Thank you, Harmony. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for dialing into Boss Energy's September quarterly conference call. Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO. We'll both be available to answer questions at the end of this call. This is my first call as Managing Director and CEO of Boss Energy, following my appointment at the start of this month. It's a great privilege to be leading Boss. I'll talk some of my initial immediate priorities during this call. Before jumping into the call, I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank Duncan Craib for his leadership of Boss over the past nine years, turning the company from a microcap developer into one of the few uranium producers here in Australia. Turning to slide two, we have delivered the strongest quarter of drum production with costs below guidance and robust cash margins.
This is a great start to FY 2026 and puts us on track to meet our financial year guidance. The key highlights for the quarter include we produced 386,000 lbs of drum uranium from Honeymoon operation. This was up 11% from the June quarter. We continue to bring online infrastructure to support future production. This includes the commencement of commissioning of the NIMCIX Column 4, which was successfully hydro-tested. We also commenced production from wellfield B4 in late August. At Alta Mesa, drum production totaled 206,000 lbs on a 100% basis, up 15% on the June quarter. As a company, we are in a very strong financial position. We finished the quarter with AUD 212 million in cash and liquid assets on hand, with no debt. We recorded sales and loan repayments of AUD 57.1 million. We generated strong margins with high realized price and low cost.
C1 cost at Honeymoon was AUD 34 /lbs drummed, which was below FY 2026 guidance of AUD 41/lbs- AUD 45 /lbs . The all-in sustaining cost for the quarter was AUD 50 /lbs , which was also below guidance of AUD 64 /lbs- AUD 70 /lbs . In terms of other initiatives, we commenced a program of work to accelerate permitting on Brooks Dam North , as well as our satellite deposits at Jason’s and Gould’s. At Alta Mesa, additional roll front mineralization was discovered, and the joint venture also acquired the Alta Mesa East property, which is highly prospective. The Honeymoon review, which was first announced on the 28th of July , is a top priority for us. We understand the need to complete this review, and we are on track to do so in the upcoming December quarter. I'll try and add some color to this, but I'll be limited to how much I can share on this call.
Turning to slide three, we are pleased to report record quarterly drum production of 386,000 lbs of uranium, which is up 37,000 lbs or 11% on the prior quarter. This reflects a continued run of quarter-on-quarter growth since Boss commenced production in April 2024, as shown on the graph on the slide. We are on track to meet FY 2026 production guidance of 1.6 million lbs drummed. IX production was down 20,000 lbs or about 5% on the prior quarter, mainly due to closing the prior quarter with significant inventory in circuit. We commenced production from wellfield B4 in late August, which provided additional flow and contributed to a higher tenor for the quarter. Keep in mind that wellfield tenors typically peak soon after bringing a new wellfield online. The reagent optimization also contributed to higher tenor.
You might recall that in last quarter we spoke about a trial we were undertaking to lower pH and increase oxidants and ferric. This has been modeled, suggesting increases in both head grade and wellfield total recoveries. The results of the trial continue to show positive outcomes. Initial modeling suggests the optimization of lixiviant could result in a 15% increase in head grade. During the quarter, we received delivery of the well house for wellfield B5. This was our first well house completed as modular construction, resulting in cost savings. We commenced construction of the Far East Kalkaroo trunk line, which is expected to be completed in the March quarter, and we completed piping and installation of mechanical equipment for Columns 4 and 5, with Column 4 successfully hydro-tested. The next key milestones for the upcoming quarter are ongoing commissioning of Column 4 and bringing wellfield B5 online.
Turning to slide four, as noted earlier, C1 cash costs for the quarter were AUD 34 /lbs . This was lower than both the guidance of AUD 41/lbs - AUD 45 /lbs and the prior quarter of AUD 36 /lbs . This is a great achievement. There is a strong focus throughout the company on optimization, productivity, and cost improvements. The key drivers of the cost compared to the base on a per pound basis include approximately 75% variance due to lower reagent consumption. This is split between less bleeding and water treatment and reagent optimization, along with the benefits from higher tenors as a result of the lixiviant change. The remaining 25% variance was due to on-site savings, mostly in G&A cost. We continue to implement multiple cost-saving initiatives.
