Thanks, Kate. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining today's conference call.

This marks an important milestone for Boss Energy. We are pleased to be presenting our FY26 financial results, the new feasibility study and updated mineral resource estimate for the Honeymoon deposit, and our FY27 guidance.

We've released a significant amount of information today. During this call, we will take you through some of those key outcomes.

Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO, and Olivier Regnault, our Head of Technical Services and Planning. Olivier joined Boss in September last year, bringing extensive international uranium ISR experience to the business.

Olivier, I'll just hand across to you to give a short introduction.

Yeah. Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone.

I'm Olivier Regnault, Head of Technical Service and Planning at Boss Energy. I hold a PhD in hydrogeology and geochemistry from Mines Paris, PSL University, France.

I have more than 15 years of experience in uranium in situ recovery with particular expertise in wellfield design, reactive transport modeling, and the optimization of ISR operations. Before joining Boss Energy, I spent most of my career within Orano Mining, where I held a range of technical and management position and worked on ISR operations and development projects internationally, including the KATCO operation in Kazakhstan and projects in Uzbekistan and Mongolia.

I'm very pleased to be part of the Boss team and to contribute my experience of the development of Honeymoon and Boss other projects. I look forward to answering any of your questions at the end of this presentation.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks, Olivier. It's great to have Olivier as part of the Boss complementing our strong operational, technical capacity that we have in South Australia.

As you can see throughout today's presentation, strengthening our technical capacity and deepening our understanding of the of the Honeymoon deposit and how we mine it effectively has been central to the work we've been completing this year. I'll just turn to slide 2, which is our disclaimer slide.

I'll just draw you to attention to some cautionary statements on this slide, particularly a relationship to targets of production on inferred and indicated mineral resource. Also, unless otherwise stated, all currency amounts referred in this today's presentation are in Australian dollars.

Turning to slide 3. FY26 was a significant progress in which we made materially strengthened the foundations of our business.

Today's presentation is structured around three key areas. First, our FY26 financial results.

We've doubled revenue, delivered our first year of positive free cash flow, and further strengthened our debt-free debt-free balance sheet. We did this in a capital-intensive year.

Second, the new feasibility study. The NFS is the culmination of an enormous amount of technical work and confirms a robust pathway for continued economic uranium production at Honeymoon.

Importantly, it establishes the fundamental, improved wellfield design and cost structure, underpinned by our operating experience, advanced modeling, and deeper understanding of the deposit. Third, FY27 guidance.

FY27 is a transitional year. It builds the foundations for Honeymoon's production ramp-up and long-term value that follows.

We will progressively move from the legacy wellfield design to a new wide-spaced design. I'll talk about our capital allocations choice choices behind this profile in this presentation.

Boss enters FY27 with a strong balance sheet, a robust plan for Honeymoon, significant opportunities for optimization, and exciting growth options while being strategically levered to a strengthening uranium market. With that, I'll hand across to Justin who will take us through our FY26 financial results.

Turning to slide 4. Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone.

I'll now step through the FY26 results. Turning to slide 5.

FY26 was a year of significant operational and technical progress, supported by a strong and debt-free balance sheet. Sales revenue doubled to $151.1 million, and with the $15.5 million uranium loan repayment, contributed to an average realized price of $111 per pound or US$74 per pound.

We delivered a net profit after tax of $2.5 million. We finished the year with 1.58 million pounds of uranium inventory.

At the 30 June spot price, that inventory had a market value of approximately $195 million. We also reinvested $66.6 million at Honeymoon in wellfield development, infrastructure, and technical work.

This was a substantial investment during FY26. Despite that investment, we closed the year with $207.3 million in cash and liquid assets and no debt.

We have a strong, debt-free balance sheet and are generating positive operating cash flow, providing the financial capacity to fund Honeymoon's transition and pursue our broader optimization and growth opportunities. Turning to slide 6.

This slide shows year-on-year comparison. Revenue doubled from $76 million to $151 million, and the business moved from a $34 million loss to a profit of approximately $3 million.

Operating cash flow increased from $17 million to $74 million. At Honeymoon, production increased 61% to 1.41 million pounds, compared with 872,000 pounds in FY25, and was within our revised production guidance.

Full-year C1 cost was $39 per pound and all-in sustaining cost was $61 per pound, both within revised guidance. Importantly, we achieved these outcomes while continuing to build inventory and invest in the operating platform.

The results demonstrate the cash-generating capacity at Honeymoon, while also highlighting the value of increasing production and spreading the largely fixed operating cost base over more pounds. Turning to slide 7 and the financial summary.

Operating cash flow for the year was $73.6 million that funded $66.8 million of mine development across Honeymoon and Alta Mesa. We increased cash by $13.1 million to close the year at $49.7 million.

In other words, in a year where we invested heavily in wellfields, NIMCIX columns 4 and 5, the East Kalkaroo trunkline, and the technical work behind the NFS, the operation paid for that investment while adding cash and inventory to the balance sheet. That balance sheet remains a key strength.

We closed FY26 with $207 million in cash and liquid assets and no debt. Within that, uranium inventory grew by 172,000 pounds to 1.58 million pounds drummed inventory.

As I mentioned, that inventory is carried at a book value of $116 million that had a market value of approximately $195 million using the 30 June spot price. That inventory position matters strategically.

Boss remains deliberately under-contracted. We have chosen to retain uranium rather than sell it into the market as we believe it is strengthening and that inventory gives us substantial flexibility on the timing of future sales as well as direct exposure to uranium price upside.

During the year, we also received 162,000 pounds from our 30% interest in the Alta Mesa joint venture, and also received the loan repayment from enCore in August 2025. Total net assets were $477.6 million at 30 June.

In summary, the business is now profitable, was cash-generative through a heavy investment phase, debt-free, and holding a large, flexible uranium inventory. With this solid platform, we expect to continue to organically fund the ongoing transition to a wide-spaced wellfield design, which Matt will take you through now.

