Boss Energy Limited

Thank you for standing by and welcome to the Boss Energy Investor Conference Call, December quarter 2025. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a 30-minute question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. In the interest of time, participants are requested to limit the number of questions to two per turn. If you have additional questions, you are welcome to rejoin the queue and we'll be able to ask further questions if time permits. If we run out of time and do not have time for your question, we ask that you please call our office on 0862634494 or email boss at bossenergy.com and speak to our team. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Matt Ducey, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Ashley. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for dialing in to the Boss Energy December quarterly conference call. Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO. We will be both happy to take questions at the end of this call. Turning to slide two, there's been another significant quarter for the company, which I'll talk through during the call. Some of the key highlights include we delivered record quarterly production of 456,000 pounds of uranium drummed, up 18% from the prior quarter. C1 cash costs for the quarter were $30 per pound, down 12% from the prior quarter, with all-in sustaining costs of $49 per pound, down 3%. Average price of $112 per pound, or US$74 per pound, was realised with sales of $39.3 million. Ultramisa produced 143,000 pounds of uranium drummed, of which BOSS received 68,000 pounds during the quarter. We continue to build drummed inventory to 1.62 million pounds, up 175,000 pounds, or 12% on the prior quarter. The balance sheet remains strong with $208 million of cash and liquid assets, including $53 million of cash. We remain on track to deliver FY26 production guidance of 1.6 million pounds, and are pleased to announce downward revision of guidance of c1 and all in sustaining cost on the 18th of december we announced the conclusion of the honeymoon review and outlined a clear pathway forward for honeymoon asset with a new feasibility study initiated this fundamental change to our wellfield design will enable an increase in residence time of exhibient reduce our cost structure, unlock lower-grade mineralisation, improve the production profile and extend the life of mine. Now turning to slide 3. As noted, this was a quarter of record drum production at honeymoon, with production of 456,000 pounds of uranium drummed. This is up 18% from the prior quarter, reflecting a continued run on quarter-on-quarter growth since BOSS commenced production in April 2024. IEX production was up 8% from the prior quarter, with £406,000 produced, with increased flow achieved from four wellfields, B1 to B4, being online for the whole quarter. Key activities for the upcoming quarter will include the completion of the commissioning of NIM6, COMS4 and 5. Flushing for Wellfields B5 is underway and expected to begin production in the coming few days. We're expecting production of third quarter to be softer than in the current quarter before lifting again in quarter four to deliver the £1.6 million production guidance for the full financial year. The pullback in the coming quarter is due to phasing of wellfields with an expected decline in average tenner. This quarter will also have a major shut associated with the tie-ins of columns 4 and 5 along with power upgrades. In quarter 4, we expect an increase in production as wellfield B5 will be running for the full quarter and will also bring in wellfield B6 coming online at the very back end of the quarter. This wellfield B6 will be the first of the wellfields to operate for Far East Kalkaroo. Turning to slide 4. As noted earlier, C1 cash cost for the quarter was $30 per pound. This was lower than both the original guidance of $41 to $45 per pound and the prior quarter of $34 per pound. This was a great achievement as we continue to see positive results from lixivian optimisation programs, reagent optimisation in the plant and other cost reduction programs driving cost savings and productivity improvements. The all-in sustaining cost for the quarter was $49 per pound, below original guidance of $64 to $70 per pound. The main variance relates to lower C1 cash cost and the phasing of new well-filled sustaining capital spend. Where there is an opportunity to delay well-filled capital expenditure under the existing plan, we are taking this decision while we execute the new feasibility study. We do not want to be spending capital under non-optimal plan. Project and supporting infrastructure capital cost increased in the quarter to $11 million from $9 million in the prior quarter. Of the $11 million spent in the current quarter, $4.5 million of this related to ongoing completion of the NIM6 columns, $6.5 million of the $11 million related to wellfield supporting infrastructure for East Kalkaroo, with $4 million spent on the trunkline, monitoring wells and high-voltage power upgrades, and $2 million spent on delineation and drilling. In terms of guidance for the minder of FI26, we continue to reconcile production guidance of 1.6 million pounds of drum uranium We are also pleased to revise downwards our C1 cash costs and all-in sustaining costs guidance. Our new C1 cash costs guidance is $36 to $40 per pound, down from the previous guidance of $41 to $45 per pound. All in sustaining cost guidance has also been reduced from $64 to $70 per pound to a new revised guidance for FY26 of $60 to $64 per pound. This is largely driven by the team's efforts to increase productivity and efficiencies while reducing costs for the business. This is an area that we'll