Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. With me on the call is our Chief Financial Officer, Ryan Gurner, and Chief Operating Officer, Simon Jessop.

As previously announced, in the December quarter, gold sold totaled 348,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of A$2,937 per ounce. A number of one-off operational events across our assets resulted in this softer performance and required us to revise FY26 production and cost guidance.

With these events behind us, our team remains firmly focused on driving productivity improvements and strengthening cost discipline to deliver a stronger second half for our shareholders. Our FY26 outlook provides revised guidance of 1.6 to 1.7 million ounces gold sold at an all-in sustaining cost of $2,600 to $2,800 per ounce.

Today, we also provide further detail for production and AISC guidance by production center. In addition, we have updated our capital expenditure forecast across the portfolio.

Operational growth capital guidance remains unchanged at $1.14 billion to $1.2 billion. KCGM's growth capital expenditure in FY26 consists of several projects designed to prepare the operation for commissioning of the newly expanded mill from FY27.

Two aspects which I'd like to highlight are the KCGM mill expansion project, FY26 capital expenditure is now expected to be in the range of $640 to $660 million, and this reflects targeted increases in labor to ensure the commissioning in early FY27. Also, the KCGM tailings dam activity is ahead of schedule with FY26 spend now expected to be $240 to $260 million.

While FY27 forecast spend is lighter at $100 to $120 million, which this represents approximately 10% reduced cost for the overall tailings dam project. At Hemi, forecast spend is $165 to $175 million, reflecting more optimization of engineering and design works there.

Northern Star continues to work closely with state and federal regulators, key stakeholders, and the broader Pilbara community. With gold price now exceeding A$7,000 per ounce, it is an outstanding time to be producing and discovering gold in the stable, low-risk jurisdictions of Western Australia and Alaska.

Our balance sheet remains in a net cash position, and as our hedge book decreases, our growing exposure to spot gold, coupled with increasing production, positions us for very strong increasing cash flows going forward. I'd now like to hand over to Simon Jessop, our Chief Operating Officer, to discuss our operational highlights.

Thank you, Stuart, and good morning. The Kalgoorlie Production Centre delivered a lower than expected quarter driven by two main issues.

The first issue was the previously announced partial suspension of mining at our South Kalgoorlie operation. A new escapeway was mined and installed over nine weeks.

Mining at Cal Ops from mid-December has returned to normal operations. The second major issue was the lower than expected processing outcome at KCGM.

The mill underperformed all quarter on throughput volume, both rate and runtime, with the primary crusher failing in December. Since the 5th of January, the crushing circuit has performed in line with normal expectations, and we have crushed over 700,000 tonnes in 20 days versus December's full month crushing performance of 600,000 tonnes.

KCGM's total mining performance was an outstanding result with 207,000 ounces mined in the quarter, a new record for the site under Northern Star Resources' ownership. Open pit total material movement was 22 million for the December quarter and 45 million for the first half, at the top of the 80 to 90 million tonne annual guidance range.

The open pit for Q2 mined 163,000 ounces at 1.5 grams per tonne, with Golden Pike's contribution of 117,000 ounces at 1.7 grams per tonne. The KCGM underground operation developed 8.7 kilometers for the quarter and mined 819,000 tonnes of ore.

For the first half, the underground ore mined was 1.55 million tonnes, above the annualized target of 3 million tonnes per annum. Due to the processing throughput issues, KCGM finished the quarter end with 1.3 million tonnes at 1.9 grams per tonne and 81,000 ounces of high-grade ore on the ROM pad.

Carosue Dam performed in line with expectations for the quarter and the half. Let me close on the Kalgoorlie Production Centre by again sharing that the KCGM mill expansion continued well over the Christmas-New Year period with a workforce of around 350 people.

The project has ramped back up to 800-plus personnel, and for the remaining six months will finalize on construction and transition into commissioning and ramp-up planning, with the project remaining on time for an early FY27 ramp-up. Turning to our Yandal Production Centre, both Jundee and Thunderbox experienced a challenging quarter and first half.

At Jundee, the previously announced localized structural failure of the crushing circuit works have progressed well, but it has taken longer than anticipated. The coarse ore stockpile tunnel has been excavated, rebuilt, and reburied, with ROM pad loaders feeding the bin again as normal.

The full completion of the tunnel works is on track to be restored by mid-February. The Jundee team has actioned these works safely and professionally for an extremely large job.

The Jundee airstrip is also less than two weeks away from its first flight and remains on track for flight savings and less rain interruptions going forward. At Thunderbox, two issues prevailed for the quarter.

