Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Freeport conference call. Earlier this morning, FCX reported its first-quarter operating and financial results.

A copy of today's press release with supplemental schedules and slides are available on our website, fcx.com. Today's conference call is being broadcast live on the internet.

Anyone may listen to the call by accessing our website homepage and clicking on the webcast link. In addition to analysts and investors, the financial press has been invited to listen to today's call.

A replay of the webcast will be available on our website later today. Before we begin our comments, we'd like to remind everyone that today's press release and certain of our comments on the call include non-GAAP measures and forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially.

Please refer to the cautionary language included in our press release and slides, and to the risk factors described in our SEC filings, all of which are available on our website. Also on the call with me today are Richard Adkerson, Chairman of the Board; Kathleen Quirk, President and Chief Executive Officer; Maree Robertson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and other senior members of our management team.

Richard will make some opening remarks. Kathleen will review our slide materials, as well as Maree, and then we'll open up the call for questions.

Richard?

Thank you, David, and welcome, everyone. We are now in the 20th year since Freeport combined with Phelps Dodge to create the modern Freeport by forming a global leader in copper.

Our strategy was set after I became CEO in 2003, just as China emerged as the dominant source of copper demand. Our decision to build our company around copper was a good decision then, and has only gotten better over time.

We were in Chile last week for the annual global copper conference, which I first attended in 2004, and learned that the then-expected supply response to China's demand would be more muted than expected. This year, there was a strong positive consensus by attendees about copper's future.

We are now in a new era of growth about copper, which is broad-based and driven by the growing demand for electricity. Simply, electricity equals copper.

Our assets at Freeport are long-lived and have embedded major growth options, which we are advancing for the future. We have exciting growth ahead in the Americas with significant opportunities to improve profitability using modern technology.

Grasberg will continue as a major long-term contributor to our growth and profitability with its high grades of copper and gold. The extension of our rights to operate beyond 2041, pursuant to our recently signed MOU with the government of Indonesia, is positive for continuity of these benefits from this remarkable, world-class district.

We just celebrated our 59th year of successfully operating in Indonesia. I've personally been engaged since 1988.

Our team there is best in class in large-scale block cave mining. Kathleen will review with you our operating results and outlook, including our plan to restore full production at Grasberg.

I personally have complete confidence in our team's addressing the current challenges. I'm personally proud of Freeport's global team and how our company is so well positioned for the future.

Kathleen?

All right. Thank you, Richard, and thank you all for participating on our call today, where we'll review our first-quarter performance and update you all on our initiatives, projects, and outlook for the future.

It's an active time for our teams across our global business as we work to restore large-scale production at Grasberg, safely and sustainably, drive value through operational excellence and new technology initiatives in the US, and prepare for a new and exciting phase of organic growth. Starting on slide 3, we provide the highlights of our first quarter.

Our sales of copper, gold, and unit costs were better than our forecast, and the favorable price backdrop allowed us to generate growth in revenues, EBITDA, and cash flow compared with last year's first quarter, despite our Indonesia operations operating at reduced capacity. The strength and diversity of our portfolio comes through in the results, with our US mining operations contributing two and a half times more operating income in the first quarter of this year compared with last year's first quarter, with strong conversion to the bottom line.

We were successful in completing the required remediation at Grasberg to commence our phased ramp-up, initially in production blocks 2 and 3 in the Grasberg Block Cave. This was an important milestone and involved impressive execution by our team.

I'll cover in more detail the challenges encountered with material handling bottlenecks in the initial ramp-up, how we are addressing the issues, and the impacts on our ramp-up forecast. As Richard mentioned, a notable highlight of the quarter was the memorandum of understanding reached in February with the government of Indonesia to extend our operating rights for the life of the resource.

This is an important long-term value driver for Freeport, the government, and the many stakeholders who benefit from our longstanding operations in Indonesia. We are advancing our future growth plans and submitted an environmental impact statement in March for a major expansion project in Chile.

We're progressing several initiatives to scale our innovative leach project, and completing our work to be in a position to potentially greenlight our brownfield expansion project at our Bagdad mine in Arizona later this year. We returned approximately $300 million to shareholders in the first quarter, including common stock dividends and the purchase of 1.7 million shares of our common stock.

Our balance sheet is solid, and we're in a strong position to invest in our future growth while returning cash to shareholders. Moving to slide 4, we summarize our priorities for 2026.

These are the same priorities we set at the start of the year, and each of these represent areas of meaningful value creation. Strong execution of our plans, including achievement of a successful ramp-up at Grasberg, crystallizing the value of our leach opportunity, adopting new technologies to improve performance, and investing in profitable growth will enable us to build significant value in our business.

We know we will face challenges along the way, as evidenced by the current situation at Grasberg, but I'm confident our highly experienced team will address and successfully overcome any challenge with urgency and determination. Turning to the markets on slide 5, as a leading global supplier of copper, Freeport benefits from copper's increasingly important and critical role in the global economy.

As we look forward, we see rising copper demand associated with massive requirements for the power grid to support new technologies. Copper's superior conductivity makes it the metal when it comes to electrification, and the world is becoming much more electrified.

Copper price have averaged over $5.80 per pound year to date and reached an all-time high exceeding $6.00 per pound in the first quarter. Demand signals remain strong.

Our customers in the US continue to report rising demand associated with AI data centers and related energy infrastructure, which has more than offset weakness in private construction and in the auto sector. Recent reports from China reflect a significant resurgence of demand, with significant power grid spending and significant draws on Chinese exchange inventories in recent weeks.

As we step back and assess the fundamentals, we expect the market will require additional copper supplies to meet growing demand. At Freeport, we have a valuable, geographically diverse portfolio of copper assets that are strategically well situated for the long term, with large-scale production facilities, long-life reserves and resources, and a portfolio of low-risk, brownfield expansion opportunities to serve a growing market.

