Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Newmont's Group Head of Treasury and Investor Relations, Neil Backhouse. Neil, please go ahead. Thank you, Holly. Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining Newmont's second quarter 2026 results conference call. Joining me today are Natascha Viljoen, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Brian Tabolt, our newly appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as well as other members of our management team who will be available to answer questions at the end of the call. Before we begin, please take a moment to review our cautionary statement shown here and refer to our SEC filings, which can be found on our website. With that, I'll turn the call over to Natascha. Thank you, Neil, and hello, everyone. To begin today's call, I'd like to start by acknowledging the executive leadership appointments we announced last month, reflecting the depth and talent we have within Newmont and reinforcing our commitment to building a future-ready organization with the leadership capabilities needed to execute our strategy. Together, these appointments strengthen our financial, operational, technical, and project development expertise that will help us deliver consistent performance and steward our world-class portfolio. Brian Tabolt has been appointed as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Since joining Newmont in 2021, Brian has held several senior finance roles, helping to strengthen financial oversight, integrated planning, and capital allocation priorities across the business. Most recently, Brian served as the Chief Accounting Officer and Group Head Finance and brings more than 20 years of experience to the role. I also want to recognize and thank Peter Wexler, who served as interim CFO over the past year, providing steady leadership and continuity during an important period for Newmont, and we are grateful for the discipline and commitment he brought to the position. Mark Rodgers has been appointed as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Mark joined Newmont in 2020 and has held senior leadership roles across several regions, most recently as Managing Director for Africa and Asia Pacific. Mark has over 30 years of experience in the industry, and as Chief Operating Officer, he will lead performance across our 12 managed operations with a strong focus on safe, consistent delivery and operational excellence, inclusive of health, safety, security, and environment. Dave Thornton has been appointed as Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer. Dave has more than 25 years of mining experience and joined Newmont in 2016, where he has since held leadership roles across North and South America and Africa, most recently serving as the Managing Director of the Americas. In his new role, he will lead the technical services team, bringing together exploration, mining and mine planning, processing, asset management, and digital capabilities to strengthen technical excellence in support of operational and project performance. Finally, David Fry has been promoted to the newly created position as Executive Vice President, Project Development. David joined Newmont in 2022 and most recently served as Group Head, Global Projects. He brings significant international project delivery experience across mining, energy, and infrastructure sectors and will continue to focus on disciplined execution as we advance our highest return growth opportunities. These appointments reflect the confidence we have in the people who know our business best. Together with existing team members, Peter Wexler, Peter Toth, and Debbie Leyva, they have helped shape the company we are today and share accountability for delivering the plans that define our future, executing our strategy, advancing our world-class portfolio, and leading with cost and capital discipline. With that, I will turn now to our second quarter highlights. Newmont delivered a strong second quarter and remains on track to achieve a full-year 2026 guidance, supported by disciplined execution across the portfolio and continued momentum as we head into the second half of the year. Beginning with our operational performance. In the second quarter, we produced 1.3 million ounces of gold, 17,000 tons of copper, and 7 million ounces of silver from the full portfolio. The performance supported $2.9 billion of cash flow from operations after working capital and a second quarter record of $2.2 billion in free cash flow. Since our last earnings call and including share repurchases in July, we have returned approximately $1.9 billion to shareholders through quarterly dividends and ongoing share repurchases. I also want to highlight that we have now repurchased over 100 million shares since we began our share repurchase program a little over two years ago. This is a meaningful milestone that Brian will discuss later in the call. During the quarter, we also achieved several important milestones within our portfolio. First, at Red Chris, the Block caving project received key regulatory approvals from the province of British Columbia. This includes an amendment Environmental assessment certificate achieved through a consent-based process with the Tahltan Nation, reflecting the strength of our partnerships and shared commitment to advancing the project responsibly. With these approvals in place, we are focused on completing the feasibility study and advancing the project toward board approval and final investment decisions for this promising new project. We made significant progress on the recovery efforts at Cadia following the seismic event that occurred on April 14th. Production from the operating caves resumed in mid-June, and the team is working to complete the remaining ground support upgrades. Development rates at PC1-2 have returned to normal levels, and we are working to secure the regulatory approvals required to safely restart cave establishment at both of the project's caves later in the year. We continue to expect no impact on Newmont's full-year production guidance. Collectively, our second quarter results continue to demonstrate the strength of Newmont's portfolio and its ability to convert solid operational performance into significant free cash flow and returns to our shareholders. Turning now to the operational drivers supporting