Today, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to The Metals Company's S econd Quarter 2025 Corporate Update Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to turn the conference over to Craig Shesky, CFO of The Metals Company. Please go ahead. Thank you, Liz. Please note that during this call, certain statements made by the company are going to be forward looking and based on management's beliefs and assumptions from information available at this time. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which may be beyond our control. Additionally, please note that the company's actual results may differ materially from those anticipated, and except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any forward looking statement. Our remarks today may also include non-GAAP financial measures, including with respect to free cash flows. Additional details regarding these non-GAAP financial measures, including reconciliations to the most recent directly comparable GAAP financial measures, can be found in our slide deck being used with this call. You're welcome to follow along with our slide deck, or if joining us by phone, you can access it at any time at investors.metals.co. I'd now like to turn the call over to our Chairman and CEO, Gerard Barron. Gerard, please go ahead. Thanks, Craig, and thanks to all of you for attending. Firstly, I want to acknowledge everyone who made the pilgrimage to New York for our first ever strategy day on August 4 last week. That includes my leadership team, the Board of Directors, our new and long-time strategic partners, our sponsoring states, our research analysts, institutional investors, and a select group from our army of retail investors. I believe this experiment was a resounding success, probably the single most exciting workday that I've ever experienced. If you were not part of it this year, fear not. We intend to repeat this on an annual basis, getting bigger and better each time. As our coalition of investors and partners continues to grow, just make sure you hold enough TMC shares when the invites go out. The day was packed with meaningful conversations, including a deep dive into our partnerships with an exciting panel, including Edward and Stephanie Heerema of Allseas and Careers Inc. Chairman Yumbi Choi. In true TMC style, the evening ended on a high note, quite literally, with a spirited karaoke party. The strategy day also featured the ringing of the NASDAQ closing bell, which our NASDAQ rep said was one of the most enthusiastic and well-attended that they had ever had. This moment gave me an opportunity to reflect on what's happened in the previous four years since we last rang that same bell. I keep coming back to our key TMC motto, adapt or die. It's not just that we've been able to adapt to a capital-led approach. It's not that we've been able to adapt to a new regulator. It's that amidst all of this adaption, we've been able to keep the project moving forward while so many others have been stuck at zero. This now puts us in a unique position where we have a wide moat around the business, due in part to all of the project spending and historic milestones over the last 14 years, but also because we're one of the unique companies with competency in this new industry that can actually take the path offered by the existing U.S. Seabed Mining Code. Many others have no choice but to wait for the long promised and never delivered ISA Mining Code. I believe that the pace of our progress is only going to accelerate from here, with a PFS in hand as the only commercially viable deep seabed resource opportunity in the next several years for any potential customers, commercial partners, and of course, public shareholders. Make no mistake, TMC is here to stay, and we are just getting started. Another highlight of August 4 was the release of our PFS and initial assessment, two documents with sign-off from qualified persons showing a combined project net present value of more than $23 billion, while also showing a clear capital efficient path to first production. The PFS also included a world-first reserves for a nodule project. I do know that there are some who may have been hoping for production sooner than Q4 2027 expected start date. As anyone familiar with resource investing will tell you, Q4 2027 is right around the corner when talking about a multi-decade project of this scale and value. It's also important to keep in mind that there has always been an anticipated ramp-up period post-permitting, where modifications and mobilization with the Hidden Gem would be required prior to beginning commercial production. This anticipated ramp-up period has always been expected by the research analysts who cover our stock. Back last year in November, when the share price was below $1, we discussed the fact that we would not be making capital investment on the Hidden Gem until we had regulatory certainty. We're now excited to be ramping up this work again with our partner Allseas. Instead of a sequence where that work begins after the grant of a permit, we and the board soon expect to have the confidence to get moving. This is due to the signals and tangible progress coming to us from D.C., not just to issue a permit, but do it in a way that can be legally defensible for many decades to come. Today's agenda: first, we'll take you through a summary of all the amazing things that have happened in the last few months, including the strategic investment from Careers Inc. We've also renewed our partnerships with Nauru and Tonga, reaffirming our shared science and rules-based approach to delivering lasting benefits for the Pacific Nations while building the secure critical mineral supply chains underpinning reindustrialization, good jobs, and resilient economies. I will then discuss our cadence of regular predictable progress at NOAA, including our notice this week of full compliance on our exploration applications. I'll then turn it over to Craig to