Thank you very much. Good morning, good afternoon everybody, and thank you for joining us for the Q1 2026 operational results update.

Joining me today in the room in Ghana are the following members of our leadership team: Alex Dall, our Chief Financial Officer; Francois Swanepoel, our Chief Operating Officer; Chris Grashoff, our EVP Strategy and Corporate Development; and Jongisa Magagula, EVP Investor Relations and External Affairs. I'm going to make a few introductory remarks before we move on to Q&A.

I think firstly, just on safety, we absolutely remain steadfast in our belief that fatality- and serious injury-free mining is achievable. I'm encouraged to report that our safety improvement program continues to gain momentum, and we had no fatalities or serious injuries recorded in the quarter.

We do know that this requires constant focus, and we continue to execute our safety improvement plan, focusing on strengthening our leadership capability, risk and safety systems, and ongoing partnership and collaboration with our business partners. Just moving on to the operational delivery, our production really was solid start to 2026.

We had 15% higher gold equivalent production compared to Q1 of 2025 at 633,000 oz, supported by strong contribution from Salares Norte, which produced 173 oz of gold equivalent ounces in the quarter. That was largely due to improved recoveries on both gold and, but particular, silver, and then also supported by the benefit of the higher silver price in the gold-silver ratio.

Production in the quarter was 7% lower than Q4 last year, but that was obviously a planned higher Q4 in 2025. We remain on track to meet full-year production guidance provided in February.

We did have certain softer start at Gruyere, Agnew, and Tarkwa, but these assets are all on track and are certainly showing improvement towards the back end of the quarter. Gruyere was really impacted by heavy rainfall and equipment and operator availability.

Agnew, we had a seismic events in the Kath orebody in the beginning of the quarter. At Tarkwa, we ended up processing a higher proportion of lower-grade stockpile due to unplanned downtime on our operating fleet, which impacts delivery of primary ore into the plant.

We are seeing improvements in these operations. I'll now just hand over to Alex to take us through some of the financials for the quarter.

Thank you, Mike, and good day, everyone. Our costs were under pressure during the quarter, with our all-in sustaining costs at $1,829/oz, or up 13% year-on-year, and our all-in costs were at $2,046 per ounce, or 10% higher year-on-year.

This was mainly due to external pressures, primarily higher royalties linked to the gold price and stronger Australian dollar and rand, which are our producer currencies, when converted to US dollars, that's impact our assets, as well as inflation across key inputs. I think it is important to reiterate that we are on track to meet the cost guidance.

However, we have seen some increases in some of our inputs, and so, on walk-ins, if we model the oil price at $100 a barrel, this we expect to be about $50/oz for the portfolio consequence. We are still confident that we have adequate mitigation plans in place to remain within our guidance range.

We have included some sensitivities in our results today on diesel, key commodities, and freight costs, and we'll continue to monitor the macro environment closely. From a cash flow perspective, we did generate strong cash flows, supported by the higher sales volumes and gold prices.

We were able to reduce net debt to $1.3 billion at quarter-end. This is after paying a final dividend of $1.2 billion.

We allocated $100 million to our share buyback program. However, execution under the buyback has been limited given the recent market volatility in our share price, but we will continue to pursue opportunities for share repurchases with discipline.

I'll hand back to Mike now to go through portfolio.

Thanks very much, Alex. Just a quick update on our portfolio and some of the growth options that we're prosecuting.

On Windfall, we're on track and remain on track for our base plan of first gold in H1 of 2029. We have, in the quarter, reached an in-principle agreement with the Cree Nation relating to the impact benefit agreements, and we expect to be in a position to sign that agreement in the coming weeks.

We also held the public hearings at the end of April 2026 as the final step of the EIA process before the issuing of the final reports and permitting. We remain confident that we're on track towards the final investment decision around mid-year, which we will provide an update on as part of the H1 2026 results.

