Today's call will begin shortly. Participants can ask both text and live audio questions during the call.

To ask a text question, select the messaging icon, type your question in the box towards the top of the screen, and press the Send button. To ask a live audio question, press the Request to Speak button at the top of the broadcast window.

The broadcast will be replaced by the audio question screen. Use the dial-in number and access PIN provided to ask your question via the phone.

Alternatively, for those on a home or personal network, you can ask your question via the web by pressing Join Queue. If prompted, select Allow in the pop-up to grant access to your microphone.

If you have any issues using the platform, dial-in details can also be found on the home page under Asking Audio Questions. Text questions can be submitted at any time, and the audio queue is now open.

Today's call will begin shortly. Participants can ask both text and live audio questions during the call.

To ask a text question, select the messaging icon, type your question in the box towards the top of the screen, and press the Send button. To ask a live audio question, press the Request to Speak button at the top of the broadcast window.

The broadcast will be replaced by the audio question screen. Use the dial-in number and access PIN provided to ask your question via the phone.

Alternatively, for those on a home or personal network, you can ask your question via the web by pressing Join Queue. If prompted, select Allow in the pop-up to grant access to your microphone.

If you have any issues using the platform, dial-in details can also be found on the home page under Asking Audio Questions. [prepaid?]

items with the Onslow carry loan reducing to $459 million from $553, and the iron ore prepayment amortising to $440 million from $500 million. Post quarter end, we issued US$1.3 billion of new senior unsecured notes across two tranches: US$650 million at 6%, they're due May 2032; and US$650 million at 6 and a quarter percent due May 2034.

This lowers our finance costs, extends duration, and improves the resilience of the balance sheet. Specifically, the transaction reduces finance costs by around $48 million per year, lowers our weighted average cost of debt from 8.4% to 7.4%, and extends weighted average tenor from 3.1 years to 5 years.

The proceeds will refinance the US$625 million 8% notes due November '27, fully repay the iron ore prepayment, and redeem US$350 million of the US$1.1 billion 9 and a quarter percent notes due in October '28. The POSCO transaction remains subject to conditions precedent, including formal documentation and regulatory approvals.

As disclosed, those proceeds are intended to redeem the residual US$750 million of notes due in October '28. This will further reduce our weighted average cost of debt to 6.9% and save another $100 million of interest per year.

Looking forward, we expect liquidity and leverage to improve further in the June quarter and expect to be near or below our 2 times net leverage target at June. Turning to Mining Services, it delivered another strong quarter.

Production volumes were 80 million tonnes, and we've upgraded FY '26 production volume guidance to be somewhere between 320 and 330 million tonnes. Two existing external contracts were renewed during the quarter, and one external mining contract was completed.

I would also like to reiterate an important point in the current fuel environment that Mining Services margins are not impacted by higher diesel prices because fuel is generally passed through to or supplied by the client. Turning to Onslow, in iron ore, Onslow Iron produced 7.8 million tonnes and shipped 7.2 million tonnes in the quarter on a 100% basis.

Shipment volumes were affected by Tropical Cyclones Mitchell and Narelle in February and March. We had water over the haul road in floodway areas designed to manage such an event.

Winds, I'm told, registered over 190 km nearby. Importantly, the private haul road and other key infrastructure sustained no damage.

Operations resumed safely, and the project returned to nameplate capacity shortly after each cyclone. At Onslow, the realized iron ore price in the quarter was US$95 per tonne, representing a 91% realization on the Platts 61% index.

Q3 FOB cost was $53 a tonne, and year to date, that FOB cost is sitting at $52 per tonne against our guidance of $54 to $59 per tonne. For FY '26, our attributable Onslow volume guidance has been upgraded to somewhere between 17.7 and 19.4 million tonnes, with costs tracking at the lower end of guidance.

Importantly, Onslow Iron is performing exactly as intended. It's generating free cash, and it's reducing debt.

We also continue to build optionality into the project's logistics chain, with our sixth transshipper expected to arrive at the Port of Ashburton in May. Commissioning for that is expected by the end of Q4 FY '26.

The seventh transshipper remains on track for delivery around the end of the financial year, with commissioning by the end of first quarter FY '27. In the Pilbara Hub, Lamb Creek achieved first ore on ship in March, just three months after we broke ground.

This is a key milestone, reflecting our team's capability to move quickly from development into operation. The realized Pilbara Hub iron ore price in the quarter was US$89 per tonne, representing an 86% realization on the Platts 61% CFR index.

We've benefited from a higher lump weighting in the quarter in that part of the operations. Pilbara Hub FY '26 volume guidance is maintained.

