Good morning, everyone, and a good morning it is. I'm sure you know us by now, but I'm Neal Barclay, Meridian's Chief Executive. Mike Roan, our CFO, sitting right there. Also, slightly out of camera, we have Owen Hackston, our Investor Relations Manager, Jason Woolley, our General Counsel, and our Head of Communications, Phil Clark. Mike and I will talk through some aspects of these NZAS, the new NZAS agreements, and then we can move to questions. Now, when we get into questions, you'll need to put your hand up. Mike will enable your microphone in order of whoever puts it up. Then you'll have to unmute yourself to ask your question. We'll remind you of that before we get into it, but that's just a precursor. Look, it's taken a while, but at last, we have some very positive news in respect to NZAS. This is a fantastic outcome, we think, for the, in particular, for the Southland community. There were a lot of households and businesses that rely heavily on the smelter for their livelihoods, and, it's not overstating it, that it would have been a massive impact on Southland had the smelter closed. And I can assure you, that was at the forefront of our minds as we worked through the negotiations. And I don't believe anybody involved in the negotiations from any of the generators or the NZAS team wanted the smelter to close, certainly not on our watch. I think it's also a fantastic outcome for New Zealand in terms of validating the ability of large industrial customers to work in this country, produce green products, export dollars, productive jobs, all those sorts of things. And just maybe, just maybe, we've helped draw a wee line in the sand in terms of the insidious reduction in industry in this country, which is sort of not helping our productivity from a total country perspective, I think. Immense. There was an immense amount of work that went into producing the contract, so they did take a wee while, obviously. But I have to call out the NZAS team. They did the heavy lifting. They're not only dealing with us, but obviously at least two other generators, Contact and Mercury, eventually did deals with them and other stakeholders. So they, did a great job. They got it done, and we're really, really thankful to them. And I must say, in the 12 years that I've been dealing with Rio Tinto executives, by far, this lot were the most constructive. They were positive and approached the negotiations, in good faith at all times. Now, from a Meridian perspective, there were, probably four things - well, there were four things that we talked about constantly that were important to us. Firstly, we needed to see, a long-term commitment to the country. The one-year termination for convenience clause that was struck in the 2012 agreement was always gonna end up in tears at some stage, and it did in 2020. So I think agreeing a long-term future for the smelter of 20 years is probably the most important and fundamental aspect of these agreements. Now, there are termination provisions that allow them to exit after a 10-year period, but and Mike will talk about this in a bit more detail shortly, but the provisions around those termination conditions are such that we think we've removed the tendency or the temptation to use that as an opportunity to renegotiate these contracts. Secondly, what was important to us was, we needed the smelter owners to understand that they needed to work more in sympathy with the electricity sector, in particular, help manage those dry year events. So they have brought to the table a DR package that we think is groundbreaking. It certainly is on a global stage, from a global perspective, and it's, you know, pretty fundamental from a New Zealand electricity sector perspective as well. They will provide up to 185 MW of demand response, up to 800 GWh in any one year. Not every year, of course, but over the course, we don't think we'd be calling it on every year. And, that's, you know, that's a game changer, really, from a New Zealand electricity sector perspective. To put it in context, we'll get the same capacity out of that DR, that DR arrangement as we would out of a Huntly unit. So every megawatt of consumption the smelter doesn't use when the lakes are low is a megawatt of coal as a country we won't have to burn. The third point was that we needed to be confident that the smelter owners were taking their environmental remediation requirements seriously. And they are. We've seen their plan. We know that they're working closely with Environment Southland and Ngāi Tahu. So we've gained confidence that they really are getting on with it. They've sent us a letter which attaches their environmental remediation plan and all the key milestones, and we have attached that letter. We've included that letter on our website, so it's there for everybody to see. We think it's a strong plan, and we support it. And lastly, what was the last one? Oh, price. Most importantly. Important. Price. Yeah, look, I think, well, both the parties have agreed to keep price, prices in both the base contract and the DR arrangement confidential. But from our perspective, we think we've struck a fair deal. We think it'll underpin the sustainability of the smelter for the next 20 years. It'll also return a fair, return to Meridian shareholders, which is important, obviously. But most importantly, we think it's a fair price, framework, if you like, in the context of what other consumers of electricity pay for their power in New Zealand. And that's pretty important for us, too. So, all up, we think those four conditions were well addressed, and we're, and we're very happy with the outcome. There is one other, reasonably significant benefit from our perspective that we managed to get out of these, negotiations, which is a reduction in our, exposure to