Full Year 2026 Elevra Lithium Ltd Earnings Call

Speaker #1: For you, 2026 full-year results. I'm joined today by Christian Cortes, Chief Financial Officer, Sylvain Collard, Chief Operating Officer, and President Canada, and Andrew Barber, Chief Development and Investor Relations Officer.

Speaker #1: Our agenda for today's call is described on slide 2. 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.

Speaker #1: I'd also like to mention that unless otherwise stated, all references 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.

Speaker #1: Our commercial performance and financial position improved $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 NIO Brownfield expansion, whilst maintaining the flexibility to advance other growth initiatives.

Speaker #1: We subsequently received a further $65 million CAD in proceeds from the convertible bonds issued to Canada Growth Fund, which we received in August. Operationally, we continue to enhance our safety programs and saw significant improvement with our total recorded injury frequency rate falling by 67%.

Speaker #1: Production of Spodumene concentrate declined modestly, with approximately 198,000 tons 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.

Speaker #1: FY26 represented a significant step forward for Elevra, as we completed the merger between Saona Mining and Piedmont Lithium. We also completed 2 scoping studies and determined the optimal path forward for the NIO Brownfield expansion, and secured the funding to move the project into execution.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: As I mentioned earlier, our total recorded injury frequency rate fell by 67% in continuation of the improvements seen in FY25. We also saw improvement across each of the recordable personal injury categories, with reductions in medical aid, modified duty, and lost time injuries.

Speaker #1: Turning to NIO's operating performance, as documented on slide 6. FY26 production was approximately 198,000 tons of Spodumene concentrate, 3% below the prior year, but within our initial guidance range.

Speaker #1: Temporary mining conditions in the first half of the year impacted all 3 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.

Speaker #1: While maintaining a consistently high level of new utilization. And the result was a clear improvement through the second half, recovery increased to 71% in quarter 4, the highest level achieved during FY26, while mill utilization remained high at 92%.

Speaker #1: 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 NIO for continued improvement and growth.

Speaker #1: Moving to slide 7. The other major operational development during FY26 was the improvement in our commercial performance. Average realized pricing increased by 57% from $694 per ton in FY25 to $1,092 per ton in FY26.

Speaker #1: That increase reflects both the stronger lithium market and the changes we have made to our legacy offtake agreements. The restructuring of those agreements has increased Elevra's leverage to lithium prices, allowing improvements in the market to flow more directly through to realized pricing.

Speaker #1: Following the completion of deliveries, under our legacy offtake contract in the June quarter, we expect FY27 realized pricing to be more closely aligned with reported market prices.

Speaker #1: Importantly, realized pricing has now moved above NIO's unit operating cost on a ton sold basis, and we have entered a future supply agreement with a floor price above FY26's unit operating cost.

Speaker #1: 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 NIO expansion.

Speaker #1: That takes us to the next major part of the Elevra story, which is outlined on slide 8. Many of our accomplishments in FY26 operationally, commercially, and strategically set the foundation for the NIO Brownfield expansion.

Speaker #1: The starting point was the increase in NIO's resource reserve base announced in August 2025. Those increases confirmed the scale and longevity of NIO and created the optionality to explore increasing future production capacity.

Speaker #1: During FY26, we evaluated different pathways for the expansion, including a single-stage and multi-staged approach. We ultimately determined that a multi-staged approach is the preferred pathway and the reason is straightforward.

Speaker #1: 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 debottlenecking the mill to allow NIO to operate at the upper end of the existing permitted milling rate of 4,500 tons per day.

Speaker #1: Ultimately, we'll expand the milling capacity to 6,500 tons per day, which will bring average annual Spodumene concentrate production capacity from about 194,000 to approximately 338,000 tons of concentrate, while reducing the life of mine average C1 cost to $608 per ton.

Speaker #1: So this is not just a volume growth project. It is designed to increase scale, reduce unit costs, and improve NIO's resilience across lithium price cycles.

Speaker #1: After completing a capital raise focused 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.

Speaker #1: 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 on NIO's sourcing strategy for the expansion.

Speaker #1: Wait.

Speaker #2: The economics are also compelling. The initial focus during the expansion will be de-bottlenecking to allow NIL to operate at the upper end of the existing permitted milling rate of 4,500 tons per day.

Speaker #1: Given that the Brownfield expansion is based upon proven and existing technology and processes, our initial indications are that an alternate sourcing solution will be available should the introduction of tariffs create cost escalation for US-based sourcing.

Speaker #2: Ultimately, we'll expand the milling capacity to 6,500 tons per day, which will bring average annual spodumene concentrate production capacity from about 194,000 to approximately 338,000 tons of concentrate, while reducing the life-of-mine average C1 cost to $608 per ton.

Speaker #1: In addition, the Canadian government has announced a number of measures totaling $7.5 billion CAD to address tariff-impacted industries and projects. I'll now hand over to Christian to take you through our financial performance.

Speaker #2: So, this is not just a volume growth project; it is designed to increase scale, reduce unit costs, and improve NIL's resilience across lithium price cycles.

Speaker #2: 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 peat month and 12 months of Sayona following the completion of the merger at the end of August 2025.

Speaker #2: After completing a capital raise focused on funding the expansion, I'm pleased to note that we broke ground on the expansion at the end of June. We will continue to provide updates on our progress as we deliver against our near-term growth projects.

Speaker #2: Following the breakdown in trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. late last week, and the subsequent introduction of retaliatory tariffs, we are reviewing what implications, if any, this will have on NIL's sourcing strategy for the expansion.

Speaker #2: Elevra 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.

Speaker #2: Given that the brownfield expansion is based on proven and existing technology and processes, our initial indications are that an alternate sourcing solution will be available, should the introduction of tariffs create cost escalation for U.S.-based sourcing.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: 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 Christian to take you through our financial performance.

Speaker #2: As mentioned by Lucas, NIO 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.

Speaker #3: 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 Peatmont and 12 months of Sayona following the completion of the merger at the end of August 2025.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #3: Elevra elected to change its reporting currency from Australian dollars to U.S. dollars during the first half of FY26. As such, prior corresponding period amounts have been restated to U.S. dollars.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #3: Dollars are shown for comparative purposes. The amounts in the presentation have been rounded to the nearest million. Moving to slide 10, I will expand on the year's operational and financial overview.

