Welcome to the Antofagasta live Q&A webcast, webinar, conference call. I'd like to pass over to Andrew Lindsay of Antofagasta. Andrew, over to you. Good afternoon, good morning to everybody. Welcome to our first quarter production report. We have here today, Iván Arriagada, our Chief Executive, Mauricio Ortiz, our CFO, and René Aguilar, our Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Sustainability. If Iván's gonna start with a short introductory few words, and if you want to ask questions after that, you can ask either through video or through the telephone numbers, which we'll also circulate. Okay, I'll hand over to Iván. Thank you, Andrew, and hello to everyone. Thanks for joining the call. Just a few opening remarks for this first quarter production report. I think the quarter has been largely as we had anticipated and expected. We have a temporary decrease in production during the dry season at Los Pelambres due to water restrictions, as we had anticipated. As a result of that, we were running during the quarter at lower throughput. We know that this is a short-term condition for which we have a long-term solution in place, which is the construction of the water system and desalination plant, which is now almost 75% complete. Production is also impacted in the quarter by planned lower grades at Centinela, as we had anticipated. We now expect, as we start feeding ore from Esperanza Sur, that grade will increase throughout the year. As a result of these impacts and lower production, our costs are up, our unit costs are up, explained as I say mostly by lower production. This, since these were anticipated decreases, our production and cost guidance for the year remains unchanged. We are essentially expected to achieve what we had guided for, and the performance of the first quarter is according to our plans or consistent with our plans to be able to achieve that result. On capital expenditure, we had initiated a review of the INCO project capital expenditure, which we've now completed. As a result of that, we have released an updated estimate for the INCO project with the main increases related essentially to the COVID cost impacts, costs associated to logistics and some labor incentives that we put in place to reduce absenteeism. However, despite these revisions to our capital estimate for the project, we expect that capital expenditure for the year will be within the limits that we had guided. We expect it will be $1.9 billion. That's at the top end of the range that we had provided. From that point of view, we expect to, as I said, be within that figure. Those are basically the key issues I wanted to highlight. I think with respect to the market, I mean, we continue to see a strong copper price and we expect that, you know, to remain, you know, in the sort of midterm. What we are seeing in the current geopolitical context is that energy security, which is, you know, a key concern, is in fact accelerating energy transition. We expect copper demand to remain, in short, in a high level despite, you know, the business cycle accommodation. From that point of view, we continue to expect, as I say, a strong market going forward. With that, you know, we can open it now for Q&A. As Andrew said, I'm joined here by Mauricio and by René, and we would be happy to take any questions that you may have on our first quarter production report. Thank you for that. Just a reminder to everybody, if you'd like to ask a question, please use the Raise Hand button and we will invite you through to ask a video question. We'll then go to questions from the conference call after that point. Our first question is from Luke Nelson. Luke, I'm promoting you to a panelist. Luke, once you're through as a panelist, please unmute yourself and please also turn on your video. Please go ahead. Hi. Can you hear me fine? Loud and clear. Yeah. Excellent. Thanks a lot, Iván, Mauricio, René, Andrew, for hosting the call. Just a question on guidance. Firstly, on costs. Obviously, Q1 was elevated, as we know, but just in terms of the $155 guidance for the full year, we've now got a very high Q1 base, but you're also facing some pretty strong headwinds in terms of things like labor, CPI in Chile, WTI, raw material inputs more generally. I think they're quite a bit higher than some of the underlying assumptions that go into your guidance. My first question is just how confident are you around that guidance, on the cost perspective for this year? I'll say a few words and ask Mauricio to expand. If we look at the sort of cost impact or cost variation between the fourth quarter last year and the first quarter this year, that's largely explained by the lower production. We see that the large increase in cost or proportion increase in cost is associated to lower production. I think we are seeing, as you've mentioned, some, certainly, cost inflation, which we've, you know, reflected in terms of, you know, diesel, energy, you know, mostly from that point of view and other raw materials. We expect that to be temporary. Also there is an offsetting element to this, which is the variation in the exchange rate. In terms of what we project for the year, we are still, I mean, confident that, you know, our guided cost does essentially provide for the type of temporary increases in inflation that we're seeing with the offsetting factor of the exchange rate. That's why we've sort of retained our guidance for the year. That's the basic premise on which we've sort of provided a continuing guidance for the year. As I say, the bulk of the difference in cost when you compare quarter-on-quarter is in fact explained by production, which we expect will start increasing as we move ahead in the year according to our plans. Mauricio, you may wanna provide some more color