Depending on the success of these initiatives and the continuation of the lixivian optimization, we'll update our guidance on C1 costs during the December quarter. The all-in sustaining cost for the quarter was AUD 50 /lbs , below guidance of AUD 64/lbs- AUD 70 /lbs . The main variance relates to lower C1 costs and the phasing of wellfield sustaining capital spend. In terms of breakdown of capital spend, almost all of the AUD 6 million in the sustaining capital related to wellfield development. Of the AUD 9 million in the project of supporting infrastructure spend, 2/3 related to the completion of the columns and 1/3 to the East Kalkaroo trunk line, monitoring wells, and HV extensions. Turning to slide five, Boss remains in a strong financial position and very well positioned to self-fund capital and growth opportunities. We closed the quarter with no debt and AUD 212 million of cash and liquid assets.
Cash increased from AUD 36.5 million to AUD 47.8 million at the end of the quarter. You will note that we increased uranium inventory from 1.41 million lbs to 1.44 million lbs during the quarter. The value of the inventory on the balance sheet actually decreased from AUD 120.3 million to AUD 105.8 million. You may recall that the inventory is valued at the low of cost and net realized value. When inventory is accumulated, the full market value of the inventory is not reflected in the inventory valuations. If we take a market value approach, cash and liquid assets increased by AUD 6 million during the quarter, from AUD 267 million to AUD 272 million, based on a $ 75 /lbs uranium price and a 65% AUD/USD exchange rate.
At an asset level, Honeymoon operation generated approximately AUD 13 million of free cash flow based on removing the impacts of loan repayments and adjustment of timing on cash receipts. During the quarter, we recorded AUD 57.1 million for sales of 400,000 lbs of uranium and the cash repayment of 100,000 lbs that were loaned to enCore. Boss was able to achieve a strong realized price of AUD 114 /lbs , or in U.S. dollars terms, $74.7 /lbs . We expect that sales and cash receipts for the remaining of FY 2026 will remain approximately in line with Honeymoon production for each quarter, subject to market price reflecting the fundamental long-term value of uranium. We'll continue to accumulate Alta Mesa inventory subject to any price premium that may be achieved for U.S. production. Let's move to slide six.
In terms of our 30% stake in Alta Mesa, a joint venture with enCore, we are pleased to report production of 206,000 lbs on a 100% basis during the quarter. This is a 15% increase over the prior quarter. Ship production during the quarter from Alta Mesa to Boss was 45,000 lbs. The joint venture also acquired the highly prospective Alta Mesa East project, located immediately east of the operation. Non-mineralization from Alta Mesa extends onto this property. Drilling will commence on this property during this quarter. enCore also announced that additional roll front mineralization has been identified proximal to existing wellfield . Permitting has commenced on bringing this new mineralization into production. Now on to slide seven. Completion of the Honeymoon review is a priority for the company. This will be completed in the December quarter.
The Honeymoon review announced on the 28th of July is due to the potential for reduced continuity of mineralization and leachability assumptions compared to our plans on the enhanced feasibility study. Multiple work streams are underway in parallel. These include a review of input assumptions, data, domaining, estimation methodology, and mineralization continuity for Honeymoon and the satellite deposits, along with wellfield design and planning assumptions, including leachability parameters and ultimately the optimization of the wellfield plan. We have commenced the acceleration of the delineation drilling over the entire Honeymoon domain from Far East Kalkaroo to Brooks Dam North . Drill program on a nominal 35 m x 35 m spacing consists of 390 holes totaling over 49,000 m. We have commenced this program as of mid-September. The program will take approximately seven to nine months, and we are continuing to explore options on how to accelerate this work stream.
We continue to build out our technical capacity with the team, along with external expertise, to complete this work stream. We understand the need to provide a more detailed update. However, the level of work being performed is significant and requires a level of completeness before Boss can update the market. This program of work is being treated as a priority. The program of work has also commenced to accelerate the permitting of the satellite deposits, Gould’s Dam and Jason’s. To support the approvals process, baseline studies, assessments, and engineering studies have commenced. Turning to slide eight. Before moving to Q&A, I'll provide a quick summary of the quarter and our priorities. We've delivered a strong quarter at Honeymoon, which is a credit to the team. Production was our highest ever quarter, with 386,000 lbs of uranium produced.