Back to you, Matt.

Thanks, Justin, for taking us through the FY26 financial results. I'll now move on to the new feasibility study.

Turning to slide 9 and the headline outcomes from the new feasibility study. The work we've done has confirmed Honeymoon has a robust and economically viable pathway to long-term uranium production.

The wide-spaced wellfield design supports production until at least FY34 with planned drum production of 13.8 million pounds over the 9-year period. This is a significant milestone for Boss.

The work completed over the past year has transformed our understanding of the deposit, enabled us to establish a fundamentally improved development plan. At the center of this plan is wide-spaced wellfield design.

It allows us to access more of the resource with fewer wells, less infrastructure, while increasing the residence time and supporting higher PLS grades and recoveries. The result is a material step change in Honeymoon's cost structure.

On a like-for-like basis, applying the previous wellfield spacing to the updated mineral resource, the new design reduces life-of-mine all-in sustaining cost by approximately $30 per pound. The plan is supported by Honeymoon's favorable ISR characteristics, including high permeability, effective aquifer confinement, low natural groundwater flow, low acid consumption.

Our design and operating assumptions have also been bench- benchmarked against established ISR operations globally. Importantly, this is a capital-efficient pathway.

The majority of the required infrastructure is already in place with only approximately $58 million of additional facilities capital planned over the life of the mine. This can be comfortably funded from our existing balance sheet and operating cash flow.

The new feasibility study does more than confirm economic production. It establishes a low-cost, capital-efficient foundation for Honeymoon, and provides a strong platform for future optimization and regional growth.

Turning to slide 10. To understand the new feasibility outcome, it's important to just return back to the challenges identified during the Honeymoon review.

The assumptions underpinning the previously enhanced feasibility study did not reflect what we were seeing on the ground as we progressively developed and operated wellfields. We were not seeing the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization, and we're encountering mineralization within low-permeable clay materials.

Collectively, these factors were resulting in a smaller production wellfield, greater development intensity, and increasing unit costs. Ultimately, incremental improvements to the previous design was not going to be enough.

We needed to fundamentally reset the cost structure of the operation. The wide-spaced wellfield design provides that pathway.

We recognized the opportunity to fundamentally change the operation's economics. Confirming the technical and economic viability of this approach of the well wellfield design therefore became the centered focus for the new feasibility study.

This design approach is only possible because of the underlying deposit characteristics. Turning to slide 11.

This slide shows the work undertaken from first identifying the deviation through to the delivery of the new feasibility study today. I'll not go through every step, but this timeline demonstrates the significant work completed in a highly accelerated time frame.

Over approximately 12 months, we materially improved our understanding of Honeymoon, strengthened our technical ISR capacity, and delivered a new feasibility-level pathway on a wide-spaced design, all while continuing to operate the mine. I'm extremely proud of what the team has achieved.

This work provides us a stronger technical foundation and a clearly defined pathway forward for Honeymoon. Turning to slide 12.

I'll now step through an update on the mineral resource for Honeymoon. Turning to slide 13.

The updated Honeymoon mineral resource is 21.4 million tonnes at 440 ppm for 20.8 million pounds of U3O8, reported a 100 ppm cut-off grade. 66% of the resource is classified as indicated and 34% is inferred.

The estimation was completed by RSC Global and forms the basis of the new feasibility study. Across the Honeymoon district, Boss has a now combined mineral resource of 65.9 million pounds, including 45 million pounds at Gould's Dam and Jason's deposits, which is outside of this feasibility study.

Turning to slide 14. The updated mineral resource is informed by a substantially larger, higher quality, and more integrated data set than that was accounted in 2019 estimate.

Within the modeled area, we have completed an additional 685 drill holes and approximately 87,000 meters of drilling, a 34% increase. As the map shows, the work has substantially increased drill density across the main resource domains.

The database integrates calibrated gamma, quality-ranked PFN logging, validated against sonic core assays, and deposit-wide nuclear magnetic resonance or NMR measurements. The NMR data is particularly important because it allows us to model permeability across the deposit, rather than assuming all material mineralization is equally amenable to ISR extraction.

Those permeability models have also been calibrated against our actual operating ISR performance. The result is a much more detailed and understanding of the grade distribution, geology, and importantly, the extractability of the mineral resource.

Turning to slide 15. The Honeymoon mineralized system extends over approximately 6 kilometers of strike, is up to 650 meters wide, and generally occurs at depths about 80 to 120 meters.

The resource is divided into four principal domains: East Kalkaroo, Central Kalkaroo, Honeymoon, and Brooks Dam. Most of the mineralization is hosted in the Basal Aquifer of the Eyre Formation across the Honeymoon and East Kalkaroo domains.

At Brooks Dam, it's more commonly hosted in the upper portion of the sequence. Mineralization is laterally extensive and can occur across stacked horizons, reaching a combined thickness of about up to 34 meters.

Importantly, the updated resource only includes material considered amenable to ISR extraction and satisfying the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Material has been excluded where the required permeability and extractability criteria are not met.

Turning to slide 16 and the change from the 2019 mineral resource. After adding back mining depletion since 2019, the updated mineral resource contains about 4.6 million pounds less uranium, a reduction of about 35% compared to 2019.

When both estimates are compared at the higher 250 cut-off, the difference is more pronounced. We see a reduction around about 63%.

The updated MRE is consistent with the findings of the Honeymoon review. Put simply, we did not see the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization consid- considered amenable to ISR extraction as assumed previously.

The changes principally reflect significantly more drilling and commercial operating data, a revised and more tightly constrained estimation approach, and the application of permeability and extractability criteria when assessing the mineralization. The comparison at 250 ppm clearly demonstrates why continuing with the previous wellfield approach was not an option.

The design wouldn't the design wouldn't support a high-grade, or the deposit wouldn't actually support a high-grade approach. Ultimately, in terms of forecasting life-of-mine production, we're around about 26% lower than what the 2017 EFS, which was withdrawn in December.

