Welcome, and thank you for joining Elevra Lithium's March 2026 quarterly update. I'm joined today by Christian Cortes, Chief Financial Officer; Sylvain Collard, Chief Operating Officer and President of Canada; and Andrew Barber, Chief Development and Investor Relations Officer.

The March quarter marked an important period for Elevra, defined by improved operational execution, positive cash flow generation, and continued advancement across our global lithium growth portfolio. After a challenging prior period, our team remained focused on what we can control, that being safety, operational discipline, and capital efficiency.

I'm pleased to report those efforts translated into measurable improvement across the business. At North American Lithium, NAL, we delivered stronger operating performance, a record quarterly revenue result, and generated meaningful cash from operations while lithium market fundamentals continued to strengthen.

At the same time, we advanced our growth portfolio, including progress at Moblan, a major milestone in Ewoyaa with parliamentary ratification of the mining lease, and continued stakeholder engagement at Carolina Lithium. Overall, the quarter reinforces our strategy to operate reliably, grow responsibly, and position Elevra as a long-term participant of the lithium value chain.

In reviewing the March quarter's performance, I'll begin with operations at North American Lithium. A reminder that all dollar amounts referenced on today's call are in U.S.

dollars. Safety continues to be central to the way in which we plan and operate.

During the quarter, North American Lithium achieved two consecutive months without a recordable injury, and our total recordable injury frequency rate remained below our FY 26 target for the third consecutive quarter. This reflects the growing maturity of our operating culture.

Operationally, performance improved materially. Mining activities were focused upon adherence to the planned mine development sequence, and waste stripping continued as planned, resulting in ore uncovered for the quarter increasing by 25% compared to the previous quarter.

This increase in available in-pit ore provided improved operational flexibility. All mining activity was aligned to production requirements, with 370,508 wet metric tonnes of ore mined for the quarter.

On the processing side, execution of our plan was again strong. Process plant utilization reached 94%, the highest quarterly utilization in NAL's operating history.

This was supported by strong crushing performance and continued improvement in terms of maintenance. Lithium recovery improved to 66%, reflecting the efforts undertaken in the mine and ongoing process optimization.

These improvements combined to drive production higher, with 47,332 dry metric tonnes of spodumene concentrate produced, up 7% quarter-on-quarter, at a consistent 5% concentrate grade. Importantly, these results keep us firmly on track to achieve our full-year production guidance of 180,000 to 190,000 tonnes.

NAL continues to demonstrate that when operated with discipline, it is a reliable and scalable cornerstone asset for Elevra. Turning now to financial performance.

During the March quarter, Elevra sold 55,526 tonnes of spodumene concentrate, which was a 16% decline in tonnes sold, but pricing strengthened significantly. Our average realized selling price increased 46% quarter-on-quarter to approximately $1,453 per tonne on an FOB basis, reflecting tightening lithium market conditions and improving demand fundamentals.

This pricing uplift drove record quarterly revenue of $81 million, representing a 22% increase quarter-on-quarter and a 68% increase year-to-date versus last year. Unit operating costs were $884 per tonne sold, up 9% from the prior quarter.

The increase was primarily driven by higher-cost inventory related to increased mining costs as we uncovered additional ore to improve blending flexibility. Given the geopolitical and macroeconomic environment, we want to highlight that NAL also benefits from structural cost advantages.

By way of example, diesel fuel accounts for approximately 5% of production costs, and the processing plant operates primarily on renewable hydroelectric power, hence reducing exposure to fuel volatility. Looking ahead, June quarter shipments will conclude deliveries under one of our legacy contracts that contains lagged pricing mechanisms.

In bringing this contract to an end, it positions Elevra for greater exposure to prevailing lithium pricing going forward beyond the June quarter. During the quarter, we advanced our work on our accelerated NAL expansion strategy.

Rather than a single-stage expansion, we are pursuing a staged development pathway designed to deliver additional production earlier through a series of debottlenecking steps. In addition to accelerating the timeline, the staged pathway allows us to optimize capital deployment, reduce execution risk, and align production growth with market demand.

An updated expansion scoping study reflecting this staged approach will be released in the June quarter. At Moblan, environmental and permitting activities remain the critical path.

Fieldwork has been progressed and incorporated into technical studies, and preparation of the environmental and social impact assessment continues. At Ewoyaa in Ghana, we achieved a major milestone.

