Boss Energy Limited (BOE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome to the Boss Energy FY '26 Results and New Feasibility Study. [Operator Instructions] If we do run out of time, and do not have time for your question, we ask that you please call our office on (08) 6263-4494 or e-mail boss@bossenergy.com and speak to our team. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Matthew Dusci, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Kate. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining today's conference call. This marks an important milestone for Boss Energy. We are pleased to be presenting our FY '26 financial results, the new feasibility study and updated mineral resource estimate for the Honeymoon deposit and our FY '27 guidance. We released a significant amount of information today. During this call, we'll take you through some of those key outcomes. Joining me on the call this morning is Justin Laird, our CFO; and Olivier Regnault, our Head of Technical Services and Planning. Olivier joined Boss in September last year, bringing extensive international uranium ISR experience to the business. Olivier, I'll just hand across to you who can give a short introduction.

Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. I'm Olivier Regnault, Head of Technical Service and Planning at Boss Energy. So I hold a PhD in hydrogeology and geochemistry from Mines Paris -- PSL University, France and I have more than 15 years of experience in uranium in situ recovery with particular expertise in wellfield design, reactive transport modeling and the optimization of ISR operation. Before joining Boss Energy, I spent most of my career within Orano Mining, where I had a range of technical and management position and work on ISR operations and development projects internationally, including the KATCO operation in Kazakhstan and projects in Uzbekistan and Mongolia. I'm very pleased to be part of Boss and to contribute my experience of the development of Honeymoon and also other projects. And I look forward to answering any of your questions at the end of this presentation.

Thank you. Thanks, Olivier. It's great to have Olivier as part of the Boss, complementing our strong operational technical capacity that we have in South Australia. As you can see throughout today's presentation, strengthening our technical capacity and deepening our understanding of the Honeymoon deposit and how we mine it effectively has been central to the work we've been completing this year. I'll just turn to Slide 2, which is our disclaimer slide. I'll just draw you to attention to the cautionary statements on this slide, particularly in relationship to targets of production on inferred and indicated mineral resource. Also, unless otherwise stated, all currency amounts referred in today's presentation are in Australian dollars. Turning to Slide 3. FY '26 was a significant progress in which we made material strength in the foundations of our business. Today's presentation is structured around 3 key areas. First, our FY '26 financial results. We've doubled revenue, delivered our first year of positive free cash flow and further strengthened our debt-free balance sheet, and we did this in a capital-intensive year. Second is the new feasibility study. The NFS is the combination of an enormous amount of technical work and confirms a robust pathway for continued economic uranium production at Honeymoon. Importantly, establishes a fundamental improved wellfield design and cost structure, underpinned by our operating experience, advanced modeling and deeper understanding of the deposit. Third, FY '27 guidance. FY '27 is a transitional year. It builds the foundation for Honeymoon's production ramp-up and long-term value that follows. We will progressively move from the legacy wellfield design to a new widespace design. I'll talk about our capital allocation choices behind this profile in this presentation. Boss enters FY '27 with a strong balance sheet, a robust plan for Honeymoon, significant opportunities for optimization and exciting growth options while being strategically levered to a strengthening uranium market. With that, I'll hand across to Justin, who will take us through our FY '26 financial results.

