All right. Morning. Good afternoon. All right. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you just fine, Andrew. Thank you. Thank you everyone for joining the Antofagasta Q&A session today. If you'd like to ask a question, you may use the Raise Hand feature on your screen, or if you've dialed in, you may press star nine to raise your hand. I'll now pass things over to the Antofagasta host. Over to you, Andrew. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, it's Andrew Lindsay here in London. Just wanted to introduce Iván Arriagada, our Chief Executive, and Mauricio Ortiz, CFO, who will be your hosts for the Q&A session. I'll now hand over directly to. Well, we'll go straight to Q&A actually. I don't think we need to do any introductory talk. If any of you are ready with questions, please go ahead. All right. Just taking a moment to assemble the queue of questions. As a reminder, if you'd like to raise your hand, you may do so by using the Raise Hand feature on your screen. If you've dialed in today, you may dial star nine to raise your hand, and star six will allow you to unmute. Once you've been invited to, please turn your camera on, unmute yourself and identify yourself and what company you're representing, then you may ask your question. The first question today comes from Luke Nelson from JP Morgan. Hi. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. Excellent. Thanks for taking our questions. Just a couple from me. First, obviously, you've provisioned 2023 guidance. Can you maybe just talk through the building blocks of how we get from the range or the low end of this year's range to the 2023 guidance, with a bit more color on a mine-by-mine basis? Obviously, you've previously given the 30,000 ton impact at Los Pelambres, but would be interested what else is in there in terms of the other operations? Yeah. Okay. You hear me well, Luke? Yeah. I think that the main increase in production compared to this year when we look at next year's guidance is focused on Los Pelambres, and it's got to do with you know being able to achieve increased levels of throughput at Los Pelambres as a result of essentially having increased water availability compared to this year. You will recall that when we look back at 2022, in the first half, Los Pelambres was essentially running at half capacity as a result of the drought and the water limitations. We've seen that easing in the second half because of higher you know precipitation. When we look at 2023, we think that once the plant is up and running, the desal plant, then we will be able to be running at full capacity. The main increase is associated to Los Pelambres. Now, regarding the other sites, we do expect some increase as well, in Centinela sulfides. In the concentrator at Centinela, we expect to have high grades, as we had mentioned before. Therefore, you know, with the good performance that the plant has been exhibiting, we expect to have, you know, good production levels at Centinela concentrates. Now, overall in Centinela, probably not that different because we will see some grade decline in oxides. On the concentrator plant, we expect to see an increase and we're continuing to work and refine our plans for next year to ensure, you know, that we maximize the impact of that higher grade at the concentrator. In the case of Antucoya and Zaldívar, we expect to be at similar levels. I mean, there may be marginal variations up on both of those, but not significant to drive most of the increase that we're looking at. I can't hear you. I think you're on mute. Sorry, I was, yeah, muted. I think you can hear me now. Then, I suppose, just, in terms of the CapEx guides, you haven't given guidance for 2023, but you've given the sustaining and stripping will be about $1 billion. In terms of the Los Pelambres CapEx, that is still remaining and given the delays that you've articulated today and over the last week or two, how much of that growth CapEx will be deferred into 2023? Then I suppose on top of that, Centinela, it appears that there's a delay to when that will be announced. Just confirming that is so, and then maybe how you're thinking about that approval and then maybe the CapEx that could be associated for that into 2023. Yeah. Let me start by the sustaining element. Yeah, we have indeed guided to the fact that we expect to see on average over the next, you know, three or four years about $1 billion. I just wanna stress that it's an average over that period, so there may be years in which it might be slightly higher, it might be slightly lower. That is associated with projects like in the case of Los Pelambres expanding the desal plant and also you know replacing the concentrator line. In the case of Centinela, we've got to increase the wall at the tailings deposit. It's those types of projects which are one-off, but they tend to have a useful life that spans, you know, a long period. Sustaining on average $1 billion, but some years will be higher, some years might be lower than that average. We're looking at what 2023 might look like. If we're able to bring forward some of those projects, it may be slightly higher than the $1 billion on average. That's on the sustain. On Centinela, let me say that the plan is, you know, we continue to make good progress in terms of readiness for an investment decision in terms of, you know, the advancement and