At this stage, we are comfortable that we remain on track in respect to Windfall. The second big corporate work that's underway is really around the Tarkwa lease extension.

As you'll recall, we submitted the application for the lease extension in November of 2025, and we've had a number of engagements with the government of Ghana in relation to the Tarkwa lease renewal that are due to expire in 2027, and these remain ongoing. We obviously really focused on the constructive engagement in this process, and are focusing on trying to bring this to early resolution.

Just another thing that I'll talk to is that we continue to look at the internal options to improve the quality of our portfolio. At our Capital Markets Day, we outlined a number of discretionary investment opportunities with the potential to deliver value through volume growth, life extension, and cost optimization.

Some of the major projects included: material handling infrastructure at St Ives and Granny Smith; the stripping activities at the Agua Amarga pit at Salares Norte; investment in South Trench at South Deep; and as well as additional renewable energy. In addition to this, we included further work to develop the greater Invincible Complex at St Ives and the Golden Highway Project at Gruyere.

During quarter one, we continue to progress all of these activities across the portfolio and will provide an update on material decisions of these projects as they progress. In addition, one of the other key levers of growth is around the evolution of our greenfields portfolio.

At the end of quarter one 2026, our greenfields portfolio comprised 21 active projects, and we have now prioritized these within our top-tier opportunities. We advanced multiple drill programs in Eastern Australia, whilst in South America, permitting is advanced across the Beatriz in Chile and the Moquegua projects in Southern Peru, positioning both for initial drilling in H2 of 2026.

In Canada, regional drilling and generative work continues across the Windfall district, with the [Phénix?] joint venture with Bonterra advancing towards early completion.

We also increased our equity position in Founders Metals to circa 12.5%, representing a selective investment into a high-quality district-scale opportunity in Suriname. Overall, the greenfields opportunities are really focused, disciplined, and allocating capital within our global portfolio to focus on real high-quality opportunities to grow our portfolio into the longer horizon for growth.

I think, just in conclusion, we feel that the quarter was largely as planned. We did have a few variations at some of the operations, but at a portfolio level, we certainly comfortable that we're well-placed to deliver on our market guidance for the full year.

Those assets that had slight variation are well on track to recover for the full year. I think the other key theme is just the monitoring of the market volatility, in particular as a result of the war in Iran and what that could mean in respect of our cost guidance.

Today, we did provide a bit of a sensitivity, particularly on the material consumables and fuel inputs. We also have a number of measures underway to mitigate these cost pressures, including asset optimization and broader optimization issues across the portfolio.

I think from that point of view, it leaves us comfortable that despite some of these headwinds, we remain on track for our cost guidance for the full year. With that, I'll pause, and we can hand over to Q&A.

Hello, Mike and team. Pretty good first quarter despite the lower grades.

I've noticed that you have lower yields right across many, if not all, of your mines. Except for Tarkwa, of course, are you actively dropping your pay limits because of the higher gold price?

Or am I misreading that?

Hi, Renè. Thanks.

No, I don't think that's the case. Probably there's not been any deliberate decisions to change cut-off grades.

I do know certainly at both Tarkwa and Gruyere, we would have seen slightly lower grades because of higher stockpile feed, and probably, in some degree, at St Ives as well, where we've actually loaded some more low-grade stockpile. Francois, anything else?

I think from that, mainly additional stockpiles coming through, but also I think the ratio of open pit to underground might be changing slightly, therefore the higher volumes and slightly lower grade.

Yeah. Then probably the other one would be at Agnew.

We did probably move into some different grade faces because of the impact of the seismic event at Kath. It's not a deliberate strategy, Renè, to change the cut-off grades.

Fine. Thanks.

Sorry, just to clarify, oil price of $100/bbl, is that an extra $50/oz cost?

We ran our guidance at $75 a barrel, then if you run a sensitivity at 100, and we just use that as a benchmark of what that's done to other key commodity prices as well, such as cyanide, LNG, explosives, etc. That hits us of about $50/oz higher cost

on the portfolio. It's a read-through.