In March, the Parliament of Ghana ratified the mining lease, providing legislative approval and de-risking further project development. Along with Atlantic Lithium, we continue to work towards a construction decision, which will be dependent upon market conditions, availability of suitable financing, and an equitable realignment of the joint venture structure between Elevra and Atlantic.

In the United States, we continue progressing Carolina Lithium through proactive community engagement. In February, we hosted a productive public town hall session with local residents in Gaston County to provide transparency around project development.

We also finalized the acquisition of all contracted land parcels within the project's permitted boundary. Turning to financial performance, Elevra ended the March quarter with $113 million in cash, an increase of nearly $32 million from the previous quarter.

This improvement reflects strong operational performance at NAL, where higher realized prices at NAL generated a $32 million profit from operations and a $41 million in net operating cash inflow. At the group level, operating cash outflow was limited to approximately $5 million, largely related to corporate expenditure.

Capital expenditure totalled $4 million, focused on sustaining capital at NAL. The key takeaway from this quarter being, Elevra is now demonstrating operational cash generation.

We are strengthening our balance sheet while reserving flexibility to fund growth initiatives responsibly. During the quarter, we also undertook an important strategic step to integrate our spodumene concentrate as a feedstock into a downstream supply chain within North America.

We signed a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding, an MOU, with Mangrove Lithium to evaluate supplying NAL spodumene concentrate into North American refining capacity. This aligns with global trends designed to ensure energy security and establish regional battery supply chains.

The MOU establishes the framework for technical and commercial discussions as we work towards a potential definitive agreement. Mangrove continues to demonstrate the viability of their lithium conversion process in Canada, announcing the opening of their first commercial lithium refinery earlier this month.

We believe that they are an attractive potential offtake partner for Elevra, Elevra, and such a partnership can deliver meaningful value creation through reduced transportation costs, lower carbon intensity, and the opportunity to establish a significant downstream lithium chemical production capability in North America. Additionally, Elevra was added to the ASX 300 Index, expanding institutional visibility and reflecting the company's continued growth.

As we look to close out the financial year, our FY 26 guidance remains unchanged. Based on our expected customer deliveries for the June quarter, we anticipate that our realized pricing will be linked to average market prices reported between quarter two and quarter three of financial year '26.

This will represent the final volumes delivered under this legacy contract. The conclusion of this legacy contract will increase our exposure to current market-based pricing mechanisms in FY 27.

We're happy to take questions.

Morning, Lucas and team. Just two questions from me.

The first one is on the sales. Really good sales this quarter, and I can see there's already 20,000 tonnes at the port.

How much flexibility you have to squeeze out a bit more shipments? Just conscious that the market is getting fairly tight and by the middle of this year the market could be even tighter.

I'll come back with the second one. Thank you.

Thanks, Austin. I'll just provide a couple comments and pass to Christian.

Obviously he holds the marketing book and keeps track of all those sales. You're right, we've got 20-odd thousand tonnes at the port.

We've got a number of legacy obligations on the contracts that we'll be working through in this final quarter, which will restrict some of that flexibility. I'll let Christian add a little more color.

Thanks, Lucas. Hi, Austin.

Look, there's ample opportunities. However, in the current quarter, being the fourth quarter of the financial year, most of the volumes are allocated to legacy contracts, and that's been captured in the quarterly commentary.

However, we are very quick at building volume for cargoes as soon as we kick the following quarter. July we'll see volume going as well.

As there's ways that we can ultimately price that if it's not linked to specific formulas or fixed prices. We're looking at ways in which we can capture as much value as we can as we effectively pull those volumes in Q1 next financial year.

Thank you, Christian. Thank you, Lucas.

Second one on the pricing which links to legacy contracts. The price was somewhat impacted by the lagging mechanism.

Just keen to understand, as you mentioned in the release, all of these going to expire by the middle of this year, calendar year. Going forward, how should we think about the pricing realization?

Would you be following the market trend or which will be M+1? Thank you.

That's right. As we move to the next financial year, it's ultimately the mix of strategies and tactics that we deploy, but they should be broadly aligned to market, Austin.

We have the ability to choose to sell at fixed price when we ship if we choose to do so. We can link to formulas that allow us to capture future prices, or we can be fully exposed to index with the ability to capture some hedge if we choose to lock in a floor price to some percentage of those cargoes.

I guess in summary, it should be a market-based pricing that you'll see, but that will be somewhat influenced by the decisions that we take on a cargo-by-cargo.

Austin, importantly, as we described in the quarterly, that sort of lagging pricing mechanism will well and truly have been eliminated as we move into FY 27.