continue to focus on. Sustaining costs remains mostly consistent as we balance this potential transition from existing plan to a new wide space wellfield design. Where possible, we do not want to spend capital on executing a sub-optimal plan. It is in the shareholder's interest that we defer as much of this capital as possible in parallel to the execution of the new feasibility study. Project and supporting infrastructure capital has been increased by $3 million from $27 million to $30 million to new guidance of $30 to $33 million for the full financial year. This increase is primarily due to the inclusion of the honeymoon delineation drill program. Turning to slide five. The company is in a strong financial position and I continue to reinforce that we are very well positioned to fund what we need to do as a business to drive value. We closed the quarter with no debt and $208 million of cash and liquid assets. Cash increased from $47.8 million to $52.9 million at the end of the quarter. There has been a slight decline in the total cash and liquid assets quarter on quarter due to mark-to-market declines in fair value for our strategic equity shareholdings. Drummed uranium inventory increased during the quarter from 1.44 million pounds to 1.62 million pounds. We continue to view this inventory as strategic for the company as we continue to see tightening of the uranium market Sales during the quarter consisted of £350,000 at an average realised price of US$74 per pound or Australian$112 per pound. First delivery into a legacy contract will occur in Q3 and will continue in Q4. This contract is linked to the honeymoon mining licence from when Boss originally acquired the asset. The contract is for a maximum of £1.7 million linked to either 20% of the previous calendar year's production or a maximum quantity of £250,000 per year. This contractual material, £250,000, will reflect a realised price of approximately 65% to 70% of the spot price for those pounds. Moving to slide 6. In terms of our 30% stake in Ultimisa, a joint venture with Encore, production for the quarter totalled £143,000 on a 100% basis during the quarter. VOS received £68,000 of drum production during the quarter. The production decline was associated with the timing of bringing new Wellfields online. Additional modules are currently being installed at Wellfield 7 and Wellfield 3. Drilling at Alta Mesa East continue to confirm the potential extensions of mineralisation from Alta Mesa West. Turning to slide seven. As noted on the 18th of December, we released the findings of the Honeymean review and have identified a clear pathway forward. A pathway that we are generally excited about. It's a pathway that has a potential to unlock significant value for the company. We have commenced work on the new feasibility studies centred around the alternative wellfield design, which has the potential to reduce operating costs and sustaining costs, unlock lower grade mineralisation, improve our production profile and extend the life of mine plan. Successful delivery of this new wellfield design at Honeymoon would also have a positive impact on our satellite deposits. This significant program of work has been initiated as we work toward delivery of the new feasibility study, including continuation of the resource delineation, additional sample collection to improve geology, geometology and hydrological characterisation has commenced. Additional reactive transport simulations have also been completed. We continue to advance the updated mineral resource model, and we have completed planning for trial test work patterns, with drilling also commenced on establishing these trial wide-space patterns. Turning to slide 8. Work progressed during the quarter on advancing the technical and baseline studies at Gould's and Jason's satellite deposit. An updated mineral resource statement and timeline of work required to provide the permitting pathway will be provided in this coming quarter. It is worth noting that the wide space welfare design that is being developed as part of the new feasibility study could potentially significantly improve the recoverable uranium metal and reduce capital intensity and C1 costs both at Jason's and Gould's Dam. Turning to slide 9. To provide a quick summary of the quarter and our priorities, we delivered record quarter production at honeymoon, which is a credit to the team. Production was our highest ever quarter with 456,000 pounds of uranium produced. This was at a C1 cost of $30 per pound and an all-in sustaining cost of $49 per pound. Given the results of optimisation, productivity and cost reductions, we have revised our guidance downward for both C1 and all in sustaining cost, while maintaining our production guidance of £1.6 million for FY26. The company's financial position continues to strengthen in the quarter, with cash of $53 million and total cash and liquid assets of $208 million. as we continue to build inventory, which is now at 1.62 million pounds of uranium. Work has commenced on the new feasibility study, which defines a clear pathway forward to unlock significant value, both to the honeymoon deposit, but also to Gould's and Jason's. Before moving to Q&A, I'd also note that during the quarter, Wyatt Buck, our chairman, has informed the board of his intentions to step down a chair. Upon appointing her as the new chair, Wyatt will continue to apply his extensive uranium operational and technical expertise as a non-executive director on the board. I'm grateful to Wyatt, who has supported me and stepped into the CEO and MD role, and him wanting to continue to assist the company as a non-executive director. With that, I'll hand back to Ashley, the operator, for questions and answers.

Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star 2. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. As a reminder, in the interest of time, participants are requested to limit the number of questions to two per turn, after which you may then rejoin the queue. Your first question today comes from Alastair Rankin with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

G'day, Matt and team. First question just on that contract, that legacy contract that you've called out. So you mentioned it's 65% to 70% of the spot price is going to be the realised price for that. Just wondering, is that implying that you're going to have part of that as fixed contract and you're estimating that it will be about 65% to 70% of the prevailing spot price, or is it still a spot price mechanism and it's just at a lower percentage of the spot price? I'm just looking for a bit more colour on how that pricing mechanism works.

Hey, Alistair. Thanks for your question. It's Justin here. So the precise terms of that contract are commercially sensitive. It is a It does have a couple of different tranches for that contract and has different pricing mechanisms for those tranches. Given that commercial sensitivity, what we have done is tried to simplify for you with noting that it would be 65% to 70% of the spot price at the time of delivery.

Okay. Thanks, Justin. Appreciate that. Second question, just about the outlook for quarterly production. So you've flagged that it's going to be declining in the third quarter. quarter for FY26, and then lifting again in the fourth quarter with the connection of some additional wellfields. So included in those wellfields is the East Kalkaroo, I think, B6. That's the first wellfield coming in from East Kalkaroo. Can you just remind me, are you still anticipating those East Kalkaroo production levels to boost your production at the mine, and sort of what are your expectations for production performance from the East Kalkaroo wellfields?

Yeah, okay, Alastair. So, yeah, so we remind you the next quarter will be a little bit softer compared to the current quarter, but reminding ourselves that we'll finish the final actual year at 1.6. B6 from Far East Kalparoo will come into production at the back end of that quarter. Production is not heavily weighted in terms of delivery of the 1.6 of that B6 production profile. V6 will provide production profile into FY27. One of the things we're also considering is just balancing between delivery of this new feasibility study and continuing to support sustaining capital into that future production profile. What we're wanting to do is make sure that we don't, if we can, we're deferring capital going into existing plan while we complete that new feasibility study.

Okay, that's clear. That's my take. Cheers.

Your next question comes from Henry Meyer with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Morning, team. Thanks for the updates. Just hoping you can share a bit more detail on plans to test the new wellfield design. any colour and what areas are currently being developed with that strategy, how long could you need to test it and get confidence in effectiveness?

Yeah. Hey, Henry. So it's Matt. Yeah, so as I noted in the commentary, we've planned those test work patterns associated with wide spacing. They vary. So they actually vary in spacing and location. Initial programs have actually commenced in terms of establishing some of those test work patterns around the honeymoon resource as we currently have defined it, so extension to that honeymoon B1 to B5. Some of that spacing within that area varies. Where you're going up, one of the patterns will be up to 100 metre spacing. We also plan as part of the feasibility study to also test Far East Kalkaroo on a wide spacing. B6 becomes quite an important part too to this new feasibility study because it's also B6 is on that original plan of closed spacing. So we're wanting to compare B6 production with wide spacing program production at the Far East Kalkaroo. In terms of timeframe, that will all fit into that delivery of the new feasibility study due in Q3.

Perfect. Thanks, Matt. And the second one for me, any other detail you could share on recent drilling performance, I guess, over the last month since we got the updates late last year? Grade thickness sort of in line with the results being observed before or a bit of an improvement or perhaps... not as good as the block model suggested?