Speaker #3: As mentioned by Lucas, NIL 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.

Speaker #2: Unit operating costs per ton sold of $853 FOB per dry metric ton increased modestly by 2%. The increase in operating costs reflects elevated mining activity as we increased shipping activity to maintain access to ore and optimize our mill feed.

Speaker #3: Sales of spodumene concentrate totaled approximately 181,000 dry metric tons, a 13% decrease compared to FY25, due to the timing of shipments and the transition of port operations.

Speaker #2: At group level, Elevra 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.

Speaker #3: 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.

Speaker #2: The group used in operating activities of $44 million during the period, which included $3 million of cash inflows generated by NIO, largely offset by cash outflows of $25 million associated with combined merger transaction costs of Elevra and legacy peat month.

Speaker #3: Unit operating costs per ton sold of $853 FOB per dry metric ton increased modestly by 2%. The increase in operating costs reflects elevated mining activity, as we increased shipping activity to maintain access to ore and optimize our mill feed.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #3: At group level, Elevra 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.

Speaker #2: An incremental $46 million of cash proceeds from the issuance of the first tranche of convertible notes to carry growth fund were received in August, after the close of the 2026 financial year.

Speaker #3: The group used in operating activities of $44 million during the period, which included $3 million of cash inflows generated by NIL, largely offset by cash outflows of $25 million associated with the combined merger transaction costs of Elevra and legacy Peatmont.

Speaker #2: Moving to slide 11, NIO delivered a $46 million underlying EBITDA 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 NIO's legacy offtake agreement with peat month post-merger, which contained a price ceiling that limited upside.

Speaker #3: Cash balance at the end of the period increased to $255 million, from $47 million at 30 June 2025. This was 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.

Speaker #2: There was also $2 million generated in synergies by NIO. Corporate expenditure of $30 million compared to a $12 million in the prior year, includes 10 months of legacy peat month costs and a $7 million loss of contract settlement associated with hedge instruments that were entered into during a period of low lithium prices.

Speaker #3: An incremental $46 million of cash proceeds from the issuance of the first tranche of convertible notes to Carry Growth Fund were received in August, after the close of the 2026 financial year.

Speaker #3: Moving to slide 11. NIL delivered a $46 million underlying EBITDA 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 NIL's legacy off-take agreement with Peatmont post-merger, which contained a price ceiling that limited upside.

Speaker #2: 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 NIO's production costs.

Speaker #2: Following the rally in lithium prices in December last year, the hedging activity was substantially reduced. Including the $2 million of synergies at NIO, the group delivered $15 million in synergies and annualized savings are expected to be approximately $19 million.

Speaker #3: There was also $2 million generated in synergies by NIL. Corporate expenditure of $30 million, compared to $12 million in the prior year, includes 10 months of legacy Peatmont costs and a $7 million loss on contract settlement associated with hedge instruments that were entered into during a period of low lithium prices.

Speaker #2: The group reported a profit after income tax of $44 million in FY26 and improvement of $292 million compared to FY25. That result includes several non-cash items, most significantly a $156 million reversal of the NIO impairment, which was partially offset by $104 million of non-cash merger-related accounting items.

Speaker #3: 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 NIL’s production costs.

Speaker #2: Moving to slide 12, the underlying EBITDA bridge presented in this slide has been restated to include $22 million in FY25 EBITDA of legacy peat month standalone costs for the 10-month comparable period.

Speaker #3: Following the rally in lithium prices in December last year, the hedging activity was substantially reduced. Including the $2 million of synergies at NIL, the group delivered $15 million in synergies, and annualized savings are expected to be approximately $19 million.

Speaker #2: 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 a stronger market prices and merger synergies realized during the 10-month period following merger completion.

Speaker #3: 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 NIL impairment, which was partially offset by $104 million of non-cash merger-related accounting items.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #3: Moving to slide 12. The underlying EBITDA bridge presented in this slide has been restated to include $22 million in FY25 EBITDA of legacy Peatmont standalone costs for the 10-month comparable period.

Speaker #2: 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 NIO, whilst underlying EBITDA 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 date, and increased finished product inventories of $15 million to support the port transition in June 2026.

Speaker #3: After considering these adjustments, the prior year's underlying EBITDA loss of $65 million compared to an underlying EBITDA profit of $14 million in the year ended 30 June 2026, making a significant improvement despite lower sales volumes. This was largely underpinned by stronger market prices and merger synergies realized during the 10-month period following merger completion.

Speaker #3: 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.

Speaker #2: This provides the financial capacity required to execute the NIO expansion while continuing to progress mobile line. 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.

Speaker #3: We ended the financial year with $255 million of cash, and a further $46 million was received from the Canada Growth Fund after the year-end.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #3: With regards to NIL, whilst underlying EBITDA 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 date, and increased finished product inventories of $15 million to support the port transition in June 2026.

Speaker #2: Total assets increased from $427 million to $905 million, primarily reflecting the increased in cash, the reversal of the NIO impairment taken in FY25, and the asset contribution of $120 million from peat month following the merger.

Speaker #3: This provides the financial capacity required to execute the NIL expansion while continuing to progress Mobile Line, 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.

Speaker #2: The balance sheet also captures higher inventory levels at the end of FY26, which, as I mentioned earlier, were to support the transition of port operations total liabilities increased from $160 million to $178 million, also due to balances contributed by peat month, including the incorporation of a prepayment facility.

Speaker #3: 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.

Speaker #2: 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 Elevra.

Speaker #3: Total assets increased from $427 million to $905 million, primarily reflecting the increase in cash, the reversal of the NIL impairment taken in FY25, and the asset contribution of $120 million from Peatmont following the merger.

Speaker #2: I'll hand back to Lucas.

Speaker #1: 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 Saona Mining and Peatmont Lithium.

Speaker #3: The balance sheet also captures higher inventory levels at the end of FY26, which, as I mentioned earlier, were to support the transition of port operations. Total liabilities increased from $160 million to $178 million, also due to balances contributed by Peatmont, including the incorporation of a prepayment facility.

Speaker #1: 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 scale.

Speaker #3: 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 Elevra.

Speaker #1: After completing the merger, we reconstituted the board, to enhance how corporate governance standards expanded the management team to position Elevra to take advantage of the long-term growth opportunity in lithium, and established a leaner cost base with approximately $15 million of synergies captured in the 10-month post-merger period.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #3: I'll hand back to Lucas.