our full-year outlook. Our second quarter operational performance was modestly ahead of the expectations we communicated in April, primarily due to certain ounces being realized earlier than expected, driving some third-quarter production forward into the second quarter. The most notable drivers were Yanacocha, where ounces were produced earlier than planned, and Lihir, which delivered a stronger quarter as results of the ongoing asset reliability work at this world-class operation. Together, these assets delivered approximately 50,000 ounces of production that was initially expected in the second half of the year. During the quarter, we also benefited from a stable performance from our Nevada Gold Mines joint venture. Taking these results into account, we now expect approximately 49% of full-year production to have been delivered in the first half, with 51% expected in the second half. Looking ahead, we expect third-quarter production for the total portfolio to be broadly in line with the second quarter before picking up again in the fourth quarter, which is still expected to be our strongest of the year as Lihir completes planned maintenance in the third quarter and Ahafo North reaches its full run rate. Shifting now to cost. We remain focused on controlling our absolute cost base to maximize margins and continue supporting strong free cash flow. As we signaled last quarter, higher oil prices contributed to the expected increase in second quarter cost. However, even after absorbing that pressure, both Cost Applicable to Sales and All-in Sustaining Costs remain firmly within our full-year guidance ranges, reflecting the continued discipline and cost and productivity initiatives we have been implementing across the portfolio. To make the work that we've been doing more tangible, I want to highlight a few examples. We have parked nearly 50 mining production units across the portfolio without affecting production. At Cerro Negro, more efficient pre-start activities have increased underground productive time by approximately 15% per shift. At Ahafo North, we have made targeted investments to operationalize and improve milling efficiency. At Merian, we have improved road conditions and overall wet weather preparedness to optimize existing equipment performance during the rainy seasons. Across the portfolio, we continue to reduce contract utilization where possible. These are practical, site-led actions that collectively improve productivity and help offset external cost pressures. Finally, our capital spend for 2026 is on track to land within the guidance ranges that we set at the beginning of the year. Starting with sustaining capital, we now expect spending to be approximately 58% weighted towards the second half of the year, primarily due to the timing of key programs at Boddington and Cadia, ongoing ventilation work at Tanami, and seasonal surface construction at Brucejack and Red Chris during the warmer summer months in British Columbia. Development capital is now expected to be 63% weighted to the second half, reflecting the timing of work at our key projects in execution, as well as the progression of feasibility study work at Red Chris. At Cadia, development spending is expected to increase as work recommences at the Panel Cave projects following the April seismic event. At Lihir, mobilization of the Nearshore Soil Barrier will ramp- up in the third quarter, unlocking access to more than 5 million ounces beginning in 2028. The second expansion at Tanami continues to progress to plan, with all underground infrastructure expected to be completed by the end of the third quarter. With that, I will now turn it over to Brian to review our financial performance and capital allocation priorities. Brian, over to you. Thank you, Natascha, and hello, everyone. I want to start by expressing how honored I am to step into the CFO role here at Newmont. Since joining the company in 2021 and having worked closely with teams across the business, including the newly appointed and existing members of the Executive Leadership Team, I have developed a deep understanding of our portfolio, financial priorities, and the discipline required to deliver consistent shareholder value. I look forward to building on that work in my new role. I also want to thank Peter and the broader finance team for the strong foundation and continuity they have provided through this transition. Turning to the second quarter, Newmont delivered strong financial results supported by stable operations, disciplined cost management, and continued execution across the portfolio. We generated $3.8 billion of adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income of $2.10 per share. We realized an average gold price of $4,414 per ounce, generated $2.9 billion of cash flow from operations after working capital, and delivered $2.2 billion of free cash flow. Working capital was a modest use of cash during the quarter, primarily reflecting reclamation spending at Yanacocha, normal course inventory and stockpile builds, and the timing of cash tax payments. This was partly offset by favorable receivable movements at Peñasquito and Cadia, where strong collections and lower sales volumes reduced outstanding balances. As we move into the second half of the year, working capital variability may continue, including the potential unwinding of a portion of the receivable benefit recorded in the quarter. During the calendar quarter, we returned approximately $1.8 billion through quarterly dividends and share repurchases, marking the second consecutive quarter in which we returned more than 80% of the free cash flow generated during the period. Importantly, we achieved this while continuing to fund our organic growth pipeline and maintaining a strong net cash position, further differentiating Newmont from our peers and demonstrating the strength of our business through the commodity and investment cycles. Our second quarter results also demonstrate the significant operating leverage embedded in the portfolio. Year-over-year, our realized gold price increased by approximately $1,100 per ounce, or about 33%, while absolute cost applicable to sales increased just 4%. As a result, a substantial portion of the higher gold price translated into stronger margins and free cash flow. Turning to costs, gold all-in sustaining costs were $1,621 