Elevra Lithium Limited (ELVR) Q4 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Hello, and thank you for standing by. My name is [ Lacey ], and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Elevra Lithium Limited Fiscal Year 2016 Full Year Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Lucas Dow, Managing Director and CEO. Please go ahead.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Lucas Dow, Managing Director and CEO and Elevra Lithium and I'm pleased to present the Elevra Lithium Financial Year 2026 Year Results. I'm joined today by Christian Cortes, Chief Financial Officer; Sylvain Collard, Chief Operating Officer and President, Canada; and Andrew Barber, Chief Development and Investor Relations Officer. Our agenda for today's call is described on Slide 2. Specifically, we will cover our operational and financial results, provide an update on our strategy and achievements during the year, provide a market update, I conclude with our financial year 2027 guidance. I'd also like to mention that unless otherwise stated, all references to dollar amounts today are in U.S. dollars. We'll begin by providing an overview of the full year results for FY '26, which can be found on Slide 3. Our commercial performance and financial position improved $2 million of revenue generated, which was an increase of 39% compared to FY '25. We ended June with $255 million in cash, which provided us with the funds required to confidently commence execution of the NAL Brownfield Expansion, whilst maintaining the flexibility to advance other growth initiatives. We subsequently received a further $65 million in [indiscernible] in proceeds from the convertible bonds issued to Canada Growth Fund, which we received in August. Operationally, we continue to enhance our safety programs and saw a significant improvement with our total recordable injury frequency rate falling by 67%. Production of spodumene and concentrate declined modestly with approximately 198,000 tonnes reduced, but there was a clear improvement in operating performance through the second half of the year when recoveries increased to 71% in the June quarter. FY '26 represented a significant step forward for Elevra, as we completed the merger between Sayona Mining and Piedmont Lithium. We also completed 2 scoping studies and determine the optimal path forward for the NAL Brownfield Expansion and secured the funding to move the project into execution. Now moving to Slide 5 to provide more detail on our operational performance. The first area that I want to cover is safety. Whilst we still have work to do, the step change in safety performance, led by Sylvain Collard and his team was a highlight in FY '26. As I mentioned earlier, our total recorded injury frequency rate fell by 67%, an continuation of the improvement seen in FY '25. We also saw improvement across each of the reportable personal injury categories, with reductions in medical aid, modified duty, and lost time injuries. Turning to NAL's operating performance as documented on Slide 6. FY '26 production was approximately 198,000 tonnes of spodumene concentrate, 3% below the prior year but within our initial guidance range. Temporary mining conditions in the first half of the year impacted all feed characteristics, including higher iron content and lower lithium grades. However, our operating team implemented a number of initiatives to mitigate those impacts by increasing mining activity to allow for greater flexibility and ore blending while maintaining a consistently high level of mill utilization. And the result was a clear improvement through the second half. Recovery increased to 71% in quarter 4, the highest level achieved during FY '26, while mill utilization remained high at 92%. So whilst FY '26 included some temporary minor constraints the trajectory through the second half was encouraging and provides further confidence in the foundation we have built at NAL for continued improvement in growth. Moving to Slide 7. The other major operational development during FY '26 was the improvement in commercial performance. Average realized prices increased by 57% from $694 per tonne in FY '25 to $1,092 per tonne in FY '26. That increase reflects both the stronger lithium market and the changes we have made to our legacy offtake agreements. The restructuring of those agreements has increased Elevra's leverage to lithium prices, allowing improvements in the market to flow more directly through the realized pricing. Following the completion of deliveries under our legacy offtake contract in the June quarter, we expect FY '27 realized pricing to be more closely aligned with reported market prices. Importantly, realized pricing has now moved above NAL's unit operating cost on a tonne sold basis and we have entered a future supply agreement with a floor price above FY '26 unit operating costs. We see that as an important inflection point from both a margin and a cash flow perspective that will only further improve as we deliver cost savings associated with the NAL expansion. That takes us to the next major part of the Elevra story, which is outlined on Slide 8. Many of our accomplishments in FY '26 operationally, commercially, and strategically set the foundation for the NAL Brownfield Expansion. The starting point was the increase in NAL's resource reserve base announced in August 2025. Those increases confirm the scale and longevity of NAL and created the optionality to explore increasing future production capacity. During FY '26, we evaluated different pathways for the expansion, including a single stage and multi-stage approach. We ultimately determined that a multi-stage approach is the preferred pathway and the reason is straightforward. It allows us to increase production faster and reduce execution risk. The economics are also very compelling. The initial focus during the expansion will be debottlenecking the mill to allow NAL to operate at the upper end of these existing permitted milling rate of 4,500 tonnes per day. Ultimately, we'll expand the milling capacity to 6,500 tonnes per day which will bring average annual spodumene concentrate production capacity from about 194,000 to approximately 338,000 tonnes of concentrate while reducing the life of mine average C1 cost to $628 per tonne. So this is not just a volume growth project. It is designed to increase scale, reduce unit costs, and improve NAL's resilience across lithium price cycles. After completing a capital raise focused on funding the expansion, I'm pleased to note that we broke ground on the expansion at the end of June, and we will continue to provide updates on progress as we deliver against our near-term growth projects. Following the breakdown in trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. late last week and the subsequent introduction of retaliatory tariffs, we are reviewing what implications, if any, this will have on NAL's sourcing strategy for the expansion. Given that the Brownfield Expansion is based upon proven and existing technology and processes, our initial indications are that alternate sourcing solutions will be available should the introduction of tariffs create cost escalation for U.S.-based source. In addition, the Canadian government has announced a number of measures totaling CAD 7.5 billion to address tariff-impacted industries and projects. I'll now hand over to Christian to take you through our financial performance.

