Thank you, Darcy, and all for joining Coronado's December and final quarter call for 2025. Today we released our quarterly report to the ASX and filed with the SEC.

Today I am joined by our Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Thompson, and Chief Financial Officer, Barrie Vandenmier. Within our report you will see our notice regarding forward-looking statements and reconciliations of certain non-U.S.

GAAP financial measures. I also remind everyone that Coronado quotes all numbers in U.S.

dollars and metric tons unless otherwise stated. I'll now hand over the call to Douglas.

Thank you, Chantelle, and thank you everybody for making the time to join us today. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge two tragic incidents that occurred since mid-December.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and teammates affected by these tragic events. These events are unacceptable, and we continue to work with the relevant authorities and our contracting partners to investigate.

The safety and the health of our people are and will remain our highest priority. The journey this company has been on over the past three years has been significant.

In 2022, we committed to a disciplined multi-year improvement plan. We always said that if we executed consistently across our cost base, operational stability, fleet performance, workforce capability and capital discipline, it would pay off.

Today we can say it has paid off. The structural change to Coronado performance is now unmistakable.

We have sustainably lowered our cost base, increased production across both regions, and stabilized operating assets and expanded our capacity in line with our long-term strategy. Importantly, the business is now more predictable, more resilient and better positioned to leverage improving market conditions than at any point in the past seven years.

Turning to the highlights for financial 2025 and December quarter. We delivered saleable production of 16 million tons, which is a 4% increase year-on-year, finishing at the lower end of guidance.

Group average mining cost per ton sold averaged $97 a ton, a 10% reduction year-on-year. Capital spend was $245 million for the year, at the bottom end of guidance, and the major investment phase for the business is now complete.

We closed the year with exit run rates that outperformed guidance, which demonstrates the structural shifts in the production and cost. We had the highest quarterly sales since 2021 quarter three, and sales volumes increased by 11% quarter on quarter.

Operating costs was reduced by approximately $300 million across the year. The Buchanan expansion and Mammoth underground reached expected run rates in the second half of the year, and Curragh's second half saleable production averaged 36% higher than the first half of the year, and remained consistently above 1 million tons per month for the half year.

Focus now shifts to the CHPP upgrades to maximize margin from the now stable low-cost mining base. Material liquidity support from Stanwell reflects our critical role in Queensland's energy security.

$150 million was provided mid-2025, and then the subsequent transaction brought forward the 2027 reset we've all been waiting for, with rebate forgiveness and price support that exceeded the original reset expectations for 2027 that we'll now enjoy. For 2026, Stanwell's mechanisms are expected to provide between $200 and $250 million of cash flow uplift, depending on prices and nominated tonnages.

We also secured a five-year $265 million covenant-lite ABL facility at 9%, which was fully drawn in December and enabled full repayment of the Oaktree facility and strengthened our near-term liquidity. Stepping back on this year, the message is simple.

Our operating base is now more predictable, our cost structures are materially lower, and our expansion investments are delivering, and we have meaningful leverage to improving prices, a clear path to stronger cash generation, balance sheet deleveraging, and future shareholder returns. Focusing on our group's performance, the quarter delivered continued strong operating results.

We achieved the highest quarterly and half-year sales volume since 2021. We also set new quarterly and half-year records for ROM and saleable production, the strongest half-year since 2019 for ROM and since 2021 for saleable production.

Unit costs continue to trend down. ROM production costs per ton averaged $56 a ton, the lowest since 2021, and 15% improvement over the past two years.

This reflects the disciplined execution of our improvement plan, including higher dragline utilization and tighter cost control. Our expanded infrastructure at Buchanan and Mammoth is now delivering higher and more stable run rates, translating into meaningful cost and productivity gains, and contributed approximately 1 million tons of incremental saleable tons across the group for the year.

The system capacity now 16% above pre-investment levels. We enter 2026 in a materially stronger position to utilize this additional capacity as market conditions allow.

For the full year, we closed at 16 million tons of saleable production, a 4% increase year on year. Looking ahead, we expect to lift production rates in 2026, supported by our expansion projects.

