Thank you, Maggie. Good morning and good evening, and thank you all for joining us today.

I will begin by acknowledging the traditional owners on the lands on which PLS operates: the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation here in Perth, and the Nyamal and Kariyarra peoples in the Pilbara, where our Pilgangoora operation is based. We pay our respects to our elders past and present.

I'm joined today by Brett McFadgen, our Chief Operating Officer, and Alex Willcocks, our Chief Financial Officer. Today we are reporting a solid June quarter operating performance, which supported record quarter sales and some record full-year outcomes.

We'll take you through the key operational, financial, and strategic highlights before opening the line for questions. Turning now to slide two.

This slide highlights why PLS is well positioned to create value through the cycle. There are four key reasons.

First, our asset base and cost position. Pilgangoora is a high-quality, 100% owned Tier 1 asset with a competitive cost position that provides resilience during weaker markets and significant operating leverage as pricing improves.

Importantly, because we own the asset outright, that value flows directly to our shareholders. Second, our balance sheet.

We finished the year with $2.2 billion of cash and approximately $2.8 billion of total liquidity that gives us flexibility over the timing and funding of growth, and allows us to act from a position of strength. Third, execution.

FY26 demonstrated the strength of our operating platform. We delivered record annual production and sales, exceeded production guidance, and generated more than $1.36 billion of operating cash margin.

Finally, disciplined growth. We have multiple opportunities to grow our business, but we will only progress those opportunities where they are supported by strong returns, financial discipline, and of course market conditions.

Together, these attributes position PLS to remain resilient through the cycle while capturing greater value as market conditions improve. Turning to slide three.

The June quarter delivered strong sales, improved pricing, and substantial cash generation. Record quarterly sales of approximately 250,000 tonnes, together with a 13% increase in realized pricing to US$2,107 per tonne on a 5.2% basis, drove a strong financial result.

Revenue increased 31% to $743 million, while cash margin from operations increased to $579 million for the quarter. We finished the year with $2.29 billion in cash.

For FY26, production reached a record 880,000 tonnes produced, up 17% on the prior year, while sales reached a record 892,000 tonnes. Together with improved pricing and continued cost discipline, the generated cash margin from operations was $1.36 billion.

At the same time, we continued to progress our growth options, with Ngungaju restarting and work advancing across the P2000 project and the Colina project. Turning to our FY26 guidance on slide four.

We delivered across each of our FY26 guidance metrics, reinforcing the consistency of our operating performance. Production exceeded the top end of our guidance range, supported by a strong operational execution and record production in the March quarter.

FOB unit operating costs were near the lower end of our guidance range, reflecting higher production volumes and continued operational efficiencies delivered through our Cost-Smart Future-Ready program. Importantly, this outcome was achieved while also absorbing mobilization and restart costs associated with the Ngungaju plant recommencement.

Capital expenditure was near the upper end of guidance, including early expenditure associated with the Ngungaju restart and increased mine development. Most importantly, we delivered what we said we would.

That consistency gives us confidence as we move into FY27 and to progress the next phase of our growth strategy. I'd like to, at this point, just thank the team, a shout-out to all our great people of PLS.

It's been another year of challenges, and despite those challenges, you did it again. Thank you.

Thank you also to our contracting partners, our customers, and community stakeholders. You've been integral to our success both past and what we've just achieved this financial year.

With that, I'll hand to Brett to take us through an operations update.

Thank you, Dale. Moving to slide five.

Safety is our highest priority and takes precedence over all operational outcomes. No level of production or business performance outweighs the well-being of our people.

Any injury is unacceptable, and we remain committed to ensuring everyone goes home safe and healthy every day. Across the period, we recorded two injuries during the June quarter.

However, our total recordable injury frequency rate improved to 2.77, down from 3.82 in the prior quarter. Our improvement reflects the work we have been doing on frontline leadership engagement and our continuation with our critical risk management framework.

Moving to slide six. The Pilgangoora operation delivered a solid quarter, with total material mined increasing to 10.2 million tonnes and ore mined increasing to 1.7 million tonnes.

This reflects improved operational efficiency and the planned ramp-up in waste stripping to support the Ngungaju restart that commenced on July 1. Plant reliability was solid.

Lithium recovery reached 76.8%, consistently high and reflecting the capability embedded through the P1000 expansion. The ore sorter continued to perform well, providing operational flexibility.

On sales, record quarter volumes of just shy of 250,000 tonnes were achieved despite the congestion at Port Hedland. Ngungaju recommenced operations on 1 July, and the ramp-up is progressing on schedule.

The plant is expected to reach normal production rates within four months. I'll now hand back to Dale to cover growth and capital allocation.

Thanks, Brett, and well done to you and the team on another strong quarter. Moving to slide seven.

Our approach to growth remains disciplined. We progress opportunities in stages while preserving flexibility of the timing and scale of investment.