Turning to operations on slide 6, we summarize the operating highlights by geographic region. Looking at the US, production was above the year-ago quarter, but a bit lower sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025 and our expectations.

Our operating teams continue to focus on our operating disciplines, improving unplanned downtime, and achieving sustained maximum output from our existing assets. We're really encouraged by the recent improvement in our mining rate, particularly at Morenci, where we achieved a 19% increase in rates compared with last year's first quarter.

Sustaining the higher mining rates will translate into improved copper production over time, and we expect copper production to grow over the course of the year. Our innovative leach initiative continues to show real promise.

We're deploying our first internally developed additive and have a line of sight to a new additive, which shows significant promise in lab tests. We have commenced a pilot test at Morenci to increase the temperature of our stockpiles by applying heated leaching solution to the stockpiles.

We know that higher temperatures will enhance recoveries, and our work is focused on finding the most effective engineering and cost solution to achieve this. We remain encouraged with the ability to scale to 300 to 400 million pounds per annum in the 2026-2027 timeframe, which will unlock our path to 800 million pounds per annum from this initiative.

We're continuing to lean heavily into incorporating innovation into our basic mining practices, and see great potential for the tools that AI and other tools will offer to enhance operating performance. In South America, the Cerro Verde team did an excellent job navigating the first quarter with severe flooding in the Arequipa region and with challenges with mill efficiencies.

We continue to expect stable production levels at Cerro Verde, and some growth at El Abra, our project in Chile in partnership with Codelco, over the next couple of years. There's a lot of activity going on at El Abra currently, with a leach pad extension and plans to conduct testing in late '26 of heated stockpile injections to enhance leach recoveries.

As I mentioned, we filed our environmental impact statement for a major expansion at El Abra in March. This project will transform El Abra from a relatively small producer to a large-scale contributor within the Freeport portfolio.

We've summarized the highlights on the Grasberg restart, and I'll provide more detail on our progress in the slides ahead. We reached agreement with our insurance providers during the quarter for a $700 million insurance recovery, which was the maximum limit under the policy.

We expect to collect the proceeds during the second quarter. In Indonesia, we continue to operate one of our two smelters with available concentrate, and the new smelter remains on standby status with an expected restart later this year.

Next several slides, we're going to take you through the Grasberg update, what we've accomplished to date, and where we're moving forward as we go through 2026. There's a summary on slide 7 of the current status of the Grasberg Block Cave.

Over the last several months, we were successful in completing the activities required to restart mining in production blocks 2 and 3, and we commenced mining on a limited basis in March. As a refresher, production blocks 2 and 3 were not directly associated with the external mud rush, which occurred in production block 1C, which is located closer to the surface and beneath a low spot in the former open pit.

The location and characteristics of production blocks 2 and 3 do not have the same exposure to an external mud rush as we had in production block 1C. However, production in production blocks 2 and 3 was temporarily suspended since September 2025 to install concrete plugs to isolate production block 1C panels and ensure no connection to the surface, complete cleanup of material on the extraction and service levels, restore infrastructure on the service level, and strengthen our cave management plans.

This was an huge undertaking, and the team did a great job executing this plan. After we completed the projects and regained access to the area, we conducted inspections and sampling of the more than 600 drawpoints in production blocks 2 and 3, and was able to determine that the material characteristics within the cave changed significantly over the period of inactivity, with a larger proportion of wet ore within the cave compared to when we suspended operations in September 2025.

This increase in wet material is associated with surface water, which percolates through the caved rock within the mine and is removed from the mine through gravity drainage. Under normal conditions, active mining assists in managing the accumulated water within the cave.

We have significant experience in mining wet material. Our systems to extract the ore from the drawpoints utilize fully autonomous remote loaders that are capable of safely handling the wet material.

The challenge we are currently addressing is downstream of the extraction level, and relates to the material handling systems for loading ore onto our automated trains. Historically, we had a higher ratio of dry material, which allowed us to manage the wet material by blending to a consistency suitable for loading through chutes onto the trains.

With the current conditions, we'll need to install specialized equipment on the chutes to regulate the flow of ore for train loading. We've been testing this equipment over the past few years in connection with our long-range planning in anticipation of potential changes in ore conditions over time.

We understand the engineered solution to this issue, but it will take time to make the modifications, which limits production in PB2 and PB3 to what our existing chute designs can handle. We expect that the majority of these bottlenecks can be addressed by mid-2027.

In parallel with addressing the chute infrastructure in PB2 and 3, we're also continuing to work to prepare for a future startup of production block 1 South, and advancing a series of derisking initiatives on surface drainage and other risk mitigation strategies, including the recent installation of new imaging technology to enhance cave monitoring. Our current forecasts reflect our best estimate of the timeframe to address the current bottlenecks.

Still very early in our initial ramp-up, and a number of factors could affect rates positively or negatively as we go through the coming months. This is a timing issue with a designed engineered solution, not a significant cost issue, and not a change in the ultimate recovery of the resource.

We're confident in the ability to restore large-scale production safely and efficiently as we go forward. On slide 8, just for some background, we provide a summary of what we presented in January and an update of our current status.

As indicated, the initial restart commenced slightly ahead of our schedule. We were previously targeting production rates in PB2 and PB3 to ramp up to 100,000 tons per day in the second half of this year.

With the current material handling constraints, we now expect to be limited to approximately 60,000 tons per day from production blocks 2 and 3 in the second half of 2026, increasing to the 90,000 ton per day range by mid-2027 as modifications to ore loading infrastructure are completed over the next several months. There's additional information in the reference materials on page 39 that provides details on the ramp-up.