I'll just talk through a little bit about the wellfield and wellfield design, we'll go to slide 18. This slide summarizes why the uh Honeymoon deposit is suitable for to wide wellfield spacing.

The wide-spacing wellfields only works if the deposit characteristics support them, and Honeymoon has favorable combinations of characteristics that do. The approach that we're taking is deposit-dependent.

We have high permeability flow capacity, we have strong lateral hydraulic connectivity, we have laterally extensive mineralization with favorable vertical continuity, we have favorable mineralogy, and effective confinement and hydraulic control. Honeymoon, Gould's Dam, and Jason's deposits are all similar.

Although low grade, they are favorable deposits from an ISR mining perspective. Turning to slide 19.

One of the most significant technical advances underpinning the new feasibility study is the use of the reactive transport modeling as an integrated mine planning tool. We're no longer building mine plans based on historic ISR assumptions and averages.

We are developing mine plans based on science, engineering, and actual historic operating data. This is a fundamental step change in how we're forecasting wellfield performance and the life-of-mine schedule.

We're now at a level of technical sophistication compared to what is applied across more mature mining commodities. The model integrates the resource permeability, porosity, hydraulic connectivity, mineralogy, wide well spacing, flow rate, screening tools, and lixiviant chemistries.

It then simulates how fluid moves through the reservoir, how uranium dissolves, how PLS head grade changes over time, and how much acid and oxidant are consumed. The model has been calibrated against rich data set across both historic U1 Uranium One production and our current commercial operating data, across different wellfield spacings and designs, and off across different operating chemistries.

Each planned wellfield therefore receives its own production curve, reflecting its local geology, permeability, hydraulic connectivity, and geochemistry. These individual curves feed directly into the life-of-mine production schedule and reagent forecast.

The modeling itself is highly sophisticated, but the outcome is clear. We have a materially more predictive, technically rigorous, and defendable basis for wellfield design, production forecasting, and reagent planning.

This capability is central to our confidence in the new feasibility study. Turning to slide 20.

Wellfield spacing involves an important trade-off between recovery performance and development intensity. If the wells are too close, the lixiviant moves quickly from injector to extractor.

This results in rapid breakthrough, shorter residence time, lower solution enrichment, and sub-optimal recovery. It also requires substantially more wells and infrastructure.

As space increases, the lixiviant remains in contact with the mineralization for longer. This improves uranium dissolution and PLS grades, while reducing the number of wells and associated infrastructure.

However, spacing cannot increase indefinitely. At larger dif- distances, recovery becomes progressively slower and increasing dependence on hydraulic connectivity and operational controls.

Using the reactive transport model, we assessed the injector-to-extractor spacings from 35 to 70 meters across the Honeymoon deposit. The 49-meter injector-to-extractor spacing was selected as the base case for the new feasibility study.

It captures the material economic benefits of wider spacing, while maintaining a controlled hydraulic response. This is scalable, and increased spacing beyond 45- 9 meters remains a genuine optimization opportunity, which we'll continue to evaluate.

Turning to slide 21. This slide demonstrates the material change delivered by the wider-spaced wellfields.

Historically, we were operating under an injector-to-extractor spacing of 35 meters. The new feasibility study adopts a 49-meter injector-to-extractor spacing as a base.

By moving to 49 meters, the number of wells fall by 46%, the number of 8-pattern well fields falls by about 54%, the average residence time increases from approximately 80 to 150 days, allowing the lixiviant more time to interact with the mineralization. Modeling recovers recovery increases from approximately 80% to 90%.

Uranium recovered per extraction well more than doubles from 15,400 to 33,000 pounds, and the average PLS tenor increases by 28%. We expect acid consumption to increase modestly from approximately 6 to 8 kilograms per tonne under leaching, but it remains low by our ISR standards.

Collectively, this represents fundamental reduction in development intensity while improving recovery, PLS tenor, and uranium coverage per well. The 70-meter case fur- shows further potential to optimize beyond the 49-meter new feasibility base case, which we'll continue to test.

Turning to slide 22. This slide shows a subset of some of the benchmarking we have done.

We have benchmarked Honeymoon's design and operating plan against established ISR operations globally. Note that our plan did not come from benchmarking.

We are testing it against bench- benchmarking. The 49-meter injector-to-extractor spacing sits within the range used by large-scale ISR operations in Kazakhstan.

Honeymoon's modeled extraction extraction well flow rate of approximately 32 cubic meters per hour is substantially higher than typical global rates, reflecting the strong hydraulic connectivity and permeability demonstrated by our operating data. Acid consumption compares favorably due to our low levels of acid-consuming minerals and reactive clays.

We will require on average approximately 26 pore volumes equivalent to achieve 90% recovery, consistent with Kazakh benchmarking and significantly below benchmarking assumed in earlier Honeymoon studies. We are confident of the work we have done.

Turning to slide 23. Slide shows the wide wellfields plan for Honeymoon deposit on a 49-meter injector-to-extractor spacing.

Currently in production are B1 to B5 at Honeymoon and B6 at East Kalkaroo. The plan delivers approximately 13.8 million pounds of drum uranium over 9 years through FY35, with annual production peaking at 1.9 million pounds.

Includes 59 wellfields and approximately 134,000 wells and around around 8 new wellfields commissioned each year and an average of 16 operating at a time. Each wellfield is based on an 8 x 5-spot pattern using a 49-meter injector-to-extractor spacing with approximately 45 days allowed for conditioning.

Around 85% of the planned production is located within the mining lease. The remainder, 50%, is in the Honeymoon mine extension area, principally Brooks Dam North, and requires relevant approvals before development.

I'll now cover plant and as the associated infrastructure required to deliver the plan. We're now on slide 25.

The whole plan leverages Honeymoon's established operating infrastructure, requiring only targeted additional investments. The existing processing plant, trunklines, power, pond, workforce, and broader site infrastructure remains the foundation of the plant plan, and and processing flowsheet is unchanged.

