Elevra Lithium Limited

Hello, and thank you for standing by. My name is Lacey, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Vra Lithium Limited Fiscal Year 26 Full Year Results Conference Calls. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press star 1 again. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call over to Lucas Dow, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Lucas Dow, Managing Director and CEO at Vra Lithium, and I'm pleased to present the Vra Lithium Financial Year 2026 full-year results. I'm joined today by Christian Cortez, Chief Financial Officer, Sylvain Collard, Chief Operating Officer and President of Canada, and Andrew Barber, Chief Development and Investor Relations Officer. Our agenda for today's call is described on slide two. Specifically, we will cover our operational and financial results, provide an update on our strategy and achievements during the year, provide a market update and conclude with our financial year 2027 guidance. I'd also like to mention that unless otherwise stated, all reference to dollar amounts today are in US dollars. We'll begin by providing an overview of the full year results for FY26, which can be found on slide 3. Our commercial performance and financial position improved with $2 million of revenue generated, which was an increase of 39% compared to FY25. We ended June with $255 million in cash, which provided us with the funds required to confidently commence execution of the NAL brownfield expansion, whilst maintaining the flexibility to advance other growth initiatives. We subsequently received a further $65 million Canadian in proceeds from the convertible bonds issued to Canada Growth Fund which were received in August. Operationally, we continue to enhance our safety programs and saw significant improvement with our total reported wind refrequency rate falling by 67%. Production of scodumene concentrate declined modestly with approximately 198,000 tonnes produced but there was a clear improvement in operating performance through the second half of the year when recoveries increased to 71% in the June quarter. FY26 represented a significant step forward for Elevra as we completed the merger between Sayona Mining and Piedmont Lithium. We also completed two scoping studies and determined the optimal path forward for the NAL groundfield expansion and secured the funding to move the project into execution. Now moving to slide 5 to provide more detail on our operational performance. The first area that I want to cover is safety. Whilst we'll still have work to do, the step change in safety performance led by Sylvain Collard and his team was a highlight in FY26. As I mentioned earlier, our total recordable injury frequency rate fell by 67% in continuation of the improvement seen in FY25. We also saw improvement across each of the reportable personal injury categories, with reductions in medical aid, modified duty and lost time injuries. Turning to NIL's operating performance as documented on slide 6. Fi26 production was approximately 198,000 tonnes of sodiumene concentrate, 3% below the prior year but within our initial guidance range. Temporary mining conditions in the first half of the year impacted all feed characteristics including higher iron content and lower lithium grades. However, our operating team implemented a number of initiatives to mitigate those impacts by increasing mining activity to allow for greater flexibility and ore blending, while maintaining a consistently high level of mill utilisation. And the result was a clear improvement through the second half. Recovery increased to 71% in quarter four, the highest level achieved during FY26, while mill utilisation remained high at 92%. So whilst FY26 included some temporary mining constraints, The trajectory through the second half was encouraging and provides further confidence in the foundation we have built at NAL for continued improvement and growth. Moving to slide 7. The other major operational development during FY26 was the improvement in aquifer performance. Average realised pricing increased by 57% from $694 per tonne in FY25 to $1,092 per tonne in FY26. That increase reflects both the stronger lithium market and the changes we have made to our legacy off-take agreements. The restructuring of those agreements has increased our leverage to lithium prices, allowing improvements in the market to flow more directly through to realised pricing. Following the completion of deliveries under our legacy off-take contract in the June quarter, we expect FY27 realised pricing to be more closely aligned with reported market prices. Importantly, realised pricing has now moved above NAL's unit operating cost on a tons sold basis and we have entered a future supply agreement with a floor price above FY26 unit operating costs. We see that as an important inflection point from both a margin and cash flow perspective that will only further improve as we deliver cost savings associated with the NAL expansion. That takes us to the next major part of the 11 story which is outlined on slide 8. Many of our accomplishments in FY26, operationally, commercially and strategically, set the foundation for the NAL groundfield expansion. The starting point was the increase in NAL's resource and reserve base announced in August 2025. Those increases confirmed the scale and longevity of NAL and created the optionality to explore increasing future production capacity. We evaluated different pathways for the expansion including a single stage and multi-stage approach. We ultimately determined that a multi-stage approach is the preferred pathway and the reason is straightforward. It allows us to increase production faster and reduce execution risk. The economics are also very compelling. The initial focus during the expansion will be de-bottlenecking the mill to allow NAL to operate at the upper end of the existing permitted milling rate of 4,500 tonnes per day. ultimately will expand the milling capacity to 6,500 tonnes per day, which will bring average annual spodumene concentrate production capacity from about 194,000 to approximately 338,000 tonnes of concentrate, while reducing the life of mine average C1 cost to $628 per tonne. So this is not just a volume growth project. It is designed to increase scale reduce unit costs and improve NAL's resilience across lithium price cycles. After completing a capital-raised focus on funding the expansion, I'm pleased to note that we broke ground on the expansion at the end of June and we will continue to provide updates on progress as we deliver against our near-term growth projects. Following the breakdown in trade negotiations between Canada and the US late last week and the subsequent introduction of retaliatory tariffs, we are reviewing what implications, if any, this will have an NAL sourcing strategy for the expansion. Given that the Brownfield expansion is based upon proven and existing technology and processes, our initial indications are that alternate sourcing solutions will be available should the introduction of tariffs create cost escalation for US-based sourcing. In addition, the Canadian government has announced a number of measures totaling $7.5 billion Canadian to address tariff-impacted industries and projects. I'll now hand over to Krishna to take you through our financial performance.