progress that we're making on the engineering. Obviously, you know, we want to make sure that we undertake the construction of this project when at least two things are in place. One, that we've completed the Los Pelambres project so that we can move some of those resources into the Centinela project, and we don't have an overlap and a superposition of construction work. The other one is clarity. As we've mentioned before, on some of the taxation applicable, and then that is still, you know, in progress. To the extent those elements are clear, we would be taking this to the board in the course of 2023. We continue during the initial phase of the project or what we call the commitment phase. There's a lot of work around engineering, which we continue to do. The fact that we position this in terms of when it goes to board approval, not specifically in January, but maybe later or some other months, we don't think it does represent a significant change in the schedule. I mean, obviously there is some change, but not a significant change in the schedule. We think it's prudent and it's consistent with our capital allocation policy. That's on Centinela. Now, on Los Pelambres and how much of that CapEx, growth CapEx might be in 2023, I'll defer that to Mauricio. He may be able to be more specific about how much of the Los Pelambres CapEx we expect, you know, will sort of fall into 2023. Mauricio. Sorry, there was a noise in the line. Yeah, just to tie with the Iván answering that basically what he described on sustaining CapEx. Related to Los Pelambres expansion project, well, as we disclose, we are adjusting the desal plant completion date to early next year or during the next year, during the first half of next year. Basically, we are forecasting a few hundred million dollars, something in the space of $300 million for Los Pelambres expansion project CapEx for next year. Very clear. Thank you. I'll jump back into line. Yeah. Your next question comes from Myles Allsop from UBS. Sorry, I think I've been unmuted. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yes, we can hear you well. Okay, perfect. Maybe just following up on the previous question around or came up in the previous answer around the tax situation. You know, could you give us a sense as to, you know, how the timeline looks in terms of getting clarity on the tax situation? It's the first question. Yeah, sure. There are two tax discussions taking place in Chile. One is around a broader tax reform, you know, for some people, and the other one is the mining royalty. There are two separate, if you want, bills being looked at. Now, for the overall tax changes, the government has sort of communicated their expectation that that tax reform would be finalized March. That's what the government expects, March next year. With respect to the royalty, I think, you know, it's narrower in scope. You know, it's but obviously more significant in terms of impact for us. Even though it may be narrower in scope, it's actually more important. The government, I think, has indicated their desire to, you know, progress, you know, the reform. However, it needs still to get through Congress in its full form and discussions. I think, you know, the expectation on timing is that probably there will be progress made before year end. I would expect on the royalty, whether it is finished or not, I think it's hard to predict at this stage. That's the sort of timing from the government. It will be done now, like BHP said. Thanks, Sylvian. You're not on mute. Okay. With the tax reform, could you give us a sense as to? You are muted. What the outcome of that will be? With the royalties at, you know, current copper prices, what would you expect your effective tax rate to lift by based on the latest draft? Let me start with the royalty. I think that the key message that we've conveyed, I guess, as an industry is that, you know, with the changes, it's important that competitiveness, you know, is preserved, you know, for investment. What does that mean? Today, it depends on the study, but considering, you know, the more prevalent ones, you know, the overall tax rate for mining in Chile is estimated to be between 38%-40%. That's where the rates are today. If you look at the sort of average over most of the relevant mining jurisdiction, that rate is probably around, you know, 42% or 43%. That's the scale of change that we think would preserve the competitiveness of the industry. An overall tax rate would, which would sort of move or be within those brackets, you know, would be competitive, I would think, for the industry. Now, if you think of the current bill as it's sitting, you know, in the Congress today, it does result in much higher rates, you know, probably above 50%. You know, they require the current proposal is quite higher than, you know, what I guess one would consider to be competitive against other mining jurisdictions. That's the, you know, the review that is taking place, I think with the government. The government and Congress are looking at this, and I guess, you know, getting input from several stakeholders around, you know, the different interests at play. I think there is, it seems, you know, a genuine desire to try to reach the right balance between increasing tax collection for social purposes, which, you know, the industry supports, but at the same time keeping investment