This was at a C1 cost of AUD 34 /lbs and all-in sustaining cost of AUD 50 /lbs . Honeymoon produced strong free cash flow. The company's financial position continues to strengthen in the quarter with cash of AUD 48 million and total cash and liquid assets of AUD 212 million. This includes an inventory hold of 1.44 million lbs of uranium. We remain on track to safely deliver 1.6 million lbs for this financial year, as per our guidance. We're also accelerating key work streams, including the studies and approvals of satellite deposits. The Honeymoon review is a priority and will be in a position to provide details in the upcoming December quarter. I'd also like to take this moment to thank all the team members at Boss for their hard work and dedication to delivery during this quarter.
We do have a great team, and I do feel privileged to take on the role of CEO and Managing Director at Boss. With that, I'll hand back to the operator for questions and answers.
Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two, and if you're on a speaker phone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning. Thanks for the call. For my two questions, firstly, on the review study and the drilling, I just wanted to understand if you're able to provide a bit more color on what direction that's progressing in and will the drilling that you're doing at the moment in terms of the infill, would that have some results that can be presented with the review study, or would that come later on? I presume, you know, drilling would take a bit more time and assays, etc. That's the first one. I'll come back with a second. Thanks.
Hey, Rahul. Yeah, thanks for the question. In terms of the drilling, we're accelerating that drill program to get it onto a 35 m x 35 m spacing. We believe that's the spacing that we will need to better understand that continuity of mineralization. Some of that drilling will be interpreted and available as we continue to work through this study and this review, and some of that will inform part of this review. Ultimately, the completion of the drilling, which will be mid-calendar year next year, subject to us being able to fast track it, which we're still exploring, will result in a final resource update. There'll be two parts, two parts of this, but we're aiming to provide as much clarity as we can in that December quarter.
Excellent. Okay, that's very clear. Thanks. The second question was around the costs. Obviously, good performance this period through ramp up. I guess there were a few one-offs in there that probably don't repeat going forward, but I wanted to touch upon the reagent optimization, which perhaps does lead to some good outcomes in the medium term. Are you able to help us understand what's more to come in that space and how we can think about the cost space on account of that effort that you've got going? Thanks.
Yeah, we will, and I'll hand across to Justin in a sec. What we, I mean, reagent optimization is one of many costs and productivity improvements that we're exploring on site, and we'll continue to deliver on some of those. In terms of that reagent optimization, it was largely changing chemistry, including decreasing the pH, increasing oxidants and ferric. Ultimately, that will, and at the moment, we've been working off theoretical models. This quarter, we have actually got the pH and the chemistry right, and we have seen the performance against some of those models come out this quarter. With the reagent optimization, lixiviant, etc., and all the other cost-saving initiatives and things and programs we're looking in the business, we'll come back and have a look at C1 costs coming up in that December quarter and compare where we're at with that guidance. Do you want anything else, Jus?
Yeah. Thanks, Matt. Rahul, thanks for the question. If I might just add to that. Just from a numbers perspective, if you kind of take a variance of AUD 9 /lbs to the midpoint of guidance versus actuals, we believe probably at least a third of that could potentially be an ongoing saving. That would obviously be subject to another quarter's performance in line with the current quarter. We do believe at least some of that will be a permanent variance subject to kind of ongoing positive performance.
Excellent. No, that's very clear. Just a quick follow-up, though. In terms of those cost savings, can they potentially offset some of the issues that you've faced in terms of your, I guess, extraction performance given what's going on with the study and whatnot? Can this kind of help you offset some of that?
Yeah. Ultimately, as part of the study, we have to relook at our cut-off grades, and part of that is ensuring that we can get cut-off grades, the right cut-off grades, which ultimately is operating cost. Although we talk about optimization, which is part of what we're wanting to do as a business continuously, it also feeds into this review.
