Hello and welcome to GRANGEX and the Definitive Feasibility Study for Sydvaranger. As this is a recording, we will not be able to handle live questions from the audience. If you have any, we will refer you to the company. Without further ado, Christer, nice to see you again. Thank you. Thank you very much. Take it away. Yes, it's really a pleasure to be here today and present the Definitive Feasibility Study of the Sydvaranger Restart Project. It has been truly a fantastic period. We have been working diligently now since actually the acquisition 15 months ago, and we have achieved something which is extraordinary. We started out with the optioneering study last year in the summer, which then led into a PEA study, which we presented in January this year. Now we are presenting the Definitive Feasibility Study for Sydvaranger, the definite one. This is a base for also the financing. This is not bankable because a bankable feasibility study is only bankable once the banks have accepted it. It's a DFS, and it shows very strong economical metrics for Sydvaranger. We have, which is extraordinary, improved the metrics from the PEA. We have a much higher net present value, $1.5 billion, an IRR, which is a little bit less, but it's because we have brought some of the investments forward into earlier investments than in the PEA. This is also to reduce the risk and control the project execution. It has been according to the Canadian mine standard NI 43-101, and that means that it's absolutely following the highest standards in our industry. It's done by the book, and it has been governed by SLR Consulting UK Ltd, who is the leading study manager for the project and the Definitive Feasibility Study, with support, of course, by other expert firms, all independent. The development has been done on time also, and that is not so normal, actually. We've seen other feasibility studies and studies going on for ages, and time has not been of essence. In our case, it has been of essence, and we have been able to do it also according to the standards necessary to attract international interest. What we now are entering into after publishing this is, of course, to get the financing in place for the final investment decision end of this year. We'll talk about more on that later. The important thing here, and maybe it's noted in the feasibility press release, is that we are having the first commercial shipment already next year, end of next year. That means basically that we will be cash flow positive on an operational level very early in the project. This couldn't have been possible without having a team running this from GRANGEX AB also. I'm very proud to lead this team of engaged and skilled colleagues. We cover all aspects of mine developments, all the way up to bringing it into operations. In Sydvaranger, the possibilities to really bring this into operation in the way we now propose is also backed by the fact that we have a very, very engaged and knowledgeable team up in Kirkenes. That mitigates also the risks in the project execution. We cover everything from geology, mine, mine developments, process, process development, and logistics and sales. We have the very good cover of ESG. We, as GRANGEX, have, as you know, very high ESG standards set up for all our projects we take on. We also have the project financing in-house. All this is in-house, skills we have in GRANGEX, and that's unique. This is why we call ourselves the only mine developer in our industry. We take on projects and bring them into operation. We also have, maybe the most important thing, project execution skills. Without bringing a project into operation, you need to execute the plan to construct it and bring it into commissioning and finally to operations. This is the team, and this is just the first layer of the organization. We have many more in our team. They worked alongside, as I mentioned, with the independent consultants led by SLR Consulting UK Ltd, the study manager for our Definitive Feasibility Study. They make sure that it's following the standard, the Canadian standard we mentioned. We have independently also forecast on the price and the market by Fastmarkets, which is one of the leading analyst companies in our industry. We have Zenito, who is focusing on the process side engineering. Most important, I would say that Bo Arvidson Consulting LLC is for the mineral processing and bringing all this technology in, which makes it possible for GRANGEX and Sydvaranger to produce the ultra-high-grade direct reduction magnetite concentrate for direct reduction applications. Geosyntec should be mentioned because they bring in all the environmental and the ESG standards, which is very important for us as a company. These are the independent group of first-tier consultants which have been working and making sure that we have this Definitive Feasibility Study published today. With that, I hand over to our Project Director, Srinivasa, please. Thank you. Okay, basically, we are very pleased to confirm that the DFS has been completed on time and within budget. All this work has been in full compliance with the National Instrument NI 43-101, Canadian standard. This whole study has been managed by SLR Consulting UK Ltd, who are the top tier one consultants across the world, basically. They're the ones who worked with world-class consultants along with them, Zenito and Bo Arvidson and the rest of the team. You can see that basically the DFS has confirmed the techno-economic viability of the Sydvaranger project in comparison with the PEA that we completed in January 2025. There have been significant developments in the DFS. The pre-tax NPV is around $1.5 billion now, which is a significant jump compared to the PEA. Our phase one capital expenditure is $193.6 million, which I'll go into the details in the next slide. The mine life, which is again quite a significant jump from 19 years to 25 years now, almost six years of additional