Regis Resources Limited

Thanks, Darcy. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us this morning for the Regis Resources September quarter results.

Joining me today is our Chief Financial Officer, Anthony Rechichi, and our Chief Operating Officer, Michael Holmes; and our Head of Investor Relations, Jeff Sansom. As usual, we will refer to some figures in the quarterly report released earlier this morning.

So please, it might be helpful just to keep it handy as we step through the results. So firstly, starting with safety, as we always do.

Through the quarter on a 12-month moving average basis, our lost time injury frequency rate actually got down to 0. However, unfortunately, towards the end of the quarter, we saw a single LTI occur, which pushed out LTIFR, lost time injury frequency rate, to 0.36, which was in line basically with our performance last quarter.

Now while still below the industry average, as always, we should never be satisfied with any injury. And the team, I know, is driving hard as we are diligent and continue to build a strong disciplined safety culture for our teams across all our operations.

Now on to production performance. The September quarter marked another period of consistent operational delivery and a resultant strong cash generation.

Group production totaled 90,400 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of AUD 2,861 an ounce. And I note that this also includes a noncash charge of just under $200 an ounce, and that relates to drawdown on historic stockpile inventories.

Now we are comfortable with the performance in our first quarter, and we're well positioned to deliver within our FY '26 guidance ranges. From a financial perspective, this quarter has seen another period of unprecedented gold price movements.

Spot gold during the quarter increased over 15% from just over $5,000 an ounce to just under $5,800 an ounce during the quarter. And during that time, we sold at an average price of $5,405 an ounce.

Of course, since the end of the quarter, gold has risen another $500 an ounce, will actually rose more than that, and we have seen this slight correction in the last couple of days, but the fundamentals are still there, and it is a great time to be producing gold. This meant that we grew our cash and bullion position by $158 million for a balance at the end of the quarter of $675 million.

That's another record for Regis and highlights the ongoing strength of the business and really continues to demonstrate the significant cash-generating capacity. We remain debt-free with significant balance sheet flexibility.

From a growth perspective, we saw first ore from our underground development projects at Duketon, and these both remain on target. Now with that, I'll hand over to Michael for more detail on the operational rundown, followed by Anthony, who will cover more on the financials.

Over to you, Michael.

Thanks, Jim, and good morning, everyone. As Jim mentioned, it was disappointing that we had 1 lost time injury in the quarter, which continued our 12-month moving average frequency rate of 0.36.

We are working on numerous initiatives within our operations to reduce the occurrences of safety incidents and injuries. Operationally, the quarter was steady across both sites with results consistent and in line with plan.

At Duketon, we produced 58,400 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $2,832 per ounce, which includes a noncash charge of $238 per ounce. This is a few hundred dollars lower than the previous quarter on stronger production and reduced total material movement with lower open pit waste movement.

During the quarter, open pit mining commenced at King of Creation, recommenced at Gloster and continued at Ben Hur open pits. Our open pits contributed 14,400 ounces at a grade of 0.92 grams per tonne.

Underground mining at Garden Well and Rosemont delivered 31,800 ounces at 1.9 grams per tonne with development totaling 3,990 meters for the quarter. Milling throughput was 2.08 million tonnes at 0.99 grams per tonne with an 88.3% recovery.

Importantly, as Jim mentioned, during the quarter, first ore was mined from stopes at both the Garden Well Main and the Rosemont Stage 3. The first ore contributed to the increased underground ore tonnages compared to the previous quarter.

These 2 underground developments are key contributors to our long-term growth strategy, and Garden Well Main is progressing well towards commercial production in H2 of this financial year, so we should see growth capital from the development roll off towards the end of the year. In light of the ongoing strong gold price environment, the team continues to identify and evaluate options for organic growth across Duketon.

At Tropicana, production was 31,900 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $2,821 per ounce, which includes a noncash charge of $198 per ounce, reflecting solid delivery and grade improvement. Open pit mining delivered 16,100 ounces at 1.6 grams per tonne, with material movement and grade in line with expectations.

Total material movement was elevated related to the previous quarter related to the planned waste mining in the Havana open pit. Over the coming quarters, waste stripping in the Havana pit will ease, and we expect the strip ratio will moderate, and this will be particularly apparent in the second half of FY '26.

Our share of what Tropicana underground delivered was 15,200 ounces at 3.12 grams per tonne and 983 meters of development with a recovery steady at 89.7%. Growth capital was moderate at $3 million with development of Havana underground progressing to plan.

With that, I'll now pass to Anthony for the financials Thanks, Michael.

We're continuing on from a really impressive financial performance that we reported for the full year ended 30 June 2025, with a great start in the first quarter of FY '26. We sold just under 83,000 ounces in the quarter at an average realized gold price of $5,405 an ounce, generating $447 million in revenue.

