Welcome to Nordic Mining's presentation of our fourth quarter results. Today, we will be covering operational highlights, market developments, and an update from Engebø Rutile and Garnet, couple financial issues, legal status, and then go into Q&A. Today I have with me Tord Meling, who's our group CFO, as well as Andreas Davidsen, who is our Chief Commercial Officer. The highlights from the fourth quarter is, obviously, as we pointed out in our operational update, that the ramp-up has progressed slower than expected. We had execution issues causing plant instability and also some outstanding technical reliability issues. Despite that, this has been our best quarter to date, as it comes to production of garnet and also our first rutile batch, produced to quality. We've, since the quarter end, completed the NOK 200 million equity raise, and, as pointed out in the operational update, started major operational improvements at the site. We've appointed a new operational management team. We've conducted and are doing equipment modifications as well as getting ongoing operational technical support from consultants through Systemex. What we will be presenting is measures that reinforce the pathway to a stable production with design capacity targeted at year-end. I'll leave it now to Andreas to go through a market update before we come back and address the issues that I mentioned in greater detail. Thank you, Finn Ivar. We see limited new supply of rutile in the market for the next few years, and we see a strong long-term demand. For 2025, we, however, saw a quite soft market for titanium feedstock with limited, yeah, soft demand from the pigment and metal sector. The bulk rutile prices were flat in 2025 at around $1,200 per ton, quite similar to the prices we saw in 2024. Expectations are for a significant rebound in demand in 2026. This is especially the case for high-grade feedstock with the TZMI forecasting a 10% growth. Long-term titanium demand is expected to grow at around 4%-6% per year through 2029. This is supported by demand from the aerospace, industrial application, and a rebound in demand from the pigment sector. We see the supply of natural rutile declining over the next couple of years due to a few projects coming offstream and a few new large-scale projects coming onstream. We therefore see a quite tight supply-demand balance to support favorable long-term pricing for rutile. If we go to garnet, we see a garnet market that remains stable in our key regions. We see it as stable across abrasive blasting, water jet cutting, and industrial applications. Europe and North America continue to experience tight supply as there is limited regional production. As an example, Europe imports more than 200,000 tons of garnet per year, equivalent to what Engebø will have at production. High transport costs and quality constraints make reliable Western supply especially valued. We see new duties coming, and China now have a 45% duty exporting to the U.S., while garnet from Norway have 15%. Currently, we do not see any duty on export from China to Europe. The market tightness supports stable pricing and customer stickiness for high-grade products as we expect from the Engebø project. If we look at our long-term offtake agreements, we have two for rutile. Iwatani is the largest with 20,000 tons per year. The current production plan is not expected to breach the delivery terms of the offtake agreement. The longest update for giving the buyer notification that the plant is ready to commence normal delivery of rutile is the 30th of June, 2026. The other rutile contract for the remaining production in excess of the Iwatani offtake is with a U.S. pigment company. There, the longest update for announcing startup of normal delivery of volumes has, according to the agreement, passed, giving the buyer the right to cancel the contract. We have not received notification of cancellation, and the buyer has announced that they want the volumes as stipulated in the contract, but they do want to revisit the pricing mechanism in the contract. For garnet, we have one customer who has the exclusive right to all the garnet from the Engebø project. The current production plan is not estimated to deliver the minimum volumes as specified in the offtake agreement. We are in discussions with Barton regarding relief of potential fee and a possible joint venture for sales and distribution in Europe. Then I give the word back to Finn Ivar. Thank you, Andreas. As we're entering the new phase for now for Nordic Mining, we have an action plan which is based on four pillars. We have improved our balance sheet through the equity issue and should now be adequately funded through to full production. In addition, there will be a repair issue, which will provide additional headroom. Secondly, we've strengthened the operational leadership with proven experience. We've targeted operational technical initiatives which are being implemented as well as bringing onsite consultants to support the ramp-up plan. And to go through in greater detail, we found expertise that can help bring onsite what we need in order to get to full production. I think it's important to point out that this expertise is not an abundant supply in the world. What we are doing is quite niche and quite narrow. We have gone to Australia to find Andrew Templeman, who came out of the role as Managing Director of Doral. That's an Australian producer of zircon and rutile, and their plant is quite similar to ours when it goes downstream from crushing. He has extensive experience and is now onsite. His third week at Engebø and in full work at the site. In addition, we brought in Kyle Green. Kyle came from the role as Barton's Plant Manager in Upstate New York. He has operated their plant for several years, which is similar to ours as it pertains to both crushing and the garnet production. So between these two guys, we