Thank you, Operator, and hello, everyone. Thank you for joining today's conference call to discuss SSR Mining's fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 financial results.

Our consolidated financial statements have been presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

These financial statements have been filed on EDGAR and SEDAR, and they are also available on our website. There is an online webcast accompanying this call, and you will find the information to access the webcast in this afternoon's news release and on our corporate website.

Please note that all figures discussed during the call are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated.

Today's discussion will include forward-looking statements, please read the disclosures in the relevant documents. Additionally, we refer to non-GAAP financial measures during our discussion and in the accompanying slides.

Please see our press release for information about the comparable GAAP measures. Rod Antal, Executive Chairman, will be joined by Michael Sparks, Chief Financial Officer, and Bill MacNevin, EVP, Operations and Sustainability, on today's call.

I will now turn the line over to Rod.

Great. Thank you, Alex, and good afternoon to you all.

We closed 2025 on a high note, delivering full-year production above the midpoint of our guidance range and generated more than $100 million in free cash flow in the fourth quarter. As a result, we finished the year with $535 million in cash and more than a billion dollars in liquidity.

Based on the operating guidance provided with today's financial results, we expect this material free cash flow generation to continue in 2026. Accordingly, and coupled with our view that our share price does not reflect the full value of our portfolio, we are pleased to announce that our board has approved a share buyback of up to $300 million.

If you remember, share buybacks have been a key component of our capital allocation framework in the past, and we are pleased to re-establish a program again. Before moving on to the next slide, I want to take a moment to highlight a number of key catalysts and milestones that we delivered since our third-quarter results and also speak to some of the opportunities ahead.

First, I want to note particularly strong fourth-quarter results from our Cripple Creek & Victor mine and Puna operations, which saw both assets exceed their full-year guidance ranges and deliver exceptional free cash flow. At Puna in particular, the mine beat its production guidance for a third consecutive year and set records for tonnes processed in both the fourth quarter and over the full year, which was a terrific result.

Second, we delivered two technical report summaries, both demonstrating long-term free cash flow generative assets that will bolster our portfolio. The Cripple Creek & Victor TRS, released in November, highlighted an initial 12-year life-of-mine plan with an $824 million NPV at consensus metal prices.

With nearly 7 million ounces of resources in addition to the reserves, there is significant optionality here for meaningful mine life extension into the future. In January, we released a TRS for the Hod Maden development project, which highlighted a $1.7 billion NPV and a 39% internal rate of return at consensus metal prices.

I will talk more on this in a moment. Thirdly, we continue to advance compelling brownfield growth projects across the portfolio, which I'm also going to speak to in a moment.

As you can see, 2025 was a very successful year, and we are well positioned to continue building on this momentum in 2026. Let's move on to slide four.

We have a number of highly prospective growth targets across the business. These prospects represent potentially low-cost, high-return growth opportunities that can deliver significant value to our shareholders.

In 2026, we have committed a substantial amount of capital investment across the business, and a large portion of our CapEx will be allocated to advancing these growth opportunities through the development pipeline. We look forward to sharing additional details on the projects, including both Marigold and Puna, over the coming year.

Now let's turn to slide five to focus on Hod Maden. In January, we published a technical report summary for the Hod Maden development project.

The TRS clearly reaffirmed Hod Maden as one of the better undeveloped copper-gold projects in the sector, and we are thrilled to have a development asset of this quality in our portfolio. As a reminder, Hod Maden is an underground copper-gold project in the northeastern of Turkey.

The mine will be accessed through a single surface portal, and ore will be extracted through a combination of long-hole stoping and cut-and-fill mining methods. The process plant is designed with a nameplate capacity of approximately 2,200 tonnes per day with life-of-mine average head grade of 7.6 grams of gold and 1.3% of copper.

The plant will produce a single high-quality concentrate with life-of-mine gold and copper recoveries averaging 87% and 97%, respectively. Moving on to the next slide for a few of the TRS highlights.

Hod Maden is a unique project with significant scale, best-in-class grades, and first-quartile all-in sustaining costs that position the asset to deliver compelling free cash flow in the future. On a 100% basis, production is expected to average 240,000 gold equivalent ounces over the first 3 years and 220,000 gold equivalent ounces over the first 5 years.