Understood. Thank you.

I'll pass on.

Thanks, Austin.

thanks. Good morning, Lucas.

Good morning, Christian. Morning, Andrew.

Great to see production results in spite of the issues you encountered last quarter, especially pleased with the recoveries. Though just as if I recall, those issues related to feed quality and grade, that was going to take you about 6 months to work through those.

Looks like you've making some good progress. How should we think about the next quarter?

Can we assume that the work that Sylvain and the team have done to mitigate some of those issues can continue and recoveries and grades should be roughly similar in June Q?

Thanks, Reg. I think certainly hat off to Sylvain and the team at NAL.

I think a strong bounce back. I think the plans that we'd put in place and we disclosed at the last quarterly are certainly yielding the benefits that we expected.

I think the increased mining activity, which is obviously going to flow on in terms of our unit costs, but that has yielded increased ore uncovered, which has given us more flexibility to be able to blend. Those opportunities and options will continue to exist for us as we move into the next quarter.

Sylvain and the processing team also made a number of changes to also help improve the recovery, which as you mentioned has shone through. We've got a good stable base under us and we've again reiterated our market guidance is unchanged, Reg.

That's great. I had a couple of follow-on questions from Austin's on prices, and thanks Christian for the detail around some of the things you're looking at to maximize that pricing outcomes.

Curious you mentioned a floor price potentially, noting that one of your other peers recently signed an offtake with a set floor price. Is that something that's now coming up in regular conversations?

Because if we look at other critical mineral markets and what's happening there, is a floor price something that you would look to establish or consider, given where the market seems to be heading?

Thanks for the question, Reg. Look, we're having conversations with prospective customers, as well as potentially renewing or extending terms with existing customers.

Those type of attributes are part of the conversations. Obviously, it's very important for us, the quality of the counterparty when we think broadly around commitments beyond spot cargoes, and that carries a weight when we have conversations around potential prepayments and potentially floor prices.

As we know, not all terms and conditions are equally respected by different customers, but yes, that is certainly an opportunity that we're currently discussing, Reg.

That's great. Good.

Next question is on the points that you've made around integrating into downstream supply chains in North America and fully acknowledge that Mangrove MOU. Is Bécancour still a potential option for you guys in terms of destination for your concentrate?

Then second part of that question is what might an arrangement or setup with Mangrove look like? What kind of conversion capacity are they planning?

Could that be a big part of your production and sales?

Yeah. I think, Reg, if we just take a step back in relation to the Bécancour facility, which Rio Tinto now control in the JV with Investissement Québec, there is no other spodumene mining in Quebec.

Obviously we'd be a logical source. Ultimately that's a question for Rio Tinto in terms of where they want to source material for.

We would have volume available as Christian described. In terms of Mangrove, they're looking at something in the order of around 20,000 tonnes of LCE.

That would be a decent chunk of our expanded volume, probably I would say round about half of that, Reg. There would be a scenario where we could probably fulfill both Mangrove and Bécancour if it came to that.

The opportunity for us is clearly the sea freight costs that we currently incur shipping to China, they flow to the bottom line for us. In addition, Mangrove are looking at options to co-locate in close proximity to NAL, which would also have a material impact on our unit costs for internal logistics costs that we currently incur shipping to the port.

I think we're in a nice position. Andrew and Christian and Sylvain have done great work with Mangrove.

We're encouraged by the work they're doing. They've just initiated their first commercial unit.

We're watching that closely, and I think we're nicely placed. As Christian described earlier in terms of the sales book, the strategy is developing is giving us maximum flexibility, which should result in maximum realized price.

Excellent.

Excellent. Last question, I promise.

Noted your comments about Atlantic and that you guys are in discussions with them about a possible recast of that joint venture. Subject to what that ultimately yields and what that might look like, clearly capital to expand NAL is a priority.

Obviously, you've still got Moblan in your back pocket. How does any positive developments with Atlantic fit within your capital profile and where you best might spend that money?

I think, Reg, probably the best way for shareholders to think about it is that NAL expansion is our priority. The reason for that is we've got 100% of that asset.

We pick up 100% of the benefits flowing into it. We like Ewoyaa.

It's a great technical project and so forth, but I think there's probably a few more steps that we've got to get through. As you'd allude to, we've really got to be able to get to a better JV structure than currently exists before that project can move forward.