If we factor in the $100 and we read it through to the other input commodities, we think that the rollout impacts probably another $50/oz. Across the portfolio.

Yeah. So, $25 a barrel equals $50/oz extra.

Roughly, yeah.

Okay. Good.

No, thanks very much. Thanks, Mike.

Thanks, team.

Thank you very much. On the cost side, just continuing that conversation, I had two questions.

One is, just to clarify on the sensitivity that was provided that was just discussed, does that include the secondary impacts and then the other reagents items that also had some increases? Then, more broadly, on the Australia front, can you comment on maybe what you're seeing in the market there and what the effects of that are expected to be on the business?

Look, I can hand over to Alex to comment, but I think on that first one, yes, that $50 would include secondary impacts. It is through the input value chain.

I think just on the Australian market, the key thing for us in Australia is definitely labor availability is starting to have a bit of an impact on our operations. Obviously with the increased interest rates, you're probably going to see some potential, again, pressure in the tight labor market for high wages, but anything else?

They do feel the impact of the oil price higher than the other jurisdictions because of the freight distances. Particularly.

Yeah.

We are seeing that, but I think labor, and then obviously the flow-through into contractor rates as well under pressure.

Yeah. There's been some noise from suppliers about the impact, but it hasn't yet flowed through outside of the direct market-linked commodities.

Got it. Okay.

Then, good job on progressing the Windfall permitting. Just looking forward, and looking at the update in August, what should we be thinking about for the upcoming, I guess, feasibility study refresh, and how are you thinking about CapEx in light of some of these pressures kind of globally?

Look, I think certainly, Josh, what we will do is provide an update in August with our full-year results because I think by then, that's the timing of when we would formally approve the project. We're doing the final review on the capital estimates now, and I think we'll be in a better position to talk to that in August, probably don't want to call out anything outside of that now.

Again, I wouldn't say that we would see material differences to what we were talking about in November.

We will obviously test key commodity inputs on the current pricing environment, there might be some of that will come through.

Great. Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Josh.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, Mike and team.

Got three questions, if I may. First is on the Tarkwa lease extension.

As I understand, you have a stability agreement at Tarkwa. Not that it mattered with respect to the increasing royalties, but as part of the lease extension, will that stability agreement stay?

Or is that a different discussion? Secondly, on Tarkwa again, given the arbitration with the contractor, is there a risk of any impact on the productivity at Tarkwa?

The other question I had was more related to your project readiness and mobilization in Australia and at Windfall. When I was in Val-d'Or a few weeks ago, and what I was hearing was the unemployment rate was 2% or lower.

You talked about the labor issues. Just want to get a sense of where do you stand as of the second half of this year.

There's a number of projects you're looking to execute. If you can give us some color on that.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Raj. Good questions.

Just on the Tarkwa lease extension, I think a couple of things that are at play here is, firstly, what we are dealing really with respect to the Tarkwa lease extension is that there's not a very clear policy framework that the government has around what is the fiscal kind of template that they're looking to achieve in respect to this. They have made changes to the royalty rates, which have been published.

They have offset that by a reduction in the stability levy, the general stability levy. Those are kind of, as one component of the lease extension.

There's a number of other things that are kind of floating around about, well, what are the expectations on term of lease, is there the expectation of additional free carry. I think the way that it's being presented to us is that the government are expecting us to enter into a broader negotiation about the sharing of value that is going to be delivered out of the asset over time.

Certainly, we open to that conversation, and part of what we trying to present is for them to balance cash out of these assets now versus creating an environment for longer-term investment, because quite clearly, we've presented a case that Ghana as it stands today is probably on the outlier side on global competitiveness. Over 50% of our cash flows already goes to the government in terms of the benefits out of this project.