P2000 is our primary growth option and has the potential to significantly increase Pilgangoora production capacity. As announced in June, the board approved $175 million of pre-FID expenditure to progress long-lead activities and preserve the opportunity to accelerate first ore should a final investment decision be made.

We are exploring the additional benefits of potentially incorporating underground mining at Pilgangoora, with the PFS underway to explore this. Importantly, this pre-FID expenditure that has been committed is not a decision to proceed with the full project.

The feasibility study remains on track for outcomes in the December quarter. Moving to slide eight.

The Colina project in Brazil provides PLS with diversification opportunity, and this project continues to progress through feasibility, with study outcomes expected in the December quarter '27 next year. We are assessing investment in some early-stage enabling infrastructure, including access roads, water supply, and power, to support the project's future development readiness.

Turning now to our downstream activities on slide nine. Our approach to chemicals remains staged and disciplined, providing exposure to downstream value creation without committing significant capital ahead of demonstrated returns.

At PPLS in South Korea, the facility operated on a batch basis during the June quarter using lower-cost spodumene inventory from '25. At our midstream demonstration plant, commissioning has commenced, and first lithium phosphate product remains expected in the September quarter.

Now with that, I'll now hand over to Alex to take us through the financial performance. Over to you, Alex.

Thank you, Dale, and good morning, everyone. Please turn to slide 11 for a review of the key financial metrics for the period.

The June quarter represented a solid finish to FY26, demonstrating the underlying strength and cash-generating capacity of our operations. Revenue of $743 million, up 31%, reflects record sales volume and uplift in realized price despite FX headwinds.

As we previously flagged, FOB unit costs increased to $616 per tonne from $520 in the March quarter. Ongoing benefits from operational efficiencies and Cost-Smart Future-Ready initiatives were offset by costs associated with the Ngungaju restart, as well as fuel price impacts experienced during the period.

Importantly, the Ngungaju restart costs are one-off in nature and will normalize as production ramps up through FY27. Cash margin from operations was strong at $579 million, up 26%.

Record sales and strong pricing underpinned strong cash conversion. We finished the year with a cash balance of $2.29 billion, reflecting the combination of operational performance and the retained proceeds from our inaugural bond issuance in April this year.

Moving to slide 12, where I'll step through the key cash drivers. The $835 million increase in cash this quarter was underpinned by three things: strong operating cash generation as discussed, planned capital investment, and strategic financing outcomes.

On capex, we spent $162 million on a cash basis and $124 million on an accruals basis, comprising $53 million of mine development and $71 million in infrastructure and other sustaining. Net financing cash flows of $422 million reflects the US$600 million bond proceeds, net of Australian $375 million RCF repayments, as well as lease repayments and interest expense.

The result is a cash position of $2.3 billion, with total liquidity of $2.8 billion, including our undrawn RCF. That positions us well to support strategic investment in FY27.

Moving to full-year performance on slide 13. The full-year results demonstrate PLS's strength and resilience through the cycle, generating $1.36 billion of cash margin, underpinned by production performance, disciplined cost management, and pricing recovery.

Revenue increased 152% to $1.93 billion, driven by pricing recovery and higher sales volumes, partly offset by FX headwinds. FOB unit operating costs decreased 9% year-on-year to $569 per tonne despite Ngungaju restart costs and cost inflation, reflecting the ongoing impact of our Cost-Smart Future-Ready program and the operational efficiencies we continue to embed.

On a CIF basis, unit operating costs of $739 per tonne increased 1%, with higher royalty expenses from stronger pricing largely offset by FOB performance and lower shipping unit costs. Cash margin increased by $1.16 billion on the prior year and underpinned our $2.3 billion ending cash position.

Moving to slide 14, which shows the full-year cash flow bridge. The $1.36 billion cash margin from operations included the US$100 million Canmax prepayment, reflecting counterparty confidence in our business.

Capital expenditure totaled $344 million on a cash basis and $328 million on an accruals basis, within our guidance range, and comprised $146 million of mine development and $182 million in infrastructure and sustaining capex, including the Pilgangoora warehouse, tailings storage facility upgrades, and Ngungaju capital works to support the restart. Net financing cash flows of $354 million reflects net proceeds from the US bond and RCF repayments of $442 million, partially offset by lease repayments and interest expense.

This financial strength is continued evidence of disciplined operations in a challenging cycle, and positions us well to execute with confidence in FY27. I'll now hand back to Dale to walk through our strategic priorities and guidance for the year ahead.

Thanks, Alex. Moving to slide 16.

Turning to FY27, our immediate focus is to maximize value and cash generation from Pilgangoora, while continuing to progress our growth portfolio in a disciplined manner. Under our Operate strategic pillar, the priority is the safe and successful ramp-up of Ngungaju, while maintaining strong performance across the broader Pilgangoora operation.

Under Grow, we will continue to progress P2000 through the feasibility study and the approved pre-FID work program. Any further investment will remain subject to study outcomes and board approval.

