Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.

Q1 2026 Earnings Call — April 23, 2026

Carlos de Alba (Morgan Stanley): Yeah, thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. So maybe I wanted to explore a little bit on the level of confidence that you have on the new guidance for Grantsburg. Well, obviously a surprise on the latest revisions, but as you see, as you move forward, are there any specific points or areas where you think that there might be a higher risk or further potential reductions to production or ramp up that maybe we should be aware of that might realize or not, but if you could maybe Kathleen highlight for us what those would be, that would be great. Thank you.

Kathleen (Executive): Thank you, Carlos. The main thing that we are doing to resolve the issue is to install these regulators into the chute galleries. Right now, we have the capacity to mine the material, but we're limited because of the need to have a certain type of consistency to go through the chutes. And so when we think about what the risks to the ramp up are at this point, it is really a construction schedule and a delivery schedule from our vendor who we're already working with. We've got some of the equipment is already on site. It'll be installed on a phased basis. And we have over the coming months additional equipment that will be coming to us so that we can install these, we call them spilminators, onto the chutes. So really it's a situation where the bottlenecks will be addressed by the installation of this equipment. We have equipment on site now. We've got equipment on order. And it's a matter of meeting that execution timetable. I want to go back to this team and what this team accomplishes in terms of the ability to construct things at Glassburg. This is not a lot different than a lot of the things that the team has done in the past.

The work that they did to prepare for restart was a really busy schedule, a lot of moving pieces, and the team did an excellent job with the support from our centralized team to execute the plan, and we'll approach this in the very same way. It's got one of the highest Net present values in the business right now to get this up and running. And our team is all over it. We have confidence in the ability to meet the plan. Now, the risks are that there could be delays in getting the materials. There could be construction delays. But that has been, we've managed that through this plan that we put forward. And we'll stay on top of it until it's done. Mark Johnson is on the call as well. And Mark, if you want to add any color to what we're doing there, please go ahead.

Mark (Executive): Yeah, Kathleen, we've had one of these filminators. It was a prototype about a year ago that we called version one. What we're installing now is a re-engineered version of that, version 1.5. We've got the first one installed last week, you know, independent of some of this recent realization on the shift in material types. So we're testing that starting this weekend. As you mentioned, we've got a number more at site. Our fabrication is taking place in Indonesia. And the group that's doing it has been very responsive to our needs. We're looking at wrapping up the capacity of that plant in Indonesia. And then also the team is looking at other ways to shorten the construction cycle on the chutes. So what we've taken and what we put into the plan is what we know we can do from the past. And then, like you mentioned, we'll continue to look for things to do that we could optimize and improve, make that installation just that much more simple and quick. Thank you. Carlos, one other thing, and Mark can add to this, but we want to reiterate that we're in the very early stages of the ramp-up.

And so the sampling that we did of all of the draw points is, as of the present time, we have a process where we sample and inspect the draw points on a regular basis. As we continue to mine, it could be that some of this bottleneck gets resolved and our traditional blending systems can accommodate the material. We have not counted on that in this forecast. We've counted on using this more robustly of regulating the flow in the chutes. But we could have a situation where the material becomes drier as material is mined. And Mark, you can add to that if you'd like.

Mark (Executive): Yeah, it was kind of the unfortunate timing of ramping up just as we were doing the forecast process. Really, at the beginning of March, I think our forecasts based on the knowledge at that time would have been very similar to the previous estimates. So what we've done, as Kathleen's mentioned, as we started mucking, we had a higher incident of spills occurring. Some of the material that we began mucking shifted to a wetter material. So what we've done is implemented what we know today and used that as our basis. What we do know is as we muck, the porosity of the material above will improve. And that's the sort of upside we might have is that as we get a broader footprint, as we begin mining, more draw points, more panels, that some of these could convert back to where they were. You know, it's a process where we, as we're mucking, we do a very frequent assessment. So it's a very dynamic process. We already mine each panel, as Kathleen mentioned, remotely. It only takes one draw point within a panel to be wet that we do the remote mining. So we were set up to do that from the onset. And now it's just a matter of that ratio within each panel.

There's also implications from panels adjacent to a wet panel. The team's also been very innovative on being able to remotely manage other aspects within the panel like rock breakage and hung up panels. So it's more than just the remote mucking. There's a number of other initiatives that we're pursuing that'll increase the availability of the draw points. Thank you.

Carlos de Alba (Morgan Stanley): A very, very quick follow up. Can the regulators handle a drier material if the ratio improves over time?

Mark (Executive): Yes, yes. It's really about being able to shut off the flow if it gets very sloppy. And it's a very innovative design where the gate and the hydraulic rams actually, as the material starts to flow, it assists in us being able to shut off the flow if we need to. So it's a matter of preventing spills from happening on our haulage level onto the trains. But it'll also handle the dry material. It's a very flexible robot system, and as we mentioned, we had planned over the long term to install it, and now we're accelerating that to make the system more flexible and robust to handle any type of material. Thank you.

