Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our September quarterly call, which we hope is a slightly quieter day for a number of you. Our executive team is here with me today, as usual, for the Q&A, which we'll get to very shortly. Before we start, I'd just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands on which we stand, the Wajak people of the Noongar Nation, as well as the First Nations peoples of the lands on which Sandfire conducts its business. We pay our respects to their elders and leaders, past, present, and emerging. As we always do, let's start with safety. We finished the period with a group TRIF of 1.4 and no recordable injuries across the group. Obviously, a very welcome result.
The safety of our people is paramount, and as our Asset President at MATSA, Rob Scargle, likes to put it, it's all about achieving and sustaining safe production. That's why we're working hard to raise awareness of the need to report and learn from high potential incidents and further strengthen our control environment. At our full-year results in August, we noted copper equivalent production for FY 2026 would be weighted towards the second half, with a circa 48/52 skew anticipated. We also noted that copper equivalent production skew in the first half would be even more acute at a 45/55 split across the September and December quarters. Pleasingly, copper equivalent production for the group is tracking almost 5% ahead of that plan at 35,5 00 tons and remains on track to achieve the midpoint of annual guidance of 157 ,000 tons.
At MATSA, we delivered copper equivalent production of 21,8 00 tons, which represents 23% of FY 2026 guidance of 96,000 tons, as our mine plan navigated grade variability, which is, I might add, typical of polymetallic ore bodies such as MATSA. As in the past, recoveries were also impacted as our processing lines processed a high proportion of ore with elevated pyrite from the Castellar zone within Aguas Teñidas. As importantly, we've maintained discipline with MATSA's underlying operating unit cost of $85 per ton, coming in marginally lower than full-year guidance. Motheo has also continued to run to plan, achieving 13,6 00 tons of copper equivalent production for 22% of annual guidance, noting FY 2026 production for Motheo will also be weighted toward the second half of the year, as we said in August.
Pleasingly, we're set up well as our team has made strong progress dewatering the A4 pit, such that mining recommenced in stage one in recent days, and we're already mining low-grade ore in stage two. This is what underpins the planned surge in high-grade material from A4 in the second half and the building production profile across the year. Despite softer metal production in the quarter, we had five shipments depart the port of Walvis Bay in Namibia, which certainly bolstered operating cash flow, something Megan can talk to in the Q&A. From a broader perspective, MATSA's underlying operating costs came in 4% below full-year guidance at $42 per ton. Please don't get too excited.
This is precisely what we anticipated, as costs will rise across the year, consistent with full-year guidance as we extract more ore from A4 and incur additional haulage and handling costs, as this high-grade pit is, as you'd recall, around 8 km from the processing plant, which sits adjacent to T3. From a strategic perspective, in Q1 FY 2026, we invested $7 million in regional and $6 million in near mine and extension exploration programs in the Iberian Pyrite Belt and Kalahari Copper Belt. Our investment in regional exploration in the Motheo hub will accelerate with the imminent recommencement of drilling activity.
As you would expect, we took advantage of the recent pause in activity in Botswana to increase the coverage of our induced polarization dataset in the Motheo hub and have further enhanced our targeting approach, such that we have detailed plans for 20 km of target drilling, which will be undertaken across the next nine to 12 months. While we're back at A1 testing down dip of known mineralization, we're still on track to release a maiden reserve in Q4 of this financial year. Turning back to MATSA, we were extremely pleased to receive the final regulatory approval for the new tailings storage facility and the team's already commenced early works, such as land clearance and fencing to secure the site.
Separately, we expect our closure plan for the existing TSF to be approved shortly, which will allow the team to complete the final incremental raise to establish a sustainable landform. The support we receive from government in both Spain and Botswana is not taken for granted. It is greatly appreciated. Lastly, to Black Butte, we still expect an updated resource and reserve statement and new pre-feasibility study to be released by Sandfire America in Q2 FY 2026, paving the way for the group to determine its longer-term strategic fit in the portfolio. Bringing this all together, our team's unrelenting focus on the basics continues to feed into our balance sheet, where net debt declined by a further $61 million to finish the period at $62 million for a cumulative $283 million reduction in net debt across the past 12 months. The combination of our modern mining complexes, preferred commodity exposure, talented people, the consistent and predictable performance they deliver, and of course, our increasingly strong balance sheet ensures we are strategically well positioned for the future. With that, let's go to questions. Thank you.