Turning to Slide 4. Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. I'll now step through the FY '26 results. Turning to Slide 5. FY '26 was a year of significant operational and technical progress, supported by a strong and debt-free balance sheet. Sales revenue doubled to $151.1 million and with the $15.5 million uranium loan repayment contributed to an average realized price of $111 per pound or US$74 per pound. We delivered a net profit after tax of $2.5 million. We finished the year with 1.58 million pounds of uranium inventory. At the 30 June spot price, that inventory had a market value of approximately $195 million. We also reinvested $66.6 million at Honeymoon in wellfield development, infrastructure and technical work. This was a substantial investment during FY '26. Despite that investment, we closed the year with $207.3 million in cash and liquid assets and no debt. We have a strong debt-free balance sheet and are generating positive operating cash flow, providing the financial capacity to fund Honeymoon's transition and pursue a broader optimization and growth opportunities. Turning to Slide 6. This slide shows year-on-year comparison. Revenue doubled from $76 million to $151 million, and the business moved from a $34 million loss to a profit of approximately $3 million. Operating cash flow increased from $17 million to $74 million. At Honeymoon, production increased 61% to 1.41 million pounds compared with 872,000 pounds in FY '25 and was within our revised production guidance. Full year C1 cost was $39 per pound and all-in sustaining cost was $61 per pound, both within revised guidance. Importantly, we achieved these outcomes while continuing to build inventory and invest in the operating platform. The results demonstrate the cash-generating capacity at Honeymoon while also highlighting the value of increasing production and spreading the largely fixed operating cost base over more pounds. Turning to Slide 7 and the financial summary. Operating cash flow for the year was $73.6 million that funded $66.7 million of mine development across Honeymoon and Alta Mesa, and we increased cash by $13.1 million to close the year at $49.7 million. In other words, in a year where we invested heavily in wellfields, NIMCIX columns 4 and 5, the East Kalkaroo trunkline and the technical work behind the NFS, the operation paid for that investment while adding cash and inventory to the balance sheet. That balance sheet remains a key strength. We closed FY '26 with $207 million in cash and liquid assets and no debt. Within that, uranium inventory grew by 172,000 pounds to 1.58 million from inventory. As I mentioned, that inventory is carried at a book value of $116 million that had a market value of approximately $195 million using the 30 June spot price. That inventory position matters strategically whilst remains deliberately under contracted. We have chosen to retain uranium rather than sell it into the market as we believe it is strengthening. And that inventory gives us substantial flexibility on the timing of future sales as well as direct exposure to uranium price upside. During the year, we also received 162,000 pounds from our 30% interest in the Alta Mesa joint venture and also received the loan repayment from enCore in August 2025. Total net assets were $477.6 million at 30 June. In summary, the business is now profitable, was cash generative through a heavy investment phase, debt-free and holding a large flexible uranium inventory. With this solid platform, we expect to continue to organically fund the ongoing transition to a wide-spaced wellfield design, which Matt will take you through now. Back to you, Matt.