To maintain competitiveness, we've got to be quite sensible about what it looks like going forward. In respect of the stability agreements, I think their general preference is that the stability agreements as a standard should not be part of the landscape going forward.

I think that's their preference. We believe that as part of the negotiation on the lease extension, there are certain elements of that that we should consider including in the lease, at least, even if it's not in a formal standalone stability agreement.

I think it's still kind of a little complex now, but it is going to come down to a value and a financial conversation with the government. I think that's where it stands today.

I think the idea that we would have a standalone stability agreement in the long term possibly may not exist, whether we have it for a period of time could be part of the negotiated outcome. I think in respect of E&P, look, I think what we are seeing is certainly E&P still committed to the project and delivery and making sure they deliver productivity.

They're clearly incentivized to move tonnes, and they certainly feel the pain financially if they don't move the volumes. I think the bigger concern maybe is that E&P have now also been appointed as the operator of the Damang mine, and certainly have interests in growing their business elsewhere.

The bigger concern is probably just a distraction from them rather than the dispute with us as being the reason that underperform. Again, I think they've got the right capacity on-site to deliver the outcomes, and our teams continue to work well with them, there's nothing that's stopping us from working together.

Then I think just lastly on Windfall, you probably picked up on one of the key concerns that we have in finalizing the capital estimates is are we going to see not just an availability issue on labor, but declining productivity levels? Because what we are seeing in Canada is probably the experience levels of available artisans and project people is probably coming off, and that's potentially impacting productivity levels in the project over time.

That's probably more of a concern. I think in the next six months, a large part of the project work is really around the camp construction, bulk earthworks, a few of the pond construction.

I think the big kind of mechanical work really only starts post-winter into 2027, where we've mapped the general market projects, and we don't see that as a significant concern. I think the bigger impact from a labor point of view is going to be productivity factors, I think is our bigger concern.

Hopefully that answers that.

That's great, Mike. Can I quickly ask a follow-up on the E&P situation?

If you were to, let's say, look for another contractor, how easy it is, given that the government of Ghana has now mandated it's going to be 100% Ghanaian ownership of the contractors?

Look, I think it is a conversation that is still pending for us, and we have flagged this with the government and the Minerals Commission. The one thing that we do anticipate with our preferred plan going into Tarkwa is that there is a heavy lift on additional material movement, and we flagged that all in our Capital Markets Day estimates in November, is that you will see a big lift in material movement in from 28, '29, '30.

The question is, would it help us to actually start considering bringing in some alternative capacity so that we aren't loading and creating single contractor risk on some of those volumes? That's a conversation that we will also engage on.

It's not a discussion for today, but certainly over the next 2 years, we need to be prepared to how we're going to respond to those additional volumes. It's not an impossibility, but there is a sensitivity that we need to manage through.

Yeah.

That's great. Thank you very much.

That's it from me.

Thanks, Raj.

Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my question. I have a follow-up question on fuel-related questions that you have spoken about.

My question is related to how you are managing the possibility of fuel shortages, especially, and other consumables, but especially in Australia, where there is minimal refining capacity. How much stock levels do you keep in a scenario where there are fuel shortages?

Then the second question is related to Salares Norte and the good recoveries we've seen in quarter one. How sustainable are these recoveries?

Or is there even potential upside to the recoveries that we've seen? Then the last question, I just want to know if you are able to share a bit more color on the contractor dispute in Ghana, especially related to Tarkwa, especially when we consider that the figures are not insignificant.

Yeah. Thank you.

Those are my three questions.

Thank you. They're very good questions.

I'm going to break them up and ask Alex to talk to the fuel and stock levels, Francois to talk about the recoveries at Salares, and then I'll finish on the Tarkwa contractor disputes.

No, perfect. Thanks.

On the fuel levels and in particular, we'll cast the group, we monitor them every couple of days. We get reports as an ExCo that come to Mike, Francois, and myself.