discuss the PFS, DIA, and our financials. I'm happy to again report that we have renewed and strengthened our agreements with both the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga, our longstanding sponsoring states who have led from the front since the beginning. These updated agreements reaffirm our shared commitment to a science rules-based approach to developing this new industry, setting a high bar for environmental stewardship, transparency, and community benefit. For Nauru and Tonga, these partnerships are designed to deliver durable economic opportunities, capacity building, and long-term revenues that can support generations to come. They provide the stable, collaborative partnerships we need to responsibly advance towards first production, while also contributing to U.S. and allied efforts to secure resilient supplies of critical minerals. On a personal note, I very much enjoyed our meetings in DC with the Nauru and delegation on August 6th, and it was great to see the U.S. State Department recognize the strategic importance of our sponsoring state. In June, we announced a landmark strategic investment of $85 million from Careers Inc., the world's largest non-ferrous metals smelter. Careers Inc. is positioned to use TMC's U.S.A. nodule-derived materials to produce refined metals, copper foil, and PCAM in their existing facilities in South Korea and potentially build new facilities here in the U.S.A. To further that ambition, in August, I traveled to DC with Chairman Choi. Among others, we met with David Copley, the President's critical minerals czar, to discuss securing domestic supply chains and advancing U.S. mineral independence. I look forward to another visit with Careers Inc. on their home turf this September as we push on bringing additional investment into the United States. This quarter, we welcomed Michael Hess and Alex Spiro to the TMC board, two highly connected leaders whose experience spans global energy, finance, law, and high-stakes negotiation. Michael Hess spent time at Goldman Sachs and KKR and now heads the Hess Family Corporation and brings deep relationships across government and industry that will help accelerate our access to capital and strategic partnerships. The Hess family are recognized as one of the great industrial giants in the United States. Alex Spiro, one of America's most prominent trial lawyers and strategic advisors, has represented some of the biggest names in business and technology, and his insight and network will be invaluable as we navigate the complex intersection of policy, markets, and innovation. Together, this board combines unmatched vision, credibility, and connections, giving TMC the strategic edge we need to move NORI-D into production. This quarter, we continued methodically moving the regulatory ball forward under the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, a clear, enforceable framework that gives us visibility and confidence in our path to production. I know it's not always quick enough for everyone, but just take a step back on how fast these milestones have been achieved since the initial applications were submitted just a few months ago. In April, application submissions; in May, substantial compliance on the exploration license applications; and in July, proposed amendments to DISHRA to expedite the process. On August 12, NOAA confirmed full compliance for our exploration license applications, another important milestone that validates the thoroughness of our submission and moves us to the next stage in the process. I'm pleased to say that NOAA has begun the process of certifying these applications, a 100-day process that started on July 27 and July 28. Each regulatory milestone de-risks the project and strengthens the investment case. We are systematically progressing through a transparent U.S. regulatory process with a clear path ahead toward first production from NORI-D in Q4 2027. We are also looking forward to this administration's proposed amendments to streamline permitting and supportive guidance from senior officials underscoring the U.S. government's intent to lead in the production and processing of deep seabed critical minerals. The public comment period on these amendments will be concluded on September 5 this year. In contrast to NOAA's great progress in the last several months, I'd like to acknowledge that the ISA finished their 30th session this July. The ISA continues to keep calling for regulations but doesn't seem to be particularly interested in delivering those regulations. Keep in mind that NOAA had pioneered deep sea environmental research and had put in place working regulations prior to the ISA ever being formed. On that note, I would like to turn the call over to our Chief Financial Officer, Craig Shesky. Thank you, Gerard. For those in attendance or for those who have reviewed the presentation during strategy day, a lot of this is going to be familiar, but there was quite a bit of detail. I'm now happy to go through some of the key points in our historic landmark pre-feasibility study and initial assessment in deeper detail. Project economic studies come with three levels of increasing confidence: an initial assessment, which gives you a sense of what the project could be within a broad band of plus or minus 50% cost estimate accuracy. We produced an IA in March 2021 over the NORI-D area. A pre-feasibility study gives you a sense of what the project should be and narrows that accuracy to within 25%. Last is the feasibility study that describes what the project will be with an even tighter cost accuracy band, and that's often the basis for project finance. On August 4th, we published two new studies: a PFS for NORI-D and a new IA that covers the rest of the resource in NORI and Tonga. Together, these two studies should give you a good sense of what our first project should be in the NORI-D area and what the rest of the resource can be in terms of economics. Taking a step back and