Northern Star Resources Limited

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. With me on the call is Chief Financial Officer, Ryan Gurner; and Chief Operating Officer, Simon Jessop.

As previously announced, in the March quarter, gold sold totaled 381,000 ounces. And today, we announced the delivery of those ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,709 per ounce.

This improved operational performance exiting the quarter has delivered high-margin ounces to generate group underlying free cash flow of $301 million. More specifically, we are prioritizing cash flow at KCGM by accelerating volumes from the high-grade Golden Pike zone during current mill constraints.

At Jundee, the operational review is underway, and across Thunderbox and Pogo, we've seen gold grades improve. With this improved performance and high-grade ROM stockpiles at KCGM, the company is forecast to deliver its revised FY '26 production guidance of above 1.5 million ounces.

As previously disclosed, this outlook remains particularly dependent on mill throughput at KCGM with both downside and upside potential. Total growth capital expenditure for FY '26 remains unchanged with revisions to the KCGM mill expansion project and operational readiness CapEx.

The KCGM mill expansion project remains on track for commissioning in early FY '27. And pleasingly, the project started transitioning from construction to the completions and commissioning during the March quarter, which is marking the next stage of project delivery.

Due to ongoing poor productivity levels for construction activity, we prioritize the importance to keep the project on track, and therefore, forecast capital spend increased to $680 million to $700 million in FY '26 and $160 million in FY '27. The increased capital expenditure during FY '26 for the mill expansion has been offset by a reduction in the forecast spend for operational readiness related to delay in the spend of the thermal power plant and transmission infrastructure.

You will see in the quarterly report, we've also introduced some extra detail regarding Stage 1 and Stage 2 for on-site construction. Stage 1 refers to the construction of the 27 million tonne per annum plant.

Stage 2 refers to the consolidation of the Gidji facility, which simplifies the processing footprint to a single location in Fimiston, which supports longer-term operating efficiency and cost structure benefits. At Hemi, our team continues to optimize the engineering and design of the project while advancing approvals.

So our balance sheet remains in a net cash position, and our hedge book -- as our hedge book decreases, our growing exposure to spot gold price, coupled with increasing production, positions us for a strong increase in cash flows going forward. I'd now like to hand over to Simon Jessop, our Chief Operating Officer, to discuss our operational highlights.

Thank you, Stu, and good morning. This quarter, we delivered a solid operational financial performance with improving production, stronger cost control and continued investment in the long-term growth across our portfolio.

At the Kalgoorlie production center, we sold 210,000 ounces of gold at an all-in sustaining cost of $2,550 an ounce, improving on the December quarter. This was driven by stronger cost efficiency at KCGM and a return to normalized performance at the Kalgoorlie operations.

Mine operating cash flow was $588 million, generating a net mine cash flow of $156 million after $432 million of growth capital, reflecting both asset strength and continued investment. KCGM sold 117,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $2,485 an ounce, supported by higher grades and optimizing the available mill feed.

Importantly, mining volumes continue to trend towards our annual targets. Open pit material movement is tracking towards 90 million tonnes and underground production towards 3 million tonnes per annum.

Ongoing waste stripping is supporting this progress. At the same time, productivity gains are allowing us to accelerate mining in the high-grade zones, prioritizing margin and cash flow, particularly while the mill throughput remains constrained.

At Carosue Dam, open pit mining is expected to conclude in the June quarter with production transitioning to underground sources and stockpiles. At the Kalgoorlie operations, performance improved with higher grades and the normalization of underground mining following the earlier H1 disruptions.

Turning to our Yandal production center. Performance also strengthened.

Gold sales increased to 105,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $3,347 an ounce with a mine operating cash flow of $177 million and net mine cash flow of $91 million after growth capital. At Jundee, an operational review is underway to reduce costs and improve consistency.

During the quarter, we returned to conventional ore processing following the remediation works while a completed power upgrade is expected to support improved mining volumes and grades in the June quarter. At Thunderbox, production was particularly strong, with gold sales plus 26% quarter-on-quarter to 59,000 ounces driven by higher grade ore, initial open pit contributions and improved mill recovery.

Turning to Pogo, we saw a step change in performance. Gold sales increased to 66,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of USD 1,529 an ounce, driven by higher grades from optimized stoping in the mining areas.

This translated into a mine operating cash flow of USD 136 million and a net mine cash flow of USD 124 million, highlighting the strength of this asset as a cash generator. Operations continue to perform strongly with the mine and mill running at an annualized rate of 1.4 million tonnes per annum.