Thanks, Justin, for taking you through the FY '26 financial results. I'll now move on to the new feasibility study. Turning to Slide 9 and the headline outcomes from the new feasibility study. The work we've done has confirmed Honeymoon has a robust and economically viable pathway to long-term uranium production. The wide-spaced wellfield design supports production until at least FY '34 with planned drum production of 13.8 million pounds over the 9-year period. This is a significant milestone for Boss. The work completed over the past year has transformed our understanding of the deposit and enabled us to establish a fundamentally improved development plan. At the center of this plan is wide-spaced wellfield design. It allows us to access more of the resource with fewer wells, less infrastructure while increasing the resonance time and supporting higher PLS grades and recoveries. The result is a material step change in Honeymoon's cost structure. On a like-for-like basis, applying the previous wellfield spacing to the updated mineral resource, the new design reduces life of mine all-in sustaining costs by approximately $30 per pound. The plan is supported by Honeymoon's favorable ISR characteristics, including high permeability, effective acts of confinement, low natural groundwater flow, low acid consumption. Our design and operating assumptions have also been benchmarked against established ISR operations globally. Importantly, this is a capital-efficient pathway. The majority of the required infrastructure is already in place with only approximately $58 million of additional facilities capital planned over the life of the mine. This can be comfortably funded from our existing balance sheet and operating cash flow. The new feasibility study does more than confirm economic production. It establishes a low-cost capital-efficient foundation for Honeymoon and provides a strong platform for future optimization and regional growth. Turning to Slide 10. To understand the new feasibility outcome, it's important I just return back to the challenges identified during the Honeymoon review. The assumptions underpinning the previously enhanced feasibility study did not reflect what we were seeing on the ground as we progressively developed and operated wellfields. We were not seeing the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization, and we're encountering mineralization within low permeable clay materials. Collectively, these factors were resulting in a smaller production wellfield, greater development intensity and increasing unit cost. Ultimately, incremental improvements to the previous design was not going to be enough. We needed to fundamentally reset the cost structure of the operation. The wide-spaced wellfield design provides that pathway. We recognize the opportunity to fundamentally change the operation's economics. Confirming the technical and economic viability of this approach of the wellfield design, therefore, became the center focus for the new feasibility study. This design approach is only possible because of the underlying deposit characteristics. Turning to Slide 11. This slide shows the work undertaken from first identifying the deviation through to the delivery of the new feasibility study today. I'll not go through every step, but this time line demonstrates the significant work completed in a highly accelerated time frame. Over approximately 12 months, we materially improved our understanding of Honeymoon, strengthened our technical ISR capacity and delivered a new feasibility level pathway on the wide-spaced design, all while continuing to operate the mine. I'm extremely proud of what the team has achieved. This work provides us a stronger technical foundation and a clearly defined pathway forward for Honeymoon. Turning to Slide 12. I'll now step through an update on the mineral resource for Honeymoon. Turning to Slide 13. The updated Honeymoon mineral resource is 21.4 million tonnes at 440 ppm for 20.8 million pounds of U3O8 reported 100 ppm cutoff grade. 66% of resource is classified as indicated and 34% is inferred. The estimation was completed by RSC Global and forms the basis of the new feasibility study. Across the Honeymoon District, Boss has a now combined mineral resource of 65.9 million pounds, including 45 million pounds at Gould's Dam and Jasons deposits, which is outside of this feasibility study. Turning to Slide 14. The updated mineral resource is informed by substantially larger, higher quality and more integrated data set than that was counted in 2019 estimate. Within the modeled area, we have completed an additional 685 drill holes and approximately 87,000 meters of drilling, a 34% increase. As the map shows, the work has substantially increased drill density across the main resource domains. The database integrates calibrated gamma, quality ranked PFN logging validated against Sonic core assays and deposit-wide Nuclear Magnetic Resonance or NMR measurements. The NMR data is particularly important because it allows us to model permeability across the deposit rather than assuming all material mineralization equally amenable to ISR extraction. Those permeability models have also been calibrated against our actual operating ISR performance. The result is a much more detailed understanding of the grade distribution, geology and importantly, the extractability of the mineral resource. Turning to Slide 15. The Honeymoon mineralized system extends over approximately 6 kilometers of strike, is up to 650 meters wide and generally occurs at depth of about 80 to 120 meters. The resource is divided into 4 principal domains, East Kalkaroo, Central Kalkaroo, Honeymoon and Brooks Dam. Most of the mineralization is hosted in the basal aquifer of the Eyre Formation across the Honeymoon and East Kalkaroo domains. Brooks Dam more commonly hosted in the upper portion of the sequence. Mineralization is laterally extensive and can occur across stacked horizons, reaching a combined thickness of about up to 34 meters. Importantly, the updated resource only includes material considered amenable to ISR extraction and satisfying the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Material has been excluded where the required permeability and extractability criteria are not met. Turning to Slide 16 and the change from the 2019 mineral resource. After adding back mining depletion since 2019, the updated mineral resource contains about 4.6 million pounds less uranium, a reduction of about 35% compared to 2019. When both estimates are compared at a higher 250 ppm cutoff, the difference is more pronounced. We see a reduction around about 63%. The updated MRE is consistent with the findings of the Honeymoon review. Put simply, we do not see the same level of continuity of high-grade mineralization considered amenable to ISR extraction as assumed previously. The changes principally