Thanks, Kylie. Good morning, everyone.

Thanks for joining. I know it's a super busy day or busy time of the year for the analysts and our investors, covering a lot of results.

We're here to cover IGO's FY '26 full year results presentation. And Ian Rowe is joining me today, our Interim CFO.

He will talk through the key financial results and help work through any questions you might have at the end of our presentation. As you know, we just covered our operational results not long ago.

So we're really going to keep focused on the big picture and the financials, which Ian will take you through. And I think the headline for today, what I want you to take away is that we're really proud of what IGO, what the team have delivered through FY '26.

Safety is fantastic, and that's a piece that's been important for me since I joined the company, and I'm so pleased to see the results across the whole financial year. That links tightly with the operational performance at Nova, absolutely fantastic outcome, beating our expectations well and truly, and that translates to great financial returns from that part of our business.

The Lithium business has been mixed, and I'll talk a bit more to Greenbushes. But ultimately, we're still talking about an absolutely stunning asset, incredible ore body.

And while we've got lots of upside and improvement and opportunity there, it's still producing incredible margins and incredible cash. The business is set up really well for FY '27, and I'll come back to that at the end of our presentation and just share a few thoughts.

So we just start with a look back and year-end review for FY '26. I mentioned safety and there is another slide I'll talk a little more to in a minute, but fantastic outcomes, and that's the foundation for running a great mining business, and it speaks to who we are, I think, first and foremost.

I would also call out the importance of it, not just being about physical safety, it's also about psychosocial safety, something that I think we've still got a lot to learn about in the industry and understand how we create workplaces in a safe, comprehensive manner, and it's something that we're certainly focused on in IGO. That safety translates directly to operating performance.

And Nova, we saw a stunning year, excellent full year of mining coming towards the end of that ore body, which is disappointing. It's sad it wasn't -- it doesn't go on longer, but the team really have got the very best out of it, and they're set up for a very good finish, substantial free cash flow we've generated through that part of our business over the last 12 months.

The Lithium business is mixed and Greenbushes has benefited from the spodumene prices. We know it's such a leveraged asset when those prices move the amount of extra cash it generates is just extraordinary, incredible margins, which I think is renowned for and great cash flow.

There have been some operational challenges and we've spoken to that in the last couple of quarters. I think one of the areas that I'm sure is on your mind is, how is CGP3 going?

And I'm really pleased to say that post the fire, the team did a great job recovering and repairing the damage. The ramp-up is going extremely well.

It's actually passed the level of performance it was prior to the fire, and I'm very pleased to say it's approaching that nameplate performance that we're looking for. So it's really set that asset up well.

I think the investment was incredibly well timed. No one can pick the lithium market, but it's turned up at the right time and really going to generate a lot of benefits for the business.

Kwinana. Look, the structural challenges there don't change and we don't think they're likely to.

We continue to work really constructively with TLC, our partner, on trying to find the right pathway forward. And the next point, I guess, is on our capital management and portfolio optimization.

We've maintained very, very focused cost control, completed the Forrestania divestment. We announced the divestment of Nova.

We've rationalized -- heavily rationalized our exploration tenure and really reset the strategy there. Continued to simplify the portfolio in the business.

So we're a much cleaner, more focused, simpler business and our costs continue to ratchet down in line with that. Cash generation and financial discipline is fantastic.

We ended the year with $387 million of net cash, no drawn debt and a balance sheet that gives us serious flexibility going forward. Underlying all of that is the strength of our team.

Fantastic capability, fantastic culture. We've got, I think, some very good results that demonstrate that and show that.

The benefits of that strong leadership and clear accountability across the business has translated into the scorecard that we're just talking through now. So overall, FY '26 was a year in which IGO became safer, simpler, more disciplined and better positioned for the growth in the future.

Just a couple more words on safety before I turn over on the financials. As I said, I'm super proud of what the team has achieved here.

The chart, I think, brings it to life very clearly. And we came from a place that was not good.

