Evolution Mining Limited (EVN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you, Darcy. Good morning, and welcome to today's Analyst Roundtable Session at Evolution Mining, to those, both in person in the Evolution boardroom and for those joining virtually online. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation as the traditional custodians of the Sydney CBD. And pay our respects to their elders, past and present. We recognize their strength and ongoing connection to the lands, waters and communities as the custodians of their culture. As an introduction today, we are joined by Evolution Mining's Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Lawrie Conway; and our Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Barrie van der Merwe. The format for today's roundtable will involve, firstly, an overview [ presentation ] by Lawrie walking through the announcement that was released on the ASX platform this morning, and this will be followed by a Q&A session. Just some logistics to make this call more rewarding for all participants. The call is being recorded today, be aware. Secondly, we will finish promptly around at 12:25 p.m., giving Lawrie time to do closing remarks and wrap up the call at 12:30. We will rotate Q&A around both the room and online, starting with about 4 questions per room and the online, and go forward at that rate. We'd like to limit questions 1 per person in the [indiscernible] of optimizing the group dynamic and also optimizing sound quality. And with that said, Lawrie [indiscernible].

Thanks, Rocky. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for making the time available. Rocky has been trying for a number of months to get the roundtable organized and it is good that we've been able to do that. And I appreciate you making the time, and especially those of you in the room who have made it to our office in [indiscernible] Sydney. We did put a pack out there this morning that I'll talk to, and that was on the basis we knew a lot more of the attention will be on FY '25 and people wanting to have a conversation around that, whilst we finished our business [indiscernible] we actually have a Board meeting next week is the next step, [indiscernible] and in June leading into guidance. But we do know a number of the moving pieces which we think is helpful to be able to talk [indiscernible] the formal guidance a bit later. I don't want to spend too much time talking because I do want most of the time to be on Q&A and an interactive session. So if we -- just the summary, and I'm not going to go into this. So there's a couple of things, is that when we finish the March quarter, that cash generation is certainly starting to build. And when you look at the spot prices, there should be a materially better cash flow as we came into the end of the June quarter. And then when you look at where the spot price is in copper being just below 2-year highs, with 30% of our revenue coming from copper, that further impacts on where we're at. I think when we look at the portfolio, the intention is to -- when we finish this year, moving into next year, when we talk about projects that we've got, we're very fortunate that every one of our assets in the portfolio have growth opportunities [indiscernible] mine life extensions or increases in production. And Glen, who can't be here today, is certainly getting some really good drilling results across Ernest Henry, Cowal and Mungari, that will further enhance each of those operations. And lastly, we announced yesterday the appointment of Matt O'Neill as our COO, which completes both the CTO and the COO roles from our leadership team perspective. But just as importantly is all of our general managers are in place, so our operational ones, but the technical general managers in Nancy's team have all been appointed as well and are already in the business. So as we go into '25, that senior management team for the organization is [indiscernible]. Turning to production. I'm not going to spend much time in terms of the FY '24. We talked about that a couple of weeks ago at the quarterly. I will add that it is a large quarter for us. It would be a record quarter. When we started the year, it was planned that Q4 was our largest quarter based on the Cowal underground commissioning and where each of the other operations would be at, and obviously, adding in Northparkes into the second half of the year. We did have a number of options when we put the quarterly out about, do we change guidance? We went against that because our view was what we need to do at each of those operations was actually operate to the plan that was in place because it's important that it sets us up for FY '25. And at the same time, if we did lower that guidance, it meant that the operations basically had an opportunity to deviate from that plan and not maintain their focus on delivery. We know that weather has impacted the first sort of 9 months of the year. We don't know where that goes. What we have been working as a group is making sure that we manage and deliver to the plan and control the things that are in our control and mitigate the things that are outside of our control. So if we look more into FY '25, is that we do see an increase in production for next year. And I'll talk through, basically going from public information through to where we are today. So when we were -- late last year, before we acquired Northparkes, we were showing that in FY '25, we'd be around the 800,000 ounces. In our quarterly, a couple of weeks ago, we rebased Red Lake to 150 -- 140,000 to 150,000 ounces versus what would have been late last year around the 200,000 ounce mark. We did see in the resource, reserve