EV growth is strongest in China, for sure. It actually flattened down in Europe and surprisingly healthy in the U.S., given all the narratives we hear about the challenges here in the U.S. The challenge in the industry is that with that change in demand, supply is in excess of demand. That's, of course, what's impacted prices, and supply just has not come out at the rate we thought it would. There have been some projects that have come out, but it has not been at the rate that we would expect it at this point in the cycle, leading us to sort of view the cycle as being lower for longer, which, of course, corresponds to the cost actions I described that we took just a few moments ago. But it doesn't change our view on the long-term perspectives we have on this industry, that the energy transition, even with political changes, even with demand adjustments, is well underway. And we feel very well positioned with our low-cost resources and vertical integration to be able to compete well in that environment. Excellent. Thank you for that overview. So, Eric, on the Q3 call, you talked about non-integrated hard rock conversion assets as being unprofitable, and then at least 25% of the global lithium resource cost curve being unprofitable. So given this, why has more supply not come out of the market? It's a tough question. We could probably spend, and you may spend a lot of time with your guests today talking about that question. I mean, I think it starts with the fact at a very high level, this is a pretty nascent industry with a lot of young companies that have come into it, fairly fragmented of late as supply has grown, coming off a period of time of rapid expansion in the 2022, 2023 period, and it's going to take some time to adjust. That being said, I think another factor that plays a role here is that about 50% of the capacity that's out there in the market is China-controlled. And China isn't necessarily, a lot of these Chinese entities aren't going to respond the way we would expect from a Western perspective, from a market cash cost point of view, in terms of adjusting production. But as I said, it's a tough question to fully answer given all those factors, but that's what we attribute much of the situation to. Understood. So today, how much supply upstream, downstream has been shut down or curtailed, and at what price levels does this supply come back online? Yeah. Our estimates are that it's about 10%-12% of supply, potential supplies come out as we roll into next year. And that's not nearly enough, to be candid with you. If you look at the supply curve and the comments that you earlier referenced that we've made, really, prices now at the sort of spot prices in China are sort of sitting at, depending on the product form you're talking about, $8-$9-ish at a low point today, are sitting right at the cash conversion cost of some of the most efficient non-integrated Chinese converters. And the 25% we talked about that's underwater is the less efficient such converters, well, all the lepidolite production, and also some of the higher-cost producers in the market. We look actually at every supply chain individually. So as an example, we would take Talison and maybe, in our case, have 10 different cost curves associated with Talison, depending upon whether we're converting it, a tollers converting it, and the cost of those plants, right? So if you look at a startup, Western Australia's brine producer, and I think it's important you look at their all-in sustaining cash costs, which aren't always what's reported in the international financial standards, but important to look at because a lot of things such as stripping costs are deferred and their real cost to that operation. Then add that conversion cost on top of that. They also are underwater in this environment. So we're going to have to see prices significantly rise to be able to offset this. We're talking about a more than 2x increase in prices, really, for expansion, particularly in the West to resume, where building and operating plants is much more expensive, higher cost than it would be in a jurisdiction like China. Eric, just maybe diving down a bit more into Chinese lepidolite, you discussed the nuances that's keeping some of these operators producing in this environment. Look, lepidolite production is operating well under 50% of its capacity. In recent months, maybe it's down only about 30% of its potential capacity. So some has come off. It really is swing capacity. What we see happening for those operators or those companies that are integrated into that supply, buying into that supply, is that increasingly, as African spodumene comes up in prominence, they are modulating lepidolite capacity down. It is a high cost. That cost has an environmental impact to it as well that is, I think, undesirable. But it is used for security of supply in the country to derive what is an important imperative for the Chinese economy around EVs, and will operate, even though it's operating at a loss, through a variety of different mechanisms that effectively subsidize its production and keep it in play. Very good. Eric, as you touched on, the only good news here is we've seen some future capacity be postponed or curtailed. How much has been postponed or curtailed? And you mentioned an incentive price of 2x today, maybe high teens, $20,000. Is that the incentive price for this supply to be restarted, perhaps? I think it obviously will depend on the project. A lot of the production that's been taken out, we really need to effectively understand a bit. We can talk about conversion and conversion capacity, but really, it's the resource availability in the end that drives what's available to be converted. There's an excess of conversion capacity in China, for sure, as an example. So as I said, it's about 10%-20% of supply that has come out. That's 100,000-ish sort of tons. And there needs to be far more that does come out going forward. So I think it's and a lot of that capacity, as examples of some name projects