FOB costs is expected to be at the upper end of guidance, with Q4 costs expected to be impacted by higher diesel prices, partly offset by the transition to the lower-cost Lamb Creek tonnes. In terms of lithium, Lithium division had a much stronger quarter.

The average realized price across both operations was US$2,105 per tonne on an SC6-equivalent basis, up 92% quarter on quarter. We've continued to see prices strengthen into April, with sales being reported above $2,500 per tonne.

Total quarterly attributable spodumene concentrate production from Mt Marion and Wodgina was 127,000 tonnes SC6. Sales were 115,000 tonnes SC6 due to timing of shipments.

FY '26 volume guidance for Wodgina has been upgraded to 270,000 to 290,000 tonnes SC6, and Mt Marion upgraded to 210 to 230,000 tonnes SC6, with FOB cost guidance maintained across both operations. Stripping at Wodgina is progressing well.

We have line of sight to clean ore to feed all three processing trains by the December quarter, which will further improve recoveries and project economics. At Mt Marion, detailed design for a flotation plant to improve recoveries is nearing finalization.

Separately, we've commenced the tender process for an underground mining contractor, and the underground study is expected to be completed this quarter. We also continue to evaluate the potential restart of Bald Hill.

Keeping an eye on that in the current geopolitical environment, we're just taking a considered approach. These are the sorts of opportunities we like in this phase of the cycle: existing assets, known operating teams, modest capital requirements that won't stretch the balance sheet with potential for attractive returns.

On safety, I also want to flag that the company has completed a comprehensive review of its injury and illness classification procedure. Following this review, the procedure has been revised to align with global industry standards.

Adoption of that revised procedure may result in higher reported metrics reflecting broader classification of recordable injuries, rather than a change in underlying safety performance. We expect to report LTIFR and TRIFR under the revised procedure from 1 April 2026.

This reflects a maturing in the business with our strong focus on safety and wellbeing unchanged. In terms of fuel, just a few words on this.

I know it's a topic of great interest. We've experienced no disruption to contracted diesel supply or operations as a result of the Middle East conflict.

Our diesel is sourced from a major Australian fuel supplier. Due to a one-month pricing lag, the March quarter was unaffected by movements in the diesel price, and the cost impact will be realized from April.

If diesel prices remain at current elevated levels, which have doubled since the commencement of the Middle East conflict, we estimate FOB cost increases of approximately $4 per tonne for Onslow, $7 per tonne for the Pilbara Hub, and around $60 per tonne SC6 for our lithium sites. Despite this, FY '26 FOB cost guidance is maintained across all divisions.

As I said earlier, it's important to note that Mining Services margins aren't impacted. Just in summary, we're entering the June quarter with strong momentum.

We've upgraded FY '26 volume guidance across multiple divisions. We've reduced net debt to approximately $4.5 billion, and increased liquidity to $1.8 billion.

We've also materially improved our debt maturity profile, our capital structure, and our cost of debt. Onslow Iron remains our key free cash flow driver, but lithium has improved materially, and the balance sheet continues to strengthen.

Our focus on the remainder of FY '26 is clear: we're going to deliver on guidance, continue to delever, we're going to maintain disciplined capital allocation, and we're going to progress brownfields opportunities selectively, and as justified by return and risk profiles. With that, I'll hand back to Josh for questions.

Thanks.

Oh, hi. Good morning, Malcolm, Mark, Mike, and team.

Thanks for the call. Congratulations on a strong quarter.

Look, from my perspective, the first question, you provided a pretty clear diesel impact there. I guess my question is that if you do have higher prices persist, and they do kind of look like they're going to persist throughout FY '27, then in that scenario, do you have any near-term levers you can pull in terms of perhaps mine plan, in terms of grade profile, et cetera, to help yourselves improve your work index at least in the near term to cushion some of that impact in your earnings?

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

Hi, Rahul. Good morning, and thanks for the question.

You can imagine that we're constantly evaluating and reassessing mine plan options on our operations to optimize against cost. Clearly, with diesel being where it is, that's something that we're working on.

I'm not in a position to provide any guidance on possible impact at this point.

Got it. Okay.

Look, second one, good recovery increase at Mt Marion. I just wanted to touch upon whether there's been a genuine underlying recovery increase with a stable grade profile, or is that largely driven by the fact that you mined better parts of the ore body?

Just trying to think about my forecast going forward for the asset, given where the grades might look like they're going. Thanks.

We've talked about Mt Marion a bit, haven't we, in terms of it's source out of various pits, and the recoveries tend to fluctuate depending on where we are in each pit and how deep we are in each pit. I think we're very pleased with the performance through the quarter.

