Thank you very much. Welcome to our conference call. With me today are Ian Purdy, our outgoing CEO, Anna Sudlow, CFO, Alex Rybak, Chief Commercial Officer, and Paula Raffo, our Head of Investor Relations. Today we release our full-year financial report, as well as a significant update on our PLS project in Canada. I'll start with our full-year results before moving to our future-focused activities. FY 2025 was a transformational year for Paladin, with successful completion of our first full year of operational ramp-up at the Langer Heinrich Mine and successful acquisition of Fission Uranium Corp. At Langer Heinrich, we have now achieved five continuous quarters of quarter-on-quarter improvement in production volumes. I was personally delighted that the year culminated with the highest quarterly crusher circuit throughput in the history of the Langer Heinrich Mine in the June 2025 quarter.
Our mining operations are now up and running at approximately 50% capacity, and our plant is performing well. For this reason, we fully expect to complete our ramp-up year program during FY 2026 with full operations expected for FY 2027. I'd like to note some key highlights achieved at Langer Heinrich during the year. We achieved 3 lbs million of uranium production, which ranks us as the fourth largest listed producer of uranium in the world. We achieved sales revenues of approximately $178 million off the back of successful deliveries to our global customers. Updated average life-of-mine cash operating cost estimates at... Sorry. Our realized price of $65.70 per pound and our cost of production of $40.20 were strong outcomes in a ramp-up year.
Finally, we're proud of our safety performance and community focus as we work with our employees, contractors, and local communities in Namibia and Canada to achieve sustainable benefits for all stakeholders. The successful completion of the Fission Uranium Corp. acquisition in December 2024 was a significant milestone for our company, adding the Patterson Lake South Project to our growth portfolio. The PLS Project hosts the Triple R Deposit, a shallow, undeveloped, high-quality uranium deposit in the Athabasca Basin region in Saskatchewan, Canada. It's one of the leading undeveloped uranium projects globally.
We've made excellent progress since the acquisition, with the signing of mutual benefits agreements with two First Nations, the granting of the non-resident ownership exemption by the Canadian government, acceptance of our final environmental impact statement by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, which is currently undergoing public review, and completion of a comprehensive engineering review, which we are pleased to release the findings today. The key highlights for the project are unchanged life-of-mine production of 9.9 lbs million over 10 years, unchanged average annual production of 9.1 lbs million utilizing conventional mining and processing, updated average life-of-mine cash operating cost estimates of $11.70 per pound, and all-in sustaining cost estimate of $15.20 per pound. Updated front-end engineering and design stage pre-production capital cost estimate at $1.226 billion. Updated NPV of $1.325 billion at $90 per pound uranium price.
Updated first uranium production at the PLS Project is targeted to occur in 2031. The strong economics support our unwavering commitment to bringing the PLS Project into production by early next decade, while continuing to de-risk the development through FEED and conducting further exploration to identify future expansion opportunities. Utilities are increasingly seeking Western sources of supply, with PLS strategically positioned to capture this demand. We're confident that the project will deliver long-term value for all stakeholders while upholding the highest standards of safety, operational efficiency, and sustainability. Finally, I'd like to thank our employees around the world for their hard work and commitment to delivering on an important year for Paladin. The foundations are now in place for our future success and growth. I'd also like to thank all of our shareholders for your continued support. I'd now like to open the call 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 question, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. The first question comes from Alistair Rankin with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Hi, good morning, Sam. Just a couple of questions from me. First one just on PLS. I went through your new CapEx estimates and just compared them against the 2023 feasibility study. Just looking at the two biggest CapEx cost increases are in the processing and infrastructure cost buckets. Can you just run through what's driven these cost increases?
Yes, so thanks Alistair for your question. In the processing plants, it's primarily driven by an increase in plant footprint and related also to building and infrastructure costs. For example, the mill or handling, CCD, solvent extraction, minor increases in steel work, concrete, labor rates, and the expansion of that footprint to provide us with a little additional capability.
Just another one on PLS as well. You noted here some plans for some further drilling in Siloam East and then some drilling as well to convert some of your indicated and inferred resource. Are your plans at the moment? Can you just run through what your plans around timeline for this drilling are? Is this something you want to do and get done before FID is taken on the project?
Sorry, Alistair, it was really difficult to hear, but I think the question was around our exploration plans and activity. Really positive results with the drilling program. Really positive results with the drilling program in Siloam East. There's still a lot of open ground. Over the coming years, we'll continue to undertake a drilling program in and around that Siloam East area, but also around the main PLS at the open ends of that ore body as well. There's a lot of prospective ground in the region, and we plan on continuing to explore, primarily at the Siloam East and the PLS Triple R Deposit.
Is this drilling something you want to do before you take FID on PLS?
Not necessarily, no.
Okay, thank you.
Thanks, Als.
