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

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which PLS operates: the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation here in Perth, and the Njamal and Kariyarra peoples in the Pilbara. We pay our respects to their elders, past and present.

Joining me today is Flavio Garofalo, Interim CFO, and Brett McFadgen, Chief Operating Officer, and also members of our senior leadership team. This call will run for approximately an hour before opening the line for questions.

Over the past 18 months, the lithium market has been in what many have described as a lithium winter: a period of oversupply, pricing pressure, and heightened volatility. Since the trough, spodumene pricing has more than tripled, signaling a material shift in market conditions.

For PLS, the December quarter marked an inflection and validated the resilience and operating leverage of the PLS platform as pricing improved. Three numbers capture this shift: realized pricing increased 57% quarter-on-quarter, cash margin from operations increased from $8 million to $166 million, and cash increased by $102 million to $954 million, with a further $85 million in provisional pricing adjustments expected to come through in the March quarter.

Importantly, we achieved this without changing our operating footprint or capital intensity, reinforcing that the business is structurally cash generative across a wide range of market conditions. That outcome reflects deliberate countercyclical decisions taken over the past 18 months: maintaining operating capability, controlling costs, and preserving balance sheet strength while prices were challenged.

As a result, today we have approximately $1.6 billion of liquidity, giving us the flexibility to choose timing and sequencing, rather than being forced to act by the cycle. The December quarter demonstrates that approach working, with strong cash margins, continued cost discipline, and the option to selectively re-engage growth options while maintaining discipline.

Turning to slide 2, our strategy has not changed. Our mission remains powering a sustainable energy future, and this is underpinned by our strategic pillars.

What has changed is not our strategy, but the market context in which we are executing it. Improving market conditions are now allowing those pillars to work together, with discipline remaining the gatekeeper for any capital deployment.

Importantly, strategy execution remains anchored to balance sheet resilience and return generation rather than short-term price signals. Turning to slide 3, this slide highlights why PLS is well-positioned as conditions improve.

We operate 100% owned assets, anchored by the Pilgangoora operation, a long-life, Tier 1 asset with a scalable and flexible processing platform that provides direct leverage to price movements. Beyond Pilgangoora, we have deliberately preserved optionality, including downstream exposure via a joint venture with POSCO in South Korea, providing access to ex-China battery supply chains.

We have deep geographic diversification through the Colina project in Brazil, offering longer-dated growth optionality. Finally, we have retained balance sheet strength, which allows us to choose timing and sequencing on how we respond to market conditions.

Turning to slide 4, this slide captures the core December quarter story. Pricing improved materially, and that improvement translated directly into higher revenue and cash generation.

Key outcomes include sales of 232,000 tonnes, up 8% quarter-on-quarter; a 50% increase in realized pricing; revenue up 49% to $373 million; and cash margin from operations increased to $166 million, supporting a cash balance of $954 million, reflecting strong conversion of pricing into cash. Production was in line with plan, and FY '26 guidance reaffirmed across all metrics.

Taken together, the quarter marks a shift from a period focused on protection and resilience to one of margin expansion, which enables value-accretive options to be reassessed, with capital discipline unchanged. Now with that, I'll now hand over to Brett for an update on the operations.

Thanks, Dale. Moving to slide 5, safety remains our first priority.

During the quarter, we recorded two injuries, with TRIFR increasing to 3.79 from 3.08. That outcome is just simply not acceptable.

In response, we've implemented targeted safety campaigns and strengthened front-line leadership engagement. Quality safety interactions increased to 3.8 per thousand hours worked, well above our target of 1.6.

Our focus is on embedding consistent behaviors and controls to sustainably reduce risk, not just responding to incidents. Every team member going home safe, healthy, every day is non-negotiable.

Turning to slide 6, operations delivered a solid quarter in which we continued to increase the proportion of contact ore in our feed. Total material mined increased to 8.1 million tonnes, reflecting continued progress in the transition to an owner-operator mining model, supported by our additional haul truck deliveries.

Ore mined decreased to 1.5 million tonnes as planned, as we deliberately prioritized waste stripping to position the operation for future production and improved sequencing. Processing produced 208,000 tonnes, which was in line with the plan.

