Greatland Resources Limited

Thanks, Darcy. Sean Day here from Great Learned. I'm joined on the call by Simon Tyrrell, Chief Operating Officer, Nick Conley, Chief Financial Officer, and Rowan Krasnoff, Chief Development Officer. Let me just say up front that we recognise our guidance is different and lower than the outlook previously provided. The reason for the change is that part of the FY26 budget process we undertook a risk assessment and we felt it was appropriate and prudent to apply a risk factor to the expected grade of the ROM stockpiles which we acquired through the acquisition and to some open pit material planned to be mined this year. The risk rating of the ROM stockpile has been an outcome of our budgeting process. After we saw the full June quarter numbers, and that gave us multiple data points, we decided to take the decision to ensure that we were taking a conservative approach to delivering FY26 year guidance. The previous approach at the Telfer site was for indicated resource to be defined around a 50 by 50 metre drilling spacing. since acquisition, has moved to a high density of 25 by 25 metre drill spacing, which we think is the structural fix for this in the medium to long term. So what does this mean for FY26 guidance? Although the answers are still potentially there, we wanted to provide a more conservative and high confidence range. Hence, we risk rated the ore grade on those pre-acquisition ROM stockpile and ore that was still drilled out to that 50-50 drill spacing. And with that ROM stockpile, the majority of that is going to be processed in this FY26 year. In terms of FY27, the ROM stockpile is anticipated to be a small component of mill feed. And with the increased density of drilling, ultimately, I think we are well-placed to overcome the legacy variances in grade. So with that, we'll do a page turn and we'll try to get through the presentation in the next 10 or so minutes and then move into the Q&A format. So just moving to slide four, which is the performance against the FY25 guidance. So this is really the FY25 year where we've achieved guidance across gold production. We've achieved a really good falling sustaining cost outcome and our growth capital is sitting there within the guidance range. Moving to slide five, which really just does the highlights for the quarter. You know, for the quarter just past, we did just over 78,000 ounces of gold plus just under 4,000 tons of copper at an all-in sustaining price of $1,736. You know, with that average realized price of just over $5,000, $5,014 an ounce, we delivered revenue of $487 million. Now that delivered the operating cash flow at Telfer of $310 million, slightly shading the March quarter at $298 million with that slightly elevated gold price. That left us with a cash balance. You can see that cash flow coming to the cash balance of $575 million. And to remind you, we're debt-free and with no fixed forward hedges, but some put options where we can elect, but there's no obligation to deliver. We have some protection on the gold price while still fully participating. A lot of this quarter is also around growth. We've got the West Dome open pit, stage seven, and in that underground, we're driving out to the, putting a second drive out into the West Dome underground and the ESC. That eastern stock works, we think is going to be a really strong development area for us, which comes into our FY26 mine plan. Of course, during the quarter, we completed the ASX listing. And then also, we retain strong stockpiles. And we think that gives us ongoing flexibility in terms of mining across future years. with still having around 7 million tonnes of ROM stockpile, but just over 20 million tonnes of that lower-grade material. Turning to slide six, we're really pleased with the safety performance. We've just continued to improve through that integration period. Integrations are hard. We completed the integration, and we've done that safely as well. And from a sustainability point of view, We had good relationships with the local Martu people and JAYAC, their statutory organisation. And they actually assisted us, or at least sent a letter of support into the Government of Western Australia around our second mining lease renewal. That was the 21st year anniversary. which now, or 42nd year anniversary of our mining leases, the second mining lease review, which now takes it out to 2045. And I think we are the first mining company to successfully renew, second renew mining leases. So that's a really good outcome for us. With that, I'll pass to Simon Tyrrell to talk through the results.

