Thank you, Darcy. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining the Boss Energy September quarterly results call. Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO. I will take you through our first quarter performance, the transition underway at Honeymoon, and the work progressing across our regional growth projects, and we will take questions at the end of the call. Turning to Slide 2. The September quarter was pivotal for Boss. We delivered the New Feasibility Study and updated the Honeymoon mineral resource and established the foundation for the operations future. We also set out our ambition to build a larger, low-cost, longer life uranium business through a regional production hub. Delivered ahead of schedule, the New Feasibility Study confirms the viability of the wide-space wellfield design.
It forecasts approximately 13.8 million pounds of production over nine years, supporting economic production through to at least FY 2034, and provides a pathway to improve Honeymoon's cost structure. The work also underpins the next stage of our strategy. At our September market day, we outlined our aspiration to bring Honeymoon, Jason's Deposit, and Gould's Dam together through one processing plant, making greater use of the infrastructure we have already built. Our aspiration is to produce 2.5 million pounds annually at an all-in sustaining cost of around AUD 65 per pound by early 2030s. Achieving this will materially increase production, reduce unit cost, and extend operating life. We also began the transition to wide-space wellfield design. Flushing commenced on EKT1, our first wide-space wellfield, and early performance has supported confidence in the design.
The first leaching results are expected in the December quarter and will provide the next operating evidence against our study assumptions. Alongside these strategic milestones, Honeymoon delivered 359,000 pounds of drummed uranium, supported by a record flow despite rainfall contributing to 19 days of lost production. Production and costs were consistent with expectations and FY 2027 guidance remains unchanged. We finished the September quarter with approximately AUD 195 million in cash investments and uranium inventory and no debt, supporting our capacity to fund the transition. The quarter established a clear direction for Boss. Our task now is to turn that technical foundation into consistent operating performance, ramp up our production, and advance the regional opportunities that can build the long-term shareholder value. Turning to Slide 3 and Honeymoon production. Drummed production was 359,000 pounds, broadly consistent with the June quarter. Ion exchange production was 337,000 pounds.
Record flow helped offset the expected decline in average tenor as the existing wellfields mature. Heavy rain in August contributed to 19 days of lost production across the quarter. We brought forward some planned shutdown activities during this period. We have several programs of work to build our operational resilience. B6 completed its first full quarter of production. This is the first wellfield at East Kalkaroo, and its performance has been encouraging. It has achieved recovery of approximately half of the resource after 12 pore volume exchanges, with an average leaching solution tenor of 102 PPM. Flushing required only 0.6 pore volumes with low calcium levels and acid consumption. For the December quarter, we expect production to be broadly consistent with September, with higher flows offsetting declining tenor. Full-year production guidance remains at 1.25 million-1.3 million pounds. Turning to Slide 4.
We're now implementing the wide-space wellfield design as set out in the New Feasibility Study. Honeymoon's high permeability, hydraulic connectivity, effective confinement, and low acid consumption provides the technical basis for this approach. Wider spacing allows the leaching solution more time to interact with the mineralization and assess a larger area with fewer wells and less infrastructure. The design balances these benefits against a slower production response as spacing increases. EKT1 is our first wide-space wellfield. Flushing has commenced with encouraging early performance. Final flushing data and the first leaching results are expected in the December quarter, which will provide further operating evidence against the NFS. The NFS assumes a 49-meter injector to extractor spacing. EKT1 is testing 58-meter injector to extractor spacing, while HMT1 will test 70-meter injector to extractor spacing, allowing us to assess the performance of these wider space wellfields against the study assumptions.
Construction continues at HMT1, EKT2, and EKT3. The encouraging leaching performance at B6, together with initial flushing response at EKT1, reinforces our confidence in the technical work underpinning the New Feasibility Study. Turning to Slide 5. The water treatment plant upgrades are a key enabler of the production ramp-up outlined in the New Feasibility Study. Both stages remain on track. Before a new wellfield starts leaching, we use treated water to condition and flush the wellfield. This manages calcium and chlorides. The water treatment plant supplies the RO permeate water required for wellfield flushing, while also meeting ongoing plant requirements. Water treatment capacity therefore governs how quickly we can bring a new wellfield into production. The NFS assumes approximately eight new wellfields each year, and each preconditioning and flushing takes approximately 45 days.