reflect significantly more drilling and commercial operating data, a revised and more tightly constrained estimation approach and the application of permeability extractability criteria when assessing the mineralization. The comparison at 250 ppm clearly demonstrates why continuing with the previous wellfield approach was not an option. The design wouldn't support a high grade or the deposit would actually support a high-grade approach. Ultimately in terms of forecasting life of mine production, we're around about 26% lower than what the 2017 EFS, which was withdrawn in December. So I'll just talk through a little bit about the wellfield and wellfield design. So we'll go to Slide 18. This slide summarizes why the Honeymoon deposit is suitable to wide wellfield spacing. The wide spacing wellfields only works if the deposit characteristics support them. And Honeymoon has favorable combinations of characteristics that do. The approach that we're taking is deposit dependent. We have high permeability flow capacity. We have strong lateral hydraulic connectivity. We have laterally extensive mineralization with favorable vertical continuity. We have favorable mineralogy and effective confinement and hydraulic control. Honeymoon, Gould's Dam and Jasons deposits are all similar. Although low grade, they are favorable deposits from an ISR mining perspective. Turning to Slide 19. One of the most significant technical advances underpinning the new feasibility study is the use of the reactive transport modeling as an integrated mine planning tool. We are no longer building mine plans based on historic ISR assumptions and averages. We are developing mine plans based on science, engineering and actual historic operating data. This is a fundamental step change in how we're forecasting wellfield performance and the life of mine schedule. We're now at a level of technical sophistication compared to what is applied across more mature mining commodities. The model integrates the resource permeability, porosity, hydraulic connectivity, mineralogy, wide well spacing flow rates, screening tools and lixiviant chemistries. It then simulates how fluid moves through the reservoir, how uranium dissolves, how PLS head grade changes over time and how much acid and oxidant are consumed. The model has been calibrated against rich data set across both historic Uranium One production and our current commercial operating data across different wellfield spacings and designs and across different operating chemistries. Each planned wellfield, therefore receives its own production curve, reflecting its local geology, permeability, hydraulic connectivity and geochemistry. These individual curves feed directly into the life of mine production schedule and reagent forecast. The modeling itself is highly sophisticated, but the outcome is clear. We have a materially more predictive, technically rigorous and defendable basis for wellfield design, production forecasting and reagent planning. This capability is central to our confidence in the new feasibility study. Turning to Slide 20. wellfield spacing involves an important trade-off between recovery performance and development intensity. If wells are too close, the lixiviant moves quickly from injector to extractor. This results in rapid breakthrough, shorter residence time, lower solution enrichment and suboptimal recovery. It also requires substantially more wells and infrastructure. As space increases, the lixiviant remains in contact with the mineralization for longer. This improves uranium dissolution and PLS grades while reducing the number of wells and associated infrastructure. However, spacing cannot increase indefinitely. At larger distances, recovery becomes progressively slower and increasing dependence on hydraulic connectivity and operational controls. Using the reactive transport model, we assessed the injector to extractor spacings from 35 to 70 meters across the Honeymoon deposit. The 49-meter injector to extractor spacing was selected as the base case for the new feasibility study. It captures the material economic benefits of wider spacing while maintaining a controlled hydraulic response. This is scalable and increased spacing beyond 49 meters remains a genuine optimization opportunity, which we'll continue to evaluate. Turning to Slide 21. This slide demonstrates the material change delivered by the wider spaced wellfields. Historically, we were operating under an injector to extractor spacing of 35 meters. The new feasibility study adopts a 49-meter injector to extractor spacing as a base. By moving to 49 meters, the number of wells fall by 46%. The number of 8-pattern wellfields falls by about 54%. The average residence time increases from approximately 80 to 150 days, allowing the lixiviant more time to interact with the mineralization. Modeling recovery increases from approximately 80% to 90%. Uranium recovered per extraction well more than doubles from 15,400 to 33,000 pounds and the average PLS tenor increases by 28%. We expect acid consumption to increase modestly from approximately 6 to 8 kilograms per tonne under leaching, but it remains low by our ISR standards. Collectively, this represents fundamental reduction in development intensity while improving recovery, PLS tenor and uranium recovery per well. The 70-meter case shows further potential to optimize beyond the 49-meter new feasibility base case, which we'll continue to test. Turning to Slide 22. This slide shows a subset of some of the benchmarking we have done. We have benchmarked Honeymoon's design and operating plan against established ISR operations globally. Note that our plan did not come from benchmarking. We are testing it against benchmarking. The 49-meter injected to extractor spacing sits within the range used by large-scale ISR operations in Kazakhstan. Honeymoon's modeled extraction well flow rate of approximately 32 cubic meters per hour is substantially higher than typical global rates, reflecting the strong hydraulic connectivity and permeability demonstrated by our operating data. Acid consumptions compared favorably due to our low levels of acid consuming minerals and reactive clays. We require on average, approximately 26 pore volumes equivalent to achieve 90% recovery, consistent with Kazakh's benchmarking and significantly below benchmarking assumed in the earlier Honeymoon studies. We are confident of the work we have done. Turning to Slide 23. Slide shows the wellfields plan for Honeymoon deposit on a 49-meter injector to extract the spacing. Currently in production of B1 to B5 at Honeymoon and B6 at East Kalkaroo. The plant delivers approximately 13.8 million pounds of drum uranium over 9 years through FY '35 with annual production peaking at 1.9 million pounds, includes 59 wellfields and approximately 134,000 wells (sic) [ 1,340 ] wells and around 8 new wellfields commissioned each year