At consensus metal prices, Hod Maden is expected to generate average annual free cash flow of $328 million, while at a $4,900 gold price, that free cash flow would jump to approximately $500 million annually. Hod Maden's execution has been meaningfully de-risked as a result of the significant engineering and the work completed since our initial investment in the project, as well as the benefit of early site works that are taking place.

Inclusive of earn-in and milestone payments, SSR's remaining investment is expected to total $470 million, which we expect to fund from our liquidity position and free cash flow outlook. We anticipate a 2.5- to 3-year construction period once the project decision is made.

We are very excited about Hod Maden and look forward to providing further updates in due course. Turning over to slide seven, and I'll hand the call over to Michael.

Thank you, Rod, and good afternoon, everyone. In 2026, we expect to produce between 450 and 535,000 gold equivalent ounces from our Marigold, CC&V, Seabee, and Puna operations.

All-in sustaining costs are expected to range between $2,360 and $2,440 per ounce, or $2,180 to $2,260 per ounce excluding the impact of care and maintenance costs at Çöpler. While Çöpler isn't in operation, we continue to guide to cash care and maintenance costs of $20 to $25 million incurred per quarter.

Total growth spend is expected to total $150 million in 2026, driven mainly by capital investments in leach pad expansions at both Marigold and CC&V, as well as continued exploration and resource development spend globally. Capital expenditures at Hod Maden are expected to total up to $15 million per month as engineering, access road development, and site establishment activities continue ahead of a formal construction decision.

Upon a positive construction decision by the joint venture, we will provide an update to our growth CapEx outlook at the project. Now let's move to our Q4 results starting on slide eight.

In the fourth quarter, we produced 120,000 gold equivalent ounces at AISC of $2,250 per ounce, or $2,002 per ounce excluding costs incurred at Çöpler in the quarter. Fourth-quarter sales were 117,000 gold equivalent ounces at an average realized gold price of $4,142 per ounce.

Net income attributable to SSR Mining shareholders in Q4 was $181 million, or 84 cents per diluted share, while adjusted net income was $190 million, or 88 cents per diluted share. For the full year, production of 447,000 gold equivalent ounces exceeded the midpoint of our full-year guidance.

As discussed with our third-quarter results, higher than forecasted royalty costs tied to higher gold prices and share-based compensation brought our full-year AISC to the top end of our consolidated guidance range. Full-year AISC, excluding costs incurred at Çöpler, was $1,923 per ounce, comfortably within our guidance.

Now let's move to slide nine. As highlighted in the table in this slide, free cash flow totaled $106 million in the quarter and $252 million for the full year.

Excluding the impacts of changes in working capital, full-year free cash flow was more than $400 million in 2025. These are excellent results considering our investment in growth projects across the portfolio.

We ended the quarter in a strong financial position with $535 million in cash and total liquidity of over $1 billion. This cash and liquidity position, combined with our free cash flow outlook in 2026, supports our continued investment in growth initiatives across the portfolio, while also giving us the confidence to initiate a share buyback of up to $300 million.

Share buybacks have historically been a key component of our capital allocation and shareholder return approach. Between 2021 and 2024, we repurchased 20 million shares at an average price of $15.76 per share.

With convertible notes issued in 2019 with a conversion price of $17.61, these share buybacks provided significant value to our shareholders. Our historical share buybacks, combined with today's announcement of a new share buyback program, reiterate our commitment to ensuring our shareholders realize growth on the key per-share metrics going forward.

Now over to Bill for an update on the Q4 results and 2026 guidance for the operations starting on slide 10.

Thanks, Michael. I'll first start with EHSS.

2025 was a successful year of strengthening our programs and application in all areas of EHSS. Key areas advanced were in critical controls and risk management for safety, the integration of closure work into life-of-mine plans to bring forward the work as well as to reduce costs, and the upgrading of our community engagement and development application.

As I will outline today, we are currently working on growing our business through both greenfield projects and brownfield growth opportunities at all the operations. Safe production and quality implementation of EHSS standards is our focus ahead to enable the increase in activity to successfully advance all of these opportunities.

Now on to slide 11 for our year-end MRMR. We closed 2025 with 11 million ounces of gold equivalent mineral reserves, a testament to the scale and longevity of our diversified operating platform.

Reserves were up nearly 40% year-over-year, driven largely by the incorporation of CC&V and Hod Maden into our consolidated totals, as well as other minor impacts from drilling additions and model changes. Mineral reserve price assumptions in 2025 remain very conservative at $1,700 per ounce gold and $20.50 per ounce silver.

