Thank you, Scott. Could we get into the presentation, please?

Morning, good afternoon to you. Should we just quickly go to the disclaimer page?

Then on to the presenting team. I'm Mark Learmonth, Caledonia's Chief Executive, and we're joined today by Ross Jerrard, the CFO; Victor Gapare, another Executive Director who's running the Bilboes project; Craig Harvey, VP Technical Services, he runs exploration and MRM; and also in attendance we've got Maurice Mason, who's Vice President, Corporate Development and Investor Relations.

Should we move on? Just in terms of an overview, production was up 18% in the second quarter compared to the first quarter, which reflects improved access to higher grade mining areas and benefits from various operating improvements.

Revenue up 16% to $76 million, and EBITDA up 16% to nearly $46 million, supported by stronger production and a robust gold price environment. Profit after tax up 27% compared to comparable period in 2025, up to $30 million.

EPS was up 29% to $1.36 for the quarter. Operating cash flow was strong, $28.4 million, and cash and cash equivalents at the end of the quarter was $167.8 million.

The growth pipeline is going well. We're making good progress at Bilboes, as Victor will explain.

We've got some very exciting exploration results coming out of Motapa, where we expect to produce a maiden resource in the next four weeks or so, and also some quite exciting exploration results coming out of the KPets at Blanket. Just for the record, we've declared our usual quarterly dividend of 14 cents a share for the quarter.

Should we move on to the next slide? I'm going to canter through these operator results quite quickly.

Really, there's one thing that comes out and it's grade. If we just move on.

Before we get to that, let's talk about safety. An excellent safety performance for the quarter.

We've had, well, now it must be over 400 consecutive days without any lost time injury, and that's five nearly 5.5 million man-hours worked without an LTI. That's a very good performance.

Clearly, that's sort of a lagging indicator. The strong safety performance really reflects a couple of things.

The first is the extent to which we're focusing on proactive and preemptive risk prevention. Things like we've undertaken risk propensity assessments on workers in high-risk areas.

We're putting a strong focus on near-miss reporting and things like that. Trying to preempt and predict where problems might be so that we can address them.

What underpins all of this is a renewed focus on training, culture, and readiness. A very pleasing safety performance, and congratulations to the mining team for achieving that.

Should we move on? Right, production has recovered in the quarter, and that really comes down to improved access to higher grade areas.

As we've said previously, we've been hampered over the last few quarters by some fall of ground incidents in the course of 2025, which locked us out of high grade areas. We've been effectively running the mine at a very low grade.

In the first quarter, it was 2.5 g/t. In this second quarter, it was about 2.88, and we're now targeting about 3.1 for the remainder of the year, and we're operating at that level.

Higher access to higher grade areas. We also, in June, moved the mine on to 7-day working week, primarily to address worker fatigue, but it also means that we've increased our blasting days by 18%, and that is flowing through into increased run-of-mine production.

From September onwards, we'll be processing a portion of that incremental production through the Lima plant, which we'll repurpose. Then into 2027, we'll be spending some money, as you'll hear shortly, to upgrade the main metallurgical plant to process all of that existing run-of-mine material through the main plant.

The end of this month, the end of August, we will have completed an upgrade to the elusion plant, which will allow us to process about 40 tons of material that we've accumulated over the last 18 18 months or so at a grade of 6 or 700 g/t. That will give us an extra 1,200 oz across the months of September, October, November, December.

The Q2 Q2 was well ahead of Q1 on the back of the higher grade access. Should we move on to the next page?

Traditional graphs, which you've seen before. I think the key things I'd draw out here are the top graph, the blue line, the stability that we've experienced now for many quarters, and that really is because of the stockpile that we've developed and we've been running.

Fair to say, during this quarter, quarter two, the stockpile was run down to zero, and now we've started to rebuild that since we introduced the new shift system in June. The bottom line in that top graph is the grade, and you can see how the grade came down from Q2 2025, reached a low point in the first quarter, and has now recovered.

As I say, in the second quarter, running at 2.88 g/t, target for the remainder of the year on average is about 3.16, and we're running at that level. Then the bottom graph just pulls it all together in terms of looking at the recovery and the ounces produced.

It's fair to say that as the grade falls, your recovery falls. The tail grade we can't do much better than a tail grade of 0.2 g/t, and so frankly, if the head grade goes down and the tail grade stays at 0.2, that means that your recovery goes down.