in Australia. So you've seen Bald Hill, Finniss come out. There's others who have modulated, whether it's Pilbara or Mount Marion. These are projects whose all-in sustaining cash cost, if you look at the value of spodumene, which is an intermediate, of course, in this equation, that value at $7,800, which has been recent lows for that product, U.S. dollars a ton, is below the all-in sustaining cash cost of all those operations or many of those operations. So I think it's if prices stay where they are. And I do think we are looking at a U-shaped recovery, notwithstanding the fact that I think prices will move around a bottom of where they are now. We'll need to see more capacity come out. And I think Western operations can only sustain themselves so long at a loss before they have to come out. Very good. Eric, switching to demand, your forecast is we'll see lithium demand grow from 1.3 million tons in 2024 to over three million tons in 2030. So what are the risks of that three million-plus forecast given the changes we're seeing today in the global marketplace? The changes we're seeing in the global marketplace today are designed, as we see them, our efforts to move towards electrification in different modes. So obviously, plug-in hybrids are addressing in markets around the world, whether that's China, U.S., or Europe, a concern around range where that's a factor for the purchase decision. And so we are seeing a pivot, which in many cases is yet to unfold, to add those vehicles to the vehicle mix. What we've seen, what's interesting about plug-in hybrids in China, is they have not come at the cost of EVs necessarily. So if we use that as a case study, this is additive demand that's going to help accelerate and drive more EV growth that otherwise wouldn't occur given the cost per kilowatt-hour and range anxiety concerns around EVs on the one hand. On the other hand, what we're seeing is that the cost per kilowatt, that $100 a kilowatt-hour cost that we talk about, is a tipping point for adoption for the cost of the car. Already achieved in China is probably not more than a couple of years off in the rest of the world. And now you're talking about EVs that are cost competitive with ICEs. And the only remaining issue for adoption becomes range and charging infrastructure, which, again, we see evolving. It's probably more rapid in other parts of the world than it is in the U.S., but we see evolving. And I think it's going to be that coupled with the cost effectiveness of the battery is going to help drive the tipping point for EV adoption. And then the last point I'll say is that many of these batteries, even the plug-in hybrids, are getting larger. Some of them are extended range, or they're called EREVs, which are basically, you'll see a lot of those in China. That battery is not as large as a battery electric vehicle, but maybe 40-50 kilowatt-hour battery, which is still significantly larger than most plug-in hybrids. All of these factors, David, give us optimism about the mechanics of what's going to drive growth. They come irrespective of subsidies, right? Subsidies are an important near-term catalyst. They've already been pulled back significantly in markets like China and Europe. But they don't, in the end, when the economics come into play around the battery, they get more competitive. They're less important for adoption. You mentioned subsidies, Eric. A lot of news in the U.S. about potential removal of these subsidies. Any early thoughts on the impact of a Trump presidency on the EV market in the U.S.? Look, I think we'll have to wait and see what President Trump's policies will be in his second administration. In his first administration, he was very supportive of critical minerals. We were obviously at a different stage of the EV growth story at that point in time. We're at a different stage now. So I think it's hard to project just yet what's going to happen. We, as a company, make a policy and a practice of working both sides of the aisle. So whether it's the Biden administration outgoing or the Trump administration coming in, we're positioning ourselves to support what is important to the president's agenda while driving value for our company. I will say that, again, if we want to think about it from a negative perspective, is there a risk to demand? Remember that the U.S. is the smallest of the three major electric vehicle markets. And while it's near and dear to our hearts, because this is where we're based as a company, we're not a global player. We're well-positioned with our global network around Asia and Europe as key growth markets. So we'll wait and see. There most certainly will be changes, and we'll be ready to respond to them. Very good. Eric, back to supply-demand, based on your models, when do you see the market becoming balanced and even tight? It's going to be hard for us to project because a lot of it depends on the questions we were sort of trying to—you were asking earlier and trying to pin down around when does supply adjust to demand. Obviously, the sooner some of that capacity comes out, the sooner you get to the point you're referring to, given the demand outlook we have. This is a U-shaped recovery, so if capacity does not come out, we're looking at a longer U, if you will, bottom of that U versus a V-shaped recovery, but I think it's going to be hard at this point, hard to tell. It really depends on really the other question you're asking about supply when that comes out. Fair enough. So without asking for a price forecast, Eric, what is your price forecast over the next number of years here? That's another thing we won't get over our skis on because I think it's been very hard to predict. As you know, we've looked at our business and the decisions we've made to say that at current prices, we can remain competitive. We can continue to invest in growth. So if you look at even the significant capital cut we've made, we are still spending a portion of that capital on some new resource development in Kings Mountain, as