The staged water treatment upgrades are built into the development schedule and the resulting production profile as outlined in the New Feasibility Study. Stage 1 improves the capacity and availability of the existing plant, and we expect to complete this work in June quarter of FY 2027. The work addresses known debottlenecks, improves our cleaning requirements, softening settling performance, and hydraulic constraints. Stage 2 provides major capital expansion required for the life of mine schedule, with completion expected in March quarter of FY 2028. This is targeting approximately 300 cubic meters per hour of RO feed. We also see opportunities to improve the ramp-up by reducing the water requirements for first flushing and wellfield conditioning. The NFS assumes one pore volume of flushing, compared with historic operating averages around 0.7. We have also commenced studies to better understand calcium distribution and behavior and to assess alternative approaches to acidification and preconditioning.
The aim is to reduce our permeate demand and potentially decouple wellfield conditioning from water treatment plant circuit, providing greater flexibility in bringing on new wellfields online. Turning to Slide 6 and cost. C1 cost for the quarter was $47 per pound, compared with $45 in June. All-in sustaining cost was $79 per pound, compared with $70 in June. Both measures are below the full year guidance range. We expect unit cost to increase as average tenor declines through the year. We're on track to remain within our FY 2027 guidance range for cost. Total capital expenditure was AUD 13 million. This comprised AUD 9 million of sustaining expenditure, primarily EKT1 first-fill costs and construction activities across the new wellfields, and AUD 4 million on processing facilities. Sustaining expenditure was slightly below expectation because rain temporarily interrupted drilling and construction.
Process facility expenditure was in line with expectations and remains weighted towards the second half of FY 2027. Full year capital guidance remains at AUD 58 million to AUD 65 million, comprising AUD 33 million to AUD 37 million of sustaining capital and AUD 25 million to AUD 28 million for process facilities. As outlined in August, FY 2027 is a transitional year. Turning to slide seven. Our balance sheet supports the transition while retaining exposure to uranium price. We sold 301,000 pounds of uranium during the quarter, generating sale revenues around about AUD 35.2 million. The average realized price was AUD 117 per pound or 81.8 US dollars per pound, up approximately 9% from the June quarter. We expect stronger realized pricing in the December quarter at approximately $87- $89 per pound.
At the end of September, we held AUD 39.2 million in cash, AUD 31.4 million in investments and other liquid assets, and uranium inventory carried at AUD 24 million. Together, these totaled AUD 194.9 million with no debt. Cash decreased by AUD 10.5 million during the quarter as we continued to fund operations and capital investment. At the same time, uranium inventory increased by approximately 60,000 pounds to 1.641 million pounds. The chart illustrates the potential market value of the uranium inventory. At a uranium price of $90 per pound, an exchange rate of 70 US cents, the inventory would be valued at approximately AUD 211 million. The accounting carry value remains the lower of the cost and net realized value. Our uncontracted position and uranium inventory provides commercial flexibility and exposure to stronger uranium prices.
Our balance sheet supports funding the transition to wide space wellfield spacing from existing resources and ongoing sales. Turning to slide eight. As we outlined at our market day, our regional hub strategy aims to build a longer life, low cost operation by bringing three deposits together through the existing processing plant at Honeymoon. The NFS provides the foundation for this strategy, which just covers the Honeymoon deposit. Jason's Deposit and Gould's Dam contain a further 45.1 million pounds of reported mining mineral resources, bringing the total combined resources across three deposits to 65.9 million pounds. We are assessing how Jason's and Gould's Dam could utilize the infrastructure and processing capacity already established at Honeymoon, reducing the capital investment required to develop these deposits. The studies include a trunk line connecting Jason's to Honeymoon and a satellite-loaded resin facility at Gould's Dam for transport to the existing plant.
This would allow uranium recovery at both deposits to be processed through Honeymoon's downstream facility. The potential benefits include lower capital requirements through the use of existing infrastructure, staged investment at each of the deposits as they advance, and greater operational flexibility. Increasing production through a shared plant would also spread our fixed cost over more pounds, supporting lower unit cost. Our aspiration is to increase production to 2.5 million pounds per annum at an all-in sustaining cost of approximately AUD 65 per pound by the early 2030s while extending the operation life into the 2040s. Turning to slide nine, we progressed the approvals and technical work required to define the development pathways for each deposit. For the Honeymoon mine extension, we have submitted the EPBC referral and expect a referral decision in the December quarter. Preparation of the mining lease application continues.