Operating cash flow was $290 million, including $186 million from Duketon and $104 million from Tropicana. As an aside, when we were selling the gold in and around that $5,500 an ounce mark, the team was ecstatic.

But as Jim mentioned, what a difference of a few weeks makes, noting that while those gold prices were impressive, the recent few weeks of gold sales have been in the $6,000, which is just incredible. It's an amazing time to be in gold really.

Moving on to capital expenditure. We spent $114 million, including $70 million at Duketon, $19 million at Tropicana, and we spent $20 million on exploration.

Within the capital spend amount, $66 million of that was growth capital, with $63 million at Duketon and $3 million at Tropicana. The majority of this spend was related to the underground growth projects.

At Duketon, Garden Well Main is expected to commence commercial production later in the financial year. And therefore, the capital spend in that area from then on will report to sustaining capital, not growth capital anymore.

With this in mind, in the absence of any new organic growth we create along the way, we expect to see the growth capital spend rate reduce as the year goes on. But again, that's on the basis that we don't find anything extra across Duketon that's worth pursuing.

So for cash and bullion, in the end, we closed the quarter with $675 million, which is another record for Regis and the $300 million revolving credit facility remains undrawn. I'll just circle back now to all-in sustaining costs, and Michael mentioned the noncash charges across Duketon and Tropicana, and I want to talk some more about that.

At Duketon, there was a noncash charge of $238 an ounce related to stockpile inventory movements. And at Tropicana, we had a charge of $125 an ounce for the same reasons.

At a group level, that's a charge of $198 an ounce for the quarter. Focusing in on Tropicana, this quarter's all-in sustaining cost per ounce was higher than last quarter.

If you cast your mind back, in the June quarter, Tropicana reported a significant noncash credit related to stockpile survey adjustments. If we net off the noncash stockpile movement impacts for Tropicana, then the all-in sustaining cost per ounce becomes similar across the 2 periods.

On another topic, and as you now know, with the business high profitability and impressive cash generation, the directors declared a final fully franked dividend of $0.05 per share, totaling $38 million off the back of the FY '25 results, and we paid that earlier in this month of October. And as I've mentioned before, due to that strong profitability, Regis will return to a cash tax payment position and is expected to pay approximately $100 million in the third quarter of this FY '26.

So that's all for me. Thank you all, and back to you, Jim.

Thanks, Anthony, and thanks, Michael. At McPhillamys, we're progressing the dual-track strategy to return the project to an approvable status.

And I want to very quickly go over some of the details of the project and remind or highlight why we continue to pursue this line. Look, we released the DFS at McPhillamys back in the middle of last year, and that highlighted a resource of 2.7 million and reserves of 1.9 million At the time we released the DFS, as I said, the reserves were about 1.9 million, which, of course, isn't a reserve anymore, thanks to the Section 10, but the key fact is it's still in the ground and quite valuable at the moment.

As expected, it was to have a mine life of around 10 years, so an average production of 185,000 ounces per annum, at a capital cost of $1 billion and a life of mine average all-in sustaining of something like $1,600 an ounce. Now I do have to say that as a result of the Section 10 declaration, of course, the project is no longer viable in its current form, and we were through the DFS.

However, if you benchmark the project on those metrics I just mentioned and look at the spot gold price today where it's sitting around $6,300, that gives nearly 3/4 or gives well over $2 million a day, $3.5 billion in pretax cash flow each year on average. Now that's the value to our shareholders.

But there is also other stakeholder value in addition to this such as the value that it represents in New South Wales. And this would be significant.

It takes the form of 300 steady-state jobs over -- well over now with this price $366 million in royalties along with millions in local rates and taxes. The list of benefits goes on as it always does when we have a grown-up conversation about the real contribution mine makes to our Australian economy and the quality of life, but that's a topic for another time.

So with these multiple value benefits for many stakeholders, we are committed in our drive towards a positive outcome for the McPhillamys Gold project. And to that end, we continue to prepare the legal challenge of the Section 10 declaration, and we expect that to be in mid-December.

And in parallel, we're also investigating alternative waste disposal options and concepts. This dual-track approach aims to put Regis in a position where we could conceivably return the project to an approvable status and positioned to proceed under either outcome, albeit with probably different time lines.

Now back to our current operations. As Michael and Anthony have discussed, the quarter was in line with expectations.

And as we sit here today, we are very comfortable with our FY '26 guidance range and see no changes required there. We'll maintain capital discipline focused on generating strong margins for our core assets while positioning the business for future growth.

As also noted by Michael and Anthony, we continue to seek out organic opportunities that make good economic sense in this new gold price environment. Our exploration team continues with their focus on conversion and extensional drilling to build long-term optionality.