update in February where there was a downgrade at Mt Rawdon in their final reserves. And when we look at where we will finish mining, so we've gone to dayshift only from the start of this month, we will mine through until the end of September quarter before we move to stockpiles next year for the rest of next year. What it does mean is we do leave a few thousand ounces in the bottom of the pit. But that's [ more ] lined up with the [indiscernible] project and where that will go. And that is what we see that production next year around the 30,000 to 35,000 ounces. We see it as less than 10,000 ounces left in the pit. As we go into pumped hydro, the way that Jake and the team are working on the structure is that any ore-bearing material that comes out as they set up the pit for the reservoir and the pumped hydro, that material will flow through to us. So we actually don't end up losing all of that material. And the last item is that we do have a major process plant shutdown at Cowal next year. And that's on the back of, for the last couple of years, we've been trying to work out how do we take a plant that's been operating for 18 years and is due to actually finish operating this year, to enable it to go forward. So there are major relines on the SAG and the ball mills and corrosion works that need to be done, and we've made the decision that next year is the right time to do that. That will be in the third and fourth quarters. It's 28 days, as compared to the normal major shut at that time of the year which is around 6 days. And so when you look at that, the last piece of the equation is that you have a full year of Northparkes, which adds 35,000 to 40,000 ounces. And so when we look at it from going from this year around the 749, we see that production increasing into FY '25. It is not flat or lower. In terms of our costs, we've certainly seen inflation being resilient [indiscernible], we've seen it slow over the past 9 months, but not to the levels that I think central banks thought it would get to by now. And we're certainly starting to see that in the public markets around interest rates not coming off later this year, and talk even in Australia of rising interest rates. And so when we look at it in setting our plans for next year, we do see that labor will move by around 5% next year. It makes up 53% of our total costs, which is a little bit higher than where it was before we acquired Northparkes, and we expect it to [indiscernible] that, that has an impact of around $65 to $75 per ounce. And the other costs across the board, we're seeing an average around 3%, which implies around a $35 to $40 per ounce impact. We do find that that sort of is around just over 4% at around $100 to $110 per ounce. As I said, we've seen it -- for the first 9 months, we don't know where the next few months will go, but what we do know is that essentially a 0.5% movement on inflation across [indiscernible] costs would add around up to $15 per ounce. The other thing that will be different next year to this year is that we will be utilizing inventory, as I said, for most of next year at Mt Rawdon. We process stockpiles. And at Cowal, as we move towards the end of Stage H, which finishes in the first part of FY '26, we will mine at lower rates than we do this year, and therefore, we'll be drawing on stockpiles rather than adding on stockpiles. I was talking to Jake about this. There's one time to be a general manager of an operation, that's when you're building inventories. You don't want to be there when you're drawing down on inventories. And the reason for that, when they go onto the balance sheet, they actually go on at net realizable cost. So a lot of this [indiscernible] going on for some of ounce, it's $2,300, $2,400 an ounce. So when you draw down on that, that's what will go to our AISC. But all you're actually taking off that -- off the balance sheet, it's noncash, you're basically paying the rehandling and processing costs. And so if we look at it as an example at Mt Rawdon, the inventory [ use ] next year will add about $1,000 an ounce to that site, AISC, where it will be around $3,500 to $3,600 per ounce. But that $1,000 an ounce equivalent will be generated in cash when you actually sell the ounces. Similarly, at Cowal, as I said, we'll be drawing on some inventory and that will add a couple of hundred dollars to their AISC. And I think as we've talked over the last few months, as we come into the OPC, it is something that we, with the Board, will have to make a decision as to when we start the OPC because we do have the options around using inventory. We've got 45 million tonnes of stockpile material at Cowal. And as I said, you bring that off paying rehandle and processing costs versus actually doing the cutbacks to open up Stage [indiscernible] 42 and then the 2 open pits. And the last item is really around sustaining capital. It doesn't really move for us much year-on-year. And the only things that we see next year is a full year at Northparkes, which adds approximately $25 million of sustaining capital. While at Cowal, as we ramp up the underground to that 2 million tonnes and then ultimately up to 2.5 million tonnes, there's a lot more mine development that will hit our AISC versus most of that in FY '24 hits the project or [hold the AISC ]. So that's a short snapshot in terms of production and costs as we're going into FY '25. And at that point is when we'll pull up there and open it more to dialogue and conversation and questions. Thanks, Rocky.

Darcy, could you now queue questions online, and we'll commence with some questions in the room as well?

[Operator Instructions].

Darcy, I'll take 4 questions in the room.