And I think we're very open about that in the last -- well, the first year or so of my time in this role. We focused on it together as a team and delivered really fantastic results.

And it continued to improve to the point now where we've got, I think, new challenges in front of the team. It never ends.

It doesn't matter what the TRIFR is or what particular statistics are. There is always more to do to both sustain that level of performance and continue to improve our controls around risks and hazards in the business.

That continues into our exploration business. They've been drilling several sites across WA.

There is more ramping up as we speak. All of that often is very remote, very complex and needs to be managed carefully and again, gets the full attention from a safety point of view.

I also wanted to acknowledge not just the Nova team but also our partner, Barminco, part of the Perenti Group who's done an outstanding job working with us there through the end of life of Nova. They've been a fantastic partner, and I think that shines out in their safety performance as part of the collective team.

Just a few weeks back, they went 365 days without a recordable injury, and I think we're probably now reflected as one of their best sites in their portfolio where they're providing services such a turnaround and a real credit to their leadership and the team on site. So thank you for that.

It's been a fantastic partnership, and I give them a lot of credit for the changes. At Greenbushes, safety did deteriorate through the year, and I talked to that in more depth in the prior quarterlies.

It's something that's getting huge focus from the Board, which I'm one of the directors, the management team, it's absolutely our highest priority. And as I've called out, I think, in our Q3 update that I think you will see a correlation between that safety turning and really starting to become sustainably improved and the operating performance on that site, which has still got a long way to go.

They're making progress, but there's still a huge amount of upside. With that, let's just turn to the financials.

A couple of quick comments before I throw it over to Ian to walk you through in a bit more depth. I guess we see the benefit now of Greenbushes is starting to flow through for part of this year.

Obviously, once the lithium price is adjusted as that spodumene comes through, we've just noticed the beginnings of it. Naturally, the business is filled up and producing great production.

And as we see the rest of this year start to play out, I think we're going to see that translate into very strong cash generation. But we did get the -- I guess, the early stages of that now in the last half of FY '26.

Of course, Nova did a fantastic job generating free cash. The final production cost was a standout for a mine in its end of life, really impressive, speaking both to commodity prices, but also -- and therefore, the byproduct credits, but also just the underlying operating performance, productivities, the way that we're managing our costs and the discipline on site.

So that set us up for the last few months now to really make the most of it. With that, I might turn it over now to Ian, and he will take you through our financials in a little more depth.

Thanks, Ivan, and good morning, everyone. Look, FY '26 delivered a marked improvement in earnings and cash generation across the group.

Total revenue for the year was $463 million, down 12% on FY '25, which reflected the transition in our portfolio with Forrestania having made a contribution in the prior year. Underlying EBITDA was $286 million and statutory net profit after tax was $145 million, both up significantly year-on-year.

The largest driver of improvement for our statutory result was lithium earnings. IGO's share of net profit from TLEA was $207 million compared with a loss of $642 million in FY '25.

This year-on-year improvement reflects stronger spodumene pricing, improved earnings at Greenbushes and the absence of the major impairment recorded at Kwinana in the prior year. Underlying free cash flow for the year was $134 million, up 176% on FY '25 with Nova contributing to $128 million of free cash for the year.

We closed the year with $387 million of cash, no drawn debt and a $300 million undrawn corporate debt facility. Turning to Slide 5.

This slide compares the key cash flow movements year-on-year and really highlights how our cost base is reshaping as we continue to transition our portfolio. Clearly, the standout performance is Nova, which generated a 63% improvement in year-on-year free cash flow.

It's an exceptional performance that reflects strong operating discipline, reliability and cash conversion as this asset approaches its end of life. We also saw this trend across the broader group.

Exploration expenditure reduced to $28 million, reflecting a targeted and disciplined approach to the portfolio as flagged previously, not a constraint on funding. Corporate and other costs were also lower year-on-year as we continue to rightsize our cost base and simplify the business.