Thank you, Lucas, and good morning to all. There are a few items to highlight before I take you through the financial performance. The operational and financial results reported for FY '26 include 10 months of legacy Piedmont and 12 months of Sayona following the completion of the merger at the end of August 2025. Elevra elected to change its reporting currency from Australian dollars to U.S. dollars during the first half of FY '26. As such, prior corresponding period amounts have been restated to U.S. dollars for comparative purposes. The amounts shown in the presentation have been rounded to the nearest million. Moving to Slide 10 to expand on the year's operational and financial overview. As mentioned by Lucas, NAL produced approximately 188,000 dry metric tons in FY '26, a 3% decrease compared to the prior year. The challenges experienced during the December quarter also carried a moderate impact in operating costs for the year. Sales of spodumene concentrate totaled approximately 181,000 dry metric tons, a 13% decrease compared to FY '25, due to the timing of shipments and transition of port operations. As a result, we ended the year with approximately 41,000 dry metric tons of inventory which were largely shipped to customers in July. Revenue of $202 million increased by 39% despite the reduction in shipments driven by a 57% increase in average realized pricing to $1,092 FOB per ton sold. Unit operating cost per ton sold of $853 FOB per dry metric ton increased modestly by 2%. The increase in operating costs reflect elevated mining activity as we increased stripping activity to maintain access to war and optimize our mill feed. At group level, Elevra delivered a $14 million underlying EBITDA profit compared to a prior period loss of $43 million. The significant improvement incorporates improved realized pricing, stable operating costs, and the benefit of synergies generated following the merger. The group used, in operating activities, of $44 million during the period, which included $3 million of cash inflows generated by [ ANEEL ] largely offset by cash outflows of $25 million associated with combined merger transaction costs of Elevra and legacy Piedmont. Cash balance at the end of the period increased to $255 million from $47 million at 30 June 2025. Mainly due to the receipt of proceeds from the strategic finance packages completed in May 2026, partially offset by net cash outflows from operations and capital expenditure. An incremental $46 million of cash proceeds from the issuance of the first tranche of convertible notes to Canada Growth Fund were received in August after the close of the 2026 financial year. Moving to Slide 11. NAL delivered a $46 million underlying EBITDA profit compared to a $29 million loss in the prior year. Improved lithium market sentiment and the associated increase in realized pricing offset higher production costs and the improvement in pricing was aided by the elimination of NAL's legacy offtake agreement with Piedmont, post-merger, which contained a price ceiling that limited upside. There was also $2 million generated in synergies by NAL. Corporate expenditure of $30 million compared to $12 million in the prior year includes 10 months of legacy Piedmont costs and a $7 million loss of contract settlement associated with hedge instruments that were entered into during a period of low lithium prices. For context, the gross economic benefit from the hedging program was $12 million. The hedging program also provided valuable liquidity support and pricing certainty during the period in which spot prices were below NAL's production costs. Following the rally in lithium prices in December last year, the hedging activity was substantially reduced. Including the $2 million of synergies at NAL, the group delivered $15 million in synergies and annualized savings are expected to be approximately $19 million. The group reported a profit after income tax of $44 million in FY '26, an improvement of $292 million compared to FY '25. That result includes several non-cash items, most significantly a $156 million reversal of the NAL impairment, which was partially offset by $104 million of non-cash merger-related accounting items. Moving to Slide 12. The underlying EBITDA bridge presented in this slide has been restated to include $22 million in FY '25 EBITDA of legacy Piedmont stand-alone costs for the 10-month comparable period. After considering these adjustments, prior year's underlying EBITDA loss of $65 million compared to underlying EBITDA of $14 million profit in the year ended 30 June 2026, making a significant improvement despite lower sales volumes, largely underpinned by stronger market prices and merger synergies realized during the 10-month period following the merger completion. Turning to cash flow on Slide 13. The most important point here is the significant strengthening of our financial position following the merger and Strategic Financing Package. We ended the financial year with $255 million of cash and a further $46 million was received from Canada Growth Fund after the year-end. With regards to NAL, whilst underlying EBITDA delivered $46 million as referred to in Slide 11, $3 million was turned into cash by 30 June 2026, largely due to outstanding sales collections of $32 million, which have been received post balance sheet date and increased finished product inventories of $15 million to support the port transition in June 2026. This provides the financial capacity required to execute the NAL expansion while continuing to progress Moblan regardless of market conditions. Our capital expenditure during FY '26 was modest at $24 million reflecting the fact that major growth initiatives will occur in FY '27. Moving to Slide 14. Our balance sheet is now materially stronger than it was at the beginning of the year. As we saw on the previous slide, cash increased from $47 million to $255 million. Total assets increased from $427 million to $905 million, primarily reflecting the increase in cash, the reversal of the NAL impairment taken in FY '25, and the asset contribution of $120 million from Piedmont following the merger. The balance sheet also captures higher inventory levels at the end of FY '26, which, as I mentioned earlier, were to support the transition of port operations. Total liabilities increased from $116 million to $178 million, also due to balances contributed by Piedmont including the incorporation of a pre-payment facility. The total outstanding prepayment facility balance of $55 million at the year-end has been reduced approximately $38 million during July and August. Overall, we believe the balance sheet provides a strong platform to support the next phase of growth for Elevra. I'll hand back to Lucas.

