Everyone, thank you very much for taking the time to join our retail investor-focused question and answer session. We will be hosting more of these to give our investors an opportunity to directly ask management questions and to provide feedback. Without further ado, we will get into it. Before we do, I would just like to say, very exciting period for the company. We are currently progressed 90% installation on our demonstration plants and 25% commissioning, so really good September project update. The work in the U.S. is progressing with multiple commercial streams in the process of negotiating. Our U.S. plant economic analysis, which we presented to the market earlier in September, highlighting a large NPV in the $1.5 billion-$2.6 billion range. Very exciting time for the company. I will hand over to yourself, Darcy, to ask questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please enter it into the Ask a Question box and click Submit. Your first question today comes from Terrence McMahon. Terrence asks, "Given the number of times LMG has disappointed investors in the past, why should investors who currently hold shares, I am one, have confidence in present management to deliver a project of over $1 billion, that will undoubtedly encounter problems and challenges? Thanks, Terrence, and thanks for the question. If I put it into two key buckets here, the past and the future. If we look at what we have experienced in the past, it has been a complex execution environment. We have been developing a new set of technology and a new source of technology, and applying it in practice in an industrial setting. Our demonstration plant is large, and there has been quite a bit of capital invested already, which I am sure you are aware. In that innovation process, there has been roadblocks and there has been instances where expectations have not been met. What that actually is, in my view, is an advantage for us versus other technologies that look to produce magnesium going forward. If you will, we have had to bear the brunt of that innovation pathway. If you look at others who are trying to enter the magnesium game, they are going to have to go through that as well. The ones who are investing in trial technology have to go through a pilot phase, a demonstration phase, before they can get to a commercial decision point. Given the pain that we have had and the work that we have done, we are in a really good position now to commence that commercial phase work. A feasibility study, which we will invest to do the level of engineering and the level of front-end design to minimize risk. That is what gives us the confidence to pursue that big, large opportunity. It is all in the context of where the market sits and the market's demand for magnesium. That is what is driving this company forward. The U.S. looks at the investment opportunity and looks at what they don't have, which is a sovereign source of magnesium. They look at us as a potential advanced solution to solving that risk, which they have at the very highest levels of the Department of War and the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce. The performance in the past, in some ways, has paved the way for us to get to a position where we are now. You can rest assured that we're putting in place an increased level of discipline, increased level of controls to hit our milestones and to deliver what we say we will deliver going forward. I think the last placement that we've executed and the milestone commitments that we've put out there, and the breaking up the scope to give you a tangible view on what we're going to deliver is a real symbol of how we're going to approach project management and project discipline going forward. Maybe, I hope that answers the question, but please feel free to ask a follow-up. Thank you. Your next question comes from Greg Vaudrey. Greg asks, "When will the Latrobe plant start producing magnesium? When will the sales revenue commence? Yeah, good question. I'll answer this in two parts because there's effectively two start dates for us. There's the start date of the demonstration plant that we're working towards right now, and then there's the U.S. plant, which we're planning towards as well. I'll hand over to Ronan to talk through the plan around the demonstration plant, and then we can give you some indicative timing around the U.S. project as well. So, over to you, Ronan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Greg, for your question. In terms of the demonstration plant, currently at 90% construction complete and moving into commissioning of individual areas. First in the briquetting area, which is underway, then moving towards the reduction furnace area very shortly. We are on target for our timing in relation to the end of the year to produce magnesium crowns. That will be the last validation point for the flow sheet. From that point onwards in relation to the demonstration plant, we will then be taking a step back again and looking at Okay. Learnings that we've had from the initial run of the hydromet part of the circuit, making improvements and optimizing that part of the circuit, then also then bringing in refining capacity and then going from a full flow sheet fly ash to ingots type approach. That's what we'll be targeting next year before we then move towards into additionally in parallel with the U.S. project. I feel that gives you some sort