada. That is something that we have reflected here. Importantly, as I mentioned, it is also the acceleration of the procurement of mobile equipment that we have brought forward from later project phases. That materially de-risks the project and the rate at which we will be able to essentially access the valley pit for the long term. Those are important de-risking elements in our view. I will also ask Crystal just to comment on some of the process by which we looked at this capital spend through the investment approach here that we have taken and. Our determination to ensure that we give robust capital numbers that can be delivered. Sure. No problem. Thanks, Bill. Look, we've advanced this project through the final stages of our project delivery framework, as well as through our governance processes, including through our investment committee. Those processes embed the final project refinement, the construction readiness. Probabilistic modeling around various facets of the estimates involved. As well, we had detailed independent assurance provided on many areas of the business plan, as well as in the context of construction readiness. All of those are learnings that we took from the QB project that we've committed to embedding as we go forward into future projects, including in HVC MLE. The conclusion of that work ahead of sanction has led to the capital range that we're disclosing, of course, in addition to the factors that John has noted in the context of what's embedded into that range. I think, Bill, we have any read-through for future? Yeah. Yeah. I was just going to pick up on that. Look, every project has its own characteristics. We will take the same approach with future projects that Crystal just outlined in terms of using independent assurance, taking probabilistic modeling to ensure the full range of, obviously, economic outcomes associated with the project, but also the full range of potential input assumptions here, which go to capital, because we need to ensure that we're reflecting uncertainties or known unknowns in the project as we're setting forth the assumptions here. Again, as I mentioned, each project has its own unique characteristics. I don't think you should take a direct read-through from that. What I can say is we will apply the same rigorous approach to Zafranal and San Nicolás that we've applied to HVC. Well understood. Thanks for that. My next question is not something the team's talked about recently, but as you range the potential project in the U.S., does any other where that project stands in terms of permitting, community engagement, and I guess an opportunity to potentially move faster than what appears to be a pretty strong support within the U.S. in terms of permitting and promoting domestic production? Yeah. I mean, that remains an interesting option for us. It's clearly further out than Zafranal or San Nicolás here in the schedule. I think the key for us there is to define what is the right project, what is the configuration that will deliver the greatest value in the event that project develops. That's the work that we're doing now. Of course, you have to define that before you can start to approach the permitting process in any detail. I think that's a conversation for later. Bill, we have our hands full with other things right now, but we do continue to work that in parallel. Well understood. Thanks for the insights. Thank you. The next question comes from Chris LaFemina with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to ask about first on the incremental CapEx for QB for the TMF. How do you decide whether you're going to include CapEx in the project CapEx or in sustaining? Because I would think if you're spending money to ramp the project to full capacity for whatever reason, that would have been part of the project CapEx. I understand it's really just a question of semantics. But when we think about the capital intensity of the project, why wouldn't that be project CapEx rather than sustaining? I a nd the semantics question over to Crystal. Hi, Chris. Thanks for the question. In the context of TMF, when we thought about the growth capital for the project, of course, there was construction cost associated with that built into the project capital that we reported against in our results over a number of years. I think the pieces that I add to why sustaining, I mean, firstly, we're running the operation and we're producing copper. So I think these things are no longer growth capital. We did expect to spend on the TMF, but that amount, as I mentioned, is more significant than we expected as we are now moving significantly more sand, further distances than we expected for mechanical movement. And the related cost of that is the expected cost. And I think at this point, it doesn't make sense to include that in growth capital, and it becomes part of the sustaining capital as a result. Okay. That's fair enough. And then secondly, just on the ship loader, do you have any insurance related to the issues there, or is it all on you? Thank you. Ian, do you want to comment on that as well? Yes. Certainly, we are investigating the root cause. We'll understand based on that what the next steps will be in terms of insurance. So yes, we do have insurance coverage, and that includes interruption. That's nice. Okay. Great. Thanks. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. We are out of time for further questions. I will now hand the call back over to Jonathan Price for closing lines. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. And thanks again to everyone for joining us today. We look forward to welcoming many of you to our QB site visits on November 3rd and 4th of this year. Please reach out to Emma Chapman and our IR team for further information on the site visit or, of course, if you have any follow-up questions on the quarter. So thank you, and enjoy the rest of your day. This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.