At Jason's Deposit, technical work required for the referral stage is complete. Environmental studies are nearing completion, and the EPBC referral documentation is well advanced. Diamond core drilling has commenced, with 15 holes planned for approximately 1,900 meters to improve our understanding of the hydrogeology, mineralogy, and mineralization. A resource delineation program comprising of about 137 drill holes for approximately 15,600 meters is scheduled to commence in the December quarter. The program aims to improve confidence in the existing resource and increase the resource through testing known mineralization extensions. At Gould's Dam, studies are underway to access the preferred processing configuration, including the opportunity to load uranium onto resin on-site and transport it back to Honeymoon for processing. Turning to slide 10. At Alta Mesa, where Boss holds a 30% interest with enCore Energy being the operator.
Alta Mesa produced 10,000 pounds through the quarter on 100% basis, compared with 45,000 pounds in the June quarter. Boss received no product during the quarter. State permitting delays prevented new wellfields from coming online in time to replace declining production from existing wellfields. Plant production has now stopped pending availability of new wellfields. PAA-3 is expected to commence production in December quarter, followed by PAA in the March quarter, both subject to permitting. Securing these approvals and bringing the new wellfields online remains the immediate priorities for enCore. Turning to slide 11. This was a significant quarter for Boss. We delivered production and cost consistent with our expectations and completed the New Feasibility Study for Honeymoon. Drawing on historic operating data and detailed technical analysis, the New Feasibility Study established the foundation for the next phase of development.
At our market day, we also outlined our ambition to build a longer life, lower cost operation through a regional processing hub. We're now putting that work into practice through the transition to wide space wellfield spacing. Flushing commenced at EKT-1, construction progressed across the new wellfields, and both stages of the water treatment upgrades remain on track. These activities advanced the production ramp up as outlined in the New Feasibility Study. FY 2027 production guidance remains unchanged at 1.25 to 1.3 million pounds, with C1 costs of $51 to $56 per pound and all-in sustaining cost of $83 to $92 per pound. Our debt-free balance sheet supports this work, while our uncontracted position retains exposure to stronger uranium pricing. In parallel, we are advancing studies to approve and approvals for the regional hub, taking a disciplined approach to capital as each opportunity develops.
I would also like to welcome Peter Botten, who commenced as Chair on the 30th of September, and thank Wyatt Buck for his contribution as Chair and his continued service to the board. This quarter established a clear pathway forward. We recognize that confidence we will build through consistent delivery, operating safely, delivering the transition reliably, and progressively improving our cost structure and production profile. This is our focus for the quarters ahead. Thank you. And with that, I'll hand you back to Darcy for questions.
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. If you are on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Hugo Nicolaci with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Morning, Matt and team. Thanks for the update this morning. Maybe just firstly on Honeymoon, your production in the quarter above, for 1Q, sort of well above your implied guidance range for the full year, just by bringing some of that maintenance forward and you are guiding to a consistent IX production next quarter, which would then imply obviously a step down in the second half. Can you just walk us through how much of that is conservatism versus uncertainty around the grade into that second half outlook?
Yeah. Good question there, Hugo. Look, we provided that guidance of 1.25- 1.3. But ultimately, we are always trying to do better. When we have outlined the New Feasibility Study, we have also outlined opportunities to accelerate that ramp-up profile. So what we will see for FY 2027 is, we will see grade decline slightly as we transition to these wider space wellfields. So trying to get that transition right is quite important for us. But ultimately too, if we can start to drive some of the optimization work programs we are doing, on top of what we delivered at the New Feasibility Study, then I am hopeful some of that may come into the back end of FY 2027.
Got it. That is helpful. Then sort of second one, just on your contract book. You have guided to realizing $87-$89 a pound next quarter, then 124,000 pounds a quarter for the legacy contract in the second half. Can you just confirm that is essentially 100% of that legacy contract for FY 2027 gets delivered in the second half, so that December quarter realization is essentially entirely at spot?
Hi, Hugo. Justin here. Yeah. You're right. For the legacy contract deliveries in 2027, that represents 100% of the legacy contract deliveries for calendar year 2027.
Got it. For calendar year 2026, does that mean you've met your contract deliveries already at the September quarter and the December quarter is all spot pricing?
Yeah. For calendar year 2026, our contract book is mostly full. We currently have pre-executed forward sales for the Q4 calendar year 2026.
Got it. That's helpful. Just last one if I can on Alta Mesa. Production there halted. Can you just talk us through what your understanding of the timeline is from here and does this potentially add additional costs when you start to add wells back in and bring the plant back online versus if production was just continued rather than stopped?