We look at those fuel levels. I think we have had discussions with our key fuel providers in Australia, and we did actually put in a request that they would give some extra shipments so we could up our levels where we had capacity in storage there which is actually quite limited.

They are not willing to do that because they want to keep the market balanced, but they are committed to delivering on their schedules, and we have not seen any issues there, and they confirm with us that they have sufficient in-country storage to keep us going for quite a while. We are not concerned there, and we're in continuous discussions with our fuel suppliers in Australia.

Across the rest of the group, we actually have reasonable fuel storage, and we don't have any concerns. Francois?

Thanks. On Salares Norte, we quite pleased with the progress on the recovery.

In terms of gold, what we currently have is entirely sustainable. In fact, we probably looking for another 2 percentage points between now and the end of Q3.

There are a number of initiatives that we're currently working on. Silver, we probably at the moment 10% above what we estimated for our feasibility study, I think that's probably a good number, and yeah, we fully see that to be sustainable.

I'll just say that this is in support of us trending towards the upper end of market guidance for Salares Norte at the end of year, we quite confident with our current projections.

Thanks, Francois. Look, I think just on the contractor disputes at Tarkwa, in fact, just so you understand, there's actually two areas of dispute: one in relation to Damang, and one in relation to Tarkwa.

The combined value of those two disputes amounts to around $740 million if you take the side of the claims. We have a contractual dispute resolution process, and we've been through those contractual dispute resolution processes, and the last step in the process is to pass it through to arbitration.

That's the contractual basis for it. We certainly do not believe there's any substantive basis around those claims, and hence we've suggested to the contractor that if they're not comfortable with the way that the dispute has been managed through the contract, that their next step is to take it to arbitration.

We quite comfortable that our position is well-defendable, and we don't believe that there's any substantive basis for that claim. Again, in the interest of managing the relationship to the question earlier, we fully supportive of seeing this through the dispute process, because we have to continue to work together.

I think this unfortunately is going to take some time for resolution. I think we should expect that this could be on foot for up to 2 years, and we'll just have to manage around it.

To the question that Raj raised earlier, we certainly don't see this having any impact on their productivity and our relationship with them whilst it's underway. Again, to put this in context, this conversation around this dispute has certainly been alive and real with me and their principles since the day I started, it's not a new issue, certainly.

Thank you.

Good day, Mike and team. Thank you very much for the opportunity to chat.

Mike, I think you're still in the pre-feasibility stage with the south of the Reindl fault project. Given 30-odd years of massive learning and experience at depth, can you give us any hope of a significant or at least a useful increase in gold output south of the Reindl fault?

Likewise, with that, could we look forward to very competitive costs? Then I would add the labor issue that you raised with Windfall is similarly how far are we down the line at South Deep to having a world-class trackless team?

Thanks for those questions, Bruce. I'll ask Francois to add some some color, in particularly to the third question.

Look, I think the one thing that we know about South Deep is there is significant reserves, and South of Reindl is an important part of our future horizon to add flexibility, which will allow us to add more ounces. The key constraint at at South Deep is really the mining process.

We've got enough installed capacity from the time that we have rock on ground. Getting South of Reindl developed really gives us the opportunity of gives us the opportunity to to add add production.

Within our plan and our strategic plan of South Deep, certainly getting up to, 380,000 oz is a part of the delivery of that is is really getting South of Reindl developed. I think that is an intermediate horizon and is is in our view quite comfortably achievable.

The the From a cost structure point of view, as we know, South Deep is a very high fixed cost asset. When we able to add, 20% to 25% of of production to our current levels, we should see that as being highly dilutive.

Whilst we see, real cost inflation because of of real cost increase in labor, this would be highly dilutive. We would see certainly strategically a pathway back to $1,500/oz as being a strategic goal for the South Deep team.

Then I think, Francois can talk about the TMM capability and the and underground productivity that we looking to achieve. Part of that is not just about our current team, but it's how we adopt technology to accelerate productivity at the at the site, and and there's a lot of good work going on underway.