Under our Chemicals pillar, we will support the continued operational development of the PPLS JV and progress commissioning of the midstream demonstration plant. Under Diversify, we will advance the Colina project through its own feasibility study, targeting completion in the December quarter next year.

Together, these priorities balance near-term operational delivery with disciplined investment in the future growth of PLS. These priorities are supported by disciplined approach to capital allocation, which is set out on slide 17, which we'll turn to now.

One of PLS's key strengths is our balance sheet, but equally important is how we deploy capital. Our approach is straightforward.

First, sustain. We invest the capital required to safely operate Pilgangoora and sustain production over the long term.

In FY27, mine development expenditure increases as we progress a planned cutback to access future mining areas, alongside our normal sustaining capital and operating infrastructure investment. Second, enhance.

These are investments that improve the capability, efficiency, and performance of our long-life asset. This includes opportunities such as road infrastructure, accommodation, and mine services facilities.

Finally, grow. Growth capital is directed towards expanding the business through initiatives such as P2000 in Australia and Colina in Brazil.

Importantly, these investments remain staged and subject to successful studies, disciplined capital allocation, and appropriate market conditions. Together, this framework ensures we continue to protect the strength of the existing business whilst investing in future growth in a disciplined way.

Turning to slide 18. This slide sets out our guidance for FY27.

Production increases care of the Ngungaju ramp-up alongside continued strong and reliable performance from our Pilgan processing plant, with the two plants together forming the expanded Pilgangoora production platform. As it relates to FOB unit operating costs, these are expected to increase modestly on a blended basis, reflecting the relatively higher operating cost of Ngungaju and its ramp-up during the year.

We will remain focused on productivity, reliability, and cost efficiency across both plants. As it pertains to base capital expenditure, this is principally weighted towards mine development, including a planned cutback that will progress over two years to provide access to future mining areas.

Sustaining capital also increases, reflecting the operation of the two plants and the delivery of the suite of future-focused initiatives identified by our Cost-Smart Future-Ready program. These minor one-off investments in operational efficiencies are expected to incrementally support Pilgangoora's low-cost operations into the future.

As it relates to growth capital, included in guidance comprises the previously announced $175 million pre-FID for the P2000 project. Please note that expenditure relating to potential P2000 full financial investment decision and a broader Pilgangoora infrastructure investment and any Colina early works is not included in FY27 guidance.

These initiatives remain subject to further assessment and board approval and will be announced separately as required. Turning now to slide 20.

Moving to the market. Demand is becoming broader and more resilient, while meaningful new supply remains difficult to deliver at the pace required.

These dynamics increasingly favor established, low-cost lithium producers with the financial capacity to invest through the cycle. On demand, the important development is the ongoing diversification.

Electric vehicles remain the primary driver, but battery energy storage systems are scaling rapidly, and commercial vehicle electrification is becoming increasingly meaningful. Lithium demand is no longer reliant on on one single application or geography.

Global EV sales were up 2.3% year-on-year to June, with particularly strong growth outside of China. In Europe, it was up 27%; Asia, excluding China, up 78%; and the rest of world category stepping up an enormous 122%.

Europe is now accounting for more than a quarter of global EV sales. This demonstrates that lithium demand is becoming increasingly diversified across regions rather than remaining dependent on any particular market.

Within China, although vehicle sales have moderated, average battery pack sizes continue to continue to increase. Battery electric vehicle pack sizes were up approximately 15%, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle pack sizes are up approximately 31% year-to-date.

This means that lithium demand can continue to grow even when vehicle unit vehicle unit growth moderates, because each vehicle requires more lithium. These trends are also being reinforced by government policy.

In China, China is targeting EVs to represent 30% of vehicles on its roads by 2030, and electric trucks to reach 40% penetration over the same period. This reinforces that electrification is extending beyond passenger vehicles into heavier transport applications.

Battery energy storage remains an increasingly important demand driver. Global installed capacity increased 25% year-on-year, including a huge 96% growth in Europe.

We see this as an important structural shift, with energy storage increasingly becoming critical infrastructure, supporting grid reliability, renewable integration, and energy security. Another encouraging signal comes from the battery supply chain itself.

In its recent interim results, CATL reported battery manufacturing capacity under construction is equivalent to around one and a half times its existing operating capacity. That level of investment reinforces our view that the industry's largest participants continue to see strong long-term demand growth.

On another point, the US Defense Logistics Agency has also recently gone to market to procure battery-grade lithium carbonate for the National Defense Stockpile. While the demand is modest, it represents another source of competition for lithium units, and it highlights the increasing strategic importance of secure lithium supply for defense and national security purposes.

On the supply side, the industry is responding to improved pricing through the restart of idle capacity and the announcement of new projects. However, our experience tells us that announced tonnes should not be confused with delivered tonnes.

Bringing meaningful new supply to market requires financing, permitting, construction, commissioning, customer qualification, and operational ramp-up, a process measured in years, not months. At the same time, sovereign and policy risks are increasing.