and an average of 16 operating at a time. Each wellfield is based on an 8-tonne 5-spot pattern using a 49-meter injector-to-extractor spacing with approximately 45 days allowed for conditioning. Around 85% of the planned production is located within the mining lease. The remaining 15% is in the Honeymoon mine extension area, principally Brooks Dam North and requires relevant approvals before development. I'll now cover plant and associated infrastructure required to deliver the plant. So we're now on Slide 25. The whole plant leverages Honeymoon's established operating infrastructure requiring only targeted additional investment. The existing processing plant, trunklines, power, pond, workforce and broader site infrastructure remains the foundation of the plant and processing flow sheet is unchanged. Since restarting in April 2024, we have drummed more than 2.3 million pounds of uranium, demonstrating the performance of the existing lixiviant chemistry, resin loading and elution columns. Under the plant, we will bring NIMCIX Column 6 into operations during FY30 to match flow from the wellfields. This will increase our wellflow capacity by 20% to approximately 2,940 cubic meters per hour. The other key investment is staged water plant expansion. Water treatment is the principal enabler on how quickly we can condition and commission new wellfields and ultimately lift flow. Turning to Slide 26. As just mentioned, water treatment plant is the enabler for the wellfield development rate. It supplies the permanent water required to condition and flush each new wellfield. The new feasibility study assumes around 8 new wellfields each year with approximately 45 days of commissioning per wellfield. The availability of the water treatment, therefore, sets the pace at which new wellfields can be brought online. Stage 1 debottlenecks the existing plant and lifts treatment capacity to approximately 130 cubic meters per hour with completed target in the first quarter of FY '27. Stage 2 [indiscernible] is an additional duplicate water treatment plant, lifting RO capacity to around about 300 cubic meters per hour. This is targeted for completion in third quarter FY '28 under the new feasibility study. This is an area of the new feasibility study that we have not yet optimized given the accelerated time frame of the study, noting the following: The plan is based on the requirement to flush 1 pore volume, while our operating history has averaged closer to 0.7 pore volumes. And through optimization, we should be able to do better than third quarter FY '28 for a new water treatment plant. The ultimate goal is to push forward our ramp-up production profile. Turning to Slide 27. I'll just talk a little bit about our capital and the schedule, so we'll jump to Slide 28. Thanks. New feasibility study sets out a stage production ramp-up aligned with the delivery of the required enabling infrastructure. Production increases from approximately 1.3 million pounds in FY '27 to 1.5 million pounds FY '28 and 1.7 million pounds in FY '29. From FY '30 to FY '33, production stabilizes at about 1.9 million pounds per year. The water treatment expansions are designed to deliver in parallel and support the initial ramp-up. Construction of Column 6 begins in FY '29 with the column coming online in FY '30, increasing that flow capacity in the plant by about 20%. From FY '31, we also start beginning to reuse wellhouse infrastructure, reducing our sustainable capital requirements. There are 2 important steps to note. The first is that FY '27 to FY '29 ramp-up, it has not yet been fully optimized. And the second, the schedule is based solely on the Honeymoon deposit. Gould's Dam and Jasons deposits are not included in this base case. These deposits will provide a pathway to sustaining or increasing production, extending production beyond what's currently presented today. Turning to Slide 29, and I'm looking at our unit cost. The unit cost profile reflects the stage production ramp-up. C1 costs are higher during FY '27 to FY '29 transition period given the fixed operating cost base. From FY '30, when production reached approximately 1.9 million pounds, C1 cost falls averaging around about $47 per pound. Reagents are the largest cost component around about 40%, followed by labor and G&A at around about 36%, which is the largely fixed component of our cost base. Accelerating the water treatment capacity will allow us to reach higher production rates sooner and potentially bring forward and lower unit costs, and this is our ultimate objective. Turning to Slide 30. Most life of mine capital related directly to sustaining development of the wellfields, making up approximately about 87% -- 84% of the total capital over the life of the asset. This comprises the production wells, wellfield equipment and first fill reagents. A typical wellfield costs approximately between $5 million to $7 million. This spending is phased in advance of the new wellfields coming online and is committed as required to support the production profile. There's about $58 million of processing enabling capital, including the water treatment plant and completion of NIMCIX columns, gypsum ponds and associated pumping and trunklines with Brooks Dam. Majority of this enabling capital is spent for the first 3 years and associated mostly with the water treatment plant. Turning to Slide 31. This slide demonstrates the material improvement in wellfield economics delivered by the wide spacing. We have been disciplined in limiting capital investment in wellfield development under the previous design where the expected returns did not justify further investment. It has been a difficult balancing act. The comparison between the historic B7 and part of the B9 wellfield and the wide-spaced EKT1 design is striking. It demonstrates a genuine step change between the previous design and the new design. Under this comparison of the 2 wellfield designs, the new wellfield design sees a sustaining capital fall of approximately $22 per pound, sees a C1 cost reduction around about $12 per pound. It sees all-in sustaining cost about $34 per pound or 31% decrease. At the state of the uranium price, we see revenue less all-in sustaining costs increased by about $33 a pound. And we can see the returns delivered on a relative basis between both wellfield designs. The specific outcome will vary with each wellfield, but the conclusion is clear. By recovering more uranium with substantially fewer wells and less infrastructure, the wide spacing design materially improves unit cost and overall value to a Honeymoon operation and it ultimately enables us to reduce that lower cutoff grade and drive that 100 ppm. Turning to Slide 32. The new feasibility study establishes the, sorry, we'll jump to the next one as well, establishes the new pathway forward. The outcomes of the new feasibility study are really clear. Study