Thank you, Sean. As noted, quarter... Quarter full production was within guidance at 78,283 ounces and with a laser focus on costs substantially lower than guided oil and sustaining cost of $1,736 per ounce was achieved. Starting at slide eight, open pit oil was predominantly mined from stage two. With the main change, it was a deferral of 0.9 million tonnes of oil into FY26 while additional dewatering infrastructure was installed in fit. Total material mined was in line with forecast, the three million tonnes of stage seven pre-stripping undertaken. Underground productivity was sustained whilst drill rigs were increased from two to four during the quarter. We have developed into the eastern stock work corridor during the quarter with minor development tonnes mined. Development of the second drive towards Westholm Underground progressed with approximately 50% of development metres went into growth areas evenly split between ESC and West Dome Underground. Moving to slide 9, our processing productivity improvements continue to highlight ELFA's capability, with FY25 being the highest goal recovery year since 2010. This is an outstanding achievement given the lower grades currently processed. I've noted is the higher copper recovery that has been sustained and it is approximately 10% above historical levels due to good plant performance. Gold recovery returned to life of mine recovery model levels. Moving to slide 10. Growth expenditure ramped up in the fourth quarter to $76 million. This marked Greatlands commencement of reinvestment into Telfer. Growth expenditure was across open pit pre-stripping, underground development, tailings storage facility expansion, have run development and resource development. Open pit drill rigs increased from one to two by the end of the quarter with 16,700 metres drilled. Westame Drilling focused on stage seven extension and stage two extension with the majority of this ore to be mined post FY27 pending successful results. Moving to slides 11, 12 and 13, underground drill rigs increased from two to four by the end of the quarter. For 11,200 metres drilled, targeting near mine extensions, including the Eastern Stockwell Corridor, the Eastern Stockwell Corridor extension, A Reefs and Ray, new areas such as the ESC repeat were identified whilst targeting the ESC. Near mine extensions provide opportunity to add easily accessible ounces. $7 million was spent in the fourth quarter on resource development drilling, whilst the FY26 budget has $37 million allocated. Moving to slide 14, the Havron feasibility study has progressed on schedule and includes the previously announced ramp up to four to four and a half million tonnes per annum and remains on target for December quarter. Permitting and approvals have progressed well with the EPA and DQ and early works including design and tender of the reinforced concrete portal tunnel and completion of the ventilation shaft design and procurement of the specialised blind bore cutter heads have progressed. I'll now pass on to Monique to present the corporate and finance.

Thanks, Simon. And just to recap on what Sean has previously touched on, the June quarter delivered strong operating cash flows of $310 million and over $600 million in the seven months of operation. We went from 398 million in the bank at the end of March to 575 million at the end of the June quarter. And importantly, we remained debt free. The June quarter included strong capital cash spend of 96 million across growth and sustaining in order to progress stage seven, the underground development, our resource development and have run. The June quarter also, we added more protection to the commodity price by taking out 150,000 ounces of gold put options on an upfront basis at a cost of around 10 million. that has a strike price of $4,200 for calendar year 2026. This continues to protect Greatland from downside risk to the gold price, while ensuring we participate in any upside. Overall, both a positive quarter and year of cash build to facilitate the support for key growth investments in FY26, targeting that further multi-year Telfer life extension. The June quarter also saw the successful completion of integration of Telfer and Havron operations. was a huge milestone and effort for the team in standing up all of the systems and operational processes across a range of functions. And this also included the stand-up of our ERP system, SAP Bahana, to allow for streamlining our business processes, improving visibility and cost and productivity. This now concludes the transitional services arrangements with Newmont within six months post-acquisition and allows us the independent running of operations going forward. I now pass back to Sean to chat through the FY26 guidance.