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're on a speaker phone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Kaan Peker from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Good morning, Brendan, Megan, and Jason. Just two from me. Just on MATSA, the Magdalena volumes dipped about 10% this quarter, and that appears to have driven much of MATSA's lower copper output. Can you maybe give us an update on the sequencing through 2Q and you getting to the higher grade zones? Are they accessible now, and should we see a recovery in both throughput and copper recoveries?
Okay, so maybe going to that one first. Let me go back to 37,000 ft. As I mentioned in August, we talked to a 48:/2 sort of ratio for group copper equivalent production. Look, the reality is there'll always be a level of variability. Indeed, we mentioned we're tracking 5% ahead of plan. That is sort of the tolerance for error in trying to forecast production from these types of assets on a three-monthly basis. We continue to expect that 48/52 SKU across the first half and second half. I think when you're working through your numbers, we'd really encourage you to sort of back solve towards that. With regards to Magdalena, the mining rate, of course, is dependent on a number of variables, which I'll get to in a moment.
I would just highlight to you that if you look back over a two to three-year period, it's been quite common for Magdalena volumes to sit below 500,000 tons in a quarter, and it's even seen production lower than 450,000 tons. Really, what this is a function of, as always, is stope design, ground conditions, and ore grades. Of course, we react and resequence. You see the usual timing differences and the differentials that appear in the quarterly today. From our perspective, we're not seeing anything that's atypical. What is important is the work we've done to invest in the underground continues to mean that we have a number of faces open. We have significant degrees of freedom. I mentioned that depending on where we're drawing the ore from in the mine or the mine complex itself across the three operations, that will impact obviously in terms of recovery. You know, when we got higher levels of pyrite, and that's obviously more of a challenge to suppress in the flotation circuit. You see that feed through. Again, nothing that's overly unusual. As I've mentioned, the full-year guidance on track and the SKU across the first half, second half should be broadly, as we've said in the past. Maybe Jason, if you can just pull that apart even a bit further.
All right, thanks, Kaan. Really just drilling down on Brendan's comments there as well. If we look at it in late July and early August, we were mining down in MATSA 2 West and Magdalena in a very high-grade section of the ore body where we do longitudinal stoking. The access for that production is along the track of the ore body. We did see some ground conditions very localized in there. Due to this material being extremely high grade, the team at MATSA made the conscious decision to actually slow down that mining rate to make sure that we could do it safely and also retain the integrity of not only the recovery of that ore in a localized way, but also retain the integrity of the sequence. From my point of view, they've done a very good job to manage those conditions. We've got all of the ore out as planned. It's slightly lighter in some of those areas. In terms of production rate, we have got that integrity of the sequence and will continue to mine according to plan throughout the year. From where I sit, this is certainly not unexpected. It's part of mining, and it's certainly part of mining at Magdalena. We see no issues with the full year coming out in production rates at Magdalena.
Sure. Thank you. Appreciate the detail. The second one's on Motheo. As A4 ore sort of progressively replaces T3 feed through the second half, does the higher grade or higher mineralogy, harder mineralogy, limit the throughput?
I'll take that. Of course, remember that we run a blend and we've set the plant up such that the planned rates of production have the capacity in the back end of the plant. Now, with the potential from period to period to see at times even a higher average blend grade, we don't want to be constrained. That is why we are investing in some of that tank capacity at very modest capital across this year. That's really just to, if you like, provide somewhat of insurance at the back end of the plant. Again, that'll be alleviated in terms of a potential bottleneck. Jason, anything I've missed there?
Yeah, absolutely right. We're spending $6 million in capital to make sure that this is not an issue for us for the future. That project is now well advanced, and we're doing most of the modifications that are required over the next two planned shutdowns. I expect that we've got all of those upgrades and the debottlenecking works associated with that completed by the end of Q3 and ready to go when we're seeing high-grade A4 ore going through the plant.
Thanks, Kaan.
Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Levi Spry from UBS Investment Bank. Please go ahead.
Kaan and Yogi, Brendan and Jason, thanks for your time. Just a quick one on Black Butte. What exactly can we expect? Reserves and resources for pre-feasibility study, when? Can you give us a bit of context around the update, I guess, given how strategic these kind of minerals are in the world now?