It is good to see that recovery bounce back again. Move on.

That's just an overview of the operations. It all comes down to grade.

With that, I will hand over to Ross, who's got quite a lot to cover.

Thank you, Mark, and good afternoon, everyone. Just running through the financial results summary, up on the table, you can see the impact of both gold sold and gold ounces produced.

We were down for both the three months and the six months in terms of ounces, but we did benefit from a higher average realized gold price of $4,259/oz. That was a 34% increase quarter-on-quarter.

We did produce some healthy revenues. As we go through our cost profile, that's one of the impacts in terms of higher royalties driven by those higher revenues.

I will take a bit of time to go through our cost updates in terms of where we ended up, but the key message is really our on-mine costs were largely in line with where we at budgeted and were managing to. In absolute terms, whilst those costs are shown to be up, there are some one-off or abnormal items that I'll talk you through in terms of why those transactions occurred.

Broadly, we're very happy with our mine costs and the teams are managing their cost base very well. Those top-line ounces really impacted on our unit metrics in terms of an ounce sold basis.

You'll see our all-in sustaining and our on-mine cost per ounce sold were largely up. There was some quite significant increases on an ounce profile metric, but in absolute terms, we're broadly in line.

Going into our financials, we're very happy with our EBITDA that was up some 28.5% for the six-month period. As you can see, some healthy numbers going through in terms of free cash flow and ultimate profit and earnings per share.

Probably to highlight and remind everybody, our free cash flow number, the comparative period included our solar sale proceeds. That's probably not indicative of a normal operating cycle.

We're very happy in terms of where we ultimately ended up with some $23.8 million worth of profit at the end of the three-month period, and close to $40 million for the six months, or almost 35% up against the comparative period. We can move on to the next slide and talk a little bit about the profit and loss.

You'll see our top-line revenue, as indicated, that was really driven by that higher average gold price, albeit that some of our sales ounces were a little bit down. We are very happy in terms of our ultimate gross profit position, which was up some 17.4% for the six months, or 16% for the quarter.

Royalties were up, but that was driven by that higher top-line performance. Also, we did have some shipments during the six months.

I think there were three shipments over the $5,000/oz level, which attracted the higher royalty. In terms of our production costs, we are up some 15% year-to-date, and I'll talk to some of those specific items that went through.

There were some timing differences. As already highlighted by Mark, there was a drawdown on the stockpile, and obviously the costs that are released in terms of those ounces as they are put through, it does have a working capital impact.

Below the line in terms of a significant movement, probably the one to highlight is the administration expenses. There were some quite significant one-off costs that have related to our advisory fees, particularly on the senior loan note transaction, but our broader financing facility.

As we go through Bilboes and our overall strategy, you'll see that we've made some significant progress in terms of our funding initiatives. It's money well spent in terms of those work streams.

I will also highlight the fair value gain on our derivative financial instruments. That is a financial accounting and some volatility that will go through the P&L, and it does result in even some significant movements.

I would ask you really to treat those as separate items when you're looking at the P&L, because they're really driven by some quite complex accounting. I've got a couple of slides that I'll talk to you a little bit later in the deck.

Overall, we're very pleased with our profit for the period, up some 27% for the three months at $30 million, and up 40% for our six-month period just shy of $50 million. The tax expense was down, but that was really around the capital gains tax that was paid on the solar in the comparative period.

I guess our tax rate and the effective tax rate is in line, and we're very happy with that. If we turn to the next slide, please.

In terms of cash flows, probably the items to note is really the rolling of our various loan notes. You'll see some ins and outs, but actually, there's no movement in terms of our net position there.

In terms of pointing out significant movements, you'll see the acquisition of our cap call options, the $14.4 million in the six-month period, was a one-off item that came through. Equally, you'll see the impressive $145 million of proceeds on the convertible loan notes that came through, and bulking up our cash at the year-end position, which closed at just shy of $167 or $168 million closing cash, which really puts us in good stead as we move forward in terms of our strategic objectives.

If we move to the next slide, you'll see our overall liquidity position. We're very pleased with our cash on hand at $171 million.

There was bullion on hand of $13 million, $13.5 million, which was really the ounces that are held on hand and ready for shipment. There was a slight delay on one shipment at the end of the six-month period, which was driven by the demonstrations in Johannesburg.