Lithium recovery of approximately 76% remained robust, reflecting our strategy to increase contact ore and maximize our ore sorter performance. Despite the higher contact ore throughput, ore sorters continued to perform strongly.

However, the increased throughput resulted in elevated wear rates in the front end of our crushing circuit, impacting on our average run time. To mitigate this, additional crushing capacity was mobilized to provide operational contingency and maintain adequate crushed ore buffers, supporting the plant utilization through periods of elevated wear.

Sales of 232,000 tonnes exceeded production, drawing down inventory to meet strong customer demand and supporting improved cash generation during the quarter. I'll now hand back to Dale.

Thanks, Brett. Moving now to slide 7, a brief update on chemicals.

This forms part of our long-term strategy to preserve growth optionality and strategic positioning across the lithium value chain. These initiatives are being progressed in a staged and disciplined way.

As it relates to our midstream project, construction of the midstream demonstration plant was completed in December, with an update on commissioning plans expected in the coming months. As it relates to a joint venture with POSCO, the PPLS joint venture, at PPLS, the Korean battery supply chain has experienced significant disruption following recent US policy changes, resulting in order cancellations and deferrals from multiple certified customers.

In response, the JV strategically idled the facility to preserve capital, whilst PLS successfully reallocated spodumene volumes to alternative customers at prevailing market prices. This demonstrates the flexibility of our portfolio and sales strategy: when one pathway is temporarily constrained, we can redirect volumes without sacrificing value.

During the quarter, we contributed $38 million to maintain our 18% interest in the JV. No further equity contributions are expected in FY '26, and we retain call and put options providing flexibility to maintain our current interest and increase our interest to 30% or exit the investment over time if we so choose.

Strategically, PPLS continues to provide PLS with exposure to lithium chemicals market and ex-China battery supply chains, whilst allowing us to manage capital deployment in line with market conditions. The technical capability of the facility has been demonstrated, and our approach ensures this optionality and diversification is preserved without placing pressure on the balance sheet.

Lastly, on chemicals, our Ganfeng study for a potential downstream partnership, that study continues, with the sunset date extended to September 2027, allowing additional time for site evaluation and market outlook clarity. Moving now to slide 8, as market conditions improve, our focus is on sequencing growth through the cycle, rather than accelerating investment.

The discipline we applied through the downturn—protecting operations, reducing costs, and preserving balance sheet strength—continues to guide how we reassess timing today. Ngungaju represents short-term cycle optionality.

We are evaluating a potential restart of approximately 200,000 tonnes per annum, with early works completed, customer engagement underway. The board expects to consider this during the March quarter, and no decision has been made yet.

As it relates to that customer engagement, yeah, we've been pleasingly surprised by the strength of those offers made from market, which, of course, underscores confidence in the upward trajectory we're observing at this time. As it relates to P2000, this is a larger, more capital-intensive option, however, provides a strong rate of return.

The feasibility study continues, with study timing under review and an update on timing expected in the March quarter. Colina provides longer-dated geographic diversification.

Drilling and study optimization continue, with study timing also under review and an expected update in the March quarter also. Taken together, these options provide flexibility across multiple time horizons, and our focus remains on sequencing growth in a way that enhances value while preserving balance sheet resilience.

With that, I'll now hand over to Flavio to take us through the financials.

Thank you, Dale, and good morning to those on the call. Moving to slide 10, I'm pleased to share the group's key financial metrics for the December quarter 2025.

Revenue rose 49% to $373 million, driven by increase in pricing and sales volumes. On costs, FOB unit operating cost increased to $585 a tonne, primarily due to lower production volumes and spodumene inventory drawdown, with sales higher than production, versus an inventory build in the September quarter.

While unit costs move higher due to volume dynamics, our CostSmart program continues to deliver, driving sustained cost discipline across the business. This combination of improved pricing and continued cost discipline resulted in cash margins increasing significantly, from $8 million in the prior quarter to $166 million in the current quarter.

This reinforces our strategy to protect the business through the downturn and allow operational leverage to work as markets recover. Moving now to slide 11, slide 11 shows a cash flow bridge for the December quarter 2025.