have, I think, the utmost experience we can get in the world when it comes to operation of the plant, and that gives us very good confidence that we're going to reach our targets. However, we've also seen the need to augment them with additional boots on the ground through Systemex. Systemex was recommended by our investor, the Orion Resource Partners, a mining-focused fund that has invested in Nordic Mining. In a similar situation to ours where there's been lagging ramp-up experience, they brought Systemex in to aid the effort and bring production up and running. Systemex came onsite a couple of weeks back. We've started the work with them already before Christmas. They are doing a comprehensive assessment covering both technical aspects, people and organization, as well as process and management systems. They have in the latter days presented a structured plan for rapid and disciplined production ramp-up, and which we're now reviewing and implementing as we go forward. This work is ongoing, but I thought it was important to point out already that their technical assessment of the plant has been concluded. Initial feedback, as we summarize on this page, is that the plant is installed and capable of meeting design throughput. The upstream side, as we've covered earlier, is working at or near nameplate. The dry plant, which has been a recurring issue for us, is not considered fully commissioned and delivered. What that means is that the last steps of bringing it onstream have not been properly carried out. That has led also to the underperformance that we notified during the operational update. The conclusion from their report is that what we have is a viable operation with sufficient installed capacity and that this is an execution story, which is in keeping with the message that I gave to you with the operational update that we came up with earlier this year. So to summarize, what we have in place now at the site is a strengthened management team, supported by consultants that have been in a similar situation before. There's a plan to bring this up to production capacity at year-end. We put in front of you a plan that shows the expected volumes out of this, and we stick with that plan. And we also have the financing in place to see us through it. So what we need now is time to deliver on this. Pass the word over to Tord to go through the financial situation. Thank you, Finn Ivar. The fourth quarter was recognized by another quarter with low, low revenues resulting in a negative EBITDA of -NOK 111.5 million. The negative result is impacted by a $2 million provision for a potential penalty if we don't manage to produce the agreed volumes of garnet by mid-December 2026. As Andreas has explained, we have ongoing discussions with Barton in relation to this, seeking solutions that can benefit the partnership in the long run. Looking at the balance sheet, we have seen a drop in the equity ratio from 38% in third quarter to 30% in fourth quarter. Adjusted for the capital raised in January in the January private placement, the pro forma equity ratio would rise to 34%. As you are aware, we have a minimum 25% equity ratio covenant measured at group level in the bond agreement. So this is something we will monitor closely going forward. Looking into the cash flow in the quarter, it was +NOK 56 million influenced by the tap issue of $22.5 million in October. At the end of the quarter, we saw the need to raise additional capital in order to handle the delayed ramp-up resulting in the NOK 200 million private placement in January. We have based our assumption on a negative free cash flow of NOK 175 million-NOK 200 million in 2026. But I'd like to add that this includes CapEx that are somewhat higher than what we considered to be minimum. So we have some buffer there. Also, it assumes full cash effect on the royalty payment in 2026, where the broader part of this will be pushed into 2027 as the revenue is increasing towards the later part of this year. There is a positive working capital effect there, which is not taken into account. In the other direction, there are some costs on Nordic Mining ASA level, mainly the five employees at group level that are not fully covered by ERG payments for internal services. So, they are not very high but will come on top of this. The low point on cash is September, October, and we are working very focused to manage the liquidity situation until we reach cash-positive operation in 2027. Moving over to the OpEx, we are introducing a new setup for presenting the cash OpEx. This is the setup we are planning to use going forward, where we are splitting cash costs on mining, process and plant, maintenance, and SG&A. This will all be on ERG level. Costs in process and plant are high this quarter due to inefficient operation and high use of external service. Maintenance are low due to lower production volume and throughput in the plant. This will likely increase as we ramp up towards design. SG&I, SG&A is also high, impacted by legal bills and consultants. So this is how the cost mix looks today, and we will continue to report on this mix going forward. Then it's legal. Yeah. Thank you, Tord. Just a few words about ongoing legal disputes. The case between the NGOs and the Norwegian government over our discharge permits will be going to the Supreme Court at the end of April this year. And what Nordic Mining has done is to declare third-party intervention, partenes bistand in Norwegian, which means that we have a right to be heard during the trial before the Supreme Court. Additionally, Norsk Industri, the association of Norwegian industry, have equally declared third-party intervention and will be heard in court. That does not imply that we're taking on additional liability for participating, but it gives us the right to also be heard in the court case. The verdict is expected four to six weeks following the