On slide 9, this is an illustration of the drawpoint comparison of the current drawpoints compared to September of 2025. This is a plan view of the GBC extraction level, with drawpoints in PB2 and 3 color-coded to show the number of wet and dry drawpoints prior to suspending mining in September 2025 compared to what we're currently seeing today.

As shown, in September 2025, 30% of the total 635 active drawpoints were wet, compared with 45% currently, a 50% increase in the wet drawpoints. For blending purposes, we require a minimum of 1-to-1 ratio of dry-to-wet material, measured within each panel, to meet the requirements of our existing chute design.

Currently, there are 10 panels out of a total of 23, compared to only one in September, which do not meet the 1-to-1 dry-to-wet ratio criteria, resulting in a derating of production until the chute modifications are in service. We're continuing to monitor the drawpoints to determine potential changes and the possibility that conditions could become drier as mining rates continue.

However, we believe proceeding with these modifications will provide more robust material handling systems and enhanced flexibility as we go forward over the long term. On slide 10, we show a diagram to illustrate the mine layout and the planned modifications downstream of the extraction level.

As illustrated, mining occurs on the extraction level, and that's not where the issue is. The issue is with the ore sent to the haulage level through our ore and chute passes.

The bottleneck we are addressing relates to the chutes that are used to load the automated trains at the haulage level, and we show photos of the current chute design and the replacement equipment to regulate the flow of wet material into the rail cars. This is a robust solution.

There's additional information on slide 37 in the reference materials to show you the design of these regulators. Summing this up, we provide on slide 11 PTFI's revised five-year production forecast.

We've incorporated adjustments to our ramp-up schedule, and over the five years, the revision for the Grasberg district reflects an approximate 9% reduction for copper and 7% for gold, with the largest impacts in 2026 and 2027. Again, this material is not lost, and is expected to be recovered over time.

As I mentioned, we're in the early stages of the ramp-up. There are a number of factors which provide upside to these estimates, as well as a number of risks.

Again, this is not a resource recovery issue or a significant cost issue to resolve. It's a timing issue, and we will work to optimize the plans as we go forward.

Our team is highly experienced, and we're confident in our ability to successfully address the current bottlenecks and restore large-scale production safely and efficiently. Moving to our growth, which is a very exciting feature of Freeport, as I mentioned, we're looking at the fundamental outlook for copper.

It's very clear additional copper supplies are required to support energy infrastructure, new technologies, and more advanced societies. At Freeport, we benefit from a portfolio of organic growth opportunities, which can be developed from our known resources in jurisdictions where we have established history and experience.

Our projects in Indonesia also have the benefit of high gold content that come with copper. Because our projects are brownfield in nature, we benefit from leveraging existing infrastructure, economies of scale, experienced workforces, and relationships with key stakeholders to move more quickly with less risk than a greenfield project.

We're entering a period of growth in our Americas business with near- and medium-term opportunities to scale our leach initiative and double production at our Bagdad mine in Arizona. We have longer-term growth in the Safford-Lone Star district and an exciting project at El Abra in Chile.

We're using innovative approaches with our projects to improve efficiencies, reduce costs, and reduce capital intensity, shorten the lead times for our projects. The high-potential, low-cost, innovative leach initiative is a great example of this, and it's likely one of the highest NPV opportunities across the industry.

We have projects in the 2026 pipeline to test injection of heated solutions into our stockpiles, which, together with additives, have potential for significant recovery gains. This year, particularly in the second half, will be an important year as we get results from our heat trials, advance our additive deployment, and work to scale next year to 400 million pounds per annum from this initiative, and to define our path to 800 million pounds by as soon as 2030.

The expansion opportunity at Bagdad is moving toward an investment decision. We're advancing engineering, retesting our capital cost estimates and economic evaluations, and working with our vendors to secure pricing on major components.

We're continuing to advance our work on tailings infrastructure there to further enhance optionality on the timing of the project. As a reminder, there are no permitting hurdles, and we've done a significant amount of work, planning, and early works so that we can complete the project within a three-to-four-year timeframe.

Studies are continuing in the Safford-Lone Star district to evaluate the optimal expansion and development options, and we continue to work to capitalize on the large undeveloped resource we have at Safford-Lone Star in an established US mining district. At El Abra, we have a great opportunity with our partner Codelco to develop a large-scale expansion.

This is a significant resource, with total copper reserves at El Abra approaching the size of the large position we have at Cerro Verde. As Richard mentioned, we were in Chile last week, and the project is being received very positively by our stakeholders.

The Chilean government is enthusiastic about the project, and is working with us to achieve a timely review of the application. We're also continuing to progress the Kucing Liar project in Indonesia to sustain a low-cost, long-term production profile in this prolific district.

On slide 13, to wrap up my comments and then Maree will cover the financials, a significant portion of our reserves, resources, and future growth are in the United States. Freeport is an important American copper producer, and is by far the largest contributor to the US copper market, with an established and successful franchise dating back to the late 1800s.

We call ourselves America's copper champion, and we are aggressively pursuing a series of initiatives to enhance our US business through innovation, automation, and investment in expanded facilities. These initiatives are designed to add production at a low incremental cost and improve profitability and resiliency of our valuable US business.

In an industry where development lead times can span more than a decade, our US business is strongly positioned with the potential for a 60% increase in copper production over the next several years. Our team is excited about these opportunities, and they represent a significant value driver for all of Freeport.

As I mentioned, we're working to improve our cost position in the US, and we've got our sights on targeted reductions as we go into 2027 and beyond. While we're currently facing some new challenges with rising energy costs and other consumables, the work we're doing within our control will make our US business more resilient, more profitable, and meaningfully more valuable.