We hold another nearly 15 million measured, indicated, and inferred gold equivalent ounces that can support mineral reserve growth across our portfolio in the future. More impressively, we have consistently delivered on our track record of replacing mined depletion.

Since 2020, as shown on the right side of this slide, we've more than replaced depletion before incorporating any of the benefit of our accretive M&A transactions over the period. Inclusive of M&A, our mineral reserves are up approximately 40% since 2020, an impressive outcome that ensures our portfolio is poised to benefit from constructive gold and silver markets for years to come.

Now on to slide 12 for a discussion on Marigold. In the fourth quarter, Marigold produced 43,000 ounces of gold and all-in sustaining costs of $2,089 per ounce.

As expected, this was Marigold's strongest period of production in 2025. Technical work around ore body knowledge and processing planning at Marigold has now matured to where this is being integrated into the planning processes.

As a result of previously highlighted ore blending requirements and to ensure pad recovery performance, the Marigold mining schedule has been updated to account for the blending of durable and non-durable ore. In addition, increased gold prices have resulted in pit expansions and the relocation of a planned waste dump to avoid sterilizing ounces.

While this work has changed the production schedule, the total ounces produced at Marigold over the 5-year period is materially the same as reflected in the 2024 TRS. In 2026, Marigold is expected to produce between 170 to 200,000 ounces of gold and all-in sustaining of $2,320 and $2,390 per ounce.

Production is expected to be 55 to 60% weighted to the second half of the year. AISC will be highest in the first half due to both production profile and sustaining capital, which is expected to be 70% weighted to the first half.

Sustaining capital in 2026 is expected to total $108 million as we make significant investment in fleet and component replacements and process plant improvements. These investments will help to ensure Marigold is well positioned for both additional near-term haulage requirements and to enable development of potentially significant mine life extension opportunities ahead.

To that end, Buffalo Valley and New Millennium projects continue to advance, and SSR Mining anticipates potentially integrating both deposits into an updated Marigold TRS over the next 18 months. Now on to slide 13 for an update on CC&V.

CC&V had another excellent quarter, producing 39,000 ounces of gold and all-in sustaining costs of $1,596 per ounce. Quarterly production benefited from better than expected gold recoveries and drove full-year SSR Mining attributable production of 125,000 ounces, well exceeding the 110,000-ounce top end guidance.

It is also important to highlight that CC&V generated more than $200 million in mine site free cash flow to our account in 2025, an exceptional outcome when compared to the $100 million upfront transaction outlay we paid to acquire the mine last year. In November, we released a technical report summary for CC&V showcasing an initial 12-year life-of-mine with an NPV of $824 million at consensus metal prices.

The mine plan was based on 2.8 million ounces of reserves, and CC&V has an additional nearly 7 million ounces of measured, indicated, and inferred resources to support potential mine life extensions over the long term. Combined with our long-term production platform at Marigold, this reserves in U.S.

along with an additional 7 million ounces of M&I resources and 2 million ounces of inferred resources, all calculated at conservative metal price assumptions well below the current spot market. In 2026, we expect CC&V's production and costs will be well aligned with the figures outlined in the TRS.

Full-year production of 125 to 150,000 ounces and AISC between $1,780 and $1,850 per ounce should position the asset well for another year of strong free cash flow. Production will be 50 to 55% weighted to the second half of the year, with costs trending above full-year guidance in the first half.

Now over to slide 14 to discuss Seabee. As highlighted in our Q3 results, Seabee's fourth quarter reflected a continued focus on underground development in the second half and saw increased ore contributions from the lower-grade Gap hanging wall.

Accordingly, the production totaled approximately 9,000 ounces at an AISC of $3,433 per ounce in the fourth quarter. In the first half of 2026, underground development will remain the focus as we look to improve stope availability going forward.

Full-year production of 60 to 70,000 ounces gold is expected to be approximately 60% weighted to the second half with the strongest results in the fourth quarter. AISC guidance of $2,170 to $2,240 per ounce will be highest in the first half, reflecting the aforementioned production profile and the typical cadence of spend given the winter road season to start the year.

Work at Porky continues to advance, and we were able to declare a maiden 200,000-ounce mineral reserve at Porky with the year-end update. We're also excited about some of the recent drilling results at Santoy and will continue advancing both near-term drilling and development at Santoy targeting higher grades.

