Thank you, Ashley. Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for dialling in to the Boss Energy December quarterly conference call. Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO.

We will be both happy to take questions at the end of this call. Turning to slide two, there's been another significant quarter for the company, which I'll talk through during the call.

Some of the key highlights include: we delivered record quarterly production of 456,000 lbs of uranium drummed, up 18% on the prior quarter. C1 cash costs for the quarter were $30 per pound, down 12% from the prior quarter, with all-in sustaining costs of $49 per pound, down 3%.

Average price of $112 per pound or US$74 per pound was realised with sales of $39.3 million. Alta Mesa produced 143,000 lbs of uranium drummed, of which Boss received 68,000 lbs during the quarter.

We continue to build drummed inventory to 1.62 million lbs, up 175,000 lbs or 12% on the prior quarter. The balance sheet remains strong with $208 million of cash and liquid assets, including $53 million of cash.

We remain on track to deliver FY '26 production guidance of 1.6 million lbs and are pleased to announce downward revision of guidance of C1 and all-in sustaining costs. On the 18th of December, we announced the conclusion of the Honeymoon review and outlined a clear pathway forward for Honeymoon asset, with a new feasibility study initiated.

This fundamental change to our wellfield design will enable an increase in residence time of lixiviant, reduce our cost structure, unlock lower grade mineralisation, improve the production profile and extend the life of mine. Now turning to slide three.

As noted, this was a quarter of record drummed production at Honeymoon, with production of 456,000 lbs of uranium drummed. This is up 18% on the prior quarter, reflecting a continued run on quarter-on-quarter growth since Boss commenced production in April 2024.

IX production was up 8% on the prior quarter with 406,000 lbs produced with increased flow achieved from four wellfields, B1 to B4, being online for the whole quarter. Key activities for the upcoming quarter will include the completion of commissioning of NIMCIX columns four and five.

Flushing for wellfields B5 is underway and expected to begin production in the coming few days. We're expecting production in the third quarter to be softer than in the current quarter before lifting again in quarter four to deliver the 1.6 million lbs production guidance for the full financial year.

The pullback in the coming quarter is due to phasing of wellfields with an expected decline in average tenor. This quarter will also have a major shut associated with the tie-ins of columns four and five, along with power upgrades.

In quarter four, we expect an increase in production as wellfield B5 will be running for the full quarter and will also bring in wellfield B6 coming online at the very back end of the quarter. This wellfield B6 will be the first of the wellfields to operate at Far East Calc-Roo.

Turning to slide four. As noted earlier, C1 cash costs for the quarter was $30 per pound.

This was lower than both the original guidance of $41 to $45 per pound and the prior quarter of $34 per pound. This was a great achievement as we continue to see positive results from lixiviant optimisation programs, reagent optimisation in the plant and other cost reduction programs driving cost savings and productivity improvements.

The all-in sustaining costs for the quarter was $49 per pound, below original guidance of $64 to $70 per pound. The main variance relates to lower C1 cash cost and the phasing of new wellfield sustaining capital spend.

Where there is an opportunity to delay wellfield capital expenditure under existing plan, we are taking this decision while we execute the new feasibility study. We do not want to be spending capital under non-optimal plan.

Project and supporting infrastructure capital costs increased in the quarter to $11 million from $9 million in the prior quarter. Of the $11 million spent in the current quarter, $4.5 million of this related to ongoing completion of the NIMCIX columns, $6.5 million of the $11 million related to wellfield supporting infrastructure for East Calc-Roo, with $4 million spent on the trunk line, monitoring wells and high voltage power upgrades, and $2 million spent on delineation drilling.

In terms of guidance for the remainder of FY '26, we continue to reconcile production guidance of 1. reconfirm production guidance of 1.6 million lbs of drummed uranium.

We are also pleased to revise downwards our C1 cash costs and all-in sustaining cost guidance. Our new C1 cash cost guidance is $36 to $40 per pound, down from the previous guidance of $41 to $45 per pound.