competitive. Those are the ranges in which, you know, that reform seems to be moving. Now, with respect to the other tax reform, I think it's much more of a collection of changes across a wide range of taxes, and most of them are actually on personal tax changes, so I won't go through those in detail. On the corporate tax, I think it's one of the features that is being considered, some adjustment in taxation that has to do basically with you know, retained earnings and how those or personal taxes are credited against corporate taxes. It's quite complex, but it's basically focused on those type of taxation features. That's the sort of sense of it. Mm-hmm. Okay. So are you reasonably optimistic that we'll end up with a 42%-43% tax rate as opposed to 50%? Or is it really up in the air, and you've put your arguments forward, and we'll have to see how politics shake out. How should we think about it? Should we be optimistic or concerned? No, I think what's been positive is that there's been a genuine intake of opinions and views. I think that's been positive. I think obviously it's difficult to predict exactly where things will land. I think it is positive that there's been an openness to listen to a broad range of sectors. Also a realization that in the current economic context where the economy locally is going into lower growth as happens elsewhere in the world, that investment will remain important, especially for the mining industry. I think the combination of those two things is positive, but we need to wait for the outcome. I mean, you know, it's not for me to predict exactly where we're gonna land. I think those are positive signs at least. Okay. Thank you. I'll pass it on. Our next question comes from Danielle Shigemura from Credit Suisse. Hi. Thank you for the call. A couple of questions from my side. Firstly, on Los Pelambres. For 2023, there's a bit of a mismatch between the increased plant capacity coming on in Q1 and then the desalination plant coming on in H1. It'll be useful to get a sense in terms of whether that presents any incremental risk to the new production guidelines that you set out. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Danielle, and good to see you. I think what we're indicating there is that, as you point out, we expect the plant to be ready, you know, in terms of construction quarter one. However, I mean, obviously, we're not able to run that additional milling capacity at its fullest before we get the water. The water, you know, we expect to be available in H1. What's likely there to happen is that we will be ramping up, you know, in a more extended period, that capacity, subject to water availability. Now, that has been built into the guidance. The guidance does contemplate that sort of phasing for both the plant and the desal water. The reason I think we've sort of provided for a more extended time for the desal is because we've got these sea swells, which are very difficult to anticipate, and we don't, you know, fully control. We're just trying to factor that uncertainty, which is mostly weather-related, you know, into our guidance. If you look at the project, I mean, the plant, you know, it's quite a self-contained construction work, which is now above, you know, 85% complete. The milling plant, therefore, we have little uncertainty around the ability to finish that in quarter one. All the main equipment is there and work is progressing well. Now, if you look at the water system, which involves the marine works, the desal plant and the pipelines, essentially on the desal plant, we are also quite advanced and the same is true of the pipeline, which has actually been installed and finalized. The uncertainty of variation is mostly focused on the marine works, not on the desal plant, which is almost, as I say, finished and ready, nor on the pipeline, which takes the water from the sea to the mine. The marine works. On the marine works, the most difficult bit, which was the tunnels, you know, those are built. It's the remaining work. The issue is that the ability to undertake that work depends on the availability that we have at the port, and that is a direct function of the sea condition. That's why we've allowed for a bit more latitude in the estimate of completion time, because it depends on that factor. There's no technical issue associated to this. It's more around the availability of time. All of that is factored into the guidance that we've provided. It's been built with those elements in. Great. That's very clear. Thank you. Different topic. On Zaldívar, recoveries there continue to be low. Can you talk through when you expect the impact of the chloride leach project to come through into recoveries? What that will take recoveries to in 2023 and 2024? On Zaldívar, we've finished the project as we sort of indicated before, and the project is intended to progressively increase recoveries through chloride leaching, which we think it's the right processing route for the type of ore that we have there, which is essentially now sulfides or secondary sulfides and mixed ore. What we've seen is that getting the exact combination of factors between humidity, you know, crushing size, fine content in the ore and aeration and the like is a work which requires fine-tuning a lot of components to be able to get exactly to the design configuration for the project. That requires