Yeah, look, I think from our perspective, not a lot has changed in terms of the direction of travel. I think you've seen some of these things firming up in recent weeks and months in Washington. I think that's fairly consistent with the trend that's been in place now for some while, Levi. Look, being mindful that we're talking for Sandfire America, which is a separately listed entity on the Toronto Exchange. What we expect, of course, our team supports that work, our technical team. We anticipate that there will be an updated pre-feasibility study coming through just prior to Christmas. I think it could be in the days or week to weeks prior to Christmas. We also expect an updated reserve and resource estimate. Now, the drilling of the lower copper zone very much increased its lateral extent.
The work that we're going to be focused on, and we're yet to see the outcomes, is when we obviously put the mine plan around that, what are the levels of dilution that one sees? What is the mine ore grade and what does that mean for the economics? We're obviously as focused on that as you. I think from my perspective, I've said before, when the company bought into Black Butte, the market cap of the organization was less than $1 billion. Today, it's obviously at a point in time much higher than that. We have no doubt that the Black Butte project is very close to shovel-ready, one of the rare fully permitted options in that part of the world. The question is not whether Black Butte gets built in our mind. We're waiting on these updated economics to firm that up. It's really more about how does it fit strategically in our portfolio. No real change there, Levi. All of these materials, as they become public, provide us with a whole lot of different alternatives as an organization. We're as eager as anyone to see the outcome of this work.
Got it. Thank you. Thanks, Brendan.
Good one, Levi. Thank you.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Yeah, hi, Brendan, Megan, and Jason. Brendan, a quick question on MATSA and around the low recoveries in the poly circuit. Was this just a really unique quarter where you had a lot of higher production from Agua Tenidas, which just offset or just swamped, I should say, Magdalena and Castellar? Or, you know, could we actually, within the mine plan, is it going forward? Is there another quarter which might look like this?
Yeah, Paul, thank you. I know you love your processing plants and obviously the chemistry that goes with it. You'd be absolutely aware that if you go through a zone where you've got a far higher proportion of pyrite, it changes the chemistry and how you work to suppress that. That's obviously challenging and more challenging than a number of other areas. Castellar certainly provides us with a more, I guess, challenging and pyritic feed of ore typically. That's really what we're seeing. Of course, across the rest of the year, as Jason has alluded to, we expect to see the production in MATSA play out as we've, I guess, provided guidance for. As a result of that, you would expect to see grades and recoveries, and particularly recoveries, improve across the year, commensurate with the plan. Jason?
Yeah, just building on that again. Paul, I think you've nailed it. If we look at it, there's two key reasons there. We've got the usual decrease in recovery, which is a result of lower head grades. If we look at poly ore in particular, copper grades there were 1.5% for Q1, which is down from 1.9% in the prior quarter. Zinc grades were at 3.8%, down from 4.3% once again in Q4 FY 2025. Brendan's absolutely right though. When you put on top of that the fact that we've been producing and processing a significant amount of Castellar ore, which was planned to be processed throughout the year, it is very complex metallurgically. As Brendan touched on, it's very high in pyrite content. We get lower recoveries, particularly associated with it. It ends up generating a lower pH in the pulp chemistries and in the flotation plant there as well, which we're working actively to keep under control. In particular, if I look at going forward, we still have ore remaining in this part of the ore body. I think from memory, it's about 350,000 tons left of this material. Going forward, it's not a significant part of our mine plan, particularly for the remainder of this year and beyond that.
Okay, thanks, Jason. That's good to know. Brendan, maybe turning to the U.S. and Black Butte, your study is coming, as you just outlined. Just curious around the potential uptake and the concentrate there, considering that your Bingham Canyon smelter has a lot of spare capacity and the mine seems to be underperforming. Just curious if you had any conversations with that smelter and uptake and how that might improve the economics, considering I think that concentrate should be highly sought after.
Yeah, thanks, Paul. Excellent question. I probably don't want to go into specifics of any discussions that may or may not be occurring on a confidential basis. I think the reality is more broadly in the United States, as is the case in most places you operate, if you can process your ore closer to home, clearly there are numerous benefits. Of course, that is something that the team is working on. Obviously, supporting Sandfire America is the potential to find a home for that concentrate that is certainly much closer than putting it on a ship and sending it to Asia. Of course, that's the fallback position. We'll see where that lands over the coming weeks. That's an important value driver and also could be important strategically for the project. Nothing really more I can add at this stage other than noting your point about potentially the logic of sending this to a smelter such as Bingham.