Development activity remains robust, establishing new mining fronts and advancing infrastructure to unlock future production, including access to the Star ore body, supporting both growth and potential mine life extension. In summary, the March quarter reflects a business delivering improved operational performance, disciplined cost management and positioning itself for stronger, more sustainable returns.

I would now like to pass over to Ryan, our Chief Financial Officer, to discuss the financials.

Thanks, Simon. Good morning, everyone.

Northern Star remains in a great financial position. Our balance sheet remains strong with cash and bullion of $1.2 billion at 31 March.

Pleasingly, all 3 production centers generated positive free cash flow in the quarter with capital expenditure and exploration fully funded. Quarterly net mine cash flow was $426 million.

Figure 8 on Page 10 sets out the company's cash and bullion movements for the quarter with key elements being the company generating just over $1 billion of post-tax operating cash flows, a 180% increase on the prior quarter. After deducting capital of $618 million relating to the KCGM expansion, plant and equipment and mine development, $48 million of exploration and $66 million of lease payments, quarterly free cash generation was $301 million.

Also during the quarter, the company received $50 million in proceeds from the divestment of the Central Tanami Gold project and paid an interim dividend of $0.25 per share, totaling $347 million. Stuart has already discussed the revisions to FY '26 growth capital expenditure forecast, particularly KCGM.

But in respect of the other investment activities, our exploration expenditure is tracking to plan, with guidance of $225 million for the full year unchanged. And at Hemi, we continue to work closely with key stakeholders and regulators to advance the project including approvals and progress on the engineering and design works and procurement of long lead items.

On other financial matters, the Board has recently approved an on-market share buyback program of up to $500 million, supported by the company's strong outlook and value opportunity. The buyback will be subject to the company's security trading policy, including blackout periods, and will not affect the company's dividend policy to pay out 20% to 30% of cash earnings.

From a cash tax perspective, we are guiding the second half of FY '26 range to be $240 million to $280 million, with $37 million already paid in Q3. No changes to our estimate quantum or timing for landholder duty for the De Grey and Saracen transactions, both likely to be paid during FY '27.

The company is not experiencing any supply restrictions on fuel, and we continue to engage with our suppliers on this matter frequently. Q4 all-in sustaining costs are expected to be $75 to $85 per ounce higher as a result of increased oil prices.

Year-to-date depreciation and amortization of $1,015 per ounce sold is just above the top end of the guided range of $875 to $975 per ounce and is expected to track modestly above the top end of the guided range for the full year. For the quarter, noncash inventory charges for the group are a credit of $46 million, primarily from increases in stockpiles at KCGM.

During the quarter, the company refinanced and upsized its corporate bank facilities with maturity dates of March 2030 and March 2031 across 2 equal tranches totaling $1.75 billion. These facilities remain undrawn and available at quarter end.

Also a reminder that the company will pay interest on its senior guaranteed notes in Q4, which will amount to USD 18 million. The company continues to unwind its hedging commitments with 165,000 ounces delivered during the quarter.

At 31 March, commitments totaled 950,000 ounces at an average price of just over AUD 3,350 per ounce. I will now hand back to Ashley to begin the Q&A.

Maybe just a little bit more detail on the 2 key growth projects, KCGM and Hemi. So can you just talk us through the delay in capital into next year, how that ties in with the potential ramp up through, I guess, second half of this calendar year?

Yes. Thanks, Levi.

So there's -- on the actual expansion project, there's an increase in the overall capital and it's pretty much spread this financial year, next financial year. So you'll see those lifts in FY '26, FY '27 in regard to the expansion, about $60 million, $30 million in FY '26, FY '27, $30 million.

That's due to the productivities. We're just getting poor productivities, got a lot of labor there.

But it's very important to us to keep the timing of the completion in line, and that's why we've been jammed, but prepared to keep that labor there to complete that project. The delay of the spend is the thermal -- the new thermal power station infrastructure pending approvals.

We're following with power because we own the Parkeston joint venture power station there, plus we are grid-connected. So they're not issues, but that's just delayed capital.

And in FY '26, there's no net change, but there's certainly that uplift of the overall project due to these poor productivities.

Yes. Okay.

I guess I'm just trying to drill down a little bit more on your retaining the 23 million tonnes as a guidance number effectively for next year given that the capital has moved a bit. So is there anything more you can add on that?

No. So we will provide the full year guidance with the quarterly, which we typically do in July, on the June quarter.