It did perform well. It might come off a little bit this quarter.

I think we're still expecting it to be a little bit softer next year, but again we haven't finalized that planning. We're going through the budgeting process at the moment.

Hi, guys. Just noting this strip ratio for Onslow in the quarter went up a fair bit, but costs basically hugged what they had been year to date, and your guidance is down the bottom end.

I guess the question is, are you realizing any productivity benefits across the operations as you start to ramp it up to full utilization, get that fixed-cost dilution? How should we be thinking about that in terms of longer-term cost guidance for the asset, noting you're probably going to be taking a bit of a harder look given the diesel price environment or making savings elsewhere and what your trade-offs will be?

Thank you.

Good day, Rob. I think you can assume we've been at that asset now for a little while, and it's been at steady state at nameplate probably for more than six months now.

I think you can assume we're continuing to chip away at the cost, continuing to drive efficiency. We were up there yesterday doing a site visit to check on it and talking to the guys even in things like the truck maintenance facility.

The way that they're able to drive down cycle times is incredibly impressive. All those little things add up to greater efficiency across the operation.

Very pleased, and that's why we're comfortable where we are with the costs and the cost guidance.

Okay. Thanks for the color there, Mark.

Then just follow-up, third-party contracts, the services volumes were a lot larger than what I had and what consensus had. Can you sort of give us a flavor for how the demand for that segment of the business is changing in this current environment?

Obviously, you've increased guidance for this year, but how do we think about what guidance looks like for next year, and not trying to front-run it, but just trying to think about the run rate?

I've said for a while that there's strong inquiry and demand for that service. We've got industry-leading capabilities in a number of areas.

We've got three decades of experience. We're talking to a number of clients around a range of opportunities.

Some of them are smaller and some of them are larger, and we continue to work through those. Very pleased with the way that's looking for the next few years.

Yeah. Morning, Mark and Chris.

Thanks for the call and taking my questions. Two from me.

Just a quick one on Onslow to start. Obviously, well done with the guidance upgrade.

I just wanted to ask and confirm, though, in terms of the March quarter and the seasonality in production, but particularly shipments, was that in line with how you're thinking about sort of budgets and I suppose an anticipated downtime?

Hi, Lachlan. The answer is yes.

We've talked previously about that March quarter being the most challenging in a weather sense with the cyclone season, we expected it to be our softest of the year. I think I might have foreshadowed that in some of my previous comments.

No great surprise with the impact of the weather. The one thing that maybe surprised me a little bit was just the number of days that those cyclones impacted us.

We had to send the transshippers out a little bit further because of where the cyclones were tracking. Apart from that, overall, the quarter was pretty much in line with where I thought it was going to be for Onslow.

Great. That's great color.

Thank you. Then the second question, just to move to Wodgina.

Maybe just reflecting on the strip ratio there, and obviously you're still stripping and looking to get to steady state, three-train operations in 2027. Can you just remind us of how we should think about what that pathway looks like to getting a lower strip and obviously increased ore feed into the concentrators?

Then maybe a little further out, just to remind of the critical path in terms of standing up studies, potential FID and build for trains, what might come next, trains 4 and or 5. Thanks.

Timing hasn't really shifted that much. We've been saying for a while it'll be Q4 this calendar year when we get towards enough clean feed to support three trains consistently.

We've been running at 2 to 2 and a half for some time now, and we'll have this quarter some lower-grade feed coming through as we continue to run and produce tonnes. Over the next six months, we should really start to see that shift, and we'll start to see the strip come down.

Then we'll see the mine open up, and we'll be able to access that feed continually for quite some time for many, many years. In terms of studies and the other opportunities up there, that's something that we continue to talk with our very good partners, Albemarle, about.

We're continuing to evaluate a range of options for growth up there. When we're in a position to comment, we'll bring more back to the market.

Good morning, Mark and Chris. Two questions from me.

Just the first one, maybe if I can push you for a bit more detail about the possibility of the Bald Hill restart, particularly given the industry-wide inflation. Does this change or reduce your enthusiasm around that?

I'll circle back for a second.

Hi, Kaan. We've been talking about the possibility of Bald Hill coming back online for a little while now.

We said we wanted to see a bit more stability in the lithium market. That's shown to be quite resilient.

The market outlook is very strong. We're seeing a lot of demand coming through now, and supply's struggling to keep up with that demand.

As I said in my comments earlier, we're just being considered in the broader geopolitical environment at this point. It's something we're actively monitoring.

I won't be able to say anything more than that, though.