Speaker #1: 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 Saona Mining and Peatmont Lithium.

Speaker #1: The second element was advancing the project pipeline with the major accomplishments outlined on slide 17. At NIO, we completed two scoping studies to evaluate increasing our production capacity.

Speaker #1: 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 scale.

Speaker #1: The expansion was enabled by the merger, and we immediately began to evaluate the opportunity. Our first approach established what NIO will look like in the future.

Speaker #1: After completing the merger, we reconstituted the board to enhance how corporate governance standards expanded the management team to position Elevra to take advantage of the long-term growth opportunity in lithium, and established a leaner cost base, with approximately $15 million of synergies captured in the 10-month post-merger period.

Speaker #1: A larger, lower-cost operation. But we challenged ourselves to refine how we achieve that end goal. And the technical and economic outcomes of the staged approach proved a more efficient approach.

Speaker #1: Once we finalized our development approach, we moved forward with financing. We received strong investor support from existing and new institutions, which served as and we were able to raise sufficient capital to fully fund all three stages of the expansion and advance development work at Mobile Land.

Speaker #1: We also completed a share consolidation to simplify our capital structure and present shareholders with a cleaner, more unified investment opportunity. Together, this has created a stronger foundation from which to allocate capital towards the highest-value opportunities across the portfolio.

Speaker #1: We broke ground at NIO 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 NIO expansion and moved into execution.

Speaker #1: The second element was advancing the project pipeline, with the major accomplishments outlined on Slide 17. At NIL, we completed two scoping studies to evaluate increasing our production capacity.

Speaker #1: The expansion was enabled by the merger, and we immediately began to evaluate the opportunity. Our first approach established what NIL will look like in the future.

Speaker #1: In addition to securing funding to continue advancing Mobile Land, we also purchased offtake rights at Mobile Land. Previously, a percentage of our annual offtake rights at Mobile Land were committed under commercial terms which included a discounted price.

Speaker #1: A larger, lower-cost operation. But we challenged ourselves to refine how we achieve that end goal, and the technical and economic outcomes of the staged approach proved to be a more efficient approach.

Speaker #1: By buying those rights back, we now capture our full pro-rata share of production and have control over the commercial outcomes of Elevra's interest at Mobile Land.

Speaker #1: Once we finalized our development approach, we moved forward with financing. We received strong investor support from existing and new institutions, which served as validation of our approach.

Speaker #1: 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 NIO.

Speaker #1: Strategy, and we were able to raise sufficient capital to fully fund all three stages of the expansion and advance development work at Mobile Land.

Speaker #1: And last week, we finalized the definitive agreement. That agreement includes improved commercial terms for Elevra, with a floor price of $1,000 SC6 and no ceiling price.

Speaker #1: We broke ground at NIL 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 NIL expansion and moved into execution.

Speaker #1: We see mangrove as an important partner for Elevra 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.

Speaker #1: In addition to securing funding to continue advancing Mobile Land, we also purchased offtake rights at Mobile Land. Previously, a percentage of our annual offtake rights at Mobile Land were committed under commercial terms, which included a discounted price.

Speaker #1: Sold our rights to the Tabba Tabba Tenement, Western Australia, and agreed to expand the Morella Lithium Joint Venture by including additional Western Australian tenements that Elevra previously owned or had applications for.

Speaker #1: By buying those rights back, we now capture our full pro-rata share of production and have control over the commercial outcomes of Elevra's interests at Mobile Land.

Speaker #1: 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 monetize these assets and maintain our focus on opportunities which will create both immediate and long-term value for shareholders.

Speaker #1: 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 NIL.

Speaker #1: And last week, we finalized a definitive agreement. That agreement includes improved commercial terms for Elevra, with a floor price of $1,000 SC6 and no ceiling price.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: We see Mangrove as an important partner for Elevra 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.

Speaker #1: This is the platform Elevra is built on heading into FY27. I'd now like to provide some commentary on the market. On slide 20, you will see that spodumene concentrate prices strengthened in FY26, which is reflecting the demand seen in the broader lithium market.

Speaker #1: Sold our rights to the Tabba Tabba tenement in Western Australia, and agreed to expand the Morella Lithium Joint Venture by including additional Western Australian tenements that Elevra previously owned or had applications for.

Speaker #1: While lithium prices have proven volatile, there 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.

Speaker #1: While we view Awoya and Western Australian tenements as potentially attractive development opportunities, they sit outside of our core North American focus. We believe these actions allow us to monetize these assets and maintain our focus on opportunities that will create both immediate and long-term value for shareholders.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: Taken together, these strategic accomplishments tell a compelling story. In FY26, we rebuilt the corporate foundation, moved our flagship project from the study phase into construction, and sharpened the portfolio around the assets we believe in most.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: This is the platform Elevra is built on heading into FY27. I'd now like to provide some commentary on the market. On slide 20, you will see that spodumene concentrate prices strengthened in FY26, which reflects the demand seen in the broader lithium market.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: While lithium prices have proven volatile, there 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.

Speaker #1: Now I'd like to turn it back over to Christian to discuss how we are thinking about a commercial strategy going forward.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #2: To do this, we are targeting approximately three core offtake customers, and we want these to be more than customers. We're looking for strategic customers that offer diversification across geographies, end markets, and trading counterparties.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: Instead, we are focused on building a business that can generate attractive returns across a range of lithium pricing environments. That means we will continue to focus on increasing scale and lowering unit costs.

Speaker #2: The second pillar is market-based pricing. We intend to eliminate the complexity created by lagged pricing mechanisms and references to lithium chemicals by referencing spodumene concentrate prices reported by credible price reporting agencies.

Speaker #1: Now, I'd like to turn it back over to Christian to discuss how we are thinking about a commercial strategy going forward.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: To do this, we are targeting approximately three core offtake customers, and we want these to be more than just customers. We're looking for strategic customers that offer diversification across geographies, end markets, and trading counterparties.

Speaker #2: With that, I will turn the call back over to Lucas to discuss our FY27 guidance.

Speaker #2: The second pillar is market-based pricing. We intend to eliminate the complexity created by lagged pricing mechanisms and references to lithium chemicals by referencing spodumene concentrate prices reported by credible price reporting agencies.