Thanks, Monique. And with that integration outcome that Monique led together with Simon and a number of the team here, I think he's a tremendous example or a tremendous outcome to complete that integration in that time, on time, on budget. Great outcome. So just moving to FY26, which I think is a lot of the focus of today's call. The gold production, 260,000 to 310,000 ounces. And look, as I acknowledged up front, that is 11% different to the previous outlook, albeit this is the guidance that we said we'd update. Now, all in sustaining cost is somewhat a mathematical calculation off those around that gold production range. But whilst gold production is off 11%, oil and sustaining cost is off 4%, which talks to that cost control and increased productivity that Simon mentioned. In terms of CAPEX, look, I think the CAPEX story is a very positive story. Really what we're seeing here is moving away from a two-year Telfer mine plan to actually feeling we've got a multi-year plan of a longer life Kelfa asset. And you see, moving to slide 18, you're seeing that in the investment. We're doing an extra lift that takes us out to FY28, which shows you some confidence. And indeed, I think you'll see ongoing lifts. We're doing the pre-stripping on stage seven, which gives us the mainstay feed for 27, 28, but into 29. We're buying new fleets. and refurbishing some, which again reflects our confidence. And in the underground, I think that's a tremendous story. For those that can cast their mind back to the acquisition, we felt that was a really challenging area. But as we bring on ESC, the Eastern Stock Works, we feel that brings the mine planning flexibility and the resilience we want into that mine plan in the second half of this year. And we're still really excited about the West Dome undergrounds. But increasingly, we're confident around that Delta Underground. Moving to Havron, this is pre-FID. There's really no change to Havron in terms of expecting to come out with that feasibility study in the December quarter of this year, kind of end of November, December kind of period. And what we're doing this year is some of the pre-works. For those that went to the site tour, you might remember that the box cut there didn't have a sump initially. Although Great Lawn has installed a small sump, it still gets overcome with moderate to heavy rainfalls. We just want to protect that decline into the future and its production decline. So we're effectively taking that box cut or the portal to surface by putting in the concrete archways and covering that or refilling that with fill. That's to protect the decline. We're also going to restart work with burn cut on the ventilation system, so VR1, just taking that down to the bottom of the mine so we're well-placed to get down to the bottom of the ore bodies. And then for VR2, VR3, which is more ventilation work, we've contracted the blind bore, but we've now commissioned and indeed paying for those cutter heads to be delivered ahead of time. They're a key lead time item. And then finally, look, the exploration and resource development, 240,000 metres. That is the most ever drilled at Telfer. This goes to us... I'm just seeing a huge number of opportunities here, both in the open pit and the underground. Some of Simon's slides kind of showed the size of the prize there, but we think it's really significant. Plus, we talked earlier about that increased density of drilling. So we do both, but where the site's probably been underinvested in some of those drilling, we catch up and overtake that and really set us up for a multi-year and successful... Telfer into the long life. And you can see that a little bit on the slide 21, which just shows those pitch shell opportunities around the West Dome. And then I'm not going to spend too much time on slide 22 and 23, but you can see in that underground on 22, that eastern stock work area, but also continuation of some of those existing mining areas and the West Dome underground area is really exciting. We've just got one rig on there. We'll have a second rig there shortly. And we think that underwrites the future of the underground, although we want to do another drill campaign in that West Dome underground before we can really talk with confidence about what that looks like. But certainly the drilling today is hugely encouraging. And the ESC simile, the intercepts we released, I think looked great in this quarter. So with that, I'll pause and Darcy, I'll invite you to open up for questions.

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. Your first question comes from Daniel Morgan with Baron Joey. Please go ahead.

Hi, Sean and Tim. Just the first question is, can you just make it a little bit clearer on the variance to the prospectus versus this guidance today? How much is the stockpiles and how much is any mining material? Can you just make that split a bit, expand on that a little bit?

Yeah, thanks, Daniel. Look, I think when you look at this, it's really us trying to take what was the 50 metre space drilling from Newcrest and just trying to consider the risk factors on this. And that manifests in that ROM, that high-grade ROM stockpile, but also in some of the open pit material that we planned to mine. during this FY26 year. Probably when I look at that, it's probably one third in the stockpiles and two thirds in that open pit material. And this is basically where we've gone through and risk adjusted all of that. So all of that is calibrated in how we've described that guidance. So that's That's just explaining how we got to that risk adjustment. And that's just, this is basically the last two months and the next four months, sorry, quarters, are effectively this transition period where we go from the historical approach of drilling by the Newcrest and in turn by Newmont, but to the Greatland, which has that high density of drill feed.

And then in terms of the mineralogy that's driving this, I mean, what can you say about, you know, how sustainable an issue that is? Like, does that contain to certain portions of the ore body and therefore the stockpile? Like, just trying to get a sense of how much this is ongoing.