certain time. We think that we are scheduled to make good progress around those parameters in the course of 2023, and therefore expect improvements to be seen in the course of 2023 and then in fullest, you know, towards the end of 2023, 2024. But that's the timing. The issue here with Zaldívar, as you know, is that these leach pads have high or extended cycle times. I mean, the cycle times of these leach pads tend to span for close to 300 days. You know, these parameters are set in a way that, you know, they have to go through the full cycle, which is 300 days, before they can get changed. But that's what we're doing. We've got a group of experts which are assisting us in this process. We're confident that we will, you know, get to the design parameters on the operational side, which is where the focus is today, within that sort of timing, and therefore achieve, as a consequence of that, the increase in recoveries that we expect to get from the project. That's the sort of timing casing that we're looking at, Danielle. Thank you. Just one final follow-up. Just to confirm, the increased recoveries will be based versus where you are now, so versus the current 50% about recoveries? Our expectation is that we should be getting to recoveries which are in the sort of mid-sixties, you know, with the leaching project. That's basically where we wanna head. Very clear. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ioannis Masvoulas from Morgan Stanley. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you well, Ioannis. Great. Fantastic. Thanks very much for the presentation, the Q&A session. A few questions left from my side, all of them on the Centinela project. The first is around the tax reform. You sort of said in the past that you have the stability agreement that protects the value of these assets until the end of this decade. If we do end up with a higher tax burden than this 42%-43%, is there any potential for you to rescope the project, look at potentially a lower volume, higher value mine plan that could make the economics work? I think that on the most significant elements of the project, we would not make changes or adjustments under those circumstances. If you know obviously if we see as a result of these tax changes that taxation is you know significantly higher, I mean obviously we would have to look at you know how we sort of reframe the project in a way that it would be viable. I think that's the challenge. That's why you know our argument is that with the changes within the range that I've sort of mentioned that we would be able to undertake the project. If not, you know, it would probably require some sort of revisiting, and that would certainly take time and, you know, and we would have to look at it in a different way. I think for now, we have a project which we think it's robust. You know, it's solid in terms of how you know it looks at the return involved. It's a long project in the sense that, you know, it does allow us to essentially mine, you know, for close to 30 years of extra ore, and therefore, we look at it in that perspective. Therefore, our view is that, and our expectation is that we should not have to make changes in the scope, because those would be detrimental to, you know, to the optimal return for the project. We're working on that basis. I think you're on mute, sir. We can't hear you. Okay. I think you can hear me now, hopefully. The second question again on Centinela. You talked about the possible sale of the water infrastructure and the bidding process closing by the end of this year. It seems that given the taxation developments, you might take your time on approving the project. Does that delay the timeline on the water infrastructure sale? I'll defer that to Mauricio. I can only just as a general comment say that obviously we're trying to bring together in sync those two dates and working on that basis. So there is some flexibility around that with the aim of achieving that purpose. Mauricio may be able to be more specific as to that question. Well, as you mentioned, Iván, we are trying to coordinate both decision dates, Ioannis. That is what we are working now on that paramount. I think even the flexibility that we are building around the decision date also provides some flexibility to the tender process. We are in the process of receiving binding offers from a number of bidders and looks very appealing what we are the feedback that we are having from the market from that initiative. Bottom line is we are going to coordinate both dates. The update that I can disclose at this stage is that we are having a very good traction with the market on that regard. Great. Thank you. One last question again on the Centinela project. If we look at existing Centinela operations, the strip ratio is about four, which is pretty high, and has an impact on cash flow and the value of the assets. Question is on the Centinela second concentrator, is the strip ratio similar to the existing Centinela asset or is it potentially even higher? Mauricio, you wanna take that? Well, Ioannis, it's basically just let me describe briefly what are the ore bodies that are gonna face the second concentrator. It's gonna be partially Esperanza Sur and also Encuentro Sulfide, which goes underneath Encuentro Oxide, which is now currently under mining. The average stripping ratio is gonna look aligned with what we have now and from at the beginning and down the road could be even better because of the Encuentro's sulfide is almost already exposed the ore body because we already mined the Encuentro's oxide. At the beginning of the life of mine, it's gonna be similar, and then down the road, it's going to be lower because of Encuentro increase the throughput to the second concentrator. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. We'll now go back to Andrew Lindsay from Antofagasta. Andrew, please go ahead, sir. Right. Sorry, I've just been asked by Amos from Barclays to ask a question 'cause he's on a bad connection. He just wanted to know how confident we are that we can achieve the $1.65 net cash cost guidance for this year. Very good. Based on his numbers, he says if we assume we produce 640,000 tons for the full year at the bottom end of the range, that means we'd need to get cash costs in Q4 of $48. Mauricio, you wanna take that as well, on costs for the year? Yeah. Well, just let me share some comparison. If we look at the H1 or the first half of this year in comparison with Q3, we have a significant reduction in our costs, especially if you compare Q2 against Q3. That is mainly driven by production increase. What we are working on is that even an additional production increase for the Q4. As you pointed out, to reach the bottom end of the range, we need to increase to something in the level of $190-$ 190 during the quarter. That is a main driver of what we have seen. What we have seen over the last couple of months and the Q3 is part of that trend. We have a weaker Chilean peso that also explains part of the equation. Of course, we are working on a regular basis in our CCP, and we are going to deliver in relevant savings for the next couple of months. Basically, it's production, cost control, and a weaker Chilean peso. Those are the main drivers that we are combining and forecasting that we are gonna be in the space of $165. Yeah. If I may add to that, I mean, I think that the big driver here is obviously the dilution of fixed costs associated to production. Therefore, to the extent that we're able to meet, you know, our production estimates, and again, achieve the sort of quarter-over-quarter increase that we did achieve in this quarter three, and do it in quarter four. You know, we're confident that we will get there. What we're seeing on some of the input prices as well is that some of them are coming down, and therefore, there seems to be some sort of a turn on the price increases on input costs that we had seen before. Inflation locally as well, it seems to be starting to turn. As Mauricio is saying, I mean, we do have a cost containment program, which, you know, we'll certainly put a lot of focus on in the fourth quarter. We think this is the right number for, you know, for us, and that we should be able to be hitting this figure, you know, in the full year. We do recognize that it does involve quite a significant, you know, effort, you know, for the balance of the months which are left. You know, we're very focused on achieving it. We think it's, as I say, it's, you know, is the sort of right figure. Okay, thanks. A further question from Ian. He says, "Iván, you've previously mentioned that there's a potential that companies can waive their stability agreements in exchange for some compromise from the government on taxes or mining royalties. Has this discussion progressed? And do you know if this is gonna be possible or not? Yeah. What I have said is that if you look at the past royalty changes, when they were made, you know, a few years ago, this must have been, you know, what, six or more than seven years ago then, the taxation was subject to invariability, and it was waived in exchange for some of the changes that were made. That's what happened. It's a factual statement of what occurred in the past. I'm not saying that that's something which would necessarily happen now. I think I have not seen that present in the conversations, and therefore not something that has been, at least from what I've seen on the table, as of now. I think as a mining industry, I mean, obviously, you know, no changes in the rules is key, you know, for investment. We would certainly welcome, you know, commitments around invariability, but not something that I've seen, you know, in the discussions as of now. Okay, thanks. A final question from Ian. What's the impact of the wage settlements on this year's unit costs? I think. Well, on that one, I would ask Mauricio to comment on the numbers. It's good. We're very pleased with the fact that we were able basically to close, I think it was a week or two ago, all our labor negotiations for this year in a very constructive environment involving the supervisors at Los Pelambres, the workers at Antucoya. Previously we had done the same with the supervisors at Antucoya and at Falda Cuerda. I think we've had a good round of labor negotiations this year, within what we had expected in terms of cost and in a good working environment with the unions. Positive from that point of view. We don't have any more left for what's the balance of the year, so that element is sort of not on the table and in the table anymore. As to the specific numbers, Mauricio, you may wanna give some flavor as to the impact of those negotiations and cost. Yes. Before I answer straight to the question, I'm