In Australia, the Curragh complex delivered a strong December quarter across all key metrics, with record ROM production and sales volume surpassing levels last achieved in 2020. Our dragline system operated at their highest levels since acquisition of the mine in 2018, consistently accounting for approximately 50% of total waste movement, up from historic levels of 30%.

This is a significantly lower cost method to move prime waste versus truck excavate. These gains reflect the One Curragh plan, which continues to improve pit configuration, decongest operating areas, enhance strike length and enable sustained gains from fleet rationalization procurement and cost management.

At Mammoth, the mine ran all three production panels and achieved run rates equivalent to 2 million tons per year during quarter four. As a result, the mining cost per ton sold in Q4 remained below the low end of guidance.

To convert the now stable low-cost mining into maximized margin, we will execute targeted CHPP upgrades early this year. While these works may moderate production in the March quarter, they are designed to unlock additional processing capacity and product yield, strengthening cash generation.

As noted in our report, Cyclone Koji impacted the Bowen Basin earlier this month. We therefore expect variability in quarter one's performance.

What is pleasing is our recovery. Improved resilience of Curragh complex enabled a much better than historic response and recovery, and we continue to ship committed product to our clients.

In the U.S., Buchanan delivered its strongest month since August 2022 during December. We recorded record daily ROM production and record skip counts as the expansion project benefits came to light.

In December alone, Buchanan generated approximately 400,000 tonnes of saleable production, $20 million of earnings, and achieved a $67 a ton unit rate for the month. A great achievement and demonstrates our expectations when we look forward.

Expansion is delivering as intended. The additional raw and product stockpiles and the second set of skips have increased capacity and created redundancy, enabling a sustained 1 million ton annualized run rate in December.

These facilities also decouple maintenance schedules between the mine and the processing plant, improving overall efficiencies. Poor technical conditions in both the north and the southern long walls during October and then in November constrained production, resulting in a modest quarter-on-quarter reduction.

However, Buchanan's structural improvements to long walls, higher skip capacity and expanded stockpiles all reduce costs, sustain higher production than at the time of acquisition and support a long life of more than 20 years. At Logan, our four underground mines performed to plan and met forecast production for the quarter.

The minor vessel delay into January increased site and port inventories but did not impact the mines nor did it impact plant performance, and these inventories will support sales volumes during two long wall moves scheduled for the March quarter, one that we're in the process of executing and almost complete. With that, I will now hand over to Barry to speak to the financial position.

Thank you, Douglas, and good morning, everyone. As Douglas said earlier, the production and cost results we announced this morning is the result of hard work and dedication of many people over the course of the last three years or so.

With the market starting to show signs of improvement, Coronado is well positioned to take advantage of this with our ramped-up projects, lower capital expenditure, good cost control, more robust debt structure, and improved liquidity position, and support from Stanwell if liquidity weakens. Starting with costs, in FY25 we achieved approximately $300 million U.S.

dollars in operating cost reductions versus the prior year. Both Curragh and Buchanan averaged around $86 a ton over the last three quarters.

This marks a structural shift in the cost position, with both those assets now firmly within the midpoint of the industry cost curve. With a full year of production from the expansion projects, improving prices, and the earlier than planned reset of the Stanwell agreement, profitability and cash flow will benefit materially in FY26.

For the year, the group averaged mining costs of $97.60 a ton, which is a material improvement from $107 in FY24 and $108 in FY23. This cost performance is below the midpoint of guidance for FY25, and this was at 64.5 cents FX on average for the year.

The December quarter was Curragh's strongest for the year, with continuing consistent production of 1 million tons per month achieved since June. This is off the back of consistent ROM production and stable mining operations.

Having established this rhythm in the mining process and the production bottleneck shifting to the plants, we are starting FY26 with a major plant shutdown for two weeks in February to work on plant reliability and maximizing the margin from every ton. With a full year of production from Mammoth in FY26, the learnings from the ramp-up embedded in the operation, stable mining performance, and the benefits of the February plant shut, as well as a PLV index that has risen approximately 30% over the last three months, Curragh is set for a profitable and cash-positive FY26, and price and cash flow downside is protected by the recent Stanwell transaction.

Douglas said earlier, the challenges Buchanan experienced with geological conditions in October and November eased up during December. The mine generated $20 million in EBITDA in one month, with a PLV index at $212 a ton, well below current trading levels.