Thanks, Rocky. Maybe since you finished that discussion talking about CapEx into next year, obviously, you're still working through your budgeting, so without sort of preempting that. But maybe just talking through asset by asset how the growth CapEx and mine development CapEx might look sort of comparative way? So for example, you said there's some underground mine development CapEx at Cowal which is shifting into sustaining. So should we expect lower growth CapEx at Cowal next year or are there offsetting factors? I assume Mungari will be a bit higher because you're spending a bit more on the mill. I assume Red Lake may be a bit lower driven by production, but again, maybe that's a question that we can have later around what that 140 to 150 baseline looks like. But yes, maybe if you can sort of talk through the assets comparatively, how next year looks versus this year?

Yes. That's a lot in 1 question, but look...

Or you can just give us a growth CapEx number for next year and we'll [indiscernible].

Yes, I think the Board might not like that [indiscernible]. No. But I think, again, in terms of where it all moves asset by asset, so at Cowal, fundamentally, their major capital reduces materially because the underground ramps down. I think if we look at it -- and again, as I said, I don't give a specific range, but the key thing is the IWL and finishing of -- in terms of the underground, the surface infrastructure. That's always been at the back end of the plan. So they're sort of major items of upwards of around $50 million in terms of major capital there. There will be some major mine development, because as you go from 1.6 to 2, to 2.5, you're actually mining for future years. So there'll be some in that. But in terms of where it will be this year -- and then that will be the major work on that plant. So that shutdown is about $15 million. So they're the big ticket items in there as at now. The next thing then comes down to the OPC. So if we look at the open pit continuation, when we looked at it last year, and we were coming into a dry summer, there was an expectation that we'd have a chance to basically move that [indiscernible] on a dry light. That's certainly not going to be [indiscernible] -- basically finishing that study on a wet [ late ] mood. And so I think the conversations we'll be having with the Board in between now -- we don't expect to get approvals till October from the regulator, so our position is that capital won't be in [indiscernible] actually get approvals. What it does mean though, it determines as to what we do from an open pit in basically preparing for Stage [ I ], whether on [indiscernible] that's the only item that's unlikely to be in there. At Red Lake, certainly around the CYD, that capital comes down quite a bit from this year. We've got to finalize what that plan is going to be. But it certainly will be lower. But when we look at -- the only other item in the major capital for Red Lake is the [ tiles ] facility. So the Campbell and the Red Lake facilities, at the end of the day, we will close the Campbell facility because it's reaching its limits. And what was never expected is that we would be able to operate both Campbell and Red Lake mills full time as -- for as long as we have. And then obviously, it's [indiscernible] next year and beyond. So if we look at that -- with the [ tiles ] facility, the water treatment and things that are likely be required over a sort of a 2.5-year period, you're talking around $50 million. And again, locking in the plans yet. It's probably 60% of that goes into next year. The thing that if we then look at -- then I'll just stay on Red Lake and where we baseline that, the one thing that Barrie and the team will look at is how do we basically isolate Red Lake from continuing to draw cash from the business. At spot prices, it makes money, but we're not going to plan at spot prices. So Barrie and the team will work with [ John ] at Red Lake to say, well, okay, if we go into that [ tiles ] work, is there hedging, is there something that will basically quarantine Red Lake from drawing cash and actually making cash through that project. So I think that's something to also take into consideration. Mungari will see that increase in spend next year. The plant, and we will show a couple of photos that are in the pack that went up on the -- on orient today, just in case we needed to show anything on the assets, the project is going well. It's tracking to plan. All we will do on that project is it's got $250 million to build it. Yes. So that's the aerial shot of the plant, for those that were there last year, but you see the pour that's going on for the tanks. So it is certainly going at a good rate at the moment. We'll guide that. But at the end of the day, it's the $250 million between now and commissioning. That's not changing. And then there's the $70 million in setting up for the Castle Hill mining center and everything around that. So that's the major capital. Then what will happen at Mungari, obviously, as we go through next year and the back end of next financial year is the ramp-up in mining. So as that plant commissions, it's going to be ready to fill it at 4.2 basically from when we turn the plant on. So Northparkes, not a lot in terms of the major capital because of the E26. The E48 option, which we will outline, I think that's best left to the June site visit. But certainly in talking to the team, we've got the permit applications in for E48. That's the confidence of the team that will be going into that into the second half of FY '25. But again, that's a lower capital requirement given the infrastructure that's already in place at E48. And then the [ tilings ], which is a flow-over. And then if we look at Ernest Henry, we've got the 3 main items there, which is the [ tiles ] buttressing that was started this year that flows into next year. There's chillers and ventilation that need to be put in place because we go below the 1,200 into FY '25. And then there's certainly a need that we're looking at, at the moment in terms of fleet replacement that is needed. And then there's just the ongoing development. So above all, the assets, the one that will see the increase, it will be at Ernest Henry. I know that doesn't give you the answer, but I definitely got a few things that the Board might let me do, which is talk about next year if they haven't seen it.