Our cash balance increased $102 million to $954 million, supported by a strong cash margin of $166 million, disciplined cost management, and a prior-year income tax refund. An additional $85 million in positive pricing adjustments for the December quarter shipments is expected to be received in the March quarter of 2026.

Capital expenditure was $45 million on a cash basis, and we also made a $38 million equity contribution to the PPLS joint venture, maintaining PLS's 18% ownership. Financing activities and FX impacts resulted in cash outflows of $20 million.

With a cash balance of $954 million and approximately $1.6 billion in total liquidity, we now enter improved market fundamentals from a strengthened position, providing capacity to selectively pursue growth options whilst maintaining cost discipline. Moving to slide 12, looking at the half-year performance, H1 FY '26 delivered strong pricing and volume growth, with revenue of $624 million, 47% higher than H1 FY '25.

Unit costs improved compared to the prior corresponding half, with FOB unit operating cost decreasing 8% to $563 a tonne, driven by ongoing operational efficiencies and higher sales volume. Cash margin from operations increased to $174 million from $41 million in the prior corresponding half.

Moving now to slide 13, slide 13 shows the cash flow bridge for the half year ended 31 December 2025. While cash margin from operations increased to $174 million, closing cash for the half year decreased by $20 million, primarily due to working capital timing effects.

This includes $32 million in customer refunds from lower final pricing on FY '25 shipments, which were settled in early H1 FY '26, while approximately $85 million in positive pricing adjustments on the December quarter shipments are expected to be received in the March quarter. When adjusted for these timing effects, underlying cash margin would be approximately $291 million, reinforcing the strength of the business as pricing improves.

With that, I'll hand now back to Dale.

Thank you, Flavio. Moving to slide 15, the December quarter marked a clear improvement in lithium market conditions following an extended period of destocking.

Inventory levels tightened materially, with Chinese domestic carbonate inventories finishing December at around 2 to 3 weeks of consumption. That tightening, alongside continued strength in EV sales and accelerating demand from energy storage, drove a meaningful recovery in pricing during the quarter.

To put that in context, spodumene spot pricing on an SC6 basis increased by approximately 80% through the quarter, recovering from unsustainably low levels earlier in the year. A combination of factors is supporting this recovery, including constructive policy settings in China, particularly around energy storage deployment and EV adoption, as well as ongoing uncertainty on the supply side, including the timing and extent of potential restarts of higher cost sources.

Importantly, while we have long held the view that pricing needed to recover from the mid-'25 lows, we're not calling an end to volatility. The market remains sentiment-driven, with pricing continuing to respond sharply to policy signals and supply expectations.

What this reinforces for us is the importance of disciplined capital allocation. Any investment in new or restarted supply must be resilient across a full range of market conditions, not just supportive of short-term pricing.

With that context, I'll now walk you through the structural demand drivers that underpin our long-term conviction. Moving to slide 16, the three charts on this slide tell an important story.

Since 2020, the industry has delivered sustained compounding growth, with EV sales growing at 45% CAGR, battery energy storage installations at 96% CAGR, and that translating to a 32% CAGR in total lithium demand. These are not projections; this is growth that has already occurred through a period that included significant volatility.

Looking at calendar '25 specifically, global EV sales reached 21.1 million units, up 20% year-on-year, with penetration increasing to 24% of total vehicle sales. Importantly, demand growth is becoming more geographically diversified.

While China remains the largest market at 12.9 million units, growth outside of China is accelerating, with Europe up 33%, Asia ex-China up 52%, and the rest of the world up 39%. That diversification strengthens long-term demand resilience.

The other standout driver is battery energy storage. Global BESS installations reached approximately 290 gigawatt hours, up 45% year-on-year, and are increasingly material as a second pillar of lithium demand alongside EVs.

With significant policy support and large-scale deployment already underway, energy storage is emerging as a durable, multi-year demand driver in its own right. Moving to slide 17, turning to the long-term picture, the outlook for lithium demand remains structurally strong and increasingly diversified.

EVs and battery energy storage are expected to account for more than 90% of lithium battery demand by 2030, reinforcing the long-term nature of demand growth. EV adoption continues to gather pace globally, with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence forecasting penetration to increase to around 35% by 2030 and approaching 70% by 2040.