All-in sustaining cost guidance has also been reduced from $64 to $70 per pound to a new revised guidance for FY '26 of $60 to $64 per pound. This is largely driven by the team's efforts to increase productivity and efficiencies while reducing costs for the business.

This is an area that we'll continue to focus on. Sustaining costs remains mostly consistent as we balance this potential transition from existing plan to a new wide spaced wellfield design.

Where possible, we do not want to spend capital on executing a suboptimal plan. It is in the shareholders' interest that we defer as much of this capital as possible in parallel to the execution of the new feasibility study.

Project and supporting infrastructure capital has been increased by $3 million, from $27 million to $30 million to new guidance of $30 to $33 million for the full financial year. This increase is primarily due to the inclusion of the Honeymoon delineation drill program.

Turning to slide five. The company is in a strong financial position, and I continue to reinforce that we are very well positioned to fund what we need to do as a business to drive value.

We close the quarter with no debt and $208 million of cash and liquid assets. Cash increased from $47.8 million to $52.9 million at the end of the quarter.

There's been a slight decline in the total cash and liquid assets quarter-on-quarter due to mark-to-market declines in fair value for our strategic equity shareholdings. Drummed uranium inventory increased during the quarter from 1.44 million lbs to 1.62 million lbs.

We continue to view this inventory as strategic for the company as we continue to see tightening of the uranium market. Sales during the quarter consisted of 350,000 lbs at an average realised price of US$74 per pound or Australian $112 per pound.

First delivery into a legacy contract will occur in Q3 and will continue in Q4. This contract is linked to the Honeymoon mining license from when Boss originally acquired the asset.

The contract is for a maximum of 1.7 million lbs linked to either 20% of the previous calendar year's production or a maximum quantity of 250,000 lbs per year. This contracted material, 250,000 lbs, will reflect a realised price of approximately 65 to $70 70% of the spot price for those pounds.

Moving to slide six. In terms of our 30% stake in Alta Mesa, a joint venture with enCore, production for the quarter totalled 143,000 lbs on a 100% basis during the quarter.

Boss received 68,000 lbs of drummed production during the quarter. The production decline was associated with the timing of bringing new wellfields online.

Additional modules are currently being installed at wellfield seven and wellfield three. Drilling at Alta Mesa East continued to confirm the potential extensions of mineralisation from Alta Mesa West.

Turning to slide seven. As noted, on the 18th of December, we released the findings of the Honeymoon review and have identified a clear pathway forward, a pathway that we are genuinely excited about, it's a pathway that has the potential to unlock significant value for the company.

We have commenced work on a new feasibility study centered around the alternative wellfield design, which has the potential to reduce operating costs and sustaining costs, unlock lower grade mineralisation, improve our production profile and extend the life of mine plan. Successful delivery of this new wellfield design at Honeymoon would also have a positive impact on our satellite deposits.

This significant program of work has been initiated as we work towards delivery of the new feasibility study, including continuation of the resource delineation, additional sample collection to improve geology, geometallurgy and hydrological characterisation has commenced. Additional reactive transport simulations have also been completed.

We continue to advance the updated mineral resource model and we have completed planning for trial test work patterns, with drilling also commenced on establishing these trial wide spaced patterns. Turning to slide eight.

Work progressed during the quarter on advancing the technical and baseline studies at Goulds and Jason satellite deposit. An updated mineral resource statement and timeline of work required to provide the permanent pathway will be provided in this coming quarter.

It is worth noting that the wide space wellfield design that is being developed as part of the new feasibility study could potentially significantly improve the recoverable uranium metal and reduce capital intensity and C1 costs both at Jason's and Gould's Dam. Turning to slide nine.

Provide a quick summary of the quarter and our priorities: we delivered record quarter production at Honeymoon, which is a credit to the team. Production was our highest ever quarter with 456,000 lbs of uranium produced.