And I haven't said anything -- I won't say anything more on that, but I do note that we will be providing a midyear exploration update later on this quarter. So to summarize, our team has delivered another quarter of consistent performance that has enabled us to capitalize on the exceptional gold price.

Cash and bullion is up $158 million to a record $675 million. First ore mine from Garden Well Main and also Rosemont Stage 3, and we continue to ramp up both of these underground projects.

Ongoing development at Havana Underground. We continue to seek out and evaluate organic growth opportunities within Duketon.

McPhillamys is progressing through both legal and technical pathways. And finally, but very importantly, our FY '26 guidance is reaffirmed.

So thanks for this morning. I'll now open the floor up to questions and back to you, Darcy.

Obviously, as you said, a great time to be in gold. Just first one for me, just a clarification on the McPhillamys project.

Just with the hearing in mid-December, do you have a rough time line for when you'd expect an outcome after that hearing?

Yes, sometime after that hearing. I mean, unfortunately, these -- as we know, the courts run to their own beat.

We would like to think that we would get a result back sometime in the first quarter of next year, but that's not certain. Remembering and understanding the legal process here, it's not actually an overturning of the decision.

It's a process of going through and convincing the judge that there were elements of the process that we felt we were significantly disadvantaged over. And as a result, of that, the judge sort of says, well, the decision is set aside.

The minister, who is a new minister now, of course, presumably asked the department to correct the injustices, for want of a better description, or the correct the flaws in the process. And then the minister will make a new determination.

How long that takes, there is no time line to that? It could easily be out to the end of next year.

Got it. That's helpful color.

And then just the second one for me just at Tropicana, just observing that your partner there had put in and then recently got an environmental approvals for a power plant expansion and a new pace plant there to support the Boston Shaker. Could you just provide a little bit of color around the need for the paste plant?

Has there been a change in geological conditions what you expected? Or was it more around cost and greater ore recovery that you're putting that in?

And then just any comments around sort of timing and cost benefits there?

No. I mean the power thing is pretty obvious.

We'll need more power. And the paste fill is really, it's a trial at the moment, and it's driven by the potential to improve overall economics by increasing ore extraction ratios.

And in terms of timing of having that trial up and running?

I mean there's a trial in the first instance and then there will be -- have to be a decision, and that's on the -- on when it would -- a full approach will be implemented, and there's no timing on that, but I would consider that to be a least a year.

Just exploring a little bit more of the returns piece of the big cash pile you built and building in the context of these growth options. So how are you thinking about it?

Is there a scope to formalize some sort of returns policy? Or do we really need to wait for McPhillamys or potentially something from inorganic [indiscernible]?

Yes. Look, I mean, it's -- you're the first person who asked that question lately.

Look, the first thing -- and I guess, historically, what we've done is we've pointed to the fact that the company and the Board has always had a strong view on returning returns to shareholders via dividends. And it's great and very pleasing to see that as we've moved our way through all the recapitalization and the hedge books over the years that we've been able to return and the debt, of course, for Tropicana, we've been able to return to a position to be able to pay dividends.

And our view has always been where we've got the capacity to do it and it makes sense, we will look at that ongoing process very favorably. But as you pointed out, we don't have a policy.

That is something that we are under consideration at the moment. And I would imagine as we work our way through that, we'll make some decision on that over the coming months.

The next key time for us to make any another decision on whether a dividend is payable or not. And obviously, it's a pretty favorable environment at the moment, but I wouldn't want to preempt anything, but the next time to be making any decision would be the half year results because we look at it on a half year and full year basis.

So yes, no, we don't have a policy. We've always said that where we've got the money and the -- it's an important part of our reason for being is to return -- make a return to our investors via dividends as well as regular growth.

So -- and that's what we plan to continue to do. We just don't have a locked-in policy at this stage.

Just a question on the McPhillamys study just looking at the dry stack tailing options. Just wondering on the timing of those studies?

And will that be affected by the judicial review? So for example, if it falls in your favor, are we likely to see that study a bit sooner maybe as you sort of -- or should I say, if it falls in your favor, we likely never to see that study?

Or if it falls against you, are you like to see it a little bit sooner as you try and get it out to market as quickly as possible?

Look, our intention is, as I said, we're running a dual track. I think our preferred scenario because it's probably a little bit more timely and requires less additional approvals is -- and test work is to return to the original DFS concept, i.e., what I'm saying there is we much prefer to win the -- we much prefer to be successful in the challenge of the Section 10 and then follow that through with an appropriate decision by the minister after his review.

That's the way we prefer it to go. But we don't want to sit around in hope, so we've also planned to find and prove up this alternative method.