By that point, EVs alone are expected to represent about three-quarters of total lithium demand. Battery energy storage is the fastest-growing segment, having increased from a small share of lithium demand in 2020 to a material contributor today, and is expected to continue growing strongly over the coming decades as grid-scale storage is deployed globally.

Taken together, these trends support sustained, long-term growth in lithium demand. Importantly, that growth will not be linear and will continue to be accompanied by periods of volatility, as we've seen today.

For PLS, this outlook reinforces the value of scale, flexibility, and balance sheet strength, allowing us to sequence growth decisions thoughtfully, navigate near-term volatility, and capture long-term value without compromising discipline. In closing, the December quarter demonstrated the cash-generating power of the PLS platform as pricing improved, validating the operating leverage we've built countercyclically through the down-cycle and reinforcing that this is structural cash generation from a more resilient operating base.

While market conditions have improved, volatility remains a defining feature of the sector. Our focus therefore remains on disciplined capital allocation, balance sheet resilience, and value creation through the cycle.

With a strong balance sheet and 100% owned asset base, we have the flexibility to reassess timing and sequencing from a position of control, and any growth decisions will remain gated by confidence in market sustainability and returns. That combination—structural cash generation, balance sheet resilience, and disciplined capital deployment—underpins our approach to managing long-term shareholder value.

Thank you very much for your time, and with that, I'll now pass back to Maggie for questions.

Morning, Dale and team. Thanks for your time.

I guess just a question on the growth. As you sharpen the pencil on all these projects, specifically on P2000, you did the PFS nearly 2 years ago, new 5 million tonne per annum plant, $1.2 billion capex, and then ramping up to 2 million tonnes by 2029.

How should we think about timelines and the scope as you sharpen the pencil, or what potentially could have changed, or can we simply inflate numbers and delay it by 2 years?

It's a bit early to guide you on that one, Levi. The review which we're working through at the moment will be particularly focused around study timelines, and the production of that study will be the key and point to inform the market on the broader trajectory.

Unfortunately, I can't really shed much light at this point on that one.

All right. Thank you.

Yep, thank you.

No worries. Thanks, Levi.

happy New Year, Dale. Just a couple of quick ones, if I could.

Just with the restart of Ngungaju, are you looking for price floors or something like that, or you're still happy to take the market? Just wondering sort of how the discussions go along the lines of what you'd want to restart Ngungaju from that perspective.

Then just any comments you might make on shareholder returns now that pricing's back? Thanks.

Happy New Year, Glyn. As it relates to the restart, we reached out to market, engaging with market for offers.

Within that, yes, we are considering price floors, but of course, there's always other terms often come with these offers, we're carefully thinking through potential offtake, and we'll see how we go. As I mentioned in my commentary, we're feeling very buoyed by that market engagement, looking forward to updating the market in due course.

As it relates to shareholder returns, obviously, as per our capital management framework that contemplates dividends based on certain thresholds, so that sits there ready to go if the market continues to perform strongly, we'll of course be applying distribution of proceeds in accordance with that framework. Did that answer your question, Glyn?

I guess it's really a decision for the board next month. If pricing stays where it is, it's a potential to recommence dividends, but won't know till then.

That's right. You got it.

All right. Thanks very much.

morning, Dale, Flavio, Brett. I imagine a very happy New Year with both pricing, but also your fleet productivity and operational performance.

First one on contracting. You've outlined that you've executed two offtake agreements during the quarter.

I think you've previously had the option to elect across three offtakes for 2026, appreciate you might not want to get into specifics of which of those you've gone with, but can you maybe give us a little bit more color in terms of the magnitude of volumes and the outlined price premium in those offtakes? Thanks.

Sure. Happy New Year, Hugo.

As it relates to those two new offtakes, they're not material in the sense of the volumes involved. From memory, it was sort of circa 50,000 tonnes in both cases.

Within those offtakes, we have designed in a few options at PLS's discretion to extend and push further tonnes in their direction if we so choose to. Of course, that speaks to the strength of the market and PLS as a preferred supplier, really happy about that.

As I say, not material by volume sense, we didn't do market disclosure around each of those offtake awards. Does that answer it,

Hugo? No, that's helpful.