Thank you, Lucas, and good morning to all. There are a few items to highlight before I take you through the financial performance. The operational and financial results reported for FY26 include 10 months of legacy Piedmont and 12 months of Sayona following the completion of the merger at the end of August 2025. a lever elected to change its reporting currency from Australian dollars to US dollars during the first half of FY26. As such, prior corresponding period amounts have been restated to US dollars for comparative purposes. The amounts shown in the presentation have been rounded to the nearest million. Moving to slide 10 to expand on the year's operational and financial overview. As mentioned by Lucas, NAO produced approximately 188,000 dry metric tons in FY26, a 3% decrease compared to the prior year. The challenges experienced during the December quarter also carried a moderate impact in operating costs for the year. Sales of spodumene concentrate totaled approximately 181,000 dry metric tons, a 13% decrease compared to FY25, due to the timing of shipments and transition of port operations. As a result, we ended the year with approximately 41,000 dry metric tons of inventory, which were largely shipped to customers in July. Revenue of $202 million increased by 39%, despite the reduction in shipments driven by a 57% increase in average realized pricing to $1,092 FOB per ton sold. Unit operating cost per ton sold of $853 FOB per dry metric ton increased modestly by 2%. The increase in operating costs reflect elevated mining activity as we increase stripping activity to maintain access to ore and optimize our mill feed. At group level, delivered a $14 million underlying EBITDA profit compared to a prior period loss of $43 million. The significant improvement incorporates improved realized pricing, stable operating costs, and the benefit of synergies generated following the merger. The group used in operating activities of $44 million during the period which included 3 million of cash inflows generated by NL, largely offset by cash outflows of 25 million associated with combined merger transaction costs of a lever and legacy Piedmont. Cash balance at the end of the period increased to $255 million from $47 million at 30 June, 2025. mainly due to the receipt of proceeds from the strategic finance packages completed in May, 2026, partially offset by net cash outflows from operations and capital expenditure. An incremental 46 million of cash proceeds from the issuance of the first tranche of convertible notes to Cairo Growth Fund were received in August after the close of the 2026 financial year.

Moving to slide 11.