one very large customer, obviously, of 95 MW. So our base contracts will be moving from in net terms, once you take into account the contract back-to-backs, we'll be moving from 472 MW- 377 MW. So obviously gives us an advantage in terms of diversifying our exposure across a larger customer base. But I think it's also a positive for the sector because in a healthy aspect, because NZAS have diversified their risk across more generators, and other generators have stepped up to the challenge. So that's a net win for everyone too, I believe. So, there are some CPs, and they're articulated. Mike will talk about these in a bit more detail. From our perspective, the one critical one is the approval we need to get from the EA for having a materially large contract. We do believe that we've met the conditions of the code in terms of the materially large contract rules, but we have to go through the process of getting that approved, and hopefully we will see that approval sometime during the month of June. So that's that. I think all up, we believe we've come up with a package of arrangements, particularly between us and the smelter, that will last the test of time. I think it's removes a massive amount of uncertainty from the sector that's been hanging over us since I've been in this sector. And, and ultimately will encourage new investment, new renewables, and fast-forward this economy to the green, state that it can be. And so it's a really good outcome, and we're very pleased with it. With that, I'll hand over to Mike, and you're going to talk to some of the contracts in a bit more detail. Talk to in a bit more net, detail, you say. Ngā mihi, Neal, and ata mārie, everybody. I'd reflect the comments or that Neal just made, which is, it's a superb day. I think the key bit is removing the uncertainty that, you know, we and community in Southland, alongside investors in the smelter, have had for the last 10-15 years. So it feels damn good to be sitting in front of you on this call this morning. Hey, I'm gonna talk to preso, as Neal mentioned. So we released a presentation this morning as part of the NZX release, and I'm gonna talk to that. So if you've got the pack, turn to slide 4, I reckon, 'cause that's where I'm gonna start. If you don't, no big deal. Hopefully, my description will be plain English enough that you can follow along. So I'm gonna give you the key elements of the base contract and demand response agreement. So, before I do that, and to help you decipher the contracts, we've actually got this session, but we've also released redacted copies of the contracts on our website, and we're gonna follow this up with an Investor Day, late June, that we're also able to confirm, which is quite nice as well. But if you want full immersion between now and the Investor Day, then download the contracts. As Neal said, the only redactions in the contracts, to the base contract price, the demand response premium, and the demand response strike prices. If you've already been on the website, then well done. But you'll also pick up that there's another agreement there. It's the reduction line agreement, and that's an important agreement, but it's pretty straightforward. It just allows us to work with the smelter to help with potline offloads when they need to change the configuration of the smelter, and maintain energy security. It's something we've done for a long time, but it is there as well. So I just wanted to note that for anyone that stumbled across it. I don't intend to talk to it at all. And last but not least, there will be a hedge settlement agreement between us and the smelter. It's not on our website, but it will show up in time. But for now, let's jump back to slide 4, 'cause outside the force majeure clause and the base contract, it's pretty straightforward. And we've labeled, you know, we've framed up the key terms there. As Neal mentioned, new pricing kicks in from July 1, 2024. Now, that might sound a bit weird, 'cause there are a number of conditions precedent to the agreement, and some could be outstanding beyond July 1, 2024. But if you read the contracts, I'm sure some of you will. If that's the case, and let's say that the CPs don't get satisfied until, say, 1 September, in the first settlement run under the contracts, there'll be a wash up of contract prices between 1 July and whenever that date is, or, you know, 1 September, for the purposes of this example. And so it will be as if in that settlement run, contract prices had begun on 1 July. So new pricing kicks in July 1, 2024. Pricing's escalated from 2028 using CPI. It's conditional, so, you know, conditional escalation could be a little unusual. It's conditional on Aluminum prices in the previous 12 months being higher than they were in the prior 12 months. It's just our attempt to try and balance out risk and reward for both us and the smelter, something we'd picked up in the old contract. But the key point is, if the smelter does well, then, you know, Meridian will do a little bit better as well. Contract's got a term of 20 years from December 2032, that NZAS can provide 2 years' notice of termination. Hopefully, you've picked up through our presentation that if they do that, on provision of that notice, they have to give us NZD 180 million. Our view is that's a pretty big disincentive to gain the contract. If that's what anyone tries to do at that point in time, we would happily accept NZD 180 million and move on at that point. But the idea of that payment is to ensure that we have a good conversation, as opposed to conversations that we've had in the past. Both we and the team at NZAS think that that's what it'll facilitate. It's a real positive element to the contract from our perspective. Lastly, the prudential support under this transaction is far