There was a timing difference in terms of ounces that were held as we got them to the refiner, but those were delivered the day after, and it was really driven by timing. Nothing untoward to highlight there.

Overall, very pleasing to have a total liquidity of over $200 million as we stand at the end of the June period. A very healthy position as we move forward with the company and the various initiatives.

The next slide just talks to our capital structure and debt. We've included that in terms of just summarizing basically our debt structure, what's held at our Caledonia Holdings Zim level in terms of our loan notes.

As I mentioned, those movements that you see were really the successful rolling over of loans in terms of what was expiring. We're not intending to increase or decrease, it's really status quo in terms of those loan notes.

What we're wanting to do is allocate those against strategic projects. In terms of our borrowings, we're keeping that facility levels at the same level.

We have paid down a large portion of that, so that we're sitting in a very healthy position in terms of overall funding. Then in terms of the new convertible bond that sits on the balance sheet increasing our total consolidated structure up to that $167 million that I've mentioned previously.

This gives you a picture in terms of overall debt. Taking a bit more of a deep dive into those on-mine costs, if we move to the next slide, we just wanted to highlight in terms of on-mine costs of Blanket, and I think it's very important to pull out a few key I guess transactions or cost centers.

The first one, the salaries and wages, these have stayed broadly in line, and you can see a 4% movement year-to-date in terms of base increases in terms of salaries and wages. Managed and we're very happy in terms of that overall cost center.

What has moved, however, is the Blanket Employee Trust distribution. Previously we've had the facilitation loan, any distributions that are made from Blanket dividends have gone to offset, or a portion of them have gone to offset those facilitation loans, and those have now been paid off.

Under IFRS, any distributions that are now made under that arrangement need to be classified as employee costs and sit within production costs. You'll see a big significant $3.2 million charge going through in this last quarter, which has significantly moved our production costs.

It hasn't changed any distributions or anything, and is actually a reflection of a great operation in terms of distributing funds, but unfortunately, it sits within our mine costs and has had quite a material impact and will continue to have a material impact in terms of the optics as we go forward. That is a standalone item.

We will be reporting it separately, everybody will be able to see that and deal with that specific cost or line item independently. The other big movement for the period was the electricity cost, where you'll see that's gone up 25%.

This was in fact driven by an increased wheeling charges, but our actual consumption has decreased. Again, something that's largely outside of our control where we've done well in terms of our consumption of electricity, but we've been hit with some increased charges there.

Again, another one-off that is hit us in terms of those cost centers. Largely when you back out those areas, you look at the performance in terms of where we've exited the six-month period, it's really driven by lower grades.

Those reduced ounces that have come through in terms of production has really hit us in terms of our unit metrics when you look at that on-mine cost metric at the bottom right of the chart going up some 46% for the period. As that flows through onto the next slide in terms of our all-in sustaining costs, you'll see that the higher on-mine costs that I've just discussed together with the higher royalty driven by that higher revenue that I mentioned at the start has really flowed through in terms of our calculation of all-in sustaining costs.

Whilst our capital expenditure has been well managed and in line with expectation, those costs of the BETS distribution, the higher royalties, and some higher administrative expenses largely driven by those adviser fees and transaction fees for our funding strategy, have all fallen into that all-in sustaining bucket and driven that increase in terms of our overall costs. What does that mean?

If we move to the next slide, we have had a look and done a whole 6+6 exercise and looked at our outlook for the end of the year. It has meant, with those cost increases in the reclassifications as we look towards the end of the year, we've increased our on-mine cash costs per ounce sold increasing that by $100 from our previous guidance range.

The updated guidance range is $1,600 to $1,800, some 6% increase. Our all-in sustaining cost per ounce sold has increased by some $400, up from $2,100/oz to $2,500/oz at the lower end, and increasing to $2,700/oz at the top end of the guidance range.

Those are due to the factors I've just discussed, but we've also introduced some new additional spend, which is indicated in the table below. That's really around how we expect some of the CapEx to drop this year.

We'd previously announced in March that there was 133 kV power line project that had been approved by the board, but we hadn't done our costing and quotes, which have now come through subsequent to that announcement. Of the $14.2 million, $8.1 million is ready to drop in 2026.