Okay, great. Okay, thanks, Brendan.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Morgan from Barrenjoey . Please go ahead.
Hi, Brendan and Tim. You mentioned that you were 5% ahead of target during the quarter. Obviously, there's variation around your budgets, which I think you said the tolerance is about 5% as well. I'm just wondering if you could outline what went better during the quarter. Do any benefits travel further than this quarter? Obviously, you haven't changed your guidance. Does it potentially mean we brought into this quarter some benefits to future quarters, or is it just you've started well and not willing to uplift guidance yet?
Yeah, I think the reality is we're, you know, three months into a year. We know the variability that we see in these operations. Of course, throughput at MATSA was particularly strong. You know, MATSA is going well, albeit we absolutely recognize and hear some of the challenges around specific issues that we expect to, you know, obviously evolve through the course of this year. To give you a sense, MATSA polyline 3 is in planned maintenance just at the moment, just a short shut. There are all these sorts of things that flow through. We would just really caution people against becoming any more optimistic at this early stage in the year. As I said, we still think that you'll see that relative production skew play out. Not much more I can add, Dan. It's better than being behind at this time of year, but still a long way to go.
Maybe somewhat related, the dewatering activities at A4 are pleasing to see. Is that best viewed through the lens of production outcomes? Business plans this year have been de-risked by that. Is that the best way to think about it?
Look, I think clearly the year is, to some extent, at Motheo contingent upon being able to accelerate production out of A4. Its high grade is clearly something that we cherish. It's been somewhat frustrating to obviously be impacted by one in plus 200-year event as we were last year. Equally, it's proven that the team is match-fit. They've done some excellent work in terms of how they've responded. The work and the capital we put in to build contingency, I think, has paid off. It leaves us now in a position where, as I said, I think we're very, very well set up. The irony is with the dewatering, it goes very well once you get below those initial sands and the calcrete layers. It's amazing how quickly the water levels start to drop.
We've got enormous amounts of pumping capacity, sprinkler capacity now in place that really assists us with that. Jason and I were remarking the other day, we'll inevitably, like most mines, probably go from a situation where we've got way too much water to worrying about where we're going to get our water. That's something that's not unusual and something we're monitoring very, very closely. Jason did remind me that they had some heavy rains there late last week, which also means that we're starting to get back into the wet season in the Kalahari. All of these things have potential impacts in the very short- term. I think the way you put it is arguably the right way to think about it, is the fact that we're now back in stage one, the fact that we know the water level has been drawn below the mining level and considerably below, sets us up well and hopefully, to some extent, de-risk the outlook for the rest of the year. Of course, there's a whole lot of other variables that we need to be mindful of.
Okay, thank you for your perspectives, Brendan and Jason.
Thank you, Dan. Appreciate it.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Ben Lyons from Jarden . Please go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning, Brendan, everyone on the call. Maybe just staying with Botswana, I note the commentary in the release about the new mining act coming into law and the increased option for government or citizen ownership. Now, obviously, T3 and A4 sit on granted MLs, which will be grandfathered, but I'm just interested in how extensive those MLs stretch. For example, does A1 fall within the envelope or does that one potentially require the issuance of a new mining lease? Thanks.
Yeah, good one, Ben. Thank you. As you know, prior to the recent election, the revisions to the act went through Parliament and obviously they've recently been gazetted, which was good to see. Good to see in the context that progress is being made, but also that there were no substantive changes in any respect that came through. You're absolutely right. T3 sits on a granted ML. What I would just remind people on the call is that A4 was not covered by that ML initially, but the government actually saw that there was logic to extend the ML to cover A4 and the associated haul road. We don't know precisely what the plan will be and how we'll work through approvals for A1. First step, obviously, is to complete the current drilling programme.
We've got additional drilling underway, as I mentioned, targeting a deeper zone in the hinge of the fold, which is showing some interesting and encouraging results in terms of grade and thickness. We'll see how that plays out. We need to complete that. We need to understand the economics. It's obviously much more distal from the processing plant. We would work with government. I think what would be, from our side, something that will be really important to work through with this is, firstly, logically, the same approach to A4 would make sense for a number of reasons. I think the two that come most specifically to my mind is the value now, once you build a processing facility, arguably sits as much in the processing facility as it does in ore.