The first one, reduced throughput due to tank issues, which also impacted recovery by 5%. Less mined ore from Wonder and the haulage of the high-grade ore to the mill.

On the processing impacts, all tanks were back in operation at the quarter end, with rectifications planned for H2, which will see a cycle through the seven tanks. Secondly, on Wonder, the resource is not performing as modeled and mined in the high-grade areas of the ore body.

We have already reduced the mining fleet from 17 trucks to 11 trucks in order to manage the required mining practice changes, improved mining, and cost efficiencies. The Wonder open pit strip ratio reduces from here on in.

Wonder has an estimated life of 21 months and will generate 215,000 ounces at 1.4 grams per tonne. Meanwhile, open pit mining at Bannockburn ramped up significantly, with first ore being stockpiled ahead of milling in H2, providing another ore source close to the Thunderbox mill.

Finally, turning our attention to Pogo, the lower gold sales was impacted by lower head grade of approximately 0.5 to 1 gram per tonne due to a combination of stope dilution and over-loss. Volume of ore was also approximately 30,000 tonnes less due to East Deeps vent constraints on scheduled high-grade areas of the ore body.

We also lost about three days in December due to extremely cold temperatures below 40 degrees Celsius. Early in January, we have seen an improvement in mined grades above 6 grams per tonne and an increase in stope ore fires.

Processing performance for Q2 was very good, with availability averaging 92% year-to-date. The recovery was 86% during the quarter, 5% higher than expected.

Development continued to improve at Pogo, with 5.2 kilometers achieved for the quarter, corresponding to a monthly average of 1,731 meters a month. The quarterly performance on gold sold was impacted by a number of significant events across the portfolio, which has resulted in lowering our annual gold guidance between 1.6 and 1.7 million ounces.

We are in a much stronger position as we enter the second half of the year. KCGM and South Kalgoorlie operations have returned to normal.

Jundee has some outstanding issues that are expected to be resolved during this quarter. Thunderbox is in improved shape, and at Pogo, we are seeing the December improved head grade continue into January.

I would now like to pass to Ryan, our Chief Financial Officer, to discuss the financials.

Thanks, Simon, and good morning, all. As demonstrated in today's quarterly results, the company remains in a great financial position.

Our balance sheet remains strong, as set out in table four on page 10, with cash and bullion of $1.18 billion, and we remain in a net cash position of $293 million at 31 December. The company has recorded strong cash earnings for the first half of FY26, which is estimated to be in the range of $1.06 to $1.11 billion.

A reminder that our dividend policy is based on 20% to 30% of cash earnings. Although Q2 was a challenging quarter, all three production centers generated positive net mine cash flow, with capital and exploration fully funded.

Figure eight on page 11 sets out the company's cash and bullion movement for the quarter, with the company recording $738 million of operating cash flow, which included semi-annual coupon payment on the notes of $18 million US and approximately $30 million annual insurance premiums. Additionally, during the quarter, the company paid $370 million of income tax, bringing the first half tax payments to $437 million, lower than the first half cash tax guidance.

Major operational growth capital investments include at KCGM, open pit development at Great Boulder and underground development at Fimiston and Mount Charlotte, which will enable us to lift production over the coming years, and at Thunderbox operations, open pit development at Wonder and Bannockburn. In respect of the KCGM growth project, $180 million was invested during the quarter, with major progress in structural and mechanical installation, including SAG and ball mill installation progress.

Electrical and piping installation is advancing, with final construction and fit-outs to follow throughout the second half. The project remains on track for commissioning early FY27.

At our Hemi project, $20 million was spent advancing process plant design, securing long lead time items, and progressing on non-process infrastructure. On other financial matters, Q2 group all-in sustaining costs included approximately $20 million of additional costs associated with the disruption events across Jundee, Cal Operations, and KCGM during the quarter.

Half one depreciation and amortization is at the top end of the guided range of $875 to $975 per ounce and is expected to lower over the second half with the forecast increase in production. Non-cash inventory charges for the group in the December quarter are a credit of $93 million, driven by low-grade stockpile build and higher ore stocks at KCGM and stockpile build at Thunderbox.

From a tax perspective, with the update to second half production, we lower our second half group tax cash tax forecast to $230 to $270 million. No change to our estimate quantum or timing for landholder duty for the De Grey and Saracen transactions.

The company continues to unwind its hedging commitments with 158,000 ounces delivered during the quarter. At 31 December, total commitments are equal 1.1 million ounces at an average price just over $3,300 per ounce.

I'll now hand back to the moderator for the Q&A session. Thank you.

Hi. G'day, Stuart and team.