Speaker #1: Thank you, Christian. As audits 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.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: Unit operating costs sold is guided to 880 to 950 dollars per tonne sold, the increase in unit costs relative to FY26 is due to sustained mining intensity as we build inventory as part of the NIO expansion and continue to mine through the remainder of the historical underground workings.

Speaker #2: Any remaining uncontracted volumes can be sold into the spot market to maintain exposure to spot pricing when it's attractive. Ultimately, this strategy secures our position while retaining exposure to market upside.

Speaker #2: With that, I will turn the call back over to Lucas to discuss our FY27 guidance.

Speaker #1: Lastly, total capital expenditure is expected to be 120 to 140 million dollars. Most of the capital expenditure is growth capital allocated to the NIL expansion and mobile studies.

Speaker #1: Thank you, Christian. Our guidance for FY27 is detailed on slide 22. As we look to FY27, we expect spodumene concentrate production of between 198,000 and 210,000 tonnes at a 5.2% grade.

Speaker #1: With the balance going towards sustaining capital at NIL, which is approximately 20 million dollars. 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 two.

Speaker #1: Concentrate sales are expected to be between 200,000 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.

Speaker #1: So we're endeavouring to accelerate stage two of the expansion as well. And total capital for the project remains at 270 million dollars 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.

Speaker #1: Unit operating costs sold are 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 inventory as part of the NIL expansion and continue to mine through the remainder of the historical underground workings.

Speaker #1: We believe FY26 has materially transformed and strengthened the company. At NIL, we have demonstrated resilient operating performance despite temporary challenges, while safety and operational discipline have continued to improve.

Speaker #1: 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 MOBLAND studies.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: 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 two.

Speaker #1: Financially, we have moved to positive underlying EBITDA and significantly strengthened the balance sheet. And strategically, we have moved the NIL expansion from planning into execution with the project fully funded.

Speaker #1: So, we're endeavoring to accelerate Stage Two of the expansion as well. Total capital for the project remains at $270 million USD. 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.

Speaker #1: At the same time, mobile provides a second major growth opportunity and we are continuing to refine the portfolio around our North American strategy. As we look to FY27, our key five priorities are clear.

Speaker #1: First, safely deliver consistent operating performance at NIL. Second, safely execute the NIL expansion on schedule and within budget. Third, continue advancing mobile toward FID.

Speaker #1: We believe FY26 has materially transformed and strengthened the company. At NIL, we have demonstrated resilient operating performance despite temporary challenges, while safety and operational discipline have continued to improve.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #3: At this time, I would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question, press star one on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from the line of Levi Sprite with UBS.

Speaker #1: Financially, we have moved to positive underlying EBITDA and significantly strengthened the balance sheet. Strategically, we have moved the NIL expansion from planning into execution, with the project fully funded.

Speaker #3: Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: At the same time, MOBLAND provides a second major growth opportunity, and we are continuing to refine the portfolio around our North American strategy. As we look to FY27, our key five priorities are clear.

Speaker #2: Good morning. Lucas, I'm saying thanks for your time. A couple of quick questions, I guess. Firstly, if we can just roll back to the realised price piece.

Speaker #1: First, safely deliver consistent operating performance at NIL. Second, safely execute the NIL expansion on schedule and within budget. Third, continue advancing MOBLAND toward FID.

Speaker #2: 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 contract, did you mention a floor price there?

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #2: It's getting a bit of discussion with people putting out $1,000 number there. What's the, I guess, the construct behind your sort of negotiations on that number, if you can help us there?

Speaker #1: Yeah. Thanks, Levi. So I'll take the mangrove question first. There is a floor at 1,000 dollars US and there is no ceiling attached to that mangrove definitive agreement.

Speaker #3: At this time, I would like to remind everyone that in order to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone line. Levi Sprite with UBS.

Speaker #3: Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: Obviously, it's a little longer dated. That 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.

Speaker #2: Good morning, Lucas Hussein. Thanks for your time. A couple of quick questions, I guess. Firstly, if we can just roll back to the realised price piece.

Speaker #1: The second component, in terms of FY27, in relation to guidance on pricing, essentially, with those legacy agreements now in the review mirror for us, you should consider that we're effectively exposed to the spot market.

Speaker #2: So, what data points or what guidance can you give us for, I guess, how to think about FY27 realized prices? And then, just in terms of the Mangrove contract, did you mention the floor price there?

Speaker #2: There's been a bit of discussion, with people putting out the $1,000 number out there. What's the—I guess, what's the construct behind your negotiations on that number, if you can help us there?

Speaker #2: Okay, great. Thank you. And then just, I guess, next one is obviously just on costs. So you mentioned what's going on over there in North America.

Speaker #1: Yeah, 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.

Speaker #2: How much of the stuff are you getting from across the border? How should we think about that? You got a percentage that's coming from the US, I guess, in terms of capital?

Speaker #2: And then just on the operating piece, so 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, yeah, is it all about that strip, which which wasn't factored in?

Speaker #1: Obviously, it's a little longer-dated. That gives us an excellent platform, particularly given the benefits associated with logistics and so forth. So, I can reiterate that there's a floor of $1,000 a tonne.

Speaker #1: The second component, in terms of FY27 and in relation to guidance on pricing, is that, with those legacy agreements now in the rearview mirror for us, you should consider that we're effectively exposed to the spot market.

Speaker #2: And inflation being worse than what we thought, or can you just sort of triangulate out of it for us?

Speaker #1: Yeah, thanks, Levi. The bulk of the, I'll take the second question first again if that's okay. The increase in unit operating cost is principally driven by the increased mining activity as we open up phase four of the mine development.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: Allocation is effectively now unit operating cost, Levi. So essentially, the strip ratio in FY27 sits at around 10 versus FY26 is at 9.1. So there's an uptick in that strip ratio.

Speaker #2: How much of the stuff are you getting from across the border? How should we think about that? You've got a percentage that's coming from the US, I guess, in terms of capital?

Speaker #2: And then just on the operating piece—so 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, yeah, 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 try and guide out of it for us?

Speaker #1: 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 stokes as well and we pick up that additional law.

Speaker #1: So long story short, it's all down predominantly to the mining activity. So you'll expect to see that normalise as we move through FY27. And then the question around sort of exposure around the tariffs and so forth.

Speaker #1: Yeah, thanks, Levi. The bulk of the—I'll take the second question first again, if that's okay. The increase in unit operating cost is principally driven by the increased mining activity as we open up phase four of the mine development.