We've included that in the guidance, together with an updated number for our AC DC configuration, our central shaft drop winder project, at $3.1 million. There's also some additional spend in terms of key projects that we do need to deliver.

One of them is the housing project, which is fundamental to our core operating activities, which we've included a further $1.3 million. There's some exciting projects that I'll leave Craig to discuss in terms of KPets of Lima and our underground development, which again are key additional spends that we need to deploy in terms of meeting our objectives.

I just want to talk a little bit more about the CapEx profile. If we move to the next slide, you'll see a breakdown in terms of what had previously been guided in terms of CapEx spend against each particular project.

Our previous guidance in terms of sustaining capital expenditure was $26.6 million. Introducing the three new initiatives, which you can see indicated by reference B and E, it's the new power line, the ACDC conversion, and the KPets projects, which pushes that CapEx profile up to $48 million.

We've also got updates in terms of our growth capital expenditure. Again, going through our Bilboes development and now having quotes coming through and a better understanding in terms of I guess our deposit requirements, where previously we had factored in that a large deployment of cash was needed up front in terms of ordering those long-lead items.

We've got better financing terms, a lot of that cash has reduced, and we've been able to actually go with deposits and defer some of that cash into the early part of next year. That Bilboes $132 million spend has now been reduced for 2026 to $48 million, with the 80-odd million being pushed into the first half of next year.

We've also have a new Blanket mine plant upgrade, which is a new project, $3.5 million, which is been updated into the second half of this year. Overall, our CapEx number has moved from $162 million down to $103 million, but a large portion of that is the Bilboes spend, which is really a reflection of timing.

I will highlight it's not to do with the ability to finance or positioning in terms of the project, and won't delay the project, but it's just a wise or better use of deployment of funds, and has been a very healthy update for us in terms of us moving forward. If we move to the next slide, please.

As mentioned earlier, we do have quite a significant movement in our P&L in terms of the accounting for convertible notes. We're not proposing to go into chapter and verse in terms of the accounting, but it's just to highlight that we have some significant movement with these convertible notes.

It's driven by IFRS. We have independent valuations done, and it's just to remind everybody that we have a split in terms of the accounting for the transaction, where we have a host debt on one side of senior notes, which is really treated in the amortized cost basis, and we have an embedded derivative, which is a financial liability on the other side of the transaction, which moves with fair value accounting.

It does cause some quite considerable volatility through the P&L. It's fully disclosed.

We're across it in terms of where we sit, and I'm happy to take a deep dive as we account for it for anybody on the call. I'm not proposing to go through each stage now, but just to flag that to your attention that you will see some quite significant movements, and we'll keep everybody briefed in terms of how that is accounted for.

The last slide is really to remind everybody that we had the cap call option that was also associated with the con notes. If we just move to the last slide, please.

The accounting for the cap call is another derivative financial asset, which is also fair value through the profit or loss, and provides some volatility in net off. It does have an impact on the income statement as those fair values are recognized in the income statement each reporting period.

Again, a third-party valuations coming up with the numbers are fully disclosed, and does provide some quite significant movements, as you can see, in terms of original cost at $14.4 million, and the various fair value movements as we sit and carry a net position of $4.4 million on the balance sheet at the end of the period. Again, happy to take a deep dive and explain that more fully for anybody who would like a bit more detail on that.

With that, I will hand across to Victor, who will talk us through the Bilboes update.

Thank you, Ross. Can we move to the next slide, please?

Now, thank you very much. Basically, the message which we want to leave with you today is that Bilboes continues to advance on schedule and remains central to Caledonia's strategy to deliver sustainable long-term growth.

What we've seen is that we've done quite some considerable work across various work streams, especially financing, engineering, and development during this last quarter. We completed geotechnical investigations for the process plant site.

That also includes the tailing storage facility. We've advanced process plant optimization studies.

We almost done with that. We moving on that.

We've substantially completed the tender processes and procurement for long-lead items. Here we're talking about the milling plant, really the processing plant, some items of the processing plant, and the major earthworks on-site.

This is going ahead. We've continued to engage with prospective financing providers.

Ross will be back in a slide or two to just tell you where we are with that. Basically, what we seeing is that quite a lot of progress is being made on this project.

In terms of people moving on-site, we expect the first contractors to be on-site around October, and we already have accommodation, but we're also starting additional work on accommodation facilities during October. Can we move to the next slide?