NAL delivered a $46 million underlying without profit, compared to a $29 million loss in the prior year. Improved lithium market sentiment and the associated increase in realized pricing offset higher production costs, and the improvement in pricing was aided by the elimination of NAL's legacy off-stick agreement with Piedmont, post-merger which contained a price ceiling that limited upside. There was also $2 million generated in synergies by NAL. Corporate expenditure of $30 million compared to a $12 million in the prior year includes 10 months of legacy Piedmont costs and a $7 million loss of contract settlement associated with hedge instruments that were entered into during a period of low lithium prices. For context, the gross economic benefit from the hedging program was 12 million. The hedging program also provided valuable liquidity support and pricing certainty during the period in which spot prices were below NAL's production costs. Following the rally in lithium prices in December last year, the hedging activity was substantially reduced. Including the $2 million of synergies at NAL, The group delivered $15 million in synergies and annualized savings are expected to be approximately $19 million. The group reported a profit after income tax of $44 million in FY26, an improvement of $292 million compared to FY25. That result includes several non-cash items, most significantly a $156 million reversal of the NAL impairment, which was partially offset by $104 million of non-cash merger-related accounting items. Moving to slide 12. The underlying EBITDA bridge presented in this slide has been restated to include $22 million in FY25 EBITDA of legacy Piedmont standalone costs for the 10-month comparable period. After considering these adjustments, prior year's underlying EBITDA loss of $65 million compared to underlying EBITDA of $14 million profit in the year ended 30 June 2026, making a significant improvement despite lower sales volumes, largely underpinned by stronger market prices and merger synergies realized during the 10-month period following merger completion. turning to cash flow on slide 13. The most important point here is the significant strengthening of our financial position following the merger and strategic financing package. We ended the financial year with $255 million of cash and a further 46 million was received from Canada Growth Fund after the year end. With regards to NAL, underlying event that delivered $46 million, as referred to in slide 11. $3 million was turned into cash by 30 June 2026, largely due to outstanding sales collections of $32 million, which have been received post-balance sheet dates, and increased finished product inventories of $15 million to support the port transition in June 2026. This provides the financial capacity required to execute the NAL expansion while continuing to progress mobile, regardless of market conditions. Our capital expenditure during FY26 was modest at 24 million, reflecting the fact that major growth initiatives will occur in FY27. Moving to slide 14. Our balance sheet is now materially stronger than it was at the beginning of the year. As we saw in the previous slide, cash increased from $47 million to $255 million. Total assets increased from $427 million to $905 million, primarily reflecting the increase in cash, the reversal of the NAL impairment taken in FY25, and the asset contribution of 120 million from Piedmont following the merger. The balance sheet also captures higher inventory levels at the end of FY26, which as I mentioned earlier, or to support the transition of port operations. Total liabilities increased from 160 million to $178 million, also due to balances contributed by Piedmont including the incorporation of a prepayment facility. The total outstanding prepayment facility balance of $55 million at year end has been reduced to approximately $38 million during July and August. Overall, we believe the balance sheet provides a strong platform to support the next phase of growth for Alebra. I'll hand back to Lucas.

Thanks Christian. Let me turn to the strategic progress we made during FY26. On slide 16, the first significant achievement was the fundamental reset of our corporate structure, starting with the merger between Sayona Mining and Piedmont Lithium. Bringing these two companies together created a larger and more robust company by combining complementary assets and operating capabilities. The merger created more opportunities than just increased sale. After completing the merger, we reconstituted the board to enhance our corporate governance standards, expanded the management team to positional lever to take advantage of the long-term growth opportunity in lithium, and established a leaner cost base with approximately $15 million in synergies, capturing the 10 months post-merger period. We also completed a share consolidation to simplify our capital structure and present shareholders with a cleaner, more unified investment opportunity. Together this created a stronger foundation from which to allocate capital towards the highest value opportunities across the portfolio. The second element was advancing the project pipeline with the major accomplishments outlined on slide 17. At NAL we completed two scoping studies to evaluate increasing our production capacity. The expansion was enabled by the merger and we immediately began to evaluate the opportunity. Our first approach established what NAL will look like in the future. a larger, lower-cost operation. But we challenged ourselves to refine how we achieved that end goal, and the technical and economic outcomes of a staged approach proved a more efficient approach. Once we finalised our development approach, we moved forward with financing. We received strong investor support from existing and new institutions, which served as validation of our growth strategy, and we were able to raise sufficient capital to fully fund all three stages of the expansion and advanced development work at Moblamp. We broke ground at NAL at the end of June and expect to deliver stage one in calendar year 2027. So in FY26, we completed scoping and financing for the NAL expansion and moved into execution. In addition to securing funding to continue advancing Moblamp, we also purchased offtake rights at Moblamp. Previously, a percentage of our annual offtake rights at Moblamp were committed under commercial terms which included a discounted price. By buying those rights back, we now capture our full pro rata share of production and have control over the commercial outcomes of a leveraged interest at Nobland. Post year end, we have continued to refine the portfolio. We announced in February that we entered into a non-binding agreement to supply mangrove lithium with concentrate production at NAL. And last week, we finalised a definitive agreement. That agreement includes improved commercial terms for Alevra with a floor price of $1,000 SC6 and no ceiling price. We see Mangrove as an important partner for Alevra as we work together to create a Canadian supply of lithium chemicals. On the other side of the ledger, we signed an agreement to sell our interests in the Awoya project, sold our rights to the Tabataba Tenement in Western Australia and agreed to expand the Morella Lithium joint venture by including additional Western Australian tenements that Alebra previously owned or had applications for. While we view Awoya and Western Australian tenements as potential attractive development opportunities, they sit outside of our core North American focus. We believe these actions allow us to monetise these assets and maintain our focus on opportunities which will create both immediate and long-term value for shareholders. Taken together, these strategic accomplishments tell a compelling story. In FY26, we rebuilt the corporate foundation, moved our flagship project from study phase into construction, and sharpened the portfolio around the assets we believe in most. This is the platform Aleva is built on heading into FY27. I'd now like to provide some commentary on the market. On slide 20, you will see that squadron and concentrate prices strengthened in FY26, which is reflecting the demand seen in the broader lithium market. While lithium prices have proven volatile, it is robust consensus that pricing will remain strong over the coming years as demand for lithium is expected to nearly double from 2025 levels by the end of the decade. And demand growth is not just coming from one market or channel. It is global and diversifying, which should help to reduce volatility as the market continues to grow and mature. During the last cycle, electric vehicles produced and sold in China dominated demand. Now we are also seeing strong uptake in energy stationary storage applications and commercial vehicles. Battery demand is real and lithium batteries are the leading solution. Our strategy is not based on any single demand outlook or lithium price at a single point in time. Instead we are focused on building a business that can generate attractive returns across a range of lithium price environments. That means we will continue to focus on increasing scale and lowering unit costs. Now I'd like to turn it back over to Christian to discuss how we are thinking about a commercial strategy going forward.