Excellent. Okay, that's very helpful. I'll pass it on. Thanks.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Alistair Rankin from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Yeah, good morning, Matt and Justin. Thanks for taking my questions. Just a follow-on from Rahul's question on the Honeymoon review. I'm just curious why you're completing this review prior to completion of the delineation drilling that you're doing. I would have expected that the data from that drilling would have been invaluable for completing that particular review, as it gives you a better understanding of the ore body.
I suppose you're right in that context, but it's also providing as much guidance as we can as we work through this. What we're hoping to do as part of what we will do as part of that December review is give that guidance, but also map out the roadmap forward on other elements, including continuation of optimization, how Gould's and Jason's will fit into a production profile, etc.
Gotcha. Okay, just for one follow-on from that, I guess, is the only incremental data you've got at the moment over the EFS just the data you've had for those wellfields B6 to B9 at the moment?
Yeah, the drilling will also capture some of Central Kalkaroo as well.
Yep, okay, understood.
We won't have completed the drilling, but there'll be portions of the resource that drilling would have been completed by December quarter.
Okay, gotcha. Also, just another one on costs. You beat guidance. It was due to some of these reagent optimization benefits. I guess once that wellfield B6 connection happens, which is going to be in the third quarter of FY 2026, is the expectation grades are going to come off? You've got a higher well density, so just overall your C1 cost of production should rise once that wellfield comes online?
Yeah, Alistair, I'll take that one. You're right. I think we did mention that there is a timing benefit in some of that outperformance of guidance. Guidance obviously does take into account the expected lower grade in the second half of this financial year as existing wellfields are depleted and then lower grade wellfields come on, B6, as you say. There is a portion of that lower than guidance. Part of that is timing, and we do expect costs to increase in the second half of the year as tenors decline.
Okay, very clear. I'll pass it on.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Milan Tomic from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Hi, guys. Thanks for the call. Just on the tenor grades, 81 mg for the quarter. I think you previously stated that the expectation was for FY 2026 for it to be around 55 mg- 60 mg. I guess any updates there? Can we expect higher tenors over the course of FY 2026? Maybe if you can provide a rough average as to where you expect those tenors to be given the optimization of the pregnant leach solution.
Yeah, I won't jump to what we expect because we'll do that in the December quarter as we come back and look at our guidance. We've seen that higher head grade to what we said we would do for FY 2026. That's largely given by some performance out of the Honeymoon wells, which are overperforming on a grade basis to plant, and also the lixiviant, and also the timing that we are introducing new wellfields into the production profile.
Yep, gotcha.
Yeah, we would expect to see tenor drop, but not in position to give guidance on what that tenor would drop to as we see Far East Kalkaroo come into that mix.
Yep, understood. Maybe just on Jason’s and Gould’s Dam, how long does it roughly take to do the PFS and go through the approvals process? What kind of timeline are you looking at there, roughly?
Previously we've talked two to three years publicly, but what we're doing now will come out in the December quarter with a definitive timeline that we can be measured to. Does that help?
Yep, thanks.
No problems.
Thank you. Your next question comes from James Bullen from CGF . Please go ahead.
Thank you. Congrats on delivering your first quarter, Matt. Nice and solid one. I think it beat consensus and it definitely beat us as well, so that's positive. Obviously, we're all looking forward to how East Kalkaroo go and the review process there. I thought I might just change tack for a second. Two years ago, you acquired the Alta Mesa stake, 30%. It was a bit of a different setup for Boss at that time. Do you still view that asset as core and is it still a beachhead for potential expansion in the U.S. or have you just got more than enough to do here in Australia?
Yeah, thanks for the positive comments, James. Look, I thought, you know, I don't necessarily want to get into strategy yet. I think the December time for me is the right time to talk about what strategy, etc. Because as a business, our real focus now is how do we realize that value proposition at Honeymoon and delivery of this operating plan. Coupled with that is ultimately strategy, how we're going to take this business forward over the next five years and what do we see that being. It's a little bit premature for me to comment at the moment. I would comment that we're seeing that production rise at Alta Mesa. We're having good engagement with the Alta Mesa team, with the team for that production. They're doing a good job on that production at Alta Mesa.