Thanks, Christian. Let me turn to the strategic progress we made during FY '26. On Slide 16, the first significant achievement was the fundamental reset of our corporate structure, starting with the merger between Sayona Mining and Piedmont Lithium. Bringing these 2 companies together created a larger and more robust company by combining complementary assets and operating capabilities. The merger created more opportunities than just increased sale. After completing the merger, we reconstituted the Board to enhance our corporate governance standards, expanded the management team to position Elevra to take advantage of the long-term growth opportunity in lithium, and established a leaner cost base with approximately $15 million of synergies captured in the 10 months post-merger period. We also completed a share consolidation to simplify our capital structure, and present shareholders with a cleaner, more unified investment opportunity. Together, this created a stronger foundation from which to allocate capital towards the highest value opportunities across the portfolio. The second element was advanced in the project pipeline with the major accomplishments outlined on Slide 17. At NAL, we completed 2 scoping studies to evaluate increasing our production capacity. The expansion was enabled by the merger and we immediately began to evaluate the opportunity. Our first approach established what NAL will look like in the future: a larger, lower cost operation. But we challenged ourselves to refine how we achieve that end goal. And the technical and economic outcomes of a staged approach proved a more efficient approach. Once we finalize our development approach, we moved forward with financing. We received strong investor support from existing and new institutions which serve as validation of our growth strategy, and we were able to raise sufficient capital to fully fund all 3 stages of the expansion and advanced development work at Moblan. We broke ground in NAL at the end of June and expect to deliver Stage 1 in calendar year 2027. So in FY '26, we completed scoping and financing for the NAL expansion and moved into execution. In addition to securing funding to continue advancing Moblan, we also purchased offtake lights at Moblan. Previously, a percentage of our annual offtake rights at Moblan were committed under commercial terms, which included a discounted price. By buying those rights back, we now capture our full pro rata share of production and have control over the commercial outcomes of a Elevra interest at Moblan. Post year-end, we have continued to refine the portfolio. We announced in February that we entered into a non-binding agreement supply Mangrove Lithium with concentrate production at NAL. And last week, we finalized a definitive agreement. That agreement includes improved commercial terms for Elevra with a floor price of $1,000 at C6 and no ceiling price. We see Mangrove as an important partner for Elevra as we work together to create a Canadian supply of lithium chemicals. On the other side of the ledger, we signed an agreement to sell our interest in the Ewoyaa Project, sold out right the Tabba Tabba tenement in Western Australia, and agreed to expand the Morella Lithium joint venture by including additional Western Australian tenements that Elevra previously owned or had applications for. While we view Ewoyaa and Western Australian tenements has potential attractive development opportunities, they sit outside of our core North American focus. We believe these actions allow us to monetize these assets and maintain our focus on opportunities, which will create both immediate and long-term value for shareholders. Taken together, these strategic accomplishments tell a compelling story. In FY '26, we rebuilt the corporate foundation, moved our flagship project from study phase into construction, and sharpen the portfolio around the assets we believe in most. This is the platform Elevra is built on heading into FY '27. I'd now like to provide some commentary on the market. On Slide 20, you will see that spodumene concentrate prices strengthened in FY '26, which is reflecting the demand seen in the broader lithium market. While lithium prices have proven volatile, there is a robust consensus that pricing will remain strong over the coming years as demand for lithium is expected to nearly double from 2025 levels by the end of the decade. And demand growth is not just coming from 1 market or channel. It is global and diversified, which has helped to reduce volatility as the market continues to grow and mature. During the last cycle, electric vehicles produced and sold in China dominated demand. Now we are also seeing strong uptake in energy stationary storage applications and commercial vehicles. Battery demand is real and lithium batteries are the leading solution. Our strategy is not based on any single demand outlook or lithium price at a single point in time. Instead, we are focused on building a business that can generate attractive returns across a range of lithium price environments. That means we will continue to focus on increasing scale and lowering unit costs. Now, I'd like to turn it back over to Christian to discuss how we are thinking about our commercial strategy going forward.

