Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Paladin Energy's FY2026 financial results conference call. Joining me today on the call are Anna Sudlow, Chief Financial Officer, Scott Barber, Chief Operating Officer, and Alex Rybak, Chief Commercial Officer.

FY2026 was a significant year for Paladin and one in which we delivered on several key commitments across our operating and development portfolio. Most notably, we successfully completed the ramp-up of Langer Heinrich Mine in Namibia, delivering annual production of 4.82 million pounds of U3O8 and sales of 4.35 million pounds.

We revised our production guidance in April, and we're pleased that the final production result was at the top end of that increased range. This achievement reflects the growing capability of our team and the quality of our operational execution.

As we have grown our production capability and increased the LHM workforce, our risk management systems and processes have enabled the team to deliver on their safety objectives. We're proud of our strong safety performance in Namibia, which was reflected in a low group TRIF of 3.2 for FY2026.

We remain committed to ongoing improvement, further training, and strengthening of our safety culture. The successful ramp-up translated into a substantial improvement in our financial performance.

Revenue increased 71% to $304 million, supported by higher sales volumes and an average realized price of US$70 per pound. We reported gross profit of US$52 million and generated positive operating cash flow of $37.7 million for the year.

Net loss after tax improved significantly to US$9.1 million. On the balance sheet, we ended FY2026 with US$265 million of cash and investments and an undrawn $70 million revolving credit facility.

This provides us with considerable flexibility as we continue to invest in growth while maintaining a disciplined approach to capital management. Alongside the operational success at Langer Heinrich, we continue to make meaningful progress at Patterson Lake South project in Canada, one of the highest-quality undeveloped uranium projects globally.

During the year, we achieved Environmental Impact Statement approval, advanced the licensing process with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, completed an engineering review, and then progressed FEED activities, and announced the Atlas discovery, which further highlights the growth potential within close proximity to PLS. More broadly, we believe Paladin is exceptionally well positioned to benefit from the continued strength of long-term uranium market fundamentals.

Growing demand for secure, reliable, and low-carbon baseload power continues to underpin increasing support for nuclear energy globally, reinforcing the importance of existing and new uranium supply. As we enter FY2027, our priorities remain clear: maximize the value from Langer Heinrich Mine, unlock the value of the PLS project, advance exploration assets, and maintain a strong balance sheet that supports long-term shareholder value creation.

On behalf of the board and management team, I'd like to thank our employees, contractors, customers, local communities, and shareholders for their ongoing support throughout the year. Thank you again for joining the call today, and I'd like to open the call to questions.

morning, team. Thanks for the update today.

Firstly, less on the result, more just looking to the investor day next week. Just want to get a sense of what we should expect there.

Are we going to get more detail on the operational outlook on Langer Heinrich, or is that more just pivoting the focus to Canada and the Patterson Lake development?

Thanks for the question, Hugo. I don't want to ruin the surprise of the investor day, but the focus is clearly going to be on PLS.

We've spoken a lot about Langer Heinrich Mine over the last couple of years and the success that we've had through the ramp-up. This financial year's just gone underpins that Langer Heinrich ramp-up is now complete.

We've got full production capability, and what we're turning our attention to is really leveraging the value out of PLS. What we'd like to do next week is give people more insight into what we're doing, the key milestones that we have achieved and that we have coming up, and some of the growth opportunities that come out of our exploration project.

Fantastic. Maybe just on that, from a funding perspective for Patterson Lake, obviously we've seen uranium prices rising more recently, share price with it.

How do we think about the market mix of funding options for Patterson Lake here in terms of project versus prepayment versus potential equity in that mix? Oh,

hi, Hugo. It's Anna.

Look, I think, as you'd appreciate, the project is really strong economically, and what that provides us is plenty of options. Given we're still a while away from an FID on PLS, our key focus at the moment is really on ensuring we retain flexibility, and that flexibility is really ensuring we can project finance if we want to.

That's kind of the key focus at the moment, acknowledging that's not the only path, but probably the longest lead transaction. What we'd like to get out of the process that we're running there is really an indication from potential debt financiers around ticket size, around what the offtake book might look like.

That's the initial focus at the moment, just acknowledging we've got a way to go and a range of options available to us to fund PLS.

Great. Thanks, guys.

I'll pass it on.

Oh, g'day, team. Appreciate the presentation and for taking my question.

Just firstly on the Langer reserve statement, I saw there was a small downgrade for the in situ reserve due to the TSF6 placement sterilizing a little bit of the ore body. Can you just give a little bit more color on sort of what happened there and why that sterilization has happened as a result of the TSF6 placement?

I

might have to revert back to you on that one, Alistair. I must admit I don't specifically remember that level of detail.

I'll get back to you as quickly as I can.