That one-month achievement was almost a third of the full year's earnings in one month. This shows the value of the recent innovative, capital-light expansion project that repurposed an unused ventilation shaft to install added skip capacity.

For the full year, the mine was also cash break-even after funding its own expansion capex at a PLV index of $188 a ton. This shows the quality of Buchanan, and with the benefit of a full year of the expanded capacity and higher prices, Buchanan is set for strong cash generation in FY26.

Capex spend as planned was $38 million in the December quarter and $245 million for the year. This is the bottom of guidance, reflects the completion of our major investment phase.

As these assets now move from ramp-up to steady-state, we expect cash generation in FY26, provided market conditions remain positive, as was the case over the last month. Approximately $150 million of short-term liquidity management and working capital initiatives highlighted at the end of quarter three were fully settled by year-end.

We closed December with $173 million of cash and did not pull any liquidity management or working capital management levers at the end of FY25. The $173 million cash balance is therefore fully available to the business, and there has not been a large outflow of any cash in January to unwind any such short-term initiatives.

On 1 December, we fully drew the new $265 million nine percent ABL facility and repaid the Oaktree credit facility in full. The ABL has no earnings covenants for the first two years and does not contain any hair triggers that can result in review events, defaults, or mandatory prepayments.

It represents long-term debt committed in the business for five years at competitive rates, which is provided by Stanwell, with whom we have material common interests regarding Queensland's energy security and the regional Blackwater economy. Our high-yield notes only mature in 2029, and we therefore have no near-term debt maturities, which allows us to continue to focus on running our operations.

The recent reset of the Stanwell arrangement brings forward the originally expected FY27 reset. It waives the remaining ACCA rebate for FY26 and the early part of FY27 and establishes a prepayment mechanism when liquidity is below $250 million.

This puts Coronado in a better liquidity and cash flow position than that originally expected for FY27. Depending on prices and Stanwell's nominated tonnages, this will add approximately $200 to $250 million of cash flow in FY26.

This is in addition to the approximate $400 million ABL and prepayments provided in FY25. The extent of this support clearly recognizes Coronado's common interests with Stanwell and the importance of the company's contribution to Queensland's energy security and broader economy.

It provides a material capital structure and liquidity underpin that protects cash flow when liquidity levels drop below $250 million. In FY26, we will continue our disciplined cost control.

We’ll have lower capital expenditure too. We will benefit from a full year of volumes from the expansions that are in steady state.

Cash flow will benefit from the latest Stanwell agreement. Improved market conditions and continuing work on minority disposals will focus on improving the capital structure by reducing debt, while at the same time providing shareholder returns.

We’ll also ensure that we have liquidity contingency plans in place, ranging from liberating cash from cash-backed guarantees when our credit rating improves, factoring and unsecured short- and longer-term pre-payments for coal if temporary liquidity buffers are required. We will be releasing our financial results for 2025 and 2026 guidance to the market on 24 February 2026.

With that, I’ll hand you back to Douglas for the market outlook and closing remarks. Thanks.

Thanks, Barry. In quarter four, the PLV hard coking coal Australian index averaged $200 a ton, with prices rallying sharply from October through to mid-December and reaching $218 a ton late in the quarter.

That was the highest since July 2024, and as we entered 2026, those prices continued to strengthen. Supply-side factors drove much of the price increases: wet weather in Queensland in December, and that continued into January, and ongoing mining inspections and enforcement activities in China during October and November, and broader trade flow constraints, including the pace of Mongolia border clearances.

For the March quarter, we expect prices to remain supported by firm India demand, seasonal Australian weather risk, and continued supply rationalisation. Coronado’s footprint across Australia and the U.S.

positions us well as global trade flows continue to shift. In the U.S., changes in tariff structures and steel sector policies are reshaping traditional export pathways, putting greater pressure on the high-cost producers.

In this environment, our low-cost Buchanan complex remains competitively placed, with flexibility to serve non-European markets, while our Australian operations continue to benefit from strong demand. At the same time, the high-Vol segment in the U.S.

remains structurally challenged, narrowing market access for operations like Logan and underscoring the importance of maintaining portfolio optionality as trade patterns evolve. Over the medium term, our outlook remains positive as steel production outside of China recovers and trade policies continue to favour markets across several regions.