The next question comes from Daniel Roden with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Thanks for asking, for taking the question. Maybe just following up on that, I guess, you know, the upscaled CapEx of $1.2 billion. I guess what's the targeted funding mix of that? Do you still see a good component of, I guess, you know, self-funding or do you see, you know, I guess if you revised the estimates to include, you know, additional, I guess, finance debt in, is there the potential that you do a strategic sell down to kind of help with the funding mix as well?
Thanks, Daniel. It's Anna. I think we're still considering that we have a range of options available to us. We've obviously got Langer Heinrich Mine cash flows. We feel that the Patterson Lake South Project is really strong economically, so I don't think that access to debt or equity markets is going to be an issue for us. I think you're right in that there is a possibility that we would look to bring in a strategic partner. I think watch this space, but we've got a range of options that we'll consider as we go forward.
Okay. I guess the FEED case has a, you know, you're running a $90 account, kind of an assumed price through that. When are you looking at securing initial term contracts now that you have a bit more visibility over time against the project? Would you look at kind of structuring that soon or is that, I think, more backend decade later?
Daniel, I might take that one. Alex Rybak here. This is definitely a scale of a project that will require long-term contracts to proceed. We've obviously built a book and have experience from Langer Heinrich. We have the customer relationships. Interestingly, a number of customers have already approached us about contracting at PLS, which underscores our view of the market and the tightness in the market. A lot of the forward-looking utilities are looking quite far into the contracting horizon. We're not contracting PLS yet, but we will have a contracting strategy that will mesh well with the funding strategy. We will build a contract book ahead of FID for PLS for sure.
Okay, thank you. Maybe just, I guess, one on the accounts. I'll be getting into the mining ship, but you know, you've kind of, you know, the average ship I think I've cost of production was $40.2 a pound. I'm just trying to reconcile that with the reported costs so that if I go into the accounts in note 10, the cost of production was $129. If I kind of break that out, I'm still, you know, I guess what's the bridge to kind of come back to that $40? I'll say $40 a pound. How do we bridge that from the cost of production in the accounts?
Yeah, Daniel, let's take that one offline. There's probably a level of detail we can discuss one-on-one.
Okay, sounds good. I'll pass it on. Thanks, guys.
The next question comes from Andrew Hines with Shaw and Partners . Please go ahead.
Yeah, hi guys. Thanks for the call. A couple of questions. First of all, just, you know, short-term sort of update, Paul. How's Langer Heinrich going now? We're sort of two months into this quarter. Is the plant still operating at the recovery rates that we were achieving in that June quarter? Is throughput still good? How's the mining fleet operating?
Yeah, thanks, Andrew. Everything is performing absolutely as per our expectations. We continue to stand behind our full-year guidance. Very pleasing results so far.
Okay, thanks, Paul. A question for Alex. Alex, I presume you're off to London on the weekend to the WNA Symposium, which is, as we know, the big get-together of the buyers and the sellers. Just going into that conference, that symposium, just interested in your take on where we're at in the market. Contracting volumes still seem to be relatively low this year. We had that sort of strange RFP from the Koreans recently that seemed well out of the market in terms of what they're asking for. What is happening behind the scenes and what do you expect to see coming out of at London next week?
Yeah, good question, Andrew. Thanks for that. Look, I think definitely WNA is one of the premier events. I think this year has got close to 1,000 delegates registered already, and there's a lot of expectation and discussions. For me, what's interesting, if you take a step back, is what's going on in the contracting from an RFP point of view. As you mentioned, the Koreans are out for 9 lbs million of supply. As you know, two years ago, they put out an RFP for 6 lbs million , which they didn't fill. They didn't fill anything last year. They've got 25 reactors operating in-country, consuming 12 lbs million, 13 million pounds of uranium annually. Those requirements are building up and they're not being contracted. We expect them to come out for additional volumes this year.
We also see a number of other parties, particularly from Europe, with large unfilled volumes that need to be filled later this year. From our point of view, whilst the numbers, the historic numbers, aren't coming through with historic level of term contracting, over the next six months, I see quite large volumes of requirements that need to be filled in the market, particularly with supply starting in the next, you know, one or two years, which in my mind should translate into some positive movement in the spot market because that material has to come from somewhere. Most of the major producers are quite well contracted. From a demand point of view, very strong dynamics. Obviously, from a supply point of view, there are supply challenges always out there, and because Kazatomprom has recently talked about its production potentially being 10% lower going forward.
The market's quite well set up. I think it's going to be quite an interesting conference, this one at WNA, and we can pick up our dialogue after that.
Perfect. Thanks, Alex. I'll pass it on.
The next question comes from James P. Bullen with CDF. Please go ahead.
Good morning and thank you everyone for the call. Just a quick question around PLS and that timing of 2031 for first production. Just curious what you see as being on the critical path. I think we all see compelling economics. The technical complexity looks absolutely manageable. Is it a regulatory thing that would mean it would take out to 2031?