Yeah, let me answer that in two parts, Daniel. So firstly, in terms of the drilling we've done and the classification that we've done of indicators, even going back, to that first one we did kind of 12 weeks after acquisition, we have applied that tighter framework to drilling density. And that's what we will continue to do. So effectively, the work we do now effectively lets us overcome these legacy variances in grade. And I think just as a portfolio asset, I think Newcrest has only probably just had bigger tolerance for variance. Whilst if we look at kind of what we're looking at now and where does it apply, where it applies is more to the higher grade areas. That's where we feel where you have those cross-cutting reefs that to understand the kind of the domain of those or the size of those cross-cutting reefs, you need that higher intensity of drilling. And that's kind of where it's a target for our drilling, although we have that 25 by 25 spacing everywhere. But that's a real focus for our drilling. And in terms of us revisiting, that's kind of where we've looked to revisit a little bit or at least apply those risk factors.

Thank you. And just with regards to the prospectus on the CAPEX, I mean, can you just remind us? I think that the CAPEX was under the assumption that Telfer has got a two-year mine life. So the CapEx today is designed to extend the life. And can you talk to, I think you've got in the release, an objective to maintain a sustainable production rate from Telfer leading up to Havron development. Does that imply that the CapEx being spent, the aim is to hold production in 27 to 30 around the same levels as is in guidance today?

Yeah, look, yeah, like that directionally, that's what we're trying to achieve here in terms of we think we want to create consistent production profile out of Telfer. And we think the open pit and the underground with this meaningful drilling gives us the opportunity to do that. And, yeah, I can talk to the specific reasons in specific areas in the underground and and in the open pit, but you're seeing the CapEx on the Stage 7 cutback and the bigger Stage 7 cutback. I think in due course, you could see a Stage 6 cutback. And investment in new fleet, pushing the tails dams up higher are all, I think, you should take as confidence. in the life extension opportunities at Telfer. The best possible outcome for us is not just Telfer running until Havron comes online, which I think we're highly confident around, but is actually Telfer and Havron running in parallel.

Thank you, Sean. I'll pass it on.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Andrew Bowler from Macquarie. Please go ahead.

I guess just following on from Dan's question, obviously the commentary is that CapEx is higher this year because you're extending mine life, or that's the sort of plan, but how sticky is CapEx beyond FY26 if you do see further mine life extensions beyond, say, 29? Or another way of asking, is FY26 expected to be somewhat of a peak year in capital and then we start to see a bit of a reduction given your largely catch-up drilling, catch-up developing, et cetera?

I'll just give Simon an opportunity to jump in.

Thanks, Sean. Look, there's a number of areas where additional growth capital in FY26 is going to give us a running start. I'll pick a few examples for you, Andrew. resource development drilling around that $37 million for FY26 we wouldn't expect a need for that amount of drilling moving forward post FY26 I'm not saying we won't do it but to develop a multi-year life of mine plan there is sufficient drilling this year to deliver that plan so when we work through our Mineral resource estimate and the third quarter of this financial year, our reserve in the fourth quarter, the following mine plan from that, the sufficient drilling this year to give us that multi-year outlook. So that's an example of where capital cost or growth capital would reduce following years. Another example is we're doing two years. two TSF lifts this year. So essentially we're doubling the capex on TSFs than what we would normally require. Why we're doing that? There was very little float between filling up a stage in the TSF to when the next stage was ready. We don't want to be in a position where there's an incident or there is an increase in production that puts additional strain on that float, on that scheduled float in the TSF construction. Hence, we brought forward the TSF stage four construction. And there's also some cost synergies there in not demobilising and remobilising equipment later on. There's a couple of examples why we believe this is going to be the peak capital costs here for Telfer moving forward.

No worries. And Moby, can you just remind us of the permitting timeline that you're hoping for it have you're on particularly involved what I think it was to get permitting around a surface evaporation pond to recommence development if I'm not wrong but can you just give us an update of how that's tracking compared to the plan that you've given us most recently um yeah hey uh Andrew it's Sean again

Look, I think it's all pretty consistent. Look, just to be clear, Greatland is basically just doing a single updated permit. We're not staging it. I know Newcrest at one stage did go down that they were going to do ponds and then the full permitting. We've, under advice both from the EPA and from our professional consultants, We've just combined it into a single approval and both with the state EPA and the federal EPBC, I think we remain on track as previously advised. I guess when we update the feasibility study, we'll give you a full update on that. But right now, we think everything's kind of on track there and you know, has advanced a lot and we're building really successfully on a lot of good work that Newcrest did as owners as well.