more substantial than what we've seen in any of the previous agreements. You know, core base contract, it really is that straightforward. Demand response contract, as Neal said, it's a game changer. It's a game changer for our industry, for us, and for the smelter. That's because rather than use our traditional swaptions to manage portfolio risks, we're going to start working with consumers. In this case, it's a big consumer, obviously, but if we get it right, it should provide the basis for how we engage with other customers. And from Rio's perspective, while we might be getting ahead of ourselves a little bit, it could provide the basis for how other renewable electricity systems outside of New Zealand utilize Aluminum smelters to manage similar risks. We think there's a big role to play beyond New Zealand from that perspective. But given it's new, it'll take a bit of road testing, and we're up for change if required, because we really want this to work. And, you know, in fact, it's bloody important that it does. Key point is, the demand response component of this contract is sizable, and it's more flexible than anything that we have engaged with the smelter on previously. We expect it to do some pretty big and some pretty heavy lifting. Slide five of the preso says we've got four demand response options. They span from 18.75 MW-138.75 MW that we can call by providing notice, as set out on slide six. I was aware that slide six might take a bit of deciphering. It's straightforward from my perspective, but what I thought I'd do is I'd give you an example of how to read slide six. It'll help you decipher it. If it's still not as straightforward, the beauty is this is being recorded, and you can go back to the recording and replay it. But let's give this a go. So let's say Meridian wants to exercise option one or the 18.75-MW option. It needs to give NZAS 3 business days that it wants to do that. At the same time, it needs to nominate the period over which it wants to make the call. So if we look at that 18.75 or option one, we can nominate a demand or a DR period of anywhere between 10 and 150 days. So for the purpose of the example, let's say we nominate the demand response period as 123 days. So we give that as we provide notice. At the point that the notice period is met, the, effectively, what happens is the base contract quantity reduces from that point over 5 days, until it's reduced by 18.75 MW. The 5 days base contract quantity reduces by 18.75 MW. The base contract quantity would stay at that level for 123 days for the demand response period, and then it would start lifting back to 377 MW over 15 days. So that's how to read that table. If we want to reduce the number of days in the demand response period at any point, we simply give the smelter 3 business days' notice. So say we want to go from 123 to 50 days for that option one, we provide the smelter with that 3 days notice, and that period comes into effect. The table works the same way for all the other options. The only thing that changes is, different volumes and then different time frames. But hopefully the example was useful. One key point is the column six on that same table shows that, you know, the options that we've got, they're not unlimited. That's for two reasons: One, we want to make sure that the smelter continues to produce Aluminum to meet its customer needs. That's pretty important when you're an Aluminum smelter. But as Neal mentioned, we needed to ensure we got a certain volume from the smelter, but we don't need infinite flexibility from the smelter to manage, you know, our portfolio risk. So we think between, you know, on average, 400 GWh in any year over the life of the contract, or a maximum of 800 gigawatt hours in any challenging year, is, one, you know, what would work for the smelter, and two, what would work for us. So that's how we kind of landed at the volumes. Key point is, the volumes in this contract go a long way, and the flexibility go a long way to managing, you know, dry year risk for us. And it helps decarbonize, you know, the electricity sector, as, as Neal had mentioned, but I did want to provide a little bit of clarity. Which is we want to continue to work with our customer base on additional demand response products. We expect that we would pay other consumers for the option to reduce their consumption, for, you know, similar or products that might be tweaked a little bit. And we intend to keep working with the gas industry on swaptions that might work for them and work for us to supplement this arrangement. So wanted to just make that point. But I'll take you back to slide 5, 'cause there you know, there's plenty in this slide, and there might be some people who are lost in the volumes. The key point on slide 5 is that if we make a call, say, option 1, 18.75 MW, is that should incent a 25 MW reduction in smelter consumption, whereas a 138.75 MW call should incentivize a 185 MW reduction in smelter consumption. The lower number reflects the volume that comes off the contract quantity in our base agreement. The higher number reflects the physical reduction at the smelter, if the smelter wants to secure the full demand response premium and strike for that call. And to put it in context, I know it's been in a couple of releases, but useful to repeat, 185 megawatts is close to the size of a Huntly unit or a Huntly Rankine unit. So this is big, and it's flexible. Last couple of points before heading back to Neal from this slide. If there's no physical response from the smelter, the demand response premium will halve. So it's a bit of an incentive, that's in there. The strike prices in the contract have been dovetailed to both ensure that the smelter receives a cash flow or revenue stream that would offset the revenue it would