Since restarting in April 2024, we have drummed more than 2.3 million pounds of uranium, demonstrating the performance of the existing lixiviant chemistry, resin loading, and elution columns. Under the plan, we will bring NIMCIX column 6 into operations during FY30 to match flow from the wellfields.

This will increase nominal flow capacity by 20% to approximately 2 2,940 cubic meters per hour. The other key investment is staged water plant expansion.

Water treatment is the principal enabler on how quickly we can condition and commission new wellfields, and ultimately, lift flow. Turning to slide 26.

As just mentioned, water treatment plant is the enabler for the wellfield development rate. It supplies the permeate water required to condition and flush each new wellfield.

The new feasibility study assumes around 8 new wellfields each year with approximately 45 days of conditioning per wellfield. The availability of the water treatment therefore sets the pace at which new wellfields can be brought online.

Stage 1 debottlenecks existing plant and lifts treatment capacity to approximately 130 cubic meters per hour. We've completed target in the first quarter of FY27.

Stage 2 is an additional duplicate water treatment plant, lifting RO capacity to around about 300 cubic meters per hour. This is targeted for completion the third quarter FY28 under the new feasibility study.

This is an area of the new feasibility study that we have not yet optimized, given the accelerated time frame of the study, noting the following. The plan is based on the requirement to flush 1 pore volume, while our operating history has averaged closer to 0.7 pore volumes.

Through optimization, we should be able to do better in than third quarter FY28 for a new water treatment plant. The ultimate goal is to push forward our ramp-up production profile.

Turning to slide 27. I'll just talk a little bit about about capital and and the schedule, we'll jump to slide 28.

Thanks. The new feasibility study sets out a staged production ramp-up aligned with the delivery of the required enabling infrastructure.

Production increases from approximately 1.3 million pounds in FY27 to 1.5 million pounds FY28, 1.7 million pounds in FY29. From FY30, FY33, production stabilizes at about 1.9 million pounds per year.

The water treatment expansions are de- designed to deliver in parallel and support the initial ramp-up. Construction of column 6 begins in FY29 with the column coming on online in FY30, increasing that flow capacity in the plant by about 20%.

From FY31, we also start beginning to reuse wellhouse infrastructure, reducing our sustainable capital requirements. There are two important steps to know.

The first is that FY27 to FY ramp-up has not yet been fully optimized. The second, the schedule is based solely on the Honeymoon deposit.

Gould's Dam and Jason's deposits are not included in this base case. These deposits will provide a pathway to sustaining or increasing production, extending production beyond what's currently presented today.

Turning to slide 29 and on looking at our unit cost. The unit cost profile reflects the staged production ramp-up.

C1 costs are higher during FY27 to FY29 transition period, given the fixed operating cost base. From FY30, when production reaches approximately 1.9, C1 costs falls, averaging around about $47 per pound.

Reagents are the largest um cost component around about 40%, followed by labor and G&A, around about 36%, which is the largely fixed component of our cost base. Accelerating the water treatment capacity will allow us to reach higher production rates sooner and potentially bring forward and lower unit costs.

This is our ultimate objective. Turning to slide 30.

Most life-of-mine capital related directly to sustaining development of the wellfields, making up approximately about 87- 84% of the total capital over the life of the asset. This this comprises the production wells, wellfield equipment, and first-fill reagents.

A typical well wellfield costs approximately between $5 to $7 million. This spending is phased in advance of the new wellfields coming online and and is committed as required to support the production profile.

There's about $58 million of processing enabling capital, including the water treatment plant and completion of NIMCIX columns, gypsum ponds, and associated pumping and trunklines with Brooks Dam. Majority of this enabling capital is spent the first three years and is associated mostly with water treatment plant.

Turning to slide 31. This slide demonstrates the material improvement in wellfield economics delivered by the wide spacing.

We have been discipline in limiting capital investment in wellfield development under the previous design, where the expected returns did not justify further investment. It has been a difficult balancing act.

The comparison between the historic B7 and part of the B9 wellfield and the wide-spaced EKT1 design is striking. It demonstrates a genuine step change between the previous design and the new design.

Under this comparison of the two wellfield designs, the new wellfield design sees a sustaining capital fall of approximately $22 per pound, sees a C1 cost reduction around about $12 per pound, it sees an all-in sustaining cost about $34 per pound or 31% decrease. At the stated uranium price, we see revenue less all-in sustaining cost increase by about $33 a pound.

We can see the returns delivered on a relative basis between both wellfield designs. The specific outcome will vary with each wellfield, but the conclusion is clear.

By recovering more uranium with substantially fewer wells and less infrastructure, the wide-spacing design materially improves unit costs and overall value to Honeymoon of an operation, and ultimately enables us to reduce that lower cut-off grade and and drive that 100 ppm. Turning to slide 32.

The new feasibility study establishes the sorry, we'll jump to the next one as well. Establishes the new pathway forward.

The outcomes of the new feasibility study um are really are clear. Study was completed on an accelerated time frame and with a deliberate defined scope.

Our focus was on establishing a robust technical and economic case for wide-spaced wellfield design. This plan itself is not optimum- optimized.

We have identified a number of areas where we can continue to improve and value enhance what we've delivered today. The first is water treatment plant and usage, which we talked about, and how we can continue to accelerate that, potentially reducing our conditioning and flushing times and ultimately bring forward that production profile.

Second is about wellfield deliveries and how ensuring that we can accelerate drilling, um construction, and commissioning in step with the water treatment plant capacity, while continuing to optimize wellfield spacing and pattern design. Third is we'll is recovery and reagents, increasing PLS tenor recoveries to use um spare back-end plant capacity, also look at how we can reuse first-fill reagents where practical.

Fourth is about plant and and um capacity efficiencies, including improving wellhouse capital costs, plant availability and throughput, and delivering low-capital debottlenecking initiatives. Together, these work streams provide us with the opportunity to accelerate that ramp-up profile and increase production and reduce unit cost.