So that will give the outlook for everything for the full year for FY '27 and equally, the overall ounces throughput for KCGM sources, et cetera. So yes, quarter, we're on track for completion and commissioning of the plant in the September quarter.

It obviously moves from the old plant to the new plant and then has a ramp-up, and that will relate to how we achieve the full year on that.

Got it. Okay.

And then just is there -- can you give us a little bit more detail on the progress at Hemi as you move towards FID there sometime next financial year?

Yes. So really, it's still depending on environmental approvals.

We're working closely on the water trial progress, which would be this quarter. So working on that progress...

Just need silence on the back of some of those calls, people who need to go to mute. The -- yes, sorry, on Hemi.

So the approval is still pending with environmental. It's tracking okay.

There's no real curveballs in it, but we're certainly -- it's been delayed from where we predicted, and that's why we pushed the timing of FID out. But yes, we -- I think the other part with FID, we're going to have to be very dependent on the refreshed pricing and with the current backdrop of cost escalations some real comfort with learnings from KCGM, et cetera, productivity levels in labor and the escalation costs around any hydrocarbon-based plastics, fuel, tires, freight.

We've got to be really certain on FID there. So I think we'll be very conservative in our view on that.

Just on the super pit, I mean, you've explicitly given more detail on splitting the project ramp up in the Stage 1 and Stage 2. I'm just wondering what are you trying to -- the message you're trying to get to the market here is it the throughput will face a lot of disruptions to factor that in from tie-ins?

Is it cost realized pricing from selling concentrate, not gold dore for a period of time. And I know that throughput is 23 million tonnes on Page 4.

Has this been updated at all in light of latest thoughts of delivery? And does it include the disruption at Gidji that you're talking about?

Thanks, Daniel. Look, the 23 million tonne hasn't been updated, and we'll revisit that with the full year guidance that we'll provide in July.

So we need to consider everything at that point on the stage at which we've turned on the plant. What we're trying to communicate with the division of Stage 1 and Stage 2, it would not make sense or sound odd if we were continuing to spend money in FY '27 on this project yet have it running.

So we're trying to be really clear that Stage 1 is the 27 million tonne per annum plant operating and that's for commissioning. That's built in that way and will be commissioned and ramped up in the September quarter.

Continuing on in parallel and subsequent to that, not affecting throughput or impact is stage 2. It's effectively all of the ultrafine grinding activity occurring for 100% of that 27 million tonne per annum capacity at the Fimiston location.

So people just -- I think maybe that granularity wasn't there. Right now, the concentrates go 20 kilometers north to Gidji from the current plant, get ultrafine ground and then brought back and treated and turned into gold dore at Fimiston.

So all of that, the part of the efficiency is productivity to bring all that activity, which was explained in the FID and explained in the overall project approval. It's all occurring on the 1 side.

The original pricing included those 2 things, but the design of the activity Stage 1, Stage 2 is there. The other highlight that we'll talk to is in half 1 of FY '27, we will be selling concentrates, continuing to sell concentrates, which is fine and the economics of it are sound.

So that's not an issue, but we are just letting people know that until that second stage is complete and can take 100% of the concentrates generated, there will be some of the concentrates go to Gidji and some go in sales, which we've been doing. They go out through ports and going to smelters, and we've got good payability terms on that.

Yes. Just moving to Carosue Dam.

I see that you've just called out that open pit mining is ceasing. Any plans for higher underground production?

Or what are current thoughts on the longevity of underground mining?

Yes. Thanks, Daniel.

It's Simon. So we're still continuing with the underground mines that we've got.

So Karari, Dervish is looking better at depth, and we're getting some drill hole hits at Dervish, but porphyry and million. That's the four undergrounds that we're running at the moment.

Our sort of next phase is really looking at Twin Peaks and Kiena as the underground operation. So we're just moving into that phase of more underground as some of them wind off over the next couple of years.

We then transition to those other underground operations coming in. There will be some open pits further into the future, but not at the moment.

And just on, I guess, a broader question of, I think you're conducting operational reviews across the business. Obviously, you've got Jundee...

Sorry, Daniel, I think, you dropped out there.

Sorry, can you hear me?

We can now.

We can now, yes.

My last question is just you're doing operational reviews, I imagine across the business, including Jundee and others. What is the latest plan on providing the outcome of these?

Earlier you had said by the end of the year, is there any update to that time?

Yes. Thanks, Daniel.

No, we will stick to the timing of -- we'll provide that medium-term guidance, which is a multiyear outlook, and we'll provide that this calendar year. We will provide the FY '27 guidance with the quarterly for the June quarterly, so in July.