Thanks, Lucas. As you will see on Slide 21, we've outlined 3 pillars to define our target commercial portfolio. Our objective is the transition from the legacy arrangements to a more diversified, market-linked, and flexible sales portfolio as we grow our production capacity. To do this, we are targeting approximately 3 core offtake customers and we want this to be more than customers. We are looking for strategic customers that offer diversification across geographies, end markets, and trading counterparties. The second pillar is market-based pricing. We intend to eliminate the complexity created by lag pricing mechanisms and references to lithium chemicals are referencing spodumene concentrate prices reported by credible price reporting agencies. The third pillar is commercial flexibility. We are targeting 3- to 5-year contract terms with a preference over contracting incremental volumes to existing customers as we grow. Any remaining uncontracted volumes can be sold into the spot market to maintain exposure to spot pricing when it's attractive. Ultimately, our objective is to balance customer security while retaining exposure to market upside. With that, I will turn the call back over to Lucas to discuss our FY '27 guidance.

Thank you, Christian. Our guidance for FY '27 is detailed on Slide 22. As we look to FY '27, we expect spodumene concentrate production of between 198,000 and 210,000 tonnes at a 5.2% growth. Concentrate sales are expected to be between 200,000 and 230,000 tonnes with a modest weighting towards the first half of the year based on inventory on hand at the end of June 2026. The unit operating costs sold is guided to $880 to $950 per tonne sold. The increase in unit costs relative to FY '26 is due to sustained mining intensity as we built inventory as part of the NAL expansion and continue to mine through the remainder of the historical underground workings. Lastly, total capital expenditure is expected to be $120 million to $140 million. Most of the capital expenditure is growth capital allocated to the NAL expansion and Moblan studies with the balance going towards sustaining capital at NAL, which is approximately $20 million. I would also like to make it clear that as part of the capital expenditure during the course of FY '27, we will be expanding the capital for Stage 2. So we're endeavoring to accelerate Stage 2 of the expansion as well. Our total capital for the project remains at USD 270 million. Before we move to questions, I'd like to close by putting FY '26 and the outlook for FY '27 and in the context of the broader Elevra story. We believe FY '26 has materially transformed and strengthened the company. At NAL, we have demonstrated resilient operating performance despite temporary challenges, while safety and operational discipline have continued to improve. Commercially, realized pricing has moved above unit operating costs and the transition away from legacy pricing arrangements will allow us to capture more of the value from the strengthening lithium market. Financially, we have moved to positive underlying EBITDA and significantly strengthened the balance sheet. And strategically, we have moved the NAL expansion from planning into execution with the project fully funded. At the same time, Moblan provides a second major growth opportunity, and we're continuing to refine the portfolio around our North American strategy. As we look to FY '27, our key 5 priorities are clear. First, safely deliver consistent operating performance at NAL. Second, safely execute the NAL expansion on schedule and within budget; third, continue advancing Moblan toward FID. Fourth, complete the transition to a more market-linked and flexible commercial strategy; and fifth, maintain disciplined capital allocation across the business. At this time, we're happy to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Levi Spry with UBS.