Moving to the next question, David.

Can we maybe just talk a bit more about Mt Rawdon, because you've got kind of 2 streams going? You've got a pumped hydro coming up, but a mine now less than 2 years until it closes and they're obviously going to overlap. So at what stage does it sort of trigger and to what extent the rehab provision [indiscernible] -- what is that number? And given you were talking about potentially then bringing some of the open pit material back from a plant as they develop the [indiscernible], how does that work? Does that mean the plant has to stay inactive -- will not be decommissioned for a longer period of time?

Yes. They're good questions. I don't think we've got to lay out Mt Rawdon, [indiscernible]. But -- so I was actually there this week when we finished mining night shifts. So what will happen, Dave, is between now and the end of September, we mine out the remaining part of the pit. As I said, we'll leave less than 10,000 ounces in the bottom of the -- sorry -- not the bottom of the pit, that we don't extract. What the work that Jake and the team are doing now in terms of [indiscernible] pit project is, we actually then, we put the plant on long-term care and maintenance, because it would be about 2 years. Okay? I mean if you look at the work that's required in the pit and on the wall, you're over about 120 million tonnes of material that needs to be moved. It actually means the surface crusher has to be moved. Now this is all going to be borne by the project. This isn't us. So what effectively will happen is that the mine lease will stay with us with the plant on long-term care and maintenance for about 2 years. We will do some rehabilitation in that around the mine that we know we won't be going back there. So we'll do some of that. And then as we go through that next 2 years and do that work to change the wall, lay the wall back essentially, and any ore that comes out of that will be then stockpiled and put through the plant. So that -- all of that cost will sit with the owner of the pumped hydro project, will be subcontracted to basically do that, is the way that's sort of going. So in terms of what we would see, we wouldn't spend a lot of money on closure and rehab through those next couple of years if we know that's where it's going to [indiscernible]. Now, if the whole thing doesn't go ahead, current provisioning is sub-$40 million. We think it's about $65 million is the total cost of closure and then ongoing monitoring until you can hand back the license. In the pumped hydro scenario, we are covered for all those costs by the owner of pumped hydro. That is a condition of whoever gets the asset, they meet all the close and rehab costs as a first priority.

Can you -- can pumped hydro get there in time, hence, be ready to sort of FID and push the button as the mine closes? Can that window -- or is it quite tight?

No. So that will be middle of next year. So the mine will be closed. But it essentially says that you get to FID and then you start the works on pumped hydro, but rolling straight into -- we -- our equipment might last and our crew will be gone. Because it will be done by a contractor. I think someone told me when I was on-site this week, we may have only, through most of the mine life, only done 130 million tonnes. And as you know, as you get to the next [indiscernible], always more expense. But so at the end of the day, as I said, our plan is we finish mining, we do the stockpiles, and that goes on the care and maintenance from an Evolution operations perspective. And then as that pumped hydro works out, we work out whether it's [ driftly ] rehab and closure or it's basically got to full closure, there's no project.

Going to ask for our first call on line, please, Darcy?

Your first line question comes from Meredith Schwarz from Bank of America.

Just a quick question with you regarding costs. Now, with the labor making up 53%, what initiatives, what strategies have you got in play to try and bring these costs down? And I suppose, secondly, do you have any mining contracts up for renewal in the near term?

The second part first, Meredith, is no. So in terms of the main contractors are at Cowal and Red Lake underground, there is some contractor at Ernest Henry doing some development for us. And then the rest of the contract labor -- sorry. And then we do have [ SRG ] on site as well. But in terms of those contracts, there's nothing that's major that's up for renewal in the short term. In terms of the first question, I think as we look at each of the operations, it's making sure that there's the right amount of people that are needed for the site. I think we're still operating on a turnover rate, it's sitting at just shy of 17%, and vacancy rates also is where we see, obviously, that lower labor cost. But to answer the question, each of the sites are making sure that they've only got the right amount of people that they need to run the operation. And when I look at the movement in head count this year to next year, it doesn't really go up in a couple of the sites [indiscernible].

Thanks. Darcy, could you queue the next question?

Your next question comes from Adam Bennett from Jarden.

With the E22 feasibility study completing in the June quarter, will further studies into E48 be required to enable a final decision on the next ore source? And then can you please outline the time line if these are required?