I'll turn the call over to Maree, who will review our outlook, and then we'll take your questions. Thanks.

Thanks, Kathleen. On slide 14, we show our three-year outlook for sales volumes of copper, gold, and molybdenum.

The outlook incorporates the adjusted ramp-up schedule for Grasberg that Kathleen reviewed earlier, which is the primary change from our prior estimates. As discussed earlier, these changes are timing in nature, and will be recovered in the future.

We expect growing volumes in 2027 and 2028 as we reach full recovery at Grasberg. We provide quarterly estimates on page 27 of the reference materials.

As ramp-up progresses, our second-half volumes are expected to be approximately 30% higher for copper and approximately 50% higher for gold compared with the first half, driving earnings and cash flow in the balance of the year. On slide 15, we highlight renewed cost pressures we are experiencing since the onset of the conflict with Iran in late February.

The price of diesel fuel, which we use to support our haul trucks in the Americas and for a portion of our power plant in Indonesia, has been volatile, with the most significant impacts in Indonesia. To date, it has been more of a cost issue than a sourcing issue, but we continue to monitor the situation carefully.

For reference, the sharp rise in diesel prices in March equates to an approximate $500 million cost increase on an annualized basis. We are also monitoring the sulfuric acid situation, where prices more than doubled on the spot market.

We do not have significant exposure to the spot market, and we are further insulated to the sulfuric acid market volatility through our natural hedge from our smelters. We have incorporated recent diesel prices in our updated forecasts, and have also incorporated updated assumptions for higher gold and molybdenum prices.

With these updates and the revised production profile, our current outlook for net unit costs is expected to average $1.95 per pound of copper for the year, compared with the prior estimate of $1.75 per pound. The primary driver of the change reflects the lower contribution of Grasberg volumes.

Putting together our projected volumes and cost estimates, we show modeled results on slide 16 for EBITDA and cash flow at various copper prices, ranging from $5.00 to $7.00 copper. Whilst we do not project prices, we modified the range to show sensitivities with upside and downside to the current prices.

These are modeled results using the average of 2027 and 2028 with current volume and cost estimates, and holding gold flat at $4,500 per ounce and molybdenum flat at $25 per pound. Annual EBITDA would range from approximately $14 billion per annum at $5.00 copper to $21 billion at $7.00 copper, with operating cash flows ranging from approximately $10 billion per year at $5.00 to $16 billion at $7.00 copper.

We show sensitivities to various commodities on the right. You will note we're highly leveraged to copper prices, with each 10¢ per pound change equating to approximately $400 million in annual EBITDA in the 2027-2028 periods.

We will also benefit from improving gold prices, with each $100 per ounce change in price approximating $110 million in annual EBITDA. With our lonely reserves and large-scale production, we are well positioned to generate substantial cash flow to fund future organic growth and cash returns under our performance-based payout framework.

Slide 17 shows our current forecast for capital expenditures in 2026 and 2027. Capital expenditures are similar to our prior estimates, and are expected to approximate $4.3 billion in 2026 and $4.5 billion in 2027.

The discretionary projects are expected to approximate $1.6 to $1.7 billion per year in 2026 and 2027, with roughly 50% related to the Kucing Liar development and the LNG project at Grasberg. The balance includes acceleration of tailings and other infrastructure to support Bagdad expansion, the Atlantic Copper CirCular project, which is expected to be completed during 2026, and capitalized interest.

The discretionary category reflects the capital investments we are making in new projects that, under our financial policy, are funded with the 50% of available cash that is not distributed. These projects are value-enhancing initiatives, and are detailed on slide 37 in our reference materials.

We continue to carefully manage capital expenditure, and will continue to deploy capital strategically to projects with the best return and risk-reward profiles. Finally, on slide 18, we reiterate the financial policy priorities centered on a strong balance sheet, cash returns to shareholders, and investments in value-enhancing growth projects.

Our balance sheet is solid with investment-grade ratings, strong credit metrics, and flexibility within our debt targets to execute on our projects. We have no significant debt maturities during 2026, and have substantial flexibility for funding the 2027 maturities.

Since adopting our financial policy in 2021, we have distributed $6 billion to shareholders through dividends and share purchases, and have an attractive feature long-term portfolio that will enable us to continue to build long-term value for shareholders. Our global team is focused on driving value in our business, committed to strong execution of our plans, providing cash to invest in profitable growth, and return cash to shareholders.

Thank you for your attention. We'll now take your questions.

Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone.

Maybe I wanted to explore a little bit on the level of confidence that you have on the new guidance for Grasberg. Obviously, a surprise on these revisions, but as you move forward, are there any specific points or areas where you think that they might be a higher risk of further potential reductions to production or ramp-up that maybe we should be aware of, that might realize or not, but you could maybe, Kathleen, highlight for us what those would be?

That would be great. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Carlos. The main thing that we are doing to resolve the issue is to install these regulators into the chute galleries.

Right now, we have the capacity to mine the material, but we're limited because of the need to have a certain type of consistency to go through the chutes. When we think about what the risks to the ramp-up are at this point, it is really a construction schedule, a delivery schedule from our vendor who we're already working with.

Some of the equipment is already on site, it'll be installed on a phased basis, and we have over the coming months additional equipment that will be coming to us so that we can install these we call them spillminators onto the chutes. Really it's a situation where the bottlenecks will be addressed by the installation of this equipment, and we have equipment on site now, we've got equipment on order, and it's a matter of meeting that execution timetable.

I want to go back to this team and what this team accomplishes in terms of the ability to construct things at Grasberg. This is not a lot different than a lot of the things that the team has done in the past.