of flavor of the timing for what we're going to do from a technical perspective over the next few months. On the U.S. side, this is Rob again. On the U.S. side, the question's one of funding and when we can get the funding, and the commercial packages squared away so that we can start that feasibility study. Our current plan is to have those funding streams and the early work for the feasibility study done before Q1 next year. Then we'd start our feasibility study, which would take between 12 and 15 months, then we'd look to then sanction the project. The project could have a close to a three-year build, which then would place us in a position where we would be producing magnesium close to the end of the decade. So that's currently the plan. There are options to accelerate that, obviously if I had funding tomorrow, we'd start. As you can imagine, with integrated technical work streams, integrated commercial work streams, there's a few things happening in parallel, which we're looking to really come to a head before the end of the year to provide confidence to investors, that's retail, institutional, government, et cetera, that we're on the right pathway forward. That's what we're 100% focused on, that's what we're working really hard to achieve. Thank you. Next question. Thank you. Your next question comes from Paul Strachan. Paul asks, "The indicative timeline shows only one month between FID and construction start. What level of pre-FID preparation underpins this schedule? Is the feasibility study targeted to commence at the end of Q1 2027 intended to be at the FS standard? Yeah, that's a good point, and our schedule really sort of marks an FID as a toll gate point where we get the approval and we then enter into project construction phase. But maybe I'll pass over to Ronan to provide an indication of the pre-FID workflow. Sure. Thanks very much, Rob. Great question, and it is a good point, but that's on purpose, and that's all part of the plan. What we're doing from a pre-FID point of view is firstly, we want to go and do more variability. We've done the flow sheet development test work. It's like a step back there. We have extreme confidence in the flow sheet. We've de-risked a lot of the flow sheet in the demonstration plant itself. We want to go and do a variability test work campaign just to make sure we fully understand the ranges and boundaries of our feedstock. From that point of view, that will provide the inputs into the feasibility study that the EPCM contractor, who our preference would be Bechtel, would need to undertake the feasibility study. From that perspective, it's not a case of just going for feasibility study and then going through a funding phase and then going through and starting a project. We're going to be doing things in parallel because that's what the market is asking us for. The feasibility study itself will not only be a process of getting to an FID point, but also we'll be fleshing out what is the long lead items, what can we start early, what do we need to get moving on so that we are ready to go come FID. That's long lead equipment, getting early works funding, looking at our construction plan. What can we start early? When can we basically hit the ground running and get that underway early? Because this is just in response to what the market demands of us, and that's what's driving the timeline for those parallel activities. That includes the funding piece, and Rob can perhaps talk more about that, but the intent is not to sit on our hands. The intent is as we go through the feasibility study, stay in conversation with everybody. As we define the project, as we improve the numbers, as it starts to take shape, people can start to understand and see what's happening and then be in a position post FID that it is literally is a toll gate and then we move straight forward. Yeah. On the funding piece, what you typically see on large mega projects is that if you wait for full funding before a final investment decision, you can lose schedule, and schedule is money. Typically what you would look at too during that feasibility phase work would be to get your long lead items procured. But you would only ever do that if you had 100% confidence that the project option was valuable, that you mounted that value case to investors, and they were able to get behind the project at that phase. It's a wait and see, but it's definitely an option for us to procure some of the larger long lead items such as spray roaster and- Furnace furnace and those items. We may look to do that. Be rest assured, I take the stewardship of capital and capital allocation very, very seriously. We would never embark on that type of commitment or that investment unless we had 100% confidence that it was the right thing to do and we had the level of information and project controls in place that it would warrant such a decision. Great question. Thank you. Your next question comes from Eric Bernard. Eric asks, "What are the energy costs in the U.S.A. compared to Victoria? Energy seems to be the main cost variable in production of magnesium using this technology. Yeah. Good question. You are right, energy is a major cost input. Labor is also a major cost input. When we look at the comparative analysis between, say, South Carolina and Victoria, there are a couple of key differences. On the gas side, obviously you have got the tapping into that U.S. gas market, which