Yeah. I'll answer some of that question. Final permitting on PAA3, extension of PAA8, they're expected in December and March quarters respectively. As those permits come in place, production profiles would ramp up. It would be fair to think that cost structures while you're in this intermediate phase of not producing plus ramping up would be impacted.
Got it. That's helpful. I'll pass it on. Next, please.
Sorry, Hugo?
Thank you.
Okay. Thanks.
Your next question comes from Alistair Rankin with RBC. Please go ahead.
Oh, thanks. Good morning, Matt and Justin. Just the first one about EKT1 wellfield. You have said that the early flushing has supported confidence in the New Feasibility Study design. I respect that you are going to give a bit more detail next quarter, but so far, can you just talk through what you have actually observed so far that has allowed you to make that statement about supporting the confidence?
Yeah. Hey, Alistair. Yeah. So commentary in the quarter was we have got confidence on the initial results of what we are seeing out of flushing. We have not completed all the flushing. But we expect to be in a position to do that shortly and bring EKT1 online and producing again shortly. Why we say there is confidence, there is a couple of things that drive that language and why. Results to date, we see contact between injector and extractor wells. So we know we have got hydraulic connectivity on that spacing because we have seen the contact between those. What we have also seen is pH come down and sulfates increase, and most importantly, we have seen that over the expected time frames and pore volumes that we have assumed. With pH coming down, contact between injector and extractors.
pH of the wellfield now sitting about two and achieving those over the right times and pore volumes, leads us to say that statement that we've got confidence given initial data of what we have at the moment. We will provide more data in the next quarter because by that time we will have initial leaching data come through.
No, that's really helpful. Appreciate that and look forward to next quarter. Just also on Wellfield B6. I think you mentioned it recovered about half its resource after 12 PVE, pore volume exchanges, which looks like a pretty good result. Also low acid consumption as well. I guess how does that compare with what your model was predicting and I guess what does that tell you about East Kalkaroo relative to the Honeymoon Domain? Because that's where the upcoming EKT wellfield has been built.
Yeah, it's roughly similar to the model but slightly better than what we've assumed under the model. Why we have that commentary in there is there's always this uncertainty whether East Kalkaroo is different to Honeymoon, how it will perform. The result to that is, look, we think East Kalkaroo will perform as well or if not better than actual Honeymoon Domain. Honeymoon Domain from a system and mineralization perspective is probably the most complicated part of Honeymoon, although it's the highest grade. But from a leaching characteristic perspective, it's probably the most complex of the full Honeymoon deposit.
Gotcha. That's really helpful. Thanks.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Branko Skocic with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Yeah, morning, guys. Just on Honeymoon, I was keen to understand your views around recoveries and how you expect these to trend, as the lower grade material comes through the plant over the coming quarters. I've noted that recoveries have been stepping down only marginally, just as the tenors have been declining over the last six to nine months.
Yeah. It's roughly in line with expectation at the processing plant. We have been doing a little bit of trials on our leach circuits and sequencing. So what that has done is led to some variability and a little bit of recovery associated with the front end of the process plant as we continue to optimize, because we also brought in all those additional columns. It's important to note that at the front end of the plant, that recovery just gets recirculated. The key recovery element where you lose metal is in the precip circuit, and that's holding good.
All right. That makes sense. Yeah, second question from me was just on Alta Mesa. I'm really just trying to get a sense for your go forward strategy here and whether you'd be open to putting the asset under strategic review.
As we talked in the market day, our immediate focus for myself and Justin and the team has really been on Honeymoon. But now we've got that feasibility behind us, it's something that we would consider associated with Alta Mesa. One element I'm keen to ensure that we always do is, as a business, we remain disciplined on capital. We need to generate shareholder returns on our capital investment and make sure that that's part of us as an organization, us as a culture, and us as a business. So it's fair to say, if we're not seeing capital returns or expected capital returns for shareholders, then as a business, we've got to make decisions.
No, it definitely makes sense. If I can just stay on that point just for a second. I'm just getting a sense for, I guess, your quarterly cash contributions towards that JV. Just a little bit difficult to see in the accounts. I'm sure it's in there.
Hi, Branko. Justin here. Thanks for the question. You're right. Not much cash contributed to the joint venture. You would've seen in the June 26 accounts that there's a payable recorded to the joint venture. That payable has grown a little bit during the quarter, but largely remains consistent with what was in the June accounts.