per ounce on a byproduct basis, remaining well below our full-year guidance of $1,680 per ounce. Unit costs increased sequentially quarter-over-quarter as expected, primarily reflecting lower gold and silver production and sales volumes, a lower byproduct contribution, and the full quarter impact of higher Ghana royalties and higher diesel prices. Despite these factors, our absolute cost base remains well-controlled, and we continue to monitor the geopolitical environment and its potential cost implications while remaining encouraged by our demonstrated ability to manage costs and improve productivity. As Natascha mentioned, total portfolio production in the third quarter is expected to remain broadly in line with the second quarter, which when coupled with the planned approximate $150 million quarter-over-quarter increase in sustaining capital is expected to result in moderately higher unit costs in the third quarter. We remain focused on managing absolute costs, protecting margins, and maintaining discipline as we work through the higher capital spend expected in the second half of the year. Turning now to our capital allocation priorities. The capital allocation framework introduced earlier this year continues to provide the right balance between reinvesting in our world-class portfolio, maintaining financial flexibility, and returning excess cash to shareholders. Having been closely involved in the development of this framework, our focus remains on executing against it with discipline, consistency, and transparency. Beginning with the sustaining capital, we invested $438 million in the second quarter to support safe production and long-term sustainable cash generation. We remain on track to meet our full-year guidance of $1.95 billion, with spending expected to increase in the second half as we progress critical work that preserves the integrity and longevity of our assets. Turning to the dividend, in the second quarter, we declared a dividend of $0.26 per share, unchanged from the prior quarter. Moving to development capital, we invested $285 million during the quarter. As Natascha discussed earlier, full-year guidance remains unchanged at $1.4 billion, with spending expected to increase in the second half as we advance projects at Cadia, Tanami and Lihir. We also remain committed to maintaining a strong and flexible balance sheet, ending the quarter with $3.4 billion of net cash, modestly above the upper end of the range of our net cash target of $1 billion ± $2 billion. That position will naturally fluctuate as we fund our capital programs, pay dividends, and return excess cash to shareholders. In stronger price environments, we would expect our cash position to remain toward the upper end of our net cash range. If prices were to decline, entering that part of the cycle with additional cash would help us to continue funding our capital program while returning capital to shareholders consistent with our through the cycle approach to creating shareholder value. With those priorities funded, the framework directs all excess cash to share repurchases. Since our last earnings call, we have repurchased $1.7 billion of shares under the $6 billion authorization approved in April. This includes more than $600 million repurchased in July to date, leaving approximately $4.3 billion under the current authorization. Since launching our repurchase program over two years ago, we have reduced our share count by more than 100 million shares or approximately 9%. Based on the repurchases completed to date, the formula under our framework would support a quarterly dividend of $0.27 per share at the next annual review, $0.01 above the current quarterly dividend or $0.04 on an annualized basis while maintaining the same targeted annual cash commitment. This would equate to an 8% increase to the dividend since we introduced the new framework only a few months ago. Any increase would remain subject to approval and declaration by the board as part of its annual review next February. We continue to execute the program consistently, reflecting our confidence in the intrinsic value of Newmont shares and the long-term benefits these repurchases deliver to shareholders. As we look to the remainder of the year, our priorities remain clear. Continue funding sustaining capital to preserve the integrity and longevity of our assets, continuing advancing our highest return development projects, maintain financial flexibility with our net cash target range, and return excess cash to shareholders through ongoing share repurchases. With that, I'll turn it back to Natascha for closing remarks. Thank you, Brian. In closing, our strong first-half performance positions us well to continue delivering on our commitments and creating value for our shareholders. We remain on track to achieve our 2026 guidance, supported by solid execution across the portfolio. Our operations continue to generate significant free cash flow, allowing us to invest in the business, maintain a strong and resilient balance sheet, and return capital to shareholders through our consistent capital allocation framework. As we enter Newmont's next phase of delivery, we do so with a renewed executive leadership team that has deep knowledge of our operations and the jurisdictions in which we operate. These leaders have helped shape the company we are today, and they understand our assets, our people, and the opportunities ahead, and they share the clear accountability for delivering Newmont's future. Their appointments demonstrate the depth of our internal bench strength and provide important continuity in how we execute our strategy. More importantly, the team is fully aligned around the priorities that will drive long-term value, safe and consistent operational performance and project delivery, rigorous cost and capital discipline, and focused investment in the highest return opportunities within our portfolio. Looking ahead, we will continue to leverage our industry-leading portfolio, deep technical expertise, and experienced leadership team to build a stable and resilient future for Newmont. Finally, before we open the floor for questions, I would like to make a brief reference to our discussions with Barrick. I want to specifically refer to our notice of default, as well as our overall efforts to protect the rights and value of the Newmont