The work that they did to prepare for restart was a really busy schedule with a lot of moving pieces, and the team did an excellent job with the support from our centralized team to execute the plan, and we'll approach this in the very same way. It's got one of the highest net present values in the business right now to get this up and running, and our team is all over it.

We have confidence in the ability to meet the plan. Now, the risks are that there could be delays in getting the materials, there could be construction delays, but we've managed that through this plan that we put forward, and we'll stay on top of it until it's done.

Mark Johnson is on the call as well, and, Mark, if you want to add any color to what we're doing there, please go ahead.

Kathleen, we've had one of these spillminators, it was a prototype about a year ago that we called version 1. What we're installing now is a re-engineered version of that, a version 1.5.

We've got the first one installed last week, independent of some of this recent realization on the shift in material types. We're testing that starting this weekend.

As you mentioned, we've got a number more at site. Our fabrication is taking place in Indonesia, and the group that's doing it has been very responsive to our needs.

We're looking at wrapping up the capacity of that plant in Indonesia. Then also the team is looking at other ways to shorten the construction cycle on the chutes.

What we've taken and what we've put into the plan is what we know we can do from the past. Then like you mentioned, we'll be continuing to look for things to do that we could optimize and make that installation just that much more simple and quick.

Thank you.

[chuckles]

Maybe a very, very quick follow-up. Can the regulators handle a drier material if the ratio improves over time?

Yes. It's really about being able to shut off the flow if it gets very sloppy, and it's a very innovative design where the gate and the hydraulic rams actually, as the material starts to flow, it assists in us being able to shut off the flow if we need to.

It's a matter of preventing spills from happening on our haulage level onto the trains, but it'll also handle the dry material.

It's a very flexible, robust system, and as we mentioned, we had planned over the long term to install it, and now we're accelerating that to make the system more flexible and robust to handle any type of material.

Thank you.

Morning, Kathleen and team. Not to Monday-morning quarterback, but you've got a very experienced team there at Grasberg.

How was this issue missed in the initial assessment that water would start to build up as mining was halted? Then maybe in layman's terms, why not add more drainage to the mine?

Thanks.

Mark, why don't you take the last part of that and what we're doing. In terms of the first part of that, Alex, we have monitoring of the water coming in and out of the cave.

There was nothing that was detected of any significance or any significant concern. It's just a matter of getting access to each of these drawpoints and to be able to inspect them, and we couldn't do that until we got access in this March timeframe.

It doesn't take a lot for something to move from dry to wet, and is just a small amount of moisture. This isn't like a lot of water or some big overwhelming situation.

It's just the nature of what's wet or moist versus what's completely dry. We do have a number of initiatives, and that's what I wanted Mark to cover, a number of initiatives that we started after the incident last September to address a more robust drainage system, but the one we have now within the block cave in terms of the gravity drainage is very good.

The one that we are pursuing is additional drainage from the surface. Mark, why don't we cover through that, and we've got some information in the supplemental slides on it as well.

Right, yeah. The slide that you're referring to is 41.

Alex, what we have right now and what we've had in place for years is that we have a very comprehensive drainage plan from the surface in the open pit where the pit has not been impacted. You're aware that as we block cave that there's a subsidence zone where the rock breaks.

Where we have the wet muck coming from is the rainfall that falls onto that broken material. Our drainage system, both for groundwater and for the surface area that's been unimpacted, is very robust.

It's been in place, functioning. The wet muck generation comes from the daily rainfall.

It falls onto that rock, it works its way down through the cave, and as it gets to a drawpoint, that drawpoint turns into somewhat of a funnel where it concentrates some of that flow that's within that broken rock. As Kathleen mentioned, it's only a couple percent difference in moisture content that can convert material from a dry material that we can handle easily to a wetter material that we need to manage much more significantly.

It's not a matter really of drainage, but what we are doing as a result of the external mud rush, the other incident obviously that's put us into the situation in the PB1 area, is that we're looking to be able to drain the water away that collects within the cave, essentially in that shape of the old pit. We're drilling into some of that broken rock above PB1, and we're seeing some initial indications even with smaller-diameter drill holes that we've been able to access some of that water.

That's encouraging. We're getting some other drills that'll drill those sort of holes much quicker and a bigger diameter.

Those are on schedule. They're coming in, should be drilling by the end of June.

Then we've got some other initiatives that are more focused on the PB1 reopening, of taking away that surface water that ponds or pools, and any mud-like material, any liquefiable material that might gather in the pit bottom.

Thanks for the color, and do appreciate all the hard work that the team's doing there. Thank you.

Thank you, Alex.

Hi, thanks, operator. Hi, Kathleen and team.

Just a couple of follow-up questions on Grasberg, and kind of following up on what Alex just asked. If we look at the portion of wet drawpoints before the mud rush incident, I think you said it was 30% and it's 45% now.

My first question is, what sort of variability is there around that number? In other words, was it 30%, but sometimes 35%, sometimes 25%?

What level of confidence do you have in the ratio of dry to wet today? That's the first question.

The second question is, when did you identify that there were too many wet drawpoints? I think there was a media report a couple of weeks ago that indicated that Freeport was actually ahead of schedule in the block cave ramp, and yeah, maybe that was just an incorrect media report, but I'm wondering if this is something that you just learned very recently, and was not an obvious problem just a few weeks ago.

Thank you.

Chris, on the diagram we show on slide 9, the number of drawpoints dry-to-wet comparison, the important thing to look at here is also the panel. In September, we had only one panel within PB2 and 3 that didn't meet the ratio.

We were dealing with that with blending, and so that was the only one that we were addressing. Now, you've got 10 out of the 23 that don't meet the 1-to-1.