Can I firstly just dig into a little bit more detail on that staging of the expansion. And I understand the detail you've given in terms of the mechanics of Stage 1 versus Stage 2 moving the ultrafine grind down to Fimiston.

But I guess just wondering, is this timing or staging approach, has this always been the plan? Or has this really been an outcome or has it been driven by the productivity issues that you faced in terms of bringing 1 part of the process on a little bit later than the rest?

Yes. Thanks, Matt.

Look, the staging and the way the contracts form with the contractor has always been separable portion 1, separable portion 2, always and their contract structure is different. So they were designed, engineered, sequenced exactly like that, and that's how the FID was approved, and that's how the total number contemplated this we've contingencies on both those projects.

As they've transpired separable portion 1, which is that 27 million tonne per annum plant. That's on track with the timing, but it's overspent because of the productivity is, and we're still working very hard for those final commissioning to be commenced and switched over from the old plant to that new plant in the September quarter, early in the September quarter is our current design and plant and ramping up throughout.

Separable portion 2, the ultrafine grinding activity is another 4 to 6 months of activity. So the team moves from step first to the second, stay inside and get that completed.

So that was always understood to be the case, and we don't get the recovery improvement of the overall project, and we had said that on the onset until all of that activity and that volume of concentrate gets done. So we're saying expect that through half 1, which will be material going to Gidji and the lower recovery in half 2 of FY '27, and we've got Stage 2 all commissioned and all the concentrates staying there, improved recovery, lower operating costs and all of the activity staying on the site.

That's the final piece of the improvement for the investment project.

And Matt, just to add to that. So Separable Portion 1 is over 95% complete today.

And the second portion that Stu was talking about is already 48% complete. So they're happening in parallel.

It's just the priority. 27 million tonne case is the focus to get first ore into the mill and start producing gold.

And the second stage is just under 50% complete at the moment. So that's just trails and gets finished in H1.

Understand. And then secondly, on the power plant, you said that you're comfortable there, given that, obviously, or got your own plant and also a grid connection, but obviously, we know that the grid stability in Kalgoorlie has been an issue recently.

So I guess just wondering when exactly is the new power plant needed to support the from the bigger mill. And I guess, how do you see those stability issues potentially impacting or potentially not impacting.

Yes. So we won't -- we'll have access to the grid and the 50-odd meg of power from it.

We won't be reliant on it. In the first instance, Parkeston is the foundation supply for the new plant and then the move to the newer thermal plant.

It can occur within today 18 months, 2 years, and it improves the overall unit cost of the power and final piece of that is the renewables project that has been approved. So the wind and solar.

So really that thermal is just the firming power for that renewables project and that's another step change in the cost structure for the site. So yes, step 1 is we're in 50% joint venture of Parkeston Power, which underpins the expanded sort of mill demand.

We are building a new thermal power station subject to those approvals timing and then the renewables that sits on the back of that, which is a third-party's balance sheet. We've got some switching gear we own.

Fundamentally, that comes in within a couple of years to start really driving the power costs down, and we will be in control of our own power security, not dependent on the grid. And if anything, we're out there to support the Goldfields grid in Western Power.

We've got some arrangements we're progressing quite positively with the state to assist the Northern Star and assist the gold fields in underpinning that power.

Okay. I mean, maybe to put it another way, can you achieve 22 million tonnes without the support of the Kalgoorlie grid in FY '27?

Yes. And it will be running at times, it will be running a full 27 million tonne per annum capacity.

So full demand. We've got over 100 meg capacity at Parkeston.

So 99 meg derated with temperature, and we got 52 meg from the grid well in surplus of the demands of the mine and the mill expanded case.

Okay. That's pretty clear.

And then maybe just lastly on the Jundee technical review. You've talked about considering a range of outcomes there.

And obviously, you said you're going to give more detailed guidance a little bit down the track. But maybe just conceptually, can you book in the sort of range of options that you're considering in that study?

I mean if I think hypothetically may be a conservative outcome or a conservative option might be at Jundee that you just mine out the remaining reserves and then kind of ramp down the reinvestment in that asset. That might be a conservative kind of view?

Or should I actually be thinking even more conservatively than that conceptually could there be a reduction in the current reserves, given the increase in the cost structure or some of those other factors?

I think it's too early to give that granularity. But the concepts are -- the costs are high.

And our aim is to cut absolute costs out of the site and then see the maximum output we can get through the current infrastructure that's there. So it means a reduction in intensity of activity to get the lower unit costs.