looking at the geographical areas that each study covers, the PFS covers NORI-D, the IA covers everything else, but neither study covers the additional ground that we've applied for under the U.S. law where we know we have priority of right. Our management team estimates these areas to have approximately 300 million tons of exploration potential, given the proximity to NORI-D and Tonga areas where we do have quite a bit of exploration data. The results as of the middle of 2025, a total combined project billion dollars comprised of an NPV of $5.5 billion on that, an additional $18.1 billion on NPV for everything else. Let's zoom in a little bit on the feasibility study or PFS. The estimated amount of recoverable nodules for this study is 164 million wet tons. Assuming production start date is Q4 2027, with a life of mine just over 18 years, annual production in steady state was modeled at 10.8 million tons of wet nodules, and steady state for the PFS is defined as the years 2031 through 2043. Offshore, this level of steady state production is going to require four converted drill ships, and onshore, we assume processing in existing RKEFs, Rotary-Counter Electric Arc Furnaces in Asia, and then building refining capacity in the United States. We expect to start relatively small towards the end of 2027, then gradually regain capacity before adding a second vessel in 2030, and then ramping up to steady state with four vessels by 2031, hitting our nameplate capacity of 12 million tons per year in a few of the years of production. Again, on average, during that steady state, 10.8 million tons per annum. We expect to generate almost $600 per dry ton of nodules during steady state production. As one might expect, it's not a smooth line. Prior to the construction of U.S. refineries, the revenue per dry ton will be a bit lower, a bit less than $500 per ton in 2032, for example. By the end of the 2030s, with two U.S. refineries running, expected revenue per ton is approximately $640. Overall, the revenue mix is expected to be quite similar to what we shared with the market over the last several years based on the initial assessment on NORI-D from 2021. 45% of revenue coming from nickel products, 28% from manganese, 17% from copper, and 9% cobalt is the smallest contributor to revenue. Where does all of that put TMC on the cost curve? Including the valuable byproducts, which are estimated to account for about 55% of total revenue, our C1 nickel cash costs are just over $1,000 per ton. That's lower than nearly all producers outside of Russia, including most Indonesian producers. Even on an all-in sustaining cost basis, our nickel costs, including byproduct credits, would be just over $2,500 per ton. Said simply, we will be profitable in nearly any nickel price environment. With steady state revenue per dry ton of just under $600 and OPEX per ton of $340, which also accounts for corporate overhead and royalties, we arrive at our EBITDA margin per ton expected to be about 43% or $254 per ton during the steady state years defined as 2031 to 2043. During that time, we expect to transition from mainly selling matte from Asia to then selling higher value refined products like nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, and copper cathode in the United States. The early 2030s would see EBITDA margins in the low 30%, but by 2040, that EBITDA margin is closer to 50%. This anticipated ramp-up in profitability makes it worthwhile to spend on the onshore refinery CAPEX after we begin production, while also taking a huge step towards helping the U.S. establish mineral independence. How are we going to develop these commercially viable operations? The March 2021 initial assessment for NORI-D envisioned $7 billion of upfront CAPEX, of which $2.2 billion was for offshore vessel CAPEX. For the pre-feasibility study, we've been able to bring that offshore pre-production number down to less than $500 million for the offshore component. Where possible, we've assumed contracting the services we need and only deploying CAPEX where, without deploying CAPEX ourselves, we wouldn't be able to get the service. As a result, our development CAPEX assumes $4.4 billion onshore for construction of the refining capacity to match the offshore production. This approach ensures that we can deliver critical products to the U.S. as contemplated by NOAA regulations, while significantly increasing our payables by producing a higher value product, again, nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate. Before any U.S. refineries are built, we have an opportunity to either give offtake to Careers Inc. for our alloy and mat on the condition that processed materials are returned to the U.S., or we can toll through their facility and return processed materials to the U.S. ourselves. Because we've not yet developed the definitive agreements with Careers Inc., some of the production is left at the alloy and mat level. As far as the U.S. refining capacity, we're aiming to build that together. Many of the meetings that Gerard Barron talked about and many that we expect to occur in the coming months are to give that effect. As I said earlier this month during the strategy day, we're not going to bite off more than we can chew. We do expect to be in production and producing significant revenue prior to greenlighting any such onshore spending. In fact, approximately $4.2 billion of this $4.4 billion onshore CAPEX estimate is assumed to be spent in the 2030s, well after we've been in production for some time, generating significant revenue. Moving on to the initial assessment, that second study shows the potential of the resource beyond NORI-D, effectively the rest of NORI and Tonga. The estimated amount of recoverable nodules for the initial assessment is 670 million tons wet. Assumed production start date is 2037, with a life of mine of 23 years. This initial assessment assumes contracted services offshore with eight production vessels, each