A couple of questions I guess on the CapEx, KCGM and then Hemi. Just so I understand the increase in CapEx at the mill expansion, is that about more people?

Is it about better people? Is it about paying more just so we understand, I guess, where the industry's at?

Thanks, Levi. Look, it's targeted and deliberate, and it's to ensure we meet commissioning timing of that FY27.

It's more people, and it's recognizing I guess the productivity we've got out of the team that are there today, and that's not saying they're good or bad, it's just saying when everyone's working in that congested space, we haven't made the progress on some of those things. We were targeting around 600 people throughout the build.

As Simon just spoke to, we retained 3 350 over Christmas, which normally we're in a shut down, and then we've also run some back shift, night shift throughout the last 6 months, and also we've come up now to 800 headcount working on that project. It's targeted, deliberate, it's at a cost, obviously there's an uplift of about $110 million throughout this year, of which a large part of it's been spent in the first half.

There's a second half kind of tail out of all the electrical and cable runs, but really it's important that we meet the schedule on time and get that commissioning and get the cash box working.

Got it. Thanks for the extra detail.

Can we have a little bit more, I guess, on that Gantt chart? What is actually involved between, I guess now and, yeah, what activities specifically and then, I guess what is required to hit 23 million tonnes in 20

27? Really the country sits above it.

We talk about in the bullet points there, 90 90% on page five of the quarterly, it's 90% of all the structural steel and 80% of all the mechanical installations complete. We're back to the tying in electrical, cable runs, and sort of testing and powering those things up.

Obviously there's an element of putting it all in place before you do any of that live testing, and it's really the final coupling of all the pipe work. We're well through the bulk of it and it's in the right order.

Nothing I guess is behind, but we're recognizing the work ahead just needs that additional labor, which we're working with contractors to source, and we were doing just prior to Christmas. December, we started to increase numbers.

We continued with wouldn't call it a skeleton crew, it was certainly 350 people throughout the Christmas period. Really it gets down to that final tie-in, all the pipe work, pressure testing, the cables, dead testing cables until we're ready to energize things.

It's to be ready to power up in June. The question is whether we want the disruption in the back half of June.

Typically, you won't get the extra gold sold, because it'll have to come through the float circuit and then through concentrates, etc., we may be bringing up in parallel, but ideally in July, the mill is running. 23 million tonnes represents a 27 million tonne per annum plant turned on and then deliberately turned off to do re-torquing of bolts and just visual inspections on wear rates, etc.

That's deliberate planned down time throughout the year, which derates it from 27 to 23. When it's running, it'll run at the 27 million tonnes per annum.

I think that answered part of your questions.

That's good. Thank you.

Just one more on Hemi. Permitting's still a pretty complicated subject for us.

Can you just give us a bit more detail around what stage it's up to now, what happens next?

Essentially EPA approvals still going through their processes. This financial year we're expecting there's no real way to fast track those processes with the regulators and it's prudent that they take the time.

In parallel to that, we're working on the water trials and dewatering testing, and that's the engagement we're having with traditional owners and the like presently, but all those things are progressing as normal. As you imagine, weather-wise it's the hot season.

Laying pipe and doing works is a bit of a derated activity as you'd do in the Northern Territory. Northern Pilbara gets pretty hot this time of year, there's some of that activity we just sensibly laying pipe and getting the bores ready for that throughout these months.

Fundamentally, we're working towards the end of this calendar year to be in a position to be putting numbers together for the FID. The extra expenditure is about the optimization work, just continually testing the flow sheet and making sure we've got options and that when we put the data into the FID papers that we've thoroughly thought of all those combinations, and one of these things you just keep looking at, you keep finding options and can find better works.

They're using the time wisely in that regard.

Thank you. Thanks for the detail.

Thank you. Good day, Stu and Simon.

Just wanted to revisit the underlying reasons behind the recent changes to production, all-in sustaining costs, and I guess also CapEx guidance, the three consecutive downgrades over the past couple of weeks. Maybe at the same time advocate for some greater disclosure from the company as well.

One of the reasons, for example, that was given for the production downgrade was the underperformance of Thunderbox, which is now sort of pitched as a 250,000-ounce mining center rather than a 300,000-ounce mining center, and specifically those lower grades that you're seeing originate from the Wonder open pit. I was just wading through the 600-page resource and reserve report, and I just can't find anywhere a simple tonnage, grade, and strip ratio outline for those key ore sources like Wonder, like Bannockburn, for example.

The same goes for Carosue Dam and Jundee, the actual ore sources that sit behind these mining centers. Though comments made by Simon in his introductory remarks are helpful, gives us some of the pieces, but just like to have a really basic outline of the ore sources that sit behind the actual mining centers, or at the very least a detailed investor day where we can do some deep dives on these assets as well.