Probably the reality of that is that it's going to take, at this stage, it could take considerably longer for us to work that through. But the initial test work that we've done is encouraging.

It's really a timing issue and making sure that we understand all the risks that this now introduces that we didn't have before and have we got everything in place. So the short answer to your question is we prefer the Section 10 to be successful, but we'll continue to pursue the other one.

And if the Section 10 is successful and that's great because it means we've probably got a better time line as well.

Yes. Sorry I was on mute.

Yes. No, sorry, I was on mute.

And just a follow-up. I mean I know you're working through the study, and it's very early stage, but is it the intention for these dry stack tailings studies to retain the relative scope and scale of the old plan at McPhillamys?

Or are you -- or is there some tinkering to be done with the dry stack tailings studies that might see a [ biggering ] of the project or a bit of a trimming as well? Or is it roughly the same with the dry stack scenario [ bolted ] on the back end?

In terms of footprint, it's probably a little smaller. So it's not actually -- the concept that we're working on is not so much a dry stack.

It's an integrated waste landform. So we -- there's -- obviously, in terms of what can move as much as I'd like to, we can't move the ore body.

The process plant probably stay roughly where it is. There's a big waste rock dump that's already there.

It's already part of the approval. But obviously, if we co-mingle the tails in that, then whatever we don't put in the tailings because we won't be able to which has to go under the waste rock dump.

And that's why it's sort of, that's why it's called an integrated waste landform. And that would need to be bigger.

And so there's a few things that we have to go through and get, work on to see whether that requires extensive changes or reasonably modest modifications. And so that's all part of the work that's kicking off at the moment.

Apologies. I wasn't very clear.

I mean as in sort of, I guess, the processing capacity scale. So the project itself would be on a similar scale.

Yes. No, it'd be a similar scale.

I mean basically, the concept is you put -- it's not unusual. It's reasonably common certainly in South America, where water is exceptionally at altitude where it's scarce.

And there's a couple of operations here in Australia, one over here in WA that uses a form of it. So it's not uncommon, but it is something that involves more equipment.

But our plan would be to maintain the scale of the operation as it currently isn't just changed the back end of it.

No worries. That's very clear.

Just more on observation. I suppose it sounds like McPhillamys, understandably, is getting quite a bit of attention from you guys.

Is that because sort of [indiscernible] the inorganic opportunities that are a bit sort of thinner on the ground and I guess, sort of harder to find value in the current market and McPhillamys obviously has those really compelling metrics that you mentioned -- referenced before?

Yes. Good question, David.

Look, I don't think what -- I guess the question don't misinterpret the fact that we only talk about McPhillamys as we're only inwardly focused. We do talk about it because I do genuinely think that the market doesn't recognize the value that's there.

I mean, basically, what we're saying is one way or another, this thing is going to be developed. It's really just a question of when.

And if you're sitting down and trying to work out what the value is -- in this new price environment that we see gold in, and frankly, this is not a flash in the pan. This is, you can see that there are global fundamentals that have driven us to this new level from where we were 18 months or 2 years ago.

So it reminds us that we need to -- our team needs to keep pushing on and make sure that, that becomes approved in one form or another, and then we can develop it. The thing is the time line.

So that could be a couple of years out. And so that we put our effort into it and you can see we're spending not an insignificant amount at the moment on an annual basis on that works under the McPhillamys guidance that we've given, but that doesn't mean that we're not looking for near-term opportunities to sit between now and then either, which is definitely on our agenda and probably everybody's at the moment, but then we're no different.

Cool. And then just sort of sticking with the organic opportunities.

You mentioned with this price that everyone's out sort of looking hard and reviewing the at Duketon in particular. Can you give us a bit more detail on some of the opportunities that might be emerging up there?

Look, we've -- at the moment, the exploration side of things is pretty interesting and getting exciting again for us, but we haven't really got anything material to sort of hang our head on there yet, although, I guess, we'll keep an eye for whatever it is those time. And -- but if you look at what else and what Michael and Anthony were talking about is where there's no doubt about it that this at this new price environment, we can go back to some of our old pits, be they big or small.

And sometimes it's a small ones that are actually the opportunity or back to -- even back to some of our old oxide stomping grounds. We look and go, well, hang on at $5,000 or $6,000 an ounce.

This stuff is actually quite viable. And so they are the things that we're looking at.

I don't really not in a position, really, I don't really want to go through the nuts and bolts of the individual items. But when we get something that is material, we will certainly update the market on that so that what you can add to our model and add to your valuation work.

So we are doing plenty of it at the moment. We're just not in a position yet to strike it into a gold bar.

Thanks, Darcy. And thanks, everyone.

Thanks, especially for the folks that asked questions. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the rest of your day.

Take care.