Speaker #1: As I flagged, obviously, 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.

Speaker #1: There's additional stripping, so it didn't fit the categories of capital. So, effectively, you might have seen with others that it might have been as deferred stripping.

Speaker #1: Allocation is effectively now unit operating cost, Levi. So, essentially, the strip ratio in FY27 sits at around 10, versus FY26, which is at 9.1. So, there's an uptick in that strip ratio.

Speaker #1: So we want to make sure we don't lock ourselves into something that's that may well be reversed in the month or two. But simultaneously, we're also evaluating exactly what the impacts might be and what the alternate sourcing strategies might be.

Speaker #1: 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 stopes as well, and we pick up that additional load.

Speaker #1: From an operational perspective, not a great deal of exposure. There's some consumables around reagents and so forth that may be captured, but fairly minimal.

Speaker #1: So, long story short, it's all down predominantly to the mining activity. So you'll expect to see that normalize as we move through FY27. And then the question around sort of exposure around the tariffs and so forth.

Speaker #1: 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 out of the the US, we will look to alternate markets.

Speaker #1: As I flagged, obviously it's a bit of a moving feast at the moment. Sylvain and the team—that might have... I think there's probably a couple of things to note.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: For NIL and, as I said, we still expect to deliver all three stages on a combined basis at 270 million US.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #2: Okay, great. And to squeeze the last one in, Modelin, give me just a reminder. So the next steps there on studies and de-risking, thanks, Lucas.

Speaker #1: Yeah. Thanks, Levi. Yeah. So Mobland, on the back of the increased resource base, resource and reserves base at NIL, sorry, at Mobland, we're undertaking an updated scoping study to determine really two key aspects.

Speaker #1: There are some consumables around reagents and so forth that may be captured, but they're 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.

Speaker #1: First is what's the right size in terms of production capacity for Mobland? DFS previously had 300,000 tonnes a year of concentrate. We'd suggest with a large resource base, it'll support a higher production level than that.

Speaker #1: So, if US tariffs become prohibitive in terms of sourcing out of the US, we will look to alternate markets. But the preliminary view is that we don't expect it to have a significant adverse impact on the total cost of the project.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: For NIL and, as I said, we still expect to deliver all three stages on a combined basis at $270 million US.

Speaker #1: In terms of working through NIL, so we think there's some smarts there that we can apply. So we want to be able to build those in.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #2: Okay, great. And to squeeze the last one in—Mobilin, give me just a reminder on the next steps there for studies and de-risking. Thanks, Lucas.

Speaker #1: In addition to that and in parallel, obviously, permitting and those sort of activities are all well and truly underway and progressing.

Speaker #1: Yeah. Thanks, Levi. Yeah. So Mobilin, on the back of the increased resource base, resource and reserves base at NIL, sorry, at Mobilin, we're undertaking an updated scoping study to determine really two key aspects.

Speaker #2: So December. Okay, great. Thank you, Lucas. Thanks for your time.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Levi.

Speaker #3: Your next question comes from the line of Austin Yun with Mackery. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: First is, what's the right size in terms of production capacity for Moblan? DFS previously had 300,000 tonnes a year of concentrate. We'd suggest with a large resource base, it'll support a higher production level than that.

Speaker #1: On Lucas, Christian, the team, just yeah, 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 hoping if you can provide more color on should we think the realized price will be linked to lithium carbonate or specimen price?

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: In terms of working through NIL, we think there’s some real expertise there that we can apply, so we want to be able to build those in.

Speaker #1: Would that be like a one-month lag? Would that be the right way to think about your price realization from this quarter onwards? Thanks, Austin.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: I'll pass over to Christian obviously, Christian looks after the sales, looks so letting walk you through that in a little more detail.

Speaker #1: In addition to that, and in parallel, obviously permitting and those sorts of activities are all well and truly underway and progressing.

Speaker #2: Hi, Austin. Thank you for your question. The current quarter sales are all basically spudging me and and linked index S and this current shipments which I mean, I alluded to the July shipment will have hopefully another one in September.

Speaker #2: So, December. Okay, great. Thank you, Lucas. Thanks for your time.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Levi.

Speaker #3: Your next question comes from the line of Austin Yoon with Mackery. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: On Lucas' question, the team, just—yeah, a follow-up to a few of Levi's questions, please. Just on the realized pricing, given that we're two months into this quarter, I'm hoping if you can provide more color on whether we should think the realized price will be linked to lithium carbonate or to the spot price?

Speaker #2: Those two shipments are effectively priced as we deliver the product. Now, that doesn't mean that all the volumes that we'll deliver through FY27 will be the same.

Speaker #1: Would that be like a one-month lag? Would that be the right way to think about your price realization from this quarter onwards? Thanks, Austin.

Speaker #2: But the, I guess, the consistent message regardless as to when the QP settles there will all be spudging mean pricing linked, none of these will have chemical pricing references to them.

Speaker #1: I'll pass over to Christian. Obviously, Christian looks after the sales, so I'll let him walk you through that in a little more detail.

Speaker #2: Hi, Austin. Thank you for your question. The current quarter sales are all basically subjugated to linked index S, and this current shipment—which I alluded to as the July shipment—will hopefully be followed by another one in September.

Speaker #1: Great. Thank you. And just on the cost front, yeah, interesting that you have a bit different treatment on the different stripping which would usually get capitalised.

Speaker #1: Looking at your piece, just keen to understand the profile of the strip ratio. That goes beyond FY27, like Lucas mentioned that it's going to revert to the reserve average.

Speaker #2: Those two shipments are effectively priced as we deliver the product. Now, that doesn't mean that all the volumes that we'll deliver through FY27 will be the same.

Speaker #1: Just if any color on how quickly that 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.

Speaker #2: But the, I guess, the consistent message regardless as to when the QP settles, there will all be spodumene pricing linked; none of these will have chemical pricing references to them.

Speaker #1: 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, we'll be through the underground stokes and so we'll pick up that additional lower in the marbles dike as well.

Speaker #1: So it's very much the high point and then it'll run us down quite quickly thereafter.

Speaker #1: Great, thank you. And just on the cost front, yeah, interesting that you have a bit different treatment on the deferred stripping, which would usually get capitalized, looking at your piece.