All good. No stress.

Maybe one for Alex, just broadly on the uranium market. Price reporters sort of have the term price in the mid-$90s.

I think things are getting a little bit ridiculous there because most participants you speak to are reporting well above this. Just wanted to get your feel on where you're seeing prices in broad terms right now, how the activity has been for the last few months.

It seems like it's been a little bit quiet for the last couple months, but as we exit summer, usually see it seasonally higher, just wondering how you're seeing it at the moment.

Hi, Alistair. This is, as you've noted, typically is a quiet period, being Northern Hemisphere summer.

Despite that, we've had a number of inquiries and discussions in RFPs both for term supply, and just overnight got a request for a spot supply into '27, which is not our sort of business, but it's interesting, and that is really one of the things that we expect to bridge the delta between the term price and the spot price, which in recent months has been above historic levels. I think as we come into WNA, people are recognizing that that delta needs to narrow, and term prices aren't coming down, there's only one way for the spot price to go.

The discussions with the utilities have already been quite interesting. We are in the market obviously speaking with all of our utility customers, and it's going to be really interesting at WNA in the next couple of weeks, is really an industry event that all the utilities attend, and I think this year's is going to be very very active.

Utilities recognized the tightness in supply, and they're really looking for supply in the 2030s, it'd be really interesting to see what happens there.

Alistair, the depletion, it's actually a combination of three things. That's ore depletion from mining, write-down of the LG3 stockpile, and a very small amount from TSF6, which is actually caused by the western wall that we put in place that does sterilize a very small amount on the northern and southern sides.

It's the TSF6 component of that is very small.

Okay. Understood.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Morgan. Morning, guys.

I had one question on PLS, and I appreciate obviously the update we can expect next week, but just particularly around native title and Métis Nation, if you could just talk to any progress that you've seen in the last 3 to 6 months with that group in particular, would be much appreciated. Thank you.

We have very constructive and positive engagement with the remaining two First Nations groups, and we're continuing to progress our conversations with them. It's progressing as you would expect, and I'm hoping that in the not too distant future, we're able to conclude those negotiations to the benefit of us and both the Métis and First Nations groups.

All right. All good.

Then just picking up on one of Hugo's questions earlier, I was just wondering what the preferred funding pathway, as we see it today from management for PLS, could be and has that potentially changed over the last 6 to 12 months?

Look, I think our ultimate objective is to minimize the cost of funding and to have line of sight of funding at FID. At this point, we're really just ensuring we retain flexibility on all options.

I said earlier, the project financing is the longest lead transaction to get done, our initial focus is ensuring we don't lose that as an option. We'll continue to evaluate the options that are available to us as time progresses.

Makes sense. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Oh, good morning, all. Thanks for taking my question.

Just around the market, one of your peers last week on their conference call talked about a change in mindset from utilities, moving from a just-in-time approach to a just-in-case approach, which to me suggests restocking. Are you seeing any evidence of that, and is there more activity in the term market than you'd otherwise anticipated?

James. We're definitely seeing that, and we've been talking about that for a little while because we are seeing requests for proposals in the 2030s, well into late 2030s, in fact, which has been quite unusual with utilities being a lot more forward-thinking.

It's really a combination of a number of things. One is the supply-demand deficit and the new supply that's required to balance the market.

I think it's also the geopolitical developments, and if in the previous years, it's really been the tug-of-war between, I guess, US and China, if we were to simplify it a little bit, we've got these additional countries now entering the mix with India and with their aggressive reactor build-out programs. Then you hear less of Russia, but they're also building a lot of reactors in their country's sphere of influence.

That requires supply. We've seen Kazatomprom results.

A lot of their production is earmarked for China and Russia. US is obviously taking steps to finance reactors to enable the reactor build-out program there.

All these factors are really feeding into a market that requires supply into the long term, and that's why there's that just more of a just-in-case rather than just-in-time approach.

Understood. Thank you.

G'day, guys. My first question, I just wanted to ask, was just on PLS.

Just noting the hearings are targeted for the end of calendar year '27, can you remind us what the pre-FID spend is committed for FY2027 and '28 before the construction decision is taken? Just noting the September '25 cap raise had earmarked $170 million for the pre-construction costs.

How much of this has been incurred, and how much is remaining?

Sure, Daniel. Look, we do report those numbers in the MD&A, and I think the development spend is around $19 [million?]

from memory to the end of this financial year. I don't think we've specifically called out CY2027 and CY2028 and that kind of profile, but if you look back at that September raise, yeah, you're right.

We do provide that reconciliation in the MD&A that we released today.

Okay. Thank you.

Can you remind us, is that pre-construction cost sits outside of the 1.2 capex, correct?

Correct, Daniel.