Regional exploration is also expected to continue across the property in 2026. Now on to Puna for slide 15.

Puna delivered another excellent year, exceeding its production guidance for the third consecutive year. Record tonnes in both the fourth quarter and over the full year were a major factor in Puna's strong results, with Q4 production of 2.1 million ounces of silver and AISC of $18.39 per ounce.

Full-year AISC of $14.24 per ounce was slightly better than the guidance and drove mine site free cash flow of more than $250 million in 2025. Puna has been an exceptional contributor to our portfolio, and we see potential to extend operations at Puna well beyond 2028 through growth opportunities both at Chinchillas and Cortaderas going forward.

In 2026, we expect Puna will produce 6.25 to 7 million ounces of silver and all sustaining costs of $20 to $22 per ounce. As noted, we are pursuing opportunities for additional pit laybacks at Chinchillas, as well as further evaluation of the Melina target to the northeast of the current Chinchillas pit.

Drilling has also been very successful at Cortaderas, an underground brownfield deposit on the Pirquitas property, and we are advancing engineering work to delineate its potential contribution to Puna's longer-term profile. Now I'll turn back to Rod for closing remarks.

Great. Thanks, everyone.

We had an excellent finish to 2025. We delivered solid operating results that were well aligned with expectations, and now enter 2026 in a strong financial position with a number of key catalysts on the horizon.

We're well positioned to deliver year-on-year production growth and strong free cash flow, and are also well advanced on a number of growth initiatives across the portfolio that we look forward to sharing over the next 12 to 18 months. With that, I'm going to turn the call over to the operator for questions.

Thank you.

Good evening, gents. Thanks for your time and nice Q4.

Can I start with Marigold, please? Just looking at the 21 to 23 million tonnes stacked at 0.4 gram a tonne and the 0.35 in Q4, my math that gets me to the top end of guidance.

Maybe just a little bit more color here. Is there a bit of conservatism baked into the guidance range of 170

to 200? I'll hand that one over to Bill.

As we talked, we've been doing a lot of work particularly on the technical front, and we baked that now into our updated forward schedule. That considers how we actually have to complete our blending.

That blending and the updated plan for that is actually well outlined in the plan forward, we believe that guidance is a good indication of what we'll deliver this year.

The—

A different stacking plan comes with that.

Looking at the tech report, I know it's old now, but the next 2 years it had 0.3 gram a tonne, but given commentary before, should we expect next year's grade incrementally higher versus this year? Then 2027 to 2028, just clarifying, should we be looking at a stacking grade of high 0.4s to low 0.5s potentially, given the commentary before about keeping the medium-term outlook unchanged?

As always noted, right, across the 5 years, we're basically in line. In terms of but what's happening is with these metal prices, which is very exciting, we've got growth in pit sizes, we've got additional haulage, there is a complete reschedule of the mine.

We're still delivering the same gold across the period, and particularly life of mine as well, but the timing of it will be different. That's why there's reference there we've also got Buffalo Valley coming in, we've also got further upgrades, the reference to completing an updated TRS report comes in there as well.

There's a lot of work going on in terms of those changes ahead.

That reference 5 years, what is that exactly? If I look at the tech report, average 5 years from today, it's 235,000 ounces per annum.

What is that reference 5 years you're speaking to?

I think what he's saying Let me answer it, Bill. George, it's Rod.

Thanks for the question. Look, I think what Bill's outlining is with all the work that we've completed, that's been the blending requirements that we've got for durable and non-durable ore, we've actually been doing work over the last 2 years to upgrade some of the ore body knowledge, it wasn't something that we just did in one quarter.

It was actually conclusion of a lot of work over a period. That's been now built in, and that's what Bill was sort of talking about with the blending requirements in the short term and near term, as well as some of these other opportunities where we've identified some shifts in the mine plan because it would have sterilized some other opportunities in the future.

We're actually wrapping all that work up, and then if you add in Buffalo Valley and New Millennium, I think what it needs is a new tech report. Within that new tech report, we're going to outline the new profiles, not only in the 5 years, but obviously over the life of mine as well, with some of those growth opportunities.

If you just be a little bit patient with us, we'll set it out all at once for you here over the next 12 months.

Okay. No, that's clear.

Thanks, Rod and Bill. Maybe just one more if I can.

At Puna, what silver prices do you need at a minimum to go beyond 2028? At $17 an ounce or higher, could we be talking well into the 2030s potentially, or is it a bit too early and dependent still on Cortaderas success?