receive had it made Aluminum, while being aligned to where we think the economics fit to sit within our portfolio. There's just a nice balance and relationship of where they've landed for both the smelter and for us. And lastly, the term of this agreement is the same as the base contract, so they are linked, and prices in this contract escalate in very similar ways to contract prices in that base agreement. One thing not in the slide, pretty important, it is buried in... Buried is probably the wrong word. You'll find it in the demand response agreement, Meridian won't pay the demand response premium for the first six months of the contract. We tried to put it all in at a pretty picture. Owen did, that is, so, they say a picture tells a thousand words. That's slide seven. It does do a good job of stepping through where we sit today versus, you know, where we'll end up over time. But we did wanna try and simplify things. That's it for me until we do questions. So whakatau, te rākau, kia ora, Neal. Cheers, mate. Hey, look, I'll just sum up quickly. You know, Jason, Owen, Mike, myself, we've been trying to get this kind of outcome since 2012, so it's been quite a journey. And I think this is a great outcome for all the reasons we've just talked about. But also I think from a New Zealand perspective, it's a good outcome, from a reputational perspective. We are open to business, and, it's a great place to do business in if you want to produce green products for export markets. So I think that's pretty important given the, the sort of direction of travel over recent times. And lastly, yep, Mike mentioned it, but our Investor Days are on 24th and 25th down at Manapōuri, which is quite appropriate as it, as it turns out. Now we'll all have to find something else to grizzle about over dinner, so that'll be, that'll be fun. Anyway, so we'll get to your questions, remember, and I think you've already worked it out. Your hands have been raised. Mike will go through those in order. He'll tell you if your microphone's enabled. Come off mute, ask your questions, then we can have a conversation. Thanks. That's right. So as Neil said, good to see hands have already been raised. So we can see the order that the questions, or the hands were raised. So I'm gonna open, Andrew, your microphone. It's Andrew Harvey-Green. Andrew, if you take yourself off mute, you should be able to talk to us. You there, Andrew? Are you able to? Yeah, there we go. Now, are you able to unmute yourself at your end? Shall we try Grant, in case Andrew is getting it wrong? This is a homemade, video comm, so this is always a risk. It is. Right. So, Andrew, we're gonna come back to you. So, Grant, I'm gonna enable your microphone, which I've now done, but you- You good guys? Yes, there you go. Perfect. Thanks, man. Look how well your little homework worked, and now there's two things you've done so well this morning. So first question, you're not giving the price on these contracts, but aren't these need to be certified by the EA? Won't that be made public at that stage? I don't believe it is. No. No, they actually have to go through. So they will understand the price clearly, but they do not make it public as part of their process. Yeah. So are they- Yeah, go on, Grant. Keep going. I mean, we- Okay. To be honest, Grant, we were reasonably comfortable with releasing the price because, you know, the investor community works it out pretty quickly anyway, looking at our operating results and so forth. But, yeah, I think the smelter just had a view on that, that they consistently apply and so- Perfect. Thanks. And then in terms of this demand response, are all the strike prices across all options the same? And then just extension on that, do you get half back, even if you just call one of those little options, so it's either nothing for half or you pay the full price? So first question, Grant, was: Are the strike prices the same across all options? The answer is no. So the first three options, the strike price is the same, and the strike price for option four is higher. Yeah. Yep. Okay. And then when you look into the contract, this gets a little complex, but, you know, you'll start to see it in the contract. We make full payment of the demand response premium to NZAS, and we do that, you know, every month. But to the extent we make a call under the contract and the smelter doesn't respond physically in line with the core profile that we've made, and there are bounds to, you know, what reasonable performance looks like, the payment of the demand response premium is halved, and/or returned to us to the extent it's already been received. So yes, I think it- It's more penalty on them than an incentive for you not to use it. Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. We talked for a long time, you know, like with the Rio team, to make sure that it was an incentive rather than a penalty. 'Cause, you know, they do... It's challenging for the smelter to reduce volume, as we all know. It's not a perfect science. So we tried to put bounds in the contract that the team felt were achievable, realistic and, you know, wouldn't penalize them. So we're not trying to penalize anybody. We just want to ensure that, you know, there is a physical reaction from a system perspective so that the, you know, there is actually a demand response provided. So you know, it was a... We tried to provide it as more of an incentive for the smelter. The way it comes across in the contract, it might feel a bit like a penalty, but certainly the conversations were, you know, really constructive to make sure we could meet, you know, what they're after and reward them for doing it. Fantastic. My final question, so before the contract stepped down to the low number a few years back, you were looking to normalize 4.88% dividend. Can we now expect that announcement soon to return to that sort of policy, or do I have to wait until the end of next month to get a revised dividend outlook? Grant, we're aiming at August; you might have to wait a little longer. 