For us, the feasibility study is the starting point. There is still work to be done as we continue to drive value.

Turning to slide 34. I think it's important to remember the new feasibility study is only focused on the Honeymoon deposit only.

It does not include Gould's Dam and Jason's. Together, these two deposits contain 45 million pounds of uranium, more than twice the current Honeymoon mineral resource.

Both have deposit characteristics similar to the Honeymoon deposit. They will be amenable to ISR development and the wide-spacing wellfield design.

For us, this is a significant strategic opportunity. We do not see these as isolated deposits requiring complete standalone developments.

We see the potential to development as part of the broader regional production hub, leveraging the processing infrastructure plant, infrastructure, workforce, and the ISR capability we have already at Honeymoon. We believe Gould's Dam and Jason's provide a genuine pathway to take production beyond the 1.9 million pounds, as we presented in the new feasibility study, and materially extend the life of the broader Honeymoon platform.

Let's quickly run through FY27 guidance and then our immediate execution priorities. We'll change to slide 20 36, sorry.

FY27 will be a transitional year as we move from the legacy wellfield spacing to the wide-spaced design confirmed by the new feasibility study. Production guidance is 1.25 to 1.3 million pounds.

This is based on 8 wellfields operating across Honeymoon and East Kalkaroo by June '27, with EKT1 coming online in the second quarter and EKT2 coming in on the fourth quarter. C1 cost guidance is $51 to $56 per pound and all-in sustaining cost guidance of $83 to $92 per pound.

Costs are higher than FY26 due to the lower grade from maturing legacy wellfields. Reagents represent more than half of the FY27 C1 cost, while lower production volumes result in higher fixed costs per pound.

Sustaining capital guidance is $33 million to $37 million, split broadly across drilling, wellfield equipment, and first-fill reagents. This spending is phased in line with the availability of water water treatment capacity.

Processing facility capital is $25 to $28 million, covering Stage 1 of the water treatment plant, progressing on and progression on Stage 2 and other supporting infrastructure. This gives us a total capital guidance of $58 to $64 million.

We have made discipline we have made disciplined decisions on limiting further investment in legacy wellfields, where the expected returns were not adequate. While this constrains near-term production, it has preserved capital for the wide-spacing wellfields that support the value-accretive ramp-up.

I'll just finish with some summaries and conclusions and some of our priorities from here, turn to slide 38. Before wrapping up, just want to recognize the people behind the work.

Um the new feasibility study has delivered on our accelerated time frame and continues as we continue to operate Honeymoon. The study really does demonstrate the technical capacity we built within Boss.

I'd like to sincerely thank the team, the broader team. There's more people that worked on it than this image, um and our partners who have worked on this study with us.

Turning to slide 39. We have a robust pathway forward for Honeymoon.

We have delivered a step change in economics, approximately $30 per pound lower lot from a like-for-like in the all-in sustaining basis with higher PLS head grades and around 50% less wellfield infrastructure. The plan delivers approximately 13.8 million pounds of uranium with 4- 8 years of production through to FY34, and life of C1 life-of-mine C1 cost approximately $50 per pound and all-in sustaining cost of $79 per pound.

The plan is underpinned by strong technical foundation. This is a robust case.

We have clear opportunities to accelerate the ramp-up and improve recovery and plant performance and reduce unit operating cost. Beyond Honeymoon, Gould's Dam and Jason's provides a potential capital-efficient pathway to increase production and extend the life of the broader platform.

The new feasibility gives us confidence in Honeymoon's future and a strong foundation from which we can continue to drive further value. Turning to slide 40.

Our priorities are straightforward. We need to execute the new feasibility plan and deliver the wide-spaced production plan.

We need to continue to optimize performance, including how we accelerate that ramp-up, increase recovery, reduce unit costs. We need to continue to unlock that regional growth through Gould's and Jason's with the potential to increase production and extend life-of-mine plan.

This is all ultimately enabled by our people, our strong balance sheet, our technical capability, our culture, and a clearly defined plan. Turning to slide 41, and I'll just close with leaving you with five key points.

We are an established uranium producer with technical and operating expertise, and we continue and you'll continue to see this being demonstrated. The new feasibility establishes a clear plan for Honeymoon through to FY34 and materially improves our cost structure and defining, executing priorities.

We have a strong financial platform. We have multiple opportunities to create further significant value leveraging existing infrastructure.

Finally, we're well in position in strength in a strengthening uranium market. We are producing uranium today, building inventory, and remaining strategically uncontracted at a time of rising global demand.

Thank you for joining, and um we'll pass across for Q&A.

good day, Matt, Justin, and team, and thank you for the presentation. Um just first question on the new feasibility study.

It says, looks like you're targeting 8 new wellfields per year at steady state. Um I think over FY27 you'll be getting to about 8 in total, I think the addition of another 2 new wellfields.

Um I guess what needs to happen sequentially to reach that to that 8 per year commissioning rate? What is the single biggest bottleneck besides the water treatment plant um that you've got?

Thanks.

Um I'll I'll jump in and then um Justin can also jump in on some of that commentary. Ultimately, the water treatment plant's the biggest bottleneck.

Anything else from that we can effectively manage. Um we don't see long lead items associated with the work establishment of the well well fields.

Um relatively simple including drilling, establishing casing, um purchasing of wellhouses and filters and construction. That real that real bottleneck that we're seeing is our ability to do that first flush.

Why we have to do that first flush is um because of the chlorides and calcium. We're just trying to get that that wellfield into that right chemistry state before we start um extraction.

We currently have four drill rigs. You mean, we wouldn't have to ramp up any more drill rigs or anything associated with that ramp-up profile.

I'll just I'll just quickly add to that. Alastair, just on your kind of historical to forecast comparison.

Historically, we we executed wellfields based on a 16-pattern wellfield. Under the new feasibility study with that 49-meter spacing, we've identified an 8-pattern wellfield as the as the optimal design.