In this environment, Coronado is well placed to benefit from price changes through our higher production from our expansion projects and structurally lower cost base and increased operating predictability. Together with the Stanwell reset and restored liquidity, these factors position us to convert price momentum into stronger earnings and cash generation.

With that, I’ll hand over to Darcy and we welcome your questions.

Thanks, just obviously the fatalities in the last month or so no one wants to see, and I’m guessing there are lots of activities going on behind the scenes to understand the root cause towards those fatalities across the U.S. and Australian operations.

Can you share with us, especially in the case of Mammoth, what the initial learnings are? How confident are you that the risks can be managed and operations can return back to normal?

Rob, thank you. They are tragic incidents that occurred, and unfortunately both of these are subject to investigation.

One needs to be careful what is communicated, but also stick closely to the facts when talking about them. Let me say this: the Logan incident, the operations have returned to normal works, and there are no constraints on the operations post the incident, and that investigation will be ongoing outside of the ops.

With the incident that’s occurred down in Australia, investigations are ongoing. There is a milestone date 20 days after the incident, which we are still within, to submit to the regulator what is called the Section 201 investigation report, and that the operators of Mammoth Mine will be submitting to the regulator.

Then post that, we’ll be able to talk more about that incident. I can assure you that all efforts are being made by us, as demonstrated in the past, that these tragic events get the benefit of the full focus of the business, and all the learnings that we can get from it are shared with the industry as quickly as possible to prevent future incidents where learnings can be drawn.

Sorry, as a follow-up, I think in your report you said you did quite uplifts of that CAR related to Mammoth and continued cost improvement expected in 26. Are we expecting, based on that commentary, that following that 20-day deadline, that milestone date, that operations will resume and that they’ll ramp back up to close to 100% of the trajectory they were on prior to the incident?

If you don’t mind, I’ll break your questioning into two pieces. One is me setting a date of when the regulator will lift the directive that we have, because we are allowed to enter the mine, we are allowed to do all other works except coal winning works at the moment.

That directive is public and you can read it. Works is ongoing in the mine, other than coal winning at the moment with the team.

With regards the regulator lifting the directive, that’s between the coal mine operator, the contracting company that we’ve appointed to do the work, and them, and we are clearly very interested and involved in the investigation and ensuring that we return to work safely as soon as possible. With regards Mammoth’s capacity to ramp up after the event and keep operations going, I foresee, with my experience, no reason why, once the directive is lifted, that operations will return to our planned production rates from that mine.

Thank you. I’ll pass it on.

Appreciate the color.

No worries.

Morning. Sorry, I just don’t quite understand the answer to the question before on Mammoth.

Is there a set date, or is it just the negotiation between the contractor and the safety regulator? This could go on longer?

Good, in short, yes. There are milestones that under the law you need to comply with as a coal mine operator, and as I said the contractor in this case is the coal mine operator.

You’ve got a milestone date to submit an investigation under the Act, which is called the Section 201 report, and we’re still within the 20 days that that is due for submission. That is the milestone that I’m referring to.

Then it’s between the regulator who has issued the directive to determine the lifting thereof, and that’s obviously working through that we can demonstrate our controls are appropriate to ensure safe works.

That’s much clearer. It’s between the regulator and the contractor, and how long is a piece of string.

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe could you just talk a little bit to the status of discussions, I might have missed it, with the Queensland government over whether you need to cash back the rehabilitation fund for Curragh?

What's the status there? Thanks.

Glyn, I'll say a couple of things. One is how the world has changed.

Obviously the state regulator has got an obligation to do their determinations, which they did last year. A lot of what the assessment is based on, if you go look at the framework that they're obliged to work within, was based on rating agency determinations, and then the scheme manager has discernment from there.

We've met with them, we've shown them our modelling. We've shown them subsequent to their discernment.

This is really important pullout. They made their determination on what was information at a certain time.

Post that, we could only make public to them the deal that we struck with Stanwell. We met with them subsequent to that again, and even this month we provided them further information to support the importance of Curragh to Stanwell and Queensland's energy sector, and our liquidity improvement strategies that we committed to them have now all been delivered, and our improved position.