just gonna add to what Iván said, is that the thing that we built our labor agreement is based on a one-off component and on a structural component. This is thinking in how we preserve the competitiveness of the business. The one-off component is something that we are gonna see just one time. Trying to summarize the answer, the impact of the signing bonus is something in the space of $0.01-$0.02 in each company. Okay, thanks. That's Ian's questions over, so I'll hand back to the queue. Our next question comes from Luke Nelson from JP Morgan. Hey, thanks. First follow-up question, and it's sort of an extension from Ian's first question around costs in Q4. Just again, looking into 2023, and we'll get full granularity with the Q4. Do you think we're now approaching a level of peak costs coming through? I know, obviously next year there's a benefit of volume dilution coming through, sort of at the midpoint, it's around 8%-10% increase. Obviously, that will help. My question is can unit costs decrease by more than the sort of 8% increase in volume dilution? Are you gonna get benefits coming through from things like flotation reagents, acid costs, desal, other consumables? And obviously labor is potentially gonna be an offset to that. Then there's the peso as well working in. How are you sort of thinking about the moving parts of costs adjusting in an environment if we were to assume sort of the volumes were sort of out of the equation? Yeah. I think as you point out rightly, I mean volume is a significant element. Beyond that, I think our view and we're sort of establishing exactly what our estimates are gonna be, you know, for the different input costs and the key ones. We are expecting to see some release in the pressure that we saw this year on some of those costs. One example of them is sulfuric acid. What we're seeing is that some of the prices on acid are actually, you know, coming down compared to the peaks that we observed, you know, a few months ago. Now, because those are staggered in terms of how we buy them in contracts, the impact is not exactly as you know sort of the spot price behaves. I think our view generally is that yes we will see you know reduction in some of our key input prices in line with what we see is the sort of economic cycle going into 2023. I would say the same probably true on the labor market. I mean you know Chile's moving into much more of a recessionary environment locally and therefore we would expect in a similar situation. I think where we're putting some extra thought is the exchange rate because that's a more difficult one to predict. Exchange rate normally has been an offset to inflation locally, and so we need to come to, you know, a better estimate of what that might be for 2023 and how that may perform. The exchange rate is, I mean, normally it's reflective of the difference in inflation between, you know, Chile and the US dollar. It would also have some local elements associated to political uncertainty. One has to, you know, take a view as to how that component will behave. If it stays where it is today and around that level, and if we know as we expect, see some downturn in some of the input prices associated to the business cycle and what we're seeing, combined with increase in production, we would expect to see a reduction in unit costs, which is probably north of, you know, the increment in production. That is what we're working now, and we will share that, you know, in January. If I may, I will add also this is not only copper production. Remember that, for example, Los Pelambres has been running at lower capacity during the year, so we are gonna have and also a molybdenum production increase, which is irrelevant from the Los Pelambres cost structure. And the input price was fully described by Ivan, so I don't want to add something else. Also remember that we have been working in cost improvements driven by technology. For example, next year we are gonna have up and running the IROC at Los Pelambres and Centinela. That improves the cost base. Also we are working in order to decarbonize our Scope 1 emissions. We are going to deploy our first electric mine equipment early in the year. We are working in that direction in order to decouple our cost structure from the desal and fossil fuels. Just to give you some flavor of what we are doing from a much more structural point of view. Yes, very useful. One follow-up, if I may, and it relates to Ioannis Masvoulas's question on Centinela. Maybe asking in a different way, what would it take for you not to FID the second concentrator? What would have to be in place from, I suppose, a fiscal arrangement on the royalties or taxation in general, inflation, macro, any or all of the above? What could throw the project from the sort of a 2023 FID, in general? Yeah. I think, I mean, this is a project that we consider very important in our portfolio for many reasons. As we've indicated in the past, you know, we aim to get to around 900,000 tons in the sort of midterm, and this is a very key element in building the block to get to that space in terms of production. I think this is a project that we're committed to do. You know, the timing may be, you know, it may vary, you know, slightly, but we're quite committed to undertaking this project. Now, certainly the uncertainties that we've pointed out around the royalty and the like