We're excited about what we have in front of us. Cortaderas is an underground opportunity.

There's a lot of work there to do, but it's very positive. Moving back to Chinchillas itself, we do see opportunity for it to go a lot longer with work going on both in the Chinchillas pit for potentially additional step-backs, as well as the Melina pit, which is right within that area being added on as well.

Let's just say that work's underway at the moment, and these silver prices more than support that. We're doing that work as we speak now, and we see it extending into the future.

I'd just support what Bill said, George. Look, it's the opportunity set at Puna has really come through a lot of hard work by the guys over a sort of extended period here.

If you wanted to prioritize it, it's Chinchillas, Melina, Cortaderas. That's how we see it sequencing out.

Silver price, obviously, is very helpful in that regard as we look forward and look at those opportunities. All in all, I think the future is pretty bright for Puna.

We've just got to finish some of the work, particularly around Melina and Cortaderas.

Yep. No, sounds good.

All right. Thanks, gents.

Great. Thanks, George.

Hi, thanks, Rod and team. Great to see the new TRS at Hod Maden.

Maybe, Rod, can I ask, is there any kind of timeline that we can expect in terms of SSR Mining coming to a construction decision? If you can't give us a timeline, could you maybe talk about the different factors that you will consider before making such a decision?

Cos, look, it is a great tech report. It certainly outlines a terrific project for all the joint venture partners that are involved.

At what's going on at site right now, the work on the ground still continues. It's not like we've got pens down and we're waiting for approvals.

It's the efforts on the ground for the early earthworks, some of the creek diversions, the civil works, the road access tunnels, and others is underway and ongoing. That work hasn't stopped.

Post the publication of the tech report, we're now just going through the sort of review processes with our partners, and once that's complete, we'll have a project decision. I'm not going to set out a timeline on behalf of everyone, but clearly we're maintaining some progress on the ground there as well.

Don't think of it as a pens down, then we'll pick them back up. We are maintaining some of that momentum.

Understood. Maybe going to Puna a little bit here.

I noticed that the guidance to 6.25 to 7 million ounces slightly lower than the 7 to 8 million ounces that you highlighted back in the August 2025 study for 2026. Could you maybe talk a little bit about that?

I'll pass that one on to Bill.

Just the Puna timeline for the work that we're completing, was it? Oh, for the ounces.

The

6.25 versus 8 that we had talked about.

The 6.25 to 7 is where talking is our guidance range. You wanted an update against that?

Because I missed the question.

Oh, the August 2025, your Q3 2025 update, you had said 2026 silver production at Puna will be between 7 and 8 million ounces.

Yes. All right.

Yeah. No, I see.

All right.

Caught

it. Obviously with the work we're doing at the moment and we're continuing to do, there's more phasing work happening with additional mining happening at Chinchillas.

The timing of the ounces has changed. In saying that, we're looking at a further depth of the production level staying at a higher level for longer.

In other words, we saw it dropping off quicker. It's come down, as but we're looking at it going maintaining a higher level for longer.

We look forward to updating that as we complete some of this work going forward in future. It has stepped down for the year ahead, but it's going to continue for longer.

That would be the best way of terming it.

It's a timing thing. We should take those ounces that are not produced in 2026, put it into 2027 or 2028.

We'll be going, it'll be better.

Perfect. At Marigold, going back to Marigold here.

Could you maybe explain to me durable versus non-durable ore and blending? I'm not fully appreciating the, sort of the technical aspects behind it.

To put it into a simple manner, depending on the fines content and the height of a heap, it creates compression on the material. The effectiveness of the solution transfer can be impacted.

If we go back in time for those that have a long history with Marigold, we've had we were challenged in late '22, early '23 where we ended up with a heap became bound up. In other words, a lot of good work has happened to understand that ore body better.

With that, we now have implemented different blend requirements of what can be mixed with what. Then that changes the schedule of how we bring different parts of the ore body together to ensure optimum blending and optimum recovery from the heap.

Does that answer in simple terms?

Yep. I think I got it.

Now when you mentioned fines, I think I remember that now. So

Yep.

Great. Maybe one last question.

I see that you're still using fairly conservative numbers for your MRMR estimates, $1,700 an ounce for reserves at Marigold. I guess my question is, I don't know how much you can answer, Rod, but what would a higher gold price assumption do to what you can do at the ore body?