into that. Yeah. Well, Luke, hi. Well, as Iván said, we are going to increase production going forward. The production profile this year looks like a stairway. We are going to increase quarter by quarter our production. I think that is the main driver, and that is the main explanation behind our costs in Q1. Also touching base on the one much more related with input prices and inflation that you mentioned. I think there is also a component beyond what Iván said on the exchange rate, that also our gold and moly production is increasing through the year. At the same time that we have, for example, input price pressures driven by the economic environment this year, we are expecting that will be offset by our increasing product production moving forward within the year. Remember that copper grades at Centinela are highly linked with gold grades, so we are going to increase gold production within the next couple of quarters. In the same way as we are going to increase copper production at Los Pelambres, we're going to increase moly production. That provides the volume offset, but also the price offset. We'll expect it to have an impact and balance the input price negative impact with the positive price of higher gold price and higher moly price. Okay, that's really clear. I suppose you sort of touched on the other component of guidance in production. If I just look at Los Pelambres in particular, you've previously given half-by-half run rates for throughput, and I think for H1 the guidance was around 115,000 tons a day. For Q1, we're well below that, below 100,000 tons a day, which implies Q2 is a significant step up on Q1. Again, a similar question to my prior one. Sort of how confident are you around that? I suppose given the water situation at the moment looks like there's no change, sort of how dependent is the near-term production run rates before the desalination plant comes on dependent on water availability? How realistic are these sort of increase in throughput cadence, how realistic is that, given the current situation on the water before the desal comes on? No, I think certainly those are critical elements. I think what we've done during this first quarter, and this is important, a lot of the work has been focused on, because we've got the plant running at less than you know throughput capacity, we've basically done a lot of work on maintenance. There is some maintenance work which we decided to undertake to be able to have the plant ready to increase its availability going forward. Also in the mine, we've done work in keeping up with mine development according to our full capacity, which also allows us some flexibility with respect to grade going forward. We've got some elements there of flexibility in terms of our ability to run, you know, the plant, you know, on a continuing basis, and also to eventually feed with some variation in grade, which can give us, you know, from that point of view, more flexibility than we would normally have. Our ability to increase throughput will certainly, I mean, depend on some level of rain as we sort of move into the rainy season. The rainy season normally is a period which we see as running between mostly June and September. And therefore it does, you know, assume some level of rain in that period, and then the desalination plant comes on stream in the second part of the year. There is some dependency there, but we think that it's a reasonable assumption today to think that we can, you know, basically increase the level of throughput with the flexibility probably in grade and in terms of our ability to run the plant on a continuing basis that we've built during the first quarter, which then we can sort of draw on or use later in the year. Now, in production, we've also provided a range, and therefore, you know, that range does, in our view, take into account any sort of adverse scenario with respect to rain during the rainy season. You know, we've guided to between 660 and 690, and therefore any deviation with respect to the expectation of rain, we think can be covered within that range. Now what we've seen is that, you know, in terms of in the beyond quarter one, is in fact that, you know, we're able to achieve the sort of throughput rates that we have in our plans. From that point of view, we you know think the guidance is a good estimate of where we will end up in the full year. Okay, excellent. Just one final question, if I may. Again, just on guidance, the CapEx of $1.9 billion within that the Los Pelambres review $2.2 billion, does any of that fall into 2023? That's maybe one for Mauricio. Yeah. Mauricio, you wanna take that? Yeah. Well, when we provided this year guidance on CapEx, we provide this range between $1.7 and $1.9. Bulk of the updated figure that we are providing for INCO fits within that range. Just let's say I will say that something like two months expenditure will slip into 2023. That means around maybe 15% of the increase that we are announcing today on the CapEx related to INCO fits into 2023. The bulk of the expenditure will be this year. Very clear. Thanks a lot. Luke, thank you very much for your question. Yeah. We're now having our next question, which will be from Ephrem Ravi. I'm going to promote you to panelist. Just as a reminder for people, if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand. Ephrem Ravi, if you could please unmute yourself and please turn on your video. Please go ahead. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear. Good afternoon all. Thanks a lot for the presentation. I just have a couple of questions. My first question is actually a follow-up on what Luke asked, and it's on cost and CapEx guidance. So have you assumed some sort of normalization in terms of consumables, fuel, CPI inflation, et cetera, as you progress through the year? i.e., if spot prices persist, especially fuel, could the cost and CapEx guidance come under threat? That's the first question. Mauricio, you wanna take that, please? Sure. Well, as we were saying, what we are having, indeed as we announced last year, we are having a higher input price this year driven by the economic environment. That is a fact. We are capturing the economic environment in the cost line in that way. Also we are capturing the revenue line through the byproducts. As I described previously, we have a step up in terms of byproduct production. Also in the same way that we are having a higher WTI to what we're seeing last year, we are having also a higher gold and moly price too, in comparison to what we have seen last year. That in terms of the prices. What we're doing in terms of consumptions, we are working at the components. As you know, we are working in our CCP approach. We have the Cost and Competitiveness Program. This year, one of the key factors in that program is the unit consumption of diesel, explosives and other supplies. In that way, we are working to offset the higher input prices, in two ways, the prices with the byproducts and the amounts or the quantities with the unit consumption. Thank you. My second question is the recent announcement from Chile. In terms of water, the new draft constitution has included the proposal to restrict water usage. While the Los Pelambres desal plant does reduce your dependence on groundwater, can you talk us through where you could be at risk if this does eventually become a law? Thank you. Sorry, I didn't get fully that. Can you say that again? Sure. I was discussing, you know, the water, the bill to restrict the water, the groundwater use that has been incorporated into the Constitution this week. It was passed by a two-thirds majority. My question was, the desal plant obviously reduces your dependence on groundwater at Los Pelambres. In terms of the other operations, I think it's mostly Zaldívar. Could you talk us through where exactly is the risk and how much production, how much of your production could be at risk if the new constitution is, in fact, passed by a referendum in September? Yeah. Okay. I think the first thing I would say. I mean, there's a lot of provisions which are being discussed currently in the context of the development of the new Constitution. I think it would be premature for us to sort of make too conclusive comments about, you know, what's approved or what's not. It's exactly, you know, in the process currently. There are several steps. You know, committees produce proposals which go to plenaries, which are voted, and then there is a referendum at the end of the process. But with respect to our water position, as you've mentioned, I think we are largely, when we finish the desalination plant at Los Pelambres, we will be largely running on desal water and not on continental water. In the north of Chile, Centinela and Antucoya already run in seawater. At Pelambres, that will be the situation when we finish with the construction of the second phase of the desal plant. Our exposure, we think from that point of view to changes in the use of continental water are limited. As you've mentioned, the only case is Zaldívar. In the case of Zaldívar, we're applying for an extension of the permit from 2025 to 2029. It's a limited period of time. From that point of view, we consider that our strategy with respect to water, which has been to essentially move to seawater and primarily as we're doing now at Pelambres, does provide you know a robust you know protection against any changes in legislation in that respect. Thank you very much. Thank you for your question, that's there. We're now going to move on to our next question, which is from Daniel Major. Daniel, we're going to promote you to panelist. Daniel, when you're through to panelist, please could you unmute yourself, and please turn on your video. Daniel, if you could unmute yourself and turn on your video. Many thanks. Hi. Thanks for the questions. First one on, just on the CapEx, just to be clear, you've obviously increased the Los Pelambres CapEx budget by $500 million, but group CapEx is the upper end of a $200 million range. Is it therefore right to assume that, when you communicated that guidance, you know, you said that the budget for Los Pelambres was under review, and implicit within that was a higher than the $1.7 billion number already. Is that the right way of thinking about it? I think Mauricio may expand on this, but there are two elements to this. I mean, one is there is a portion of the capital expenditure of the project, as was pointed out, which is due to be spent in 2023. Okay. There is an element which you know doesn't fall in 2022. When we were looking at the revision of the CapEx and therefore we made that comment, we had trends which were being looked at and analyzed, which were already within, as you say, within that range. Those had to be confirmed, and that was the work that we did in finalizing our estimate. There was a component, as you say, which was included, but there were trends at the time, and therefore not firmed up, which is the work that we completed and did, finally, in arriving at the final number. There's a combination of some of that in the form of trends, which later got confirmed, were within that range, and then there's an element which actually, it will be spent in 2023. Okay, thanks. Just another one on that subject. I think in the middle of 2020, the CapEx budget for the Los Pelambres expansion was $1.3 billion. It's now $2.2 billion. How much of that increase is associated with upscaling the desal, and how much is therefore COVID and other inflation? Out of the increase, how much is actually