As far as capital expenditure is concerned, Ross has already explained a few of the items. Year-to-date, we have spent $3.5 million against the budget of $8.3 million.

This is really expenditure on the owner's team. We've recruited the team which will build this mine, our own team which will be working with our EPCM contractor, DRA Africa.

That cost of that team, plus also the early work, which really at the beginning of the project is always the front-end engineering design work, which allows you to place orders for equipment. That's where we've been spending money, really.

The focus for 2026, as Ross has said, is $48 million compared to the $132 million which we had on the budget. As Ross again explained, this is really a timing issue.

We've now gone out to tender. We've received firm offers, firm tenders from the various tenderers with our payment terms, and a lot of those requires to pay a deposit, and then the balance of the cost will be paid as contractual milestones are reached.

There's really no change in the project timetable, the cost, or scope at this stage. Can we move on?

We've highlighted the economic analysis of this project over time, and it still is a very robust project for this company, and this will stand us in good stead in years to come. Can we go to the next slide, please?

As far as the funding strategy for the project is concerned, Ross, can you take this on?

Thank you, Victor. We're delighted in terms of providing an update on the funding strategy.

You'll see the four pillars that we've previously highlighted in terms of our step process, providing the hedge program, doing the convertible, and then having our interim funding facility while we position the project finance facility. The first two steps, as highlighted on the chart, have been delivered.

It was important that we put that gold price hedging in place, and that basically hedged our position over the construction period, but provided a floor that supported the cash flows as we went through our discussions with the various banking institutions. You would have seen the delivery of the successful convertible note offering.

Again, oversubscribed, and really delivered a great outcome in terms of treasury, and positioning us well in terms of our funding initiatives. Those two pillars really meant that we've been able to advance with our banking syndications.

The first being the interim funding facility. We've just come off the back of two weeks of bank visits, both with the interim funders and also the project funding institutions, where we had very good site visits with those institutions across our assets.

In terms of our interim funding facility, we've got credit approval from our two co-lead arrangers, and we're working with other syndicate banks in terms of getting that $150 million facility in place. We're well on the track.

We're going through all of the final DD positions, and we're planning for that to be closed in late August, early September. Positioned in terms of that work stream.

In parallel, we've been working with our project finance banks, and again, that process is well underway. We've been very excited in terms of both the appetite and the reaction from those banks.

As I mentioned, we've just come off a good visit to Zimbabwe, visiting both government, the assets, and the various management teams in-country. That's running parallel.

We previously indicated in terms of timelines that we felt that it was a little bit further out. Over the next 12 months, we thought that we could deliver that.

Off the back of the work streams and how it's advancing, we're certainly planning for that to be closed by the end of the year or early into next year. Over the next nine months maximum.

We're delighted with the progress, and we're well positioned in terms of the various discussions that we have at play. If we move to the next slide, we just wanted to give you a quick update in terms of that total funding requirement.

This is an update to a previous slide that we've done in previous updates. On the right, you'll see the use of funds, and I guess the deployment that we're looking for with the capital costs, but including interest and working capital, looking for the better part of $600 million of funding.

Using that $3,500/oz pricing that we've done in terms of our hedging facility, you can see the breakdown of our cash on hand that we now have at the 30th of June of $172 million, our forecast cash flows from Blanket being $115 million, and therefore we're looking for best part of $300 million, just over $300 million in terms of senior debt or other facilities to meet that funding requirement. If we look at the middle chart, and we've done that slicing at a price deck of $4,000/oz, and you can see in terms of where that sits and moving that up slightly, it certainly reduces our senior debt facility down closer to the order of $263-odd million.

Both charts, we believe totally achievable. I think we're well on track in terms of our funding work streams, and we're excited about the coming months in terms of making sure that those are closed out, and we can really focus on delivering the project.

With that, I will hand across to Craig Harvey.

Good good afternoon, all. I'll take you through some of the exploration highlights that we've been encountering at Caledonia.

I think throughout of the throughout the finance and through some of the CEO's remarks, we, you've heard the term KPets. What is the KPets?

The KPets is an area situated inside the Blanket mining lease area. During this period under review, or basically the last six six months, we did over 2,000 m of surface trenching.