Of the $58 million of FY '26 expenditure displayed in the graph, approximately $50 million related to underlying corporate costs with the balance being nonrecurring transaction and other disposal costs. And care and maintenance expenditure at Cosmos reduced from $16 million to $13 million following the decision to cease dewatering during the year.

In the context of a portfolio in transition, this trend is deliberate, a genuinely lower cost base, careful allocation of capital and maximizing cash generation from Nova as it approaches its end of mine life. Turning now to capital management.

Look, our capital management priorities remain unchanged, maintaining balance sheet strength, providing flexibility for disciplined growth where we see quality and delivering returns to shareholders. With those priorities in mind, I'm pleased to say the Board has declared a final fully franked dividend of $0.05 per share or $38 million for FY '26, expected to be paid in late September.

This distribution equates to approximately 30% of underlying free cash flow being the midpoint of our target payout range under IGO's capital management guideline. The dividend is predicated on a very strong FY '26 result across the portfolio driven by the strong cash generated by Nova in its final full year of mining.

We enter FY '27 with a strengthened balance sheet, no drawn debt and greater flexibility as we continue to transition our portfolio and pursue growth. With that, I'll hand back to Ivan to step through our FY '27 priorities.

Brilliant. Thanks, Ian.

Good scorecard. So look, before I move on to FY '27 priorities, I also just wanted to comment on the dividend from a Board management perspective.

When we discussed that and contemplated that in the last couple of days, as you can imagine, in some depth. And we look forward on our FY '27 budget forward commitments.

And so here, this is really the right choice to recommence returning capital to our shareholders, while still maintaining flexibility for opportunities that might lie ahead. Speaking to that, we look into FY '27, our priorities are really clear and fall into 2 areas.

Firstly, and importantly, optimization and maximization of value from our existing portfolio. Clearly, Nova is at the heart of that, finishing well, safe, stable operations right through to the completion of mining is important, and then a very seamless divestment and handoff to Global Lithium Resources while supporting our people well and making sure that for those people who have served and delivered and given so much to Nova over a decade now.

And all of our team that they feel are well recognized for the fantastic contribution they made to IGO and become where they do leave our business great alumni and speak to the strength of our business and culture. At Greenbushes, it means delivering on the strategic options review and driving the improvement ultimately across safety, and the broader productivity and operating excellence that we'd expect across that site.

Finalizing the CGP3 ramp-up is something that's in focus, of course, and getting to a place where we can then share a fuller view of what we're seeing as the potential in that business. At Kwinana, it means continuing to maintain a very strong focus on cash, very disciplined capital allocation there and working through those issues with TLC, our partner, to determine the optimal pathway for our shareholders.

And then more broadly, it means also looking and I guess, continuing to look for ways that we can maximize value from our portfolio, whether that's through cost discipline, which we continue to do every day, capital discipline but also further optimization of our noncore assets. The second area of focus for FY '27 is growth and driving more returns and value for our shareholders.

We have a global view of opportunities. We are willing, and I've talked to this, to look offshore where the risk return is compelling where we see options that fit with our strengths, our technical capability things that we can make a difference in but also sit inside our risk appetite.

We're also open to strategic partnerships where they can add value, but that's, again, where we bring something seriously material to the actual relationship based on our internal capabilities. In exploration, which I'm really excited seeing the transformation and the moves there, the work that John Kilroe is doing with the team is fantastic, creating new opportunities and working through the existing portfolio that we have.

It's very targeted. We're focused on opportunities with known mineralization, real upside and a clear focus on copper and lithium.

BioHeap, which I mentioned in our last quarterly briefly, we're doing a mountain of work technically there to prove that out, a bunch of commercial work as well to understand the economics, the approach, CapEx and OpEx modeling and working through towards opportunities to trial this at a production scale with relevant copper opportunities. In the M&A space, more broadly, look, nothing is particularly new or different there from when I started.

We'll continue to be highly disciplined and selective in both lithium and copper. They're in scope.