Yeah, good question. The results can generally confirm what we're expecting. We are seeing some open up a mineralisation to the south at Far East Kalkaroo, so we are opening up some exploration areas that will come up, hitting some high-grade mineralisation outside of design. but holistically continue to confirm what we're seeing, where we're seeing continuity of lower-grade mineralisation with high-grade mineralisation, but not necessarily as continuous as we previously thought. Got it. OK. Thanks, Matt.

Your next question comes from Daniel Rodden with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just wanted to ask on, I guess, back to the contract that you've disclosed, and I just wanted to get some clarity on... maybe some of the other contracts under your book, and you've got several that you've signed over the past few years. Are you in a position to be able to provide, I guess, a sensitivity on various price points that those various contracts and mechanisms might influence on your realised pricing? How should we think about that? And maybe something you can probably answer right now, but what volume of contracts your production expectations for FY26 and FY27 are contracted?

Yeah, I'll jump in and then I'll hand across to Justin. But even ultimately as a business, we'll try and provide as much transparency as we can. It's one of the things we are talking about is how do we continue to provide that transparency on those contracts and potentially look at doing that at some point as we work through the business. In terms of this contract, it represents about 15% of production at £1.6 million. Still, what's important to note is the company will remain significantly uncontracted. Our contract book represents about £3 million out to early 2030. So it doesn't change that position in terms of us being relatively uncontracted. What we tried to do in this is just provide a little bit of look through on realised pricing that you'll probably see in Q3 and Q4 as a result of that legacy contract. So still highly exposed to uranium price as we see uranium price tighten both through our contracting strategy and the inventory that we do hold. I don't know if you only... Yep.

So, Daniel?

Yep, yep. Yeah, sure. So that 15% for 1.6 in 26, that's the only contract that is applicable for F526, is that 15%? Or the £250,000?

There are additional contracts that we will be delivering into in calendar year 2026. Those contracts have a mix of base escalated and market related with floors and ceilings. For Q3 of this financial year, most of those pounds have already been executed in terms of the forward sale or delivery into this legacy contract. From Q4 onwards of this financial year, so then coming into... Q1 and Q2 of the next financial year to complete calendar year 2026. We are mostly under-contracted for that period. If you were to look further ahead in terms of calendar year 2027 onwards, our current contract book would get you a realised price that's probably around mid-80s to low 90%. in terms of a correlation to the spot price at the time of delivery.

Perfect. That's very helpful. Thank you. And just a last one from me, but, you know, you kind of, you know, as you go through the process of, you know, building and designing a white space wellfields patterns, you know, obviously there's some lead time into that, and I noted, you know, B6 is going to be under the original, I guess, wellfield design and plan. You know, at what point do you start needing to, I guess, allocate some of the capital changes and capital spend? I imagine it's FY27. But I guess from my perspective, that, you know, would seem like it would be... you know, I guess front-running or pre, you know, the final study results release. So I guess how do you think about deferring some of that capex? What's the amounts of capex that I guess you would need to commit, you know, pre the final results of the study?

Yeah, so this is where we're working that balance while we're completing the new feasibility study and also having to ensure that we can make sustaining capital provide that production profile going forward. Ultimately, from a market perspective, we'll be able to provide all that transparency with the new feasibility study to give an understanding of total capital and sustaining capital over their life with that study. Having said that, we are managing within what we're saying with our guidance, both on a sustaining and total capital for execution of these trial patterns. So what you're seeing is we haven't changed sustaining and or total capital projects only by that $1 million and $3 million respectively. That includes the trial patterns that we're doing as part of the new feasibility study. Some of those patterns include uranium pounds, which we haven't yet allocated either to any production profile.

I'll just add to that as well. And so it is a balance, but there is a lot of well-filled capital that will still be relevant regardless of the well-filled design. So examples of that would be the well house, the pumps, some of the surface infrastructure pipes, cables. A lot of that would be relevant regardless of the spacing of the well field. And so we're continuing to invest in in that type of wellfield infrastructure. Where we are holding back a little bit is in terms of drilling production wells, as that could materially change depending on the spacing of the wellfield.