How you actually think about ownership and the value of the ore without a processing facility, particularly for an ore body that's of a size of A1. At the moment, it's circa, if you look at the resource that was stated, it was just around about a year of processing capacity. We'll see how that plays through as we work to convert to reserve. Of course, the second thing is that the material would always be blended. You wouldn't want A1 to be supporting the whole of the feedstock given its distant location. When you think about those things, how you actually attribute value to A1 as a standalone asset would be really, really difficult. I go back to the point that A4 was really a function of an ML that was extended, expanded, if you like, to cover that new development.
Certainly, it would be our position to argue strongly that a similar approach is warranted. It would be a healthy discussion with government. I would just note that our engagement with government, right from the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Honorable Bogolo Joy Kenewendo , is a very, very strong relationship and good direct discussions. They're certainly very supportive of what we're doing. Obviously, for us, we need to continue to show the benefit of Motheo that goes well beyond the immediate direct employment into other areas. That's something we're very, very mindful of. Good relationship, Ben. As I said, probably right at the start, the most important thing for us when the revisions were enacted, there were no changes from what went through, nothing of any substantive nature prior to the election.
Okay, no, thank you very much. Makes inherent logic, and I do appreciate those strategic perspectives. Thanks, thanks, Brendan.
Thanks, Ben.
Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone. Your next question comes from Adam Baker from Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Hi, Brendan and team. I'm maybe just following up on Ben's question. I did see the comment on the regulatory environment about the 10,000 km cap on the, you know, the area that can be held by, you know, companies in country. It appears to be something new. Obviously, you've got over 13,000 km under licenses at the moment. Can you just walk us through, you know, how you're thinking about, you know, when it comes to reducing that landholding, you know, what you're kind of thinking about? Is it getting rid of Tanya, which is furthest away from your processing facilities, or are you thinking about other things to reduce that?
Yeah, look, thanks, Adam. Just to be clear, that's certainly not new to us. That's something that has been understood for some time. It was part of the proposal that went through ultimately the Parliament prior to the election and remains on foot. We've had, as I think I've mentioned on this call, very, very healthy dialogue with government and the various departments around a number of things. Firstly, we believe we have the most extensive geophysical database of the Kalahari Copper Belt. We believe that having opened up two open pits, we are the best-placed player to make the next discovery. Of course, with our modern processing complex, we've got the best chance of ensuring it's economic and can win capital.
Of course, first and foremost, I think the key line of discussion that we have is that it's very important that we maintain that strategic stronghold in terms of our large tenure holding. That's a very healthy discussion. I think it's well understood. Equally, though, as I've mentioned before on this call, we've got a process as we work through and really refine our targeting approach that we continue to apply for renewals. We've been working to reduce our position. That's been something that's been ongoing and you can expect will be ongoing for the foreseeable future. We have every intention of moving back to meet that requirement. It's important that we do. If you look at the areas that we have relinquished over recent years, it's typically been out to the west in the deeper areas where you've got very, very thick cover that may host meaningful opportunities. For us, we believe it's going to be much higher cost and lower certainty of success. Again, our focus has been very much around the Motheo hub and then in some of the southern areas that you should start to see more activity over the coming months. Jason, anything I've missed there?
No, I think really the only points I'd add to that are that we've been in constant communication, not just at a ministerial level, but also at a regulatory level. We've been engaging and our team over there have been engaging very proactively with the regulators that will be tasked with overseeing these new changes to the mining act. All indications are that they will, and they have to date, been working very proactively with us to do whatever reduction that we do need to in a controlled and structured manner. We've seen in recent history, all of our tenements that required renewals, they've all been approved and we don't expect to see that to change. We'll continue and engage with these regulators to make sure we're doing it in that controlled manner that I talked about before. As Brendan said, it's about a technical basis for relinquishments as well. We've been doing a lot of work, particularly on prospectivity in certain areas. There are certain areas that are now low priority and they'll be the first to go.
Yeah, I think, you know, reality is we want to spend our capital where we think we have the highest likelihood of success, you know, where it's the most capital-efficient form of exploration. We're working hard on that. Maybe just to even further emphasize Jason's comment, the last major renewal that we went through was prior to last Christmas, obviously after the amendments had been publicized and gone through Parliament. We actually managed to renew all of our critical tenure, particularly tenure that sits in and around the MATSA hub. Of course, it's important we follow through. We've got, hopefully, as you can hear, a very, very focused approach to that process of progressive relinquishment. Good question, Adam. Appreciate it.