I wouldn't want to speculate on hypotheticals, Reg, other than to say Ewoyaa, valuable project. We like it technically, but the JV structure's going to have to shift before anything moves on that project.

Understood. Thanks, Lucas.

Thanks, Christian. I'll pass it on.

Morning, Lucas and gents. Thanks for your time.

I wanted to follow up on the questions on downstream processing on Mangrove. You partly answered that they're looking for their Eastern facility to potentially be co-located with NAL.

Is that their primary plan? Or where's their sort of timing as well and is there any more background?

It's very very vapory at the moment.

Yeah. Look, I wouldn't want to be speaking for Mangrove in terms of their ultimate FID decisions around it.

I think what you certainly can expect, Andrew, is that their electrochemical process requires low-cost power, and so clearly Quebec's got a competitive advantage for a location. Ultimately, that's going to be a question for Mangrove and then associated logistics.

Now, somewhat selfishly for us, if they were co-located, when I say co-located, I'm talking sort of within an hour's drive or something similar of NAL, effectively it would just be the trucking cost that we'd incur, and would be able to eliminate the rail costs. We'd obviously be excited and supportive of that aspect, but ultimately Mangrove are going to have to have the right policy settings as it relates to power and provincial government support for them to determine exactly where it goes.

I probably wouldn't describe it as nebulous. I think they've got quite concrete plans and they've got a number of options, but the key thing driving it is a good logistics chain and, most importantly, access to power.

Okay. Are you Are you currently sell- Sorry.

Oh, sorry. Go on.

Oh, sorry. I'll just pick up.

They've currently taken material across into their commercial plant, Andrew, they've effectively done the test work on our NAL material, so that's well positioned. Then I think the other part, you had a question on FID, and Andrew Barber's been shepherding this, Andrew, you might just describe Mangrove's sort of next sequence.

Thanks, Lucas. Mangrove at the moment are undertaking that site selection process, and in parallel with that, slight moving forward on their engineering for their full-scale plant.

As Lucas mentioned, they're in the process now of just completing a full commercial-scale module, and this being a modular process, they'll be operating that module for the rest of this year utilizing some of the NAL spodumene concentrate that we've provided to them. As they're working through that, they're also working on a financing structure and working with the, very reputable groups finances that they've had with them so far.

We've seen recently that Canada Growth Fund and the Canadian government has provided funding into Mangrove to progress this. Our agreement envisages that they'd get to an FID by mid calendar year 2027 where they've got that site selection finalized, engineering advanced, and a funding plan in place.

Oh, excellent. Thank you.

They've tested the plant with NAL concentrate. Is the plan for that to run on NAL concentrate long-term?

I think that's still open to discussion. We haven't finalized anything with Mangrove on that running long-term on that.

Basically where they're at is that this module will run and complete the I guess proof-of-concept and of commercial scale, and as that's done, they'll be working through product qualification. It's more focused around actually getting to the point where they can commit to a full commercial-scale project rather than having ongoing production from the one module, as I understand their plans.

Okay. Thank you.

Then that leads to if the other we've spoke about Bécancour, what what's happening with Corpus Christi and how how are you engaged there?

Tesla are operating at Corpus Christi. It's public knowledge we've got a offtake agreement with Tesla, and they've been taking products, Andrew.

Probably not a whole heap to add on that.

All right. Any indication of sort of the ratio or proportion of your sales that are going there?

It'd be a question for Tesla. Oh, are you talking about volume from us?

Yes.

Supplying 50,000 tonnes a year going to Tesla.

That's occurring?

Yeah. That's the contract that was on foot that we inherited with the Piedmont merger.

Okay. All right.

Then sort of one final question, apologies if I've hogged the line. What what's the sort of long-term vision for your output?

How much would how much percentage of what ratio would would stay in North America and not have to be, shipped long distances?

Hi, Andrew. It's Christian.

I'll take that question. Ideally, we would obviously leave as much product as possible within the region, but as you probably are aware, there's only one plant producing currently in North America, and that is effectively the plant that you were referring to, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Unless there's obviously something being developed in the short term that is currently the only opportunity that we could work with. That would be the case assuming that we can ultimately achieve a good pricing outcome that is comparable with what we could get from other customers that are processing spodumene concentrate elsewhere.

Andrew, I'd just probably also just make a comment. Whilst we're obviously, very interested in being able to continue to reduce our unit operating cost base around logistics and the ability to integrate with downstream producers, I think it's important to recognize that with the NAL expansion will drive our unit costs through in the order of $680 a tonne US for an SC 5.4.