Thanks, Lucas. As you will see on slide 21, we've outlined three pillars to define our target commercial portfolio. Our objective is to transition from the legacy arrangements to a more diversified, market-linked and flexible sales portfolio as we grow our production capacity. To do this, we are targeting approximately three core of the customers and we want these to be more than customers. We're looking for strategic customers that offer diversification across geographies and markets and trading counterparties. The second pillar is market-based pricing. We intend to eliminate the complexity created by lag pricing mechanisms and references to lithium chemicals by referencing spodumene concentrate prices reported by credible price reporting agencies. The third pillar is commercial flexibility. We are targeting three to five year contract terms with a preference toward contracting incremental volumes to existing customers as we grow. Any remaining uncontracted volumes can be sold into the spot market to maintain exposure to spot pricing when it's attractive. Ultimately, our objective is to balance customer security while retaining exposure to market upside. With that, I will turn the call back over to Lucas to discuss our FY27 guidance.

Thank you, Christian. Our guidance for FY27 is detailed on slide 22. As we look to FY27, we expect spodumene concentrate production of between 198 and 210,000 tonnes at a 5.2% grade. Concentrate sales are expected to be between 200 and 230,000 tonnes, with a modest weighting towards the first half of the year based on inventory on hand at the end of June 2026. Unit operating costs sold is guided to $880 to $950 per tonne sold. The increase in unit costs relative to FY26 is due to sustained mining intensity as we build imagery as part of the NAL expansion and continue to mine through the remainder of the historical underground workings. Lastly, total capital expenditure is expected to be $120 to $140 million. Most of the capital expenditure is growth capital allocated to the NIL expansion and Mogrand studies, with the balance going towards sustaining capital at NIL, which is approximately $20 million. I would also like to make it clear that as part of the capital expenditure during the course of FY27, we will be expending capital for Stage 2, so we're endeavouring to accelerate Stage 2 of the expansion as well. and total capital for the project remains at $270 million US. Before we move to questions, I'd like to close by putting FY26 and the outlook for FY27 in the context of the broader Elevra story. We believe FY26 has materially transformed and strengthened the company. At NAL, we have demonstrated resilient operating performance despite temporary challenges, while safety and operational discipline have continued to improve. Commercially, realised pricing has moved above unit operating costs and the transition away from legacy pricing arrangements will allow us to capture more of the value from a strengthening lithium market. Financially, we have moved to positive underlying EBITDA and significantly strengthened the balance sheet. And strategically, we have moved the NAO expansion from planning into execution with the project fully funded. At the same time, Modeland provides a second major growth opportunity and we're continuing to refine the portfolio around our North American strategy. As we look to FY27, our key five priorities are clear. First, safely deliver consistent operating performance at NAL. Second, safely execute the NAL expansion on schedule and within budget. Third, continue advancing Modeland toward FID. Fourth, complete the transition to a more market-linked and flexible commercial strategy. And fifth, maintain disciplined capital allocation across the business. At this time, we're happy to take questions.