hearing, which means that most likely we will have a verdict before summer holidays. In parallel, there's the case between the NGOs and Nordic Mining, and this is the injunction case where we successfully defended ourselves at the District Court in Førde back in October. The ruling there on the 10th of November went in favor of us, and continued operations were allowed, and we were also awarded half of our costs from the case. The NGOs have appealed that verdict to bring it into the appeals court. They also appealed the award of legal expenses. In response to that, we also appealed the legal expenses, pointing out that we should be repaid all our expenses in full for that case. The appeals court has not yet decided whether they will hear the case. But if admitted, it will come during the last week of February. We expect to know more about this in just a few days. I'd like to point out that, you know, despite these legal challenges, we do find that the government is quite supportive of our operation. And there are various statements made in the public that we've summarized on this page that gives us the confidence that, even though we're challenged legally, the political will to allow us to operate is there, and we're quite confident of our ability to continue operations, despite these legal challenges. The final thing to point out is some operational and technical disclosures that we are going to be making in the near term. As I said earlier in the presentation, Andrew Templeman is in his third week on the job at Engebø, and we want to come back with an update from the ramp-up and the operations at Engebø sometime in the first half of March this year, to bring more information on how the ramp-up is progressing and also the operations there. On the 13th of April, we'll be disclosing the first quarter production update, and the subsequent offering, the repair issue, will be done at the end of April. As I said, last slide here, Supreme Court hearing is expected, or is set for the 27th of April to the 5th of May, and our first quarter full report will be presented on the 12th of May. So those are the near-term dates to keep in mind in terms of our operational technical disclosures. Before we move into Q&A, just want to point out, some information here. We are on path now to steady-state production of high-demand and critical minerals. And when we do enter full production, our expected revenues will be just short of NOK 1 billion per year. And similarly, our EBITDA will be just under NOK 500 million. So this will be quite a profitable operation, once we get there. All the heavy investments have been made, the NOK 3 billion to date. We've secured the five-year offtake agreements. And we do have that strong political support that I pointed out. And the life of mine here is 39 years. We're going to be in operation for a long time. So, with this backdrop, I would like now to move into the Q&A. Thank you. We have received some questions, some of which are similar, so we will, as usual, group them and start with a few questions about the ramp-up at Engebø to Finn Ivar. When Systemex's initial review confirms that ERG is a viable operation with sufficient installed capacity, can you elaborate around this quote? Yeah. So Systemex started their work in December and, based on information that we made available to them, and then they came on site in January, doing a thorough review, both operational and technical. The question that we asked them were twofold. One was, is the technical status of the plant such that it can deliver the stated capacity, the design capacity? And the other question was, you know, where are the gaps in terms of our operational ability to get to that point? On the technical side, they've been clear that the installed capacity is sufficient, and so there's no need beyond what we have identified in order to get there. But as I alluded to in the presentation, there are some commissioning steps that were skipped that need to be taken. Those are more verified. They're more related to the operations of the equipment rather than the installed capacity. So, we do not see any need for additional CapEx in order to get to the design capacity. Thank you. You said that you will revert with an update on the ramp-up and operational progress in the first half of March. Can you tell us some more about what this update will include? So at that time, we will have been in operation for a longer period of time with Andrew Templeman, Kyle Green, and Systemex. So, what we will be giving is an update on how things are progressing. We'll provide a look into the actual operations, as well as the actual production, and that is to allow them, first of all, some time to do their work, but secondly also provide you investors with a view into how this is going and what we're working on and where the progress are in relation to the plans that we made. There have been many additional costs at ERG. Should some of those be covered by those who designed and delivered the plant? And if so, how much and from who? Those are details that I wouldn't like to go into at this point, but, as was pointed out, this is not fully commissioned. It's not fully delivered. There are outstanding claims on contractors that we are discussing, and we feel that we have a very good position on. Tord, we have some question about the financial situation. Concerning fully funded until being cash-positive, how certain are you about this? Does this assume that you have to go through a successful completion of the NOK 130 million subsequent offering? Are you able to go through 2026 without income? I think the plan we present here is what we are determined on delivering. We have funding to support this plan, also without doing the subsequent offering or the repair issue. So we don't have funding to go without revenue in 2026. So we need to get the production up and running, both garnet and