Morning, and welcome to the ATOME PLC investor presentation. Throughout this recorded presentation, investors will be in listen-only mode. Questions are encouraged, and they can be submitted at any time using the Q&A tab situated on the right corner of your screen. Simply type in your questions and press send. Before we begin, I would like to submit the following poll. I would now like to hand you over to Chairman Peter Levine. Good morning. Good morning, and thank you for everyone who has just joined us. We appreciate your interest in ATOME and what is the latest news from ATOME. I hope you can hear me well. What I would like to do first is introduce my colleagues who are joining me today. There is Olivier Mussat and Nikita Levine, both Directors, obviously, of ATOME PLC. I would like to welcome them and thank them for all the hard work that they are doing in relation to ATOME. We have sort of titled this to do with the hanging it on the accounts being issued end of last week. That is the delayed full-year accounts and the half-year accounts, which we announced on Friday as well, which has enabled us to start trading. We have pitched it on the back of those two accounts, but in reality, those accounts are there to be read. Those accounts are there in terms of factual information, and some of the things that are said in the narrative, of course, relate to the present position, which I am sure, and we are sure at ATOME, that shareholders would want to learn from us what is the present position in terms of ATOME PLC and its business with principal focus on Villeta. That is why we are very grateful for the opportunity and grateful for you joining us in order for us to give you that latest information firsthand. This is the first time that we have been able to do this. I am sorry to all shareholders that the accounts were delayed. They were delayed for the obvious reasons in terms of Villeta, and we wanted to wait to let some dust settle and to identify what is really happening out there before we issued the accounts, and we are now pleased to do so, and we move forward. Let us go first to the first slide if we can, please. That is slide three, and that is the executive summary, and let me be very brief on this and a bit of the point. As you all know, we declared FID, and we declared FID for very good reason. We were days away from starting work on site in Villeta. Everything was in play and ready. We had what we considered to be an agreement on the PPA. We had all the legally committed financing signed and done and closed. We had, of course, our EPC, and we had, of course, our offtake. We had a contract which we had actually signed for the site clearance contractor to move in and start the work. We were all ready. Then in June of 2026, we had, as we have said in the slide, a disruption. We had a disruption because of a revocation of the decrees. Let me take you all back to what the circumstances were. When we were structuring this deal, and Olivier was leading the charge in relation to the actual project finance aspect of it. When we were dealing with this, there were certain requirements of our lenders and our funders in order to make this transaction proceed. We, at all stages, discussed this with the government of Paraguay, and they were fully aware. I am talking about at presidential level. They were fully aware of the need to fit into certain basic requirements of DFIs, development funding institutions, in terms of what is required for the principle of the power purchase agreement. The power purchase agreement, as you all know, was very important for our transaction, for our project. It was very important because we need power in order to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then ultimately feeds its way to ammonia and then ultimately feeds its way to our end product, which is calcium ammonium nitrate. So we need the power. It is power which is fundamental to our project. Therefore, right the way from 2021, power has been at the forefront of our minds and so has negotiations and relations with the government and with ANDE, which is the national power company, which does not generate power, it buys power. It buys power from the generators. Principal generator, which is the Itaipu Binational Dam, which is jointly owned between the governments of Paraguay and Brazil. So we got to a point in 2025 when we recognized, after discussions with all the finance parties that we needed a long-term power agreement, stable prices, recognized prices, and we needed certain prices which made the project viable, and that is really important. So in those discussions with the government, the government itself spoke to some of our lenders as well, some of our finances, they were tremendous. They went to see them. The President even went to see Yara in Norway, in my presence, and talked about it and absolutely gave support. Then in the back end of 2025, negotiations happened with the government, and in January 2026, this resulted in the government itself agreeing or deciding to actually grant us a decree which actually fitted in and conformed with our project. It was not just a decree, it was a resolution, so-called Power- to- X, which was welcomed. This was also done after discussions with ANDE itself. Things moved on swimmingly in terms of that. I am just giving you certain key highlights and glossing over quite a lot of the detail, but we continued to work very comfortably with the government. In April 2026, we entered into binding financial commitments with the major funders, the DFIs, at the IDB