incremental to the desal capacity? Yeah. I think that's an important consideration. I think what we mentioned back then was that around $250 million, I think the number is slightly below that, $240 or $235. It's associated essentially to changing the scope of the plant. As you know, we indicated then we made a decision to change and to be able to expand to an 800 l per second plant. That meant making some changes to the marine works, the pipeline, and also to some of the basic footprint that we have to be able to grow on a modular basis to the 800 million. So around $250 was associated to that expansion. Okay. Very clear. Thanks. Then, second question, just on the Pakistan settlement. Can you give us any guidance on the expected timeline there and any range of expected taxation that on the $900 million sort of preliminary agreed settlement figure? Yeah. I mean, as we've sort of, you know, indicated, essentially the agreement is that we have to work some sort of preconditions in the course of 2022. The outcome of that is that the license to develop the project will be essentially reestablished or reinstated, and that provides our ability to exit the project. And so conditions that need to be fulfilled are associated to being able to get to that point, to basically the point in which, you know, those essentially licenses are reestablished and back. We expect those discussions to be completed in the course of 2022. Okay. Any indication on the range of tax that might be deducted from the $900? We are in terms of the several conditions that need to be fulfilled. I mean, those are being worked upon, and I have no specific comment on taxation that I can share at this moment. All right. Great. Thank you. I'll let somebody else. Thanks, Daniel. Circle back if there's any time. Thanks a lot. Thanks very much, Daniel. Just as a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand on the webcast. We're now going to move across to questions from the conference call. Cecilia, maybe you could take over on that. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question over the phone, please press Star One on your telephone keypad. We'll pause for a moment to allow everyone to signal. There are no questions over the phone at this time. No, thanks. We've got our next question from the webinar from Ian Rossouw. Ian, I'm promoting you to panelist. Ian, as you arrive, if you would like to unmute yourself, and please also start your video. Ian, please go ahead. Hi, guys. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah, just a follow-up question on Luke's question about the Los Pelambres sort of production rate. I guess, Mauricio, you mentioned a sort of stairs profile for the group, but do you mind just giving a bit of color what that profile is by operation or maybe just the sort of main operations? Do you expect a similar profile for all of them? I mean, obviously Los Pelambres will see a big step up once you get rain, but just wanted to get a sense of more by quarter if you expect a similar profile. Yeah. Well- I mean. Yeah, sure. Sorry, just let me comment on Los Pelambres and Centinela and I'll pass it to you, Mauricio. I think at Los Pelambres we've provided the sort of guidance on halves and while we're slightly behind what we had provided as throughput, you know, for the first quarter, we still expect to basically achieve that level for the first half. You will see a very steep increase in the second half as we sort of move to almost 180,000 tons a day of throughput. In the case of Centinela, we expect the same in the sense that, not driven so much by throughput, but by grade, as we expect to hit the grades that we've guided for the full year. In those two operations, I think there is a very clear pattern of you know, steep increased production as we move into the second half of the year, which essentially drives our you know, production you know, for the group. We expect some increase in grade throughout the year at Antucoya, and therefore some increase in production there. We expect also some increases in recoveries at Zaldívar. Remember that in the case of Zaldívar, we've just commissioned the project to optimize recovery through a chloride leach, and therefore we are ramping up that project, and therefore as we expect those recoveries to increase, we expect some higher production as well in the second half. I think mostly this is driven by what we expect at Los Pelambres and Zaldívar. In the case of Los Pelambres, it's associated to water availability. In the case of Centinela, to grade. Okay, thanks. Maybe just at Zaldívar, do you still expect to get an update or I guess a confirmation around the license by the middle of this year? Has there been more discussions with communities or around that? Yeah. I think we do expect to make progress, you know, between now and mid-year. I think what's happened and we've seen is that suddenly we've had, you know, establishment of the new authorities has meant that there's been, you know, more, you know, in terms of bringing the new authorities up to speed. I would say that we would expect to have more clarity around this by mid-year in terms of, you know, the permit. Yes, I think that would be our expectation. As I say, it's not cast in stone, but it is our expectation and we are working, you know, with the relevant authorities to be able to progress this according to our permit request. Okay, thanks. Then maybe just lastly on Zaldívar, obviously you've talked about this chloride leach project that you expect grades to start to recover again, but I mean, it seems like I mean, initially when you acquired the mine, you did pretty good job on increasing the recoveries versus what I guess it was running at the time of Barrick. It seems like you were running into problems around