is very cost competitive compared to the East Coast Australian market. In terms of the gas prices, we are looking at in the order of potentially 40% - 50% cheaper in the U.S. compared to what we would pay if we were just a standard industrial customer here. That is not to say that we could not do a deal in Victoria or in Australia in the future where we would have access to cheaper energy. That is more of a here and now type of consideration. But in the future, this is the reason why we are still committed to the Latrobe Valley and Victoria as an alternative or as an option, is that there is no reason that that situation cannot improve over a 5 - 10-year period. We would be looking for certainty around energy supply, certainty around pricing, for both gas and electricity going forward that could make the project competitive with other international jurisdictions. On the electricity side, South Carolina has a nuclear industry, has low-cost electricity as well in the order of 30% lower costs than, say, things are where we are sitting right now in terms of the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. So, we would like to see some sort of lower cost electricity solution also to help make things economic here. Yeah, we are open to the idea that those prices or those arrangements might firm through time. That just gives you a flavor for the, I guess, the cost delta between South Carolina and Victoria. Next question. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rosslyn Buzzer. Rosslyn asks, "What are the other markets than U.S.A.? On the demand side, the three key demand markets that we look to are the U.S. or North America, Europe, and North Asia. When you look at those markets, sorry, I shouldn't say North Asia, just Asia in general. When you look at those markets, they're going to be the ones that need to provide their own sources of magnesium in the future. The U.S., in some ways, is ahead of the game. They've identified the risk to their supply chains, and they're allocating capital. I would expect to see subsequent action from Europe, the EU, and then following that, different Asian counterparties to also source supply. When you look at our strategy then and our alternatives that we have to produce into those markets, we've got an Atlantic basin strategy where we've got an asset that we're looking to develop in South Carolina that both is landed in the U.S. that can be advantaged from the higher magnesium prices and the anti-dumping duties that are in that country and the flow of capital. But similarly, has also got ready access to logistics infrastructure to hit an Atlantic market. Then you look at the potential Malaysian solution and a potential Australian solution having an Indo-Pacific strategy, then we've got, again, an alternative where we can service those Asian markets when customers and demand markets develop. Probably where we're not currently, where there is potentially a big demand pool, but we're still exploring optionalities in that EMEA region, so Europe, Middle East, Africa. That's a potential growth market for us and something to explore. What I'd say there is if the notional large project developers there are. Given that there's such a large aluminum industry around the Gulf, those companies have been a bit preoccupied over the last 18 months with what they're having to contend with there. That's the future opportunity. It's just not one and done for us. It's, one, develop the capability, the engineering, look at how that's applied across our existing two other development options and sequence those appropriately from a capital stewardship point of view. Then look to what other growth markets there are driven by customer demand, offtake, and attractive investment conditions for us to partner ultimately or to sell into an attractive market segment. Thank you. Your next question comes from Diane Sandercock. Diane asks, "Is David Paterson still fully committed to the project? Yeah. David's over 20 years in the company, founder has set this thing up. Had a vision to produce a domestic magnesium producer in Australia and where we're sitting right now, physically on the ground of Latrobe Valley. You look outside the window and you can see the fruits of his labor. You can see the plant sitting out there. His retirement from the board and as CEO, has been followed up by a commitment from him to stay on as a strategic advisor for a few years to really help see this thing come home. In some respects, I would imagine it would be his life's work and he wants to, as we all do, want to see the culmination of that come to a large commercial plant development. His relationships in the U.S. and his relationships with the magnesium downstream supply chain are critical to the company, and we're definitely looking to leverage those as we look to sign offtakes. I thi nk what you saw in the initial project announcement, over 60% of the project with letter of interests for offtake. That's in no small part to the relationships he's forged there over multiple decades. We're very fortunate. We've got a really good head of commercial in Brett Trigger, who similarly has those strong relationships as well. We're really looking forward to developing those further, seeing what the appetite is of different customers. To be honest, without over-committing ourselves, we have expressions of interest that far exceed the capacity of what we're