Invest Conference in Asunción. It was welcomed by the government. The government were congratulated, and of course, those parties, namely the funders, were reliant on the government decree just like we were, and the promises and guarantees made separately by the government. We had already agreed during that time a form of PPA, power purchase agreement, with ANDE, who cooperated with us. In fact, in April 2026, a decree was issued again by the government, but with the approval of not only ANDE but its unions, in terms of what the limit of the type of industry that could get a certain amount of power. It is 250 MW of power for the sort of industries that we were involved in, and of course, we were taking 125 MW of that at least. That also it reaffirmed the January 2026 decree, which itself was justified on a multi-page public document by the government itself as to why they determined the value, why they determined the price, and the value to the country of the project. What happened was in June of 2026, we were taken aback, and I was in Paraguay at the time. I was in our office, and we were contacted by someone who said, switch on the TV. We switched on the TV and were shocked without notice to see that the government was actually live revoking the decrees. The rest, they say, is history. Since that time, as what we consider to be as disgraceful as that action was, and the fact that we had relied on the representations and promises of the government, we have been in discussions and remain in good faith discussions with trying to sort the thing out, trying to come to a resolution of that. There has been lots of discussions, lots of talk in Paraguay, but we are still there and still in good faith discussing matters with now the new President of ANDE, who replaced the old President, and of course, the governments and certain ministers themselves. We are in touch with them, and it is good faith. In the intervening period, of course, it was very important to ensure that all our stakeholders, our funding partners, our EPC partner, Casale, and I am actually speaking from Casale's offices in Switzerland, and Yara, of course, were all kept on side and understand. I am pleased to tell you that they are kept on side, and they do understand, and they are being very supportive. That is some good news that everyone is with us. I, at this moment in time, cannot tell you and cannot guarantee the outcome of those discussions. But what I can tell you is that in the intervening period, and this is where we will come on to, but we are seeking a resolution. In the intervening period, we have not stopped developing our businesses. As you will see, and as we have announced, ATOME Power is now proceeding. In Paraguay, we have received the very helpful assistance of IDB and IFC in terms of feasibility studies for a very large solar plant of 300 MW, also in Villeta. We're starting that feasibility study as a support to the Villeta Project, but through a different company within our group. We're quite excited about that if we can resolve the problem of the power purchase agreement, the PPA. In any event, we've got other proposals in terms of ATOME Power, as well as other areas of business for our fertilizer business, and one of those is Brazil. We've already said that we're in discussions with several parties and executed NDAs in relation to this, and that is very prospective. Let's come back after the introduction. Let's go back to what happened under the PPA, and that's on the next slide, which is here. As I told you, we agreed the regime. It was revoked without notice. There was continued stakeholder engagement, both with the government, with ANDE, and also with our own stakeholders, which are continuing. In the last few days, there was the original power purchase agreement from 2022. Now, it was made clear at the time, for example, when we raised money earlier this year, that that would be superseded by this new PPA. The form of PPA, which, as I have said, was actually agreed with ANDE at the relevant time. The notice of termination of the 2022 PPA was necessary in order to limit the liability of ATOME on an ongoing basis under that, let's just say, unacceptable form of PPA to our lenders and ultimately to ourselves. It wasn't the right PPA. We had agreed, as I've said, to amend it, and to supersede it with the government. That's where the decree comes in. We needed to complete the formalities. We did request a standstill, but time ran out between discussions with ANDE and ourselves, which at that stage were relatively constructive, and that was last week. We are here, and it doesn't prejudice our new PPA, and indeed, ANDE have confirmed that. So have the government. In the intervening period, whilst we've been trying to achieve a meeting of minds for a new PPA, it has taken time. It's got rather political. In the meantime, we were approached by certain international law firms, well-known international law firms, including Magic Circle firms, who said, actually, you know you've got a claim under the U.K.-Paraguay bilateral investment treaty. Our own lawyers, who happen to be one of the world's experts on bilateral treaty agreements called White & Case, we put it to them, to their arbitration department, and they have given us strong advice that we have a very good case, which is what we thought we had a good legal case anyway against the government for doing what they've done, and that's confirmed to us. So this is a case of default because with strong legal advice that we've got a very good case to take action against the government for compensation if we can't resolve the position amicably. With independent advice from a renowned international firm of damage assessors that the claim by ATOME against Paraguay will extend to nine figures. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and that the case is good and solid on its merits and on its irrefutable facts that we have got a very strong default position. We have also received advice, and White & Case are preparing now to speak to funders of the litigation itself, should it get to that stage, in order to lessen the liability of ATOME to costs. That we see is important. We are going to pick and choose. White & Case have said to us that they feel there is a very good chance of getting this litigation funded, which is good because it lessens the liability to fund the costs on the shareholders of ATOME. We have got such a strong case that in any event, if we cannot get a resolution, we will proceed. What type of arbitration is this? This is not an arbitration or a dispute over a contract. This is nothing to do with that. A claim under a BIT, a Bilateral Investment Treaty, relates to obligations, promises, guarantees, assurances by a government to an investor of that particular country, i.e., the country on the other side of the BIT. That is precisely what we have. We have demonstrative, unquestionable, unqualified, unconditional assurances, documents in relation to this, and we will, as a company, in the interest of shareholders, not hesitate to pursue that BIT if we cannot achieve what we would like to achieve, an amicable solution. Because it is in the interest of everyone that we do everything possible, leaving no stone reasonably unturned, to actually get a viable, amicable resolution and build this facility, this world-leading facility, which we all want to build. So in a way, you can call it a default mechanism. It is preserving the rights of the company. One shareholder turned around to me, actually just recently, and said, well, actually, it sounds better that you should sue. The response was, yes, one could say that, but at the end of the day, we are here to build a facility, if we can viably. But we are not here to let our legitimate rights be trounced on, whether it is by individuals or by governments. That is where we are coming from. So, to use an expression, iron fist, velvet glove. We prefer the velvet glove approach, though we will not hesitate in the other direction. So here we are. We are not a litigious company. We are here to continue in the game to do a deal, and we are getting some good traction. But the acid test is the viability of this. What this effect has done, and perhaps you can turn to the next slide, Nikita, is that this has surprisingly brought out so much interest in what ATOME is doing. ATOME, its management, its experience, its partners have got something which is extremely valuable, which not many people, if anyone, has got. Not only is Villeta a world-leading project, which we want to proceed with as quickly as possible, but also, we can deliver to other projects something which is cut, paste, done, a Front End Engineering Design, so-called FEED, which can be dealt with quickly because we base it on what we have already got. We have got significant partnerships with world-leading experts, like Casale, with world-leading engineering companies, like Baker Hughes. Baker Hughes being a shareholder in us as well. And with one of the world's largest and most significant fertilizer companies, as in Yara. Combine that with our financial platform, with all the DFIs and other financial institutions that we are dealing with, who recognize that what has happened in Villeta is no fault of ATOME's. When a government reneges on this, then we have got something which is very valuable, and that is why this title here is Leveraging ATOME's Platform. We are talking with Brazil, as I have said. On ATOME Power, we are talking with other people. Then we bring all our experience together with, of course, all the legal framework and the legal documentation that we have prepared, and we capitalize it, and we use it. ATOME is not, as in the narrative in one of the accounts, a one-trick pony. What we have achieved, and what we are achieving in Villeta, is very significant and continues to place us in the forefront of where we are at. That is why we welcome this opportunity of speaking to you all, so that we can, should we say, dispel a few misapprehensions and demonstrate that one way or other, we have a preferred alternative. But we also have a default alternative, which actually is a very valuable alternative and a really practical one in terms of merits on a case. That is why we entered into this with Villeta. That is why we are proceeding with the government. We proceeded originally with the government, and that is why we are trying to effect a compromise. We have got three months notice period under the BIT. We have given it. We gave it in September. That runs out in December. Let us see how it goes. The clock is ticking, but it is ticking in favor of us, not the other way around. We need to resolve this deal, and we need to resolve it within a reasonable period of time. But we are resolving it with all our stakeholders, and in the parallel, without losing focus. We are not dropping the ball at all to exploit the opportunities that we have in the world and the credibility that ATOME PLC has got. In terms of the money side, and we have got to talk about the money side. In terms of the money side, you can see in our half year the balance, and