Speaker #2: Thank you. And just squeezing one more question if I may. Really good progress that Mangrove with all those agreements and updates. Keen to understand your study pipeline in the context of the agreement.

Speaker #1: I'm just keen to understand the profile of the strip ratio that goes beyond FY27. Like Lucas mentioned, it's going to revert to the reserve average.

Speaker #2: Does feel like the Carolina project is getting pushed out further? Is this the correct understanding?

Speaker #1: Just any color on how quickly that's going to happen would be helpful. Thank you.

Speaker #1: Austin, we continue to work through the permitting for Carolina. In fact, the air permit's the last remaining permit required to have that project fully permitted.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Austin. I'll take the strip ratio question. In short, we're really seeing it's the peak in FY27, Austin, and then it'll effectively run down from there.

Speaker #4: So there's a buy-in there, and we also pick up, as you'll recall, will be through the underground stokes. And so we'll pick up that additional lower in the marbles dyke as well.

Speaker #1: We expect that to occur. Within the next within this quarter, if not early next quarter. So we're continuing to advance that. As we've described previously, that project is really or has been contemplated as a mine with a co-located chemical facility.

Speaker #4: So it's very much the high point, and then it will run us down quite quickly thereafter.

Speaker #1: Thank you. And just squeezing in one more question, if I may. Really good progress at Mangrove with all those agreements and updates. I'm keen to understand your study pipeline.

Speaker #1: As we've made it very clear, a lever at our expertise is 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.

Speaker #1: In the context of the agreement, does it feel like the Carolina project is getting pushed out further? Is this a correct understanding?

Speaker #1: So obviously, the likes 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.

Speaker #4: 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.

Speaker #2: That's clear. Thank you, Lucas. I'll pass it on.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Austin.

Speaker #3: Your final question comes from the line of Reg Spencer with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Speaker #4: We expect that to occur within the next within this quarter, if not early next quarter. So we're continuing to advance that. As we've described previously, that project is really or has been contemplated as a mine with a co-located chemical facility.

Speaker #1: Thanks, morning, Lucas and Christian. I think Levi and Austin covered off on most of my questions. Just help me out on the capital profile.

Speaker #1: It was a little bit higher than what we were expecting this year. Can you just remind me what the capex profile for the NAL expansion looks like over 28 and 29 once you've got that all finished?

Speaker #4: As we've made very clear, 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.

Speaker #1: Yeah. So of headline comments and then I'll pass to Christian. He'll give you the sort of respective breakdown. Just if we go back, total capital for all three stages is $270 million US.

Speaker #4: So, obviously, the likes of Mangrove probably give 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.

Speaker #1: That number is still holds. Stage one represented around 70 million dollars of that $270. Stage two, 60 million dollars. And the third stage, the balance of 140 million.

Speaker #1: That's clear. Thank you, Lucas. I'll pass it on.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Austin.

Speaker #3: Your final question comes from the line of Reg Spencer with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: Essentially, what you're seeing in FY27 is obviously we're running on stage one. We're also and we'd highlighted this previously, we're advancing work for stage two where we can as well.

Speaker #1: Thanks. Morning, Lucas and Christian. I think Levi and Austin covered off on most of my questions. Just help me out on the capital profile.

Speaker #1: It was a little bit higher than what we were expecting this year. Can you just remind me what the capex profile for the NAL expansion looks like over ’28 and ’29, once you’ve got that all finished?

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #4: Yeah, so Reg, I'll just come back. I'll provide a couple of headline comments, and then I'll pass to Christian. He'll give you the respective breakdown.

Speaker #1: So we're advancing some of that work for stage two into FY27. And also there's around 10 million US for associated with Mobiland growth work.

Speaker #4: Just 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 million.

Speaker #1: Got it. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that's I think I'm good. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. All right. Thanks, Reg.

Speaker #3: There are no more questions via the I apologize. Andrew Harrington from Petra Capital has a question. Please go ahead.

Speaker #4: 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.

Speaker #2: 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?

Speaker #4: We've also, and we'd highlighted this previously, been 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.

Speaker #4: So, that incremental spend in FY27 is a combination of Stage Two—so we're advancing some of that work for Stage Two into FY27. And also, there's around $10 million US associated with Mobiland growth work.

Speaker #2: And what's the benefit if you're just going to be getting spudging mean prices across those off takes as well?

Speaker #1: Thanks, Andrew. So I think just first and foremost, obviously, we're sitting around that sort of 200,000 tons a year mark at the moment, but you'll see that volume incrementally ramp up quite quickly over the next two to three years.

Speaker #1: Got it. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. I think I'm good. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.

Speaker #4: All right. Thanks, Reg.

Speaker #1: And we'll be at sort of that 340,000 tons a year concentrate. And so on the back of sort of that quantity, 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.

Speaker #3: There are no more questions via the— I apologize. Andrew Harrington from Petra Capital has a question. Please go ahead.

Speaker #2: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to jump in. Yeah, most of the questions were covered. One about offtake contracts: what's the volume? So, if you're going to be producing roughly 200,000 per annum, how much do you want to be under long-term contract?

Speaker #2: Hi, Andrew. Thank you for your question. The target as I outlaid on the slide where I talk about the commercial portfolio, the target is to effectively have indicatively three customers out of those volumes you would expect to lock in around three quarters of your production.

Speaker #2: And what's the benefit if you're just going to be getting spot or mean prices across those offtakes as well?

Speaker #2: And effectively maintain an element of flexibility in which you can allocate the remaining volume to the existing off takers or to take that to the spot market.

Speaker #4: Thanks, Andrew. So I think, just first and foremost, obviously, we're sitting around that sort of 200,000 tons a year mark at the moment, but you'll see that volume incrementally ramp up quite quickly over the next two to three years.

Speaker #2: But that being at our discretion. Now, it's a good question. What's the value on off take agreements from our perspective? The key thing here is the counterparty.

Speaker #4: And we'll be at sort of that 340,000 tons a year concentrate. And so, on the back of that quantity, I'll pass to Christian, and he'll give you a sense of how we're thinking about allocation and why we're pursuing off-takes.

Speaker #2: 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?

Speaker #2: Hi, Andrew. Thank you for your question. The target, as I outlined on the slide where I talk about the commercial portfolio, is to effectively have, indicatively, three customers. Out of those volumes, you would expect to lock in around three-quarters of your production.