Zimbabwe's reaffirmed ban on spodumene concentrate exports from '27 is one recent example, placing approximately 250,000 tonnes of LCE-equivalent supply at risk. It demonstrates that future supply is increasingly exposed not only to project execution, but also to government policy.

All together, these demand and supply dynamics reinforce our view that the lithium market will continue to experience periods of tightness and pricing volatility. This is consistent with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence long-term outlook, which forecasts lithium demand growing at approximately 10% per annum through to 2040, ahead of forecast supply growth of approximately 8% per annum.

For PLS, that environment plays to the strengths we have deliberately built: scale, cost-competitiveness, financial strength, and control over timing of our growth. Against that backdrop, let me close by summarizing what FY26 demonstrated and the priorities that will define FY27.

In closing, FY26 was a defining year for PLS. We delivered record production of 880,000 tonnes, record sales of 892,000 tonnes, and we finished the year with approximately $2.8 billion of total liquidity.

Importantly, these outcomes were not simply the result of stronger lithium prices. They reflect the operating leverage we deliberately built through the downcycle and the disciplined execution of our team.

In FY27, our focus is clear: safe ramp-up of Ngungaju, maintain strong performance of Pilgan, and progress P2000 towards a decision in the December quarter. We enter the year with strong momentum, financial flexibility, and confidence in the long-term outlook for PLS.

Thank you to our shareholders for your ongoing support and the belief in this incredible market. Thank you for your time this morning.

Brett, Alex, and I would now be pleased to take your questions, and with that, I'll now pass to Maggie to open the line for those questions. Thank you, Maggie.

G'day, yeah, good morning. Thanks Dale, Alex, and Brett for your time.

Maybe just starting on recoveries, operational question. They've been pretty good the last few quarters.

How do we think about upside to the long-term assumptions there of sort of 75% and 67% across the two plants of Pilgan and Ngungaju?

G'day Levi. Obviously with the return of the Ngungaju plant, that plant actually does have a lower recovery that we've been working on through the years.

When you think of the recoveries, think of them as a whole. We look at a multitude of factors such as head grade, plant stability, and levels of contamination.

We're working hard to improve those recoveries. I'd be thinking around the mid to low 70s for the recoveries going forward, obviously impacted by the Ngungaju lower recovery of the ore that we do feed that plant.

Levi, just to add, look, it's a great question, and one we're wrestling with because, yeah, as you say, the team's done a fantastic job with lifting recoveries. It's natural to say, what does this mean for the long-term valuation of the asset?

Over the coming months, we will be grappling with this question, because, of course, we've got the P2000 study still working on, we'll have to take a view as part of that. Of course, we'll be looking at resource and reserve modifying factors as well, this will all come to a head in due course.

It's exciting to think about the potential adjustment to the valuation of our asset care of an improved long-term lithium recovery parameter.

Nice one. Just on the P2000, appreciate the FID is still three, four months away, but what could we expect then?

How fast can you hit the ground? Part of what I'm thinking about is, yeah, how much obviously got to model it, but how we think about capex or is it largely a FY28 sort of story?

The P2000, as per previous disclosure and as part of the pre-FID that we announced, we flagged first ore in calendar year '29, and that assumes, essentially, we're moving as quickly as we can. As part of the full FID announcement, we'll provide a restatement of that timeline and we'll see how the team goes to see if we can bring things to the left.

We're certainly pushing for that, but we'll see how we go. We'll give a new statement on the timeline for that one.

Coupled with that, of course, will be the capital outlook for the project, which, yeah, at this point, we can't give you any visibility until we've completed that study.

Thank you. Could I just squeeze one in on the underground?

That was new news to me, what are the drivers here to looking at that maybe early?

Sure. As Levi, we've got a burning focus on value creation for our shareholders.

As we think about that, we're looking at what can we do to maximize recovery, but also what can we do to maximize resource capture in the mine. Underground, we think, has potential, but we're really at the start of exploring that.

We thought it's prudent to flag to market that, yeah, we've got a PFS underway to explore this. We'll see where that takes us.

Given the scale of the Pilgangoora system, it's enormous. We've seen it appears to grow at depth from some of the deeper drill holes we've seen.

It's a very interesting area for us to explore further. We'll see how we go.

Great, thank you. Thanks for your time, team.

Thanks, Levi.

hi. Good morning, Dale, Brett, Alex, and James.

Thanks for the call. Look, I wanted to perhaps start with the base capex, that range around 450 to 510 for next year.

Just wanted to understand how should we be forecasting this going forward? Obviously, there's a bit of a step-up there both in terms of sustaining and then capitalized waste movement there that's ongoing.

I believe there's a part related to Ngungaju there as well. If I look forward, are there components within this capex number that will drop out after this year or next year, or are we just dragging right on this with an inflation component within it?

That's the first one. I'll come back with the second.

Thanks.