A couple of quick questions, I guess. Firstly, if we can just roll back to the realized price piece. So what data points, what guidance can you give us, I guess, how to think about FY '27 realized prices? And then just in terms of the Mangrove contract. Did you mention the floor price there? I think I'm seeing a bit of discussion with Pilbara, putting on a $1,000 number there? What's the, I guess, the construct behind your sort of negotiations on that number, if you could help us there.

So I'll take the Mangrove question first. There is a floor at USD 1,000, and there is no ceiling attached that Mangrove definitive agreement. Obviously, it's a little longer dated that gives us an excellent platform, particularly given the benefits associated around logistics and so forth. So -- but I can reiterate that there's a floor of $1,000 a tonne. The second component in terms of FY '27 in relation to guidance on pricing, essentially with those legacy agreements now in the rearview mirror for us. You should consider that we're effectively exposed to the spot market.

Okay. Great. And then just, I guess next 1 is, obviously, just on costs. So you mentioned what's going on over there in North America. How much of the stuff are you getting from across the border? Like how should we think about that? You got the percentage that's coming from the U.S., I guess, in terms of capital? And then just on the operating piece of the unit operating cost line, that looks to be a bit higher than what we've been expecting. Can you just sort of just talk us through, is it all about that strip, which was impacted in and the inflation being worse than what we thought? Or can you just sort of triangulate that a bit for us?

Yes. The bulk of the -- I'll take the second question first, again, if that's okay. The increase in unit operating cost is principally driven by the increased mining activity. As we open up Phase 4 the mine development, there's additional stripping. So it didn't fit the categories of capital. So effectively, you might have seen with others that might have been as a deferred stripping allocation effectively in our unit operating cost, Levi. Essentially, the strip ratio mix in FY '27 sits at around 10% versus FY '26 was at 9.1%. So there's an uptick in that strip ratio. That will obviously revert back to the life of mine average as a consequence of moving through that phase and also as we complete the mining through the underground stopes as well, and we pick up that additional ore. So long story short it's all down predominantly to the mining activity. So you'll expect to see that normalize as we move through FY '27. And then the question around sort of exposure around the tariffs and so forth. As I flagged, obviously, a bit of a moving piece at the moment. Sylvain and the team are working through what implications that might have. I think there's probably a couple of things to note. What we've seen historically is that these tariffs can move quite quickly in terms of both being on or off. So we want to make sure we'd not lock ourselves into something that may well be reversed in the month or 2. But simultaneously, we're also evaluating exactly what the impacts might be and what's the alternate sourcing strategies might be. From an operational perspective, not a great deal of exposure. There's some consumables around reagents and so forth that may be captured, but fairly minimal. On the capital spend, again, as I mentioned, the bulk of our processes and the technology that we're using are available worldwide. So if U.S. tariffs become prohibitive in terms of sourcing out of the U.S., we will look to alternate markets. But the preliminary view is that we don't expect it to have an impact on -- a significant adverse impact on the total cost of the project for NAL. And as I said, we still expect to deliver all 3 stages on a combined basis at USD 270 million.

Okay. Great. And just squeeze last 1 in Moblan. Can you just remind us of the next steps there on studies and derisking?