Just think that would be helpful to better assess the predictability of this business and the reliability of the forecasting that we received, just a bunch of numbers from you guys at the head office level, just to go deep on these assets. Am I missing anything in that 600-page resource report that could sort of help with these, just sort of basic metrics?

No, but I'll take that as a comment, not a question, Ben.

Cool. Okay.

Thank you. The question then, you've copped a fair bit of scrutiny on your continuous disclosure obligations.

Why wasn't the crusher failure at KCGM immediately disclosed to the market? I would have thought that was a significant event in itself.

To paraphrase your response to the ASX, it was basically we didn't get the data until the 1st of January. How regular are your updates from site to the head office in Subi?

I would have thought that you're getting daily updates on simple metrics like production and sales, but is it weekly? Is it monthly?

Surely it's not quarterly. Surely you didn't have to wait until the 1st of January to know that you're getting a downgrade?

Ben, there's a very comprehensive response to an aware letter from ASX. There's a very simple one-page disclosure around production on the 2nd of January and a very thorough response to the ASX in regards to the query.

I think that addresses it.

Okay. I've read it several times, but from my perspective, I don't think it's satisfactory.

I would have thought you get real-time data on sales at least weekly or monthly, not quarterly. Anyway, happy to go and have another read.

Thanks.

Morning, Stu, Simon, Ryan. Just one on the updated cost guidance.

Look, obviously good to see the revised cost guidance coming in line with the prior top end considering the gold price increases and royalties associated with that. If I break that down nominally, you've effectively tightened the range, and the midpoint of costs is pretty much unchanged despite highlighting earlier this month that the operational impacts were going to have a number of cost impacts.

I guess the question is what operational and sustaining costs have you been able to defer into next year to be able to keep that cost guidance flat?

Thanks, Hugo. I think the key thing is that the the one-offs and the events are behind us, and we know the impacts and effects of those those events.

They're finite, they're complete. Obviously we've we've disclosed on some of the continuing things were in the week one of January that are that are behind us now.

Really this is, the reset and the view of the forecasting of of where the sites are operating at, and the and the cost bases is allowed us to to narrow the guidance range because we've got, 6 months ahead not not 12. That's really where that is at.

It's a much stronger second half. If you look at what the what the second half will deliver, a significant step up from quarter three in production.

You're seeing our realized gold, price, it's it's improving, but it's still a long way off spot, because of the hedge, the hedges which are which are unwinding rapidly, and then obviously delivering into a higher spot. Coupled with, increasing production, the gold sales being the denominator of all-in sustaining costs, the the exposure to that spot, but the cash generation over the next two quarters and and the run rate exiting this financial year for another step structural change of Fimiston being turned on positions the company in a into a very strong position.

It is yes, it is future telling, it's it's forecasting, it's looking at what's in front of us. We would ask us ask, people to isolate quarter three.

We have provided a very detailed, information around the events that are that were unforeseen or or or, some are some are out of our control, some are were were risk balanced around maintenance, events. Ultimately, they have been addressed.

The team have done an absolutely fantastic job managing through that period and and working on those items. That gives us the confidence to to place the forecast.

On the full year, yes, there's a step-up, in costs, there's a there's a step down in production. When you look at the the second half run rates, it's a very, very strong, business healthy business in that regard and it it can't undo what's happened in the first half, but ultimately we've we've got a very confident outlook.

Great. Thanks, Stu.

Obviously taking sort of first half and the unforeseen impacts as they were. Sort of just digging into that further, your AISC range is sort of now $4.4 to $4.5 billion for the year.

It was $4.25 to $4.6. You've highlighted $40 an ounce of that or roughly $64 million at the low end is from royalties.

Where has some of those other cost savings come from, though, sort of looking forward? Should we expect those costs to end up into FY27?

I think it's Ryan here. I think I think the costs are there obviously, and the, in the immediate term all costs are fixed.

You're right to do the maths on on the overall, I guess, checks written at the business. What what we're saying is and as Simon was talking to, what when he spoke, a lot of these disruption issues that caused production issues are behind us.

We're confident in the grade outlook at Pogo, Jundee. Simon spoke about, the high-grade material sitting on the ROM pad at KCGM.

You've seen the the grade lift there. Then then also, the throughput confidence in this second half.

They're they're all contribute to keeping us aligned and narrowing that that cost range. Even even with those, as you say, expected royalties, we're confident that in that range, 2,600 to 2,800, lands us with that lower production profile.