mine life. Concentrate produced also a significant jump from 53.8 to 63.3 million tons, quite a significant jump. The life-of-mine operating cost, again, it's around $56.1 per concentrate. We'll go through the differences in the next slide. The first shipment is November 2026. During the DFS, we also actually have developed a comprehensive risk register, which has basically identified any risks. We have evaluated those risks and developed the mitigation measures, which is also a significant step for the DFS. We also identified that there are plenty of opportunities that we still can basically optimize this study during the evaluation, implementation, and execution of this project. As I just mentioned, basically there has been a significant improvement in the technical and economic aspects since the completion of the PEA. The big one is basically we have added $307 million of NPV to the project. The IRR is down around 9.2%, but again that's due to our investment schedule. We have brought in a few of the CapEx early forward that helps in actually improving the project execution of the project. Phase one capital expenditure, it's around $193.6 million compared to $104.4 million in the PEA. This is actually driven by two factors. One is we have reallocated basically capital operating costs, which is around $48.3 million to capital expenditure. This is allocated as an operating cost in the PEA. That's one of the factors. The other factor is accelerated investment schedule. We had to bring a few of the investments in the early phase. Again, that's actually improved the project execution timeline. That's the difference between the PEA and Definitive Feasibility Study in the phase one expenditure. Mine life improvement is from 19 to 25. We added almost six years because of additional resource and additional concentrate. Life-of-mine operating costs, we had dropped almost $5.8 per ton of concentrate. Lots of optimization went into that, introducing our operating cost in mining and processing. First shipment, we almost brought it by three months. Instead of January 2027, it will be now November 2026. That means the project starts generating revenue right in the year 2026 when we are starting this project. We'll be just going through the mine layout here. Just wanted to show what the Sydvaranger mine project is. The mine will be developed in a conventional open pit operation. We have basically northern and southern pits. When we start this operation in phase one, we'll begin with the southern side where the stripping ratio is the lowest. This basically helps us in driving the cost-efficient operations when we start the operation in 2026. Ore will be sourced from around nine different pits throughout the mine life, and then it will be crushed in the centralized location. The crushed ore will be railed for downstream processing in Kirkenes Town by rail, where we'll be basically producing ultra-high-grade, direct reduction magnetite concentrate. Waste rock generated from the mines will be placed around five waste dumps as per our waste mining strategy. In December 2024 and January 2025, we also actually drilled. We ran a drilling campaign and drilled few holes, actually. That was required to upgrade our resource classification. What we have done is we drilled around 23 drill holes in the southern side. That's where the early mining will commence. That early drilling actually has helped us in remodeling our resource models and then upgrading our classification of the resource in the southern side. The 2024-2025 drilling actually added a significant milestone by introducing measured resource in our southern pits, pit number eight and pit number seven. That's where we'll be starting the pits. That also actually enhances the confidence in our mine plan because we have a measured resource now. There have been some other classification adjustments. Basically, inferred's been upgraded to indicated, and indicated also is downgraded to inferred due to lack of enough support. During the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS), we also did some relogging and reassaying of historical drill holes, which actually helped us. It's a QAQC process. That's the reason there is enough reliability on the database, drill hole databases, which is again a big thing from the QAQC perspective. Amendal reserves. In 2025, when we completed the PEA, we didn't report any reserves. It was the total pit inventory at that time. We had around 139.3 million tons of reserves. In this DFS, we are actually reporting our reserves with improvement in our proven reserve because of changing measured reserves. There is a significant jump now. Almost 21.9 million tons of reserves have been added compared to the PEA inventory, which has resulted in around 9.5 million tons of additional concentrate. That's a significant milestone for the project. As we were discussing, basically, we will be starting this operation from the southern side of the project. We expect that there will be some harder ore. What we had to do is, in order to maintain our capacities, high throughputs, we had to basically upgrade the mill. What's happening in the mill upgrade is we are replacing our hydrocyclones with ultra-fine screens, which actually reduces the circulating load and improves the mill throughput by almost 17% in processing capacity. This helps us in actually maintaining a concentrate of around 2 to 2.5 million tons of concentrate in phase one itself. That's one upgrade. The other thing, the biggest thing in phase one is basically we will be able to produce a direct reduction (DR)-grade concentrate product. That's thanks to the silica reduction technology, which we'll be installing in the downstream process. These two big things are happening in phase one, apart from asset integrity, which is the refurbishment of all our infrastructure and mining fleet, starting from pit to the port. Those are the main developments in phase one. Phase