Again, you can only do the kind of work that's required for long-term productivity and uplift when you have the kind of reserve life horizon that we have at South Deep. That's why we continue to get excited about what South Deep can offer us.

We always say that South Deep is a is a big ship, and it's about incrementally improving. I just shared with with the team this morning when we were chatting, I said, it's a it's a great quarter when we we don't have a lot to say about South Deep because they just continue to deliver to their plan.

That's really what we want to do is see incremental improvement out of South Deep. When we do that, we'll see that margin expansion and productivity improvements.

Francois, you want to talk to that? You were there on Friday, I believe.

Yeah.

Yes, that's right. Yeah.

I think as Mike says, it's really an incremental journey. Certainly the discussions we've been having 2 years ago is, how do we actually just have people to maintain and operate our machines?

I was glad on Friday that that conversation is something of the past. I think we're investing a significant amount in training through simulation and upskilling the people in our teams.

I think we are making significant progress in that. Obviously linked to that is the technology that Mike spoke to, but for us also what's very important is the actual mine design, because if you create optimal conditions for your fleet to operate in, it's just so much easier to reach your overall equipment effectiveness targets.

We are doing a lot of work at South Deep around mine sequencing and just creating better conditions that we can deploy our equipment. That, coupled with training, I think is starting to show positive improvements for us at South Deep specifically.

At Windfall, obviously we're looking at that full remote capabilities and really pushing the technology there.

Yeah. Guys.

Thank you very much. I'd actually look forward to a discussion about exactly how the sequencing works, etc., because I've been excited about this for a long time, and it would be fantastic to see some good progress.

Thank you very much. Cheers.

Bye.

Thanks, Bruce.

Oh, great. Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you so much for taking my three questions. Mike, I just wanted to come back to Windfall.

Just you had your public hearings. Was there anything out of the public hearings of concern or any issues in terms of what the communities want or are concerned about in terms of the permitting?

No. Tanya, nothing material came out of that that we believe would impact either the IBA or the EIA.

Okay. Then, can you just remind me, Mike, if we don't have this permit in place by September, October of this year, do we lose 6 months?

Is that it? Because of the winter scheduling?

I'm just trying to remember. I don't remember the sensitivity.

The big challenge that we've got is that if we do not get the permit by July, I think we run into real challenges on getting the earthworks completed, and certainly it would impact our ability to do some of the civils works during winter. That potentially does push us back probably at least 6 months or so on our schedule.

We don't think that's likely at this stage, we think the probability of remaining on our base case is certainly better than even odds, much better than even odds, I should say. Yeah.

Okay. That's good.

Then just to follow up on Josh's question on what are we expecting in August when you give us an update, would it be fair to say that it's not just capital that you're reviewing, but with this labor, we're also reviewing operating costs and your reserves and resources from the drilling that you're doing? Would that be safe to assume?

Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I think what we'd be looking at is a kind of telling the whole story about Windfall as we see it today.

I.e., the capital for the first 10-year phase of the project. I think we probably also want to start talking to putting that in the context of the long-term potential of Windfall.

We'll also do a reserve declaration at the time of it, and that will include our expected operating costs during the next 10 years, as well as the capital and schedule estimates.

Okay. It's a fulsome, and I guess that would also be an update on the timing as well, if there's any timing to be updated?

If there's any timing. Exactly.

I think at this stage, we feel that would be a time where we say we've got a project underway.

Yeah. That's my first technical question.

The second one, I know we asked on the conference call your year-end, how's the year shapes up. You did have a maintenance downtime at Tarkwa in Q1.

For the rest of the year, are there any mine sites that have downtime that I should be aware of from a quarterly standpoint? Or should I be thinking that everything's been factored in, and the next three quarters are going to be relatively similar to put you at that 2.5 million ounce range for the year?