They're now working through that information that we've given them, and we're looking forward to their reported outcome.

Again, is there a timeline for a resolution, or at least a ruling?

They have indicated to us that within their framework, and always there's outs within that, it will be in the month of February.

February this year. Okay.

If I could squeeze in a last one, I was interested in your comments around the high-vol met coal market and the issues that Logan faces now with uncertain pathways both domestically and export. Where does that leave you with Logan then now?

Is it formally up for sale, or what's your thought process? Because you obviously talk about other ways to unwind the debt structure of the business.

Glyn, as you track this, I read a lot of what you write about it, you're as well informed, or if not better informed than anybody. The high-vol market is in oversupply in the United States at the moment.

U.S. market is talking about reduction in domestic steel production this year and next.

What's happening with tariffs and threats around tariffs is impacting the Canadian market. There's a lot of fluidity in the negotiations that are ongoing in the U.S.

at the moment. There's a few producers that have recently spent a lot of money bringing longwall operations online that produce high-vol A and B, and are looking to place that into the market.

The work that the team has done over the last three years, as you can see in the results we're speaking about today and the capital investments behind us, and particularly the Stanwell reset, we're now in a fortunate position to pivot to margin and ensuring that we drive good margin out of the business. That includes us looking at our portfolio of products that we produce and looking at where do we deploy our investors' capital into the future for the best sustained returns.

Now Logan does have contracted tonnes that we committed to and we continue working towards, and we will be reviewing all of that as part of our strategic plans.

Okay. All right.

Thanks very much, Douglas.

No worries.

Thanks for taking the question. Probably just wanted to start with, I guess, cyclone Koji impacts there, and I guess how you outlined that you have better weather initiatives to set the operations up.

Are you currently through a lot of that? Are you still seeing impacts from your operations?

Are you able to split or define what inventory level you have at both of the sites and if any of that inventory is portside?

Thanks for the question. There's a little bit of noise on the line, please forgive me if I get it precisely wrong and don't hesitate to correct me.

I think your question related to cyclone Koji and our response to it and what's changed that I can speak to the improved response. There's a whole host of things that have changed at Curragh over the last three years in executing this plan.

Primarily, if you start back in the operations, our pre-strip situations, particularly in our northern mine, which is dragline-dominated at the moment. We have two draglines in the north, two draglines in the south.

We've got good coal in recovery and near coal that is available for mining operations that when you have a weather event like that, you have ingress of water into the mine. It takes you a bit of time to pump the water out or move the water somewhere else and then clean.

We fortunately had coal that was high. We could get back on production relatively quick.

The other resilience to wet weather going forward, and it's adjunct to the mammoth, is we have coal that's been mined from underground now that is stockpiled that we can move to the operations. Now clearly mammoth isn't operating now, but we did have stockpiles of coal that we've got access to and structurally change to Curragh long-term is this augmented coal flow.

It's an added benefit of mammoth. It's not only a lower-cost supply of coal, it's a different mining method that de-risks it.

Then also our inventory positions that we have. If you look at our sales volumes at the back end of last year, a little bit in the U.S.

as I mentioned, but particularly in the Australian area, railing in Australia was a challenge for most people on the Blackwater line. Above rail providers had a whole host of issues that cancelled trains.

We had to pivot our strategy through back end of November, early December around what we moved to port and you will see in the results that we focused on moving met coal to port and honouring our shipments to our clients. We worked with Stanwell on product being available at the mine and ensuring that we got it to the power station for them.

We ended up with very large reserves of inventory, ROM inventory and port inventory and site inventory in particular of product build-up. Unfortunately we didn't get all the sales we wanted, but some of that has played to our hand at the moment and that's why I say we versus others that had to call force majeure, we didn't have to do that because we could meet all our met commitments at the back end of last year and then we had these inventories either in ROM or product that we could keep shipping.

The main thing is the mining method across Curragh is a lot more stable than what it has been in the past. It's taken us a few years to address things like pre-strip deficits, get pit configuration sorted out, getting pumping input and expert resolved, which has set the mine up to be a lot more resilient and able to respond to events like this better than in the past.

All of that I think has answered your question. I heard it correctly and tried to cover most bases very quickly.