are important to be cleared. It is mostly around those uncertainties that we need clarity? If those increase, if those remain unresolved, if those are procrastinated, then you know, yeah, I think you know, we would certainly have to think through as to what the you know what the exact timing would be and whether that would actually be pushed back to to another date. But it's more around getting clarity on the points that we've pointed out. We think this is a great project. It's a good project. What we've seen also in terms of the rounds that we've done on the funding side, that there is you know certainly availability of funding you know for a project of this type, and therefore the viability from an operational and financing point of view is there. We just need clarity on the tax environment under which this project would be undertaken and you know that we leave the construction of the Incra project behind. Those are the key elements and it's just getting clarity around those. I think there's no fundamental question that this project is the right project for us to undertake. It does unlock significant mineral value for a very long and extended period of time, and it allows us to increase production to where we want to be midterm. It's the factors that we've mentioned. There's no issue fundamentally with how we look at this project and how important it is in our portfolio. Thanks a lot. Our next question comes from Myles Allsop from UBS. Hopefully I'm muted. I'm kind of asking a similar question to the previous one. If we saw a 50% tax rate being announced at the end of this year for royalties, would that stop you moving forward with Centinela? I just wanna have in my mind, you know, is that enough to jeopardize it? That's the first question. Yeah. I mean, I don't think these are, you know, I can provide an answer to that. We don't expect that to be the case. That would be a significant increase in taxation, which would, we think, leave the industry or move the industry to a different, you know, concern around competitiveness. You know, obviously a taxation at that level, you know, we would need to run the numbers and see how we would look at the project in that context. It would be significant, and we think, you know, it would certainly be impactful. You know, we would have to look at the numbers if that were to happen. We hope that's not gonna be the situation, but we would have to look at it if that were to occur. As I said, as a more general comment, you know, we think that that would certainly leave the overall taxation rate for Chile well above what we see for countries which compete for, you know, for mining investment. You know, when we look at alternative jurisdictions, and there's a very good study from the IMF around this, where the average rate, as I say, is around between 42% and 44%. This would put, you know, that rate significantly above that. Okay. No, that's helpful. Thank you. Our next question comes from Krishan Agarwal from Citi. Krishan, feel free to unmute and ask your question. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah. Thanks a lot for taking my question. I joined late, so my apologies if the question is already answered. The Los Pelambres, you know, CapEx is tapering off, and there's a lot of uncertainty on Centinela, you know, concentrator CapEx. Is there any possibility that the group CapEx in 2023, you know, falls off significantly from the current levels, or is it going to be, you know, flat, you know, year-on-year? I understand that you're going to guide for the CapEx little later in January, but just quick thoughts on that. Yeah. No, I don't think that we would expect it to sort of drop. I mean, we've said on a sustaining CapEx point of view that we expect on average, you know, to be at levels for the next few years of around $1 billion. But some years it may be higher, as I've said, and some years it may be lower. So 2023, you know, we expect that that will come into play and therefore, you know, we would be at that level or maybe slightly above, depending on how we sort of finalize, you know, our figures. The rest, if we look at development CapEx, we expect to see. Mauricio was saying probably around $300 million on the tail end of the Incra project. There are a few other development projects of small type and small nature also to be added there. We've got the Centinela. I don't expect that we would see something too different to what we've sort of been guiding, even though the components are changing, compared, you know, to 2022 and what was 2021 as well. Okay. Thanks a lot. There are no other raised hands at this time. As a reminder, if you have a question, you may use the Raise Hand feature at the bottom of your screen. If you've dialed in by phone, apologies, star nine will activate the Raise Hand, and star six will allow you to unmute. It looks like there are no further questions at this time. I'll hand it back over to the Antofagasta team for any closing remarks. Okay. Thank you very much for attending the call, and we hope it's been informative and it's provided some extra clarification as to where we're heading. We'll expect to see you at the end of the year. Thank you very much, yeah. See you guys. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you all for joining the call today. The call is now concluded. You may feel free to disconnect at any time.