Perfect. Just wanted to, I guess, ask a question more generally just on, I guess, the timing of when you do, I guess, economic testing on elements of Langer Heinrich and kind of noting the TSF6, I guess, write-down of some of the interim inventory.

I just wanted to understand how frequently you rerun, I guess, your revenue and cost assumptions to test the economics of things like the TSF1 relocation to access F pit and the recoverability of the low-grade stockpile treatment at the end of mine life, and what the frequency of some carried balances might be.

Daniel, I guess what we do is it's a continual process, right? We'd have to make a range of assumptions around the pricing mechanisms.

We continually evaluate, and then we have formal annual process with the board where we kind of approve the forward-looking financial assumptions. We also do periodic evaluations of the life-of-mine plan that drive those economics as well.

Thanks. Remind me, if I'm recalling correctly, your life-of-mine plan assumes a US$60 per pound price.

Is that correct, or is it a bit higher than that?

I think the spot price is $50, Daniel.

$50. Awesome.

No worries. Thank you very much.

I'll hand it over. Appreciate it.

morning, Paul. A couple of ones from me.

Just on the 400,000-pound loan, I know you have 200,000 pounds due this quarter. Have you come to a landing on whether you're going to renew it, replace it, or repay it as yet?

I'll get Alex to talk to that one. Yeah.

Glyn. This particular one will essentially extend that facility.

Then we have another one that's maturing in March quarter. We'll just see, as we stated during our guidance release, the intention is to repay part of the loans.

I think it's really a combination of our shipping schedules, our delivery obligations, there isn't really a fixed answer I can give you on the timing, but we'll evaluate that a little bit closer to time. Gradually we expect to repay part of the loans, but we'll obviously retain a balance.

It's a standard industry practice to utilize these loans as well as the purchase and sell-back arrangements, which we've utilized before, as well as the location swaps, and that's all part of our toolkit in making sure that we make customer deliveries as efficiently as possible.

Alex, just on that, is there a cost to extend and then an ongoing cost? How does it sort of trigger?

There's essentially an annual interest cost, which is quite competitive. We're essentially borrowing material that is sitting on the books of intermediaries and not being used, it's a very cost-effective way of financing your working capital.

Glyn, there's a bit of detail in the MD&A around the costing around those product loans and the mechanisms.

All right, I'll have a look at that. Thanks.

Then, Paul, just it's been about 5 weeks now, and I guess back at the quarterly you called out there would be a game of two halves and you said the first two quarters have a one-week outage. Has that week outage occurred in this quarter already, or is it still to come?

Just wondering how it went if it has occurred. Thanks.

Glyn, like I said, you're right, it's a game of two halves. I've also said it's an outdoor sport.

The plant shutdown has occurred and we're running broadly in line with our budgeted performance, nothing unusual to report back on.

Sorry, Paul. You cut out on my end.

It may not be for everyone else, but did you say you've actually done the week outage? Sorry, I missed it.

Yes, the week outage is complete as planned and we're operating in accordance with our budgeted performance.

That's great. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Thanks, Glyn.

Oh, thanks, guys, for the follow-up. Just, Daniel reminded me about that TSF1 relocation that you've got to do to get access to the S pit.

That's a few years away now, but just a quick one. I'm not a mining engineer, but is it just as simple for that TSF1 relocation, you just get a bunch of diggers, a bunch of trucks together, and it's just moving a heap of dirt from one spot to another into the I think it's the H pit you're turning into your new TSF?

Is it as simple as that?

Scott here. Thanks for that.

It's a little bit more difficult than that. The tailings will still be a bit damp, it's not just moving a dry pile from one area to another.

It will need to be encompassed, we're going to need to build a new tailings dam or tailings facility and then we'll relocate that in. It will be via truck and shovel.

We just need to manage it a little bit because it will still have some moisture in the core, in the center.

We're a couple of years away from doing that work. Yeah.

Okay. Sure.

Sounds good. Thanks.

Thank you, everyone, for your questions and of course for your continued interest in Paladin Energy. Like I said, FY2026 was a defining year for the company, successfully completing the ramp-up of Langer Heinrich.

We delivered substantial improvements in our financial performance, maintaining a strong balance sheet, and of course most significantly, advanced and de-risked the Patterson Lake South project through a number of important milestones. Looking ahead, our focus remains on continuing safe and reliable production at Langer Heinrich, progressing PLS towards development, advancing both near-mine and regional exploration opportunities, and creating that long-term value for our shareholders.

Paladin is well positioned to benefit from strong fundamentals in the uranium market that we're currently seeing, and of course from that growing role of nuclear energy in supporting global energy security and decarbonization. Appreciate you all participating in today's call, and I look forward to seeing many of you again on the investor day next week.

Thank you, everyone, and have a good day.