Yes. Yes. So Moblan, we -- on the back of the increased resource base -- resource reserve base at NAL -- sorry, at Moblan, we're undertaking an updated scoping study to determine really 2 key aspects. First is what's the right size in terms of production capacity for Moblan? DFS previously at 300,000 tonnes a year of concentrate. We suggest with a large resource base and will support a higher production level than that. So we'll answer that question as part of the scoping study. The other part is obviously to refresh the capital. Obviously, we've learned quite a bit in terms of working through NAL. So we think there's some smart [ there ] that we can apply, so we want to be able to build those in. Investors can expect to see that in the fourth quarter of this calendar year. And obviously, we'll be updating the market when that comes through. In addition to that and in parallel, obviously, permitting and those sort of activities are all well and truly underway and progressing.

Your next question comes from the line of Austin Yun with Macquarie.

Just a follow-up to a few of DOS questions, please. Just on the realized pricing, given that we're 2 months into this quarter. I was hoping if you can provide more color on should we think the realized price will be linked to lithium carbonate or spodumene price? Would that be like a 1-month lag? Would that be the right way to think about the price realization from this quarter onwards?

Yes. I'll pass over to Christian. Obviously, Christian looks after the sale, so I'll let him walk you through that in a little more detail.

The current quarter sales are all, basically, spodumene linked indexes. And this current shipments, which -- I mean, I alluded to the July shipment, we'll have hopefully another 1 in September. Those 2 shipments are effectively priced as we deliver the product. Now that doesn't mean that all the volumes that we'll deliver through FY '27 will be the same. But the -- I guess, the consistent message regardless as to when the QP settles, there will all be spodumene pricing linked. None of these will have chemical pricing references to them.

Great. And just on the cost front, interesting that you have a bit different treatment on the deferred stripping, which would usually get capitalized looking at your peers. Just keen to understand the profile of the strip ratio that goes beyond FY '27. Like Lucas mentioned that it's going to reverse the reserve average. Just if any color on how quickly that's going to happen would be helpful.

I'll take the strip ratio question. In short, we really seeing it's the peak in FY '27, Austin, and then it will effectively run down from there. So there's a buy in there and we also pick up -- as you'll recall, we'll be through the underground stopes and so we'll pick up an additional ore in the [ Mangroves ] dike as well. So very much at the high point and then it will -- it runs down quite quickly thereafter.

And just squeezing 1 more question, if I may. Really good progress at Mangrove with all those agreements and updates. Keen to understand your study pipeline in the context of the agreement. It does feel like the Carolina Project is getting pushed out further. Is this a correct understanding?

Austin, we're continuing to work through the permitting for Carolina. In fact, the air permit is the last remaining permit required to have that project fully permitted. We expect that to occur within the next -- within this quarter, if not early next quarter. So we're continuing to advance that. As we've described previously, that project has really -- has been contemplated as a mine with a co-located chemical facility. As we've made it very clear, Elevra, our expertise is as a mining company. So we continue to engage and seeking to be able to develop a downstream partner that would build and operate that chemical facility. So obviously, the likes of Mangrove probably gives an insight that we are working away at that, Austin. But probably the key enabler for us with Carolina is finding a partner to be able to handle the downstream component.

Your final question comes from the line of Reg Spencer with Canaccord Genuity.

I think Levi and Austin covered off on most of my questions. Just to help me out on the capital profile. It was a little bit higher than what we were expecting this year. Can you just remind me what the CapEx profile for the NAL expansion looks like over '28 and '29, once you've got that all finished?

Yes. So Reg, I'll just come back -- I'll provide a couple of headline comments, and then I'll pass to Christian, who will give you the sort of respective breakdown. Just if we go back, total capital for all 3 stages of USD 270 million. That number still holds. Stage 1 represented around $70 million of that $270 million. Stage 2, $60 million; and the third stage is the balance of $140 million. Essentially what you're seeing in FY '27 is, obviously, we're running on Stage 1. We're also -- and we've highlighted this previously. We're advancing work for Stage 2 where we can as well. Ultimately, we want to be able to get the entire project completed as quickly as possible. So that incremental spend in FY '27 is a combination of Stage 2. So we're advancing some of that work for Stage 2 in FY '27. And also, there's around USD 10 million for -- associated with Moblan and growth work.