NAL's not reliant upon these downstream converters coming in to be a profitable operation that's going to be resilient throughout the cycle. The expansion will enable us to do that.

Oh, very good. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Lucas, the first question is with regard to Ewoyaa.

It's a dual-sort of question. When will funding commitments begin, and what sort of changes are envisaged to the joint venture agreement?

Yeah. I think, again, I wouldn't want to sort of necessarily speculate, but in short, the way the existing JV's structured is that it requires us to contribute the lion's share of the capital, and it's just not equitable.

We've got a great relationship with the Atlantic folks, we continue to work through on that. Until a decision to be able to advance moves forward, there's no substantial cash outflows required at Ewoyaa.

We'll just continue to work through that. As you said, a decision to proceed to construction will require a recasting of that JV structure.

Particularly when you look across the suite and strength of growth opportunities we've got within the rest of the Elevra portfolio.

Thanks, Lucas. Next question on Moblan: when can we expect the updated DFS for Moblan, and are Investissement Québec paying their proportional share of funds at this point in time?

The JV structure on Moblan, we hold 60%, Investissement Québec hold the other 40%. All costs are shared on that pro-rata basis, and both parties have been contributing.

Our thinking is that we'll, given the increased resource base at Moblan since the last DFS, that we'll actually undertake a scoping study and undertake that in the back end of this calendar year, early in the calendar year '27, and then follow that with an updated DFS. That's the sequence that we're contemplating.

Great. Thank you.

Moving on to the Carolina projects. What progress has been made in finding a partner for the conversion process?

How far progressed are we, and when could we possibly announce a partner with that? Yeah.

This is certainly something that we're actively pursuing. As we've described numerous times, and just to reinforce it, Elevra's strength is in exploring, developing, and operating hard rock spodumene mines.

We're not a downstream chemical converter, we are actively looking for that partner. The reality is that universe is quite small.

Obviously, we're watching very closely how Mangrove advance their projects, and then if that's successful, and they're able to obtain appropriately priced power, that could be a processing downstream solution for us in North Carolina. I think there's probably a little more ground to cover.

The other comment I'd describe is that I think you've seen that particularly in Western Australia, those folks that have invested in downstream conversion facilities have backed away from that. The universe of potential downstream converters is quite a bit smaller than what you might have contemplated 12 months ago.

We are working away at it, but it's not a cup that's overspilling in terms of options for credible downstream operators at this point.

Great. Thank you.

Got a couple more questions on Mangrove. When would we expect to move to a binding price supportive agreement, which I'll just answer in that we would expect to be in that position by the time they reach FID in mid calendar year '27.

That would firm that agreement up. Also a question whether, if Mangrove's site's adjacent to NAL, they need to apply for separate permits or could utilize NAL's existing permits?

In short, they'll require some additional permitting, and the facilities are quite a bit different than the operation that we run, but they're not representing permitting as a significant issue as they advance the option of developing a facility in Canada.

Thanks, Lucas. Just in terms of NAL processing, do we utilize natural gas in that process?

I'll just double-check with Sylvain. My understanding is we use gas principally for heating, but Sylvain, over to you.

Actually the gas we're using at site is just to heat the processing plant, so that's it. There is nothing else used for that.

Thanks, Sylvain.

Thanks, Sylvain. With regard to the current pricing environment and existing operations, what's the biggest risk to maintaining current margins over the next 2 to 3 quarters?

I don't think there's any incremental risk per se. Setting aside the supply demand aspect, which really establishes realized pricing, I think Sylvain and the team, we've got a good credible plan, team's executing well, yeah, we're just going to continue to focus on those things that we can control, being safety, volume, and cost, and clearly capital efficiency as well.

Great. Thank you, Lucas.

We've noted in the past that we were trialing new reagents in the mill. Will this reduce costs, increase recoveries, or both, and how successful has that been?

The primary focus has been around maximizing recovery, and so the work that Charles, who heads up the metallurgical team, has done has proved to be, very promising, and so Sylvain and the team are continuing to drive that forward. The principal focus for us has been around recovery improvement rather than cost minimization.

Thank you. Onto mining and the pits.

The question is, how does the iron content change as we move through different areas of the pit?

It is quite variable. As we mentioned last quarter, we're in a particularly high iron content part of the mine.

Iron content from a all-mined perspective dropped around 17% this quarter, which as we forecasted. We worked through the sort of higher point and we'll just continue to move through.