equipped with three collectors at 20 meters each. Putting it all together, adding up the NPV of $18.1 billion for the initial assessment and $5.5 billion for the pre-feasibility study, we arrive at a total estimated resource NPV of $23.6 billion. Over the life of both projects, on an undiscounted basis, revenue of approximately $369 billion, an EBITDA in excess of $200 billion, and a position in the first quartile of the global nickel cost curve that makes this model very difficult to break across any commodity cycle. Yet, despite the undeniable quality and size of this resource and our expected position in the first quartile of the global nickel cost curve, we feel we remain undervalued compared to peer developers and explorers. On the left side of this page, you'll see a TMC valuation example, which again, is purely for illustrative purposes. Using a slight premium to the upper end of the nickel developer and explorer valuations, and you apply that to the pre-feasibility study NPV of $5.5 billion, which, keep in mind, in that pre-feasibility study, we expect to have a more defensible cost curve position and generally lower CAPEX per ton than many of those peers. Then you add to that the average nickel developer explorer valuation multiplied by the initial assessment NPV, you get to a total illustrative market value based on comps of approximately $10 billion, which would be over $20 per share. From there, you can see on the right side of this page what nickel or copper producers trade at as a multiple of net asset value. This shows the potential for multiple expansion as production approaches and then begins. Moving on to our liquidity profile, at June 30, TMC had pro forma cash of approximately $120 million. The headline in our filings from both our press release and our 10-Q was $115.8 million, but that $120 million includes the final registered direct offering proceeds, warrant exercises, and unsecured credit facility payments made just a few days after quarter end. By July 4, it was $120 million. As we disclosed last quarter, our S-3 shelf registration statement capacity has been used, and current ATM expires in the fourth quarter of this year. TMC expects to refresh the S-3 and ATM before year end as a matter of good corporate housekeeping. The ATM was last used on April 17, 2025, and this was prior to the second quarter strategic capital raises. Onto the financial results. In the second quarter of 2025, TMC reported a net loss of $74.3 million or $0.20 per share, compared to a net loss of $20.2 million or $0.06 per share for the same period, 2024. The net loss for the second quarter of 2025 included exploration and evaluation expenses of $10.5 million versus $12.4 million in Q2 2024, general administrative expenses of $11.5 million versus $7.9 million in Q2 2024, and other items totaling $52.3 million versus a slight gain in Q2 2024. Exploration and evaluation expenses decreased by $1.9 million in the second quarter of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, primarily due to a decrease in mining, technological, and process development activities, partially offset by an increase in share-based compensation due to the amortization of the fair value of restricted stock units and options granted to officers in the second quarter of 2024. G&A expenses increased by $3.6 million in the second quarter of 2025 compared to the second quarter of 2024, mainly due to an increase in share-based compensation as a result of the amortization of the fair value of RSUs and options granted to directors and officers in the second quarter of last year, as well as an increase in consulting costs pursuant to the U.S. regulatory path and other financing activities. Other items significantly impacted the net loss in the second quarter of 2025, including the Nauru warrant costs, change in the fair value of warrant liability, and foreign exchange movements. Moving on to free cash flow, the free cash flow for the second quarter of 2025 was negative $10.7 million compared to negative $12.2 million in the second quarter of 2024. Net cash used in operating activities was $10.7 million for the second quarter, primarily due to higher payments to campaign eight vendors in the comparative period. This was partially offset by an increase in environmental payments. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP measure, and I would like to point you to the non-GAAP reconciliation table included in the slide deck on our website. We do believe that the cash on hand is going to be more than sufficient to meet working capital and CAPEX requirements for at least the next 12 months from today. In the first half of 2025, of course, we had a significant increase in the cash balance following the receipt of funds of $85.2 million from Careers Inc. Partnership, $35 million net proceeds from the registered direct offering, $14.8 million from the ATM use in the first half of the year, and $6.9 million from various stock option and warrant exercises. A portion of these proceeds was used to repay the $7.5 million Allseas' working capital loan, along with outstanding interest prior to its maturity. Our accounts payable and accrued liabilities balance as at June 30, 2025, was $47.1 million, and this includes $32.4 million owed to Allseas' for various services provided, again, the majority of which can be settled in equity at TMC's discretion. The significant increase in warrant liability is due to the increase in the fair value of private warrants, reflecting a significant increase in the company's share price. With that, operator, we'll turn it back over to you and take some questions from those on the line. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question at this time, please press star one one on your touch-tone phone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from Jake Sekelsky with Alliance Global Partners. Hey, Gerard and Craig, thanks for taking the questions. Of course. Hey, Jake, how are you? Hey, Jake. Good, thank you. Now that the PFS is out, can you just comment or provide some color on what work needs to be done in order to get through the feasibility level and maybe the timeline there? Yeah, look, I think the biggest thing that we're going to focus on is getting to our final agreement with our partner Allseas. Now that we see a clear regulatory path through the U.S., the next step is really not just focusing on feasibility, but getting ourselves to the FID, the investment decision to begin ordering some of the longer lead time items to allow us to hit our target of Q4 2027 production date. It's been this interesting dance, this balance between not wanting to spend too early, certainly when the TMC valuation was much lower, but now that we see clarity, making sure that we give sufficient ammo, not just to Allseas, not just to ourselves, not just to the board, but also to the market to make clear that we expect a permit to be coming, and therefore it makes sense to begin spending a little bit to get that production system ready to go. I would say, Jake, that's probably the number one important point. We also intend, of course, over the coming months to think through the financing mix of going beyond this first vessel and ensuring that we explore every opportunity that is now being presented by the U.S. government. As you've probably seen, there's quite a bit more in terms of funding opportunities from various departments, whether it's within the Department of Defense, DFC, Exim Bank, Department of Energy. There was the $1 billion allocated for critical minerals just this week. We're going to be very busy again with partners such as Allseas, Careers Inc., and potentially the U.S. government laying out what that timeline is going to be. Really focusing on that first vessel is priority number one. Okay, that's helpful. On the permitting side of things under NOAA, now that you're in the certification stage, what are the next major steps or milestones that we should keep an eye out for as we head into the second half of the year in 2026? I guess the closing of the comment period, and I think the administration and NOAA have made it very clear that they have introduced changes to those regulations to allow fast tracking of permitting. I think what you should look forward to is good news coming out of the regulator. I must say, considering this is the first live application that they've had in many years, or first new application, NOAA have been amazing. I think they are motivated and excited about the work that comes with this application. Of course, these rules of the DSHMA have been around for decades. Finally, the moment is here. I think what you can expect to see is those amended changes adopted, and you can expect us to be having a regular cadence. Would I say we are in daily contact with our regulator? Probably, yeah, probably daily. Of course, the big part is permitting based on the environmental impact study. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars and more than a decade gathering that data, which is amazingly compelling. We expect to have more information to be sharing with not only the regulator, but the broader public as we make that information available because what I can tell you is it's all good news there. I guess from a NOAA perspective, just more permitting certainty. They want to see this resource in production. You saw the critical minerals are, David Copley traveled to the Cook Islands recently. We had a tremendous reception at the White House where they received not only Careers Inc. and their team led by their chairman, but also the Republic of Nauru. The message that they are consistently saying is critical minerals are important and seabed minerals are super important, and the United States want to lead that race. Obviously, we are the most advanced in that category, so it's a perfect coming together. Fair enough. Okay, that's all on my end. Thanks again. Thanks, Jake. Our next question comes from Heiko Ihle with H.C. Wainwright. Hey there, thanks for taking my questions and thanks for inviting me to your investor day earlier this month. I like how the karaoke session came up on this call. Hopefully, no photos or video, but thank you for attending, Heiko. You're still calling for first production in Q4 of 2027, and in your premier remarks here, it was listed in the presentation. As you know from the reports we've written, we think this is a doable timeline. In your view, what main factors could either accelerate or slow down this progress in your view? Like some societal regulatory factors that may not be quite as obvious to outsiders like me that don't talk to the government and the communities on a daily, weekly basis. Is there maybe anything that you would leave us with on how to build our models a little bit more accurately? Look, I don't think the government will give us anything other than encouragement to that date. What we announced to the marketplace was that timetable will take about two years, but you can clearly see we are receiving enough encouragement from the administration and the regulator for our Board of Directors to start deploying that capital. I must say, with the right rigors in place and for those people that were able to review our very qualified Board of Directors around these topics, people like Andy Gregg, who built more than $500 billion worth of capital projects in the resources space over his career at Bechtel, we have a lot of expertise on that board that understands how to allocate capital and how to provide governance around that. What I can tell you is that we've got a very supportive board of spending that money carefully, and we've got an amazing partner in Allseas who are equally committed to getting that boat into production. We've also got an administration who want us to get moving. I don't see anything on the regulatory side that should influence that. Of course, there are supply chain issues, but