Just when you're doing that historical to forecast run rate, um just recognizing that that that future run rate is half the number of patterns per wellfield.

Understood. Um second question, uh just on how that RTM model is going to be tested against actual, wellfield data.

I note that EKT1 has a mean residence time of about 180 days. Um so you won't have a full recovery curve on my numbers until sort of late FY27.

I'm assuming you'll probably have data prior to that to be able to validate the RTM model. I guess at what point in that recovery curve will you feel you've got enough data to really confirm the economics that are tracking that RTM modeling?

I'll I'll pass across to Olivier to put talk a little bit about some of that. Remember that we come from already a data-rich environment.

This has been calibrated calibrated to our all of historic production. Um we'll continue to refine that model.

EKT1 EKT1's at a 60- it's also at a 60-meter spacing, too, significantly larger than what we've chosen for the feasibility study. Um so and we'll continue to calibrate the model on our assumptions as we as we work through.

We're not expecting to see something material come out of EKT1 that changes what we've already seen and what we already understand. Um Olivier, do you want to just quickly talk about with that reactive transport model the calibrations and and what gives you comfort?

Sure. Um so you're you're right.

The the reactive transport simulations uh were calibrated uh based on all the the the the very huge set of data we we have from Uranium One history and uh and and Boss Energy uh production. Um and uh what has been calibrated, I mean the the the geochemistry first, and then the also part of the of the petrophysic property, porosity, permeability, uh which stay the same for for Honeymoon.

There is no no reason that will we'll have a different uh reactivity, a different leachability uh from what we already understood. Uh the the difference between what we what we have today in in term of operation and what will be in the future, it's just uh as uh increase of the of the distance between well.

Uh all the other this input data of the simulation would should remain very, very close. Pretty confident that we will not have uh huge variation.

Thank

Thanks, Olivier.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

I'll jump back in the queue.

Thanks, Alastair.

Hi, Matt, Justin, and the team. Very comprehensive presentation today.

Thanks for that. Um Matt, just in terms of talking about FY27 as a transformational year or transitional year, rather.

Um on the guidance of 1.25 to 1.3 million pounds of production, can you just give us a broad indication of, how much contribution this will come from legacy wellfields and how much from uh the new wide-space uh wellfield design? I guess by extension, can you give us any commentary as as to what you expect for exit uh production run rates um coming out of FY27?

Thank you.

Um so so I do talk to FY27 as a transition. Why we do that is, you mean, we have been disciplined on capital through this process.

It's been something that we've had to navigate where we where investment in in wellfields um under that legacy design, we've deliberately made a decision not to. There's a little bit of um catch-up as we try to work that through, and then also trying to also working through the with that constraint on the water treatment plant.

In terms of 1.25 to 1.3, around about 900,000 pounds um comes from legacy wellfields from for that production profile. Um where where we come out of FY27 is a ramp-up to ramp-up and we'll start to see that increase in terms of having additional well, some of those additional wellfields ready for wide space, um and we'll get up to that 1.5 that following year.

Perfect. That's very clear.

Thanks for that. Maybe just quickly one more.

You talk about um a target of 1.9 million pounds per annum um in the future. Do you have any sort of broad indication as to when you might expect that, and any other broader bottlenecks um beyond the uh water treatment plant?

Um conscious that you have addressed some of these points in the previous question, but any other considerations or constraints um that might um put at risk uh that 1.9 million pounds per annum target production level? Thanks.

Yeah. Um so we talk to that ramp-up production level, we reach that 1.7 in FY29 and we reach the 1.9 in at uh FY30.

Um that's from the feasibility-level study. The constraints on that are really relatively um it's all got to do with that water treatment plant.

Um and when we do that water treatment plant, what we have done is assumed a point a 1 pore volume. That's 1 pore volume is you need that's the sort volume you need to flush um one of those wellfields.

Currently, we're doing about 0.7. There's a little bit of room there that we may be able to optimize um and bring that forward.

1.9 is just about that run rate. Um plant can do about 2.

Um so there's a little bit of room to move between that 1.9, maybe 2. Um once you get about 2, you may have to invest a little bit more in terms of the precip circuit um to get to about a 1.4.

Look would to get up that production rate further, then we would be looking at how Jason's fits into that production profile, um how we accelerate Jason's and continue to bring in that production profile beyond that 1.9. Right.

Thanks a lot. Looking forward to going through the detail.

Cheers.

Thanks, Tom.

morning, guys. Thanks for the comprehensive update.

Um just on you're talking about Gould's and Jason's, is it a bit too early to discuss on when they could potentially um come in to get, this new nameplate above 2 [again?] , and and closer to your export license?

Yep. Um I'll just say that's the now we've come out and we've got a solid base for Honeymoon, that's the big value driver of is Gould's and Jason's.

Um we did provide a updated mineral resource statement for Gould's and Jason's, I think it was March-April, um this calendar year. We took took learnings out of Honeymoon when we came up with that mineral resource um statement, comfortable with that position.

In in that statement, we talked to permitting. The the the um time frame there is permitting.

We we say around about 2 to 3 years for permitting. Um and that's the time frame that we'll be working towards.

Yeah. Then just with I guess, second question, then on that resource, does that need to be right-sized again, um given what you've done with Gould's, i.e., like strip out the clay, um and and and lower the cut-off grade, or?

No. Oh, sorry.

That the resources at Gould's and Jason's are reported at 250. Um so so, but we've applied the learnings from Honeymoon to Jason's and Gould's in terms of our ability to understand permeability, um consideration of material in clay, um resource classification, um and making sure that high-grade mineralization is tightly constrained.

Yeah. Okay.

Cool. Thanks a lot.

That's that's my two for now, I'll pass it on.

Thanks, Dim.

Hey. Thanks, guys.

Um and thanks for the the update as well. Um I know we've we've discussed um I guess Honeymoon's technical um I guess challenges and and and leading to the uh feasibility, like the feasibility study for a while.