What it ends up doing is derating the production of the whole panel, because you can only produce at the level of the 1-to-1 until we get these enhanced material handling systems installed. That's an important factor, what's going on within each panel.

In terms of the variability, Mark can comment further on this, but we wouldn't have had significant variability in the past, but we do have ongoing monitoring that looks to see for our processes to monitor these drawpoints for planning and management systems. Since we've started mining, we have had some drawpoints that were wet initially in March, go to dry and vice versa.

It is a little bit of a dynamic situation right now in the very early days of the ramp-up. As Mark talked about earlier, the timing of all this is we had just really commenced the ramp-up, and so there was new information that we were getting along the way in April as we were going through the forecasting process.

Freeport, we did not modify any of our guidance. The progress we were making on the restart was very good.

As I mentioned, we got that done ahead of schedule. Some of the media reports that you may be referencing relate to some of the discussions in Indonesia, where there could be government people that are asking questions about the plan or media asking about the plan, and those would have been based on our original plan because we had not formalized our forecasts until recently.

Again, the recovery and the preparedness to get to the ramp-up was going very, very well, and it's only this new information that has been unfolding in recent weeks where we had to address the forecast. Again, it's very early days, and things can move from here.

We do have a solution, we're going to execute against that solution, and it's a positive long-term solution to giving us flexibility to deal with these sorts of things as we go forward over the long term.

That's very helpful. Thank you, and good luck.

Sorry. One thing I might add.

I might just add, since the start of the Grasberg, we've also had a model that predicts the future of that wet-to-dry ratio, and all the way through the life of PB2 and 3, that ratio is generally 2 to 1, that we'd have two two drawpoints of dry to one wet. There'd be some panels that vary, the variability is more across the footprint, but broadly, we had a much better ratio that we've been forecasting, and using that as part of our mine plans.

That's a big part of the reason that we built GBC to be able to be remotely mined from the onset. We've been working on this for quite some time.

It's a bit of a complex model. It's both material characteristics from size, and then managing how the water makes its way through the broken rock mass.

Our indications were much different over the longer term. It didn't indicate the need for the spillminators at this point of the mine.

As Kathleen mentioned, we were working on that and saw certain panels that would require that, but what we've looked at now is taking what we have today and just applying that, making sure that the chutes themselves are not the bottleneck. The current plan is that we'll replace all the chutes so that we'll have that additional flexibility.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Hi, team. Thank you very much.

Just wanted to switch gears a little bit here. You mentioned deploying the first internally developed additive and working on a second additive in North America.

How established are the supply chains for each of these, and how quickly can you scale those additives? How much of the 800 million guide incremental for leaching is a result from these new additives?

Then lastly, given the increased diesel costs and global supply chain pressures, are there any risks for the $2.50 unit cost targets for North America in '27? Thank you.

Thank you, Nick. In terms of the additive, the one that we're deploying now, and we started with one stockpile at Morenci and are now deploying it more broadly across the stockpiles at Morenci, is readily available.

We've got a supply chain for it, and it's being applied, and the results will continue to evolve as we go through the year, and that's the data that we want to see. In the lab, the additive that we're referring to, we've got two additional of additives that we're focused on, and maybe more after that, but we call them our next-generation additives, we've seen with these additional additives performance in the lab that is a multiplier effect of benefit above the one we're using now.

We have been working with potential suppliers on those. It's not as easy to find, and we may have to have it made, as the ones that we're using now, but we've been conducting some meetings in recent months with anticipation that we will commercialize one or more of those additives, and that's really showing potential.

To answer your question about the scaling, it's the combination of additives and heat that is going to get us to the 800 million pounds. At the current levels, all of the initiatives we're doing on precision leaching, all those things, all the things we're doing in leach everywhere, we've got helicopters that are adding irrigation lines to places that we couldn't access before, all those things are sort of operational work that we're doing, and that'll allow us to be in this 250, 300 million pound range.

The rest of it really comes from the additives and heat. It's not just one by itself, because the combination of using an additive alongside of heat could give you a 1 plus 1 equals 2.5 or 3.

That's why this heat work is very important as well to get to our ramp-up rates. We've just started at Morenci, we've got a pilot where we're heating the raffinate to try to raise temperatures within the stockpile.

We're doing that on a test basis. We have our idea to put in some modular units of heat that could be applied to all of our stockpiles.

Initially, we're using natural gas to heat, but we're very excited about potential to have geothermal heat at Morenci, and we've got promise there, we're actually doing some drilling to define a geothermal resource that would be a low-cost way to heat the stockpiles. We know that heat works.

Raising the temperature of the stockpile will add volumes of significance. That, combined with the additives, we have a path to getting to 800.

We've got to solve what's the right additive for different material types, and we've got to solve the engineering of how to best get the temperatures raised in the stockpile. Cory Stevens is on and his team are leading this effort, and I'll come back to your $2.50 question, Nick, but Cory, if you want to add any color to what I just said, that'd be helpful.

Thanks, Kathleen. Kathleen said it.

We've got a pilot going. We're using that to calibrate our heat models and what we would expect to see at Morenci.

In parallel, we've got a bigger project going where we're going to be tripling the size of that for our El Abra operation. That's going to add some volumes there.

Additionally, we have a number of other targets where we're looking at a modularized version that can be deployed more readily across the portfolio, particularly in North America. We're pretty excited about where we're headed on that front.

Additionally, there's options with chemical heat using pyrite and air. Here in the second quarter, we're going to be starting what we call our perfect pile in New Mexico, and that will have a next-generation design on being able to leverage heat from the natural pyrite that comes with the process there.