Also, the acquisition of that Far East Alta Mesa project does provide longevity to that asset as well. That would also be part of our consideration.
Thank you. Maybe this one is best to take offline, but just trying to understand what you're going to be presenting to the market in the December quarter post-review and then what is going to be held back until you've completed your infill drilling program. If we could just get an understanding about how the data breakdown is going to work there. What are the key deliverables from the review?
Yep. I suppose we can take offline, but at a high level, it's really about the impacts associated with resource continuity and leachability from EFS to what we're seeing and trying to provide that market understanding of those impacts and how we will address those impacts as a business as we go forward. In parallel, there will still be data collection and work to be done.
Okay, thanks very much. Understood. Cheers, Matt. Thanks, Justin.
Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden from Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Good day, Matt and Justin. Congrats on the quarter and thanks for the question. Just a quick one from me. You mentioned in the release that you expect sales to pretty much match production for the rest of FY 2026. If I'm recalling correctly, you'd previously kind of guided for a normalised run rate of 0.8 million lbs- 1 million lbs of inventory. Are you no longer expecting to unwind this? My question is, why would you not be expecting to unwind that inventory position?
I can talk to, I mean, I can talk and Justin will jump in. We've got that 1.44 million lbs now in inventory. It slightly grew over the quarter. If the market's right and we see value, then we'll continue to sell in, but if not, then we won't. The statement there is to say that we'll sell for that production profile generally out of Honeymoon, but continue to build some of the inventory out of Alta Mesa, depending on pricing. That's sufficient for what we need in terms of both sustaining and growth and operating cost and still generates a return.
Yep, that makes sense. I might just. No, go for it.
You go, Daniel.
I was just going to add, at this stage, we don't see any need to reduce that inventory holding down to a lower position. We do see a long-term value for uranium increasing, and you would have seen some of that news and story continuing to build as the weeks go by. At this stage, we don't see a need to draw down on that inventory, but as Matt said, we do expect to sell. Sales will be approximately in line with production for the remainder of the financial year, subject to market prices being in line with the fundamental long-term value. As we saw in the prior quarter when the spot went down to low AUD 60, we stepped away as we didn't believe that represented value, and in retrospect, that was a good call. Subject to that market pricing staying strong, we'll sell what we produce.
Sure. Maybe just indicatively, do you see a price point for that? I guess in the last quarter, outside of the volumes in the market at this price, it's all spot pricing up in excess of AUD 80. They were sitting at high AUD 70- AUD 80 through most of the quarter. I guess from your commentary, that's not a sufficient price to be unwinding that inventory.
Yeah, for sales of production, yeah.
Yep, okay. Thanks, guys. I'll pass it on. Thanks.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Regan Burrows from Bell Potter. Please go ahead.
Hi, Matt and Justin. Thanks for taking my questions and congratulations on a good quarter. Just curious to get a sense of where you are in terms of capacity and how you're running the initial Columns 1, 2, and 3 at the moment. On my numbers, it looks like you're operating below capacity and obviously connecting Column 4 in the December quarter and then aiming five and six for the March quarter next year. Just curious, does your thinking around how this review pans out in December, is that going to sort of infer how you or when you potentially connect Columns 5ive and 6? Could we see those get pushed out sort of 6- 12 months?
Yeah, hey Regan, good questions there. You are right. That's largely dictated by head grade. When head grade drops, flow will go up, and then flow will go up requiring additional columns and running columns at closer to nameplate capacity. The trial on the lixivian is also important in all of this optimization as well because ultimately, by changing the lixivian and getting higher head grade, it means that you don't have to push flow as high either, resulting in lower costs as well. There are all of those moving parts that we really look at optimizing Honeymoon.
At the moment, to think about it is if you're running sort of 55 mg per liter head grade, you would be sort of closer to full operating capacity on those three IX columns. There's nothing sort of nefarious or stopping you from doing that. It's just purely a grade decision.
Right, yeah. We may have been tightly constrained in the quarter with some pump availability, etc., but nothing on this side. You would have seen a stronger push to ensure nameplate capacity up under three columns had head grade been at that 55 mg or 60 mg to have achieved the same sort of production profile.