Yes. Look, I'll go a little bit into it. I think it's fair to say that the site team next month will go into a lot more detail in terms of where we're at. But in terms of -- so E22, that study will finish this year. That's being done as the baseline on a block cave. By going into E48 as the sublevel cave, we will go through next financial year doing the study on a sublevel cave option and a hybrid option, which goes sublevel first into a block cave. So we actually will have time to finish that through the course of next year. The study, the concept study work has already been completed on the E48. It will go straight to feasibility study given what's already in place in E48, whereby we would intend to start operating E48 in the second half of next financial year. So that's the high level where that's at. And I think to the site project team's credit, we'll let them present that when everyone is on site next month. But yes, when you do look at it, just at a very high level, the E48 will move E22 back a few years.

Next question, Darcy.

Thank you. There are no further phone questions at this time.

Thank you, Darcy.

Just FY '25...

This one is never going to be off.

So the FY '25 production guidance, not guidance but the text of not materially different -- fairly different [indiscernible] '24 which is [ 749 ] FY '24 and add half a year of Northparkes, is that the [ simple ]?

Yes. Well, Cowal will be higher than this year, but we obviously lose the extra 3 weeks or we lose 3 weeks additional shutdown time. Red Lake, as we've said, will be the 125 to 135, we're saying. But obviously, Mt Rawdon comes down. So in our view, there's nothing -- what we're saying there, and that's the learning around the actual wording [indiscernible] there's no material changes coming into the system. Because when we looked at some of the numbers, for example, people had Mungari well above what their current rate is, and we're saying the plant doesn't expand until actually [ '26 ]. So that's what we're saying. There's nothing -- when you look at each of the assets, there's nothing material [indiscernible] but the ramp-up at Cowal underground and the move towards the end of the open pit and the shutdown still says they end up as a net increase. Red Lake is a net increase, Rawdon is down in a full year of Northparkes, and no real change at Ernest Henry and Mungari. So you work back from the 800 or you can work from the 749, you basically got somewhere in between 15,000 to 30,000 ounce net change.

So in simple times, if you looked at market forecast, which I think is sitting at 790 this morning...

790?

[ Does ] that say [ smidgen ] too high?

Yes. I think if you look at those numbers that are in there, Rawdon was [indiscernible] and we couldn't work out how to still be at that, because when we go to 30 to 35, as I said, it's less than 10,000 ounces of reserve that we're going to leave in the pit. There were some outliers on Mungari that will have what their current run rate is when nothing really changes next year. Yes.

Could I add, Lawrie? There are 2 outliers, Dan. I know you can't sit [indiscernible] those 2 outliers [indiscernible] the number is close to what Lawrie just talked to.

Maybe just another question, unless someone [indiscernible].

Fire away, Dan.

The Cowal underground, we've -- you've been setting it up, and when you set up any mine, there's a lot of those CapEx and you're in this massive period where you've probably got CapEx and OpEx at the same time because you're setting it up. I appreciate that, since you announced the FID a number of years ago, [indiscernible] could you be thinking as a sustainable cost structure, like not in growth mode, but -- however you think about that in terms of dollar millions, dollars per tonne of ore, like what is the sustainable cost base of the underground?

Yes. Look, in terms of -- and we will get that when we get to the formal guidance. When we see -- if we go back to that first part of the FID until now, we would have seen in the order of probably 20% inflation on mining costs, from when the project study finished till now. So that's certainly impacted when we go into operations in terms of mining cost per tonne. That will then [indiscernible] because those fixed costs get absorbed as we go from $1.6 million this quarter to $1.7 million, then $2 million next year, and then ultimately $2.5 million next year. When we look at it on an AISC basis, that ore body, it trends down probably around $1,800 an ounce when it gets to '26 in full production. But what's not captured in that at the moment is the drilling that Glen is seeing and the results we're seeing out of there where, as he presented, that we're seeing that that ore body is connecting, and we are seeing higher grades. So as we go through the rest of this year, in those drilling programs, we would expect to see a benefit come through where we are seeing more tonnes and more grade that aren't factored into our plan yet. And as I said, when we get to finishing our plan, Rocky will be able to provide sort of where that mining cost and that's going to sort of land.

David -- sorry, Mitch.

On FY '25 production, maybe we're -- maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but can you provide any color on the production profile in the [indiscernible] too early now? I guess you called out that always going into '24, the fourth quarter was going to be strong. Should we -- what sort of profile?