It sounds like you're considering it because you're talking about not sterilizing some of the, certain parts of the ore body, you're leaving that optionality open. To the point that you can share with us, what does a higher gold price assumption mean, and could that be incorporated into this new sort of technical report that could come out in 12 to 18 months' time?

You talk about Buffalo Valley and also New Millennium, could those be part of that new study coming out as well?

That's right, Cos. Look, I think across the portfolio, we took a view for this year at least that given the profiles that we've already presented ourselves and some of these other growth opportunities that we have, we'll park any decisions on increasing the gold price cutoff, lowering the cutoff grades, etc., and maintain the margin.

We really didn't see anything necessary to do that work. We do have a lot of growth studies exclusive of gold price that are in front of us that we're looking at.

That's really the key focus at the moment, to complete that technical work so ultimately we can start to include those into the technical reports for the future. Then obviously we can come back to the gold price question about looking at how sensitive some of the operations are for gold price increases as well.

That really was this year. We've just got so much other work going on.

We just wanted to complete that and then come back to it later on.

Then would that coincide with your timeline say at Marigold, because as you say you're going to come out with a new technical study in Marigold in 12 to 18 months? Could this sort of re-evaluation of the gold price coincide with that timeline as well?

Correct. It could,

and

particularly around New Millennium and some of those other targets as well.

Great. Thanks, Rod, and Bill, and everyone else.

Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

Good on you, Cos. Thank you.

Hi, Rod and SSR team. Congrats on a good quarter, especially at Puna and CC&V.

Couple of questions from me, and just again going back to Marigold and following up on previous callers' questions. The fines at Marigold, looks like blending is working.

Is this issue now behind us or are we still expected to see this issue linger into through Q1?

No, in terms of the look forward, I'll do this one, Bill. In terms of the look forward for this, Ovais, it's pretty simple.

We're going to have areas where we will encounter fines in the future. It's throughout the ore body, and as Bill said, since '22 we did a lot of work, drilling, etc., to understand at a greater level of detail some of those pockets where the fine ore existed.

That's all been incorporated into the future mine plans to allow for that blending of what we're calling durable and non-durable. You'll hear us say that as well in the future.

It informs the scheduling to ensure that we have the appropriate blend so we get the right outcomes on the heap leach pads in the future. It hasn't it's not a one-off.

It's going to be a future feature for Marigold, and all of the work we've been doing is really just in preparation to handle that, which has been terrific work actually. As I said to I think George was asking about, we'll have a new tech report, which will outline all of those requirements in the future as well as some of these other growth opportunities.

Got it. Thanks for the color on that, Rod.

Just again, I think it's follow-up question on Puna as well. Drilling has been pretty successful at Cortaderas.

Don't believe this deposit has been included in Puna's mine life extension. Rod, are you looking to release any sort of a new mine plan for Puna in the near term, including Cortaderas as well as Chinchillas?

Look, I think what we'll probably see at Puna, Ovais don't hold me to it, it's because it depends on the work—but I think we'll see some additions to the mine life just through some of the extensions that we're going to encounter at Chinchillas and potentially in Melina. As they start to as the drilling programs there and also up at Cortaderas continue and some of the technical work behind those, that drill program concludes, then we may consider doing a new tech report into the future.

I think at the moment, the guys have done a terrifically good job at already establishing, a longer life at Puna. We see the potential for more of that, and then, yeah, hopefully in the longer-dated near term having a sorry, in the near term for the longer-dated future, some of these other larger opportunities playing a feature into Puna, well into the future.

It's a pretty exciting where we've come from. If you think back, it wasn't that long ago that folks were thinking about Puna as a depleting asset that was coming to its end of its life, and I think what we're finding there through the efforts is quite contrary to it.

Excellent. Thanks, Rod, for that.

Then just moving on to CC&V, which has been a real success for SSR. Currently, the project holds around what, 4.8 million ounces in M&I, and now you already have a 12-year mine life at CC&V.

What's the plan there to accelerate these ounces into the mine plan and improve the production profile of CC&V? Is this just the permits?

Is it more infrastructure that needs to be allocated? Any sort of color there?

It's pretty linear from what we can tell at the moment, Ovais. The mine extension is obviously predicated on the success of the Amendment 14 approval.

That Amendment 14 approval allows us to continue with the pad expansions that is already well sequenced out over sort of the next 5 to 10 years. That's really the first sort of stage of growth, if you like, on the current reserves as you point out.