Is it fair to assume that the other three options that you had for 2026, you've let expire, then?

From memory, we still have options available to us, and we've just taken the decision to essentially create more options. Those two new offtakes do include bringing in a new customer, building out the PLS customer stable even further.

Right, got it. Then if I can just pick up a little bit from Levi's question, obviously, refreshing that timing of growth options, potentially more with the Feb result on that one, but just looking at the language around both of those projects and your comments around sequencing, is it fair to say then that the P2000 is now comfortably the priority, just given that you've got studies and a number of approvals already in hand there?

If that study was previously due sort of the end of calendar '26, is there actually that much scope to bring it forward in terms of timing?

Look, all will be revealed once we've completed the reviews. Just by way of sort of additional context, in the case of the Colina project, of course, we got the keys in March last year, we've had the opportunity to do more work, do more drilling, and consider how can we maximize value further, so that of course informs potentially a new outlook for that project.

Then as it relates to P2000, well, as per the original study, it was always a compelling investment, albeit a larger ticket price in terms of capex, returns are very strong. It's not necessarily a case of acceleration; it's more a case of sequencing and just thinking through what's the right next step as we think about growing with the market.

We'll provide more color on that in due course, as we've flagged, we will update in the March quarter.

Perfect. Thanks, Dale.

Thanks, Hugo.

Morning, Dale and team. Thanks for taking my question.

The first one is just you talked about elevated crusher wear rates during the quarter and the utilization of contractors there. Can you put some more color around that?

What are you seeing in the operations? Will you have to expand some of the capacity going forward?

Can you just help us understand what's happening there?

G'day, Mitch. It's Brett here.

Look, it's really the front end of the crushing circuit where it does all the heavy lifting. We just started to see a little bit of higher accelerated wear rates as we increased some of our contact ore.

Right towards the end of the quarter, we mobilized a small mobile crushing circuit just to give us a bit of flexibility there so that we could keep up some crushed ore stocks rather than try to have any type of plant outage or slow down. It was really just a risk mitigation on that one.

If you're planning to sort of keep increasing the amount of contact ore, will you need to keep that crushing capacity on-site? Look,

that gives us the flexibility if we do start to push up the contact ore. We've probably got the flexibility now to actually flex that up and down, but we'll just try to take those decisions to make sure that the business is robust and if it's a good risk mitigation, we'll do that.

We are developing some additional work through that front end of the crusher as you do with liner wear and some of those packages, it's too early to tell at this stage, but not a big issue by any means.

Thanks. Then my last question just relates to the strip ratios stepped up in the quarter.

I thought that had been guided to sort of step down over the course of the remainder of the financial year. Is that just a function of where you are in the mine plan?

Can you just give us a bit of commentary about what's happening with strip ratios going forward?

A bit of where we are in the mine plan and just an opportunity to undertake some of the next cutbacks as well whilst we've got good ore stocks, and we're using some of the stock of contact ore. We're just taking an opportunity with our efficiencies that we're getting through the mine owner-mining transition as well, just to take a bit of an opportunistic look at getting ahead of ourselves in one of the cutbacks.

Thank you. Appreciate the commentary.

Thanks, Mitch.

Hi, thanks for the call, Dale and team. Look, a lot of the operational questions have been asked.

I wanted to come back to the pricing, obviously, very strong quarter for you. Can you perhaps dissect that performance into the three parts that contribute to it?

Obviously, spot sales being one, provisional pricing, and then also the shipment timing, if you had to kind of help us understand which were the sort of key drivers for that very strong result, especially versus your peers, and that might help us kind of thinking about the future pricing, and I'll come back with a follow-up. Thanks.

Sure. Good day, Rahul.

I can obviously speak to this in general terms, but in terms of the quarter, there was some spot sales, but by proportion pretty small, and the realized price is essentially through offtake sales very much is the majority here. As to what is the makeup of that pricing, and again, I'll talk in general terms, it's broadly all spodumene-indexed connected, and the timing is broadly calculated close to the time of shipment or shortly thereafter, depending which offtake.

You might recall that as we were working through a sort of a price decline environment, that was a disadvantage to us, and in certain quarters we were 1 or 2 percentage points below some of our competitors, depending how they're going. In this part of the cycle where the trend is reversed, this structure works in our favor.