rutile. Referring to the repair issue, can you say more about plans and timeline of that issue? So, the timeline there is end of April. There's a prospectus that we have to produce, and it has to be approved, and there's Easter coming in, so it will be after Easter. What made you decide to raise equity instead of debt? Oh, I think we did two tap issues in 2025. So, the only solution now was equity. The senior secured bond matures in November 2027. What operational and financial condition does management believe are required to enable refinancing on acceptable terms, and when do you expect to begin engaging with the bond market on this? I think it's important to deliver on the plan we have now and to show a very good progress towards the end of 2026 because I think that's the time when we have to start thinking about refinancing the bond. Can you provide more information about the budgeted prices and volumes for 2026, 2027, and 2028? I think we're budgeting based on the rutile side, it's market price, and garnet side, it's fixed price in the offtake agreement. Andreas, we have a question about the market. It states in the report that you expect a significant rebound in demand in 2026. What are the drivers behind these expectations? Yeah, so these are estimates from TZMI, and the main driver is increased demand from the pigment market, which have been quite soft in 2025. So the expectations there are for at least 7% increase in demand, and then particularly strong increase in demand for high-quality titanium feedstock. So, yeah, so that's the main driver from the pigment sector. How do current rutile and garnet prices compare with the expectation that are included in your budgets? The expectation in the budget is for a slight increase in the rutile prices. We gave a forecast price in the Q3 report, which is still valid, and the latest update we have, discussing with the TZMI. Is the $2 million provisional cap on the liability to Barton Group for the September 15 shortfall, or could this cash drain increase significantly if the ongoing joint venture negotiations are not finalized by Q3? Yeah, so these are our best estimates at now. We really don't have much more to add. But we do have a very strong relationship with Barton. They are a good partner of us, and we have a very good dialogue with them. We have some legal questions to Finn Ivar. The verdict from Sogn og Fjordane District Court ruled in favor of Nordic Mining against several of NGOs concerning the temporary injunction. That verdict was appealed, and you state in the report that Gulating Court of Appeal has not yet decided if they hear the case, but NGOs clearly say that the court has scheduled this case. What is correct? Both are correct. We're waiting for confirmation that the case will be heard. We've argued that the case should be dismissed on legal grounds, and the Gulating Appeals Court has not decided on whether the case will be dismissed or not. But pending that decision, we have a date in court, which is the 23rd through the 27th of February. So if they decide to hear, those are the correct dates. But again, that final decision has not been made, but I understand that it will be made shortly, and as soon as we know, we'll of course disclose that. The Supreme Court hearing between the NGOs and the Norwegian state will take place in April, May. What do you expect from the High Court, and what are the probability that the court rules in favor of the state? I don't want to speculate in the outcome of that. Of course, we are happy that we will also have our day in court, that we've been allowed to make our case alongside the government and Norsk Industri during the hearing, and that will allow us to bring out the arguments that we did make in the district court hearing in the injunction suit, which the court really took to heart. So I think the fact that environmental impact is significantly smaller than what was originally intended, and the fact also that our products are quite critical for the supply into Europe, I think, will be taken into account. What will happen if the court rules in favor of the NGOs? So if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the NGOs, that means that our discharge permits are not valid for the government. It doesn't mean automatically that we need to cease operation. So the government can choose to allow us to continue operation even though they were awarded on the wrong premise. The likely thing to happen, and this is my speculation, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that there would be a process to put in place, a temporary permit that would allow us to continue operation pending a new permanent permit. We've seen in other examples where this has happened that indeed operations continue. We have some late questions here. Is there any need for more CapEx to complete the dry plant? And is this accounted for in your Q4 outlook? So we've accounted for additional upgrades in the dry plant. Not to get too technical here, but we've talked about mass transfer units earlier. Those are related to the commissioning that I mentioned earlier. So, moving from screw feeders to belt feeders, that has been accounted for in our financials, and also other modifications that have been identified. So, our view right now is that there is no additional CapEx beyond that, and we've, as Tord pointed out, have an allowance for some additional, so we should have the headroom there. Well, it seems that we have covered most of the questions here. Finn Ivar, do you have any closing remarks? I would like to thank everyone for participating and asking good questions. And going forward, we will be seeing you again at the March update, which will allow us, I think, to provide you with a good look at the actual operation at Engebø and not just a slide deck. So I'm looking very much forward to that and bringing out live feed from Engebø. Thank you.