Understood. Thanks, guys. That's all from me. Cheers.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Alex Bedwaney from Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Thanks, guys, for taking my question. Just to clarify, Simon, on what you said on the resource definition drilling. So am I to understand that as what you're going to spend this year is sufficient to look at a multi-year mine plan and anything beyond that would therefore be linked to a further extension in the mine life, is that right?

So... The plan, the 240,000 metres of drilling plan for FY26 is sufficient to deliver a multi-year mine life for Telfer. Notwithstanding, we may choose to do further drilling in FY27 depending on what size of mine life we're targeting. Whilst I'm saying there is sufficient work to deliver a life of mine plan towards the middle of next year that would contain a multi-year outlook subject to the success of the drilling.

If I can maybe just add to that, Alex, I think Simon's absolutely right that the 240,000 metres is a lot of drilling. That will give us multi-year life, and we're excited about the prospect of that. I also think that although this might be the peak year for drilling, I think I'd share conviction that we will continue to be doing... you know, resource development drilling, because we think we're going to get good value for continuing to expand that Telfer mine life. And you look at something like stage six, if it hangs together is up to eight, 10 year kind of expansion. You look at the West Dome underground, understanding the size of that, that prize, even the size of that ESC also in the underground. I think there's a, Yep, we can consolidate a lot of information from 240,000 metres from eight rigs, but I think there'll be ongoing value driver by continuing to have a focus on exploration, although recognising what Simon says, we'll just be able to kind of take it down a notch and so a little less expenditure, but still a real focus for us.

Okay, yeah, that's what I was getting at. And on that, so at the time that you updated the reserve, you guys sounded pretty confident on stage seven extension. When do you think you'll be in a position to give us a bit more information around what the quantum of the grade will be there and how long it's ultimately going to last? I think that the commentary in the quarterly is that it will go into FY29.

Yeah, thanks, Alex. I'll take that one, Simon. So we'll have completed the drilling for that in Q1. By the time we get the assays back, do the modelling, you know, complete that bulk model, we'll probably have that completed in the second quarter. So based on that time frame, we'd probably be talking to you about this after our 2Q results.

Okay, great. And just the last thing for me, just on the recoveries, is 82% or roughly thereabouts a good figure to expect for the rest of the life of mine? Or do you expect that it should rise a little bit as it was in the March quarter?

Yeah, thanks, Alex. I'll take that one as well. So as Sean mentioned earlier, we've taken a conservative approach to our guidance. Whilst we've shown that we can achieve those high 80% recoveries through the process plant, what we need to prove to ourselves is that's sustainable over a whole financial year. So what we've used is the life of mine, so 20 years of history to develop these recovery models. That's where the 82% comes from. we need to do further work this year to make sure that the higher recoveries are sustainable. And we work towards that. I'd also highlight that in FY26, we've got 15% of our plant feed is from stage seven, which is an area of the open pit that we haven't processed. And we'd like to get that operational data in hand before committing to higher recoveries in a sustainable method.

Thanks, Simon. I'll hand it off.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Kate McCutcheon from Citi. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon, Sean. I don't mean to continue this FY26 guidance thematic, but you mentioned calibration, and historically West Dome has always been prickly on reconciliation. The decision to risk the stockpile, were you seeing undercall on tons and grade, and what was that under call for June quarter for some context in terms of expected grade or delivery and same for the open cut has the tighter spacing that you've drilled shown that that grade or those tons are coming in lower and that there's a reconciliation issue and just I'm trying to understand if the delta on reconciliation on both the stockpiles and pit has supported putting this conservatism into the numbers yeah so look we've