As pricing rises, to have pricing essentially finalized in the future works to our advantage in a rising market. That's principally, I think, the main cause of the delta between us and our competition, of course, not knowing what our competition's up to.

I'm presuming here.

Got it. Thank you, Dale.

Just for the follow-up, just coming back to the original question around Ngungaju restart. Obviously you're having conversations with your downstream partners about floor pricing, etc.

Given where the price is currently for spodumene, it's moved up very rapidly and created a genuinely large margin for you there. Is it fair to think along the lines that there is opportunities here to restart even if you don't get those commitments, or is that absolutely going to be the deal breaker if you're thinking about that restart, and you don't get that floor pricing agreement in place?

Good question, Rahul. I don't think it's a deal breaker.

The presence of floor prices in the industry is few and far between in terms of what we've been able to observe, and historically we haven't placed reliance on floor prices. We'll see how we go, the short answers no, I don't think the restart decision will necessarily be contingent on that requirement.

Ultimately, it'll be in the hands of the board.

Yep, got it. No, that's very clear.

Thank you very much. I'll pass it on.

Morning, Dale. Most of the questions have been asked.

Just a quick one on your comment about the upstream growth portfolio. Given you're doing the re-evaluation, can you please confirm, are you referring to the internal opportunities you're having already, or this is more kind of outside of the two minerals in inorganic way to further boost and beef up your upstream portfolio?

Thank you.

Good day, Austin. No, the comments around Australia are about our organic growth profile, Pilgangoora.

Nothing, nothing about inorganic.

Thank you.

Sure, thanks. Morning, Dale and team.

Can I please extend Rahul's question on the potential Ngungaju restart? We're just wondering your thoughts on whether the resilience of Ngungaju through the cycle has changed with the improvements you've made to the asset or could make to the asset.

You mentioned the crusher upgrade, and you've talked previously about other improvements you could make before turning it on. I guess, but also what you've done across the site in terms of owner operations, or mineralogy understanding, and adjusting the mine plan.

Collectively, are all of those things enough to ensure that if you do turn Ngungaju back on, you can be confident that it's going to underpin a return and you don't need to turn it off again through the cycle, even if you don't have a price floor in your offtake? Or is it always going to be a bit of a swing asset, and the board is really going to have to take a view on, I guess, the market and the timing of bringing that asset back into the current market?

Thanks.

Sure things, Matthew. To address that, I might sort of go big picture and then ladder down a little bit.

As we think about the overall Pilgangoora operation on a multi-year horizon, of course, being working hard to drive down the cost structurally, and pleased to report the quarter results we released today sort of speak to that disciplined investment over time. Obviously, the mine owner-operate mining, all the efficiencies there, the ore sorting at Pilgan, progressive power installations, the trend to more owner-operator across the board, et cetera, et cetera.

All of that sort of is compounded into the lower cost we're enjoying. Then as we step down to the processing plant level, as it relates to Ngungaju, that too has been on a journey of investment and driving costs down.

In the main, I think we're pretty much at the back of that optimization curve. You might recall that over the years we did a full sort of build-out of a new float circuit and a bunch of refurbishment, adding in a whole bunch of other tech, but we've basically maxed out that asset in the main, given the bones of it were what they were in terms of what Altura built.

What that all means is the Ngungaju asset on a processing basis is a higher cost than the Pilgan processing plant. A bit of a long answer, but that's why we turned it off as we went to the P850 model.

It was a chance to preserve cash, particularly in a low-price environment. Now to your question of, well, what's the probability that it's turned on and sustained on is, of course, a function of market pricing.

Now when you look in the rear-view mirror, and as we've discussed historically, pricing can sometimes be irrational and disconnected from fundamentals for the lithium market. That was certainly our view as we look back as recently as 6 months, where we saw pricing down around the high $5s, sort of $600.

That was deep into the cost curve, and most of the industry was losing money. That didn't make sense.

As we look forward, does that environment occur again? Who knows?

would be the answer. The lithium market remains volatile, and hence we continue to remind the market of that feature.