shareholders. We have actively engaged with Barrick over the last few months to find mutually acceptable solutions to our diverging legal, technical, and commercial views on the various aspects of the joint ventures management and past performance, the proposed IPO and the potential resulting complexities, and contribution process for all excluded properties with the goal of maximizing NGM's performance both in the near and long- term. We have remained resolute in protecting the interests and rights of Newmont shareholders throughout this process. While I remain hopeful of reaching a successful near-term resolution, we find ourselves nearing the end of this extensive direct engagement period with several key issues still unresolved. Most importantly, as I mentioned on previous calls, we remain committed to fostering a strong working relationship with Barrick, playing a role to ensure NGM delivers to its full potential, and protecting, and if required, enforcing our legal rights enshrined in the JV agreement. You will appreciate that given the ongoing discussions and sensitivities on both sides, I will not be able to answer any specific questions regarding the issue. With that, we look forward to addressing your questions about Newmont's operational and financial performance. Handing over to Neil. Yeah. All right. Well, Holly, I think we're ready for Q&A, so I'll turn it over to you to bring up the first question. Wonderful. We will now begin the question- and- answer session. We ask that you please limit inquiries to one question and one follow-up question. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star then one to raise your hand. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up. Holly, can I just confirm that you can hear us? [audio distortion] Our first question comes from Richard Garchitorena with Barclays. Richard, your line is open. Great. Thanks, good afternoon. Can you hear me clearly? Hello? Yeah, thanks for taking my question, and congrats on the regulatory approvals for Red Chris. Just wondering if you could walk us through what are the remaining milestones that we should be expecting as you move towards completing the feasibility study. Obviously, there are probably some refinements on some of the costs, I guess, given recent inflation pressures. Then, how should we think about FID later this year in terms of timeline for construction? Just a moment, please. We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please hold while we pause. All right. Holly, can you hear us now okay? Thank you for pausing for our technical difficulties. Richard Garchitorena, if you could ask your question again. A reminder to unmute locally on your device. Yeah. Holly, it seems like we may still be having technical difficulties. We are unable to hear Richard. All right. Our next question comes from Fahad Tariq with Jefferies. Your line is now open. Hi. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking my question. Hi, thanks for taking my question. Hopefully, you can hear me okay. I just wanted to ask about the cost pressures potentially building up in the operations, just given what's happening with oil prices now elevated again, diesel costs in Australia potentially now translating because it's been so many months of elevated prices translating to higher freight costs. I just wanted to get a sense of how you're thinking about costs in the second half of this year, and whether you still expect productivity improvements to offset the cost pressures. Thanks. Hi, Fahad. This is Brian Tabolt. I'll take your question. As it relates to oil price and diesel, notably, obviously today, with the oil price jumping up to $100 a barrel, we are watching and monitoring cost pressures across the business. Notably, in the second quarter, you'll see part of our CAS increases driven by that fuel cost of about $100 a barrel that we experienced on average in the second quarter. We would expect that to continue in the third quarter based on the current price environment. There is a bit of a lag in terms of when the price of oil hits our diesel. Each of the sites has a slightly different arrangement as it relates to the supply of oil. So we will see some of that continue to flow through in the third quarter. As it relates to other costs in terms of indirects, we continue to monitor that, notably the impacts in terms of explosives, cyanide, grinding media, and then inevitably the tail in terms of labor, contractor spend. We do see some costs as it relates to freight hitting those indirects. In terms of the escalation, we're still just in a monitoring stage in terms of that cost pressure. As we've noted in our materials, for every $10 per bbl change in the price of oil, you'll see on a full year basis about a $60 million impact. In terms of indirects, that would be a knock-on impact. Again, right now we're just monitoring to see how that cost pressure continues to persist. Okay, great. Just on Red Chris, the $500 million investment from the Canadian government, can you provide any more detail on what form that is taking? I couldn't see it in the official announcement, whether it's a grant, a loan, an equity investment or something else, maybe some sort of tax benefit. Any color there would be helpful. Thanks. Fahad, we still working at the moment, on the MOU with a major project office in Canada to determine the full terms and conditions of the grant. In the meantime, we feel quite encouraged by the confidence that the Canadian government's got in the project and also just the support that we get from the Canadian government. Okay, great. Thank you. Our next question comes from Hugo Nicolaci from Goldman Sachs. Hugo, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, Natascha and team. Good to see another strong quarter. First one's just on production. You've highlighted this year as a trough year on production, but can you maybe step us through the pathway back to 6 million ounces and how dependent is that on the Cadia Cave ramp- up in 2029? Are there other levers you can pull to get there without Cadia and perhaps even earlier than 2029? Thanks. Thanks, Hugo, and a really good question. We are, firstly, the development of the Cadia Caves, we're less reliant on in terms of the long-term production. We will see certainly the new caves, PC2- 3 as it comes on. We will see that