The team's clearly done um a very substantial body of work to underpin uh the new plan. I was I was just wondering if we could hear a bit more from um Olivier.

I I appreciate you making yourself available for the call for us. Um but yeah, just on I guess how the methodology was developed, some of the challenges uh that were encountered, and I guess where you see some of the residual technical risk.

Um and

maybe kind of going specifically into um I guess that the plant extrapolates into some undeveloped um areas with different local geology and permeability. Um how how do you see I guess that the risk of modeling into I guess those unknown zones?

Um yeah, might might might just, yeah, stop there.

Okay. Um thanks, Daniel.

The call was pretty hard to hear, I'll just repeat that back for Olivier to answer. Olivier, Daniel was just asking if you can provide a bit of a snapshot in terms of from your experience um how we've used that the reactive transport model, how that relates, a little bit about what you're like what we're likely to see in terms of local variants, and then from your perspective, what do you think the main risk are.

Olivier, if you just can pull that talk through some of that.

There's a

There was a lot in that question, so it was more like Daniel Daniel was just asking for some of your views.

Yeah. I'll try to yeah.

Try to to to to to summarize a little bit. Um as you as you have may uh noticed actually, um the methodology to to let's say underpin all the let's say um understanding of the recovery and then to to uh provide the optimized sequence and production uh profile has, let's say, changed uh a lot compared to uh to previous studies.

Uh and actually from the beginning, we have considered all this uh all this risk from the very beginning. They are most of um most of them uh integrated in the in the modeling workflow.

Uh that's very that has been a a study uh really very focused about uh de-risking. By integrating all the let's say operating data, hydrology, metallurgic test work, and uh this work uh uh with the calibration of uh reactive transport modeling uh using uh all the data we we had.

We and we had uh a very a very comprehensive uh set of data since uh 2011. Interest- interestingly also, we we we had these uh previous uh database coming from Uranium One time where they were operating differently with different spacing also, with different chemistry.

Having all this data really allowed us to uh to consider from from the beginning uh all let's say the main uh characteristic that needs to be taken in account to de-risk uh the uh the forecast of for the recovery. Uh the really to to make a big effort to have a 3D uh permeability uh block model, and then to have uh let's say the integration of all the mineralogical studies uh to integrate of course the the the the the the production results, uh uh making the the calibration of the of the simulation against this production uh results.

Uh what really gives me confidence um is that uh the Honeymoon is a operating asset. Uh, of course, uh from one wellfield to to another uh wellfield, we we we we could have some variants because of we we are not, let's say, knowing all the and uh all the uncertainties.

Uh compared with uh what was done in the past, I think that this study is very, very strong in terms of uh let's say, integrating the the the the risk in the process from from the very beginning. Hope I have answered part of your question.

Yeah. Thanks, Thanks, Olivier.

Daniel, Olivier will join us in Sydney as well, and we can we'll provide like a a really quite a detailed technical overview um as part of that session as well.

Perfect. I really appreciate the uh the response there, guys.

To And sorry about that um heard the um quality before. Um maybe maybe just a quick follow-up on that.

Um I I guess when you've you've clearly done a lot of um I guess uh, variability modeling and and sensitivities, like I was wondering if um if you could verbally just describe um, I guess in in some of those different elements and different um scenarios that you were modeling, like what where has the largest um, I guess, sensitivity uh sat, and, what would you be um, I guess, looking at as a potential source of um, I guess, operational risk over the coming years?

Yeah. Um, it's quite a quite a good question.

Probably we're in a better position where we've been able to actually model some of that um and run those through sensitivities. We can we've looked at different chemistries, we've looked at dif- different drill spacings, we've looked at um acid and reagent construm- consumptions.

I think the ultimately it all comes And I think it's like any mining project, the biggest one of the biggest variables is is resource. Um, but we've so also f- done an incredible amount of work in terms of um of that resource, that resource model.

Still work to be done. Um we've got to get that inferred into indicated indicated, and we'll continue to improve the resource to actually help and improve the modeling, so that so comfortable on an annualized basis, but but really get good at forecasting um down production and managing the variance on a shorter-term intervals.

Yeah. No, perfect.

Thanks, guys. I will uh hand it over.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Daniel.

hi, team. Um, could you please confirm the plant capacity versus the 1.9 million per annum production profile for Honeymoon?

Um I believe that the plant was previously going to be able to do 2.4 million pounds per annum. I'm just wondering why that is now limited versus the prior estimates.

Then if you decided to bring on Jason's or Gould's Dam um before Honeymoon resource depleted, what the max production could be and what limits that and what is needed to increase the capacity further? Thanks.

Thank you. Some good questions in there as well.

Um, yes, the nominal nominal plant capacity was 2.4 million pounds. It gets a little bit tricky cuz we talk to uh plant capacity in in uranium metal, um, but what we've done there's two components to to plant capacity.

One is flow, and so we in the presentation we talked about flow and making sure we've got flow capac- flow. Flow for an ISR would be equivalent to tonnes in a traditional mining, and then uranium would be a tri- to metal.

Back end of the plant, yes, we've got capacity. Maybe a little bit more um uh maybe a little bit more capital we need to do to reach 2.4 in terms of metal.

We're a little bit will be flow-constrained from wellfields, um and that's where you get because of the lower grade going in. That's where you kind of uh reach that 1.9 versus the plant really being constrained.

Um

Gould's and Gould's and Jason's, how still got to do work on Gould's and Jason's, um this is this this is a lot of work by the technical team has been to reach this point for the feasibility study. Now we're shifting that focus on to Gould's and Jason's to deliver the same level of confidence and planning and technical work.

Um, how I'm talk how I talk is just from my my experience versus having the studies in front of us. Um I Gould's Jason's would be likely be a pipeline, there'll be flow, there's ability to potentially increase grade.