we will be using that properly. We are not losing any time, by the way, in terms of the project. Not at the moment, at least. Because we are working with Casale to try and shorten the period of build time, which is really, really important. So, we are not dropping the ball there either. So we are not just letting Villeta sleep, and then we have to wake it up later. No. The Villeta Project is very much live, and we are keeping all the appropriate key suppliers, such as with the electrolyzers, of course Baker Hughes is one of the suppliers as well, and others, completely informed. It is really important for us to be transparent with everyone, and that's why, once again, I say we welcome this opportunity of being transparent with you today. I'd rather hog the presentation, as it were, because that's a really important message that we wanted to convey. We hope now that we'll continue, and we'll keep you regularly informed. We hope now that you understand why we have a balanced approach here, but at the same time, not dropping the ball on ATOME's business. I will now invite questions, and obviously, some of those questions will be answered by either one of my colleagues or myself. That's great. Thank you very much indeed for your presentation. Ladies and gentlemen, please do continue to submit your questions using the Q&A tab situated in the top right corner of your screen. While the company take a few moments to review those questions submitted today, I would like to remind you that a recording of this presentation, along with a copy of the slides and the published Q&A, can be accessed via your investor meet company dashboard. Peter, Olivier, and Nikita, we have received a number of questions for today's meeting, and I wanted to start off the Q&A session with the first one here, which has a few parts to it and reads as follows. In layman's terms, what's actually going on with the power? Did we have an agreement, then the government changed their minds? What are they proposing? I think I've explained the first two branches of that question, and the final branch is what is their proposing. This is part of the discussions that we're having, and it's relatively confidential at the moment, commercially sensitive, so we can't say exactly what is being proposed. We know what we want, and we must have, which is a period of years which cover not only the build period, but to know that we have a fixed price for at least 10 years or 10 years after commencement of production, so-called COD. So we need to know where the prices are. It could be a stepped price. It could be X for the first five years and Y for the second five years. There has been press comment as to that. The bottom line is, it's still in debate. We do know that we need some certainty during the period of 10 years, which happens to be the maturity period of the loans from the DFIs. Thank you, Peter. Another one here asks, what happened to the project in Iceland? Olivier, can I ask you to comment on that, please? Thank you, Peter. I think we had commented on it actually at the last time around. What we do when we develop projects is obviously we look at what is the techno-economic feasibility, the business plan out of it, and the outcome. What appeared clear about two years ago was that the prospects for ATOME were much better in Latin America and that the opportunity in Iceland itself became smaller than expected, less interesting than expected as well, as we really obviously focused on the markets where you could produce commercially feasible projects and be profitable without the need for any green premium, which were obviously a focus in Europe at the time. Clearly, at the moment and at the time when the decision was made, it was very clear that Iceland wasn't going to be yielding as much return for us as shareholders as investing time and resources in Paraguay and in other countries like Brazil or Costa Rica. Thank you, Olivier. Moving on. Given you have established much of the work programs needed to bring a project to FID, how long could the Brazil Project take to reach that stage? Very good question. Certainly, we would be shortcutting the FEED process very, very significantly. Typically, a FEED process for this could take 18 months. We could halve that easily in terms of what we've got. Obviously, it's got to look at the land, where it is situated, and a number of other features. Certainly, we're looking for halving the amount of time for the FEED process and then also procuring EPC legal documentation, and actual work, and value engineering, which is very important when it comes down to construction. There will be significant benefits. At this moment in time, we can't identify exactly how much, but certainly out of the gate, the FEED would approximately be half the time that if you came to it fresh and half the costs. Thank you. Sticking with Brazil, is the power price in Brazil likely to be higher or lower than Villeta's PPA? To be advised. Nikita, would you like to say something here? Yes. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Yes, I think just to prelude that on the whole BD strategy is that what's really important to us as a developer and to shareholders is speed to delivery, speed to execution, and of course, the competitiveness. We do have a lot of incoming, and where we do look at different countries and jurisdictions and working with different partners, we do prioritize the competitiveness and the speed of delivery of that project. And of course, Brazil is naturally identified as one of those locations. And whilst the PPA competitiveness and the dynamics of the power market are to be commented on as to the specific project that we are looking at, or projects that we are looking at, we have to ensure that this is competitive both for the production profile of the product that we're making and to be able to supply it at the best possible prices and garner offtake strength for that particular market. And perhaps I can also say that on a macro basis, many of you will have seen that there was an election for President yesterday. The results were that the son of Bolsonaro actually came out with a lead and is widely recognized now as being the front runner to be President. It's also widely recognized that he is more closer to America than he is elsewhere, although the China connection is very important. Brazil imports 85% of its fertilizer from places such as China and Russia, and it desperately needs for local production, which gives us a commercial opportunity. Please, next question. Thank you very much. Next question is a bit of a long one, but how does pursuing BIT arbitration against Paraguay affect the board's ability to simultaneously negotiate a new commercial PPA and ANDE? And what is the realistic timeline to final investment decision execution, construction resuming, if a new agreement isn't reached before the mid-December arbitration deadline? There's no reason why it can't happen in parallel at all. At this moment in time, the government is totally aware of the timescale. In relation to if we get a new PPA, then what happens then is during the time that we're finalizing the negotiations of that, we'll be going back to all our stakeholders and considering the documentation or the revised projections that are needed. Olivier, do you want to add something there? No, I will add that obviously since things happened in June, we haven't lost. Basically, we didn't take a pause, as Peter mentioned earlier. So whether it's making sure that the financier side will be ready to go, and obviously on the technical side and the offtake side. From a resources point of view, as you heard from Peter, we also hired and are now working with a best-in-class legal firm when it comes into taking care of such arbitration proceedings. So resources have been properly allocated, and one isn't taking from the other, which obviously is very key for us. Because as Peter said, time to market is absolutely key, and delay also will be key in our decision as part of the BIT arbitration. Thank you. Next question here is: given the new Brazil pre-feasibility work and the power and battery storage division mentioned in the results, it's worth asking whether management resources and capital are being stretched across too many fronts while Villeta's core power question remains unresolved. No, they're not. We don't believe so, although it's always a risk, and we've got to be aware of that risk, and it's a very good question accordingly. In a business, what kills you is fixed costs. Variable costs don't kill you because they're dependent upon the actual work in hand, but fixed costs do. If you're talking therefore about manning up or resources, we do have the resources, except they're variable resources. In other words, we're not employing many dozens of people on this because that's a great way of blowing your money effectively. What we have got is resources of people that we can bring in and bring out, or companies that we can bring in and bring out, depending on where we're at. Whilst it's a very excellent question and the right question to ask, the bottom line is we're a company that doesn't believe in having many people on staff, but we are a company that believes in having strategic partners in various places. That's why, for example, in Brazil, we're actually partnering with Casale. They are involved right at the outset and in typical construction mode. These are partnering. They benefit from the upside, they benefit from the downside, and they may even take equity participation as well. It's really important that we have that expertise, we have a source for it, but we don't actually break the bank in terms of fixed costs ourselves. I hope that answers the question. Thank you, Peter. Another investor here asks, has the power been sold to another party? No. Thank you. Switching to another question here. It appears that crypto miners have been looking for cheap power globally, and they have pushed to Paraguay in some force. How can ATOME protect our Brazilian project from a similar power squeeze? That's a really good question, and insightful as well. Background on Paraguay. In the last six years, which mirrors the tenure of the previous Head of ANDE, Paraguay came from nothing in terms of crypto mining to the fourth-largest crypto miner in the world. Leave you with that thought. I won't say anymore. I may get into trouble. But in terms of, and it's a very valid question, in terms of Brazil, yes, there are crypto miners, but the real power grabber, as it were, is, with the greatest respect to crypto miners, a bit more legitimate. This is AI. AI is sucking power from all countries, including Brazil. There is ample power in Brazil, and countries like Brazil, actually also like Paraguay, recognize that AI isn't a complete answer to the country's requirements because it doesn't really create industry within the country. It doesn't solve the country's import needs. Whilst maybe in crypto, perhaps more likely in AI, there is an alternative demand for an electro-intensive business such as AI. The fact is that these countries are now alert