two is basically a new crusher location in a new crusher station, along with the cobbing facilities in a new location. That actually helps us to improve our throughputs, and we'll be able to produce 3 to 3.5 million tons of concentrate. That's the significant difference from phase one. In both the phases, I can see right on top, that's the DR-grade product that we'll be producing at 70% Fe and low silica plus alumina less than 3%. That's the significant milestone. That's the product which is the big change in Sydvaranger because earlier it was a blast furnace product, now we are producing a DR-grade product. This is the schedule that we are putting to basically demonstrate that. The chart on the left-hand side is an NPV or the strategic schedule. The strategic schedule actually helps you to identify out of those nine pits how to sequence it and what will be the mining capacities. That's been run as the first pass, the strategic schedule. The chart on the right actually is replicating the strategic schedule in a tactical manner because the strategic schedule has been developed on a yearly basis, and the tactical schedule is on a monthly basis. What you do is you actually apply all the practical constraints in mining about how many vertical benches and all other aspects in the activity schedule. All those constraints are applied in the tactical schedule. What this shows is we've been able to replicate our strategic schedule into very decent tactical schedules. That means the value dilution is very minimal between a strategy to the tactical schedule. That's quite a big achievement in the study. The big difference is mine life has improved significantly from 19 to 25 years. That's a big thing. We have brought in early production, basically. We'll be able to ship in November 2026 compared to January 2027 in the PEA. Here we are basically looking at the concentrate production through the end of the mine life. The color in pink is basically during phase one. We will be producing around 2 to 2.5 million tons of concentrate, then basically ramping it to 3.5 million tons of concentrate, and then start tailing down. The tailing down at the end of the mine life, that's basically a big opportunity for us because we have seen that in the reserves, there are still lots of indicated and inferred reserves. Our conversion from resources to reserves at the moment is sitting around 35%. That means there's plenty of opportunity to add the mine life and fill the gap that we see in the tailing end of this chart. Twenty-five years is just the start, but I think with additional infill drilling, the mine life can be prolonged for quite a long time at Sydvaranger. Right. Thank you, Srinivasa. I have a couple of questions for you here, and I will start by exposing my ignorance. Life-of-mine operating cash cost of $56 per ton concentrate. Could you define that? If I'm an investor and I'm looking at your company, is that what I'm expecting the cost per ton, and then I can compare that to a selling price, or how do you define the $56? Yeah, $56 basically is an all-inclusive cost that includes the mining, processing, logistics, railing. Total all-inclusive cost per ton of the concentrate that's produced. It's very easy to compare it against any other operation per ton of concentrate. That's what we are sitting at. I just would like to highlight that $56.1 per ton, that's a significant drop compared to what we had in the PEA. We had around $61.8 per ton of concentrate. Massive big difference. You had a couple of slides, and you referred to the mine life where you added six years more. Am I right in understanding that this final study, and the reason why you could have more years, is that the final study showed that you had more resources than you expected? Is that the way to look at it? Yeah, there are two things that I would like to say on that. Addition of the six years. One is, this is, I'm going back to the PEA versus DFS. We have actually re-optimized our cost base significantly, mining and processing costs. Based on those costs, we re-optimized the pit shells. Basically, we've been able to generate bigger pits because of the reduction in cost. That's the reason there is a jump in the reserves from 139 million tons to 161 million tons of ore tons. That's the reason we are there. Sorry, what was the next question? Yeah, basically, it's like you could see that you had more assets in the ground than you expected, hence the prolonged life there. There was also something called FOB selling price of $138. What's an FOB? FOB is a free-on-board price. In the slide, we are shown that it is $139.8 as the average price. Actually, we are using a variable pricing model, which is generated by an independent marketing focusing consultant. That's the free-on-board average price for the life of the mine. Actual pricing is the variable pricing that's used in the financial model. It gives you a ballpark figure, but the mine can live longer and the price can obviously vary. Absolutely. The mine has significantly additional life. As we have looked at the reserves, there are lots of indicated and inferred reserves. Yes, with additional drilling, mine life can be prolonged. Okay, excellent. Thank you, Srinivasa. Very invigorating. It is high time to welcome Jørn Eriksson, Head of ESG. Please. Okay, thank you so much. I'm here to cover a bit on the ESG aspects of the project. I would like to start with the standard NI 43-101 and the requirements put in this standard. It requires that we have a very good understanding of the environmental and social aspects and issues from the project, and also on the permitting status of the project, and also that we have a clear closure plan for the project. It's important that we have a thorough review and that is presented in the actual feasibility study. We have done a very thorough work to understand where we are and what is required from us. The main topics that I put here in the list