Makes sense. Appreciate your time. Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Roden with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just wanted to ask on, I guess, your cash and inventory balance, kind of going back to your strategy day and kind of your strategic outlook. You have a target to be at a minimum AUD 50 million of cash, which we're under at the moment. And I guess noting that there's a bit of capital commitments going into Honeymoon wide space and Alta Mesa needs a bit of capital as well. How do you think about buffering your liquidity and your cash balance from a capital management perspective?
Hi, Daniel. Justin here. Yes. So thanks for your question. So our capital priorities will remain consistent with that market day. So you would've seen that during the quarter, cash balance reduced to AUD 40 million and we accumulated that additional 60,000 pounds of inventory. We try to balance that cash requirement and sales as needed. So as an example, for the quarter, had we sold those 60,000 pounds during the quarter, we would've achieved a realized price around that 82 US dollars a pound. By accumulating that 60,000 pounds, it would probably mean that we'll achieve. If we sell those pounds in either Q4 calendar year 2026 or Q1 calendar year 2027, we'll probably receive a realized price in the low nineties. So we continue to expect that uranium price to increase, and therefore, we balance that sales book to match our cash flow profile.
So to the extent that capital is lumpy, then we will balance that sales profile to meet that lumpy capital requirement.
Yeah. While as part of that strategy, we're trying to keep that 40%-60% Australian capital.
Yeah. I appreciate the color, guys. Maybe just on the, I guess, cash operating costs for the quarter was a bit of a, on a cash AUD million basis, was a bit of a step up. Was the, I guess, the payables timing royalties pull forward of shutdown work? Can you maybe uptick a little bit of what that step up from, I think last quarter was about 15, and we've stepped up to about AUD 22 million on cash operating costs. How do we bridge that?
Yeah. If you look at the C1 cash cost and then the variance in terms of that cash operating cost, there was a difference of about AUD 5.4 million. That AUD 5.4 million was comprised of AUD 2.2 million of royalties, which is included in that cash operating cost line, but not in the C1 cash cost. There was an additional AUD 1.2 million in consumables, which was mainly purchases of resin for the ion exchange columns. Then there was some additional working capital movement. So there's about AUD 1 million in trade payables, AUD 0.7 million in prepayments, and AUD 0.2 million in selling costs.
Yep. Okay. No, thanks for that. I'll hand it over. Thanks, guys.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Mark Wiseman with Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Oh, good day, Matt and Justin. Thanks for the update here today. My first question is just on the resilience of the operations there at Honeymoon. The rainfall impact, if you hadn't drawn down metal from the circuit, maybe would've been a little bit soft. I'm just wondering, these rain impacts that seem to be recurring, is there anything you can do to build more resilience? Is it about roads or reagent inventory at the site? Is it something you're thinking about?
Yeah. Thanks, Mark. Yeah, good question. In August, we had two rainfall events totaling 100 mil. So you can imagine 100 mil events, that sort of rainfall does have a significant impact on site, and we have seen more rainfall events having impacts. There's a couple of elements to that on how we actually build business resilience, and now that we're building out a long life, now we've got this plan of building out a long life, low cost operation, then we can actually really do some of these programs of work to drive that resilience as a good operation would. When you talk about rain and business resilience is not just associated with rain, but other elements that we can continue to drive improvement, and that's just across the business. From a rain perspective, there's a couple of elements that have impact.
One is site access, including getting reagents to site. Second element is our reagent storage and in how much reagents we store on site. The third element is associated with access to well fields. So how do we access the well fields, ensure that we don't have to turn well fields off just because it's wet. There's programs of work associated with each three elements of what I just described to build that resilience through adverse rain events.
Okay. That is great. Would any of those have a material impact on reagent inventories or sustaining CapEx to address some of these items? Or is it all smaller ticket sort of things?
Smaller ticket things.
Okay. I just had one other question on Alta Mesa following on from the other discussions. Is there a scenario where you are going to have to inject more funds into that JV in any material way, particularly if you were not going to be willing to do that? It seems like without any production coming in, there is probably going to be some cash calls there to prepare for the next phase.
Yeah, that would be a fair assumption, but it is a little bit too early for us to comment.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead.
Morning, Matt, Justin. Matt, can I just ask on that question on Alta Mesa then, can you give us a sense of what the balance sheet at Alta Mesa looks like at the moment? Like how much cash they've got? Is there anything you can help us understand what is going on?