that's what our job at Allseas as our partner there, that's our job to manage that. Getting into production during the 47th administration. Hello? During the 47th administration is super important. Sorry, I got disconnected for a minute. I think all of the risks are just normal business risks, Heiko, and I think we're well equipped to be able to handle those along with our partners. Fair enough. Building on that last question just a little bit, earlier on this call, you were talking about adapter diet. I agree with your viewpoint of having, you know, a white moat around the business. You alluded to that as well earlier on this call. Just thinking out loud here, given, you know, all the geopolitical risk factors, and some of that was discussed earlier this month as well, is there anything in particular that keeps you up at night or anything in particular where things have just come in, you know, substantially better than you anticipated? I mean, because from the way we look at it, a lot of things were discussed earlier this month where, you know, the support was substantially stronger than what anyone would have envisioned. I mean, you literally had some of the government representatives present with you at the hotel. Look, I think there's been a lot of surprises to the upside, Heiko, and I think we knew some of the cabinet when they were in opposition, of course. When the Trump administration came into being, it was very encouraging for us to find people like Secretary Rubio take such a prominent role in the cabinet because he had written letters and opined on this topic on both on our behalf while in opposition, as had many others in the cabinet. We knew the support was there, but sometimes you get surprised, and then we turn up at the White House and we're invited to the White House very regularly. You turn up there like we did last week and you find a room filled with all of the major departments that have the ability to contribute because the strong leadership coming out of the White House is saying, "We want this to happen." By the way, you'll notice every agency that can help you make it happen is in the room. What do we need to do? A surprise to the upside is to find Careers Inc., who, when I first met their chairman, was not convinced about the U.S. investment opportunity, but was very keen to get our material to supply his Korean facility, but over time has become absolutely convinced that he can play such an important role in supporting the critical mineral needs of this administration and the United States. He also produces some critical minerals that the U.S. administration really wants, like antimony and gallium. I'd say they're pleasant surprises on the upside, just how the administration is mobilizing, how they want this to happen. I took the, when I had the chairman with me last week from Careers Inc., we asked the administration, "Are you at all worried about some of the criticism?" They're like, "Not at all." It's clear we need to secure the supplies of these critical minerals for decades to come. They have experts who've been appointed. That's, I think, one of the encouraging things about this administration is that they have experts throughout that administration. The political appointees that are taking the reins are moving. I've never seen a group of people other than my own team work as hard. Senior Director Copley had just returned from a quick visit to the Cook Islands. Two days to get there, two days back, he reminded me in the back of the bus for a day on the ground just so he could express the administration's support for this new industry. I'd say they're all really positive surprises for the upside, Heiko. Fair enough. I will stop posing the question to you, and thanks for taking my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Matthew O'Keefe with Cantor Fitzgerald. Hi, thanks, operator. Afternoon, Gerard and Craig and team. Just a question here on the feasibility studies, particularly for the PFS there. Looked very good, and we had some discussions on it, but I was just wondering, there is a capital cost, sorry, there's about a $492 million CAPEX to get you into the production that was outlined in the feasibility study. I'm just wondering, I know in the past, and you've had Allseas because they're taking care of most of the ships and such have taken a big part of that. Do you have an idea of how that might be split among your partners and will it, and you know, when we might get a sense of that? Yeah, sure, Matt. In terms of that $492 million and sort of the assumptions that go into it in a pre-feasibility study, there is allowance for contingencies, some buffers, specific growth. There are elements in there that, for a point in time, relatively conservative analysis may not ultimately end up being something that has to be cash flow out the door between now and commercial production. What I would say in terms of bridging to, here's the breakdown of what's TMC, what's Allseas, we've had the assumption that with our partner Allseas for several years of splitting that pre-production CAPEX, which we do believe is going to be much smaller ultimately than what was in the PFS. This is what we're all drawing our eyes to now with our PFS and IA release, with the strategy day behind us, with the applications over the line, and now with a pretty clear path from the U.S. regulatory front. That gives confidence to us on Allseas to sharpen the pencils again and make sure that we hammer out those details. I think it would still be a little bit premature to give a more detailed breakdown on it, but suffice it to say that it's a priority for us and for them as well. I think that's evidenced by the fact that the Allseas founder, Edward Heerema and Stephanie Heerema, came over for the strategy day and spent a lot of time talking to analysts and investors on that panel, kind of laying out why they've stuck with TMC through what have been some difficult times and have been key