metallurgy and processing. Could you maybe just give us a sense of where we are within that and to what extent you can increase grades with this new chloride project? I think when we acquired 50% of Zaldívar back in 2015 and started running in 2016 for the first time, this, what we call the solubility rate of the ore was, I would say, significantly higher than what it is today, which means that there was a higher proportion of oxides or, you know, mixed ore. And that meant that the process that Zaldívar had traditionally used, which is based on leaching with essentially acid, was quite fit, you know, for that type of ore. As time progressed, the solubility rate became lower and that's typical of this type of of deposits, where basically we're now leaching instead of oxide, mostly mixed ore, which includes secondary sulfides. The whole purpose of developing the chloride leach project was to essentially provide a process which could address these lower solubility rates by means of adding chloride, you know, to the leaching process, which is fit, you know, for this new type of ore. We think that now we've got the process which is much more in line with the type of ore that we have and the solubility rates that we're observing today. From that point of view, you know, we expect then recoveries, which is the key element to increase. That was the whole purpose of the project. We would expect, you know, recoveries to certainly, you know, go above, you know, 65%, as we sort of ramp up the project and expect to get, you know, even higher rates than those. But it's very important because the whole purpose of the project is to fit, you know, essentially adjust the processing to be able to fit the type of ore that we've been mining since, which is much more of secondary sulfides than oxides. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ian, for your questions that came through. Just a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand. We'll just pause for two seconds to wait for some questions to come through. We've got a follow-up question. We've got a call-in question from Chintan Kumar. Chintan, I'm just promoting you just now to a panelist. Chintan, if you could just unmute yourself and please also start your video. Many thanks. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Just a question on CapEx for me. You know, given the extent and the number of increases that we've seen to the CapEx guidance for Los Pelambres, you know, to what extent can we extrapolate this for future projects that are yet to come, such as the Centinela concentrator or even phase two for Los Pelambres? Yeah. I mean, I would say that in the case of Los Pelambres, there are two main, I would say, impacts that we've reported. I mean, one is the change in scope, which was, you know, commented before, which means that we basically decided to increase the size of the plant. That's something which explains, you know, a significant element of, you know, the increase. The other one has been the COVID impacts, which involved not only the direct cost, but the cost on the schedule change, logistics and some labor incentives that we've included to be able to address some of the absenteeism. I think if I look at the sort of projects, those that have been most impacted are the ones that have, from a COVID point of view, higher, you know, or longer construction periods. The ones that have camps on site, and the ones where, you know, COVID essentially came when the projects were starting. Those three elements, I think are present at Pelambres. We have an extended construction period. We have camps on site where we house, you know, the people and the workers that do the construction. In addition to that, COVID hit when we were just starting construction. Those elements, I think, are actually quite unique to this project, and therefore, I would not expect those to recur in other projects of capital spend. Thank you very much. Thank you for your question that's there. We're now going to move on to our next question, which is a follow-up question from Luke Nelson. Luke, you're being promoted to a panelist. Luke, would you please unmute yourself and also start your video. Hey, thanks. Thanks for taking a follow-up question. Just one, sir, René, actually. Can you remind us where we sit in terms of the rollout to 100% renewables? I think the target was previously by the end of 2022. Just sort of remind us how we're going and the timeline towards that. Is there opportunity to hit that through 2022? And then I suppose more broadly, the ESG targets for a 30% reduction of... They're not overly ambitious, I suppose, given that you will be 100% renewable, and you basically get there once the operations turn to renewables. So is there any opportunity to be more ambitious? And can we get maybe an update on that this year? Is that credible? I think just remind me the Scope 3 targets. We're waiting that there's a measurement this year and we'll get updated guidance on that in 2023, if you can just confirm that as well. Sure, Luke. Yes, you're right. In terms of where we are in terms of achieving our targets for 2022, we are on good track. As you know, for Scope 2, we've moved Zaldívar in 2020 to 100% renewables. Now we are moving, of course, Centinela, Antucoya and Pelambres as well to for the same path. We are on a good path to achieve what we've committed at the end of the year. No questions on that. In relation to the targets we have set, yes, as you know, we've set a target of 30% reduction on emissions by 2025 and carbon neutrality by 2050. That remains our target. You are right in terms of the amount of emissions that we're going to reduce when we would have the Scope 2, let's say, contracts in place. That's right. At the same time, you need to keep in