well as DLE in South America, and you can see the expansion at Talison. So we're positioning ourselves to be able to go through the bottom of this cycle and be competitive irrespective of where that price goes. As I said a moment ago, to really make this market healthy, you're talking of multiple increase, more than 2x increase to really get this industry healthful. And in particular, to further or re-engage what we talked about over the past years as a pivot to the West. That pivot to the West isn't going to happen unless that price point comes to that level, whether that's a bifurcation of markets and two different prices here, or whether that's just an overall market movement of price to that level. And so that'll be important. It goes back to the political question of how important it is to the future administration to develop supply chain here. Economics obviously have to work for a supply chain to develop. And we need to see pricing at that kind of level for anybody in this supply chain to be successful in the West. Very helpful. Eric, we have seen M&A activity increase in the lithium space. It was notably Rio Tinto's acquisition of Arcadium. First, so what do you make of Rio's acquisition of Arcadium? What does it mean for the lithium industry as a deep-pocketed, large player getting involved? Okay. As you may know, I've been around the industry, including with the acquired asset here, Arcadium, years ago and now 15 years ago, and even at that time, Rio was interested in this space, so for 15 years, they've been around and focused on and making small bets in the lithium space. For them now, at this point in time of the cycle, to step in to make a bigger bet is not a surprise. It makes sense from their perspective, given their longstanding interest and commitment to the space. From an Arcadium point of view, I think it also makes sense in that, look, they didn't have necessarily the size, the cash flow generation, or the scale to accomplish the growth agenda that was before them. Obviously, a better capitalized entity can do so. As it pertains to us, this again goes back to the actions we're taking. The actions we're taking are to allow us to spend at a level that allows continued growth, particularly in resources, which is where the money is now. As we're going back to our earlier comments, there's not a lot of money in conversion in high-grade, low-cost resources like the ones we have either in our hands operating or could develop, such as Kings Mountain. Those are in-the-money projects even at these prices, and we are going to continue investing in those, and making the cost changes we did allows us to do that, so that's a part of our sustainable operation going forward, that economically sustainable operation, and so it's not surprising to see consolidation among smaller players who have smaller balance sheets to try to shore themselves up through this challenging period in the market. So Eric, if prices were to stay here for an extended period of time, or maybe even drop further, how would your operating and capital plans change to address this? I think our biggest. I mean, if prices. First of all, look, I mean, at these price levels, we've. At an $8 or $9 dollar level, I mean, you're on the threshold of seeing a lot of projects if you go lower, a lot of operating projects, not new projects, not being economic at all, particularly at the resource level. So I think I'm not saying prices can't go lower. I'm just saying the cost curve has shifted up. Many people think price was at $5-$6 five, 10 years ago. Why can't it go there again? The cost curve is different than it was. And the resource required in this market, I have a higher cost profile. Again, we could be wrong about where price goes, but I think we are hitting some of the depth. We believe we're hitting some of the depth at this point in time. If we're wrong about that, our biggest action would be to further reduce capital. That would impair our ability to respond to a recovery, certainly, because I talked about some of the growth projects we're focused on for resources, those we would slow down and reduce spending on in this environment. But that would be our first lever in the event prices take a leg further from where they are now. Eric, lastly, assuming prices trend higher slightly going forward as we expect, how should we think about Kings Mountain and the South Carolina lithium project in terms of development and their progress from here? Kings Mountain is a project that we are the long lead on. Kings Mountain is the permitting, community relations, not necessarily the final investment decision to start spending fixed dollars on developing the mine itself. Part of this is also dewatering this pre-existing pit, which is well underway. All of those things are a couple-year activity that, whether we're in a high-price environment, a low-price environment, we continue to pursue. So we're following the critical path there, but we're not yet to that final investment decision on Kings Mountain. It won't be for at least a year. If you look at the downstream then aspect of that, which is the South Carolina plant, that fits into our earlier conversation of Western conversion. The economics don't work on that. It's not because it's in South Carolina or it's because of an Albemarle plant. It applies to any operation we believe in the West, no matter who's doing it. At these prices, the economics don't work. All you have to do is look at what's going on in China at these prices. Chinese converters are not making any money in this environment. So how do you make a return on a conversion investment if even in China they can't make a return on it? Prices need to be significantly higher, whether that's for our South Carolina plant or any other operation. Eric, that was excellent, but our time is up. Thank you again for your time and your support for the conference. And we will talk soon. Thank you. Thank you, David. As always, appreciate it. Thank you, Corinne, as well. Have a good day.