There are areas that we look at, not necessarily exclusively, but they're absolutely our primary focus, given our strategy and we'll assess any opportunity that comes up and see if it's accretive, see if it's aligned, see if it's something we believe we can genuinely add value to and deliver great outcomes for our shareholders. So nothing new or different in that space.

There's a significant amount of work underway across our business in our growth portfolio. I'm really excited seeing what the team is doing.

The Board went through the latest update in the last couple of days, and I think all left feeling quite energized and excited about the options that are being worked through and generated. But as you know, these things are -- they take time, they take energy, and they don't all work out.

So we've just got to continue to maintain that discipline, keep stepping through it. We're very excited about how our strategy is taking shape, and we can start to see that progress now.

It's been obviously a tough couple of years to work through a number of challenges. I'm very proud of the team at Nova and how they finished.

And I think shown full life cycle, what IGO can do as a mining company, bringing that out of the ground, getting it operating well, safely, responsibly and then bring it to this point where we get the very best out of the ore body and then ultimately hand over those assets to another owner who can get some more value from them. In summary, I'm really proud of what the whole IGO team has delivered in FY '26.

We are a safer business with stronger operational and financial results, a much cleaner and simplified portfolio. There is still plenty of work underway and things ahead of us as we enter FY '27.

We've got a very clear set of priorities and a disciplined plan to deliver on our strategy. So with that, I might turn it over back to you, Kylie, for some Q&A.

Just one question on the CGP3 plant. Good to see it has come back online.

Keen to understand the -- if there have been any other planned maintenance or any tie-in activities required with the restart of CGP3 for this financial year?

Okay. Yes.

Thanks, Austin. It is good news.

I mean I've got a very recent update on things, and it's having a great month. No, nothing out of the ordinary.

I mean, of course, there's normal maintenance and shut routines. But no surprises.

In fact, all of the changes that we made are working as expected. So I'm really pleased with what the team has done there.

Okay. Cool.

Second one, just on the capital allocation framework, if I may just sneak in one really quickly. Looking at the TLEA level, cash balance was $423 million.

And roughly every year, costs like $250 million cash. Keen to understand the minimal liquidity requirement at the TLEA level.

And any color you could provide on the discussion with your JV partner to find a path to distribute cash will be appreciated.

Okay. Austin, I mean, as you, I'm sure, can appreciate, I can't give you any forward advice on dividends, but all your other observations are right.

And when we get through the next TLEA Board meeting, we'll no doubt be discussing that in more depth. Equally, I expect that Windfield will be looking at its cash balance as well.

So I think everyone can work out what that pipeline of cash looks like and draw some conclusions from that, but I can't be more specific at this point on the details of dividends and so on. What I can say, though, in terms of the general engagement with TLC, really constructive, very active, a lot of positive conversations there.

We're just working through trying to understand each other's needs and work out what's the best pathway with respect to Kwinana and getting that sorted out.

I just wanted to unpack CGP3 a little bit more. You said it's ramping up very well, approaching nameplate.

Do you think it can exit this quarter at nameplate, i.e., run at 2.4 million tonnes throughput sustainably? Or is there still some -- any rectification issues or anything from the fire to know that needs to be fixed?

Thanks, Dan. Look, I don't have a crystal ball, but yes, it's certainly performing well.

If you say, with another month of activity, quite possible. Yes.

I hate giving those kind of forecast because you just don't know what happens. It's a big operation.

It's a big asset and something can move. But yes, I mean, the trajectory is very, very impressive.

It was pre-fire, that's why I think it was so disappointing with the fire the team had worked incredibly hard to get it up and running. They were well ahead of schedule.

Things were going well. And then, of course, you have a major setback.

The good news is the repairs have been done. They've all worked.

It's running well. There's no gremlins or surprises that we haven't been able to work through very quickly, and I think that sets them up for a very good run rate finish to the end of the quarter.

And then I think, obviously, there's throughput. We also need to make sure we're getting the recoveries stable and optimized, and that's been a challenge across the whole site through the last financial year.

They've done a lot of good work in the last couple of months. The other plants have stepped up.