are the ESG topics that I want to step back to. Everyone knows that there is an impact from mining activities and that we need to have a good understanding where we are. We have identified these topics as the most important ones to cover. Water, of course. We have water surrounding the mine. We are close to the sea, and we need to understand the situation where we are. Waste, of course. There will be waste generated, and we have done lots of work to understand the characterization of this and, of course, the management of it. Biology aspects, we are taking a land piece. We're using that, and we need to understand what impact that has. Areas, noise, vibration, air quality, of course, comes with mining. Climate risks, what risks do we have on our project from climate aspects? Also, what impact do we have from the project when it comes to climate? Social aspects, equally important. It's very important that we have a good stakeholder engagement, and especially with the local community. We are in a place in the world where we have Sami's acting in the area, and we have reindeer herding close to the mine. Important with covering and have a good understanding of this area. Of course, as mentioned, mine closure. On the next slide, I have summarized the most important highlights from the project. I want to start with mentioning that we have all the permits in place for the restart in 2026. That includes the overall environmental permit and also the mining permit. Through the part of the project, we have done a review of all the studies done. There have been many studies done during the years. The mine is over 100 years old, and there is a very good understanding of the environmental and social aspects of the mine. We have done a good review of all these studies and identified gaps in this one. What are we lacking? During the year, we have done a number of complementary baseline studies. Some have been completed and some are ongoing. As you know, when you are working in the environmental area, we have seasonal variations. Therefore, we have not been able to complete all the studies due to the season that we want to have the full coverage. Those are ongoing and will be completed through the fall. All these studies that have been done previously before, and the studies we are doing as part of this feasibility study, all of that will go into an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, a so-called ESIA. Despite that we actually have an environmental permit in place, there has never been an ESIA completed for the project. To GRANGEX AB as a company, as I think Chris mentioned in the beginning of this presentation, ESG is very important to the company that we actually do the right thing here. Therefore, we have decided that we are completing this ESIA. That serves as a basis for the future work with the project. I also want to mention about the stakeholder engagement. To have an ongoing engagement is very important. We have very good relations in the local community and also the wider stakeholder groups. That is an ongoing work, and that will continue as transparency and good relations will be vital for the project's success. Lastly, not on the list here, but I just want to mention that all the work we are doing right now, that's the beginning of the journey, of course. All of that work will serve as a basis for the environmental health and safety management system that we will review thoroughly and ensure that we have a good, solid way of handling that. Additionally, we hold the sustainability flag high, as we have mentioned, and Chris has mentioned. With that, we have ongoing sustainability projects, for example, with the tailings management. We know that is very important, and therefore, we have decided that we are going to look for alternatives to see how that can be handled. I think that was all I wanted to cover for you today. Yeah. Thank you, Jørn. Interesting. I have a couple of questions, but I make one reflection here. That is, you were saying that you had, or GRANGEX rather, had all the permits in place. I refer to that will be permits by the local and the national authorities. Yes. Also, in this NI 43-101 study, you came out with flying colors. Basically, you have your seal of approval here. Yes. Okay. You refer to the ESG complementary baseline studies and the ESIA. Yes. Yeah. Did I get that right? Thank you. That is to be completed in Q4 2025. We're soon heading towards Q4. With the fact that you have all the permits in place and you have this NI 43-101, what can we expect from the complementary baseline here? Yeah. We will complete to cover all the gaps. Some studies that have been done previously are a few years old. We wanted to update those and then consolidate all of this since it has never been done. You know, bits and pieces here and there, lots of information, but no one has ever consolidated into a total environmental impact and social impact assessment. We think that is, you know, vital to have a good plan, how to actually take care of impacts that come from the mining. As I mentioned, we will have an impact, but we will do this in the best possible way. The ESIA will tell us how to do that. It's very important that we complete that before we start the actual execution of the project. That can guide us. It will guide us in the right direction. Basically, what you're saying here is that the complementary baseline here will be an investment in the future production because then you will know more than you will know now. Yes. No sleepless nights. That's a great understanding. Yeah. No sleepless nights. We do know a lot. I want to emphasize we have a very good understanding. To consolidate this is important. Normally, that is a base for a permit. Since we already have the permit, it wasn't completed. Therefore, we have decided that we actually had to do it. Right. Thank you so much, Jørn. I think it's high time to welcome back Christer for some questions and