No, it hasn't, apologies for the line before, but thank you. Maybe just a clarification there.

There is portside inventory, you'd expect to destock some of that, but that might not be all in Q1 and you could see some of that destocking in Q2. Some of that working capital might still be neutral in Q1 and you might see that outflow further in towards the end of Q1 or Q2.

Is that a correct way of classifying?

Look, our rail has been impacted with the cyclone at the moment. Above-rail providers and actually below-rail providers restricted the number of trains that flowed in the first half or back half of January through to February, and probably a little bit restrictions into February.

We've still been able to get the product to port for our clients, and then importantly, as Barry made a point of as well, we've got a major shutdown on our prep plant at Curragh for two weeks where we're doing some upgrade works to make it more reliable and get better yields out of the system because we've moved the bottleneck there. In that period we've been able to move quite a bit of product to the power stations and then also move what we have at site, or the remainder of what we have to port, and ensure that we meet our obligations.

We don't see much tipping over into the second quarter, but it'll all be in our committed sales for the first

quarter. No, thank you.

Maybe just to follow up on, I guess, working capital as well, you can read obviously that you mentioned working capital charges outstanding have all been cleared in the December quarter. I was just wondering, I guess, are there any outstanding payments or obligations?

Are you expecting any future working capital, I guess, changes in the near term, specifically, I guess, first half 26?

Daniel, thanks for that one. As I said, at Q3 we pulled that working capital lever quite hard due to the cash and liquidity position.

That's all unwound. It's all settled.

The 173 million at the end of December is real cash. It's available.

There's nothing to be caught up from that. I think if you then look forward into Q1, obviously with cyclone impact, fatality impact, especially in Australia, we'll be drawing down on working capital.

There'd be a bit of an inflow of cash, but then as we have the shut, as Douglas explained, I think we'll build up working capital again and then I would think by end of March, it should all flush through.

As we sit here currently, I don't expect a big working capital impact in Q1 if we execute the plan as we've got it.

Perfect. Sorry, last one for me, but the 200 to 250 million dollar liquidity that you've called out for 26, are you able to, I guess, separate that into what proportions from the, I guess, waiver and what proportions from the prepayments?

Outside of the financial conditions, what are the conditions that you would need to see to draw down on that from your perspective and Stanwell's perspective?

Yep. The rebate forgiveness does depend a bit on what the coal price is.

That revenue line drives that, but roughly I'd say you can say that the rebate forgiveness put that at 100 million, and then the rest is the prepayments. The prepayments obviously happens.

It's an automatic trigger depending on our cash balance. If the cash balance is below 250 million dollars, then we get half of the total benefit.

If it's below 200, we get the full benefit. With a full year results we'll give a bit more detail as to exactly how that gets calculated.

As we sit here today with a cash balance of around about $173 million, we'd be entitled to that full benefit of the coal prepayments for every ton that goes to Stanwell. We'd basically be getting paid 90 U.S.

dollars a ton as opposed to the 30 dollars a ton that's in the exa. Then when you cross over 200 million dollars, kind of that margin halves, and so on and so forth.

That's kind of a rough idea, rebate 100, the coal prepayment, the rest, automatic trigger that kicks in depending on our cash position.

Perfect. I really appreciate your answers.

I'll hand it over. Thank you.

Cool.

Good morning, Doug and Sam. Thanks for your time and thanks for taking my question.

I wanted to, I guess, congratulate you on where you've got Curragh in terms of the One Curragh plan, a long time coming. I wanted to also just sort of ask in terms of how we think about going forward, is there more to come?

Are you done? You've had three quarters of sort of stable, pleasing cost performance.

What more can be done sort of on a go-forward basis, obviously outside of additional volumes once mammoth resumes. Thank you.

Thanks, Lachlan. It talks to the strategy for the business.

Look, you're right. We did in 2022 set about a disciplined plan that required a fair amount of engineering time and money to be spent to turn the ship.

The results are there. You can see Curragh has turned the corner and now it's set up to be a low-cost dragline operations augmented with the underground.