If anything, that will extend at a lower profile can extend the reserve life that's there. And as far as that investment, again, has to be ranked and prioritized against the other opportunities we have in the business.

As you appreciate now, there is a lot of intensity around a number of jumbos developing number of stopes carrying a number of diamond drill rigs doing discovery to come in depletion. So taking a bit of that pace out will actually enable a bit more time with the overall asset to focus on quality over quantity.

I got the company right this morning. I wanted to ask about the buyback.

So we had that announced the $500 million circa 1% of your market cap. Just talk me through how you think about buying back your stock here versus investing that in organic growth, et cetera?

Kate, it's Ryan. Look, I think right now, it's -- yes, some of the most accretive capital allocation we can put back into this business.

We see a strong outlook ahead. We're close to turning on our new mill.

We're going to see cash flows live significantly there. So we see strength ahead and we see value in our underlying business.

Okay. And while I've got you, Ryan, I think the tax cash saving numbers you gave us are new.

Is it fair to think about that magnitude being less than P&L tax for '27 and '28 that you gave us on the tax shield? And secondly, did you say next quarter's asset is expected to be $75 to $85 an ounce higher as a result of oil prices?

Or did I mishear what those comments were?

No. So I'll start with that for the last question first, yes.

Yes. So $75 to $85 an ounce higher is our sort of estimate.

Obviously, oil is volatile, but that's our best view of the impacts this quarter. And then on the tax shield, which I think you're referring to Hemi, I guess we added some more commentary at the back there on Page 10, but it's really just again reminding people of some of the timing of that.

So again, the math being that we get a shield essentially of that purchase price. The total value of that from a tax effective perspective is about $1.5 billion, and we're sort of saying we'll get 50% of that back over 5 years.

And it's a bit front-end weighted from a tax perspective. So we're just guiding and reminding people that, yes, we will get this benefit.

We won't see it though. We're not going to see a big lump sum come back into our treasury, it's just -- it just means that FY '27 tax will just be slightly lower, that's all.

Clear. And then if I can sneak 1 more in, updated resources reserves in May.

Can you help me understand the drilling that's being done at Hemi? I assume that's mostly been infill drilling too, because I will probably get an update on CapEx, OpEx with the multiyear outlook.

Is that correct before the end of the same way? And I'm just trying to understand how we think about mine life or upside at that asset versus what the focus is now.

Yes. Thanks, Kate.

Just before I close, I go to Hemi on that as with diesel and fuel, that is the expected uptick the $75 to $80 in AISC, but it's not last quarter plus that. So it's the component that is increased within.

But as we grow out to ounces to the so there's other things that are moving in that side, please don't just accretively add that. Hemi, we've done the drilling, but you're right, it has been really infill and testing, and we've been more aggressive on some of the pitches and shelves on the resource.

So we've been -- we've had to sort of incorporate that into how we would do things which may be a little bit stricter. But that will be reflected in how we report the resource and I think equally is being more aggressive on the reserve generally to be contingency and the like.

So that will be reflected and reported, which will likely be in May. We won't be giving any other aspects of the Hemi project there, but we will be working on -- we're still working on those numbers in line with expectations around approvals.

But the CapEx you're talking about perhaps is the budget of exploration in the forward years. That will be in the multiple and whether we intend to put money into Hemi, my attitude is, there's enough ounces in the ground without really heavily going into growth.

We don't need it for a trigger for a FID decision. So there might be other opportunities like Pogo or Fimiston where we get much more effective investment in exploration to add ounces to make bigger longer-term decisions than Hemi needs today.

So Hemi might have a lighter approach to that drilling expenditure because there's a very, very solid base for an investment case without it.

Sorry, technical issues, and apologies if some of these have been asked. I was just revisiting firstly on Carosue Dam and Simon, your comment that the open pit mining concludes.

I appreciate you've probably got new open pits that need developing. But I guess just to clarify around the timing, is that decision in the open pits this quarter and maybe demobilize that fleet largely around the strip ratio increasing and the diesel requirements that go into that.

And then you're able to maybe talk through anything around the underground mining rate and grade going forward from here to potentially offset the fall in gold production by processing stockpiles?

Yes. Thanks, Hugo.

No, look, just to be clear, it's not around diesel and trying to conserve. I'll slow down open pit mining due to diesel.

It's purely the mine sequencing. So mines coming and going at that asset is fairly normal over the journey.

It's just we've reached the end of the current open pits, 11 bells Redbrook finishes this quarter, then we might have some box cuts and a few things to do early in FY '27, but there's no ounces attached to that. It's more setting up for the next leg of the underground growth.