Thanks, guys. I'll pass it on.
Thank you. Your next question comes from Anthony Barridge from Platts. Please go ahead.
Yeah, g'day. It's just regarding the Black Butte thing. I know that when the other analysts asked you about the strategic nature of it, and you said that both kind of geopolitical talks around critical minerals have been ongoing for quite a while there. Just wondering whether you've had or been in any talks with U.S. authorities about whether they've shown a lot of support for the project, either on a funding or regulatory level or anything like that. I'll come back for a second. Thanks.
Yeah, Anthony, thanks for your question. I think the one difference to really flag, perhaps for Black Butte, is it's a fully permitted project. I think if you look at some of the examples that you might be thinking of, they're projects that either haven't got their permits or they need support for other associated infrastructure to then enable the said mine to develop. Black Butte sits literally kilometers out of a lovely town called White Sulphur Springs. It sits on private land. It's fully permitted. It's not in of itself a large capital project. It's, you know, circa 1.2 million tons per annum throughput rate, very, very concentrated site. If you look at the tailings facility that's planned, it's, you know, it's effectively a cemented tailings. The reason for that is to make sure you're managing any of your risks, particularly around water. Water is the big issue in Black Butte, given the sensitivity of that environment, as it should be. Yeah, look, very, very different. You'd expect we have ongoing discussion with a range of parties, but, you know, it's not like we're looking for a major enabling piece of infrastructure or some support through the permitting process.
Just on a macro level, which I think would support, you know, copper macros, it's fascinating that. What do you see, if anything, that, you know, trumps critical minerals deal with Albanese? I know you're OK for funding and stuff, but just on a macro level, I mean, is that, what do you think that deal? Do you think it'll support copper pipelines, which have traditionally been, you know, we've seen lack of discoveries and that kind of thing? I think there were some warnings from the Australian Minerals Council around the warning around the potential for increased costs, which probably wouldn't be just for Australia. I mean, are you seeing any potential benefits or impacts, you know, on a macro level or cost level or impacts otherwise from that kind of deal being done just in the copper space broadly?
Yeah, look, thank you. There's a lot in that. We probably need two or three calls to cover it. What I would say, I was at LME Week with a number of people on this call, no doubt, just two weeks ago. The mood there was probably as buoyant as I've seen it in a number of years, particularly for copper and obviously some other commodities, precious metals, and some of the other critical minerals. I think one of the benefits for copper is it's a very large market. I think in these smaller markets, when governments are supporting projects, one's got to really focus and understand what that means for the supply-demand balance over not just the next year, but the next five, 10, 15 years.
The good thing about the copper market is that, as you've mentioned, there's been arguably a lack of exploration and/or exploration success over recent years. We're starting to see some of that come through now, but really a lack of activity and success. The major fleet, and when I say the major fleet, I'm talking the larger mines in our industry, you've all heard this before, they're all over 20 years old. I think personally that the market still overestimates the likelihood that they'll supply to plan. I think what we're seeing now is a function of age and the complexity that comes with age in mining and the likelihood therefore that supply will continue to fail to meet expectations and therefore markets will be tighter and the prices will need to be on average firmer to support investment into the industry.
It has been pleasing that copper's now starting to, if you like, capture some of the headlines. I've felt that sometimes we've been focusing on the tail of the tail of the dog. The reality is that copper is the commodity that is required for the world to electrify and decarbonize. Much more needs to be done over time to ensure that we have adequate, obviously, mining capacity, but also processing capacity around the world. It is pleasing from our perspective that I think other than the people on this call and probably keen industry observers, I think more of, if you like, the average person is starting to understand the role that copper is going to play and the importance of copper to our future.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Harris for closing remarks.
Thanks again. It's good to catch up with everyone. We obviously only spoke reasonably recently on the back of our full-year results. Our AGM is on Friday. I just remind people, three months certainly doesn't make a year, but we're very pleased to have started fairly much as we would have hoped and expected. We're slightly ahead, a lot of hard work to go. You can be sure that as a team, we're continuing to very much focus on the basics. Safe, consistent, and predictable production is our motto. We're working very hard to make sure we continue to build that reputation. Thank you for your time today. Hopefully, a day where you've had a few less companies report. I know David Wilson and Tom are very eager to, on a day when hopefully you've got a bit more time, give you as much time as you need to work through the numbers. Thank you again. We look forward to seeing you all again soon. Have a good day.