Thanks Rahul. I'll take the first part and then hand over to Alex, but certainly in the sustaining capital, there's some one-off Cost-Smart Future-Ready projects that majority of those will probably be done in FY27, it's a little bit inflated there.

Then it'll normalize going forward, so that's why it's probably a little bit higher than what we would normally have. Some of those are very value-adding projects across the operation in cost efficiencies and improving our overall outcomes for the shareholders.

Thanks Brett. Rahul, you also asked around the three different components to the base capex guidance for this year.

The first is the mine development piece that reflects the significant increase in mining activity given the cutback work, and that's just tied to the phasing of the mining activity. As you've called out, sustaining capital has stepped up.

That's a couple of different reasons. First, the assumption that we're operating the base plants now.

We've got that normal maintenance capital coming through on both the Ngungaju asset as well as the Pilgan asset. We do have a number of Future-Ready initiatives that will be rolling out in the next year that should be completed within the year.

Now, those are one-off investments targeting operational efficiencies and reliability improvements. That will play a part as we move forward then into FY28, and we'll obviously provide some further guidance as we get to that right point.

The other piece within the infrastructure space in FY27, there are some, I guess, more significant programs of work in FY27. We have the coarse ore stockpile dome activity underway.

There's a number of mine water supply upgrades that we're working through, and some works on the camp as well. Those are, I guess, more significant projects that won't be repeated as we move into FY28 as well.

Got it. Alex, if I had to summarize that perhaps, then I guess the sustaining capital side in dollar-million terms seems quite sticky in terms of future-looking proportions, and then if I look at the mine development, that's perhaps more concentrated this year and next, and then maybe steps down by some percentage, and then the infra piece is obviously going to be ad hoc.

Is that the right way to think about it?

I think it's a fair interpretation. Brett, you want to speak around the mining?

Certainly. In the mine stripping, as Dale mentioned, the next couple of years are heavily intensive on our cutback.

Then the mine development will step down and then normalize out a little bit more for the life of mine. It is a little bit inflated for the next two years.

Got it. Perfect.

Brett, second one's for you, mate. I'm just looking at next year's guidance, and I wanted to perhaps touch through some of the key points there.

Levi talked about recovery, I'll leave that one out. Can you maybe share some of the back assumptions in terms of that guidance around grade, strip ratio?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is obviously you finished the year at a cost number which is already at the top end of your next year's guidance when Ngungaju is producing. I know there was a bit of work going on on site this quarter which impacted that cost number for this quarter.

Just wanted to understand some of the back-end assumptions in that number just for us to be able to run the physicals and arrive at that cost in our modeling as well, and to understand sort of the pinch points, I guess, in terms of energy and some of the other variables around currency, etc., so that we can model it appropriately. Thanks.

I'll take the physicals aspect to that, and then Alex chime in with some of the financial headwinds that we're seeing in FY27. In addition to the restart of Ngungaju, traditionally operating at a slightly higher operating cost compared to the Pilgan plant, the impact is exacerbated through the restart and ramp-up period.

We should see those elevated costs for the first few months, four months, as we ramp up, and then they'll drop to a more sustainable level post hitting those production rates at Ngungaju. The quantum of mine stripping this year is elevating up as we go into stage six, and we start to use some of the larger gear.

We've already got the larger platform rigs, but it really starts to become a volume-based mining activity. It is an extra 20 million tonnes.

That strip ratio does go up from last year to about 5.9, but that is well below the life-of-mine strip ratio of the 7.7. There's those impacts in FY27 are certainly coming at us from a physicals viewpoint.

Obviously, a lot of our Cost-Smart Future-Ready projects are aimed at those efficiencies and actually getting us down that cost curve, but I'll hand over to Alex for some of the other color on the financials.

Thanks Brett. Rahul, you also asked around energy prices.

Obviously, when we put the guidance together, it's been one of the key pieces on our minds. Just to sort of remind people, in terms of energy, the main Pilgangoora processing plant is mainly powered by LNG and solar battery.

Diesel's really used in our heavy mining equipment fleet, which provides the feed to the plant. We have looked at a range of different diesel price assumptions as you would expect as we've been putting this together.

To give you a feel, in FY26, we ended up with diesel accounting for about 6% of our production costs. We're looking at that increasing to between 8% to 10% as we move into FY27, and that's driven by two parts.

First, we do have some increased consumption of fuel given the Ngungaju plant and additional activity on site, and also as Brett's already spoken to, the step-up in mining activity. There is a consumption component as part of that.

Then we've used sort of our best estimates on the outlook for diesel, really taking to account the forward curves and also an allowance for the uncertainty there. You will see that playing through our guidance numbers as well.

That along with FX are clearly things that we can't control, but we feel that we've made a reasonable allowance within the guidance range that we've provided.

Morning, Dale and the team. Just a question on the near-term production.

Good to know that Ngungaju is going through the restarting phase. Just keen to understand how should we think about the near-term volume ramp-up?