Yeah, I can't comment on that, Glyn. You know, we're working under a joint venture and a joint venture structure.
All right. We just have to wait. But I guess you will tell us if and when you had to put cash in.
Yeah, exactly. As a business, we want to drive shareholder value. We recognize that Alta Mesa, with that production ramp down. Having said that, enCore is working hard to get that production up. They are working closely with the regulations to get those additional well fields up and running. You can imagine that is a priority for them as a business as well.
So maybe if you could just help us understand the options then. If it needs additional funding, does it necessarily have to be a cash injection from the two owners, or are there other options you are contemplating as well?
It is, again, too early for us to comment, Glyn.
Cool. Then maybe just on your aspirational target next decade, the 2.5 million pounds per annum at all-in sustaining costs you gave us. I believe from memory you're permitted to 3.3. Is that
Yep
Still correct? Is 2.5 just your early estimate at the moment, or what's your confidence level around 2.5? Could you push the envelope and push us towards the permit? Thanks.
Yep. Yeah. So the 2.5 is really what the back end of the plant could do. It will require a little bit of capital injection in the precip and probably some, again, it's business resilience/runtime improvements. So under the 2.5, that's the lightest capital scenario. Once you've delivered that light capital scenario, then you'd be looking at what additional capital you would need and the return on that capital to get production rates beyond the 2.5, which would mean further capital in the back end of the processing plant. The Honeymoon permit from an export perspective is at that 3.3.
Okay. Yeah. So this is really a phase 1 of maybe what could be a couple of phases if you wanted to. If it all went to plan, you could maybe look at phase 1, phase 2, and ultimately if the economics stack up, push towards 3.3. There's nothing outside of the economics that you would see if it's 3.3?
Exactly. The 2.5 is quite a simple stage because that's the least capital required.
Yeah. That's just really the pipeline from one and the trucking road from the other, really.
Correct.
All right. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Alistair Rankin with RBC. Please go ahead.
Follow up, guys. Just further to the regional hub and around Jason's Deposit. I understand that you're advancing that EPBC referral documentation and commented that the technical work is completed, which is good. I'm wondering if you could remind us what additional testing you're going to do at Jason's. I think you've got some upcoming drilling going on as well, some delineation drilling. Just what additional work you need to do there and to build your confidence about the committing to that satellite deposit.
Yep. So a good question. Specifically on Jason's, there's a series of programs of work to get that into a financial investment decision. That would be at feasibility, Boss feasibility level. So we are undertaking that work. First pass of that work is this delineation drilling that we're committing to. That drill rig's about to go out next swing, and they'll complete that over the next two to three months of that delineation drilling. That will feed into a new resource model. We'll do the reactive transport well field simulations. We'll make sure all the permeability modeling's complete. Ultimately too, do some additional leaching characteristics, which have been preliminarily done. That will all feed to a feasibility study and into a FID.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Matt Hope with Ord Minnett. Please go ahead.
Yeah. I was just interested in B6. You said you used the old wellfield spacing at 30 by 30, and you seem to have had strong recoveries. Does that suggest that potentially moving to the wide space model was premature and the old spacing would work across East Kalkaroo? Or is there something different about B6?
No. It just means under the leaching, and this is leaching. So leaching characteristics, we are seeing strong leaching characteristics there or positive leaching characteristics at East Kalkaroo. As a result of having evidence on good leaching characteristics, it is fair to say that those characteristics would also apply to the wide space wellfield design.
Would the tight space, from what you have seen so far, would the tight space have worked anyway and recovered what you originally had in the enhanced feasibility study from just from what you have seen on B6 so far?
Yeah. But remember, the wide spacing provides better optimization than the close spacing under hydraulic conditions, permeability, and also leaching characteristics. So although we are seeing good leaching characteristics out of the close spacing, which is a positive, the optimized route is still this wide space wellfield design. That is, again, to drive cost and cost structure.
Cool. Okay. Thanks very much.
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now hand back to Mr. Dusci for closing remarks.
Thanks, Darcy. Thank you everyone for joining us today on the call. This quarter really established the technical foundation through the New Feasibility Study and set our ambition for what we want to do with the operations, and that is ultimately to develop a long-life, low-cost operation. For us and the team, our focus really is on consistent delivery, progressing that wellfield transition, and delivery against FY 2027 plans and look at how we continue to improve and strengthen the business. We look forward to updating you on the progress next quarter. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.