This was at a C1 cost of $30 per pound and an all-in sustaining cost of $49 per pound. Given the results of optimisation, productivity and cost reductions, we have revised our guidance downward for both C1 and all-in sustaining cost, while maintaining our production guidance of 1.6 million lbs for FY '26.

The company's financial position continues to strengthen in the quarter, with cash of $53 million and total cash and liquid assets of $208 million, as we continue to build inventory, which is now at 1.62 million lbs of uranium. Work has commenced on the new feasibility study, which defines a clear pathway forward to unlock significant value both to the Honeymoon deposit, but also to Goulds and Jason's.

Before moving to Q&A, I'd also note that during the quarter, Wyatt Buck, our Chairman, has informed the board of his intentions to step down as Chair. Upon appointing of a new Chair, Wyatt will continue to apply his extensive uranium operational and technical expertise as a non-executive director on the board.

I'm grateful to Wyatt, who has supported me and stepped into the CEO and MD role, and him wanting to continue to assist the company as a non-executive director. With that, I'll hand back to Ashley, the operator, for questions and answers.

Oh g'day Matt and team. First question just on that contract, that legacy contract that you've called out.

You mentioned it's 65 to 70% of the spot price is going to be the realised price for that. Just wondering, is that implying that you're going to have part of that as fixed contract and you're estimating that it will be about 65 to 70% of the prevailing spot price?

Or is it still a spot price mechanism and it's just at a lower percentage of the spot price? I'm just looking for a bit more colour on how that pricing mechanism works.

Hey Alistair, thanks for your question. It's Justin here.

The precise terms of that contract are commercially sensitive. It does have a couple of different tranches for that contract and has different pricing mechanisms for those tranches.

Given that commercial sensitivity, what we have done is tried to simplify for you with noting that it would be 65 to 70% of the spot price at the time of delivery.

Thanks Justin. Appreciate that.

Second question just about the outlook for quarterly production. You've flagged that it's going to be declining in the third quarter for FY '26 and then lifting again in the fourth quarter with the connection of some additional wellfields.

Including those wellfields is the East Calc-Roo, I think B6. That's the first wellfield coming in from East Calc-Roo.

Can you just remind me, are you still anticipating those East Calc-Roo production levels to boost your production at the mine? Sort of what are your expectations for production performance from the East Calc-Roo wellfields?

Alistair. We remind you in next quarter will be a little bit softer compared to current quarter, but reminding ourselves that we'll finish the final actual year at 1.6.

B6 from Far East Calc-Roo will come into production at the back end of that quarter. It's not heavily weighted in terms of delivery of the 1.6 of that B6 production profile.

B6 will provide production profile into FY '27. One of the things we're also considering is just balancing between delivery of this new feasibility study and continuing to support sustaining capital into that future production profile.

What we're wanting to do is make sure that, if we can, we're deferring capital going into existing plan while we complete that new feasibility study.

That's clear. That's my two.

Cheers.

Morning, team. Thanks for the update.

Just hoping you can share a bit more detail on plans to test the new wellfield design. Any colour on what areas are currently being developed with that strategy?

How long could you need to test it and get confidence in effectiveness?

Yep. Hey Henry, it's Matt.

As I noted in the commentary, we've planned those test work patterns associated with wide spacing. They vary, okay, they actually vary in spacing and location.

Initial programs actually has commenced in terms of establishing some of those test work patterns around the Honeymoon resource as we currently have defined it, extension to that Honeymoon B1 to B5. Some of that spacing within that area varies.

One of the plan patterns will be up to 100 m spacing. We also plan as part of the feasibility study to also test Far East Calc-Roo on a wide spacing.

B6 becomes quite an important part too to this new feasibility study because B6 is on that original plan of close spacing. We're wanting to compare B6 production with wide spacing program production at the Far East Calc-Roo.

In terms of time frame, that will all fit into that delivery of the new feasibility study due in Q3.

Perfect. Thanks, Matt.

A second one from me. Any other detail you could share on recent drilling performance, I guess over the last month since we got the updates late last year?