We did 7,000 m of reverse circulation drilling, shallow holes, only down to about a depth of about 40 m, purely to have a look at oxide or to have a look at oxide mineralization potential. What you can see there on the selected drill highlights on the right, we've, we've got oxide grades ranging between 1.5 and 2.5 g/t over drill hole lengths, those are drill hole lengths, between 15 and call it 25 m, but these are within 40 m of surface.

Below that, pleased to see that the mineralization continues, and very pleased to see what the sulfide grades actually look like as well. We're talking grades of 6 g/t over downhole widths of between 7 and 16 m, all within 40 m of surface.

What we're currently doing is, quite clearly, we have completed our our drilling exercise. We are drawing up a resource statement.

We are doing metallurgical testing in a term in terms of column testing, various sizes, various heights. We are currently constructing a a small heap a heap leach trial test test pad to actually test it under conditions similar to what the column tests are, so that we can gauge that it's actually working.

Results to date are encouraging. I obviously can't say anything yet.

One of the things that I just want to touch on is kind of the those those bottom three points, why this discovery matters. I think for anybody that knows Blanket Mine, there was a whole lot of investment in in Central Shaft.

We can currently hoist and mine a lot more than what we can mill, hence there are some tweaks coming up to the plant in the near future. Still, with this as a as an external heap leach source, anything that we do here clearly does not need the actual Blanket main plant.

That's just for the for the oxide material. Where the zone is situated, it's situated about 200 m to the east of the closest known orebody that we're mining in the underground section of Blanket.

We are currently in the process of laying out some some surface drill holes to drill to drill below this area now. We're also looking at drilling from mine level at our sheet shaft, which which is about 200 m below surface, to have a look for this area.

Now, quite clearly, 200 m vertical at quite a fat surface surface expression of the orebody at sulfide grades like that, it just opens up a whole another whole opportunity. I think I've said it on this call before, one of the things that that that that people that know Blanket should should notice is that when you arrive at Blanket, you you only see headgear.

You don't see open pits. Now, at Bilboes, you see open pits, you don't see head headgear.

This zone represents only a small portion of of of of ground that we have rights to in terms of the mining license and in terms of our claim areas. In the coming years, this is going to be the model that we are going to follow, and that's going to be the first of many.

I'm pretty sure of that. If we could move on to the next slide.

It's just going to be a recap of Blanket underground. I've just highlighted two two intersections in red at the bottom there, the 2409 and the 2408 drill holes, reminding that it's approximately 280 m below 34 level, which is our deepest mining level at the moment.

That represents four main mining levels. We are currently in the process, we busy dotting I's and crossing T's on a Blanket mine mineral resource update, which will include surface, so you'll see the KPet numbers there.

If we can go on to the next slide. Just to highlight that those holes right right at the bottom, 280 m below our current deepest mining, still have still have widths still have orebody widths of 15 to 30 m at grades of 2.5 to 2.5, right?

If you take selected core zones, my sort of the mineable zones, we're talking 8 8 m wide still at anywhere between 3 and 5 g/t. That is very much what we are currently mining in in and around 34 level.

The takeaway here is that, going deeper at Blanket, we aren't seeing the orebody is getting thinner, disappearing, grades dropping, or anything like that. In actual fact, we are finding Blanket 7, a new zone which we haven't known before.

Way up on the top at the KPets, there's a potential new zone. The old lady termed Blanket is very, very far from sort of rolling over and playing dead.

There's a there's a lot yet to come. If you can go on to the next section, which will just deal with Motapa quickly.

Again, dotting the I's and crossing the T's, the mineral resource estimate is done. We should be publishing the results of that in the next couple of weeks.

It's only based it's only based on the drilling results that we did in 2024 and 2025. The 2026 exploration program is ongoing, proceeding very well.

It's focusing more on the central and southern shear zone. At the same time, we are continuing trenching.

It's proving to be a great a great exploration tool for us. We have identified some new areas that'll come out in a in a in a exploration drilling or exploration results release later in the year.

All these results are just underpinning Caledonia's view that Motapa is going to feed into the Bilboes project in some form or fashion, and we are continuing doing the work. In a nutshell, it's looking good.

With that, we'll hand back to our CEO, Mark, to close out.

Thank you, Craig. Look, we covered a lot of ground.