Yes. That's probably a little bit too far, but I'll try and sort of give a rough -- so if we look at Ernest Henry and Northparkes being caved, you're not going to see much variation there. Rawdon will be high in the first quarter all coming straight from the pit straight to low-grade stockpiles. So I haven't seen the numbers on that quarter spread, but you're probably going to get 40% in the first quarter and not much thereafter. I think you'll see Red Lake will have, which we don't like, but it's probably going to be 2 reasonably higher quarters and 2 lower quarters just based on where we're going to mine through the year. And then Mungari is probably going to be pretty consistent. It will depend on where we go with [ Eco JV ] campaigns when they slot in. And then at Cowal, obviously, that second half will be impacted. The plan at the moment is that it will be done second half of March, first half of April. So those 2 quarters will be a bit lower. But again, the underground should be ramping up. So it's the one that we haven't sort of locked on that final plan yet.

Al.

Just thinking about Red Lake being [indiscernible] 200,000 ounces, but just thinking of what happens with Bateman, McFinley, are they still carried on the balance sheet, the tax losses as well? Is there -- like is that part of the thinking at the moment in terms of potential impairments or bringing that back on?

So there's only a small portion of [indiscernible] on the books. They would stay on the books unless [indiscernible] the operations out there. The only thing I look at when I look at Canadian operations, they also have a lot of tax losses, I don't know when they're actually [indiscernible]. In terms of Bateman and McFinley, McFinley still is in our plan, and it will link more to once those [indiscernible] facility there doesn't -- isn't going to be used. And then in terms of the Bateman mill, that is something that as we look a couple of years, what happens to that plant? Was there at April, the team was telling me that there's less and less there every month. They said [indiscernible] parts so that they want to use at Campbell and Red Lake. When you look at it, it won't to be on for the next 3 to 5 years.

[indiscernible].

Yes. Just following on from that question, so on the March quarter, you said that you're not looking to [indiscernible] Red Lake. So what is the right level? And is there any CapEx outside of what you have [indiscernible]?

So look, the clear position for the team at Red Lake is that they've got to get more consistent. They've got to deliver and that got to stop drawing money on business. Beyond the 150, 160 range, which is what we could -- when you look at processing capacity in [indiscernible], that's their base position they've got get to. When you look at what would be needed to go beyond that, it's development, because basically, you need -- we've got 1.1 million processing capacity installed at the moment, we can probably tweak that without much [indiscernible] by a couple of hundred thousand [indiscernible]. So then you've got that [indiscernible] you've got to look at probably either upgrade one of the plants or you then [indiscernible] and that's -- we've done that [indiscernible] but we'd have to go and relook. That's a major piece of capital. And the reason why we've said that is, if you look at the pipeline of where each of these projects are at [indiscernible] ultimately now E22, that's what Red Lake has to compete against. Whereas if in the last couple of years, it actually had been more consistent and everything, it will be further along. So that's going to be the [indiscernible] for capital against those projects as well.

And [indiscernible] Darcy, could we go to the line please and take the 3 callers?

We have a question from Paul Kaner from Ord Minnett.

Yes. Just on Cowal, Stage H finishing first half of '26, obviously, more reliance on stockpiles, as you mentioned. How should we think about, I guess, the timing of Stage I, and I guess the stockpile drawdown in '26?

Yes, that's the more difficult one. We need to, one, get regulatory approval. So we need to see what the consent conditions are going to be. But as I said earlier, and if you look at it, and I don't -- that's visible online? Okay. So Slide 12. There's the [indiscernible] and so what it's showing to us is that at this end here, it's a lot shallower. So if we do have periods of dry weather, the view is that we can do the [indiscernible] in stages. And so therefore, that would allow us to start onto that in terms of where [indiscernible] best continuation. Obviously, Stage I comes into play. Our view there is, depending on when we get the approvals would determine what we do with Stage I versus stockpiles. Because as I said, buying that time around where E46 is and the bund wall using inventory -- now the downside is that you've got to let most of your mining workforce go. So it's -- I know what you want, Paul, but ultimately, until we go through the next few months, get regulatory approvals, and then sit with the Board and say, well, this is what we do, the benefit, as I said, is that we've got enough stockpile material that, for FY '26, if we need to, we can [indiscernible]. Now it's lower production, but it's lower cash burn. Changes the economics of the project. And it could change it favorably if we've got to do the northern end of that bund wall in a lot dryer state. So that's why it's the one that's sort of the most complicated right now, because of the bund wall, because of permitting approvals, and the fact that we do have stockpiles and the workforce.