Grade thickness sort of in line with the results being observed before or a bit of an improvement, or perhaps not as good as the block model suggested?

Good question. The results can generally confirm what we're expecting.

We are seeing some open up of mineralisation to the south at Far East Calc-Roo, which are opening up some exploration areas that will come out, hitting some high grade mineralisation outside of design. Holistically continue to confirm what we're seeing, where we're seeing continuity of lower grade mineralisation with high grade mineralisation, but not necessarily as continuous as we previously had thought.

Got it. Thanks, Matt.

G'day, guys. Thanks for taking my question.

Just wanted to ask I guess back to the contracts that you've disclosed, and I just wanted to get some clarity on maybe some of the other contracts under your book. I know you've got several that you've signed over the past few years.

Are you in a position to be able to provide I guess a sensitivity on at various price points that those various contracts and mechanisms might influence on your realised pricing? How should we think about that?

Maybe something you can probably answer right now, but what volume of your production expectations for FY '26 and '7 are contracted?

I'll jump in, and then I'll hand across to Justin. Ultimately as a business, we'll try and provide as much transparency as we can.

It's one of the things we are talking about is how do we continue to provide that transparency on those contracts and potentially look at doing that at some point as we work through the business. In terms of this contract, it represents about 15% of production at 1.6 million lbs.

Still, what's important to note is a company, we remain significantly uncontracted. Our contract book represents about 3 million lbs out to early 2030, it doesn't change that position in terms of us being relatively uncontracted.

What we tried to do in this is just provide a little bit of look-through on realised pricing that you'll see in Q3 and Q4 as a result of that legacy contract. Still highly exposed to uranium price as we see uranium price tighten, but through our contracting strategy and the inventory that we do hold.

I don't know if you had any Yep. Sorry, yep Daniel, you

Yep. Sure, yep, yeah.

That 15% for 1.6 in '26, that's the only contract that is applicable for FY '26, is that 15%? Or the 250,000 lbs?

There are additional contracts that we will be delivering into in calendar year 2026. Those contracts have a mix of base escalated and market-related with floors and ceilings.

For Q3 of this financial year, most of those pounds have already been executed in terms of a forward sale or delivery into this legacy contract. From Q4 onwards of this financial year, then coming into Q1 and Q2 of the next financial year to complete calendar year 2026, we are mostly under-contracted for that period.

If you were to look further ahead in terms of calendar year 2027 onwards, our current contract book would get you a realised price that's probably around mid-80s to low-90% in terms of a correlation to the spot price at the time of delivery. Right,

perfect. That's very helpful, thank you.

Just a last one from me, but, as you go through the process of building and designing wide spaced wellfields patterns, obviously there's some lead time into that, and I noted B6 is going to be under the original wellfield design and plan. At what point do you start needing to, I guess, allocate some of the capital changes and capital spend?

I imagine it's FY '27, but I guess from my perspective that would seem like it would be, I guess front-running or pre the final study results release. I guess how do you think about deferring some of that CapEx?

What's the amount of CapEx that I guess you would need to commit pre the final results of the study?

This is where we're working to work in that balance while we're completing the new feasibility study and also having to ensure that we can provide that production profile going forward. Ultimately from a market perspective, we'll be able to provide all that transparency with the new feasibility study to give an understanding of total capital and sustaining capital over that life with that study.

Having said that, we are managing within what we're saying with our guidance both on a sustaining and total capital for execution of these trial patterns. What you're seeing is we haven't changed sustaining and or total capital for projects but only by that $1 million and $3 million respectively.

That includes the trial patterns that we're doing as part of the new feasibility study. Those patterns include uranium pounds, which we haven't yet allocated either to any production profile.

I'll just add to that as well. It is a balance, but there is a lot of wellfield capital that will still be relevant regardless of the wellfield design.

Examples of that would be the well house, the pumps, some of the surface infrastructure, pipes, cables. A lot of that would be relevant regardless of the spacing of the wellfield, and so we're continuing to invest in that type of wellfield infrastructure.