Volatility is not always bad, and it cuts both ways. This is really where the flexibility of our operating platform comes to bear.

Yes, we like the idea of potentially bring that on, making hay while the sun shines. Look, if that's sustained, well, that will be fantastic for PLS and its shareholders.

We'll see what happens.

Thank you, Dale, for a detailed answer to obviously a pretty complex question. Can I maybe just quickly ask one for Flavio?

I'm happy to take it offline if it's easier. If I just look at the revenue reported in the December quarter at $373 million, and I take your sales volume, your reported realized price, and the exchange rate for the quarter, I get to more like $410 million.

Can you explain the difference? I suspect it's to do with how you recognize revenue for some of those QP adjustments, but yeah, if there's a short answer to that, that would be appreciated.

Thanks.

G'day, Matthew. Spot-on.

It's also due to timing differences and movements within debtors, but we can take that offline. I can walk you through that detail.

Thank you, Flavio.

Good morning, Dale and team. Just continuing on the Ngungaju restart, sort of understand how the assets evolved over the course of the last couple of years, but is there a question around pricing stability, or is there a requirement around pricing stability or offtake commitments that need to be seen before a restart, just potentially avoiding adding supply into a policy-driven market?

Then secondly, I'll circle back with one on the assets. Thanks.

Good day, Kaan. I think I got most of that.

In terms of pricing stability, yes, that's sort of central to sort of the various dimensions we need to weigh up around a restart decision, and that's of course what we're thinking through deeply at this time. Ultimately, we'll be recommending a path for the board.

We're still very much working through that thinking, but central to that is what do we think the strength of the market is. Of course, at current pricing today, that asset, the Ngungaju asset, will make very, very strong margins.

I think we're all pretty comfortable with that. The question is, yes, to what sort of strength of confidence do we see persisting in the future.

We're weighing that up. I have to say in terms of all of the indicators I've got access to, we're very positively disposed to the short-term outlook.

Everything is looking very, very strong on sort of a 6- to 9-month basis. Obviously, the further you look out, it gets harder to take a view.

In terms of what I'm seeing, certainly all the conversations I'm having across our customer set, including some of the major chemicals groups who I met face-to-face with as recent as the weekend, the near-term outlook's looking very positive, but we'll see how we go.

Just maybe also adding on to that, some of the softer elements, sort of hiring and when remobilizing, how's that being considered?

Kaan. Brett here.

Great question. When we decided to put the Ngungaju asset into care and maintenance, we retained quite a number of our key staff so that we redeployed them into the P1000 operation and to various roles over there, we've got some key people that we can place back straight into that asset if we do get the go-ahead to restart.

That's a great ability to have that experience there. Then we would refill the rest of the remaining roles with just industry and go out to recruitment.

We'd have a good training program at site as well. I think the timing of that would be, as we've said, in the 4-month ramp-up.

Just to add, we're not anticipating any issues in that regard in terms of total personnel to recruits. The bar's not that high, and just if we can blow our own trumpet, the turnover rate's at our lowest level ever in the history of the company.

We like to think that speaks to the company we've got, the culture we've got, and we think we're, it's a work in progress, but we think we've built a good reputation for ourselves, and we're not expecting any challenges as we go for a recruitment drive.

Sure. Thank you.

Understood. The second one's on Pilgan.

Just understand that more contact ore's being fed. Do you have a better sense on sort of the upper bounds on using contact ore now before recoveries and cost start to sort of degrade meaningfully?

It sounds like possibly happening now, given the added maintenance around wear and tear and contract crushing. Is that fair to assume?

A lot of the work that we've done through the optimization of our ore sorting has been around what are our upper limits. We understand the ore mineralogy really well, now it's really just getting that balance right of making sure that our costs are in the mining and the processing are giving us the best outcome financially, and also the recovery is, one of the variables is contact ore.

I would say that the work that we've done with P1000 and our operating teams on-site just gives us that robustness around that recovery improvement and really understanding where we go with that contact ore volume percentage as well. That's built on the years of test work that we've done to understand the mineralogy and the plant performance.

I think it really kind of reinforces that life of mine recovery assumptions as well.

Sure. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Kaan.

Thanks, Maggie. Just a few questions from the webcast.