trying to build in the first instance. I suspect, once the concept starts to crystallize, you may see a bit of fear of missed magnesium out there in terms of people not being able to get their hands on the sovereign source. Brett, David through his network, and myself are committed to supplying into that market. He is absolutely committed and a large shareholder as well. Let me go to the next question. Thank you. Your next question comes from Dev Ramachandran. Dev asks, "What are the major risks to be involved until commercial production? What mitigative actions are planned to address them? Can you please give information on the market and price for Latrobe Magnesium product? I will get Ronan to answer the risks to commercial production and mitigation actions and I will take price. Thanks, Rob. Good question, Dev. Certainly from my perspective, risk mitigation and the journey we have been through with the demonstration plant and why we chose to go this way in the first place was critical, particularly for a new process. I think I have been fortunate enough in my career to be involved in new processes right from the start, and I have seen firsthand what happens if you skip the demonstration plant steps. So significant investment we have made to de-risk the flow sheet, to de-risk the technical side of things, to de-risk the equipment, to understand everything before you move into a commercial scale. What we have done here at the demonstration plant is exactly that. It is about getting that understanding and learning and proving to ourselves, to the market, that this all works. Personally for me, giving myself the confidence that I know that we can take this forward. That's really the key piece of all of this, is that when we produce magnesium crowns, that's the final validation point that we will have and we will from a demonstration plant perspective. Additional work we'll do here in the demonstration plant is really just about optimizing this asset and maximizing its value. But from a perspective of moving from this current phase, the stage of the life of the company into a commercial project, we've done the hard yards. It doesn't stop there. We also plan to, again, further do test work on our resource to understand the limits that we'd like to take the process design to. That's a key step and a step that in the past would typically be done. In terms of mitigation actions, that's number one is, okay, we have a demonstration plan. We've got the flow sheet ticked off. Our using the ferronickel slag is very similar flow sheet. Very slight changes to the flow sheet, but very similar to the demonstration plant. So we have that technical confidence. But we're not stopping there. We're taking the ferronickel slag and further expanding on the test work we have done on that resource already and doing additional test work to understand variability, range, make sure that when we go into the process design phase, the plant's able to cater for any variability in the feedstock and we don't get any surprises. That's extremely important. Additionally, we are moving to our vertical retort technology. We do have the current horizontal retort technology that we will be commissioning very soon. A key part of that is, again, that's been thoroughly piloted at CSIRO, and we want to take that and move into an engineering phase ahead of the feasibility study. So we're talking to vendors as we speak about what do we need to do around the furnace design piece? What do we need to do around the automation piece that we're currently commissioning at the moment? Then apply those learnings into the feasibility study so that we have a de-risked flow sheet via the demonstration plant. We have further net test work done on the ferronickel slag, so we understand the variability, and we've applied our engineering and understanding to the vertical, retort, and we've put that into the feasibility study. We're very confident out of that we'll have a product that's been de-risked that in terms of risk towards commercial production, we've taken those risks away, and we're into the standard approach going forward. I'll hand you back to Rob to have a chat about. Yes. Just on the commercial side, Dev, on the commercial work streams. When you think about our supply chain, feedstock, transit, port, rail, land, and then utilities, probably the key to that supply chain is the infrastructure from port, rail through to site. From a commercial risk point of view, rail is well supplied. There's providers and there's obviously negotiations going on there. Port, we're looking at life of asset types of agreements with optionality built in and, yeah, really encouraged by the conversations in that sphere, with an LOI. Then just on slag, we do have a binding MoU with SLN on provision of that material. What we would look to do, obviously, through the course of this work is to modernize any agreements that we would have in the context of our current development. There was good disclosure around that in the project announcement. I'm also very conscious around returns and what we can do to reduce the risk distribution of returns through a project. So very, discussing ranges, what the project's ranges were, in terms of the value ranges and the internal rate of return ranges. Look, if I can potentially crystallize a little bit of value early and reduce the range of investment outcomes as I sit here now, then that's