We've come in to tell Ferran we can't re-assay stockpiles and we can't get the drilling data on those mining benches that we're putting to stockpiles are historic and they are what they are. And that drilling density under Newcrest was basically done around 50-50 metre spacing. We've adopted this tighter approach, which we think is right for the ore body and we think Yeah, I think Telfer did have some historic under-call, sorry, over-call issues. And we believe this is the... We are highly confident, in fact, that that's the remedy to this. But as I said before, we're a bit in a transition year where although we've applied that, obviously the ROM stockpiles already in situ are under a separate regime. And indeed, some of the current mining areas... yeah, we're already in the mine plan and, you know, we just haven't had enough days since acquisition to get rigs on them and, you know, get assays, remodel them, et cetera. So that, hence my response to Daniel before, where I kind of said, look, probably two thirds from that is in new mining areas that we're going to mine. What we think though, is this is the transition year and, And as you go into 27 and beyond, we'll have that higher density and we'll be a lot more, you know, that will give us the confidence that we'd like to see as Greatland because we want to have, you know, just a tighter understanding of the range of ounce production. And the risk rating isn't necessarily that those ounces have disappeared. It's just us putting, we think, you know, a conservative risk rating to make sure the guidance we're giving the market, we think will hit.

So just to clarify, in the June quarter, there was not reconciliation issues, as in what the mine plan said would be there for both tons and grade. Is what has been there for both the stockpile and the pit? Is that correct?

Look, I'll have another go at attempting to answer that with a different perspective. So whilst the source of the... underperformance in Q4 is still under investigation, it's clear that it's in the grade. So as Sean mentioned, it's in the higher grade areas, which is a function of where the reefs run through. So where we believe most of the issue is, is in the higher grade ROM stockpiles. And as Sean mentioned, we've processed the majority of those areas or a significant portion of those in FY25. And when we look at FY26, there's around that 4 million ton of those stockpiles in FY26, which we've risk-weighted appropriately.

Okay, so the bulk of the issue... Stockpile?

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, correct. The bulk of the issue is in stockpiles. you know, that we have weighted the lower classified material in FY26 open pit. We've put a high risk weighting against that. When we get the updated models through that second quarter, as I said, we'll have a higher confidence with that material that is planned for the second half of FY26. So again, I would be able to update appropriately on that after our 2Q results call.

Okay. I think that is clear. So there has been some reconciliation issues, but the bulk of it is the stockpile.

Yeah, correct. Correct, Kate. And that's, you know, observing that, then kind of calibrating it through the budget process is where we said, We ultimately made a call, let's risk rate this so that we are confident that we're putting out a conservative FY26 guidance. Okay, got it.

And so I think in the previous two-year outlook, you told us an expected grade of 0.55 for the ex-pit, or I think, is there any sort of colour you can give around the FY26 mill feed expectations in terms of pushing that plant on tons to go through in some sort of head grade, given we've had a change?

Yes, look, for the ex-pit grade, there's minimal change on that. That's... It's substantially in line with the production target we gave, so there's no change to the open pit grade. The stockpile grade has reduced, one, because we've consumed the high-grade stockpiles, and two, because we've risk-adjusted them. So you will see that grade drop from FY25 through FY26.

Yeah, so I think you see kind of a 5% change in grade, but that's more just, that's a combination of a change in the mining sequence and driven by the stockpiles being estimated to have a lower grade moving forward. So there's not a lot of change in that open period grade, but you obviously do have some natural variation.

Okay, super helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Hugo Nicolacci from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Oh, hi, Sean and team. Thanks for the update this afternoon. First one from me, just looking at the cost guidance into next year, can you just firstly confirm how much higher that ACE guidance would be if you were expensing that 4 million tonnes of inventory drawdown? I presume you don't, given that you've acquired that stockpile.

Yeah, Hugo, so effectively, as... People are aware inventory or stockpiles that you acquire as part of an acquisition don't go through all in sustaining costs. And that's partly why you saw such a super low all in sustaining costs for the past year, because we've had the benefit of that less so in the year ahead. We've still got around four odd million tonnes of stockpiles going through. If you added that into the equation, you're probably adding $100 to $150 to your all-in sustaining cost if you were to put a cost on that stockpile, bearing in mind we bought it at a still super attractive price, even if the grade is a fraction low. We bought it at $10 a tonne.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks, Sean. Just good to clarify. In terms of the sustaining spend into FY26, can you ever just give us a bit more detail in terms of what's going into sustaining versus growth? Appreciate you got the tailings work there. I think at the site visit, part of that was going to be in sustaining, but looking at the numbers, maybe it's not. Can you maybe just talk through how much you expect to spend as sustaining capital in 26 and what those pieces are?