We're taking 45 minutes, just to draw it all together, the immediate focus, by which I mean between now and the end of the year, is to build on the success we've had at Blanket in this quarter to get Blanket running sweetly, increase production, improve the cash generation. Clearly, the big focus is Bilboes, continue to get the funding in place, and continue to deliver that project targeting first production towards the end of 2028, and the first full year in 2029.

Then as you've heard from Craig, we've got some very exciting further developments and exploration opportunities both at Blanket and at Motapa. Look, we've taken 45 minutes.

If we could pause there, and open it for questions, please.

Sorry. I'm having some speaker issues here.

Can you hear me now?

Great. All right, I'm very interested in a couple of the questions here around this potential capacity expansion that arises on the mine as a result of the con-ops.

The first question would be, does 18% more blasts at the underground mine result in 18% more potential production regardless of what happens to the mill?

Should do. It's not currently running at 18 18% uplift in run-of-mine production because we're still opening up new areas, but in the fullness of time, yes, we would expect, as you've said, that maths to work, yeah.

That sounds like about a million tons a month a million tons a year.

Just a little bit less, about 990, yes.

Okay. Now coming on to the plant itself, there's been a discussion about a ball mill and a tons per hour figure given.

There was also a discussion about potentially increasing the crushing. Now you're talking about an elusion circuit, and you're talking about 200 tons per day, but what does that when it comes to the annual production capabilities of the plant when all of this is bedded down?

That's that's exact they're exactly right. We've the 200 tons a day that we're going to be putting through Lima is a is a short-term stopgap measure, okay, just to start harvesting some of the increased run-of-mine production as soon as possible.

Don't don't get distracted on that. Then that that that will What happens to the Lima plant after we've upgraded the the main number four the main number four shaft plant is is is another story.

The elusion upgrade is something we planned to do anyway. That's a 3-ton elusion vessel, which will come onstream at the end of this month, and that that that just allows us to reprocess these these grits, this activating carbon, which currently we're accumulating and we we can't we can't process.

The new the new expenditure will be at the front end, the crushers. We'll be upgrading the crushers to well, that will give us about 2,700, no, about yeah, it'll give us it'll give us it'll increase it to about 990,000 tons a year.

We'll be spending some money on those crushers. Then the back end, the CIL, we need to put another CIL tank in.

This one will be about twice the size of the existing tanks, and that's so that we can keep the residence time at about at about 40 hours, otherwise we end up losing losing recovery. It's the the ball mill we we put we've put in a new ball mill, BM3, that was that was commissioned in June.

We're just basically bookending it, upgrading the the crushing at the at the front end and upgrading the the CIL at the back end, and that will cost about $3.5 million. The actual phasing of that, how that gets phased, that's something we need to work on between now and the end of the year.

At this stage, I can't tell you between right now at what point all of that all of that work will be implemented so that the the the the number four the main met plant will be running at that sort of target rate of 990,000 tons a year. I can't answer that yet.

We'll do that by the end of the year when and also when we've been through the the full sort of procurement and budgeting exercise. What I can't do is I can't at this stage, I can't tell you how that will convert into extra ounces in 2027, because at this stage, I don't know the exact timing of the implementation of the of the crusher and the CIL upgrades.

Thank you. I'd like to ask a little bit about the capital program.

You've upgraded it to $48 million, plus some growth CapEx in Blanket again. Yet, to date, I can only find about $13 million have been spent in H1.

This looks like quite a daunting task to spend the balance of the money, but you're obviously confident you can do it.

The spending isn't constrained by lack of funding. The spending is usually constrained by slow delivery of material.

Case in point would be the elusion plant that we're working on at the moment. We've found that deliveries of steel have been slower than we expected, and that's a fairly consistent theme across all of our capital projects.

It's not a failure on our part in terms of our capacity, it's just the supply chain that gets a bit stretched. We come to all we can get there.

Thank you. Just a little bit about the new power line that you're proposing.

We heard about that previously. You've changed the scheduling of that slightly,

but I think That's because of extraneous events. Things move slower in Zim than we'd like, especially when we're not altogether in control of the project.

The 132 kV line that we're putting in to Eagle Vulture requires extensive engagement with ZETDC, which can take longer than you'd like. That should be in by about June next year.

The other question that was linked to that was that there was some question marks about how the pricing of power that will come through that line and obviously you now expect this enhanced capacity at the plant and at the mine you'll be able to create enough power from that or source enough power from that transmission line. Yeah.