There is upside to the plan, as we've been saying all along, there is a Mammoth Two, which is probably two continuous miners that we can expand, and we've taken that to BFS phase, and we'll pause that for the near term because we want to obviously deleverage and strengthen our position as we enjoy the pricing at the moment and enjoy our low-cost base for a period of time. There's upside position there, and then there is a twinkle in my eye with another underground mine.

As these mines in the Bowen Basin age, stripping ratios go up, and having an underground capability that you can still extract a really valuable resource and leverage all the invested infrastructure longer term makes going underground sensibly a very attractive proposition. We're looking at a few other options there, but not for now.

Our from now focus in 26 is improving margins. What we'll be doing, the biggest thing at Curragh is what we're doing in February, is the prep plant upgrades.

Now all the long-lead items for that upgrade was bought in 25, it'll be the works that get executed over the next two weeks or so in February that will give us better reliability and then improve some yield on some of the products that we produce, just replacing old technology with newer technologies. That'll be the biggest, and then we're going to be looking at our mine plans for pivoting where the Stanwell mechanism drove us in the past, particularly because of the rebate situation that we chased incremental tonnages to try and get on the right side of that calculation of it to margin-driven tonnes.

That'll be our focus for the next while. Moving towards, let's get the most that we can out of every ton relevant to what the market is offering us in the near term.

Great, thank you. That's really great colour.

Just my follow-up question, I might have missed it, apologies, I was late on the call, but with Mammoth and, I guess, remediation, I understand there's a question there of just waiting for directive outcomes from the regulator. Do you anticipate any sort of ongoing kind of increases to opex that might flow there from, for example, additional roof stabilisation measures or such measures you might need to take?

Thanks.

Look, I don't want to speculate too much because the investigation is ongoing. I must just call out we're not waiting for the regulator, nor is the regulator just waiting for us to put in our report and then submit.

We are working very constructively with the regulator, and I must commend them and the unions, for the maturity and the professionalism displayed during this incident. We do a couple of things: one, treat the respect of the person who lost their life, Jeff, their family, but then also all the teammates who have worked very diligently to build a world-class operation in Mammoth that they're all very proud of and make sure that they learn from this and move on.

I thank all of them, and that collaborative approach is ongoing, where our accountability is all owned. Everybody is working towards a couple of goals: let's learn from this and ensure that we share it with the industry, and the other is, the best thing for Mammoth and all its people and all agencies agree to this, is getting back to work as quickly as possible and as productively as we can.

Impact on additional support and changes, I don't want to venture there until we have a report upcoming. Let me say this, that I do not see that kind of change being material to the way in which we think about Logan's operations into the future, in any of that that's coming up.

Got it. That's clear.

Thank you. Thanks again, guys.

Good morning, Doug and Barry. Thank you for taking my question.

First question on your U.S. domestic coal sales, which is close to one-third of your U.S.

coal sales. I remember Coronado used to provide the market with a fixed price, which negotiated with the customer for the next two months.

Has that changed for 2026? Because I haven't found any U.S.

domestic coal prices fixed provided in today's release. Thank you.

Chen, no, not necessarily. We're just still in the middle of some of those negotiations, and we don't want to preempt or prejudice our clients as well with sharing information that we shouldn't right now.

When it's appropriate, we'll talk about what the domestic is for Buchanan and Logan into the future.

Sure. You are still in negotiation with your customer for whatever forward price should be for the U.S.

coal for the next two months?

I know. I read some of your stuff as well.

You guys watch that market and understand the high-volume market very closely. What happened around tariffs and U.S.

steel ownership and that negotiations were delayed last year, and then over the Christmas break were delayed even further. Then with what's happened between the U.S.

and Canada and some other trade threats and relief and change, a number of parties have stood on the sideline and just waited to see what exactly the lay of the land was going to be before they commit. Some of that has and continues to impact some of those domestic negotiations.

I will say, as I hinted at earlier, and it is public, some of the producers who have bought longwalls of this type of product and just made major investments into longwalls producing these products, have gone early and secured domestic contracts, but obviously they've got a capital base they need to support. We're not in that situation with Logan.

We're making sure we pick the best opportunities and make the decisions that drive our best outcomes for the business.

One thing to just add to that is that obviously you've got U.S. operations, it's important to delineate between the Logan Ibble and the Buchanan more premium product

space. Yeah.