At this time, I would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question, press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from the line of Levi Sprite with UBS. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Lucas and Zane. Thanks for your time. A couple of quick questions, I guess. Firstly, if we can just roll back to the realised price piece. So what data points, what guidance can you give us for, I guess, how to think about FY27 realised prices? And then just in terms of the mangrove market, contract. Did you mention a floor price there? It's getting a bit of discussion with people reporting out a $1,000 number there. What's the construct behind your negotiations on that number, if you can help us here?

Thanks, Levi. So I'll take the mangrove question first. There is a floor at $1,000 US and there is no ceiling attached to that mangrove. definitive agreement. Obviously, it's a little longer dated, but it gives us an excellent platform, particularly given the benefits associated around logistics and so forth. So I can reiterate that there's a floor of $1,000 a tonne. The second component in terms of FY27 in relation to guidance on pricing, essentially with those legacy agreements now in the rear-view mirror for us, you should consider that we're effectively exposed to the spot market.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then just, I guess, the next one is obviously just on costs. So you mentioned what's going on over there in North America. How much of the stuff are you getting from across the border? Like, how should we think about that? You've got a percentage that's coming from the US, I guess, in terms of capital, and then... Just from the operating piece, or the operating cost line, that looks to be a bit higher than what we've been expecting. Can you sort of just talk us through, is it all about that strip, which wasn't factored in, and inflation being worse than what we thought, or can you just sort of translate that a bit for us?

Yeah, thanks, Leroy. The bulk of the... I'll take the second question first, again, if that's OK. The increase in unit operating costs is principally driven... by the increased mining activity. As we open up phase four, the mine development, there's additional stripping, so it didn't fit the categories of capital so effectively. You might have seen with others that might have been as a deferred stripping allocation, especially in our unit operating costs, Levi, so essentially the strip ratio in FY27 sits at around 10 versus... FY26 was at 9.1, so there's an uptick in that script ratio. That will obviously revert back to the life of mine average as a consequence of moving through that phase, and also as we complete the mining through the underground stoves as well, and we pick up that additional ore. So long story short, it's all down predominantly to the mining activity. So you'll expect to see that normalised as we move through FY27. and then the question around exposure around the tariffs and so forth. As I flagged, obviously a bit of a moving feast at the moment. Sylvain and the team are working through what implications that might have. I think there's probably a couple of things to note. What we've seen historically is that these tariffs can move quite quickly in terms of both being on or off. So we want to make sure we don't lock ourselves into something that may well be reversed in a month or two. but simultaneously we're also evaluating exactly what the impacts might be and what the alternate sourcing strategies might be. From an operational perspective, not a great deal of exposure. There's some consumables around the agents and so forth that may be captured, but fairly minimal. On the capital spend, again, as I mentioned, the bulk of our processes and the technology that we're using are available worldwide. So if US tariffs become prohibitive in terms of sourcing over the US, we will look to alternate markets. But the preliminary view is that we don't expect it to have an impact on... a significant adverse impact on the total cost of the project for NIL. And as I said, we still expect it to live at all three stages on a combined basis at $270 million US.

Okay, great. And just squeeze the last one in. Boblin, give me some reminders of the next steps there on studies and de-risking. Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Leroy. Yeah, so Mobland, we, on the back of the increased resource base, resource reserves base at NIL, sorry, at Mobland, we're undertaking an updated scoping study to determine really two key aspects. First is what's the right size in terms of production capacity for mobile land, DFS previously at 300,000 tonnes a year of concentrate. We'd suggest with a large resource base, it'll support a higher production level than that. So we'll answer that question as part of the scoping study. The other part is obviously to refresh the capital. Obviously, we've learned quite a bit in terms of working through NIL. So we think there's some smarts here we can apply. So we want to be able to build those in. Investors can expect to see that in the fourth quarter of this calendar year. and obviously we'll be updating the market when that comes through. In addition to that and in parallel, obviously permitting and those sort of activities are all well and truly underway and progressing.