to that, and there has been a recent law passed in Brazil dealing with the agriculture industry and the need for governments to, if not subsidize, look favorably on new fertilizer industries to alleviate the cost of imports and to have a homegrown industry. Very good question. I would now look more to the future on AI being a dominator in power worldwide. As you are familiar, just England and America as well. Thank you. Another question here is, best case scenario for the Villeta and Brazil Projects, go ahead. What are the risks to ATOME's ability to deliver both projects? Well, the risk on delivering Villeta is the same as it always was. First, on the assumption you've got the PPA, it's execution risk. That's what it is. It's execution risk, and that's delivery. We're confident that we've got an extremely good executor in terms of Casale, who are our EPC contractor, turnkey. Lump sum turnkey. We're very confident they've got the track record, but the thing that would keep one up at night, once we've got the PPA, is to make sure that we deliver on time, on budget the construction, and then away we go. We're pretty confident about the market, especially with what everyone has seen in terms of the Strait of Hormuz. We're pretty confident there's a market there. We're pretty confident the demand. We're pretty confident that people will like our carbon credits, that'll be coming off that, which Yara will market. We're very confident in our off-taker. Very credible. We've got extremely good relations with them and a trusting relationship with them. They're bearing in mind, their only concern is making sure your economics are good, which is what our concern is, and that's why we won't do simply any deal to get Villeta back on track. Ditto with Brazil. At the end of the day, it's execution in terms of building the thing. If the market's there, the market's there. What we've got to do is build on time, on budget, keep our costs low, and then like in Villeta, keep our OpEx low, and making sure that, again, we come down to fixed cost and variable, that we keep our fixed costs to a relevant minimum, and ensure that our variable costs, we have the right people delivering at the right time, and we chop and change depending upon expertise. Thank you, Peter. A couple more questions here. Is Brazil just being considered as an alternative now? If yes, why was it not evaluated and compared at the beginning with Paraguay, seeing Brazil is a bigger economy and market than Paraguay? No, and our credibility is such now that we're getting incoming from not just Brazil, but other countries who we can pick and choose, depending upon whether it's viable or not. At this moment in time, with the legislation that there is, and the ample availability of power, Brazil is not an alternative. It is another platform which we were looking to go in any event in due course. We've learnt a lot with Villeta. We're going to be conveying those plans and hopefully build out Villeta at the same time. Thank you. Another one here is, what is the view of the powerful Paraguayan agricultural lobby, UGP, ARP, CAPECO, et cetera, on the Villeta situation? Supportive. Perfect. Thank you. Well, look, guys, you have covered a lot of ground there, so thank you for addressing those questions from investors today. Peter, before I redirect investors to provide you with their feedback, which is of particular importance to yourself and the company, could I please just ask you for a few closing comments? Thank you very much. We deeply regret what has happened, which was out of our control. We have come an awful long way and the people here have fought for ATOME and the tremendous work that Olivier Mussat has done regarding the project finance on this has just been tremendous. Nikita was well playing his part in terms of liaison, business development, and all our other colleagues who aren't here. I personally feel disgusted at what has happened in Paraguay at this moment in time when it was revoked. We're there, we're fighting the situation. We're engaging in a polite, good faith way. We're very sorry that this has happened. We hope the shareholders understand. We are wanting at all times to be transparent, to put this on track. We have a default, and a very productive default alternative, which, as I said to you, the most important thing for us is to make sure that our shareholders are looked after. We won't accept any deal. We are, with apologies to our shareholders, it's not turned out the way we wanted it at the moment, but nevertheless, that's to say it won't. From everything becomes an opportunity. We've learnt a lot, but also, we've got lots of opportunities in ATOME PLC itself, which we're pursuing. We've got the expertise, we've got the people, and we're moving forward. This is not a one-trick pony, but Villeta is certainly not dead. We've got other things and irons in the fire. So please bear with us. Please understand. Anything you want to ask, any shareholder you want to ask, we've an open door. Do not hesitate to contact us and ask questions, and within parameters of what we can disclose, we'll of course respond. We will keep the market informed. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much indeed for updating investors today. Could I please ask investors not to close this session, as you will now be automatically redirected to provide your feedback which help the company better understand your views and expectations. On behalf of the management team, we would like to thank you for attending today's presentation, and good morning.