Sure. Thank you.

Then, secondly, an update on expectations for Mt Marion for the float plant and then, again, timing.

We're just working through the finalization of that detailed design, talking with our JV partners, making sure we get it optimized. That's something we're working towards.

It fits well with the underground work as well, they work off each other. The underground work is going to be finished this quarter.

We need to go back to the board and take them through it. The benefits of float are significant, in terms of providing us with a single product at 5%, and ultimately giving us an extra 100,000 tonnes of production from 500 to 600,000 tonnes on SC6 basis.

I think as we take the board through both projects together, hope to be able to come back to the market over the next three or four months.

Morning, Mark. Hope you're well.

First question's on diesel, just on the supply visibility. What assurances is your supplier sort of giving you on supply, where are they sourcing their crude from?

Any information you can provide on that, and sort of what visibility do you think your major supplier has on crude supply?

Morning, Paul. Look, we've had a very strong relationship with our supplier for a couple of decades.

We're talking with them daily. We think they've got as good insight as any, in terms of access to product.

We've got visibility of shipments that they have coming into the country. We know when they're landing, how much is coming out.

Very happy with the way that relationship has worked with us through this period. Beyond that, I'm not sure that we have any more visibility than any of the majors.

Comfortable that we are where we are in terms of certainty of supply.

Okay. Thanks, Mark.

Then a second question on iron ore realized pricing, particularly around I understand the Pilbara and their traditional lump and that will continue. That explains that.

Just on Onslow, really good outcome on price realization, and you're actually outperforming some of the other producers that produce similar sort of 58% products. I just want to ask around how that's being achieved.

Was there any provisional pricing sort of tailwind here? Or is it the fact that your partners are actually paying a little bit more, to speak, versus a certain index?

I'm just trying to understand how you posture about how you're outperforming some of your peers on Onslow specifically.

No kicker from a price adjustment or anything like that. It was just as it was through the quarter.

Again, I've said for a while that this product's been very well received in China. It's been very well accepted by the mills that are using it.

We've got a strong brand identity for the product, and there's a lot of demand for it. I think that's translating now into the sorts of realizations that you're seeing.

I think it's reflective of the quality of the product and market awareness of it.

Thanks. Morning, Mark and Chris.

Look, firstly, thanks for the detail on the diesel cost impacts at the iron ore hubs. I'm wondering if there's any commentary you can provide on recent shipping cost impacts to your CFR costs, and whether you can give that either in the context of at the group level or at the asset level, because I imagine it's a little different between the two assets, obviously due to the vessel sizes, but I'm just thinking that the quantum of the impact may actually be a bit bigger than the diesel impact in isolation.

Thanks.

Diesel represents about 30% of the costs of shipping, as I understand it. If 30% of the costs of shipping is doubled, you get an impact.

The price is being felt more in the panamax sizing than the capesizing. Capesizing might be $5 or $6 a tonne, panamax a bit more.

Just generally on the diesel, look, we've tried to be as helpful as we can with the commentary on it because we know everybody's looking at it from a slightly different basis based on $10 a barrel and all this sort of stuff. We've just tried to make it very granular and give you the impact on FOB.

No, thanks, Mark. I think that's pretty clear.

Maybe secondly at Mt Marion, obviously great to see moving forward with the underground restart and the float plant. I'm just trying to think ahead as to how these kinds of decisions might work under the POSCO JV, obviously once that closes.

I guess probably more interested, yeah, in Wodgina and you've already talked through some of the future growth options you've got there. I guess, can you talk us through the mechanics of how it would work to make these sorts of capital investment decisions at Wodgina or Mt Marion, and whether that would be first seeking approval at POSCO JV level and then elevating to the MARBL JV or the Ganfeng JV level?

I guess I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of things like investing in a processing plant upgrade or a additional train in the future and how quickly you can move on those kinds of decisions under the POSCO JV. Thanks.

The starting point for us remains capital allocation framework, we're thinking about these opportunities in that context. Just to remind people, we need to be at or with a clear pathway to net leverage of 2 times prior to be considering any sort of growth CapEx.

That's a gate that we want to step through. As I said earlier, we need to take the board through the combined project and get final endorsement, sign off.

I think the benefits we've talked about previously are pretty well understood, but again, we need to take the board through the whole process in detail. In terms of the process going forward, the key thing with the POSCO arrangement and they're a wonderful partner, right?

POSCO's a great company. They're a wonderful partner for us at Onslow.

When we get this deal done on the lithium, I've got no doubt it'll be the same. The most important thing is we remain the operator of each of those mines.

We still lead. We work closely.