Where we are holding back a little bit is in terms of drilling production wells as that could materially change depending on the spacing of the wellfield.

Got it. Just a clarification, make sure I'm just understanding it correctly, but I suppose the findings of the wide space drilling won't change the pre-committed capital spend for this studies and projects and you're not going to have to go in and rework some of the infrastructure if the study and findings I guess outline something different.

There's not really going to be a change in I guess capital expenditure expectations from yourselves depending on the study outcomes?

No, we don't expect any changes, Daniel, and the updated guidance that we've provided today reflects our latest view, and we don't expect any changes to that view for the financial year. All right,

understood. Thanks, guys.

Hi Matt and Justin, thanks for taking my questions. Just on commissioning of column four, looks like it's a little bit delayed there.

Would have thought that you would have wanted to have that up and running as you saw the leach tenors coming off to sort of balance that production. I guess is there something that's intentional there, or was there something else that sort of hiccuped that?

It's it has it is a little bit delayed in terms of that original schedule, but it's not really the key driver. The key driver actually is the flushing of B B5, and that will increase flow.

Although although you see it as a delay here, one of the drivers to where we are probably is about a month a month on B5 relatively.

It's driven by the wellfields. It's just columns themselves.

Correct, it's all linked together.

Yep. Then just on obviously the results from the wide spaced pattern, from I guess that original call, you said it would take up to sort of 90 days to get some initial results coming through.

Curious I guess you're still targeting sort of Q3 feasibility study time frame to release those results from the wide spaced pattern. Are we going to get an update before then on whether or not this is successful?

Regan, as we're trying to do, we'll provide as much transparency and inform the market as we get data. How we've designed the feasibility study is to ensure that happens by breaking it up into components.

Yes, the answer is, yeah, we're happy to try and give as much clarity as we work through it.

Great. If I could just squeeze one in.

Any sort of driver why Alta Mesa performance drops so materially quarter-on-quarter?

You saw that drop in production. Again, timing on wellfields really becomes critical in these ISRs, and that's a reflection at Alta Mesa as well as they look at bringing in new additional wellfields and extending wellfields onto and prospectivity onto Alta Mesa East project.

Great. I'll leave it there.

Thank you for taking my questions.

Hi guys. Thanks for the call.

Just one from me. How should we be thinking about sales over this second half?

Is it going to be broadly consistent with what we've seen in this quarter or yeah, should we be expecting it to move higher? Hi Milan,

I'll take that question. In terms of sales quantities, as we've said, we will continue to see sales quantities roughly in line with production.

In terms of realised price for quarter three this financial year, we'll obviously have the 125,000 lbs of the legacy contract, and then the remainder of the Q3 sales were largely executed in the prior quarter, they'll be based on a forward sales price from the prior quarter. For Q4 in this financial year, we'll have 125,000 lbs of the legacy contract, again will be in that range of 65 to 70% of the spot price, and then we're still yet to execute the forward sales for Q4 of this financial year, so that remains uncontracted.

Just in terms of delivering sales into those legacy contracts, how should we be thinking about that? Are you kind of going to be looking to maximise those sales at 250 per quarter or so, or would you be looking to kind of extend it out sort of a bit further?

The exact timing of the 250,000 lbs is out of our hands. That's based on the terms of the contract.

The utility advises a delivery date, which is consistent with other utility contracts, and we then deliver into that contract at the date advised by the utility.

Thanks. That's it for me.

Good morning guys. Just on the topic of royalties, just want to confirm if Honeymoon is now in a position that they're required to pay royalties moving forward.

I guess my understanding was you weren't required to pay royalties across the first 1.25 million lbs, and I feel you just clicked over that in terms of sales.

We are commencing to start to pay royalties, Branko, and we'll see that in this half.

Thanks for that. The other question I had was just on the topic of fixed costs.

I know you're not disclosing it anymore in your quarterlies, but it inferred about $7 million Aussie per quarter in the second half of FY '25, and just was wondering if that was kind of a sensible run rate to be assuming over the next 12 or so months.