Speaker #2: So as we've seen through the cycles, when things get tight, if you don't have reliable business partners you then having 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.

Speaker #2: And effectively maintain an element of flexibility in which you can allocate the remaining volume to the existing off-takers, or take that to the spot market.

Speaker #2: But that being at our discretion. Now, it's a good question. What's the value on offtake agreements from our perspective? The key thing here is the counterparty.

Speaker #2: Okay.

Speaker #4: Is there any revenue difference?

Speaker #2: 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 that they effectively have growth plans so that you can effectively grow the business with them?

Speaker #2: Is there any 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.

Speaker #2: So as we've seen through the cycles, when things get tight, if you don't have reliable business partners, you then having 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.

Speaker #2: Now, you may end up with a buyer party negotiation in which you may have different elements of pricing to what those index prices are, but we're not pursuing those.

Speaker #2: We're effectively looking for customers that are there 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.

Speaker #1: Okay. Is there any revenue difference?

Speaker #4: Okay. Thank you. And if I may, one last related question. How much of the material will remain in North America?

Speaker #2: Are there any revenue differences? I would think that if you are ultimately linking to spot price indexes, the answer would be no. It would be consistent with what the market is indicating.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: Now, you may end up with a buyer party negotiation in which you may have different elements of pricing to what those index prices are, but we're not pursuing those.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: We're

Speaker #1: Fifthly , looking for customers that are You know , there are ultimately comfortable with picking what the market price indicates to be at the time of us are shipping or delivering the product , depending on what the specific arrangement looks like .

Speaker #2: However, we are in discussions with that party that has a facility in North America and if we are to supply in the future, I would think it would be something around 25% of the volumes give or take

Speaker #1: Okay . Thank you And if I may , one last related question . How much of the material will remain in North America Well , well , that's a very good question , Andrew .

Speaker #4: Okay. Thank you. That's great. Thanks, Christian. Thanks, Lucas.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Andrew.

Speaker #3: I would now like to turn it to Andrew Barber for questions from the web.

Speaker #5: 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?

Speaker #1: 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 will obviously be actively looking at supporting those potential customers mangrove being one of them Now , the answer is today , nothing .

Speaker #5: So I think we're looking at the question of what does the ramp up look like as we progress each stage.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Andrew. So as we've explained previously, in short stage one, we'll deliver in the order sort of 15 to 20% production uplift and we expect to be complete with that mid-calendar year 2027.

Speaker #1: We're not shipping anything to North America. However, we are in discussions with that party that has a facility in North America.

Speaker #1: So you could expect to see that increase in volume start flowing through an FY 28. And the reason for that is obviously it's a brand full expansion.

Speaker #1: If we are to supply in the future, I would think it would be something around 25% of the volumes, give or take. Okay.

Speaker #1: We're 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.

Speaker #1: Thank you . That's great . Thanks , Christine . Thanks , Lucas

Speaker #2: Thanks , Andrew .

Speaker #3: I would now like to turn it over to Andrew Barber for questions from the web.

Speaker #4: 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 ?

Speaker #1: So you shouldn't expect that those things will sort of just be dripped fed in, but rather it'll be at the completion of each stage that you can expect to see that improved uplift in volume.

Speaker #4: So, I think we're looking at the question of what the ramp-up looks like as we progress through each stage.

Speaker #5: Great. Thank you. Next question is, have diesel prices substantially impacted costs?

Speaker #2: Thanks , Andrew . So as we've explained previously , in short , stage one will deliver in the order of 15 to 20% production uplift .

Speaker #1: Short answer is no. Diesel accounts for around about 5% of our cost spend. So I mean, clearly it's not insignificant, but we're less exposed than others and particularly for the compare it with say some of the Australian producers where they may be relying upon diesel generators and so forth.

Speaker #2: And we expect to be complete with that mid-calendar year 2027. So, you can expect to see that increase in volume start flowing through in FY28.

Speaker #2: And the reason for that is obviously it's a brownfield expansion. We are installing, and will be installing, equipment during the course of the year.

Speaker #1: One of the benefits we've got at NIL 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.

Speaker #2: 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 sort of just be drip fed in , but rather it'll be at the completion of , of each stage that you can , you can expect to see that improved uplift in volume

Speaker #1: So somewhat insulated from these energy shocks that other producers may be seeing.

Speaker #5: Thank you. Next question is, what's the rationale for moving from the Port of Quebec to the Three Rivers Port? Are there what are the benefits and how will this change impact costs?

Speaker #4: Great. Thank you. Next question is: Have diesel prices substantially impacted costs?

Speaker #1: Thanks. I would agree, Christian.

Speaker #2: The short answer is no . Diesel accounts for around about 5% of our cost spend . So I mean , clearly it's it's not insignificant , but we're less exposed than others .

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: And particularly if you compare it with, say, some of the Australian producers, where they may be relying upon diesel generators.

Speaker #2: 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 warehousing when NAL restarted.

Speaker #2: And so forth . One of the benefits we've got at . Nel is the fact that our power is hydro . So obviously renewable , very low carbon emissions or zero carbon emissions .

Speaker #2: But on top of that, low cost as well, so somewhat insulated from these energy shocks that other producers may be seeing.

Speaker #2: That issue has been removed and in fact, we have greater capacity at Three Rivers than what we had at Port of Quebec.

Speaker #4: Thank you . Next question is what's the rationale for moving from the Port of Quebec to the Three Rivers port ? Are there What are the benefits and how will this change impact costs ?

Speaker #5: Thank you. Next question is on mobile. A comment that the resources 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?

Speaker #2: Thanks to you , Christian

Speaker #1: Yes . The short answer is we will generate cost savings as a result of the change . Two two key reasons . It's a shorter distance from now and we are effectively Housing when an ALV started, that issue has been—has been removed, and in fact we have credit capacity at Three Rivers than what we had at Four Credic.

Speaker #1: 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 resource space has increased appreciably.

Speaker #1: We would suggest that will support a higher level of production. Then what's complicated in the DFS. So the DFS was at 300,000 tons a year.

Speaker #1: We'd 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 mobile and from all the work that we've done to date, mobile and looks like a very low cost operation.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: We think that there's obviously we've learned a few things through the NIL process and we think there's some areas to sharpen the pencil and improve the capital efficiency.

Speaker #2: Thank you. Next question is on Mobile. A comment that the resources increased substantially since the last DFS was published. How do you think that will feed into the upcoming updated scoping study versus the prior DFS results?