Okay, great. Thank you, Lucas. Thanks for your time. Thanks, Leva.

Your next question comes from the line of Austin Yoon with Macquarie. Please go ahead.

On Lucas Christian and the team, just a follow-up to a few of Leo's questions. Please, just on the realized pricing, given that we're two months into this quarter, I'm just hoping if you can provide more color on, should we think the realized price will be linked to lithium carbonate or sponsoring price? Would that be like a one-month lag? Would that be the right way to think about the price realization from this quarter onwards?

Yeah, of course. Thanks, Oscar. And I'll pass over to Christian. Obviously, Christian looks out for sales, which I'll let him walk you through that in a little more detail.

Hi, Austin. Thank you for your question. The current quarter sales are all basically spodumene-linked indexes, and this current shipment, which, I mean, I alluded to the July shipment, will have hopefully another one in September. Those two shipments are effectively priced as we deliver the product. Now, that doesn't mean that all the volumes that will deliver through FY27 will be the same, but I guess the consistent message, regardless as to when the QP settles,

they will all be spodumene pricing linked none of these will have chemical pricing references to them but thank you and just on the cross-brands yeah interesting that you have a bit different treatment on the different stripping which would usually get capitalized you know looking at your peers just just came to understand the profile of the of the strip ratio that goes beyond FY27. Like Lucas mentioned, that is going to revert to the reserve average. Just, you know, if any, how quickly that's going to happen would be helpful. Thank you.

Thanks, Austin. I'll take the strip ratio question. In short, really seeing it's the peak in FY27. Austin, and then it'll effectively run down from there. So there's a buy in there, and we also pick up as you'll recall will be through the underground stoves and so we'll pick up that additional ore in the marvellous bike as well so very much the high point and then it runs down quite quickly thereafter.

Thank you and just squeezing one more question if I may. Really good progress at Mangrove with all those agreements and updates. I'm keen to understand you study pipeline in the context of the agreement does feel like, you know, the Carolina project is getting pushed up further. Is this the correct understanding?

Austin, we're continuing to work through the permitting for Carolina. In fact, the air permit's the last remaining permit required to have that project fully permitted. We expect that to occur within this quarter, if not early next quarter. So we're continuing to advance that. As we've described previously, that project has been contemplated as a mine with a co-located chemical facility. As we've made it very clear, Alevra, our expertise is as a mining company, so we're continuing to engage and seeking to be able to develop a downstream partner that would build and operate that chemical facility. So, obviously, the rights of mangrove probably gives an insight that we are working away at that, Austin. But probably the key enabler for us with Carolina is finding a partner to be able to handle the downstream component.

That's clear. Thank you, Lucas.

Thanks, Austin.

Your final question comes from the line of Reg Spencer with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Morning Lucas and Christian.

I think our lead Brian Austin covered off on most of my questions. Just to help me out on the capital profile, it was a little bit higher than what we were expecting this year. Can you just remind me what the TAPEX profile for the NAL expansion looks like over 28 and 29? Let's see if we've got that all finished. Yeah. So, Rick, I'll just come back. I'll provide a couple of... headline comments and then I'll pass to Chris and he'll give you the sort of perspective breakdown. If we go back, total capital for all three stages is $270 million US. That number still holds. Stage one represented around $70 million of that $270. Stage two, $60 million. And the third stage, the balance of $140 million. Essentially what you're seeing in FY27 is obviously we're running on stage one. We're also, and we've highlighted this previously, we're advancing work for stage two where we can as well. Ultimately, we want to be able to get the entire project completed as quickly as possible. So that incremental spend in FY27 is a combination of stage two. So we're advancing some of that work for stage two in FY27. and also there's around 10 million US associated with Mowgland growth work. Okay, I see that, but that makes sense. I think I'm good. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. All right. Thanks, Reg.