Branko, yeah, we haven't disclosed fixed cost. The fixed cost proportion is largely consistent with what we've previously disclosed, though.

All right, cool. Thanks, all.

Good morning, guys, and congrats on the results from the core area. Just a question around that legacy contract.

You're saying the counterparty is a utility there, but is there any chance that you could buy your way out of that contract at all?

I think that's something that we probably look at whether we want to or not. Probably the ideal position would have been to do that earlier than where we're at, but ultimately it becomes a small part of the production profile as we go forward, too.

Great. I guess apologise if I've missed it, but this is the first time that this has been disclosed.

Have you now gone through and checked pretty much everything? Is there any other artifacts here which could come back and bite you?

I feel comfortable that from a sales and contracting perspective, it's all there. Like I said previously, we can try and provide a little bit more transparency on some of that.

We talked about that and when the right catalyst and the time going forward is, but it's a three with contracting position, 3 million lbs out through to 2030, again, relatively deleveraged from contracting.

Understood. Thank you.

Just around the PLS tenor, you're telling us not to extrapolate that because it is performing better than the previous feasibility study. Do you have any guidance around the profile that's going to have from the core area?

How will it trend downwards?

We haven't disclosed that, but PLS head grade will come down as we see some of the life of those wellfields continuing to drop, and then with B5 coming back online, PLS tenor will jump again. It's all got to do with that sequencing of wellfields with the tenor.

Having B5 come in line enables us to continue to increase flow, and that's with column four also coming into production profile.

Understood. Thank you, Matt.

That was all.

No problems, James.

Morning, Matt. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify the legacy contract again.

It's the maximum of 250,000 lbs each delivery year. Is that a calendar year?

Obviously you said it's at the discretion of the utility. Does that mean there's nothing then in the first half of fiscal '27?

It's calendar year, correct. It's calendar year 250,000 lbs per year up to a maximum of 1.7 million lbs capped, discretion to the utility on when in that calendar year.

There'll be no deliveries in the first half of fiscal '27 then, as a result.

Correct.

Then just the second one, another way just to think about the dollar spend, because I know looking at your waterfall quarter-on-quarter, Honeymoon costs are up 30% from sort of $12.4 million spend in Q1 to just over $16 million. You've got more wellfields coming on, more columns coming online, obviously lift production as well.

Where do you feel that dollar spend caps out at? I know you've got wellfield design coming as well, which can change it, but are we still going to see increasing dollar spend quarter-on-quarter, do you think, into the second half?

It it

you're seeing that increase because ultimately production profile is also increasing quarter-on-quarter. From a total dollar perspective, once production profile is level, level, then that dollar per dollar spend would also level approximately.

The only variance then would be head grade.

All right, if you take the total dollar spend and first half production, you're sort of sitting at the top end of your guidance range, I guess. You look for more production in the back half.

Glyn, for the operating costs in there is some working capital movement, probably the primary driver or difference between that and the C1 costs, we purchased some resin during the quarter that will be amortised over quite a few years. We do have some capital accruals that you would have seen in the difference between our CapEx spend for the half compared to the cash flow waterfall, and we expect that CapEx accrual to unwind from a cash perspective over the next two quarters.

Then other than that, those kind of working capital overhangs from the current quarter, we've given you the cash costs and CapEx for the remainder of the half, so that's your best indication in terms of cash spend for the remainder of the half as well.

The cost of production will sort of start to match the cash, you think, as opposed to there's sort of the inventory movements, accruals, etcetera.

That's right.

Thanks very much.

Pleasure.

Thank you, everyone, for joining the call this morning. As noted on the call, it's been a record quarter, record production and below guidance cost, and as a result, we've decreased our cost guidance for C1 and all-in sustaining cost.

We're also very clear about the pathway forward on how we drive value for both Honeymoon and satellite deposits, which is the delivery of this new feasibility study. With that, I thank everyone for joining the call.

Thank you, Ashley.