Importantly, these steps that Sylvain and the team have put in place around increased ore inventory, ROM stockpile management, and blending has really been able to mitigate that in addition to the fact that the mining sequence has us moving into areas of lower iron content as compared to what was quarter two.

Great. Thanks, Lucas.

Got a question on NAL's unit costs and what opportunities are there to structurally change those costs, which I think you've sort of answered on the expansion, but maybe if you can just reiterate how that is expected to change over the next few years.

I think the reality is that all mines aren't created equal. You've got elements around strip ratio, grade, and so forth.

Again, I think Sylvain and the team have done a really great job in driving unit costs down. Importantly, the NAL expansion will give us a real opportunity to further drive those costs down in a stepped fashion and drive us into a position where NAL's unit costs at those sort of levels will see NAL resilient throughout the pricing cycle.

Key elements to that is increasing volume, which will dilute fixed-cost base, being able to open up new mining areas, and getting improved crushing and processing improvements as a consequence of being able to upgrade equipment. Structurally we will see a unit cost reduction, but obviously you can't alter things like geology and so forth.

I think if the question was in reference to Greenbushes, I'd say Greenbushes is a bit of a unicorn, pretty unique, but I think we're certainly driving into a cost-competitive position and the expansion will really cement it as a lower-cost producer.

Right. Thank you.

Question here for Christian. Were the cargoes sold in the March quarter subject to lagging prices, and can you confirm that both legacy offtakes will be completed this quarter, and then going forward, what will the approach be to offtake agreements?

Thanks, Andrew. The March quarter had minimal impact on lagging prices as the volumes that were supplied during the quarter only had a month lag on the first shipment.

If you effectively allow for that minor lag, the prices would have been in line with average prices for the quarter per indices published between January and March. Second question was with regards to Whether legacy This includes both.

Got it. Okay.

No. The June quarter will see the end of one of the two offtake agreements of the legacy ones.

One remains on foot. The third question was with regards to new offtake agreements?

Is that right?

Yeah.

Okay. Look, it's a pretty tight market, as some other people have already asked and raised through the course of the call.

We're not really rushing to wrap up new offtake agreements within the next quarter. If something really positive comes through in terms of some of the discussions that we're having, we would certainly take that opportunity.

I would be more comfortable to say that we'll likely see new offtake agreements as we approach calendar year 2027.

Thanks, Christian. The last question I have here is with regards to Moblan and Ewoyaa, and how sensitive decisions to proceed with those projects are to the existing or current lithium prices.

Yeah. If we just speak about Moblan for a moment.

Moblan's a fantastic deposit, over 120 million tonnes of resource. It's high grade, low strip ratio, it will be a very low-cost producer.

Moblan won't need a pricing signal to be able to bring that project online. More so it'll be about ensuring that the additional volume that we're going to bring in is captured in the market.

We wouldn't want to be tipping that into a oversupplied market. The reality for Moblan, the critical path for us is around permitting.

Historically in Quebec and Canada more broadly, projects of that scale have taken a minimum of 5 years permitting. We've started the underlying environmental work for that.

Interestingly enough, Premier Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, has reflected a desire to be able to shorten those time frames. We'll certainly take advantage of that.

I think the way that investors should think about it is we'll roll through the NAL brownfield expansion as a priority, and then roll into Moblan. As we mentioned earlier in the call, Ewoyaa, again, we like the project.

It's a fantastic deposit. Reality, the JV structure, as it's currently constituted, doesn't work for us, something will need to shift in that space.

Then I think we'd assess that project on that basis, but I wouldn't want to speculate until we've been able to recast that JV agreement.

Thanks, Lucas. I do have just one final question.

Noting that Mangrove Lithium negotiated some form of tax credit arrangements in Canada, and our question is whether NAL would be eligible for that sort of funding support.

Hey, Andrew. Thanks for the question.

I'll take that one. There's obviously different type of incentives in Canada for critical minerals.

Likely the one that Mangrove is tapping on to is associated with processing. We wouldn't qualify for that type of incentive.

Nonetheless, we are effectively already qualified for a different type of incentive, which is effectively a reimbursement of up to a certain limit on capital costs that we are effectively investing to increase capacity. As we think about the expansion, we are effectively already planning to line up documentation to take the opportunity and effectively be eligible for that incentive.

Okay. Thank you.

That's all the questions.

Thank you, Andrew, and thank everyone for participating, and we look forward to updating you at year end. Thanks again, and have a great day.