Yeah, thanks, James. Look, you're absolutely spot on. I think the economics are very compelling, very strong economics for the project. In terms of project complexity, you're right. It's nothing completely innovative there. It's been done before, and the timeline is largely dictated by the regulatory process. I met with the Canadian government both provincially and federally last two weeks. The CNSC process is a well-trodden path. It's very rigorous. We know the work that we have to do, and that is most likely to remain the critical path for our project. There are two stages in that process. Obviously, there's the permitting for construction, and then as we are constructing the project, there's the CNSC permit for operations as well. They largely dictate the time it takes to bring PLS into production.
That's not going to get impacted at all by C5. That couldn't expedite things.
We had that conversation last week with the federal government. It's, you know, it's unlikely that it will have any significant impact on this project. The government are interested in projects of national importance. You know, there may be a focus on streamlining some of these processes like the CNSC process, but it's unlikely to have any significant effect on our project in particular.
Thanks, Paul. If I could just ask one more question. Just thinking about Langer Heinrich and 2027 and beyond, the nameplate capacity, how should we think about that? Do you believe that that is absolutely still achievable?
You know, James, I'm really happy with how the ramp-up's going. We're now entering into our final year of ramp-up. We put guidance out for the full year. I stand behind that guidance. I'm really happy with the way we're operating so far. What I did say when we put the guidance out was we'll provide more of an update on 2027 in around July 26. I think we'll leave it at that for now.
Thank you very much, Paul. Appreciate it.
The next question comes from Milan Tomic with JPMorgan . Please go ahead.
Yeah, hi guys, thanks for the call. Just a question on PLS, on the permitting situation. Correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but is there a First Nations group there that also has a say in this? From my understanding, they were quite hesitant on having two mills right next to each other. Is that still the case? Is there still more talks to be had with that group of First Nations people, or is that pretty much all sorted at the moment? I'll circle back to the next one.
Yeah, thanks for your question, Milan. There's actually four, there's three First Nations groups and Métis Nation Saskatchewan. We have two MBAs with two of those groups, and that's gone really well. We're in conversation with the third group, and we're meeting again with them in a week's time. In fact, as we speak right now, our team is meeting with Métis Nation Saskatchewan, and we're continuing to work with them. There's no either regulatory requirement or any requirement under those MBAs for operation of a single mill in the region. You know, and the CNSC are supportive of multiple mills in the region as well. There's absolutely no issue with regard to that topic.
Yeah, just to confirm, do you need to have the sign-off from all four groups in order to progress the project ahead, or is it majority of the four?
No, in fact, it's just a matter of practice that we continue to engage collaboratively with First Nations and Métis. It's ideal to have their support, and we're going to have a long-term working relationship with them. We would rather have their support for the project than anything else.
Yep, makes sense. Just one on Langer Heinrich. Just on the stockpiles, when do you expect those stockpiles to be depleted, the ones that were there from the previous operation?
That depends. It depends on, you know, if we continue to see good grades coming out of the mine and it's progressing well. You know, we may drip feed the stockpile in or we may not process it. As I mentioned in the guidance in the first quarter, we are feeding a lot of the stockpile material in as we strip the GPITs. At the end of this next quarter, we'll have an update on the actual volume that we put through the process. It depends on how things go as we progress through FY 2026.
Great, thanks very much.
Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. The next question comes from Brent [Kozkosik] with E&P. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Thanks for your time. Just a quick one on the Langer Heinrich reserves. It looks like contained uranium is down roughly 5 lbs million for the year versus production of circa 3 lbs million in the period. Just wanted to understand the revision there. It does look like grade is the big change, but good to understand that, please.
Hi, it's Ian Purdy. I'll answer that one. Yeah, there were two, what are considered routine minor changes to our reserves. The first one is depletion for the year with the, obviously, the material we've processed through the plant and converted into U3O8. The second one is there was a minor change to our cutoff grade, which did affect the volumes and the grade in a small way. They're the two factors, but really pleased to say that our independent experts stand behind our reserves. They're in good shape and there's been no significant change. Obviously, the remaining stockpile, we slightly decreased the grade on that as well, given the year-to-date performance with the lower grades, as you're aware. All routine, three minor issues, and yeah, we move forward.
Thank you. Just quickly on Canada, there was some consolidation of a NexGen tenement a couple of weeks ago with Rio Tinto exiting their interest. Just wondering if you can confirm whether you guys had an interest in that tenement when it came up, sir.
No.
Thank you. That's all from me.
There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand it back to Mr. Hemburrow for closing the mic. Please go ahead.
Thank you. We've had pleasing results at Langer Heinrich in the last financial year, and we're now in our final year of ramp-up. The engineering review demonstrates the strong economics at PLS, which underpin our unwavering commitment to bringing PLS into production. We've made good progress since the acquisition of Fission, and we have a really exciting work plan over the next 12 months to unlock value for our shareholders. Thank you for joining us today.
That does conclude our conference call for today. Thank you for participating, and you may now disconnect.