Would there be any potential tie-in activities that could result in lower near-term volume? Thank you.

Thanks, Austin. No, the Ngungaju plant's quite separate.

It's a very well-known plant. We had it in care and maintenance, obviously brought it out of care and maintenance, did a lot of prep work to bring that online.

Now it's just really doing those commissionings. What we are doing is taking a lot of the learnings that we've had from the Pilgan plant across to that plant and applying them there, we get the benefits of those as well.

No, nothing untoward there. I think the schedule that we've got in the plan we're looking pretty good for the first four weeks of that plan.

Cool, thank you. Second one, just on the P2000.

In this update, you highlight there are quite a few different work streams you are working through as part of pre-FID study. In the event that project is approved, I'm just keen to understand, for each of those work streams, is a sequence?

How should we think about the capex investment profile? Would that be fairly concentrated or would that be kind of spread across a few years, with some happening even after the commissioning of the project?

Thank you.

G'day, Austin. On P2000, we'll provide some qualitative explanation for that as part of the study outcome.

To talk in general terms, the bulk of the capital typically arises when it moves to site execution, and, yeah, the timing for that will give visibility with the study outcome. I suspect that, yeah, the bulk of that would occur something like one year after FID on the assumption FID occurs.

Out of all that, I'd say mid to back end would be the largest capital draw, but obviously at the front end you'd have things like earthworks, long-lead equipment, steel procurement, etc., etc. Can't offer you much more than that description at this point.

Cool, no worries. Thank you.

I'll pass on.

Thanks, Austin.

thanks very much, and good morning. I was hoping for a bit of a rundown on the stockpile strategy, if that's okay.

I can see obviously for quite some time the ore mined is much higher than the ore processed. I'm just wondering, I guess, how big are the stockpiles, how much do you need to, I guess, grow them into P2000, and I guess what happens after P2000 with all of that?

Thanks.

Thanks Lyndon. Look, the mining and stockpiling strategy is probably about where we would like it, we've got a good amount of flexibility ahead of our processing plants, both at Ngungaju and at Pilgan.

The additional color in there is some of the contact ore that now comes up that we're actually blending in. Some of the ore mined actually includes that contact ore as well.

At the moment, it goes through at about a 20% to 25% blend rate. Obviously, P2000 is what we're looking at to look after that contact ore going forward.

Really does give us that flexibility and ensures that any sort of upsets in the mine or anything like that, weather impacts, allows us to make sure that we're not impacted at the plant side. Yeah.

Lyndon, just one to add there. Part of what Brett and the team have achieved over the years is to evolve the operation to be more bespoke, attuned to different ore characteristics.

There's been quite an intentional strategy by Brett and his team to move to a different stockpile strategy for the purpose of maximizing lithium recoveries. This is part of the reason behind some of the good results that we're seeing.

We've moved to a more sophisticated feed strategy which is flowing through to the bottom line care of those higher recoveries. As Brett said, not looking to increase those stockpiles at the level.

The operating setup is appropriate for the processing capacity that we've got at this time.

Thanks for that. Look, follow-up question.

Wesfarmers has obviously approved their project. The capital intensity there looks relatively high.

I guess if the street is somewhere between $2 billion and $2.5 billion for you guys, there's quite a big difference there. Clearly, P2000 is a bigger project and benefits from some economies of scale, but wondering if you could maybe make any observations on the differences there, or whether we need to actually reconsider sort of the all-in spend for you guys?

Look, couldn't really make a useful comment on what Wesfarmers is up to. I wouldn't draw a line between what they're doing and what we're doing.

Certainly, that's what I've impressed on Paul, our project director, not to get any ideas. We're, of course, very focused on making sure that we deliver efficient capital intensity, and we'll be deploying every tool available to make sure that we deploy our shareholders' dollars and stretch them as far as we can.

As I say, I wouldn't draw a line between what Wesfarmers announced and where we're heading.

Thanks.

Morning, Dale, Alex, Brett. Thanks for the update this morning.

Brett, first one for you on processing performance in the quarter. The implied processing head grade continues to track a lot higher than the reported mined grade.

Am I right to infer that your reported recovery is post ore sorting, and if so, what would your recovery have been versus the mined grade?

Thanks Hugo. You're right.

Our recovery is post ore sorting. As we've talked about before, that stockpiling strategy and looking at how do we maximize the resource for the best benefit of those recoveries certainly comes into play.

Look, I wouldn't go back and do all the numbers on the pre-sorting to look at the recovery, but we look at maximizing those ore sorters for the technology that they're actually doing, and they're actually doing a great job of ejecting the contaminants, and then allowing that processing plant to get a really good run of the ore. All about creating the best ability to get the best ore to the plant and get the maximum recovery out of it.

It's a bit difficult depending on what sort of levels of contact we're running and where that ore is coming from and the geometallurgical makeup of it as well.

Got it. Appreciate that's going to vary depending on the mix.