They've really started to get better control there and more performance in line with our expectations and CGP3 is playing into part there as well. So we are very conscious of the whole picture.

Just on the recovery piece, is there any -- is on the agenda for the JV, the Windfield JV to contemplate changing the product quality, which could lead to recovery benefits. Is that on the agenda?

Or is that still an IGO wish list thing?

No, no. I mean, that's something I think I have talked about in prior quarters around the broader SOR.

So that's a comprehensive life of mine optimization. And as part of that, you will always consider everything from the ore body all the way through to your product grade.

And so the first part of the answer is, yes, that is contemplated as part of the broader optimization and the decisions that we're considering for Greenbushes. To deal with the second part of your question, where you've made an observation which I expect many people know, but let me just unpack a little bit around the nature of recoveries from spodumene recoveries from pegmatites.

In this kind of context, yes, pushing a 6% product is very, very difficult, and you need a very good ore body to do that. If you go and look and benchmark across the industry, you'll find there's only one that's doing it.

And that's Greenbushes. It has a very, very high-grade ore body and therefore, can achieve it.

But there is a cost as well. And as you move down to sort of where the market or the industry is and you sort of see some at 5.5%, some at 5.2% and some at 5%, there's some lower, but I think the majority of the industry now sits between 5% and 5.5%.

The recoveries are not linear in that reduction. So as you get into it further, what you'll see is a substantial step-up in concentrate volume disproportionate to the grade change, and most importantly, it's not just about con, it's actually about metal content.

You see quite a big lift in metal content. Again, disproportionately increased above the reduction in concentrate grade.

So as you can imagine, the price comes down because you're paying for the metal, the contained metal effectively and the price benchmarks all handle that but you can actually get a lot more metal out onto the ship and to our customers rather than going in the tailings dam. So I think well demonstrated across the industry and something that we'll just work through in a really thoughtful manner.

I'm sure the team will come up with recommendations on what they think is best for Greenbushes' specific requirements.

Maybe just another one following up on some of the TLEA accounts. Looks like a big step-up in your current assets there.

Can we just confirm that's all related to the receivables build at Greenbushes just given the timing of payments from the JV partners there?

That's a reasonable conclusion, Hugo. But yes, there's a few other things in there as well.

Great. And then similarly just on the current liabilities, I mean is that CGP3 CapEx yet to be fully paid off?

Or are there moving pieces like deferred tax given the growing profitability coming through?

Hugo, yes, I'd have to unpack it, Hugo, but there would be some tax in there. It's not about CapEx, so there's nothing with CGP3 to unwind there.

Yes. Great.

And then just last one, I appreciate you probably already tried to answer this one. But just in terms of the monthly sort of cash sweep to TLEA and then sort of the flows out to IGO just given the decision to pay a dividend.

Can you just confirm whether TLEA had another cash sweep out of Windfield subsequent to the quarterly and whether you've had or imminently expecting a TLEA sweep to IGO this quarter?

Hugo, that we do it quarterly, not monthly. And no.

So we would have obviously reported that if there was some material movement of cash. But it's once a quarter and hasn't happened yet.

Ivan, I think you have some good news here around the dividends and the ramp-up of CGP3, but Kwinana continues to be kind of a strategic review, right, operating losses, requiring additional capital. Can you provide us what are the milestones or decision points that is still being discussed and that investors should expect over the next 12 months on the asset?

A bit hard to hear, Thiago. But I think you're sort of talking to Greenbushes and just how that strategic review plays out.

There's an amount of work that has been done by the team technically. And it's a ground-up piece of work looking at the entire ore body going through the block model looking at the design.

We've, I think, shared earlier this year, change in the pit wall slope angles, for example, and that changes your strip ratios and the metal that you can access. They're looking at the underground when and how that would play out, looking at the plants, the recoveries, the throughput product rate, which I just talked to, et cetera.

There's a huge amount of work. That technical work has been going now for probably 15 to 20 months.

It's been a pretty significant program. A lot of expert consultants helping the team at Talison in working through that.