Correct.

That's

correct because Blanket is currently using more power than it's been allocated, and we can only get away with that for the time being for as long as the neighboring mine at Vubachikwe is on care and maintenance. If Vubachikwe came off care and maintenance, and I've got to say I see no immediate prospect for that, we would struggle with the amount of power we can get through the existing 33 kV line.

With the 130 with the 132 kV line, that constraint disappears completely.

Have you settled your pricing now? Apparently, there's been a little bit dispute between the various parties that entered into power supply agreements with you previously.

Victor closer to this than I am, but there's this thing called the Intensive Energy User Group in Zimbabwe, and there's also ZETDC. There seems to be a bit of a dispute between the two of them.

We have incurred a higher wheeling charge, which has affected our electricity charge, as Ross outlined. That's part of the play between ZETDC and IEUG.

The power that we'd expect to come through the 132 kV line, we'd expect that to be somewhat cheaper than we're currently paying. Let's be clear, if we continue to face supply difficulties in-country, we can do what I believe some of the other very big users do, I think the platinum producers, which is just to import power directly ourselves.

The power tariff going forwards with the 132 kV has not been finalized, but there's no reason to suggest it will not be cheaper than it is at the moment.

Excellent. I have lots of questions, but I'll ask one more, I think, to close it off.

You have interim funding lined up for two to three months' time. It almost sounds like, from the rate of spending that you think of having to spend over the next period in Bilboes, will actually be a lot less than you originally thought.

Does this mean you can be a little more relaxed about the interim funding time?

No, we're still continuing. Especially, you work at Standard Bank, Stanbic is one of the core components of that interim funding structure, and there is no way we're going to freewheel on getting that funding together.

We will go flat out as quickly as we can to get all that funding in place, even if it means that we get it earlier than we need it. Ross is the CFO, Ross, do you want to sort of comment?

You going to go on extended holiday and not raise the money? Absolutely.

No, full steam ahead. We want it all in place, and then we can talk about timing of drawdowns and the like.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions, and congratulations on another good results.

Can I ask whether you can give any color on things like commitment fees and the interest rates, tenures, and so on for the interim funding and for the project finance? I know it's probably too early.

At this stage, it's too early. What I can say, for two key criteria here: speed, a project of this size and quality, any delay in implementing it will cost money in terms of NPV per share, that's the first thing.

The second thing, just be clear, is that Our cost of equity is so eye-wateringly expensive that the cost of the various debt facilities, I'm not saying we're price-insensitive, but it's not a major cause for concern. I think you kind of sort of splitting a hair that just doesn't need splitting.

At this stage, it's too early to say.

Oh, that's fine. I'm just asking for modeling purposes.

All right. For Craig, I know you've said it's also too early to give us any metallurgical results, but I was just curious as the nature of the refractoriness, if any, at the KPets in the sulfides, and potentially the transition zone, and also why are you wearing a jacket, a heavy jacket?

I

can answer the last one, because he's in Johannesburg and he's bleating about it being cold. That's why he's wearing a jacket.

It's freezing. Yes, look, what I can remind you is that the Blanket orebodies that we mine are all free milling.

I can't go beyond that. We have done bottle roll testing on our drill hole assays, and they are in the press release that we put out there.

Bottle roll assays, so that is direct cyanidation for 24 hours to a fire assay value, we're getting 80 to 85%. I would be expecting on a heap leach to recover yeah, 90 to 95% of that.

Great. Thank you very much.

Sorry, Yuen, was your question about the refractory nature of the sulfide, the underlying sulfide?

Yes, I was asking about that. I was wondering whether it's sulfides, not so much refractory, whether there's anything carbon, that sort of thing.

Craig, at this stage, you're able to give any indication as to whether we have any basis to believe that the underlying sulfide could be tricky to treat?

Look, at this stage, there's nothing that gives an indication either way that it's in any way different to the sulfide ores that we mine at Blanket at the moment. There's nothing that's saying that it is refractory, but I don't have any information that I can give you to say that it's not.

Clearly, it's something we will be evaluating.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you, Yuen.

Thank you all for your time. I think this quarter just finished has been a transitional quarter from a very disappointing first quarter.

I think we've set ourselves up for a very exciting sort of closing half to the year, and a very good start to next year as well. Thank you all for your time and your attendance.