mind that we have incorporated as well the projects that we're gonna be running at that time as well. Yes, there will be more activity as well if the Centinela project is built, for instance, and powering Los Pelambres as well. We should be having more activity, and therefore we need to take care of those new emissions as well. That is why we have set this target of 30% reduction by 2025. We are not only working on our Scope 2 emissions, we are also working on reducing our Scope 1 emissions. You might be aware, Luke, that we have set two pilots in our mines, one for Centinela, which is basically considering hydrogen for feeding our haul trucks. We've started that project at Centinela. At the same time, we have started a project in Antucoya, which is more in relation to the use of batteries for the haul truck. We are, in terms of the final technology, agnostic, if you want, but we are trying to pilot how those alternatives, those both electromobility and hydrogen could work for us. With that, we think that we can have a good outcome in terms of reduction of Scope 1 emissions. As you know, it's roughly 50% of our current emissions, so we know we've got a target there to achieve. In terms of Scope 3, as we've announced, we are measuring this year all our Scope 3 emissions, so to have a good inventory. Next year in 2023, we would be able to provide the market a target for reduction for Antofagasta in particular. If I may just add to that, Luke, I think that Mauricio mentioned our focus on reducing unit consumption rates across the board as a measure to basically address our you know cost pressures. That also has a sort of energy component and therefore an emission component. A lot of the work that we're doing beyond shifting the contracts has to do with achieving higher levels of efficiency in the use of specific energy requirements per unit of you know throughput at our plants. Therefore, a lot of our work is geared towards that. Some of that has translated into the fact that, you know, our management team and our companies have now integrated into their performance, assessment and management, you know, the performance on emissions. We are also addressing very much a sort of cultural change, which is required to be able to achieve, you know, the harder, but we think more sustainable long-term solutions to reducing emissions by way of, you know, specific energy consumption by each of the units. I would say we've introduced a shadow carbon price so that the decisions that we make in allocating contracts as we bid, you know, for supplies and as we also make decisions around investments, have integrated the emission basically footprint that they produce. Therefore that's also integrated now in 2022. We're using shadow carbon price in our decisions. A lot of that, I think, will drive the right behaviors to be able to achieve the reduction in emissions that we also are pushing for in everything that we do and specifically in how we manage, you know, our day-to-day operations. Can I just ask a follow-up to that? What incentive is there to bring on production growth if you have CO2 targets within your performance metrics and your CO2 targets are based on absolute levels of CO2 reduction? You know, the way that we are looking at emissions is on the basis of a certain level of activity. I mean, it's an absolute with respect to a certain level of capacity that we're operating today. With respect to investment decisions that we make, I think the way that we address this is different. What we look at is how we invest in a way that we achieve more efficiency compared to the sort of conventional way that we would configure those investments. Certainly, you know, as we move into those investments, we expect that, you know, there will be a change in the total level of emissions, but we want to achieve an improvement in the intensity or unit level of emissions, you know, per copper produced. That's the way that we look. We have a fixed amount of emissions, you know, in a current capacity, and we are striving to basically reduce and improve that by means of putting the right incentives on management. When it comes to a project, we're looking at the way to invest in that project with energy, sorry, with emission reductions against the conventional configuration that that project would have. In the case of the DMC, as I think we've mentioned in the past, we've looked at high-pressure grinding rolls as some way of also achieving, you know, energy efficiency and lower emissions, for example. Therefore, we would favor that technology on that basis and on the basis of also efficiency in production. Excellent. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Luke, for your question that's there. We currently have no further questions on the webinar or from the comms call today. Iván, I'd like to pass back to yourself for closing remarks. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for attending the call. As I said, we think the quarter was as expected, but certainly we, you know, it's been a quarter where we've reported a decreased level of production because of the water restrictions at Los Pelambres and the lower grades at Centinela. Those were within our plans. I think we are now positioned, you know, to start increasing our throughput and production throughout the year as we had anticipated. That will also mean that we will get, you know, our benefit of increased production on our unit costs. We retain our guidance. I think we have the confidence that we're able to deliver on both production and cost as we've guided, and expect therefore to have improved performance in terms of production and cost in the quarters to come to achieve, you know, those levels of guided figures. Thank you for the call, and we'll be in touch soon.