Look,

I think for us, there's going to be slight ups and downs, but I don't think there's any material change in the profile. I think we might see, quarter one, we did have a few offsets from Tarkwa, Gruyere, and Agnew, which we should see a bit of a recovery into Q2.

We might see Salares slightly down just because we've probably got a slightly different ore sequencing and a bit of downtime. We also have planned for obviously winter days, which probably see Q2 and Q3 slightly lower than Q1 and Q4.

They're all kind of slightly planned activities, but when you look at it at a portfolio level, I think we probably see, quarter one as being kind of at the low end of our average numbers for the quarter, if all things go well. I think if we deliver in that kind of 6 630 to 650 range for each quarter in the full year, we probably be quite happy that we've delivered well within our guidance.

Understood. Then the reason I ask that as well is because I wanted to come to your share share your buyback, your capital returns, particularly the the share buyback.

You mentioned that in Q1, you did minimal share buyback because of the volatility in in in in the market. I'm kind of just wondering how you see how you look and how how you implement the share buyback.

Is it based Cuz it looks like the rest of the year is operational, forecast, because if you're in that 630 to 650, those mines are performing in line. Your capital is it, you've got more capital if Windfall starts at the second half of of the year.

I'm just trying to understand, what are you monitoring? Like, the gold price will be the gold price, that none of us can control that.

Do you look at it from a, an operational standpoint, from your cash on your on your balance sheet, and obviously your dividend payment you had to make? How should I be thinking of it?

Like, is it a gold price call where we've seen gold price fall, $1,000/oz, yet you weren't active? I'm just trying to understand how I should think about your share buyback and what I should look for to see that you implemented or not.

I'll probably ask Alex to give a little bit of color on this. I'd say just the one thing, Tanya, is that the reason that we had a fairly low execution in that first quarter up to our reporting is that essentially we only approved this at the back end of February, we had a very short period, and that was at the time that we saw all this huge volatility.

We were actually quite aggressive in how we set the guidelines on the buyback program to our banks. Because we were going into a closed period, it also limited our ability to be active on reflecting on how we execute it.

We did do a very small portion of buybacks at a fairly kind of a very low average price on our last 2 years. Alex, you want to talk about how we think about it going?

Yes. No, thanks, Mike and Tanya.

I think exactly what Mike had said is we put out a bit of a mandate, then we went into a closed period, we weren't able to be active. Now that the program has been announced and communicated to the market, we have more ability to be active.

The way we look at it is we actually want to outperform the VWAP over the period, and that's how we are going to look at trying to deliver the buyback. I'm very confident that we will deliver the $400 million buyback, yeah.

I think the way that we're looking at this buyback, Tanya, and we've always said that this year is really the first time we've ever done it, but what we want to do is to put in a program that is actually consistent. If we do it in a very consistent way, and we allow those that are executing this on our behalf to be active when there are dips below the average, then we should be able to provide the outcome that we're looking for, which is to outperform the average price.

It's not nothing that you would be matching cash flow to payments and stuff that I should be thinking about, high tax payments and certain

No. Not at all.

Okay. Understood.

No, Tanya,

from a capital allocation perspective, that cash has been provided for.

It's been allocated, so that's there for execution. It's not linked to operational cash flows.

Thank you for that.

Just firstly, thanks very much for the interest for all those that asked questions. They are all very, very relevant to what we managing and dealing with.

I do think that the first quarter for us, although we had a bit of variation, absolutely we are delivering on our strategy to deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective operations. We have a lot of really good work underway, and I think that this year remains on track to deliver the outcomes that we plan for, and for us, that means a good year.

I think from the two big corporate activities for us is really delivering Windfall into execution timely, and also getting progress on the Tarkwa lease extension. Those would be two material portfolio issues for us.

Apart from that, I think our team's working really well, very well-aligned, and for us, it was largely a boring quarter that we want. Thank you everyone for joining.