So probably the best way to think about it is when we do the Investor Day later on this calendar year. We could really show with a bit more visibility on some of the sequencing of the mines.

That's helpful. So if we think about it today, then realistically, the underground rates aren't picking up that materially, you're probably seeing Carosue drop below that 200,000 ounces a year for the next couple of years where you do that underground development?

It could do. We're still working through that, but we've got some good growth at Dervish.

So we'll see how that plays out when we do the resource and the reserves and then feed that current information back into the life of asset mining plan.

Got it. That's helpful.

And then, Ryan, just sort of running back on the buyback piece, just confirming then to the timing and magnitude of the buyback as it stands purely a value decision on your stock and then maybe come August as KCGM and your capital requirements become a little bit clearer. Should we consider scope to maybe take this to a magnitude you've previously targeted as being more meaningful around the buyback?

I think everything is always on the table, Hugo. We want to allocate our capital to the best return.

So buyback is something if it gets exhausted, if we're through it quickly, it's always -- we're always able to assess new opportunity there. And as I said, we're not too far away from seeing that change in free cash flow.

There's challenges across the business. There's challenges in oil, all these things.

So right now, we've decided on that, I guess, quantum. We're ready to act.

And I guess we'll make those decisions as positive time plays out.

Just with KCGM mill expansion, the CapEx. Can you just help us understand the split between construction productivity and cost inflation and which is proving harder to control as we move through commissioning.

Yes. So -- thanks, Jonathon.

So look, there's no lift about $60 million for that project that we've just reported, so 30 this year for next year. I'd say, and it then knocks through to the other, but probably 2/3 of that is just the lower productivity.

So you've got more people doing the same work at that elevated cost. In turn, cost escalation is occurring, not just through diesel but through all other things, and labor is embedded in all of those cost escalations, which we don't see easing.

So that's been a large part of -- you have extra labor, it flows through to commuting that labor, housing that labor, the consumables they use, all of those things knock through. But yes, it's a reality that underpins anyone spending money at the moment.

Yes. Okay.

That's clear. And just as you move through commissioning without getting into commercially sensitive detail, does the main contract to remain accountable through wet commissioning, performance testing and other performance incentives acceptable criteria tied to sort of final handover, just interested in knowing a little bit of detail on that?

For sure. I mean, there's pretty traditional standard things where you do a handover and it's got to make criteria, so that's embedded.

And look, we've got the commitment from the contractor that they want to see this working as well as we do and promote it for the next opportunity. So that's there.

Equally, we've got the same contractor doing Stage 2. It's a different structure, again, different incentivization.

So our approach to that is going well. And Simon spoke to 95% of the stage 1 is complete.

Nearly 50% of Stage 2 is complete and those structures drive that behavior largely. So yes, we're okay with those things, and we'll be tracking and checking those things closely.

We won't be silly on the risk balance here. If it comes down to disputes around small amounts of quality, we think running the plant and addressing some of those things as we go rather than not waiting to move in new house to your fly screens are on, we'll be sensible in the timing of that.

Thanks for the color on the increase in fuel prices. Assuming mostly it's related to diesel.

But just looking at the midpoint of guidance, I mean, that's implying about a 3% increase in your cost base. Just wondering if you go back to the start of FY '26, prior to the diesel price escalation.

Can you give us any color on what diesel prices were as a percentage of cost base for the business?

They're probably -- Adam, it's Ryan. That's basically doubled, I guess, in this quarter that we're forecasting.

They're probably 4% of our business, I'd say, back then. Now they're obviously pushing 7%, 8% for the quarter.

That's good. And just secondly, on clearly, a lot of optionality for you guys to deploy that.

Just wondering if you've considered any minimum net cash threshold before you deploy it, noting you've got $320 million at the end of the quarter, I'd say that you wouldn't draw down on the $1.75 billion corporate bank facility to prioritize the buyback, for example.

I think, Adam, what I'd say is, yes, we want to maintain good liquidity. We've got good flexibility on our balance sheet if we have to draw debt if for whatever purpose.

And we see the cash flows ahead, right? So we're sitting here in late April.

The mill will turn on early FY '27. We're really looking forward to that.

We see what's ahead. There's challenges in the sort of more global economy with oil, but we feel is on with our balance sheet, with our cash and bullion on hand, we can manage that.

Okay. Well, thanks, everyone, for joining us on the call, and I appreciate your interest in the company on what is a very busy day.

Thanks very much.