Dale, based on your leadership and the disciplined approach to capital allocation, where do you see PLS in 10 years' time?

That's a great question. I think, my hope for PLS and the vision that the team is rallying behind is our aim is to be a material player in this industry.

We want to be a mainstay of the industry, and that is absolutely within our grasp here of the organic growth opportunities we have. By reckoning, if P2000 was built today, we would be the largest lithium producer globally.

Further, of course, we've got the Colina asset plus our downstream initiatives. On a 10-year horizon, you'd have to expect PLS to carry on and do more, leveraging the unique skill sets, know-how, supply chain relationships we've built.

We've got a very motivated, energetic team, very focused on making the most of this incredible growth market. I think 10 years from today, PLS will be an impressive company.

We're set up to get there.

Thanks, Dale. Any comments about Ganfeng's share sale the other day?

Yes, I have spoken to Ganfeng. They explained to me it's cash management is what they've chosen to do there.

I understand they sold 1% of their holding, which must make them about 4% or thereabouts by reckoning. Certainly no concerns at all with that share sale.

As it relates to our relationship, the various partnering activities we're doing together, the relationship's in fantastic standing, certainly no concerns there.

Thank you, Dale. Is PLS seeing operational productivity gains and cost savings from the use of AI?

Brett, do you want to?

Early days as we go into the AI, but the AI is giving us optionality to mine through a lot of the data and look for some of the trends. We're certainly on that journey, and yeah, some of the technology we've put in with P1000 will give us some good insights once we can get the AI to look at that on a deeper level.

Early days, as it is with a number of operations.

Thank you. Do you see the growth in BESS connected to increasing energy demands of new technologies, including AI and quantum?

The

short answer is yes. The BESS growth rates have been very impressive, but the reasons behind that growth rate are many, and it does include data centers, and of course data centers being built for AI and the necessity for energy stability, that's a key sub-growth segment of BESS.

Separate to that, it just makes sense for grid stability and lower cost energy, in particular when it's interconnected with solar and other renewables. Solar growth rates are continuing to be phenomenal globally, adding BESS to those systems is fundamentally sensible.

This is all part of what's fueling BESS growth rates globally.

How has the midstream demonstration plant been received within the sector? Is there any interest from other producers to use the technology?

As it relates to the demonstration plant concept in terms of a midstream product, yes, we get plenty of inbound interest around that concept, and we are engaging with market around potential buyers of the product from the downstream plant if and when we go into the next phase of that project. As it relates to the actual processing technology itself, the short answer is yes.

There's other competitors who are very interested in the tech, and they'd be wise to be interested. We're open for that.

Our JV with Calix contemplates the option of allowing others. Ultimately, PLS in combination with Calix will be a benefit of the proliferation of that tech if that's where it ends up, and that could potentially be a future revenue stream.

Thank you. If you were to go ahead with P2000 and Colina, are you concerned about bringing on excess supply that will affect the price of spodumene?

The short answer is no. As you consider the expected growth rates of demand for the industry, project that forward, you need P2000, you need Colina, and you need more assets to come online to serve that growth demand.

Ultimately, we see both those assets being built and serving the market. As to the probability they both happen at the same time, I think that's pretty low.

The reason for that being more driven around what's the optimum development pathway for each of those assets respectively to maximize value. Potentially for Brazil, we might look to do some more drilling and grow the asset over time, but we'll see.

We'll come back and provide more color on this later.

Thank you. One for Flavio: What does the $38 million in other investment activities include?

That includes the equity contribution to the POSCO joint venture, as outlined in the call earlier.

Thank you. Another one: Will there be a dividend declared in the foreseeable future?

I can take that. Again, that was covered by Glyn's question.

It's a matter, obviously, for the board, and it's something that we'll review in the second half of the financial year.

Final question from online: Tesla appear to have eliminated a couple of processes towards battery manufacturing. Does Tesla's development alter PLS's investment plans for value-add products?

It's hardly clear on that.

We're not clear on what that refers to, we'll leave that one. That's it for online questions.

Great. Thank you, James.

Thank you everyone for dialing in for our December quarterly results call. We look forward to coming back to you with the half year's in a couple weeks.

Thank you for your time.