Okay, great. Thanks for that. Just on the achieved price over the quarter, obviously a decent price there. Curious to know, does that include that 100,000 lbs inventory return? If we strip that out, what was your achieved price under that scenario?
Yeah, thanks, Regan. I'll take that. The realized price that we reported for the quarter did include the repayment of the 100,000 lbs loan to enCore. If you strip that out, you'd get a realized price from sales around the high AUD 60/lbs, kind of mid to high AUD 60/lbs. Some of those sales were based on our forward sales mechanism. Some of those were put in place in Q4 of last financial year. We were able to achieve a price that was higher than at the time of Q4. Going forward, we expect to have a realized price kind of material above what the underlying price would have been for this quarter.
Sorry, following on from that, obviously FY 2027, there is obviously a lot of concern around production volumes. How are your off-takers thinking about that, and how are you thinking about your contract portfolio going into FY 2027? Are you contracting pounds, actively looking at RFPs, or are you just waiting and seeing?
Yeah, at the moment, we're continuing to engage with utilities, but in line with our previous sales strategy, we want to remain undercontracted. We believe that by remaining undercontracted, it gives us balance sheet flexibility and also gives us exposure to upside in uranium price. Kind of with or without the review, that would have continued to be our strategy. I guess we're fortunate that we're in a way that we're small enough that we can execute these forward sales, which ultimately do still go to utilities. It just enables us to be a little bit more nimble. Kind of with or without the review, our sales strategy would be to remain undercontracted.
Great. I'll leave it there. Thank you very much for taking my questions.
Pleasure.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead.
Morning, Matt. Just a point of clarification firstly, when you keep talking about December quarter and the study review and your strategy update, are you thinking you'll give that to us in December or as part of the December quarter review in January? Thanks.
Thanks, Glyn. It is December quarter. Ideally, we'll give that as soon as we can, but without getting locked in on timing.
Okay, but you're hoping to do it this side of Christmas, that is what you're saying?
Yeah, that would be ideal.
Okay. Just another clarification, obviously if you back out the price, you can do that. It's about AUD 68, AUD 67.50, and it's about a 10% discount to the prevailing price in the quarter. I know, Justin, you said you expect price to be greater than the underlying price you just got, but that was a 10% discount. Is that the biggest discount you've received to date versus the quarter average? What should we think about? Is it always going to be a discount or can you catch up and get in front of the quarterly average?
As I said before, we don't sell on the spot market. When you're talking about a discount, you're basing that discount on a spot price. What you should probably do is look at previous quarters. When we execute a forward sale, the starting point for that sale is today's spot price, and then it's based on a forward curve. Some of the sales that we executed this quarter in terms of the transfer of inventory were agreed in the prior quarter. Between the two quarters, we did only sell 500,000 lbs during what was a fairly low price environment. If you average the spot price over the prior quarter, then we'd probably actually be getting a premium to that price. Going forward, you can take the current market pricing, and that's typically some of the forward pricing that we're able to achieve using the current spot price as a base.
We're usually about three to six months. We're usually executing forward sales three to six months in advance. If you take the current spot price and do a three to six-month forward curve, then that's what you can expect to see in the first half of next calendar, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I just look at the price and it was the worst price you've got since restarting. Yet the price in the quarter was actually, you know, reasonably healthy at mid-AUD 70. That was all. We can talk about it a bit more later.
Yeah, just finishing that, Glyn. I mean, as I said, we don't sell it on spot markets. I get your point, but it's probably not the right comparison point.
No, fair enough. Matt, I know you've got your review coming up. You've just got your feet under the desk. If you think about the guidance you gave us back in June, July for this year, which was about AUD 30 million of sustaining capital and about another AUD 30 million of project and supporting infrastructure, the latter AUD 30 million, should that just disappear? That was wellfield supporting capital and completing Columns 4, 5, and 6. If wellfield stays as they are and you need to keep drilling, is it a AUD 30 million sustaining business? Hopefully you can get better when this review completes. Is that the message?