Yeah, got it. And so just a clarification, everyone's understanding it correctly, but, you know, I suppose the findings of the what's best drilling don't, they won't change the pre-committed capital spent for these, you know, studies and projects and You're not going to have to go in and rework, you know, some of the infrastructure. You know, the study and findings, I guess, outline something different. So there's not really going to be a change in, I guess, capital, you know, expenditure expectations from yourselves, depending on the study outcomes.

Yeah, no, we don't expect any changes, Daniel, and the updated guidance that we've provided today reflects our latest view, and we don't expect any changes to that view for the financial year.

Understood. Thanks, guys.

Your next question comes from Regan Burrows with Bell Potter. Please go ahead.

Hi, Matt and Justin. Thanks for taking my questions. Just on commissioning of Column 4, it looks like it was a little bit delayed there. Would have thought that you would have wanted to have that up and running. as you saw the leach tenors coming off to sort of balance that production. So I guess is there something that's intentional there, or is there something else that sort of hiccups that?

Yeah, it is a little bit delayed in terms of that original schedule, but it's not really the key driver. The key driver actually is the flushing of B5, and that will increase flow. So although you see there's a delay here, One of the drivers to where we are probably is about a month, a month on B5 relatively.

Okay, so it's driven by the wellfields rather. Yeah, it's just like... Correct. So it's all linked together.

Yep. Okay, and then just on, obviously, the results from the widespread pattern, from, I guess, the original call, you said it would take up to sort of 90 days to get... some initial results coming through. I'm curious, I guess you're still targeting sort of Q3 feasibility study timeframe to release those results from the white space pattern. Are we going to get an update before then on whether or not this is successful?

Yeah, Regan, as we're trying to do, we'll provide as much transparency and inform the market as we get data. How we've designed the feasibility study is to ensure that happens by breaking it up into components. So, yes, the answer is, yeah, we're happy to try and give as much clarity as we work through it.

Okay, great. And if I could just squeeze one in, any sort of driver-wide Ultamesa performance drops, so materially quarter-on-quarter?

Yeah, so you saw that drop in production. Again, timing on wellfields really becomes critical in these ISRs, and that's a reflection at Alta Mesa as well, as they look at bringing new additional wellfields and extending wellfields and prospectivity onto Alta Mesa East project.

Okay, great. I'll leave it there. Thank you for taking my questions.

The next question comes from Milan Tomic with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Yeah, hi, guys. Thanks for the call. Just one from me. How should we be thinking about sales over the second half? Is it going to be broadly consistent with what we've seen in this quarter, or should we be expecting it to move higher?

I would take that question. So in terms of sales quantities, as we said, we will continue to see sales quantities roughly in line with production. In terms of realised price for quarter three this financial year, we'll obviously have the £125,000 of the legacy contract. And then the remainder of the Q3 sales were largely executed in the prior quarter. So they will be based on a forward sales price from the prior quarter. For Q4 in this financial year, we'll have £125,000 of the legacy contract. Again, we'll be in that range of 65% to 70% of the spot price. and then we're still yet to execute the forward sales for Q4 of this financial year, so that remains uncontracted.

Yeah, just in terms of delivering sales into those legacy contracts, how should we be thinking about that? I mean, are you kind of going to be looking to maximise those sales at $250 per quarter or so, or would you be looking to kind of extend it out a little bit further?

The exact timing of the £250,000 is out of our hands. That's based on the terms of the contract. The utility advises a delivery date, which is consistent with other utility contracts, and we will then deliver into that contract at the date advised by the utility. Thanks.

That's it for me.

Our next question comes from Branko Skokic with EMP. Please go ahead.

Yeah, good morning, guys. Just on the topic of royalties, I just want to confirm if Honeymoon's now in a position that they're required to pay royalties moving forward. I guess my understanding was you weren't required to pay royalties across the first 1.25 million pounds, and I think you just clicked over that in terms of sales.

Yeah, so we are commencing to start to pay royalties, Branko. And we'll see that in this half.

Thanks for that. And the other question I had was just on the topic of fixed costs. I know you're not disclosing it anymore in your quarter lease, but it inferred about 7 mil Aussie per quarter in the second half of FY25. I just was wondering if that was kind of a sensible run rate to be issuing over the next 12 or so months.