was completed on an accelerated time frame and with a deliberate defined scope. Our focus was on establishing a robust technical and economic case for wide-spaced wellfield design. This plan itself is not optimized. We have identified a number of areas where we can continue to improve and value enhance what we have delivered today. The first is water treatment plant and usage, which we've talked about and how we can continue to accelerate that, potentially reducing our conditioning and flushing times and ultimately bring that production profile. Second is about wellfield deliveries, ensuring that we can accelerate drilling, construction and commissioning and step with the water treatment plant capacity while continuing to optimize wellfield spacing and pattern design. Third is recovery and reagents, increasing PLS tenor recoveries to use spare back-end plant capacity, also look at how we can reuse first-fill reagents where practical. Fourth is about plant and capacity efficiencies, including improving wellhouse capital costs, plant availability and throughput and delivering the low-capital debottlenecking initiatives. Together, these work streams provide us with the opportunity to accelerate that ramp-up profile and increase production and reduce unit cost. For us, the feasibility study is the starting point. There is still work to be done as we continue to drive value. Turning to Slide 34. I think it's important to remember the new feasibility study is only focused on the Honeymoon deposit only. It does not include Gould's Dam and Jasons. Together, these 2 deposits contain 45 million pounds of uranium, more than twice the current Honeymoon mineral resource. Both have deposit characteristics similar to the Honeymoon deposit. They will be amenable to ISR development and the wide spacing wellfield design. For us, this is a significant strategic opportunity. We do not see these as isolated deposits requiring complete stand-alone development. We see the potential for development as part of the broader regional production hub, leveraging the processing infrastructure plant, infrastructure workforce and the ISR capability we have already at Honeymoon. We believe Gould's Dam and Jasons provide a genuine pathway to take production beyond the 1.9 million pounds as we presented in the new feasibility study and materially extend the life of the broader Honeymoon platform. I'll just quickly run through FY '27 guidance and then our immediate execution priorities. So turn to Slide 36, sorry. FY '27 will be a transitional year as we move from the legacy wellfield spacing to the wide-spaced design confirmed by the new feasibility study. Production guidance is 1.25 million to 1.3 million pounds. This is based on 8 wellfields operating Honeymoon and East Kalkaroo by June '27. With EKT1 coming online in the second quarter and EKT2 coming in on the fourth quarter. C1 cost guidance is $51 to $56 per pound and all-in sustaining cost guidance of $83 to $92 per pound. Costs are higher than FY '26 due to the lower grade from maturing legacy wellfields. Reagents represent more than half of the FY '27 C1 costs, while lower production volumes result in a higher fixed cost per pound. Sustaining capital guidance is $33 million to $37 million, split broadly across drilling, wellfield equipment and first fill reagents. This spending is phased in line with the availability of water treatment capacity. Processing facility capital is $25 million to $28 million, covering Stage 1 of the water treatment plant progressing and progression on Stage 2 and other supporting infrastructure. This gives us a total capital guidance of $58 million to $64 million. We have made disciplined decisions on limiting further investment in legacy wellfields where the expected returns were not adequate. While this constrains near-term production, it has preserved capital for the wide spacing wellfields that support the value-accretive ramp-up. I'll just finish with some summary and conclusions and some of our priorities from here. So we'll turn to Slide 38. Before wrapping up, I just want to recognize the people behind the work. The new feasibility study has delivered on our accelerated time frame and continues as we continue to operate Honeymoon. The study really does demonstrate the technical capacity we've built within Boss. I'd like to sincerely thank the team, the broader team. There's more people than worked on it than this image and our partners who have worked on the study with us. Turning to Slide 39. We have a robust pathway forward for Honeymoon. We have delivered a step change in economics, approximately $30 per pound lower from a like-for-like on an all-in sustaining basis with higher PLS grades and around 50% less wellfield infrastructure. The plan delivers approximately 13.8 million pounds of uranium with full 9 years of production through to FY '34 and life of mine C1 cost of approximately $50 per pound and all-in sustaining cost of $79 per pound. The plan is underpinned by a strong technical foundation. This is a robust case. We have clear opportunities to accelerate the ramp-up and improve recovery and plant performance and reduce unit operating cost. Beyond Honeymoon, Gould's Dam & Jason's provides a potential capital-efficient pathway to increase production and extend the life of the broader platform. The new feasibility gives us confidence in Honeymoon's future and a strong foundation from which we can continue to drive further value. Turning to Slide 40. Our priority is straightforward. We need to execute the new feasibility plan and deliver the wide-space production plan. We need to continue to optimize performance, including how we accelerate that ramp-up, increase recovery, reduce unit costs. And we need to continue to unlock that regional growth through Gould's and Jason's with the potential to increase production and extend the life of mine plan. This is all ultimately enabled by our people, our strong balance sheet, our technical capability, our culture and a clearly defined plan. Turning to Slide 41, and I'll just close with leaving with 5 key points. We are an established uranium producer with technical and operating expertise, and we continue -- and you'll continue to see this being demonstrated. The new feasibility establishes a clear plan for Honeymoon through to FY '34 and materially improves our cost structure and defining executing priorities. We have a strong financial platform. We have multiple opportunities to create further significant value leveraging existing infrastructure. And finally, we're well positioned in our strengthening uranium market. We are producing uranium today, building inventory and remaining strategically under contract at a time of rising global demand. Thank you for joining, and we'll pass across the Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Alistair Rankin with RBC Capital Markets.