Any discretionary spend as well will be shoved and pushed, because it's not only is it dollar millions, but as far as activity and distraction, ensuring that the team have a very clear, simplified sort of activity list. That's what we'll do.

Now, does that push right into FY27? We'll assess it at the time.

We'll assess the balance of risk around planned versus unplanned maintenance, etc. There were items that were budgeted that we will just strike off the list, that will not get spent in the second half.

Got it. I guess the question was what are those items and how much of that spend, but maybe we'll pick that up later.

Next one just around the upward revision of Hemi CapEx. You've called out a more detailed review of engineering design works for why CapEx this year is $25 million higher.

Studies were originally to support an FID by the end of FY26. Is that just a bring forward of detailed engineering works that you would have otherwise had to do, or were those not initially detailed enough for an FID timing as originally planned?

I guess how should we consider that in the context of, I think, market expectations for Hemi CapEx now sort of $2.5 billion? Should we continue to expect that maybe there's a bit of creep there?

Look, yeah, I would say reset on the overall CapEx number. Saying if we're spending extra this year, it comes off the overall CapEx number.

It's certainly work that's progressing, and it would be required, and we would be doing, but I'd also consider work that may have been spent where we consider, okay, that's redundant and we replaced it with new study work that's got an improved operating outcome or an improved flow sheet outcome. I think we've got to be careful saying extra money spent this year comes off the total.

There's certainly items that were long lead items invested in, spent, bought that we'd also say perhaps we'll resell and repurpose, and replace with larger, simpler kits. That's been something we've done with the time.

That'll all come in a final FID paper and explanations in that regard. There's not material structural changes to the overall flow sheet.

What we've looked at is synergies with the rest of our operations to have common parts, common spares, which wasn't considered when that's a standalone asset in a single-asset company. We've looked at it through the lens of Fimiston mill expansion, some items that could replicate to save on the engineering because we've already done it, but we actually got to spend for the parts to get commonality to ensure derisk us in the future running two sort of sister plants.

All right. Got it.

I might pass it on and wrap back. Thanks.

Sure, thanks. Morning, Stuart and team, and happy New Year.

A couple of questions from me, please. Maybe firstly, can I take the thrust of Ben Lyons's comments and maybe turn it into a question that hopefully you can actually answer on this call?

In the release you say you've reduced CapEx spend at Pogo and Kalgoorlie and increased spend at Yandal to support the regional hub strategy. Can I just ask what is the regional hub strategy at Yandal?

Can you summarize it in terms of production ounces, life, unit cost, and how much capital needs to be spent to deliver it? Because I'm not really clear on any of those things, and it sounds like maybe there's other analysts that aren't clear either, so that would be appreciated.

Matt. There's a 3 million tonne per annum plant in the north called Jundee, and there's a 6 million tonne per annum plant in the south called Thunderbox.

Higher grade ore will go to Jundee, lower grade ore will go to Thunderbox. Jundee will sit at around 300,000 ounces per annum.

Thunderbox will sit at around 250,000 ounces per annum. The hub, which is called Yandal, will produce at about 550,000 ounces per annum.

That's different to the 600 we've said, but we've articulated that 550 is probably the happy place that will be at. It might oscillate where Jundee does 250 and Thunderbox does 300, but overall that Yandal belt, we're saying, can operate at around 550.

We've got the reserve statements. It's got all the grades and ore sources, Bannockburns, Wonder, you've got all the data that sits behind that.

That's fundamentally more than what any company is providing and giving is the materiality of what that asset provides for the group. The key aspect of those assets that we're not liking at the moment is the costs.

The aspect of the economies of scale from expanding Thunderbox was to materially improve the all-in sustaining cost. As is the growth at Jundee, was to keep the costs down.

You can see the cost for Yandal in the quarter, on the lower ounce profile, are very high. That's in our head to say, "Well, what's the overall outlook, life?"

We've got to improve this to ensure that its contributions as it has been for a decade in our business, foundation asset, we can provide more view and color on what those can be. They're still building new high-grade mines, and the development rates are still contributing towards that.

Pulling out Wonder and talking about decimal points of grade of something that's not even providing a third of the feed to Thunderbox for a number of years is immaterial. I want to focus on that.

It's immaterial in the over—

Yeah. I didn't specify Wonder, Stuart, and you've answered the question in terms of ounces and life.

As you point out, I think probably the gap in understanding is really more around unit costs, expectations, and also I guess the capital required to get there. I suppose, the question that probably the market has is, what's the quantum of capital you're going to spend in order to get the costs to a certain point, and I guess what does that look like?