Sure. Thank you.

Then can I have a follow-up, please? Second question on your potential minority asset disposal in the release.

Are you still exploring that option? Because the metcoal price spot POV hard coking coal, $250 per ton.

I'm wondering under the scenario if current spot stays for the rest of the year, or even for the next year, is the minority asset disposal still under your plan? What's the thinking?

If you can help me to understand why that is still part of your plan. Thank you.

The board has still given me and the team a mandate to look at minority sales. Obviously, we had to do a lot to our balance sheet last year to get through a very difficult year, and I think it's evident in the numbers.

We want to deleverage the business. We have great assets, and we've lots of people that are interested in part of those assets going forward.

As you called out, the world is pretty different. Pricing has improved.

We are a very different business. Our capital projects are now behind us.

They're fully derisked, and clearly by what we've spoken about today, the run rates delivered in the fourth quarter, they are delivering. Like Buchanan that generated $20 million in a month in December and is having another good month this month, frankly, we will make sure that we get maximum value for our shareholders.

We will consider where we're at, where the market's at, and our balance sheet and options to strengthen that versus asset sales. I will say we've had strong interest, and we're well progressed in our discussions with parties on that minority sale.

Sure, understand. Can I squeeze last question?

Because you mentioned the deleverage, and also in today's release mentioned deleverage of the balance sheet. I'm thinking looking at your senior debt, U.S.

400 million, and then you have Stanwell facility, 265 million. That's altogether in total U.S.

665 million, which is still higher than your current market cap. I'm wondering if you can help us to understand your plan, if there is a need to deleverage balance sheet over the, I guess, more medium, long term, if the spot price stays for the next quarters or years, and how you are going to do that given the agreement with Stanwell is in exchange of the thermal coal sales.

Thank you.

Chen, that's very good. I think the way we'd look at it, obviously, if prices hold and stay where it is and it lasts for a year or more than that, Coronado is very well set in that regard because our operational leverage is extremely high.

The business will generate a lot of cash. I think the way we'd go about it will be to build cash against the debt.

Even though we can choose to repay that ABL with Stanwell and prepay it, I think manage liquidity. One would rather keep the flexibility and build up cash and keep the gross debt, and then deal with those debts as they come up to maturity.

I think when we speak about shareholder returns in that sense, I think in the first instance, deleveraging would cause the equity to respond because I think the company's enterprise value is intact and is in a good place, but there's a lot of debt that makes up that enterprise value, as you rightly remarked. Look at the market cap, the debt, and the equity value is kind of approaching parity now.

One would think as you build cash against the debt that you'd see an uplifting in the equity. That's quite simply, I think, what we target.

In terms of the minority sales earlier, if, as Douglas said, we can find a suitable transaction with the right value, that'll help us accelerate deleveraging and get us on the front foot as opposed to just doing it through operating cash flow as and when we generate it.

Great. That's very good color, Barrie.

To clarify, I guess the plan from here is just to building up cash, and then how we should look at it is the net debt rather than total debt, because total debt is still relatively high, and then the maturity is very, very long dated, probably 2027 onwards. Okay.

That's very clear. Thank you.

I think that's what you do in the first instance, to just preserve your liquidity position. If the high price continues for the second and the third year, then I think you'd start looking at kind of how do you do a more comprehensive balance sheet refinancing that maybe resets maturities and kind of cost of debt and those things.

I'm conscious that it's two days of PLV above 250, so long may it last.

Yep. Okay.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

I'll pass on.

Thanks, Darcy. As Barry said, long may it last above 250.

For a team to set about a multi-year plan to improve a business takes discipline and resilience and focus. I am very proud of and very grateful for the people in our business that have demonstrated the resilience and consistency to ensure that we made real progress in these plans that we can demonstrate and set the business up for the long term and the celebration of the important milestones in this plan along the way.

While this all occurred and while we focused on the plan, we obviously went through some very difficult times last year as a business, and the team stuck to the plan and have delivered it and ensured that they set the business up now for the future to enjoy the market that we're now talking about, as Barry said, long may 250 last. With that, thank you very much, everybody, for joining today on the call.

If you got any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to our investor relations team. As Chantelle is always happy to help you understand from a delivery reasons and the like.