Just first question on the new feasibility study. Looks like you're targeting eight new wellfields per year at steady state. I think over FY '27, you'll be getting to about 8 in total. So I think the addition of another two new wellfields. I guess what needs to happen sequentially to reach that sort of eight per year commissioning rate? And what is the single biggest bottleneck besides the water treatment plant that you've got?

Yes. I'll jump in and Justin can also jump in on some of that commentary. Ultimately, the water treatment plant is the biggest bottleneck. Anything else from that, we can effectively manage. We don't see long lead items associated with the establishment of the wellfields. Relatively simple, including drilling, establishing casing, purchasing of warehouses of filters and construction. So that real bottleneck that we're seeing is our ability to do that first flush. And why we have to do that first flush is because of the chlorides and calcium. So we're just trying to get that wellfield into that right chemistry state before we start extraction. We currently have four drill rigs. I mean we wouldn't have to ramp up any more drill rigs or anything associated with that ramp-up profile.

Yes. I'll just quickly add to that. And Alistair, just on your historical to forecast comparison. So historically, we executed wellfields based on a 16-pattern wellfield. Under the new feasibility study with that 49-meter spacing, we've identified an 8-pattern wellfield as the optimal design. So just when you're doing that historical to forecast run rate, just recognizing that, that future run rate is half the number of pattern per wellfield.