Is there opportunities to optimize and do things? That's our job is to try to do that.

I wouldn't Similar to Marigold, Cripple Creek has durable, non-durable ore as well, and it's really important to stay in sequence with that asset base not to put a risk to future. We'll try, but look, I think it's fairly well set out.

Then beyond it, obviously, we'll look at the opportunities for conversion of the 7-odd million ounces of resources that we also have available, which would require then another expansion permit for that regards as well. Look, I think the asset itself has done remarkably well since we acquired it.

We're very proud of the efforts that have gone on down there and proud of the team, and they're now part of SSR, and they deserve a, a standing ovation because I think it's been a terrific integration into the portfolio. Now our job is to optimize and to extend that asset well into the future and really demonstrate its strength in the portfolio.

We're pretty excited to have it.

Thanks for that, and then just my last question then on Çöpler. Rod, any sort of progress there that we can kind of put our finger on, or any sort of updates that you're looking to provide in the near-term future on Çöpler?

Any sort of discussions going on that you can talk about?

Look, I think that's right, Ovais. The discussions are ongoing.

In terms of activities, there really was nothing to note since the last quarter. The activities at site, as Michael mentioned in his financial discussions, had wound down in terms of material movements and site rehabilitation while we're waiting for the final approvals for the waste storage facility and pad closure.

The guys are obviously still very busy in that in regards of care and maintenance of the activities around the plant in particular to maintain integrity for a startup, but that's really been the key focus on the ground at site. Then obviously, as you note, we continue to progress the various discussions with different parts of the government and government authority.

It's just ongoing at this stage.

Okay. Thanks for that, Rod, and that's it for my questions.

Thank you very much.

Great. Thanks.

Oh, hi. Thank you, Operator, and hi, Rod and team.

Congratulations on the quarter. A lot of my questions have already been answered, but Rod, I'll start off with this.

For Hod Maden, just continuing on this, we're looking forward to this formal construction decision, and I see that in the interim, you're looking at maybe spend on the order of about $15 million per month. Should we pencil that into our model, beginning as of January 1st, I think, or should we wait till a construction decision?

In other words, are you kind of getting ahead of yourselves a little bit here with some of that spending before the formal decisions made?

No, look, a lot of that spending was already committed, Don, on the early site works that I mentioned before. The tunneling is ongoing.

We actually just had John chair before this meeting the first blast of the tunnel, which is terrific, of for that side access tunnels. A lot of the civil works around that creek diversion, etc., are all ongoing.

That was work already in progress, and that's what I was sort of saying before. I think while we're waiting for the decision, we're still very busy at site.

The team are very busy on site getting the site prepared, and then, obviously once a construction decision gets going, we're well prepared to execute contracts and get moving on the bigger build as well. It's I think that's fair to use that sort of number, and then obviously we'll do a we'll update the guidance once we tally up what the actual cash out the door will be for the capital for the construction during 2026.

That's helpful. Just my final question, then, shifting to Marigold.

I see that there has been a sizable increase in sustaining CapEx in '26, and of course the print details that there's some fleet replacements, of course there's the plant upgrades. Is this sort of this spend to be one-time in '26, or should we also be modeling maybe a little bit higher CapEx going forward in the next 27, '28 years?

Look, I'll answer, and then Bill can jump in if you like as well. I think we do, like we always do, when we look at our fleet and our mine plans in the long term, exercises around total cost of ownership.

Fleets obviously have a useful life and particularly parts and maintenance and major component rebuilds. We completed that work for Marigold last year, and what it determined was in some cases that it was wise for us from a value perspective to do that work in 2026.

That's really what you're seeing there. It's normal course in some cases.

Some of it might have been accelerated by a year or two, and some of that fleet replacement might have changed as well, but it's really just a sort of an exercise in value for the fleet of understanding the optimized approach to those replacements. Nothing out of the ordinary, right, Bill?

Okay.

Bill, you got anything else to add?

That's good. No, that's correct, Rod.

A lot of work looking at what the optimum timing is for value. Some things are a little bit earlier than they were originally planned, but that's because it gives a very positive financial return to the business.

That's why we're doing it.

Gentlemen. Thanks, that's all for me, and thanks again for taking my question.

Good luck with the quarter and the year.

Good on you. Thanks, Don.

Appreciate it. Thank you.