Yeah, there's a good question in there in terms of that project. A lot of that project capital is associated with columns. You will see a step down in that project and infrastructure supporting capital because of columns. This will be part of that review. Included in that is that we're reprioritizing some of that capital. For example, that resource delineation drilling will now be in that. We'll find that within that additional capital spent pool by reprioritization.
Yeah, I guess I was just trying to think about what is the worst-case scenario and what, you know, that we should base it on. Hopefully it gets better from there. If you think about 2026 guidance, is it AUD 30 million - AUD 40 million if we had to keep drilling as many wells to keep producing? Then your study throws us something better.
Yeah, Glyn. For 2026, we expect that CapEx guidance to be pretty consistent. I think where you're going with the analysis is probably more of a 2027 story. In terms of FY 2026, as Matt said, we expect the delineation program will be absorbed in that current CapEx guidance.
All right, that's great. I'll maybe talk to you a bit later and detail a bit more. Thanks for your time.
Thanks, Glyn.
Thanks, Glyn.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Branko Skocic from E&P. Please go ahead.
Yeah, morning guys. I was just wondering if there's an opportunity to monetize any of the infrastructure at Honeymoon if the review does suggest that you don't need as much capacity as was originally planned, please.
I don't think we need to get into that yet. I mean, the review will be how we optimize the assets and optimize the resource, including the Honeymoon infrastructure. That includes cut-off grade, incremental cut-off grades, how we develop our wellfields, how we optimize the wellfields, including the scheduling of the wellfields across all of the Honeymoon resource, how we utilize capacity within the columns, given head grade, trading head grade off between head grade and flow, etc. It's a little bit, without talking to the review, we'll naturally be trying to optimize and drive as much value to shareholders.
No, that makes sense. Just final question, just circling back to the contracting point from earlier, are you able to share the volume of future production that remains undercontracted?
Yeah, Branko, we haven't signed any additional contracts in addition to the AUD 3.5 million that we previously disclosed. I think we might have kind of delivered AUD 300,000 - AUD 500,000 of that AUD 3.5 million. That leaves approximately AUD 3 million remaining under contract.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Andrew Hines from Shaw and Partners. Please go ahead.
Yeah, hi, thanks again, Matt. Hey, Matt, Justin. Back on contracts, just a quick question for you. I guess you are a producer now, so you're one of the few around the world that are producing. You're in the ecosystem and talking to customers. Are you actually actively talking? You know, there's a few RFPs around at the moment. Are you involved in any of those processes? If so, any color for us on what's happening out there in the broader market at the moment?
Andrew, at the moment, as I said, we are obviously invited to participate in the RFPs. At this stage, we're opting to remain strategically undercontracted, so we aren't bidding into the RFPs. I'm sure you know you read a lot about the market. We continue to see a strong backdrop for nuclear and continue to see RFPs coming out, but no real kind of additional insight into where the term price may or may not go.
Okay, thanks, fellas. That was all.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden from Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Hey guys, thanks for taking a follow-up. I just wanted to circle back to, I guess, Jason and Gould’s. You've mentioned that you're accelerating the approvals there. I know you've kind of answered this before a little bit, but I just wanted to tease out a little bit more color on your expectation of what's the earliest realistic production window that you could see for each deposit.
Yes, again, a good question, and we're working through all that. I don't want to jump into at this point into what that would be. You know, we've previously talked to a two to three-year time period. It's fair to say that we, to optimize, and the reason why we're accelerating is to optimize Honeymoon and the whole domain. We need to understand that timetable as a minimum and work towards unlocking that timetable for Gould’s and Jason’s because then you can optimize feed from multiple sources. As part of the review is to actually engage, and we are engaging with government to work through that timetable. We'll come out in that December quarter with a timetable that will stand by and can be measured to, and that will also feed into a production profile for Honeymoon.
Yep, okay. Understood.
Yeah, sorry, Daniel. I know I'm not giving you the answer.
I think we all appreciate it. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Dusci for closing remarks.
Thank you, Harmony. Thank you, everyone, for joining the call this morning. As noted on the call, it's been a very strong quarter with record production and below cost guidance. We understand the importance on several of our key work streams, and we're really working towards providing those updates in the coming quarter. Thank you.
That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.