'Cause if you go back to our announcements, you know, what we've said is we'll review both the policy and the dividend profile that flows from the policy once we know, you know, whether the smelter was going to stay or go. So we need a little bit of time to work that through with the board from a policy perspective, and then we'll frame up, you know. Well, it'll become obvious at that point, what that means from a dividend profile perspective. So it'll take us just a little bit longer. I'm sure you'll ask us at our Investor Day, and we'll probably have a little more info. But we do need to engage the board, obviously. Well, thanks so much for answering my questions, and, thanks for getting the industry back onto a level track. Thanks, Grant. Yeah, thanks, Grant. And, hey, can you throw yourself- Back on mute. Back on mute? That would be awesome. Thank you. I'm going to try Andrew again. Yeah, I'm gonna... Andrew, I'm gonna come back to you. So, Andrew, your mic has been enabled. Are you able to unmute yourself at your end? No. Oh. Okay, Owen, we'll try and work with you to remedy that, but I'll disable you again, and we're gonna go to Vignesh. So, Vignesh, your microphone is now enabled. Are you... There we go. Yep. Morning, guys. Can you hear me? Hey, man. Yep. Awesome. Congrats once again, obviously, a long time coming. I suppose just two, just two questions from me today, a few have already been asked. But can you talk to anything on the EAF, you know, carbon allocation, you know, granted to the smelter from MFE? Obviously, it's a reasonably critical driver in the economics, and potentially, you know, reset every year. Do you have any color on, what that is, or at least when we can expect an update from them? No, we don't, Vignesh, we've been- Just don't have visibility. We've got no visibility at all. Yeah, it's- You'll have to talk to Chris Blenkiron. He might be able to provide a bit of insight. He might be able to give you a little bit of color on it. But what one thing we do intend to do, Vignesh, is once the CPs have been either waived or realized, then, you know, we will provide a further disclosure. So, but, you know, we wouldn't do it on a CP by CP basis. We'll, you know, we'll just work through all the CPs and let the market know that the contracts come into effect. So it doesn't, sorry, Mike, doesn't answer your question, but we just don't, we don't know. Okay, no problem. And just secondly, I suppose I think you mentioned this briefly in passing earlier, Mike, but how binding is the demand response arrangement with NZAS? The only reason I ask that is Clause Four in the current contract, I think it suggests that, you know, NZAS, you know, really just bears the lack of the strike price payment if they don't comply. Is that a sort of similar style in this revised arrangement? Hey, Vignesh, I'd be really surprised if, you know, the smelter doesn't operate in the way that the frame is intended, which it provides, you know, real demand response, you know, 'cause we're relying on them as a country. So, you know, the way the contract works and the contract payments work is, you know, Rio only gets paid for the volume that it reduces in terms of the demand response premium. The option comes into effect, and we get, you know, contract volume relief under the option. So Rio would be paying the spot price to the extent it didn't respond as we anticipate. So it's a reasonably healthy incentive. But I'll just come back to the whole conversation with the smelter has been: how can they provide, you know, support to the system in ways that they haven't done historically, and that the supply side has provided? And over time, it's gonna become more and more important that they do. So, you know, the revenue streams in the contract as best we can see them, we're trying to ensure that Rio's revenue, or the smelter's revenue, is maintained through the demand response payments and the strike prices during the call, in lieu of producing Aluminum. So, you know, you don't know what you don't know, 'cause it's a final co-financial- But I think, sure, there's a strong financial incentive- Oh, yeah. They will be hitting if they don't. Yeah. And as Mike said, this is the full intention- Yeah -of the... Yeah. Well, we expect it to do some heavy lifting, uh, Vignesh. Understood. Otherwise, you know, it seems to be a fairly elegant contract by the looks of it. I think that's all from me, guys. Thank you. Thanks, man. Thanks. Do you wanna try? We... I don't know where this thing- Yeah. Vignesh, if you could put your... Oh, you have. Thank you for that. I've actually got Andrew's questions here. So, Andrew, I'm gonna read them directly as you said them. So confirm the 800 gigawatt hour annual max in the DR is Meridian share? The answer is yes to that. Any consideration the Potline 4 supply? The answer is no to that, Andrew. We did talk about that early on, but it was a step too far. You know, obviously, we wanted to get confidence and commitment on this agreement, but, you know, never say never on that stuff. Where there's a will, there's a way. And any thoughts... The last question is, any thoughts on impact of Rio buying out Sumitomo is, no, not really for us. I think it might speed up decision-making a wee bit. We haven't seen Sumitomo executives at all through this process, so Rio fronted the thing from start to finish. Yeah. And we'd just be guessing- Yeah -at anything. So hopefully that faithfully asked the questions that you had. If not, text Owen and let him know. But I'm gonna go