participants in nearly every major equity raise that we've done as a public company and even before that. Yeah, I definitely got a lot of support in the work with your partners and your investor base, which seems to be growing. Just to follow on that, though, you mentioned earlier in the call about, you know, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, other U.S. institutions that do have a lot of money now allocated for critical metals. Are you in the, have you looked at those, I'm assuming you've looked at those programs, but are you actually applying for any, and would any of those monies be available or at least applicable to this first part of the ramp-up, or would that all have to go towards sort of U.S. processing capability? I'm glad you asked that, and you know, it's a great clarification. The answer is it's not just necessarily for funding the onshore component, but there are certain programs that can have cash available for the offshore side as well. Now, some of those programs, it's really, it's not quite the same as it was in the Biden administration where, you know, a lot of focus was downstream, but there were various programs that, you know, you go through a long application process and you might not hear for nine months. Here, it's a lot more all hands on deck, and perhaps it can be chaotic sometimes, but you get to the right answer, or at least you get to the right people a lot quicker. The reality is that even beyond DOD and DOE, there are certain programs where, you know, the folks who would be controlling the purse strings aren't yet even confirmed, and that confirmation is likely to occur in September or October. A lot of these conversations are going to ripen, but the answer is absolutely yes. We are pursuing, you know, potential dollars that could be made available for the offshore side as well. We don't want to say too much on that because obviously, you know, this is a path we've been pursuing for a long time. I would say it's less now about just, hey, let's fill up the application. This is one of the reasons, frankly, that, you know, it perhaps wasn't as noticed over the course of summer, but I believe it was late June that there was an adjustment to the way funding is done within the U.S. government. It's not just one applicant goes to DOE and DOD or DFC and Exim, and you do it all separately. Rather, there's a coordination among the National Energy Dominance Council, which, of course, David Copley was one of the key people in for a long time, and now is in the National Security Council. The same people are really overseeing all of the programs. It's less about sort of a very dogmatic which program you're applying to, and fingers crossed, you get some response many months later. Here, it's much more coordinated and I think much more intentional. The answer is yes, both offshore and onshore, and yes, we're pursuing all of these concurrently. That sounds promising. If I may, just one last little one here just to follow on that. I know you've got a lot to do between now and ramping up, but just, you know, you didn't say like in the mid-2030s or early 2030s to get a processing plant. If monies were available, because, you know, it would be quite a boon for the U.S. to have some processing capability of the hydro-met nature that you guys are looking at. What would sort of be, could you go quicker on that? I mean, or do you still have a lot of work to do vis-a-vis engineering and, you know, development for your process plant? No, we could absolutely go quicker. That's the significance of having Careers Inc.'s involvement. They've just built a state-of-the-art facility in Korea, and they'd like to come and build that here in the United States. From our perspective, we'd like to see that on the ground, provided the money was on the right terms from those agencies that Craig has mentioned. We think it would be a boon to support the reindustrialization ambitions for the United States. Matt, you know better than anyone, if it ain't grown, it's mined. We're all talking about bits, of course, because AI has everyone's attention, but we need to be thinking about atoms as well. We need to build the infrastructure, and for that, you need metals. The question is, where are they going to come from? I wish we were as sexy as the AI industry, but our time is coming because people are starting to talk about this as being the part of the equation that has been a little bit overlooked. Of course, it's become a very hot geopolitical issue. We're starting to see smart money move into it. Of course, the administration is going to lead that pathway. We saw them do a very interesting deal with MP recently, MP Materials, and I think we're going to be seeing them do a lot more like that. Yep, totally agree. All right, thanks very much. Thank you, Matt. Our next question comes from Dmitry Silversteyn with Water Tower Research. Excuse me, good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for taking my call. Hi. Just a quick follow-up, or maybe not a follow-up, clarification. You didn't include it in these slides, but in your investor day slides, you had a more detailed timeline, and you had something called provisional approval, which you expect to get by the end of this year, if I remember correctly, the slide, and then the final approval kind of by the fourth quarter of 2026 to let you get into production in the fourth quarter of 2027. What's the sort of the difference between provisional approval and final approval, and does getting provisional approval do anything for you in terms of expediting the decision-making process on funding the first batch of CAPEX, or how should we think about that milestone approaching? Look, the administration had been very open on this topic because there are some hoops we need to hop through. What has been made very clear to us is that if the administration came and just gave us a permit today, then we'd be tied up in legal knots, and we may not achieve the objective that was set out in the executive order, and that is to fast track the permitting. The legal minds have opined on this, and it makes sense. What we've said, though, is it would be nice if we could have something, and hence that word provisional, that would give all of us the confidence. However, I think it's fair to say that our Board, and as you know, we've raised quite a bit of money in the last quarter, and our Board and our investors want to see us spend that money because they feel there is enough confidence coming out of the signals we have from the administration to get that permit in fine time. The dates we mentioned at the strategy day still stick. We think we'll have that in a form to share by the end of the year. It'll be a confidence booster, you might say, Dmitry. Understood. Okay, that's helpful, Gerard. Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about, you mentioned it a couple of times during the call about the changing regulations that the NOAA has written, has published, and now they're in the comment period, I guess, that's closing. You talk about it being helpful in expediting approval processes, but specific to your project, what do you think that these new regulations can do in terms of getting you on the line and getting the approval? The main one is that the way the regulations stood, you needed to submit an exploration application, and then once that was granted, they would start working on your commercial recovery permit. The key driver will be to be able to do those two things in tandem because, as you know, we submitted two applications for exploration licenses, and we submitted one application for a commercial recovery permit. Whilst that application is with the agency, the changes will just put in stone the fact that they can do those things in tandem, and they will massively shrink the permitting timeframe. Yeah. Just to clarify too, Dmitry, in reading the plain language of the DSHMA and the implementing regulations, it was always a read that, you know, yes, the exploration license grants would have to come prior to the grant of the commercial recovery permits, but the plain language is clear that the applications, or at least the review process, could be concurrent. What we think is ongoing with the public comment period and the proposed regulatory amendments is really a confirmation of something that already made pure common sense, especially for some applicants like TMC, where much of the environmental work for the exploration side has already been done. Beyond that too, there are some helpful amendments in terms of just modernizing these rules that were put in place in the 1980s, in terms of delivery of physical copies, in terms of ensuring that the contractor who's done much of the environmental work is able to write that environmental impact statement as opposed to, you know, sort of putting that work on a silver platter and then having the writing being done, let's say, by NOAA. In fact, that was actually a clarification that came through the NEPA process even before this in 2023. It's really just, as they say on the federal register, which is a component of comments, a modernization of a lot of that great work that was done. It is pretty amazing when you look at the DSHMA legislation and then the implementing regulations, and then you compare it to what the ISA had begun working on in the 1990s and beyond. They're really taking a lot of the great work and great ideas that came originally from this U.S. Seabed Mining Code. It was in very good shape, and now we're just kind of tidying it up, or the NOAA is tidying it up around the edges to make sure that it can be more modern, more commercial, and clarifying the concurrent review process that Gerard Barron laid out. Got it. Thank you, Craig. Thank you for that great analogy. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. We have nothing else in the phone queue. There was one question on the webcast from Nelson Sellers. Can the administration halt mining operations? I think that goes back to one of the reasons that we're all going through this very robust and clear legal process to make sure that we're not skipping over any steps to ensure that this permit is legally defensible for decades to come. It is very similar to any land-based mining operation where, so long as the process itself was followed and all of the necessary permits were granted under the authority actually provided to whoever that particular regulator was, it's a situation where you can ensure that just a change in administration isn't going to somehow alter the legal validity of that permit. Of course, we don't view this as a left versus right issue. No matter who the next administration is going to be, critical minerals is bipartisan. It's not even U.S. versus China. It's really a recognition that the U.S. is dependent on a lot of different sources for critical minerals, and TMC can take three of those dependencies off the table just from the NORI-D projects. This mineral independence issue is not something where we expect any future administration is going to somehow decide, you know what, we're okay with being dependent on Chinese or Chinese-funded sources for some of these metals. We anticipate that this legal process is going to be very robust, and that's one of the reasons that it's important to let it play out. Liz, is there anything else on the phone line? Any other questions that we have? No phone line questions at this time. Gerard, I might turn it back over to you for some closing comments. Thank you, Craig. I guess thank you everyone for turning up today. Thank you to my team for the amazing efforts to be able to produce these results over recent months. It's truly admirable what we achieve with a tight small team. Of course, thank you to our strategic partners and our sponsoring states. Thanks importantly to all of our shareholders. Until next time. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.