Speaker #5: Great. Thanks, Lucas. We'll let scoping study be released in the September or December quarter.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Andrew. As I mentioned, two primary objectives for us with the Mobili and updated scoping study are to revisit the annual production level and, as the question alludes to, the fact that the resource base has increased appreciably.

Speaker #1: It'll be the December quarter.

Speaker #5: Thank you. The next question is in regards to the mangrove uptake agreement. Why did we choose mangrove and to sign that agreement when they won't be taking supply for another four to five years?

Speaker #1: We would suggest that will support a higher level of production. Then what's complicated in the DFS—so the DFS was at 300,000 tons a year.

Speaker #1: Yeah, Christian, you worked intimately on this. Why don't you walk our investors through that?

Speaker #1: We'd expect that to move north. The benefit of that, obviously, is the increased revenue associated with the increased volume, but also the ability to further reduce unit operating costs at Mobile Land.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #1: From all the work that we've done to date, Mobile Land 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.

Speaker #2: That would result in meaningful cost savings for both parties and the idea of ultimately supporting the buildup of the regional supply chain is to the extent that we can achieve that, it certainly fits in with what we're effectively trying to achieve here.

Speaker #1: That was provided in the DFS. We think that, obviously, we've learned a few things through the NIL process, and we think there are some areas where we can sharpen the pencil and improve capital efficiency.

Speaker #2: Great, thanks, Lucas. We'll let the scoping study be released in the September or December quarter.

Speaker #2: 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 goes into production sooner rather than later.

Speaker #1: It'll be the December quarter.

Speaker #2: Thank you. The next question is in regard to the Mangrove off-take agreement. Why did we choose Mangrove and decide to sign that agreement when they won't be taking supply for another four to five years?

Speaker #1: Yeah, Christian, you worked intimately on this, didn't you? Walk our investors through that.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #3: 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.

Speaker #5: Great. Thank you. Next question is on aware and question is are we on track to receive payment for the sale of our stake in aware this quarter?

Speaker #5: And could you provide some additional color on the Ghanaian Ministry approval process related to this transaction?

Speaker #3: And the idea of ultimately supporting the buildup of the regional supply chain is, to the extent that we can achieve that, it certainly fits in with what we're effectively trying to achieve here.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Andrew. So the approval process really sits with the counterparty with what you cobalt. They're engaging with the Ghanaian government. These approvals are a normal process and they will progressing and we anticipate being of those conditions precedent and approvals including this quarter and obviously payment will flow as a consequence of that.

Speaker #3: 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 goes into production sooner rather than later, as we ultimately have the ability to place product with customers in the short to medium term.

Speaker #5: Okay. Thank you. Next question is in regards to the Morella Joint Venture and the vending of four projects into that joint venture for a spend of $300,000 over two years.

Speaker #3: As well as, as discussed earlier through the slide deck, we have the ability to place product in the spot market.

Speaker #5: The question is, given the modest commitment and overlapping roles of several directors, how did the independent directors determine these terms are fair to elaborate shareholders?

Speaker #2: Great, thank you. Next question is on Aware, and the question is: Are we on track to receive payment for the sale of our stake in Aware this quarter?

Speaker #5: And will the definitive agreement provide protection for elaborate if a significant discovery is made?

Speaker #2: And could you provide some additional color on the Ghanaian ministry approval process related to this transaction?

Speaker #1: So I think the short answer is obviously the definitive agreement will provide adequate protections for elaborate shareholders. The other component of the question around independent directors, I think just for the avoidance of any doubt, James Brown and Alan Buckler did not participate in any of the discussions related to this transaction.

Speaker #1: Thanks, Andrew. So the approval process really sits with the counterparty, with what you call 'bolt.' They're engaging with the Ghanaian government. These approvals are a normal process, and they're all progressing. We anticipate being able to meet those conditions precedent and approvals, including this quarter, and obviously, payment will flow as a consequence of that.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: And as I mentioned, in my opening comments, or the results call, our focus is very much in North America as evidenced by recent decision to divest our interest in the Tabba Tabba exploration permits, which will obviously was successful and a great result for shareholders.

Speaker #2: 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.

Speaker #2: 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?

Speaker #2: And will the definitive agreement provide protections for Elevra if a significant discovery is made?

Speaker #5: Thanks, Lucas. Last question here is, has a labor plan for contingency that bunker fuel runs low and shipping becomes more restrictive or expensive?

Speaker #1: So, I think the short answer is, obviously, the definitive agreement will provide adequate protections for all elaborate shareholders. The other component of the question, around independent directors—I think, just for the avoidance of any doubt—James Brown and Alan Buckler did not participate in any of the discussions related to this transaction.

Speaker #1: 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 arrive.

Speaker #1: 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 our recent decision to divest our interest in the Tabataba exploration permits, which we obviously was successful and a great result for shareholders.

Speaker #1: Typically, as part of the sales process, shipping's organized 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 it's a global market and effectively all producers are going to be exposed by and large the same distance to be sailed.

Speaker #5: Thanks, Lucas. No further questions.

Speaker #2: Thanks, Lucas. Last question here: has an elaborate plan for contingency been developed in case bunker fuel runs low and shipping becomes more restrictive or expensive?

Speaker #6: However, now I'd like to turn it back to Lucas Dow for closing remarks.

Speaker #1: Thank you for your interest and attending our presentation today. If you have any further queries, please reach out to our investor relations team. Thank you and goodbye.

Speaker #1: 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.

Speaker #1: Typically, as part of the sales process, shipping is organized 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, 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.

Speaker #2: Thanks, Lucas. No further questions.

Speaker #4: However, now I'd like to turn it back to Lucas Dow for closing remarks.

Speaker #1: Thank you for your interest and for attending our presentation today. If you have any further queries, please reach out to our Investor Relations team. Thank you, and goodbye.

More ELV earnings call transcripts

• ELV - Q3 2025 Elevance Health Inc Earnings Call (October 21, 2025)
• ELV - Q4 2025 Elevance Health Inc Earnings Call (January 28, 2026)
• ELV - Q1 2026 Elevance Health Inc Earnings Call (April 22, 2026)
• ELV - Q2 2026 Elevance Health Inc Earnings Call (July 15, 2026)

Browse all earnings call transcripts