There are no more questions via the -- I apologize, Andrew Harrington from Petra Capital have a question.

Yes, most of the questions were covered. One about offtake contracts. What's the volume? And so if you're going to be producing roughly 200,000 per annum, what do you want to be under long-term contract? And what's the benefit if you're just going to be getting spodumene prices across those offtakes as well.

So I think just first and foremost, obviously, we're sitting around that sort of 200,000 tonnes a year mark at the moment, but you'll see that volume incrementally ramp up quite quickly over the next 2 to 3 years, and we'll be at sort of that 340,000 tonnes a year of concentrate. And so on the back of sort of back quarter, I'll pass to Christian, he'll give you a sense on how we're thinking about allocation and why we're pursuing offtakes.

The target, as I outlined on the slide where I talk about the commercial portfolio, target is to effectively have indicatively 3 customers. Out of those volumes you would expect to lock in around 3/4 of your production. And effectively maintain an element of flexibility in which you can allocate the remaining volume to the existing offtakers or to take that to the spot market, but that being at our discretion. Now it's a good question, what's the value on offtake agreements. From our perspective, the key thing here is the counterparty who are you effectively selling the product to and what level of confidence you have that those customers will be there, not only now, but they have effectively growth plans that you can effectively grow the business with them. So as we've seen through the cycles, when things get tight, if you don't have reliable business partners, you're then having -- you're then forced or having to effectively sell everything into the same spot market, which if you don't have ultimately price protection, it can result in significant losses as we have experienced ourselves and others in previous downward cycles.

Okay. And is there any revenue difference?

There are revenue differences I would think if you are ultimately linking to spot price in this indexes, the answer would be no. It would be consistent to what the market is indicating. Now you may end up with a buy party negotiation in which you may have different elements of pricing to what those index prices are but we're not pursuing those. We're effectively looking for customers that are -- they are ultimately comfortable with taking what the market price indicates to be at the time of either shipping or delivering the product depending on what the specific arrangement looks like.

Okay. And if I may, 1 last related question. How much of the material will remain in North America?

Well, that's a very good question, Andrew, and a very difficult 1 to answer, given that as we know today, there's only 1 converter or 1 potential customer processing material in North America. As that changes will obviously be actively looking at supporting those potential customers, Mangrove being 1 of them. Now -- the answer is today, nothing. We're not shipping anything to North America. However, we are in discussions with that party of that has a facility in North America. If we are to supply in the future, I would think it would be something around 25% of the volumes, give or take.

I would now like to turn it to Andrew Barber for questions from the web.

Lucas, first question is, is it reasonable to think that whilst we're working to the completion of each stage of the expansion, that there will be some incremental production as that occurs? So we're looking at the question of what does the ramp-up look like as we progress the stage.

So as we've explained previously, in short stage 1 of delivery in the order of 15% to 20% production uplift, and we expect to be complete with that mid-calendar year 2027. So we would you expect to see that increase in volume start flowing through in FY '28. And the reason for that is, obviously, it's a Brownfield Expansion. We are installing and we'll be installing equipment during the course of the year. But ultimately, we'll be cutting that over during planned shutdown periods and so forth that are regularly scheduled for normal operational performance. So you shouldn't expect that those things are some drift that in, but rather it will be at the completion of each stage that you can expect to see that improved uplift in volume.

Great. Next question is, have diesel prices substantially impacted costs?

Short answer is no. Diesel accounts for around about 5% of our cost spend. So I mean, clearly, it's -- it's not insignificant, but we're less exposed than others and particularly for the compare with say some of the Australian producers where they may be relying upon diesel generators and so forth. One of the benefits we've got at NAL is the fact that our power is hydro. So obviously, renewable, very low carbon emissions or no -- 0 carbon emissions, but on top of that, low cost as well. So somewhat insulated from these energy shocks that other producers may be seeing.

Next question is what's the rationale for moving from the Port of Quebec to the Three Rivers Port? Are there -- what are the benefits? And how will this change impact costs?

Over to you, Christian.