obviously a consideration that we could do to firm up what the risk distribution is as we head into an investment decision. Just on price. The U.S. market trades at a premium to the rest of world market. The price has been reasonably stable. I wouldn't say it's an exchange-traded commodity in the sense of like copper really. Although, there is quite a strong basis to saying MAG should trade at a premium to aluminum just due to its value and use. Where the confidence in price comes from and the premium is that you've got an anti-dumping duty that's been in place close to 30 years to protect U.S. industry. That's now acting as an incentive pricing for us to develop a project. Then if you look then at the cost curve of Chinese pricing, the marginal producers or the highest energy producers, they're the ones that are getting hit by high input costs in terms of silicon with higher energy prices. As global energy prices start to increase and energy becomes more scarce, and we're certainly living that reality at the moment, you should see that cost curve steepen, and then the U.S. incentive then is a multiplier on that steepening cost curve. That's how the pricing works from a U.S. market perspective. Then in terms of the structure of the market and price, that's where it is. Essentially, the price for MAGs in the U.S. sort of runs at that $ 7,000 a tonne mark, U.S. Then, the Chinese price is lower than that. But still, even if we did get the Chinese price, the project would still be. Although it wouldn't have classic returns in the context of alternative sort of investments you could make, it would still wash its face. So that gives us confidence that we're onto a good investment proposition. Thank you. Your next question comes from Murray Hill. Murray asks, "Will the feedstock for the U.S. plant be informed by test work on the nickel slag feedstock performed in the Victorian demo plant or elsewhere? Ronan here. Thanks for your question, Murray. I've touched a little bit on this from the question from Dev, and I'll expand on it a little bit more. If you think of it from a perspective of flow sheet development, moving into engineering design. The flow sheet development test work piece that ensures is our process amenable to the ferronickel slag resource. That work has been done, and that's the confirmation that we've received. In terms of the flow sheet, as I said, very similar to demonstration plant. Not only have we done the flow sheet development test work piece, already completed. It's amenable. We've then validated that in part through the demonstration plant. What the phase we're moving into now is basically our operating parameters, the robustness we want to build into the process design. And that's the engineering test work phase. The design data inputs into. You give them to someone like a Bechtel to go and do the process design with. And that's about your ranges, it's about your sizes of equipment, sizes of pipelines. The PFD for effectively the plant flow diagram, that's done. Now we're moving into P&ID stage for those that understand the terminology. That test work is what I plan to do, and that will. We need, really, don't really need to run the Ferronickel Slag through the demonstration plant. It would be good if we did. It does require resizing, reconfiguration of elements of the plant. And that may be something we do in time as the U.S. project is evolving to give us some operational know-how. But it's not essential. It's not necessary. We have a plan with the test work to provide the data needed for a feasibility study, and the flow sheet already has been de-risked by the work we've done to date. So hopefully that answers your question, Nate. Yeah. From my perspective, we're looking for the most efficient economic route to get to the outcome and to run the facility for a period of time to confirm that would be a cost on investors. If we can do it for a better price or a better cost and still get the same, if not better, information from a technical perspective, then I think that's incumbent on management to try to manage the cost base of the business as best we can. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I may hand the conference back to Mr. Stein for any closing remarks. Thank you. Well, look, I really thank everyone who asked the questions. They are really well-informed questions, and obviously this stock has had a very good following in the retail universe, and their investors are educated, and they do know what we're doing from a technical, commercial, strategic perspective. We really appreciate the feedback, the questions that we get. If you've got any other questions, please feel free to use the email address in the announcement, investors@latrobemagnesium.com, to ask them, and I'll personally make sure that I'll get back to you. I'm looking forward to engaging more of you over the coming months as we look to progress a couple of key milestones in the business, which are very exciting for us and have a large value upside. We're also very cognizant that proof is in the pudding, and we need to deliver against what we promise. That's my commitment to you, is that we will look to deliver what we promise in terms of the milestones that we've outlined. The business is 100% focused on delivering that first magnesium crown by the end of the calendar year. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to engaging in a few.