cave taking over some of the lower grade production out of PC1, and we will see an improvement in the grades. As we've said in our prepared remarks, we see predominantly, the outstanding work on PC1- 2 as we think PC2. The plan is for PC2- 3 to still be handed over to the production team with the last drawbells here at the end of this year. We have all of the other elements that we continuously talk to. Ahafo North will be ramping up to full production. Cerro Negro, Tanami. We will have Boddington in high-grade areas, Lihir near shore barrier and in high-grade areas. Less reliant in this medium term on the caves coming on. That's helpful. Just a follow-up on costs, as you touched on, obviously seeing re-emergence of cost inflation in the sector, not just on energy, but equipment and labor as well, particularly at underground mines. Appreciate you touching on some of the productivity measures already, but could you maybe outline which assets you're seeing the most cost pressures at and which assets you expect to sort of offset this to meet the unchanged cost guidance? Hugo, the biggest impact on energy would be in the mines that we have. The biggest fleet which would be typically your open pit mines, and that's Boddington, Peñasquito, as an example. You would have seen the improvements that we have made. I should have mentioned Lihir as well. You would have seen the improvements we've made on productivity across all three of those big sites. We've seen a number of the pieces of equipment that we've parked in those areas. I think I might have missed Merian as well. All of them are equal, Merian, Lihir, Boddington and Peñasquito. It's important that we've reduced our consumption in those areas. I think that is of particular importance. Across the entire portfolio, every asset is doing work to have cost focus, productivity improvement, and obviously the increase in ounces as we step into next year will all help to offset some of our unit cost. Great. Thanks, Natascha. Your next question comes from Daniel Morgan with Barrenjoey. Daniel, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, Natascha. Hopefully, excuse me, you can hear me. Yes. Thank you. Just first question is, what are your latest thoughts on Lihir as an asset? Where is the asset at on the pathway to what you think it is capable of under Newmont ownership? Daniel, we feel quite positive and encouraged by the work that that team has done. I think we feel particularly pleased that Lihir has contributed to the additional ounces produced in the second quarter. We've seen stability through the mining operations. We see an improvement in reliability in our fixed assets. We've seen a reduction in cost and labor across the asset, and we continue to see good work happening to build strong relationships with our communities. The work that we set out to do is starting to bear fruit. We have also now got access into two high-grade areas that will allow us, with the stability in production, to see the benefit from high-grade areas through the rest of the processing facilities. I think quite encouraged with the progress that we are making at Lihir. We just recently had our board there, in June to go and show them the progress that we have been making, I think all of us feel quite pleased with the team's performance. Okay, thank you. Just second question is on projects. I know you've got Red Chris coming up. What else is in the early stage of being considered across the portfolio in terms of projects beyond that, to compete for capital in that sort of, 2027 through 2028 window? What might logically be the next projects you look at? Daniel, I think I'm going to distinguish here between brownfields and greenfields opportunities. We've got brownfields opportunities in many of our assets. That would be the first target areas for us to expand production. That, of course, comes at lower risk, faster turnaround to actual production. We see some of those brownfields opportunities playing itself out in Lihir. We've got the initial barrier that we've recently approved. We have Cerro Negro expansion project that is underway and that we've brought back online at the beginning of the year after the productivity improvements that team has made. There are several options for us in Ghana, specifically Ahafo South underground and also at Ahafo North. If I just consider across many of our assets, brownfields opportunities, and then we continue to invest money in the development of our projects to identify the next best value-accretive project in that greenfields projects. Then a little bit longer- term, we are continuing to invest money in near mine exploration and other exploration opportunities. If we consider near mine exploration, two areas that I want to highlight there that are also brownfields opportunities. The one is at Brucejack where we have identified dozer zone, just over 700 m from existing infrastructure, meaning that it's very limited capital to get into that area. Then Merian is the other near mine exploration success that we've had, giving us another brownfield opportunity to materially increase production. If I think about the sequencing, aligned and/or shortly after Red Chris would certainly be these brownfields opportunities. Thank you, Natascha. Appreciate the perspectives. Thanks, Daniel. Your next question comes from Richard Garchitorena with Barclays. Richard, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Great, hopefully you can hear me now. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Richard, apologies to everybody on the call. We weren't sure what was happening there, thank you for your patience with us. Yeah, no problem at all. Just quickly, again, congratulations on the regulatory approvals at Red Chris Block Caving. I was wondering if you could walk us through any final milestones we should be expecting as you move towards completing the feasibility study and FID later this year. How are you thinking about capital costs, which have been inflating recently, and how are you to mitigate that? Also just remind us what the prior timeline was for construction and potential startup. There's quite a bit in that question, Richard. I'm gonna take it step by step. Firstly, with the main regulatory approvals now behind us, we continue with the final feasibility steps. We have a very rigorous process, both in terms of firstly technical and then financial review that's done by a internal but independent team to ensure that the development work that has been done has been meeting our standards. We will then put the right economic lens across the project, making sure that it does meet our hurdle rates. That will also consider both near-term economic parameters and long-term strategic fit for the project in enhancing the long-term strategy for Newmont, but also then considering that that is the first block cave at the start of a number of additional block caves to come and a key investment in that Golden Triangle area. You are right that we expect the capital to be higher than what the original numbers were under Newcrest. It is being predominantly driven by the inflationary cost we've seen around project development across the sector. Productivity rates are certainly the other area that is getting attention. We are offsetting that through this project and then project evaluation process, making sure that our engineering and capital cost is appropriate for what we are building. We did see, from the original timeline, quite a bit of delay. The reason for the delay, if you consider the last time that was under Newcrest still, when we brought it into the Newmont portfolio, we did take it back to full feasibility, even though the project at the time was already broadly in execution. The reason for that was twofold. One is that the regulatory approvals were not completed yet, which is not aligned with the way we run projects at Newmont. Secondly, the feasibility study was not on our standard. I think it was beneficial for us to have that delay. If you remember, we had the fall-of-ground last year in September. We've learned quite a bit about the design that was in place at the time. We've improved that design through our feasibility study, and in the process, didn't only de-risk the project, but also improved the economics, even with the expected higher capital. Overall, there has been a delay. Lastly, we envisaging completing it towards the end of the year to take to the board. My view on these projects, it is a material project that we are considering approving. If we have to delay a month or three to make sure that we get everything right and that we've closed out on all of our items, that is something we will do. When we get back to the market, make the commitment of the capital allocation, we'll make sure that we can deliver against it, both in time and capital. Great, thank you. That's very clear. Maybe just a question on Ahafo North. I believe you're expecting higher gold grades as you ramp- up in the fourth quarter. Can you remind us what type of levels we should expect from Ahafo North heading into the fourth quarter in 2027? Into the fourth quarter in 2027? Sorry, did you ask 2027? Oh, yeah, I was thinking fourth quarter this year and then like the run-rate going forward. Long- term. Yeah. Long- term is 350,000 ounces out of Ahafo North. That's the kind of operating levels. Okay, great. Yeah. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from Anita Soni with CIBC World Markets. Anita, your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks, Natascha, for taking my question. I just had a question with respect to Cadia and the restart activities. Has everything resumed operations at this point? I think I read that it had, but I was just confused on the pre-call about that. Yes. Anita, let me quickly just take a step back, because there's various elements that has started and a couple of smaller elements. We've got two operating caves. The two operating caves are fully back in production in mid-June. We have all of the project development work around the two new caves, of which PC2- 3 is furthest developed. There's only a last bit of, well, there's the cave establishment that is still underway. Seven more drawbells, and then the final maturity of the curve that's of the cave, that's outstanding for PC2- 3. All the development work is continuing at the moment. We've got approval for that. It's just the cave establishment that has been halted that we need to restart. PC1- 2, similar in that the normal development work is underway, but cave establishment has still been halted. The work that we are doing there is making sure that we've learned from the events. We're working with the regulator, ensuring that all of our models are accurate, updating and calibrating our latest models, making sure that all of our safety controls are in place. Then we will be able to restart the cave establishment again. Various components, apologies if that was not clear in the script. Okay. I guess I just wanted to clarify. Why does the regulator feel that it's necessary, that it was okay to restart the operating caves, but the one cave that you're just establishing right now needed to that extra bit of work? What's the difference between those two? The difference is in the seismic activity that exists around existing cave operations. PC1 and PC2, because it's mature caves, has gone back to background seismicity and there's no risk around seismicity. The nature of cave development, however, and we have been managing it through very well-established trigger action response plans, is that you do see seismic activity during the establishment of the caves. That is why we do have controls in place, like our trigger action response plans, re-entry plans, support systems underground. There's lessons to be learned from these incidents. Like we do out of learning from any incident, similar to the TE2 fatality, we're learning from the incidents. We're making sure that our controls are up to standard and in place, we restart. These are not dissimilar to what we will do under any other circumstances where we have events that we need to learn from. Okay. Just a question around the evolving CapEx outlook for the back half of the year. As you mentioned, it's significantly higher. I guess some of the spending that was supposed to happen in Q2 around Cadia and a couple of other assets did not happen. Do you think you're going to be able to spend it all by the end of the year? I know there's a split of 63% of development capital in the back half and 58% of sustaining capital in the back half, but is there a way we should think about the Q3 versus Q4, similar how you guided to the production? Can you give us a bit of