I don't know, if you had to sort of ballpark it, would you say that recovery from the ore sorting piece is sort of 2% to 5% uplift on what it would be otherwise?

Certainly what we're seeing is a better-than-expected outcome with our ore sorters. We're actually working really well with TOMRA, and we're actually getting the value out of those ore sorters to remove those contaminants and get that upgrade.

I wouldn't put a figure on it right now, but what we are looking at is just everywhere we can improve through the use of that technology gives us that downstream benefit.

Got it. Thanks.

Just another clarification on the processing, just noting your ore mining is wet tonnes and your processed is dry tonnes. Is that still running at about a 5% moisture, and maybe accounting some of the difference as well?

Roughly round about there, Hugo. Not too far off.

Great. Then if I can just turn to '27 guidance.

Would have just provided roughly what you've assumed in terms of tonnes from Ngungaju in '27. I presume that's going to be less than the 200,000 tonnes because you're in ramp-up, but then what you've also assumed ongoing for recoveries at the Pilgan plant, whether we should be taking the sort of mid-70s forward to achieve that average of the low 70s you talked to across the asset?

Look, we don't split the both circuits and talk to them individually. We really work it as a unit.

That, as we said before, we're looking at the low 70s for the total recovery. Obviously, the Ngungaju, we know that it's a lower-recovery plant, but as a system, we leverage both plants for the best outcome of the product and then the best recovery of both of them going forward.

Morning, Dale. Dale, I just noticed you've obviously said you've got the access road, permanent village, and the HME facility subject to board approval.

Can you help us understand what are we thinking about in terms of capital spend there? Are they likely to go to the board this financial year '27, we could see additional spend on those this year?

G'day, Glyn. Thanks for sort of exploring this.

In terms of potentially coming to the board this year, yes, and that's why we sort of sought to really reinforce this with slide 18, that we've got a couple of line items there which are subject to the board approval. Yes, it could well be this year.

Obviously, we've got the P2000 slated for December quarter, and potentially we will look to do some of these other potential investments around the same time, or we'll see how we go. We've got a lot under study at the moment.

To your question on what is the quantum, can't give you a steer on that because we're deep into study mode. What we have sought to do is at least give some sort of framing around what that might look like.

One of the previous releases, I think it was the Macquarie prezo, slide 12 there, we've given the length of the access road of 24 km, we've given the size of the village, which is an 800-bed camp, which can then as a base sort of size camp with a view to potentially scaling that larger to support P2000, and a little bit about the mine services facility. Appreciate it doesn't give you capital numbers, but it gives you a feeling for the scale.

Unfortunately, can't offer too much more until we get those studies complete.

Would $200 million scare you?

I'm not scared by much, Glyn, but yeah, I can't give you a steer.

Okay. Then the next question I've got is around mine development, which you've explored.

I just want to make sure I understand how you think about P2000 and mine development. Not looking for quantum, but just you've already got the $1.2 billion number in the market for P2000, which will change.

We all get that. Was that just the plant?

Then we should be thinking that your mine development spend that you've talked about for the next two years doesn't have anything in for P2000, we should expect on top of the number for the plant that there will be an additional stripping required as well? Is that the right way to think about what we're going to get at the end of the year?

In terms of, yeah, going back to the original study that we did in '24, yeah, I wouldn't lean too much on that, because obviously, as a lot's changed, not only in terms of cost inputs, but also the way we're thinking about the development. The processing technology is continuing to evolve, the scale and the feed strategy has all continued to evolve.

Partly because we've continued to do more test work, but partly because, well, we've learned a lot and gained great results through the ore sorting. Of course, that factor flows into the new investment case.

The '24 study is not much of a guide in terms of what we can come back to the market to, which you rightly called out. Thank you for that.

As to what's the make-up of what's in and out, again, you'll have to wait for the study outcome. Sorry, Glyn.

I know everyone's itching to get the details, but we'll lay it all out in the one release.

Hi, good morning, everyone, and thank you for taking my questions. I think, assuming that we continue to see this health market, your cash generation is quite strong.

I'm just curious if there is any flexibility to perhaps bring forward Colina? I know that in current environment, the IRR of this project should be super high.

In relation to that, how should we think in broad terms on capital allocation? How would you compare your organic growth opportunities with perhaps some M&A potential?

Thank you.

Thanks for your question. I'll start with that, and then to Alex.

Look, thank you for sort of highlighting the cash generation which is occurring here, because if you'll indulge me for a quick moment, it is just an incredible strength of this business. The $1.3 billion of cash margin through operations, incredible, that's care of the scale.

We've got leverage and scale. We've got a low cost position.

It's all flowing through to the bottom line. Of that cash margin, well, over 40% of it was generated in the last quarter.

When you think about, well, what's the headline realized pricing last quarter to this quarter, it's looking something similar. You take your own view of forward pricing when you sort of drag that to the right.