Understood. Second question, just on how that RTM model is going to be tested against actual wellfield data. I know that EKT1 has a mean residence time of about 180 days. So you won't have a full recovery curve on my numbers until sort of late FY '27. But I'm assuming you'll probably have data prior to that to be able to validate the RTM model. So I guess at what point in that recovery curve will you feel you've got enough data to really confirm the economics tracking that RTM modeling?

Yes. I'll pass across to Olivier to talk a little bit about some of that. But remember that we come from already a data-rich environment. So this has been calibrated to our all historic production. We'll continue to refine that model. So EKT1 -- it's also at a 60-meter spacing too, so significantly larger than what we've chosen for the feasibility study. So -- and we'll continue to calibrate the model and our assumptions as we work through. But we're not expecting to see something material come out of EKT1 that changes what we've already seen and what we already understand. Olivier, do you want to just quickly talk about with the reactive transport model with calibrations and what gives you comfort?

Yes, sure. So you're right. So the reactive transport simulation were calibrated based on all the the very huge set of data we have from Uranium One history and Boss Energy production and what has been calibrated, the geochemistry first and then also part of the petrophysical permeability, so permeability will stay the same for Honeymoon. So there is no reason that will have a different reactivity, a different leachability from what we already understood. So the difference between what we have today in terms of preparation and what will be in the future is just an increase of the distance between wells. But all the other input data of this simulation should remain very, very close. So pretty confident that we will not have a huge variation.

Your next question comes from the line of Tom Wallington with Citi.

Matt, just in terms of talking about FY '27 as a transformational year or transitional year rather, on the guidance of 1.25 million to 1.3 million pounds of production, can you just give us a broad indication of how much contribution this will come from legacy wellfields and how much from the new wide-spaced wellfield design? And I guess just by extension, can you give us any commentary as to what you expect for exit production run rates coming out of FY '27?

Yes. So I do talk to FY '27 as a transition. And why we do that is we have been disciplined on capital through this process. It's been something that we've had to navigate where we -- investment in wellfields under that legacy design, we've deliberately made a decision not to. So a little bit of catch-up as we try to work that through and then also trying to also work through with that constraint on the water treatment plant. In terms of 1.25 to 1.3 million, around about 900,000 pounds comes from legacy wellfields from -- for that production profile. Where we come out of FY '27 is that ramp-up to ramp-up, and we'll start to see that increase in terms of having additional well. Some of those additional wellfields ready for wide-spaced, and we'll get up to that 1.5 million that following year.

Yes, perfect. That's very clear. And maybe just quickly one more. You talked about a target of 1.9 million pounds per annum in the future. Do you have any sort of broad indication as to when you might expect that? And any other broader bottlenecks beyond the water treatment plant? I'm conscious that you have addressed some of these points in the previous question, but any other considerations or constraints that might put at risk that 1.9 million pounds per annum target production level?

Yes. So -- we talked about ramp-up production levels. So we reached that 1.7 in FY '29, and we reached the 1.9 in FY '30. That's from the feasibility level study. The constraints on that are really relatively -- it's all got to do that water treatment plant. So -- and when we do that water treatment plant, what we have done is assumed a 0.1 pore volume. So that's one pore volume is you need that the sort of volume you need to flush one of those wellfields. Currently, we're doing about 0.7. So there's a little bit of room there that we may be able to optimize and bring that forward. 1.9 is just about that run rate. Plant can do about 2. So there's a little bit of room to move between that 1.9, maybe 2. Once you get above 2, we may have to invest a little bit more in terms of the precip circuit to get to that 1.4 (sic) [ 2.4 ]. But to get up that production rate further, then we'll be looking at how Jason's fits into that production profile, how we accelerate Jason's to continue to bring in that production profile beyond that 1.9.

Your next question comes from Dim Ariyasinghe with UBS.

Just on -- you're talking about Gould's and Jason's, is it a bit too early to discuss on when they could potentially come in to get this new nameplate above 2, again and closer to your export license?

Yes. Obviously, that's -- now we've come out and we've got a solid base for Honeymoon. That's the big value driver of Gould's and Jason's. We did provide an updated mineral resource statement for Gould's and Jason's, I think it was March, April this calendar year. We took learnings out of Honeymoon when we came up with that mineral resource statement. So comfortable with that position. In that statement, we talked to permitting -- so the key time frame there is permitting, and we say around about 2 to 3 years for permitting, and that's the time frame that we'll be working towards.

Yes. And then just with -- I guess, maybe second question then on that resource, does that need to be rightsized again given what you've done with Gould's, like strip out the clay and lower the cutoff grade or?

No. Well, sorry, the resources at Gould's and Jason's are reported at 250. So -- but we've applied the learnings from Honeymoon to Jason's and Gould's in terms of our ability to understand permeability, consideration of material in clay, resource classification and making sure that high-grade mineralization is tightly constrained.

Your next question comes from the line of Daniel Roden with Jefferies.

I know we've discussed, I guess, Honeymoon's technical biggest challenges and leading the feasibility, like this new feasibility study for a while now and the team has clearly done a very substantial body of work to underpin the new plan. I was just wondering if we could hear a bit more from Olivier. I appreciate you making yourself available for the call for us. But yes, just on, I guess, how the methodology was developed, some of the challenges that were encountered and I guess, where you see some of the residual technical risk? And maybe kind of going specifically to, I guess, the plan extrapolates into some undeveloped areas with different local geology and permeability. How do you see, I guess, the risk of modeling into, I guess, those unknown zones? I might just start there.