I suppose we wonder out loud, how do you make those investment decisions when it seems like we don't have good visibility on what the target is around cost and total quantum of CapEx?

We provide production and cost guidance on an annualized basis in July. That's what we've done for a long time, and that's what we'll keep doing at Yandal.

We've put in a paste plant, that's getting into the high grade at Jundee. It'll see some of the grade restore.

All the commentary that sits around this asset shows the growth of Wonder down south, giving better grade into Thunderbox, as well as the new Bannockburn operation. You're going through the stripping at the moment, getting into primary ore.

The questions, we're not going to answer on a quarterly call. Let's put it that way.

No, that's fine. I guess the theme there is that I appreciate that you guys give one-year guidance, but clearly the impact to the market's perception of the company from arguably some of these short-term disappointments from quarter to quarter, potentially that impact is exacerbated because we don't have a multi-year sort of longer-term picture for some of these elements of the business.

Obviously anything you can do over time to just shine a light on that is appreciated. I'll move on from that line of questioning.

Maybe can we Matt,

before you do that, the point is, it's KCGM in the half one that's really really changed that, and it's the mill throughput that's really impacted the overall ability to deliver. All the other sum of the small parts, on a materiality threshold, are negligible.

The actual the straw

I agree, Stu. That's why I'm making the point that if you only give one-year guidance, it's exacerbated.

Matt,

please let me finish this answer. Everyone needs to focus on that asset, KCGM, and there's 82,000 ounces sitting on the ROM of high-grade ore ready to put through that plant.

The plant, the new expanded plant, will be commissioned in less than six months' time. If everyone wants to weave into smaller items across all the assets, we recognize that it was a poor quarter.

We understand the elements that contributed to that. There were many.

We understand what we've done to rectify it and what the outlook is going forward. I I pick up the frustration from the questions, and I pick up the frustration from investors or from analysts who can't model this.

Quarter th- Quarter two is behind us, and the second half outlook is strong. We will work very hard to deliver that.

Where we position ourselves into FY27 is in an excellent position. I just want to reinforce we're getting into minutiae which is behind us and doesn't matter on a materiality threshold.

Think about the things that make a difference. KCGM is a key asset.

That's where the focus and effort is today. It's not on these satellite small you know small-life, short things, but they're also generating significant cash flows that are actually contributing towards spending the capital at our long-life, high-margin assets.

Yep. I apologize.

Thanks for the answer. Apologies for cutting you off, Stu.

I would say that the Yandal hub is still going to be a third of your business, I'm not sure that it's characterized as minutiae, but, anyway, thank you for your response. Second question is just on the KCGM mill expansion, I guess increases to the capital guidance there.

You talk through in some detail around where that's going and why it's important to, I guess, stick the schedule. Is there a risk there that, I guess, throwing more money and people doesn't really solve the productivity issue you're having?

You talked about how it is a fairly condensed space there that your teams are working in. I guess the question is why are you confident that spending more is the right approach versus just taking longer to complete the project?

Thanks.

It doesn't solve the productivity issue. That's why you add heads.

You add head count because you can't achieve with 600 people, you throw 800 at it. That's the answer of productivity.

You're paying more to get the same thing done. That's why there's $110 million extra spent in this year to deliver that.

The most important part is getting the plant on, getting ore through it, and step-changing the asset's cost base and its revenue. Time is of the essence with KCGM, not capital, sadly, at this point.

It's not sensitive to capital. We don't lightly spend $110 million unnecessarily.

We want to see this plant operating and starting to contribute.

Yep. Okay.

Thanks, Stu. Matt, if I can just add a little bit to that.

Really the next four months is where we've got the peak manning. We've ramped up, as Stu said, above what was originally the plan, and that sort of progression started during Q2 in terms of accelerating the work.

We've got still many work fronts at the moment, we still have that opportunity to put those people in there. 3, 4 months from now those work fronts start to wind down, and we're very, very focused on the critical path, which is stage one, which is first ore into the new mill.

While we've still got the opportunity, we've taken that, and the project team has, to put the extra people in there, get the work actually completed, and that's the picture right now, which gives us the ability to remain on schedule for FY27, ready to go in sort of June. If we didn't put those extra people in, then the work fronts start to dry up and then it genuinely will be delayed.

The project is in really good shape. It's focused on stage one, and that is first ore into the mill.

Stage two is moving Gidji back down to KCGM. That can happen in the months after we're milling ore.

Got it. Thank you for the additional color there, Simon, and thanks for your responses, Stu.

Cheers.

Hi, Stu and team. Obviously, a key theme of the call's been throwing a lot more bodies at the project to keep it on schedule.