to Steve Hudson. I've just enabled your mic, Paddy, so. Hi, Neal, and hi, Mike. Congratulations from me, too, and to the rest of the team. Hey, most might have been asked, but, I guess the smelter will be... It's sort of the same vintage as me, actually. It'll be 74 years old in 2044. My understanding is it's like Grandad's axe, if I'm still allowed to say that. Have you got any sort of insights into, you know, whether or not there's life in the old dog from 2044, or is that it? Or, you know, basically, can it live for longer? I know Bell Bay is 70 years old, 70 years old as we stand today, so I'm hopeful that there might be a bit more in it. But, any sort of feeling on that? I mean, we don't know for sure, obviously. But certainly, the message we've got, and the reason why term was really important to Rio as well, was they do expect to invest in the smelter. Some of this new technology they're trialing elsewhere, they think they can retrofit into the smelter and make it even more green. And I guess if you're investing money into something, in the sort of nature of the businesses that we're in, or they're in, they'll be looking for potentially longer than the 20-year return. So, yeah, I wouldn't be assuming that the smelter closes in 20 years, that's for sure. And we'll learn more, I guess, in the next little while, as we see their investment plans. Just one on demand response and sort of balancing the smelter's high purity and ultra-high purity production. Did you get any insight into whether or not they've cracked that puzzle? Because, you know, my understanding was the demand response was a little tricky because of those high purity lines. Yeah. Hey, we wouldn't expect that demand response comes off the high purity potlines. So, you know, the 185 MW that you see as the max core or volume that might be reduced is likely to come off the other potlines. So that high purity potline would just stay in effect and continue to produce the high purity Aluminum. So probably a question to confirm with them, with Chris Blenkiron and team, or Andrew Elder, but that's certainly, you know, what our take would be. Excellent. And just final one from me. I mean, we've talked in the past about the chilling effect that the smelter and uncertainty around its operation has had on, you know, geez, grid, gas market, load generation, you know, you name it. I mean, Neal, maybe a question for you: Just how profound is this in that regard, in terms of unlocking investment, you know, across the sector? Yeah, look, I think it's a game changer. I mean, we haven't been sitting on options, but we haven't been pursuing them as fast as we possibly could have. I think this. The level of uncertainty removed now will firm up those investment decisions. It will also open up the resource in Southland. I mean, there's a couple of wind farms that have been developed, but there's some great resources down there that at very competitive sort of pricing or LCOEs that we think will now be developed at haste. So I think, you know, there's some talk about greening up our economy by closing down some of these large industrial users that use the renewable energy. I think the opposite must be true. We need to grow the level of renewable energy, use that advantage that we have in this country, bring new industry into the land. I mean, obviously, data centers are becoming pretty clear and obvious target for us. But, I think it, it's the foundation now to go forth and, you know, become a far more green, sustainable country, supporting the globe and its aspirations. Thanks, Neal. Thanks, Mike. I'll jump back in the queue. Cheers, Steve. Yeah. You know, I'd, yeah, I'd add to that, which is confidence is everything, Steve. Is whether it's from an economy, you know, it's, we're talking ourselves down in that perspective or an industry that forms part of the economy, is you've gotta have confidence, and you've gotta have certainty. So that's what that brings. If you could throw yourself on mute, if you haven't already done so, that would be appreciated. I'm gonna open the mic to Cam. Cam, if you take yourself off... There you go. Yep, all yours. Congratulations, guys. Congratulations to the team, and good outcome. Yeah, thanks, Cam. Look, first question is just - can you talk to that risk around the EA approvals? Is it more kind of, administrative, or do you think it's, you know, open to challenge? I mean, we understand the rules. We understand the nature of the contracts that we've entered into. We are confident they pass those rules. Yeah. But it still is a process that has to be worked through, and they are the regulator. But they'd have to, I think, start thinking outside of the existing rules that are a part of the code to find an issue with these contracts. So we're hopeful, but like I say, it's really their process. They have seen early drafts, but they weren't- Okay, so they've had a heads- up? They've got a heads up. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. And I'm just wondering about the duration, the 20-year duration of the contracts. Sort of, what sort of analysis has gone into kind of just, you know, looking at different durations and what best suits you guys in terms of your portfolio? Well, interestingly, Cam, we started off with a shorter contract. So we proposed a shorter contract than 20 years, and it was the Rio team that wanted additional confidence in term, for the reasons Neal mentioned, is if they're going to apply capital into this business, they need a longer runway. So we actually worked to a longer term of contract, based on, you know, their needs. And obviously, it fits with ours, so... But you know, just so you know, we did start and suggest a shorter term than 20 years. Great. Cheers for that. And just, yeah, touching on your future developments, how close do you think you are to pushing go on another sort of supply arrangement? Te Rere Hau, which we're working in JV with New Zealand Wind Farms, is like... Well, the target is to get that to financial close. I think it's April next year. Yep. 5 April. Financial close, June. Yep. No opportunities to kind of bring that forward at all? Well, we obviously we're motivated to, but I think the program is stretched at that level, but that we're holding the team to get to that outcome. We're also looking. We've got Ruakākā Solar in the process of consenting at the moment, and we're hoping to get that out and to FID before the end of this calendar year. So there's a couple of decent chunks of renewable energy. I think the other one that we're looking to see if we can't fast-track is the Bunnythorpe battery. Right Just in the context of what we've learned through our Ruakākā battery, we think we can deploy something there quite quickly and a lot more cheaply than the first one. So they are the sort of near-term opportunities. Cam, we're gonna unpack it a bit more at the Investor Day, so you'll get to meet and catch up with Rebecca Knott, who runs the team, and you'll be able to test and quiz her. Yeah, great. Yeah, sounds good. Last one from me is just really that, the pricing around the DR, and how that kind of stacks up against a Huntly MSO, or the new Huntly offer. You know, the MSO is kind of priced around NZD 250/MWh, you know, how competitive is your demand response and around, around that sort of zone and, and how that fits into your portfolio? Well, I think the terms and conditions around this DR are far superior to the MSO. Pricing-wise, I think on balance, it's superior to that. Yeah, it's similar to what we've done in the past, Cam. So- Yep. -you know, historical reference, you know, you won't be too far wrong in terms of the swaptions that we've entered into previously or have in place with, you know, the current 50 megawatt demand response agreement that we have in place with the smelter. Yep. Neal's point, the strike prices are, you know, at similar levels to what, you know, you've seen historically as well, and certainly well below the level that you just mentioned. Yeah. Great stuff. Hey, congrats again, guys. That's magic result. Cheers. Thanks. Thanks, Cam. If you throw yourself... There you go. You've done it. Thank you very much. Nev, just opened, enabled your mic. Great. Thank you. Good morning. Hopefully you can hear me. Yeah, we can. Brilliant. Yeah, some bubbles are due. This is quite the end to a very long journey. Thank you. Well done. Questions- You started this journey, Nev, from the first- I remember it well. Not fondly, but well. Yeah, so, questions, we're probably down in the weeds a little bit. But the first one, I guess I'm reading through the contract detail. I don't see anything in there that replaced or, you know, as a substitute for the old days, where you effectively had an option to call all 572, you know, so those extreme emergency events. Is that in there? Are there force majeure terms if the electricity conditions get tight enough? So that's gone. That's all, that's gone, Nev. That's been gone- Cool. Well, that was a really early version, Nev. That might have been 2007 agreement? I'm thinking of a very complex, sort of, 286 MWh per half hour period, kind of, reduction terms that were- The last option that we had was the smelter demand response, which- Yeah was 250 GWh. Right. But it's very inflexible. If you go back to the 2012 agreement, you'll find the smelter demand response agreement as part of it. So you'll see that. You'll be able to compare it to- That's what I'm thinking of, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. No, very clear. Thank you, and I think, it seems pretty clear, but just to be absolutely abundantly clear, you can only call one of these options at a time. So no. What we... So yes and no. All right. Let me unconfuse you, hopefully, with that answer: if you've called, say, option one, you can step into option two, or option three- Good -or option 4. You can jump forward- Move it up. -halfway through. Yeah. Yep. You can't call- That doesn't count as- -option one twice sort of thing. Gotcha. But that's where, say, going for... If, let's take two examples. Your option one, you extend your 123 days to a little bit longer or a bit, little bit less. Does that new notice count as another call, or is that not counted by the, sort of, the call count, limitations? Right. You got me. I'm gonna turn to call a friend, who's nodding their head like this, Nev. So we'll come back to you. We'll come back to you with the answer, 'cause we've got it- Got it. -we've got the map, but answering it on the spot, That would be good. We'll come back to you, Nev. Yeah. And just another term in there. There's a mention of additional premiums. So all the terms you talked about, it sound like additional premiums paid after the exercise, but I'll come back to you on that one later. No, there's nothing in there, Nev. So, hey, what we'll do actually is- I'm looking at clause 14. Yeah. No, there's no, there's no additional premium. So there's the demand response premium, and then there's the, the strikes. So just if you think of the existing swaptions that we've had- Yeah -it's, you know, replicated. There's no complexity. We'll have a look at clause 14 and just clarify that for you. Yeah, we will. Yeah. What we'll do, Nev- Perfect, thank you. -is we will run a number of examples at the Investor Day, that take through, you know, take people through how to move from one call to another, what that means, that everyone's got the same info. Perfect. Thank you. And the last one for me, and definitely in the weeds, and the way to read the escalator, obviously starting 2028, not