Yes. The short answer is we will generate cost savings as a result of the change. Two key reasons: it's a shorter distance from NAL and we are effectively able to move away from hauling effectively containers and moving into a bulk logistic infrastructure. The historical constraints with Three Rivers with -- were with regards with warehousing when NAL restarted, that issue has been removed. And in fact, we have credit capacity at Trois-Rivieres than what we had for Quebec.

Next question is on Moblan. You've comment that the resources increased substantially since the last DFS was published. How do you think that, that will feed into the upcoming updated scoping study versus the prior DFS results?

As I mentioned, 2 primary objectives for us with the Moblan updated scoping study, is to revisit the annual production level. And as the question alludes to, the fact the resource base has increased appreciably. We would suggest that will suport a higher level of production than was templated in the DFS. So the DFS was at 300,000 tonnes a year, we expect that to move north. The benefit of that, obviously, is the increased revenue associated with the increased volume, but also the ability to be able to also further reduce unit operating costs at Moblan. From all the work that we've done to-date, Moblan looks like a very low-cost operation. So we're excited about the prospects there. And then the second component, we obviously want to revisit the capital that was provided in the DFS. We think that there's obviously, we've learned a few things through the NAL process, and we think there's some areas to sharpen the pencil and improve the capital efficiency.

Great. Will that scoping study will be released in the September or December quarter?

It will be the December quarter.

The next question is in regards to the Mangrove offtake agreements. Why did we choose Mangrove to sign that agreement when they won't be taking supply for another 4 to 5 years?

Yes. Christian, you worked individually on this, why don't you walk our investors through that?

Yes. Well, I mean, Lucas has already touched on this earlier, we ultimately see a very attractive business partnership with Mangrove. Their focus is to effectively have a planned developed nearby NAL that would result in meaningful cost savings for both parties. And the idea of ultimately supporting the buildup of the original supply chain is to the extent that we can achieve that. It certainly fits in with what we're effectively trying to achieve here. So question around timing. Yes, the timing is a little bit long dated and there are CPs in place for the contract to become effective. We're not particularly exposed to whether Mangrove goes into production sooner rather than later as we have ultimately the ability to place product with customers in the short to medium term as well as, as discussed earlier through the slide deck, we have the ability to place product in the spot market.

Great. Next question is on Ewoyaa. And the question is, are we on track to receive payment for the sale of stake in Ewoyaa this quarter. And could you provide some additional color on the Ghanaian Ministry approval process related to this transaction?

So the approval process really sits with the counterparty with Huayou Cobalt. They're engaging with the Ghanaian government. These approvals are a normal process, and they are progressing, and we anticipate being of those conditions precedent and the approvals, including this quarter, and obviously, payment will flow as a consequence of that.

Okay. Next question is in regards to Morella joint venture and the vending of 4 projects into that joint venture for a spend of $300,000 over 2 years. The question is, given the modest commitment and overlapping roles of several directors, how did the independent directors to determine these terms are there to leverage shareholders? And will the definitive agreement provide protection to Elevra is a significant discovery is made.

So I think the short answer is, obviously, the definitive agreement will provide adequate protections for a Elevra of shareholders. The other component of the question around independent directors, I think just for the avoidance of any doubt, James Brown and Allan Buckler did not participate in any of the discussions related to this transaction, obviously, given the potential conflict of interest. And the Board, absent Allan and James, arrived at the decision following a conventional analysis of divestment, and valuation, and prospectivity and so forth. And as I mentioned in my opening comments for the results call, our focus is very much in North America as evidenced by our recent decision to divest our interest in the Tabba Tabba exploration permits, which obviously was successful on a great result for shareholders.

Last question here is has Elevra plan for contingency that Buncefield runs loan shipping becomes more restrictive or expensive?

Yes. Obviously, anyone that's moving bulk commodities by sea is exposed to movements in pricing and fuel pricing and so forth. To-date, we've not seen any issues arise. Typically, as part of the sales process, shipping is organized as a consequence of that. In short, we are at no significant disadvantage other than obviously we've got a longer shipping route through to China. But in short, the shipping commodities effectively, it's a global market and effectively all producers are going to be exposed by line to the same extent, albeit with some variance on distance to be sold.

No further questions.

I would now like to turn it back to Lucas Dow for closing remarks.

Thank you for your interest in attending our presentation today. If you have any further queries, please reach out to our Investor Relations team. Thank you, and good bye.

This concludes today's call. You may disconnect.