a cadence on the quarters for the sustaining and the development capital? Yeah, Anita, this is Brian. As it relates to the capital, yes, we are confident in holding to our guidance for both sustaining and development capital. As I mentioned in the pre-prepared remarks, the sustaining capital is about $150 million increase from Q2 to Q3, is what we're anticipating, and a similar amount from a development capital perspective. The uplift in the third quarter and then leading into a relatively level third and fourth quarter on a comparative basis. For sustaining capital, it's driven by the tailings projects at Boddington and Cadia. As Natascha mentioned, being back up at Cadia is a big component associated with that, as well as the ongoing ventilation upgrades that we have at Tanami, which will be more in the fourth quarter. We also have increased summer construction activity at Brucejack and Red Chris, so that's sustaining capital. On the development capital side, it's going to be related to the timing of that PC1-2 spend, deferred due to that seismic event, as well as the significant work that we have at Lihir for the Nearshore Soil Barrier, that's now planned to ramp- up in the second half, and then increase spend at Cerro Negro for the Expansion 1. Your next question comes from Lawson Winder with Bank of America Securities. Lawson, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Hello, Natascha and team. Thank you for today's update, really impressive management this quarter in the face of intense cost pressures. If I could, I don't intend to ask at all about the situation with Newmont and Barrick in particular, but just I wanted to focus on the Fourm ile asset and that calculation and just propose that, I have the sense that the market thinks about Newmont's payment to Barrick upon Fourm ile being put into the Nevada Gold Mines JV, is excluding any deductions for Newmont's 38.5% interest in the existing processing facilities, and I believe that's incorrect. My question would be, how should the markets think about imputing a capital value on Newmont's interest in the processing assets that obviously are completely essential for processing the ore from Fourm ile? Lawson, you are correct. There will be benefit from the synergies out of the NGM operations that will contribute to capital benefit and that should offset against any capital requirement from Newmont. It's absolutely going to offset, and that synergies do exist and will be considered. Okay. That's very helpful. Just, maybe going forward, if there's an opportunity to get some additional color on how that might be done, that would be helpful. Maybe just a note for future calls. Just a follow-up on capital spending consideration. Newmont has suggested the year, or the 2026 sustaining and development CapEx for the business should be kind of similar going forward. About $2 billion of sustaining and $1.4 billion of development. Does that hold when you add the Red Chris CapEx, assuming you'll proceed with that project? Yeah, Lawson. The $1.4 billion was for 2026. I think as Natascha mentioned, when we're in a position to provide an update on the Red Chris full funds decision later this year or into early Q1 2027, the impact of Red Chris would be a consideration on top of that $1.4 billion. Again, that's 2026 only. We'll provide an update on 2027 in February. Thank you for that clarity. Yeah. It's just important to consider that some of the other projects will start to drop off in the following years because we will be completing PC2-3, we will be completing T2, so just as further consideration. Great. Thank you. I look forward to the next update. Thanks, Lawson. Your next question comes from Josh Wolfson with RBC. Josh, your line is now open. You may go ahead. Thank you very much. I noticed there was some new commentary on Ghanaian risks in the release. I'm just wondering if the company's had any engagement with the government on some of this topic and if the company's sort of thinking about how it could manage some of these risks and what it could mean for, I guess, Ahafo. Thank you. Josh, it's a really good question. The answer to that is yes. As you know, we've got longstanding relationships in Ghana. We had the benefit of long-term stable in relationships in Ghana with the Ahafo district being the product of that. We have been in active conversations. I've personally had the opportunity to engage with the President as recently as last week. Me and my team saw the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources. All of this aiming to develop joint objectives between Ghana and Newmont. We know that the Ghanaian government is keen to ensure that there's local Ghanaian development happening, economic development. They are very keen to ensure that they protect shareholders' interest and long-term investment. We have entered into agreement through the Minister of Lands to create a working group for Newmont between us and the Minister of Lands, to develop what would be an forward-looking agreement to allow us that stability that we need for future potential investments. Active conversations on all of the elements that you would see in the press at the moment. Great. Thank you very much. The next question comes from Daniel Major with UBS. Daniel, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, Natascha, Brian, thanks for the questions. Yeah, the first one, apologies, I also got cut off, so if anyone has asked this already, I apologize. Can you just give us some color on the next steps in terms of guidance? I think you've previously spoken about looking to reestablish multi-year guidance. Can you just give us a sense of what that would entail and when? Yeah. Daniel, I know the question wasn't answered, apologies for the technical difficulties that we've experienced earlier. We are aiming to review the way that we give guidance in February next year. The detail of that is under development. In the meantime, we'll continue to give you some insights and broader insights into the business that will help you. In the next quarter, we will, for instance, give you a deeper insight in our thinking about exploration and how we are taking that piece of work forward. Whilst we're working to give you multi-year guidance and what that looks like, we will certainly continue to grow the understanding of our broader