Nick, on the $2.50 question, with the changes in in consumable costs and energy costs, we're we're reviewing what all that means, and it's been a volatile situation. In terms of where we were on that, if you looked at the energy costs, acid costs, all the the various consumables in place in recent quarters, together with the addition of these low-cost incremental pounds of getting to, our 400 target sometime next year, that would bring us So we have a we had a path to get to $2.50.

We now need to look at, what the right environment is for things that we don't control, like the cost of of diesel or the other other inputs, and so that will cause us to relook at the $2.50. The the point is is that with this input costs that we've had in place over the last several quarters and the the addition of these very low-cost incremental pounds, we see being able to get our US costs down significantly closer to where we are in South America.

That is that is still intact. We just need to continue to monitor what impact these commodity input costs will have on our cost structure, but the things that we can control, we're working very hard and have confidence that that our unit costs will trend lower, all other things being equal.

The sulfuric acid situation, while as Maree said, we don't have a lot of spot exposure this year, we'll have to see how that unfolds as we get into next year. While we're hedged naturally because we have the smelters, the the cost of of the acids that we buy will be shown in the operating cost for the US, and we'll have an offset elsewhere with with the the smelters that we have where we we actually produce and sell acid.

I hope that that helps you give you some color around that.

That does. Thank you very much.

I'll pass it on.

Good morning. Staying on the leaching theme, you all have been on a tear in terms of getting patents.

I think you've had more patents in the last three years, a couple dozen, than you had in the previous 10, many related to leaching. What's the philosophy of those patents?

Are they sort of defensive to make sure you can execute on your inventory, on your resource, or could they be potentially offensive, where you could be a partner and get access to additional resources with your technology?

I'll let Cory add to this, but it's really both. We've got 40 billion pounds plus of copper in these stockpiles, which have been treated as waste in the past.

There is a huge value opportunity for us, and that's our immediate priority to recover some of that copper that's sitting there in stockpiles, which needs a catalyst to produce it. That is our first priority.

The second is, yes, we could leverage any technologies that we develop to potentially partner with others, potentially having synergies in an M&A transaction, etc. Our first priority is to maximize the value of our own work here.

The team we have working on this, we have a technology center in Tucson, and the team we have working on it is really, really strong. We've added to the team recently, added some chemists and some other disciplines to the team.

We have a multidiscipline team working not only on what's the best additive, but also what's the best way to commercialize it. Our corporate development team's been actively involved in that as well.

Like I said, it's a very high net present value project, and would transform our US business into something that we're making a lot of advances to, and we're going to crack the code as we go forward.

Kathleen, you nailed it. Really, we're moving forward with this powerful group of innovators and filling the pipeline.

The 42 billion pounds that are within our existing stockpiles don't count the other options that we have within our company for below-cutoff grade material that we're currently considering waste today that could be extremely valuable for us in the future as these options materialize. It's a very competitive market, and so we're being very careful to protect our interests as we come up with these innovations.

That's all very clear. Thank you.

Thank you very much, operator, and hello, Kathleen and Richard. Thank you for taking my question and for today's presentation.

If I could, I'd like to follow up on the theme of industry cost pressures and just get a sense for what you've provided on the slides, and maybe this is best addressed by you, Maree, just in terms of the sensitivity of diesel. It's interesting.

Versus the Q4 slides, it looks like diesel sensitivity has actually increased. Could you maybe just walk through why that would happen, or why there'd be a larger impact on EBITDA now than there was three months ago?

The slide that Maree reviewed has our sensitivities to copper and all of our input costs, etc. What we do to calculate the sensitivities is use what's in that forecast for diesel price assumptions, and then measure a 10 or plus or minus 10% change to that.

We have now incorporated a higher cost of diesel in our assumptions than what we had previously, and that's why a 10% change is more than what it was before. Is that the question you were asking?

Yeah. No, that's exactly right.

It just seemed like it was a bit nonlinear. That's it.

I guess you're just assuming much higher diesel as a base case at this point?

Right. Yes,

and

we'll have to monitor that. We'll have to monitor it as we go.

In our forecasting process, we typically use the prices in effect at the time of the forecast. Those '27, '28 have higher diesel costs than we would have had three months ago.

That makes perfect sense. Then just thinking about industry cost pressures, we've heard of explosive costs being higher, grinding media.

You mentioned some insulation from sulfuric acid. When you think of some of the other key cost items for your business, are there other places where you feel there's some level of insulation, and then where are some of the other items where there might not be, and there could be more exposure there?

It's been very regional, Lawson. As Maree mentioned, we've had a significant rise in diesel costs, but the most significant impact has been in Indonesia.

Other Asian regions have experienced that inflation more significantly. We haven't seen a lot of things in terms of what we buy being adjusted at this point, but that'll be something that lags, and we'll have to see how long this situation continues, and whether it'll start to flow through other components of our costs.

Some of the things that trade on the spot market, you can see have reacted, but a lot of our consumables are contractually negotiated. We'll have to just continue to monitor those.

Thank you, guys.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. Recently, we saw there was a change to Section 232 tariffs impacting derivative products.

Do you see any impact from that, or do you expect any impact from that?

Not associated with what we sell. That change a lot of the codes for what gets tariffed, it did not change anything with respect to the refined copper cathodes at this point, and as that is something that the government said they were going to be reviewing potentially by middle of this year.

Then

maybe just quickly, I know we mentioned the sulfuric acid, you're hedged, but can you let us know how much of it you actually do purchase in US for your US operations?

It varies, but we do purchase some acid in the US. We also have, of course, the smelter, which provides a baseload of acid to our US operations.

We have actually a sulfur burner where we buy sulfur and convert that to acid at our Safford operation. It varies what we buy in terms of the amount of acid we buy, but we internally generate a big portion of what's needed in the US.