It's pretty incredible what could be possible through this business. Of course, as a 100% ownership, well, that flows directly through to our shareholders.

We don't have any JV splits or any of that sort of carry on, it's a wonderful position to be in. Now, turning to your question of bringing forward Colina, the short answer is we're doing what we can there anyways.

What that looks like in the first instance is we want to grow what's on the ground first. We've got drilling dollars slated to look to grow that, and then we're looking to size the appropriate processing operation to do that.

We're focused on maximizing the value of the resource and then maximizing the value capture through the right-sized plant for all the right processing tools. We're progressing that as quickly as possible, but December quarter next year is as quick as it can get in that regard.

With that, I'll hand to Alex on the

Thanks Dale. In relation to your broader question on capital allocation, Tiago, naturally, as you'd expect, we will look at all projects, whether they're our organic or any inorganic opportunities, through a returns and a shareholder lens.

We're in a very strong position that we've finished the year with $2.3 billion in cash on the balance sheet. That sets us up really well for upcoming decisions in relation to P2000, and as Dale says, the timing of Colina is really study-dependent to following on 12 months after that.

We'll continue to remain flexible and keep flexibility in the balance sheet, so that if there are opportunities that we think are the right long-term investment opportunities for shareholders, that we have the flexibility to be able to take action on those. As it's always dependent on what those opportunities are and where they come.

It's really we will continue to look at all aspects of growth, but really be returns-led in those decisions.

Thanks, Maggie. Some questions from the webcast.

Could you please advise if we'll be looking at dividends and when they might be due?

As to dividends, the board will consider that as part of the full-year results, and as to timing, if there is a dividend to be paid, that timing will be disclosed as part of that release.

Thanks, Dale. Next question: has PLS considered conducting offtake agreements with OEMs such as CATL, BYD, etc.?

Yes, it's the short answer. We continue to engage broadly across all parts of the supply chain, including some very recent engagement, and the appetite is very strong for securing volume from PLS, we're in an enviable position in that regard.

Thank you. How do you measure the success of the midstream product strategy?

What are you hoping to get from it? Yes,

this is a hard one to answer quickly, but essentially, it's a demonstration plant. What we're looking to do a whole series of learnings through multiple dimensions, and it's all to serve one aim: how can we capture more margin and more value closer to the resource through these value-adding steps.

Ultimately, what we'll explore through that demonstration plant are things like different feed strategies, different set points within the processing flow, understanding the quality impacts in terms of the product flowing out the back end, and critical to this will be different trials, plus also working with supply chain partners, including the first offtake that we've signed up there.

Thank you. What market conditions do you need to see to press the button on P2000?

The good thing about where we think we're heading with the P2000, this will all be revealed as part of the study outcomes, is as a scale project, and as per the first study released in '24, what that showed was a unit cost benefit care of that scale. Hopeful to continue that trend with the next study update.

What that means is, irrespective of market conditions, there's a case for investment given it makes us a stronger business, moves us to the left of the cost curve, and displaces others in the market, ultimately, during downcycles. That being said, the prevailing market price and market outlook will be a key feature of that decision, and we'll cross that bridge when the study is delivered.

Thank you. Do you see sodium-ion batteries as a challenge to PLS?

Look, we continue to study sodium-ion along with other competing technologies out there. Sodium-ion gets plenty of airplay from time to time.

Our view aligns with what we are seeing and hearing from all the experts out there: sodium-ion is a potential energy storage device, however, for certain use applications, fundamentally, it's much less energy-dense, almost by half. What that means is it is applicable to other use cases, and it's yet to have the scale in the market, and fundamentally has higher costs for some aspects and the fact that it's double the size, you need double everything, if not larger, to cater for that tech.

It doesn't concern us. The experts that opine on this see it as a small part of the future supply stack, and we align to that view.

Last question. Can you explain why the share price is so volatile?

I wish we could give it a clear answer on this one. Look, the lithium at the highest level, the lithium industry is a young industry growing from a small base.

The only consistent thing in the lithium industry has been that volatility. Put that down to a young industry growing rapidly, and we suspect that that trend will continue until such time the industry has got more scale and the supply chains are built out.

Until that time, well, it doesn't phase us at all. PLS, well, we've been built to not only navigate the volatility, but capitalize on it, and that's exactly what you're seeing at this time.

We've invested counter-cyclically, we've reduced our cost base, we've built scale, we've got more scale, a lower cost position, and here we are yielding the benefits of that. Return Ngungaju on, we've got that swing capacity coming online.

We've just generated $579 million in operating cash margin for June quarter alone. Headline pricing is still somewhere similar.

We are here to capitalize on that volatility, and obviously, for the benefit of our shareholders. It's exciting time for the company and an exciting market.

Great question to finish on. With that, that's a wrap.

Thank you all for dialing in for our June quarter results, a very strong quarter capping off what's been a record-breaking year for volume and sales, a fantastic set of outcomes, and we look forward to talking again with the full-year results in a couple of months' time.