only does it have the, sort of, the test against LME, but it also looks like it's a, a CPI ratchet, which is to your advantage potentially. So it can't go down. That's correct. Very good. Great news. We just don't need it going up at a time that the smelter's feeling stressed. Yeah. Yes 'cause that results in- It's a bad outcome. Outcomes. Yep. Yeah. Perfect. Thanks, Nev. That's all for me. Thank you. Thanks, Nev. Got Ian Llewellyn. Ian, I've just enabled your microphone, if you are able to take yourself off... There you go. You're off mute. Yep, I can come in. Hi, how you going? Hi, Ian. Is there any reason why Mercury's contract has been approved by the EA and not yours, or is it you've just not applied yet? Yeah. Hey, that's. So it's breaking news for us, too, Ian. Oh, okay. So we... You know, the first we saw of anyone else's agreements was this morning with the releases as well. So it's only because we have not submitted our contracts. I thought that'd be the case. I didn't think that would- Yeah. Does this, does this have any implications for your hydrogen plans? No, because we've been working on Southern Green Hydrogen on the assumption... Well, on two assumptions, one, that NZAS stayed or NZAS went. So it just takes us down one, well, so there is clarity, at least in terms of what, the likely, business case for that now looks like. So that's now clearer. But, What timeframe? We've been working on those options. Look, we'll probably actually give you a bit of an update on that at the Investor Day, too, I think. Yeah. Yeah, um. Can you give any insights into discussions between yourself or the board with ministers? In what regard, sorry? Well, I understood there was various talks between the smelter and the ministers, and I assume that you might have had talks with ministers as well. Oh, look, I talk to ministers quite frequently, but. We've been giving them an update about how this was tracking from our perspective. But we certainly haven't been privy to any conversations between the smelter owners and ministers. So it's, and it's largely been a sort of one-way conversation in terms of, "Hey, Minister, this is where we're at. It's tracking well." Can't give you too much detail because it's all market sensitive as well as, it's been reasonably lightweight in the respective answers. So was the stance supportive or negative, or neutral? Oh, I think they, like everyone, were concerned about loss of a large productive facility in Southland and the impact on jobs and the economy. So, but certainly, and this was more broadly, too, we do not get ministerial interference or involvement in the way we manage this business. So it was more engagement from a member of the industry as opposed to a shareholder. Yep, fair enough. Why did it take so long? Were you always confident this was going to go through? Oh, it's just complex, Ian. You know, like, I think everyone's intent, you know, if the Rio team was on the phone, they would say the same thing, which is we would have loved to have completed this, you know, by the end of last year or earlier, but these- There were some key changes in Rio Tinto leadership as well that occurred through last year, and that... And they lost some traction through that. Yep. But when Jérôme Pécresse joined the team as head of Aluminum, we denoted a significant increase in the momentum of activity. And he came in like a breath of fresh air, to be honest. Okay. I'll cool that. I'll let the other people talk. Thanks, Ian. If you could throw yourself back on. That's it. Perfect. Thank you. And I think we had J.R. with their hand up, but, J.R.... Yep, J.R. does have a question. So, J.R., I've just enabled your microphone. If you could take self and if you could introduce yourself, that would be helpful for Neal and I. Sure thing. Can you guys hear me okay? Yes. Hello. JR is John Raphael from Haast Energy. Just have a very quick question. I think it was mentioned earlier that you guys won't be paying the demand response premium for the first six months of the contract. And I just wanted to clarify: Is it correct that Meridian can still call the demand response over that period under the new contract, and it's purely that the premium isn't paid? And if that's the case, what's the incentive for the smelter to comply? So yes, is the answer to the first piece, which is we can make calls under the contract. And while they don't receive the demand response premium, so the financial incentive has gone, I think the longer term incentive remains, which is, you know, we're going to rely on them to provide demand response, and they're committed to doing that and, you know, ensuring they're a good corporate citizen. Yeah, plus contract, contract volume is reduced- Yeah -and they're exposed to whatever the spot price is at that time. Yeah. So the same financial incentive is still there. They just don't get the fixed premium. And you could argue, maybe they took into account the value of that, that service in the pricing that's been agreed for the next 6 months. Cool. So if you were to make a call in the front six months, you would expect that they would comply? Yeah. Yep, indeed. Awesome. Thank you very much. Thanks, J.R. But I think... Is that it? Yeah, I think that's all the questions. That's all the hands that are raised. Okay. Well, like I say, it's pretty good news, I think, for everybody. We're certainly relieved, and it's been the end of a long road. Now, hopefully, we get that stability for the next 20 years, which I think is pretty bloody important. So that's great. And we hope to see you all, those of you who can make it at our Investor Day on the 25th, when we have a bit of fun unpacking the rest of the strategy, 'cause we've got a lot to talk about. Yeah. Thank you all for attending. We'll see you then.