Yeah, in the sustaining, there's $110, $120 million worth which flows through into those oil and staining costs. But look, there's a lot of underground advancement. That's probably your biggest single element. And again, it's about creating the flexibility and the resilience in that underground, creating multiple mining faces. And that's been a huge narrative to us. And we're really pleased to be investing in that underground because we think we set it up for success. In the past year, what we did is we expensed the stage two lift, which was basically run of mine, where the next lift we're actually capitalizing because that basically gets us ahead of time. And then there's some relatively kind of minor list after that. Look, we're improving the cyanide flow onto the dump leach. We're actually doing some new rooms in the village. So those probably three items are your three largest items as part of sustaining. And there's just a little bit of catch-up capex where we just think the site needs a little bit of a birthday and we're pleased to do that, particularly given it's generated plus $600 million over the last seven months for us.

That's helpful. Thank you, Sean. And then just lastly, in terms of the grade impact on the stockpile, should we assume the copper grade impact is proportional to the gold grade impact? And how much copper production have you factored in into that FY26 guidance to give us a steer?

Yeah. Yes, you should. The two are correlated. And I'm going to say about 9,000 to 13,000 tonnes of copper in FY26. So that would be kind of sitting with that kind of profile we've given.

Yep. Excellent. Thanks, Sean. I'll pass it on.

Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star 1. Your next question comes from Ben Lyons from Jarden. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Sean, maybe just closing the loop on some of Kate's questions about the grade profile. Perhaps you could provide some indication about the expectations for the underground grade, given there's been a fair bit of variability there over the journey as well. Thanks.

I'll just pass that to Simon, who's about to jump in.

Thank you very much, Sean. So look, we see a minor decrease in grade from underground in FY26, about 6% lower than FY25. Once we get into the ESC, we've seen better grades in those areas. So we're expecting some, you know, sustaining the grade through those areas. We also like, you know, the Ray Extension, which also has a good copper by-product out of it, which is quite profitable. So underground grades, more or less, Holding consistent, as I said, 6% drop off FY26. And of course, West Home Underground hasn't been in the two-year outlook, but that obviously has upside once that comes into the mind lane.

Cool. Thanks, Simon. maybe sticking with you, you've given some breakdown of that Telford growth capex number when you referred to some of the underground works and et cetera. I've had a crack at using first principles to work out maybe what the TSF would be and the underground development, but can we break it further into its component parts? Like, is it about 120 on the TSFs, about 80 on stage seven, maybe 20 on the underground and say 30 to 40 for the fleet. Is that order of magnitude the breakdown?

Yeah, look, we can give you some further clarity on it, but yes, it's 120 on TSF. So we have 65 in stage seven stripping. We had that 37 in res dev, just over 30 million in underground development. The one you're probably missing there is the open bit mining fleet renewal and refurbishment. That's in at 36 million. And there's some other... Oh, Havron's pre-production Havron feed is called out at 70-ish million. So that's just other smaller bits and pieces, but that gives you a flavour for it. OK.

Awesome. Thank you.

Yep.

Yep. Sorry, Sean. Go. Go ahead, Ben. No, no, you go ahead, Ben. Yeah, final one was just on Haviron. I think there was a comment in the release about some early works on the underground development. Just wondering if you could sort of clarify, is that a reference to a restart of that primary decline or maybe a commencement of the second decline from an underground position? Thanks.

Hi, Ben, it's Sean again. We won't restart until we've come out with the feasibility study, although we are remobilising burn cut in there. where they'll do some work on the raise board just to bring in that VR1 system, that ventilation system one, down to the bottom of the current decline, which will set us up to get into the top of the ore body. So there is some remobilisation, but really it kicks off in earnest, well, post-feasibility study and for good order post-FIT. In addition to that, just what I said about We've also got Burncut working with us on taking the portal to surface, so getting away from the box cut that wasn't fit for purpose, and then getting the teeth for that, the blind boards that will ultimately deliver all the cutting bits for VR2 and VR3. Yep, copy that. Thank you very much, Sean. Okay. Darcy, I think that might be the end of questions and we've probably run a little bit over time, but we wanted to make sure we addressed everything. So with that, I just want to thank everyone for taking the time to dial in. Hopefully that was helpful and we appreciate the engagement. Thank you.