I understand that makes sense given the gold price and the project you're trying to keep on schedule. Do you still expect a July turn-on?

Is the turn-on date not shifting back? Is it not wise given recent guidance and market disclosures, is it not wise to maybe start to push market expectations of the schedule of the turn-on back, or is this the expectation that this extra budget will keep the schedule to July?

Thank you.

It's quarter one. My expectation is early quarter one, there'll be parallel running up of the plant.

This isn't about market expectations. This is about our disclosures around a three-year build on time to the budget we're saying and the overrun on that expenditure because we're throwing more labor at it.

We're not here trying to game this, Dan. We're here explaining where we're at 2.5 years into a three-year build.

As Simon's got the confidence in discussing as well, we're very, very pleased with the progress being made. We're working very closely with the contractor that's constructing it and looking for any opportunity to get this done not only on time, but earlier.

Part of that combined solution is around adding headcount. We don't just add it so they're standing around holding stop signs.

There are people there doing productive work that's contributing towards that deadline. That's what we're working towards.

It's pretty exciting. I think the team that got around the plant at Diggers & Dealers saw a massive step change year-on-year.

If you went there again today, you'd say, "Well, why can't you turn it on now?" That's what you'd visually see.

It's no different to building a house, wait for your carpets and your flyscreens, but all the cabling, all the tiling, all the final elements of that, it looks like it's been finished and it looks like it's sitting there doing nothing, but it's that final finishing to ensure that when we get it turned on, the quality's met and the work's done so that we don't have to bring it down or we don't have to have those lessons that we learned out of the Thunderbox expansion. We endured 12 months of ups and downs and rectifying some of those things.

We'd like to see all that addressed prior to turning and commissioning this on. That's the way underway for the second half.

Thank you. I guess obviously there's a lot of focus on the call and obviously concern about various aspects.

Maybe pivoting and changing tack a little bit, just over the last 6 months or so, what is changing in the business that you can see that, from a very positive sense, what is something you'd highlight to investors where there's been change afoot or something that's getting better, or, be it exploration, be it a site? What is changing in the business in a positive sense that you could highlight for the market?

I'd recognize the underperformance in share price against the peers, global majors. We acknowledge that.

We acknowledge that this reflection on short-term production misses, cost misses, and we've been very clear on the events that have contributed to that and what we've done to rectify that. Just look at the run rate of second half in its own right, very, very strong uplift in production.

Look at the reducing hedge book, realized gold price that we're growing exposure to spot, and the step change in the business as KCGM mill expansion turns on in FY27, and the uplift again, step change in production profile for the group. They are the things that are so close to us that the opportunity for investors now to get positions, that's the confidence in the outlook.

I see the point people are focused on here now concerns, they're looking at relativities. That creates the opportunity to understand the long-term value creation that Northern Star is doing.

Thanks very much, Stu.

Hi, Stu and team. Thanks for the call.

Just a question on the Hemi permitting side of things. Can you provide maybe a little bit more detail as to how that process is progressing?

Have there been any issues, specific issues, that have been flagged by the Indigenous nation groups in that area, or yeah, just wondering if you could give a bit more color as to any concerns that might have been raised so far?

No, no major concerns there, Milan. It's really the dewatering trial is something we've got to commence, which will likely be in the start of quarter four.

Ideally, we would have started that in quarter two, but there was a delay in getting all that infrastructure in place through the hot season. Once that's in place and we've got a plan that's acceptable, we'll commence that trial.

It takes about 3 months, and that feedback loop goes into our 5C water license for dewatering of the pits pre-production. That's probably something that has slipped.

It doesn't affect the overall state and federal EPA approval licenses, which are continuing. Ultimately, that's probably the operational part that we would have liked to have seen commence pre-summer, and that's going to start March, April, likely with the sort of modified scheme that we've negotiated, or are negotiating with traditional owners there.

Just in terms of the work that you're doing on optimization, any major changes regarding mine plan sequencing, etc., that you could share that's kind of been different from how that project was initially envisaged to be?

Scheduling, what we've aimed to look at is first gold pour and that deadline even if there's a delayed timing of starting to understand, okay, what impact through to that. The actual flow sheet, generally, we've looked at lots of different scenarios and options, and defaulted back to what that primary flow sheet is with the high-pressure grinding rolls at start instead of SAG mills, is still sound.

Resizing some of the gear, mills, etc., is probably something we've done, with ability to expand later, on a more simplified plant. All the autoclaves and all that already in train to be built and long-lead items like that are constructed.

That's all sound. Mining sequence again just around water management, borrow pits, and getting that prepared.