And I know that everyone's clamoring as I am to see that translated into some simple results that you can model and look forward on what the production growth and changes will be. I don't have that yet.

We are pushing -- I spoke with the management team just last week about getting that final schedule work through. I know they've just finished some of their economic modeling.

There's a lot going on. And then as they can start to share that, I'll bring it forward to you.

Yes. Just a follow-up.

Actually, I mixed up not only on Greenbushes, the strategic review, but also the investment on Kwinana and the decisions regarding the assets?

Well, yes, I mean I can't say much more other than we continue to work really constructively with TLC on that. We're having a lot of discussion.

We've been down a few pathways that didn't work out. It didn't give us a solution, and we're on one now that seems good, but I can't give you clarity until it's done.

Clearly, the 2 assets are bound in the same JV, and we need to contemplate how we manage through that. I think there's a really good understanding of each other's needs, which is healthy and allows us to sort of try and appreciate what kind of options and solutions could work for both of us.

I was just looking at the grade has obviously declined over the past couple of quarters. How should we be thinking of that going over the next few quarters?

And is that something structural within the current deposit? Or is that just a factor of Kapanga sort of coming into the mine plan?

Are you talking about Greenbushes, Tim?

Yes.

Yes. No.

I mean, we're -- I think very clearly, we're back in the core of the mine. It's got heaps of high grade.

We are feeding those plants in a very disciplined manner. We're managing that mine better than we ever have.

And that's the grade that those plants are designed to perform on. So it's not there's no issue.

It's actually -- I mean, I'm really pleased with the blending and the performance and the management of that. Those plants should be making really good tonnes and recoveries with the feed and a nice stable feed so that we can actually then just optimize the way they perform.

But yes, there's nothing untoward or concerning there. That mine has got astonishingly high grades but you don't want to just tip it all in 1 or 2 quarters.

What you want to do is trying to move that out and actually manage it in a much more disciplined manner.

So reserve grade should be sort of where we're targeting?

Yes. I mean the plants each take slightly different grades.

So it is about being very intentional. CGP1 does take a higher grade above 2%, 2 and 3 are under 2% closer to reserve grade, 1 a little bit below, 1 a bit above.

And so it's about that discipline, which I think maybe you -- if you do reflect back on the past that was not the case. They kind of just got run of mine and whatever.

It's just not the way to run them. And what we're seeing is with that disciplined feed and then a real focus on throughput, asset health, production stability and recovery, we're actually going to get a much better outcome overall.

A couple of quick ones. I guess maybe back to just the capital management piece.

Like now that we're post Nova, can you talk through the suitability of the 20% to 40% payout?

I'm not sure I understand the question, Levi. Just tell me.

Could it be higher? Could it be 80%?

Well, okay. I mean do you want to comment, Ian?

And I can...

Yes. Look, I think the payout is the midpoint of the range.

It reflects the strong FY '26 result, which we know is substantially supported by Nova. I think the Board has taken a balanced approach to applying the guideline, recognizing that our portfolio is in transition.

So we select the midpoint.

On the go-forward as opposed to FY '26?

Well, yes, we're not here to sort of update the capital management framework on the run. We'll obviously be aware of that.

But, Levi, we're considering the outlook for the business, and that's the dividend decision for today and then the Board will take, I guess, the future into account as we look forward on capital management. The key is, I think, the discipline in terms of the money we're allocating internally within the business or on other opportunities.

That's where I think we want our investors, shareholders to be confident that we're doing that with a very careful focus.

Okay. And then back on CGP3.

In terms of your guidance, is that consistent with Albemarle talking about being at full run rate by the year-end or so are we talking about potential EBITDA upside if we get there earlier? Or what's imputed in your guidance?

Well, our guidance is the plan that we put forward, which is the ramp-up to the end of -- to nameplate by the end of the year. What I've indicated on the call is that seems to make good progress, and they might be ahead of schedule.