There are no more questions via the – I apologize. Andrew Harrington from Petro Capital has a question. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to jump in. Yeah, most of the questions were covered. One about offtake contracts. What's the volume? And so if you're going to be producing roughly 200,000 per annum, what do you want to be under long-term contract? And what's the benefit if you're just going to be getting spodumene prices across those offtakes as well?

Thanks, Andrew. So I think just first and foremost, obviously we're sitting around that sort of 200,000 tonnes a year mark at the moment, but you'll see that volume incrementally ramp up quite quickly over the next two to three years, and we'll be at sort of that 340,000 tonnes a year concentrate. And so on the back end, sort of back one, I'll pass to Christian, and he'll give you a sense on how we're thinking about allocation and why we're pursuing off-takes.

Hi, Andrew. Thank you for your question. The target is, as I outlaid on the slide where I talk about the commercial portfolio, the target is to effectively have, you know, indicatively three customers. Out of those volumes, you would expect to looking around three quarters of your production and effectively maintain an element of flexibility in which you can allocate the remaining volume to the existing uptakers or to take that to to the squat market, but that being at our discretion. Now, it's a good question. What's the value on off-pick agreement? From our perspective, the key thing here is the counterparty. Who are you effectively selling the product to? And what level of confidence do you have that those customers will be there not only now, but they have effectively growth plans that you can effectively grow the business with them. So as we've seen through the cycles when things get tight, if you don't have reliable business partners, you're then forced or having to effectively sell everything into the same spot market, which if you don't have ultimately price protection, it can result in significant losses as we have experienced ourselves and others in previous downward cycles. okay is there any revenue difference there are revenue differences I would think if you are ultimately linking to spot price in this indexes the answer would be no it would be consistent to what the market is indicating now you may end up with a by-party negotiation in which you may have different elements of pricing to what those index practices are, but we're not pursuing those. We're effectively looking for customers that are ultimately comfortable with picking what the mark price indicates to be at the time of us either shipping or delivering the product, depending on what the specific arrangement looks like.

Okay, thank you. And if I may, one last related question. How much of the material will remain in North America?

Well, that's a very good question, Andrew, and a very difficult one to answer, given that, as we know today, there's only one converter or one potential customer processing material in North America. as that changes, we'll obviously be actively looking at supporting those potential customers, Mangrove being one of them. Now, the answer is today, nothing. We're not shipping anything to North America. However, we are in discussions with that party that has a facility in North America. If we are to supply in the future, I would think it would be something around 25% of the volumes, give or take

Okay. Thank you. That's great. Thanks, Christian. Thanks, Lucas. Thanks, Andrew.

I would now like to turn it to Andrew Barber for questions from the web.

Thank you. Lucas, first question is, is it reasonable to think that whilst we're working to the completion of each stage of the expansion that there'll be some incremental production as that occurs? So we're looking at the question of what does the ramp-up look like as we progress each stage?

Thanks Andrew. So as we've explained previously, in short, stage one is delivering in the order of 15% to 20% production uplift and we expect to be complete with that mid-calendar year 2027. So you'd expect to see that increase in volume start flowing through in FY28. And the reason for that is obviously it's a brownfield expansion. We are installing and we'll be installing equipment during the course of the year, but ultimately we'll be cutting that over during planned shutdown periods and so forth that are regularly scheduled for normal operational performance. So you shouldn't expect that those things will simply be drip fed in, but rather it'll be at the completion of each stage that you can expect to see that improved uplifting volume.

Great, thank you. Next question is, have diesel prices substantially impacted costs?

Short answer is no. Diesel accounts for around about 5% of our costs spent. So, I mean, clearly it's not insignificant, but we're less exposed than others, and particularly if we were to compare it with, say, some of the Australian producers where they may be relying upon diesel generators and so forth. One of the benefits we've got at NAL is the fact that our power is hydro, So obviously renewable, very low carbon emissions, or no zero carbon emissions, but on top of that, low cost as well. So somewhat insulated from these energy shocks that other producers may be seeing.

Thank you. Next question is, what's the rationale for moving from the Port of Quebec to the Three Rivers Port? What are the benefits and how will this change impact costs?

Yes, the short answer is we will generate cost savings as a result of the change. Two key reasons, it's a shorter distance from NAL and we are effectively able to move away from hauling effectively containers and moving into a bulk logistic infrastructure. The historical constraints with Three Rivers were with regards with core housing when NAL restarted. That issue has been removed, and in fact, we have greater capacity at Three Rivers than what we had at Port Craddock.