Then, of course, in Spain, where we have a smelter, that's all sold externally. Then in Indonesia, we sell acid, and we'll be selling, as Grasberg ramps up, we'll be selling more acid because we'll start to operate both smelters in Indonesia.

We're net long, and in South America, we do buy acid, and as we said, we don't have a lot of exposure to the spot market at this point in time. If this continues, we'll have to look at what it means for 2027.

Thank you.

Hey, good morning. Two questions for me.

I wanted to follow up on the Grasberg forecast. I know you talked about it being a timing issue, but I just noticed, and it's small, but it does look like some of the revisions extend out to 2029, just wanted some color there.

Then pivoting to Peru, if I could, just would be interested in your thoughts on the upcoming political election, given your presence at Cerro Verde. Thanks.

On the Grasberg, the real significant impacts were in 2026 and 2027. We do have a small impact in 2028 and in 2029, but those are really on the margin, and We're not projecting any sort of issue related to this material handling issue as we get into those periods.

That's just the normal forecasting updates, and there's rounding. It's pretty close to where it was.

Got it. Okay.

Then your thoughts on Peru, if I could?

Politically, we work with any administration. As there have been many presidents in Peru in recent years, and so we're prepared to work with any administration that comes in.

We have a really good relationship, which is really important in Peru, with the local communities. We know we have to earn that every day, but that's really important at the local level as well in Peru as we manage our risk there.

Having that relationship and having the partnership that we have on water that we supply to Arequipa has been really positive for Cerro Verde. In terms of changes in administrations, we'll continue to work, do the right thing, good corporate citizen in Peru with great benefits to the community.

That's been a real positive for Cerro Verde for many years, and we expect that in the future as well.

Thanks. Good luck to

you and the team. Let me just add that what Kathleen mentioned about our relationship with Arequipa is really special, and our team down there deserves a lot of credit for the way that they've built relationships with the community when so many other mining operations down there face a lot of challenges from the community.

We've dealt with a whole wide range of presidents. Politics are very complicated, but you can look at our operating record and see how we've operated at Cerro Verde throughout all that turmoil, and I'm confident we'll continue to do so.

Okay. Thanks again.

Hi, good morning. A couple for me, please.

Noticed the idle cost recovery costs at Grasberg went up to $1.3 billion from $900 million previously, in terms of costs that are being excluded from your reported cash costs. I'm just wondering, is that incremental dollars going out, or is that you're just shielding more of that from being included in cash costs?

Because we're not at full capacity in the second half, a portion, and it'll start being a declining portion, but a portion of our costs are expensed and don't go through the inventory and cost of sales. It's not an increase in cost, it's really characterization of whether it's included in our unit costs or how it's treated for accounting purposes.

We're just following the accounting guidance, and as we modified the ramp-up schedule, since we're not at capacity yet, a portion of our costs are treated as idle, and those are expensed right away. That's really what that is.

There's really no change in absolute cost other than the input costs that we have with diesel, etc. In terms of the idle cost methodology, that's consistent.

Perfect. Then just coming back to the operating recovery at Grasberg, you've identified the chutes as being a bottleneck here for the more substantial level of wet ore.

Are there any other potential bottlenecks ahead as this one gets solved that could play into the recovery rates?

This is this is the big one. This is the big one.

As as Mark was saying, we our our plan in terms of mining has been to have have the mining capacity and the loading capacity at the extraction level to handle to handle wet material. This is really just the logistical of how to get it get it loaded onto onto the trains.

This is really the the solving this issue will get us will get us where we where we need to be in terms of the the large-scale ramp-up.

The wet versus dry doesn't impact the capacity of the trains. Is that correct?

Right.

Okay. Thanks so much.

Hi, thank you. Two quick follow-up questions.

Firstly, just looking at slide 9 of the presentation again, it doesn't look like there's been any significant change in the ratio of wet to dry in PB1S or in the other sections. Is that the right read, no change there?

Daniel, this really was the comparison in PB2 and PB3 of wet to dry. PB1, we're still doing our work on PB1 to be in a position to restart PB1 South by middle of next year.

This chart really just deals with the wet to dry in PB2 and 3. In terms of the overall contribution of PB1S and ultimately PB1C, it's relatively small that we have in these forecasts.

Our initial focus is to get scale from PB2 and PB3, and then optimize the situation at PB1S, and then as Mark said, as we get more of our derisking done with the work we're doing with the drainage at the surface, consider reopening PB1C, but this plan largely, particularly in 2026, 2027, 2028 timeframe, is largely from the PB2, PB3 ramp-up.

I might

I might just add that that the I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, maybe you were answering. I was just going to say, are you also then installing the similar modifications to the chute systems in PB1S to ensure that you can achieve nameplate capacity even if the ratio is higher in that zone as well?

That was already planned. That was already part of our plan is to have have these devices in the panels in the in the chutes in PB1 chute galleries in PB1.

Go ahead, Mark.

That was what I was going to add. I was just going to let Daniel know that the chutes in PB1 were damaged with the external mud rush, the plan was to replace them with the newer technology.

Okay. Then just final one, what is the CapEx associated with these modifications?

There's been no change to group CapEx guidance. If you've deferred CapEx, is there any implications on the mine plan beyond 2030?

These are not terribly expensive equipment that we're installing. We've added something on the order of $60 to $70 million in CapEx associated with this, and had some timing variances within the plan that offset that, it's not a major cost driver, particularly considering how much copper and gold production you get from having this.

It wasn't a big cost. It didn't show up as a capital cost variance.

That's clear. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, and thanks for taking so much time with us, and we'll continue to report our progress as we go forward, and we're available if anybody has any follow-ups. Thank you very much.

Thanks a lot, everyone, and I can assure you we're going to be transparent in all things that go on with this ramp-up. Thanks a lot.