business. Okay. Thank you. Then a follow-up one maybe for Brian, just around kind of free cash flow and capital returns. You previously indicated a $1 billion-$3 billion net cash range. You're $400 million above that now. Should we therefore factor in that you will be getting back to $3 billion in the subsequent quarters so capital returns can exceed free cash flow in the second half of the year? Thanks, Daniel. We are slightly above the high end of our target for net cash. You're right that we're about $400 million over. Some of the prepared remarks referenced some of the working capital benefits that we saw in the second quarter. That combined with obviously some level of seasonality. We do target on average to be within that targeted range. As it relates to share buybacks, and thinking through the excess cash component of our capital allocation framework, we do provide that flexibility for exactly that reason. Yes, there is a potential that we would leverage the utilization of that to get us back within the targeted net cash balance. Great. Thank you. If I could just squeeze one more in, it's on the subject you don't want to talk about, just very specific one. You previously referenced that there was no timeline around the legal enforcement of notice of default in terms of a specific deadline. Is that still the case? It's still the case, Daniel. Great. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Daniel. Your next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek from Scotiabank. Tanya, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Great. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Yes, we can. Hello, Tanya. Hello. Hi, Natascha. My question lies about your portfolio, Natascha. You've been on the role of CEO for 2026. You've now stabilized the assets. You're looking at your projects. I'm kind of wondering how you see this portfolio evolving. Do you think you have the correct number of mines or critical mines that you have in place, or should I look at the portfolio and think that potentially there could still be some divestments? When I look at your, you talked about your growth, Wafi-Golpu didn't come up. You have some stuff in Chile didn't come up. Yanacocha's been shelved. How should I be thinking about those? Are those also non-core and potentially for sale? Good question. Thank you, Tanya. If I look at our 12 operations with the work that we've done over the, probably the last 18 months, we have found capital efficient ways of keeping every one of those assets in the portfolio. They can compete for capital. They do comply to our definition of what a world-class asset look like. As long as they deserve their place in the portfolio, and they can compete for capital, at the moment, we are very comfortable with the 12 assets because, as I've touched on earlier, we've got real meaningful brownfields opportunities on most of these assets, and they are contributing to our performance. We do, however, continually evaluate that. We don't stop. We're making sure that they deserve their place in the portfolio. I've touched earlier a little bit on greenfields and brownfields opportunities, and I've just commented on the portfolio that we have in terms of our projects pipeline. I didn't go into the detail for the further greenfields projects. We do have a number of these in the pipeline, Tanya. We have evaluated them and sequenced them in terms of development, because it's important that we continue to move projects through the development pipeline. I would argue, if you consider the ones that you have spoken about, we have projects in Peru, we have projects in Chile, we have Wafi-Golpu. I would argue that Wafi-Golpu would be typically one of those that's fairly far out still for us to develop. It's on the outer end of our project pipeline. Some of these others are nearer- term. Spending the right amount of capital on the development to bring these projects to a point that we can make capital allocation decisions around them is an important part of the work. Okay. How I should be thinking about it is that everything still seems to be a part of the portfolio. Yeah. Really be. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. No, that's fine. I just wanted to circle back to just the inflationary environment and I can't keep count on how many tariffs are being hit everywhere in the world and what else is going on. Besides fuel that we've talked about in terms of any pressures for you, are you seeing anything else where you're concerned and have your suppliers on the pulse looking at, for maybe underground equipment or any other input into your cost and capital that you're starting to see a little bit of a tightening of supply? No, I don't think so, Tanya. We're monitoring that again, pretty closely with our supply chain, and again, just picking up on the availability. We continue to have no concerns from an availability perspective. We do run scenarios to consider potential mitigating action should scenarios manifest themselves. I think from a cost perspective, we're still on a monitoring brief. I think it's an element of watching like the rest of the world, how long the conflict goes on, how long the stickiness of inflation flows through the supply chain. Ultimately how that impacts the input costs that we have or the capital dynamics like you mentioned with equipment. At the moment, no major concerns, but we continue to monitor it like I think most companies. I think your 2026 guidance provided an inflation expectations of about 3%. Should I still be thinking that when I think about everything within it, we are in that 3%-5% for Newmont? I think that's something that we review annually as part of our guidance setting process and budgeting process. As it relates to where we are right now, I think the component on that would be obviously we're guiding to assumption in 2026 of Brent being at $70 a barrel. Obviously, that dynamic has been a bit volatile. There would be a bit of an uptick associated with that. I think the broader kind of general assumption around inflation, I think that's fairly fair with, again, the caveat that we may see some of that indirect spend start to come through if oil does stick and it starts to make its way through the supply chain. This concludes the question- and- answer session. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.