Thank you. Next question is on Mobland. A comment that the resources have increased substantially since the last DFS was published. How do you think that that will feed into the upcoming updated scoping study versus the prior DFS results?

Thanks, Andrew. As I mentioned, two primary objectives for us with the mobile and updated scoping study is to revisit the annual production level. And as the question alludes to, the fact that regional space has increased appreciably, we would suggest that will support a higher level of production than was not inflated in the DFS. So the DFS was at 300,000 tonnes a year. we expect that to move north. The benefit of that, obviously, is the increased revenue associated with the increased volume, but also the ability to be able to also further reduce unit operating costs at Moviland. From all the work that we've done to date, Moviland looks like a very low-cost operation, so we're excited about the prospects there. And then the second component, we obviously want to revisit the capital that was provided in the DFS. We think that there's... Obviously, we've learned a few things through the through the NIL process, and we think there's some areas to sharpen the pencil and improve the capital efficiency.

Great. Thanks, Lucas. Will that study be released in the September or December quarter?

It'll be the December quarter.

Thank you. The next question is in regards to the Mangrove off-take agreement. Why did we choose Mangrove and sign that agreement when they won't have taken supply for another four to five years?

Yeah, Christian, you worked independently on this. Why don't you walk our investors through that?

Yeah, thanks, Lucas. Well, I mean, Lucas already touched on this earlier. We ultimately see a very attractive business partnership with Mangrove their focus is to effectively have a plant developed nearby NAL that would result in meaningful cost savings for both parties and the idea of ultimately supporting the build-up of the original supply chain is to the extent that we can achieve that it certainly fits in with what we're effectively trying to achieve here so question around timing Yes, the timing is a little bit long dated and there are CPs in place for the contract to become effective. We're not particularly exposed to whether mangrove, you know, goes into production sooner rather than later as we have ultimately the ability to place product with customers in the short to medium term. as well as discussed earlier through the slide deck, we have the ability to place product in the spot market.

Great, thank you. Next question is on AWOIA and the question is, are we on track to receive payment for the staking AWOIA this quarter? And could you provide some additional colour on the Ghanaian Ministry approval process related to this transaction?

Thanks Andrew. So the approval process really sits with the counterparty with LIU Cobalt. They're engaging with the Ghanaian government. These approvals are a normal process and they're all progressing and we anticipate being of those conditions precedent and approvals including this quarter and obviously payment will flow as a consequence of that.

Okay thank you. Next question is in regard to the Morella joint venture and the vending of four projects into that joint venture for a spend of $300,000 over two years. The question is, given the modest commitment and overlapping roles of several directors, how did the independent directors determine these terms are fair to Elevra shareholders? And will the definitive agreement provide protections for Elevra if a significant discovery is made?

So I think the short answer is obviously the definitive agreement will provide adequate protections for leveraged shareholders. The other component of the question around independent directors, I think just to be avoidance of any doubt, James Brown and Alan Buckler did not participate in any of the discussions related to this transaction, obviously given the potential conflict of interest and the board absent Alan and James arrived at the decision following a conventional analysis of divestment and valuation and prospectivity and so forth. And as I mentioned in my opening comments or the results call, our focus is very much in North America as evidenced by recent decisions to divest our interest in the Tabataba exploration payments, which obviously was successful and a great result for shareholders.

Thanks, Lucas. The last question here is, has the labour plan for contingency that bunker fuel runs low and shipping becomes more restrictive or expensive?

Yeah, obviously anyone that's moving bulk commodities via sea is exposed to movements in pricing and fuel pricing and so forth. To date we've not seen any issues arise, typically as part of the sales process, shipping is organised as a consequence of that. In short, we're at no significant disadvantage other than obviously we've got a longer shipping route through to China, but in short, the shipping commodities effectively is a global market and effectively all producers are going to be exposed by and large to the same extent, albeit with some variance on distance to be sailed.

Thanks Lucas, no further questions.

I would now like to turn it back to Lucas Dow for closing remarks.

Thank you for your interest in attending our presentation today. If you have any further queries, please reach out to our investor relations team. Thank you and goodbye.

This concludes today's call. You may disconnect.