Grade out of Jason's matched with lower grade out of um Honeymoon and sequencing wellfields can get us up to around about 2.4 if we can bring flow. Um Gould's Dam would be likely to be resin loading, therefore the flow doesn't become constrained, um and therefore you'd be back-end constrained.

You could see Gould's adding more production without being requiring a lot of construc- uh capital either. Um the idea is to talk a little bit more about those once we've advanced some of the studies.

That makes sense. Just a second one on the capital for development for Jason's and Gould's Dam, should we assume similar sustaining and wellfield capex as outlined for Honeymoon, um plus a trunkline capex to transport back to the processing plant?

Then just if so, what the quantum of that would be. Thank you.

I won't talk to quantums because I haven't we haven't done the studies, but if you were carrying those forward into into models, that would be a fair assumption just to assume Honeymoon Honeymoon cost structures. Great.

Makes sense. Thank you.

thanks for the follow-up, guys. Um, it's been mentioned ad nauseam about the water treatment plant as the key piece of infrastructure.

Um, could you just give us a sense of where you are right now on procurement and engineering for Stage 2? I guess what the key items on that critical path are at the moment?

I can, um, Alastair. Literally just finished the feasibility study.

Um, but we recognize so what we've done in the feasibility study is just carry forward the assumptions in the feasi- and in the feasibility study, is just carry forward the assumptions in the feasibility study, which assumes about an 18 uh month period. Um, which it which also has 6 months of design, procurement uh carrying forward.

We have not yet optimized that um that plan. What a what a water treatment plant consists of is a series of tanks, um softener tanks, clarifiers, uh clarifiers, and um some filtration, it's not a it's not And we've got one in in place.

The original the plant that's in place was built by Uranium One, and it's been slightly upgraded. They built that plant towards the end of their experience at Honeymoon, recognizing the problem.

We'll end up probably end up copying the chemistry across from that, works well, and replicate. I I personally think there's room to move on that 18 months, but given given that we've accelerated everything in the feasibility study, we just chose to um not worry about optimizing yet.

That's just part of the work we got to do going forward. Yeah.

Okay. Understood.

Um, and then just another one. You've got a pretty solid cash and inventory balance at the moment.

Um, you've clearly got a cap- capital program ahead of you with Honeymoon, and that's going to be a focus. Just wanted to ask how you're still thinking about M&A at the moment.

You still have that position in Laramide as well, yeah, just curious how you're approaching that given uh your focus on Honeymoon at the moment.

Yep. Another good question.

We'll probably talk a little bit more at the market day, but coming in on sitting into the role, I think we were more thinking about M&A. One thing that's come out of this feasibility study is how um how our actual internal portfolio looks.

Previously, when we looked at Jason's and Gould's, and the team looked at Jason's and Gould's, we never really got excited about them because we were struggling to to recognize how we develop them um and how we get that cost structure. When you looked at it under a cost structure, you just didn't get a You got a poor resource to mining or wellfield inventory conversion.

Now how we look at Gould's and Jason's, this is quite material for us, um and we we like those assets quite significantly. The best thing we can do for shareholders is is bring those to account.

Um and that's really where our focus is.

Gotcha. Okay.

Thanks, guys.

Yeah. Morning, guys.

Um first question was just around your level of confidence on the life-of-mine cost outlook, just given, on our numbers, it looks like there's really limited free cash flow margin to work with. Just keen to understand what the potential error band here is as we move forward.

I'll get Justin to talk through that one.

Thanks, Branko. In terms of that outlook for cost structures, I'll just break down the different components a little bit.

Um, in terms of that C1 cost between FY27 and FY29, um obviously that production run rate isn't optimized, and so we have a higher fixed cost per pound. The opportunity for '27 to '29 is really to um in to to try to optimize that production profile to reduce that fixed cost base.

Overall, as we as we then kind of look out over the life of mine, we're quite confident in that C1 cost per pound. A lot of that is based on the existing uh the existing workforce and reagent consumption data that we already have.

In terms of that C1 cost, we're we're comfortable with that. In terms of the wellfield sustaining capital, a lot of that estimate is based on actuals that we see to date.

Um we have uh been relatively conservative in some of our assumptions in terms of uh reuse of wellfield infrastructure. Um as well as in another example is for all of the wells that we've assumed in the life of mine, we've assumed all new wells for that.

In terms of wellfield capital, comfortable in our base case assumption. Again, um feel like we have opportunities to optimize that.

Probably the the area of of cost that has um uh uh we don't necessarily have actual data to support it is probably just the water treatment plant. You can see in the feasibility study we we outline um that confidence interval for the water treatment plant.

Um but that that total capital for water treatment and and other process facilities capital is only around 15% of that life-of-mine capital. It's a much smaller proportion.

I appreciate that one. Second question, just around the revised resource estimate.

It looks like there's a large reliance on the inferred resource, particularly post-2030. I just wondered if you could talk to how you plan to firm up this resource estimate, and I guess why the measured resource from the original study was removed as a part of this new feasibility outcome.

Yeah. Good question.

Yes, so that inferred portion makes up um makes up a a part of that life part of that plan, um production profile. The reason for that declassification is that we're still working through some of that resource.

We still have a lot of confidence on that resource. Um we've gone back through historic data um and we'll continue to update.

At the time we had to come out with resource to feed into the life-of-mine feasibility study, we also didn't have all that drill drilling completed. At some point we'll continue to work through that resource um and provide another update.

I don't perceive that to be a lot of risk uh myself on that resource. I think it's well-informed.

I think we've done a done an incredible amount of work um to to where we were at um with that resource and geological understanding.

All right. Makes sense.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Um as we've seen through, there's a lot of information that we had to work through in the new feasibility study.

Again, I'd just like to acknowledge the team for getting us there. Um like I've said, Honeymoon now, we've now got a solid foundation for Honeymoon, and we look up look forward to continuing add value um to the asset and bringing forward Gould's and Jason's as we move forward.

Thanks, everyone.