But we don't want to call these things until we're there. So I'm just giving you a bit of flavor that effectively we worked through the fire, the repairs have been delivered well, the plant is stable and is performing.

And I think that's very important for the market to understand. We're certainly not trying to restate or provide any updates on guidance in the discussion.

Okay. And then just lastly on the SOR.

Is there any guidance on timing now? I think previously you said in September.

No, I just -- as I said, I mean, the team has had huge amount of progress, but I've asked them for a structured plan for the finish and the fire and there's a few things that have certainly created impact for them, so I will provide that when I can.

Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions again. Just on the -- your focus on growth in copper and lithium.

You mentioned that you have improved the relationship with the TLC. Keen to understand for your lithium opportunity, will you be looking to do that through the joint venture structure?

Or would that be more through your independent stand-alone approach?

Yes, Austin, I think it really depends on the specifics of what it is. I mean, our default position, I think, as everyone knows, is to work through things with Tianqi via TLEA.

That's our default position. If there's some reason that, that doesn't make sense, then each party can act alone, and we've seen examples of that in the last years.

So yes, it's really -- it depends. We'll wait and see.

I'll have a crack at the BD question as well. Obviously, the copper sphere is very competitive on a global basis and maybe lithium is a bit less so.

But just making the observation that the market valuations for lithium producers have clearly benefited from the current cycle, but developers or advanced explorers less so. So you're seeing a bit of gap widened between the market valuations for current producers versus potential participants in the next cycle.

So your excusing by impatience, but just wondering whether you've got any closer to pulling the trigger? Or any sort of -- have you had any advanced stage discussions with any potential assets or equities out there?

Yes, Ben. Look, I'd love to be able to report and announce something more well tangible.

But no, I mean, look, to speak to your observations on the broad lithium market, it is fascinating, seeing that gap. And I think some of my peers in the industry are observing it's a very strong picture of demand for lithium.

The industry is maturing, the demand is maturing. There's a bunch of debate about how fast EVs are growing or not growing and whatever.

But if you stand back and just count terawatt hours of battery production, it's significant and growing fast for a variety of reasons. And then you look at the suite of projects that need to keep up with that, and they're not there.

They're certainly not financed and capitalized. And my sense is that the last cycle probably sits in the memory of investors and people making decisions around that capital to allocate because this is a volatile industry.

It's difficult. I think you've got to be absolutely surgical where you put your capital, otherwise, it can end badly.

And these assets don't go away. Once they're built, if it's a high cost asset, it's there forever.

It's just miserable through large parts of the cycle. Clearly, and I think I've said this to many investors now, we sit here with the best hard rock asset in the world in our portfolio or part of it.

We think there's enormous upside to optimize that and to bring a lot more value, and that needs the utmost attention, which is where we're focused on working with the joint venture partners to achieve that. I look in and I see the potential and the progress, and I'm very excited about that.

To add to that, it's really difficult. And so we -- as IGO, we have that sort of problem in the sense that to complement something as good as Greenbushes is extremely difficult.

So that probably puts us in a different spot to many other participants in the industry. But to go back to, I think your broad observation on the developers out there and early-stage resources, yes, they're not well supported, and that is probably pretty hard, and it speaks to what is making this industry so volatile because it doesn't have that stable following of capital yet.

Yes. Cool.

No, that's really helpful. I share the perspective that it's hard to see where the supply response is really coming from to meet those demand projections at this point.

So highly constructive for the outlook, but I understand the challenges of broadening the portfolio with an asset of the same quality as the one that you're exposed to. So thank you for your perspectives.

Thanks, Kylie. Look, thanks for joining everyone.

We're finishing a bit early, which, that was an end goal to get you off to, hopefully, a break and then your next call. It's been a great year for the team here at IGO.

We've definitely through some of the real challenges in the prior financial year, and I'm pleased that we can deliver the kind of results that we've just talked through. It sets us up for a good FY '27.

We're going to continue to operate with exactly the same discipline and focus that you've come to expect. And I look forward to providing more on our next quarterly at the end of October.

Thanks for joining.