Yeah. Frankly, yeah, we haven't disclosed the fixed cost. It's largely consistent. The fixed cost proportion is largely consistent with what we've previously disclosed, though.

All right, cool. Thanks a lot.

The next question comes from James Bullen with CG. Please go ahead.

Good morning, guys, and congrats on the results from the core area. Just a question around that legacy contract. So you're saying the counterpart is a utility there, but is there any chance that you could buy your way out of that contract at all?

I think that's something that we'll probably look at whether we want to or not. Probably the ideal position would have been to do that earlier than we were at, but ultimately it becomes a small part of the production profile as we go forward too.

Great. And I guess, apologies if I've missed it, but this is the first time that this has been disclosed. Have you now gone through and checked pretty much everything? And is there any other artefacts here which could come back and bite you?

I feel comfortable that from a sales and contracting perspective, it's all... It's all there. Like I said previously, we'll try and provide a little bit more transparency. We can try and provide a little bit more transparency on some of that. We talked about that and when the right catalyst and the time going forward is. But, you know, with contracting positions, £3 million through 2030, again, relatively deleveraged from contracting.

Understood. Thank you. And just around the PLS, the tenor, You're telling us not to extrapolate that because it is performing better than the previous feasibility study. Do you have any guidance around the profile it's going to have from the core area? How will it trend downwards?

Yeah, so we do. We haven't disclosed that, but PLS head grade will come down as we see some of the life of those well fields continuing to drop. and then with B5 coming back online, PLS tenor will jump again. And it's all got to do with that sequencing of well fields with the tenor. Having B5 come in line enables us to continue to increase flow, and that's with column four also coming into production profile. Understood.

Thank you, Matt. No problem, guys.

Your next question comes from Glenn Lawcock with Baron Joey. Please go ahead.

Morning, Matt. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify the legacy contract again. So it's the maximum of £250,000 each delivery year. Is that a calendar year? I mean, obviously you said it's at the discretion of the utility. So does that mean there's nothing better than the first half of fiscal 27th?

It's calendar year, correct? So it's calendar year, £250,000 per year up to a maximum of £1.7 million capped discretion to the utility on when in that calendar year.

Yeah, so there'll be no deliveries in the first half of fiscal 27 then as a result. Correct. And then just The second one, another way just to think about the dollar spend, because I know looking at your waterfall quarter on quarter, honeymoon costs are up 30% from sort of 12.4 million spend in Q1 to just over 16 million. You've got more wellfields coming on, more columns coming online to obviously lift production as well. Where do you feel that dollar spend caps out at? I mean, I know you've got wellfield design coming as well, which can change it, but is that are we still going to see increasing dollar spend quarter on quarter, you think, into the second half?

You're seeing that increase because ultimately production profiles are also increasing quarter on quarter from a total dollar perspective. Once production profiles level, then that dollar spend would also level approximately. The only variance then would be head grade.

All right, so if you take the first half total dollar spend in first half production, you're sort of sitting at the top end of your guidance range, I guess so. But you look for more production in the back half.

Yeah, I mean, again, for the operating costs in there, there's some work in capital movement. So probably the primary driver or the difference between that and the C1 cost, we purchased some resin during the quarter that will be amortised over quite a few years. We do have some capital accruals that you will have seen in the difference between our CapEx spend for the half compared to the cash flow waterfall. And we expect that CapEx accrual to unwind from a cash perspective over the next two quarters. And then other than those kind of working capital overhangs from the current quarter, we've given you the cash costs and capex for the remainder of the half. So that's your best indication in terms of cash spend for the remainder of the half as well.

Okay, so the cost of production will sort of start to match the cash, you think, as opposed to this sort of the inventory movements, accruals, etc.? ?

Yeah, that's right.

Okay, thanks very much.

There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr Doosey for closing remarks.

Thank you, everyone, for joining the call this morning. As noted on the call, it's been a record quarter, record production and below guidance cost, and as a result, we've downward decreased our cost guidance for C1 and all its sustaining costs. We're also very clear about the pathway forward and how we drive value for both honeymoon and satellite deposits, which is the delivery of this new feasibility study. So with that, I thank everyone for joining the call. Thank you, Ashley.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.