Ganfeng and Albemarle have the largest economic interest with us, so, yeah, they're going to be the key stakeholders as we step through things.

Morning. Thank you for taking the question.

The 90 cent a tonne Port of Ashburton levy dispute with Pilbara Ports and Chevron has clearly escalated to the point where it's going to civil trial. At what point do you need to start carrying a liability on your balance sheet for that?

Can you quantify what it would be if it was applied retrospectively?

Hi, Mitch. It's currently before court at the moment, and we've been accruing that amount all the way through, it's in our numbers.

We've just been conservative in our numbers.

It's already sitting on your balance sheet?

Doesn't mean that we expect that to be the outcome, but that's the approach we've taken from an accounting perspective.

Okay. Yep.

Okay. Thank you for that.

Then just the $240 million of CapEx during the quarter, can you sort of spread that across the assets for us or the projects? Oh,

I might have to take that offline and come back to you on that. CapEx is tracking generally in line with where we thought it was going to be at the start of the year.

Let me put it differently: we haven't started and embarked on any major capital spend items that you don't already know about.

morning, Mark. Just two questions from me.

Firstly, as they say, it's always about the art of the deal. Min managed to change the Wodgina sell-down deal with Albemarle, I think, three times from memory.

Is there any potential to alter the terms on the POSCO deal or even get out of it? Thanks.

Morning, Glyn. I'm not going to comment on the POSCO deal.

Obviously, we'll tell you when we're in a position to do so if there's any change or any update on the status of that.

Okay. Then just secondly on the cost, if I look at year to date and the guidance you've given on fuel, that's two questions in one.

Firstly, the fuel guidance you gave of 4, 7, and 60, is that based on what you currently saw diesel doubling, and just wondering is diesel even more expensive now? The rate could be higher?

Then, as a second part, as we exit Q4, it would seem like, with the guidance you've given, you're going to be exiting above the guidance rates for '26. Is that fair given where diesel is?

Thanks.

Diesel pricing is struck with a lag, as I said. There's been a fair bit of volatility with the pricing, and at one point, the price had more than doubled.

When I talk about doubling for the quarter, I'm taking effectively an average over the quarter. At the moment, it's possible that we'll finish the quarter lower than double, but the average for the quarter we're expecting to be double.

I don't know if that answers the question in terms of Glyn, if I haven't answered your question, hit me again.

Oh, sorry. Mark, sorry.

I just was curious what spot diesel is looking like now.

Okay. Essentially, it's running at around $2 a liter at the moment.

That's roughly double.

It's roughly double, yeah.

Thanks.

Thanks very much for taking my follow-up. I suppose, Mark, you touched on capital management.

Just observing, given that the business is deleveraging, that's on track, and operational performance is improving, I'm just wondering if board conversations around balancing growth versus returns are changing, and maybe how should we think about those sorts of conversations and those balances going into FY '27 and '28? Thank you.

Thanks, Lachlan. Look, we've spent a lot of time with the board over recent months talking about a whole range of things.

I think we'd foreshadowed that we were having a couple of days with them on strategy, we did that a month or so ago, which was a great couple of days. You can imagine that part of that conversation was around growth and the prospects for growth into the future, and what the company would look like.

This company's got a very strong, proud track record of over 30 years delivering growth, 20 years as a public company, and I think the pipeline of opportunity for it remains significant. We've talked previously about the brownfields expansion opportunities.

We've slowed down in the past years investing in some of those whilst we focus on delivering Onslow and getting the cash flow coming out of Onslow. Now that the cash is coming out of Onslow and the deleveraging is happening, we've got options under our capital allocation framework, which could include further deleveraging, could include some sort of return to shareholders, and it could include growth.

They're the sorts of things that we're talking about with the board actively in terms of choice, and we'll be continuing to do that in the coming months as we head into '27.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Ben, for the question.

The sixth transshipper will be here imminently in the next few weeks, and we'll spend some time commissioning it. We expect that transshipper will help us deliver incremental tonnes through FY '27.

We've talked about taking those tonnes up towards 38 as a result of that transshipper coming online. The seventh transshipper provides us with the flexibility, or, I guess, more accurately, the ability to maintain that sort of run rate for a full year as we cycle the six operating transshippers through maintenance periods, which run to a number of days per month for each.

In terms of dredging and so on, that's something that we're just It's a constant thing that we'll be managing and navigating. That's just ordinary course, in the same way that we maintain our assets generally.

In terms of expansion and so on, we don't need to be thinking about that with the sixth and seventh transshippers. The existing infrastructure is sufficient to allow us to operate with those.