hopefully some invigorated answers. Welcome back. Thank you. Right. Let's summarize this. Why is this Definitive Feasibility Study so important, such an important step for GRANGEX? Yeah. It shows that it's a viable project now. We can prove that. It's independently underwritten by our independent study managers. It forms the base now for the next step, which is the project financing. The project financing requires this to be independent so that our potential lenders and investors can rely on it for their investment decisions. It will also be our base for starting to optimize the financial structure and how we will actually take this forward. Now we have that. We have the financial model, which is now something we can work on together with our stakeholders and the financial stakeholders. It's also important for our relationship with Anglo American to show that this is a viable project. I think, and I hope they are happy too. Because basically what one can do if one has followed GRANGEX is that so far, when it comes to Sydvaranger at least, you had delivered on what you have more or less forecasted and at sometimes ahead of time. If we look for the population of Sydvaranger, because we just had an ESG segment here, and I know previously when we had live questions, there were a couple of Norwegian local questions there as well. How important is this for the population of Sydvaranger? I think this is very good news for, and we are very proud to be delivering this good news for the region, for Finnmark, and in particular then Kirkenes and the municipality of Sydvaranger, that we will be able to bring this into operation now. It's a robust project with good economics. We are not up for expecting any support from the government in grants and things like that. It is also something which provides a reliance on the future for our friends in Kirkenes. This is an economical motor which has been waiting to start. Now we can show that this is definitely possible to start now. The next step is to start the project finance activities for real now. We have been since the publication of this PEA working on the project financing structures and discussions with a lot of interested parties. Now we can bring this into real discussions, real numbers. We know, and we can, that's why the feasibility study is a good, very good base for those final discussions. That will be a segue coming from what this would be for Sydvaranger because you in this study had increased the first CapEx, so to speak, and also lowered the IRR here. Am I right in understanding that the higher CapEx number versus the previous study is because you are increasing the speed towards production? Yes. Especially, I think that, as Srinivasa mentioned, it's also creating a more robust case. We are bringing forward certain investments, meaning that we do not have, let's say, in the phase two, a too large stoppage of the production. We are minimizing that as much as possible. Therefore, we're bringing those investments forward and also, of course, bringing the operations into full speed. The working capital in the sales, I mean, the operations is also a part of this increase, roughly $40 million, I think it was, of extra CapEx now, which we capitalize instead of putting it on the OpEx side. The main point here really is that you're speeding up. It's not that things are more expensive or will be, no. This final study is done on time, within budget. When it comes to comparisons with metrics from the previous study, it's better. I would argue, even if the CapEx is higher, it's because it's better. My first question is, is this normal for the industry? If not, who should be credited? I must say that I think we can definitely say that when you publish a feasibility study, it's normally more conservative than anything which had been produced earlier. That's normally the case. Here we can show, and this is because the PEA was done, and now we've done a very thorough feasibility study. We can still show, as Srinivasa said, expanded life of mine, increased resources, increased production of concentrate. That is only possible by the team I showed earlier, the diligent work input, so on. It is a due, very good cooperation with the independent consultants also to bring this into the result we now had. I can also add, I mean, the increase in production and the prolonged life of mine means that we go from earlier, roughly $7 billion of revenues, which is on the offtake, to $8.7 billion. That's an incredible, let's say, development really, which we now can present. With that in hand and an offtake which we have with our partner, Anglo American, that is a very good basis for the next step. That gives me to my next question here. This has been an extremely busy nine months for you, or even 18 months if you'd like to look at that. What shall we be looking forward to now? Surely you can keep up the pace here, or can you? Yeah, I mean, we have an FID, or the investment decision should be done in December. We start now the procurement, the final stage of procurements with the selected pre-qualified suppliers and contractors. We also do the detailed designs for starting the construction work on site once we have the funds available. That's what we're going to see, what we can also report going forward the next few months before we have the FID. I think it's a close, tight schedule, but as we know already, it is well designed in the feasibility study. It's just to carry on, actually. The financing, which is maybe the most critical part now, right, is already, let's say, lined up. We have all parties lined up. It's just that we should then optimize the structure and we have to come back on how that will look like. It's a fantastic and robust case we have. No rest for the wicked. Definitely not. Christer and Jørn and Srinivasa, it's been very interesting and an absolute pleasure. I thank you all. We will thank all of you watching and see you next time. Thank you.