We've just got options and scenarios there as opposed to the one plan that the previous owners had. We've just got a number of scenarios there that could go different paths to get to the same result.

That's just what the team are doing while the approvals are underway, iterating, iterating, it's what they do best as the engineers.

Yep, thanks very much. Maybe if I can just squeeze one more in on Jundee.

To get it to 300,000 ounces, you'd have to get quite a sizeable uptick in the grades compared to the last couple of quarters at least. Can you maybe just shed a bit of light, how are you getting that increase in grades?

Are you moving into a higher-grade part of the ore body, or is it something else that we should be considering there? Thanks.

A mix of both. In primary, the throughput's not changing, so, yes, the average grade delivered to the plant needs to be there.

It's been there before. We've certainly got isolated pockets that are different grades in different mining sequences.

We've just added a paste plant, which allows us to go back up into the upper levels, regional high-grade areas and take those high-grade zones that were sterilized because it's just open voids. There was no paste in the mine in its history, 30 30 years, it's never had any paste backfill.

Now we've got that paste plant installed and starting to fill those voids, we can go back and take those high-grade pillars out of those upper levels. There's areas like that, Cook, Griffin mining zones returning better grade.

All those things contribute, but overall it is a grade focus rather than a throughput focus.

Great. Thanks very much.

Hi, Stu. Just one follow-up from me just on Hemi.

I notice here you notice that in May '26, you're going to have the optimized resource and reserve. I'm just wondering is there anything that we could be seeing to see a quantum change in the resources or the reserves, noting changes like gold price assumptions, etc., and likewise for reserves around cut-off grade, etc., with your work integrating this into the Northern Star reserve and resources?

Thanks.

Thanks, Adam. Look, I won't pre-empt things that are with R&R that there's still a fair bit of work to occur in the coming months leading into that, but we'll basically release Hemi in a Northern Star view of R&R with the group's R&R.

I would say Hemi had a higher gold price assumption in what was previous released. We'll try and align with the group overall where we set those gold prices for resources and reserves.

They're almost irrelevant in regard to where the current spot price is, and watching what peers are doing in gold price assumptions around resource and reserves. It does in turn reflect back to cut-off grades and how this overall picture of valued and can you actually merge pits together, take out saddles and make a larger overall lower-grade resource economic.

That's what we've got to consider. I would just say look, we've probably got a stricter, more scrutinized view around what's in and what's out.

If anything, a more robust, scrutinized eyes on that resource is more likely than material growth. If you think about the drilling and the data that's occurring there, all we've really done recently is redirect some drills to do some trueing things.

We haven't done any real growth drilling since we've taken control of that Hemi region.

That's great. Thank you.

Morning, Stu and team. Stu, you've made a couple of comments with regards to Hemi.

You called it a sister plant to KCGM, and you talked about taking the opportunity to resize mills. Does that potentially mean a change of the scope of mill size relative to previously disclosed design numbers?

Can you help us understand that?

Correct. Ideally, things like the crusher, things like the mills ideally are identical to what we have at Fimiston, and that's been currently our thinking.

There's already some mills purchased, they're already sitting in a shed, packaged up in Port Hedland. I've literally seen them unloaded off the truck.

I look at those and say they'll do the job of a 10 million tonne per annum plant. To get to a 15 million tonne per annum plant, I'd need a third one.

Would I consider instead of doing that having two large mills today that match Fimiston? The answer's usually yes.

They're the sort of considerations we're doing to say, irrespective of owning some hardware that's sitting there in a shed, would we start again and say two large mills that match Fimiston? What's the logic of that?

In the scheme of reselling these things, there's options that are there. In a scheme of redundant expenditure, you can recoup the costs because you haven't installed them and they're ready to freight.

That's the type of thinking that if you're in a hurry to build a mill, they would have got built, and then when you want to expand, you add a new mill. When we look at that now with the time, say, "Well, let's just not go build something because we have the parts.

Let's consider what we would do if we had a clean sheet." That's the example.

Same as the crushing circuit, absolutely tightly replicate design from Fimiston and say is that something you could install here that's oversized, that matches parts, etc., as opposed to going through the something that's been designed specific for the throughput rate of Hemi, and we go to something that is the sister plant to Fimiston, that means if we have issues like Simon had in December at KCGM, we could be fast-tracking the knowledge and the skills and the parts across the business that every three or four years would happen at one of those large crushing units.

Yep. Thank you.

Appreciate the color.

All right. Thank you for joining us on the call today, and appreciate the interest, and it's been a busy day for everyone.

Looking forward to a strong second half and growing from here. Appreciate it.

Thank you.