Alex Hacking (Citi): Yeah, morning Kathleen and team. Not to Monday morning quarterback, but, you know, you've got a very experienced team there at Grasberg. You know, how is this issue missed in the initial assessment? You know, that water would start to build up as mining was halted. And then maybe in layman's terms, like why not add more drainage to the mine? Thanks.

Mark (Executive): In terms of the first part of that, Alex, you know, we have monitoring of the water coming in and out of the cave, and so there was nothing that was detected of any significance or any significant concern. It's just a matter of getting access to each of these draw points and to be able to inspect them, and we couldn't do that until we got access in this March timeframe. It doesn't take a lot for something to move from dry to wet, and it's just a small amount of moisture. So this isn't like a lot of water or some big overwhelming situation. It's just the nature of what's wet or moist versus what's completely dry. But we do have a number of initiatives, and that's what I wanted Mark to cover, a number of initiatives that we started after the incident last September to address a more robust drainage system. But the one we have now within the block cave in terms of the gravity drainage is very good. The one that we are pursuing is additional drainage from the surface. But Mark, why don't we cover through that? And we've got some information and the supplemental thoughts on it as well.

Mark (Executive): Right, yeah. The slide that you're referring to is 41. But Alex, what we have right now and what we've had in place for years is that we have a very comprehensive drainage plan from the surface in the open pit where the pit has not been impacted. You're aware that as we blockade that there's a subsidence zone where the rock breaks and where we have the wet muck coming from is the rainfall that falls onto that broken material. Our drainage system both for groundwater and for the surface area that's been unimpacted is very robust, it's been in place, functioning. But what the wet muck generation comes from, the daily rainfall, it falls onto that rock. It works its way down through the cave. And as it gets to a draw point, that draw point turns into somewhat of a funnel where it concentrates some of that flow that's within that broken rock. And as Kathleen mentioned, it's only a couple percent difference in moisture content that can convert material from a dry material that we can handle easily to a wetter material that we need to manage much more significantly.

So it's not a matter really of drainage, but what we are doing as a result of the external mud rush, the other incident obviously that's put us into the situation and the PB1 area is that we're looking to be able to drain the water away that collects within the cave, essentially in that shape of the old pit. And so we're drilling into some of that broken rock above PB1. We're seeing some initial indications, even with the smaller diameter drill holes, that we've been able to access some of that water. That's encouraging. We're getting some other drills that'll drill those sort of holes much quicker in a bigger diameter. Those are on schedule. They're coming in, should be drilling by the end of June. And then we've got some other initiatives that are more focused on the PB1 reopening of taking away that surface water that ponds or pools and any mud-like material, any liquefiable material that might gather in the pit bottom. Thanks for the call. And I do appreciate all the hard work that the team is doing.

Alex Hacking (Citi): Thank you.

Chris LaFemina (Jefferies): Hi, thanks, operator. Hi, Kathleen and team. Just a couple of follow-up questions on Grassberg and kind of following up on what Alex just asked. So if we look at the portion of wet draw points before the mud rush incident, I think you say it was 30%, and it's 45% now. So my first question is, what sort of variability is there around that number? In other words... Was it 30%, but sometimes 35, sometimes 25? What level of competence do you have in the ratio of dry to wet today? And that's the first question. The second question is, when did you identify that there were too many wet draw points? I think there was a media report a couple of weeks ago that indicated that Freeport was actually ahead of schedule on the Black Cave ramp, and maybe that was just an incorrect media report, but I'm wondering if this is something that you just learned very recently and was not an obvious problem just a few weeks ago. Thank you.

Kathleen (Executive): Chris, on the diagram we show on slide nine, the number of draw points dry to wet comparison, the important thing to look at here is also the panel. So in September, we had only one panel within PB2 and 3 that didn't meet the ratio. And so we were dealing with that with lending. And so that was the only one that we were addressing. Now, you've got 10 out of the 23 that don't meet the one-to-ones. So what it ends up doing is derating the production of the whole panel because you can only produce at the level of the one-to-one until we get these enhanced material handling systems installed. So that's an important factor, what's going on within each panel. In terms of the variability, Mark can comment further on this, but we wouldn't have had significant variability in the past, but we do have ongoing monitoring that looks to see for our processes to monitor these draw points for planning and management systems. But since we started mining, you know, we have had some draw points that were wet initially in March go to dry and vice versa. So it is a little bit of a dynamic situation right now in the very early days of the ramp up.

As Mark talked about earlier, you know, the timing of all this is we had just really commenced the ramp-up, and so there was, you know, new information that we were getting along the way in April as we were going through the forecasting process. Freeport, you know, we did not modify any of our guidance. You know, the actual progress we were making on the ramp up in terms of, or the progress we were making on the restart was very good. As I mentioned, we got that done ahead of schedule. Some of the media reports that you may be referencing relate to some of the discussions in Indonesia where there could be government people that are asking questions about the plan or media asking about the plan. And those would have been based on our original plan because we had not formalized our forecast until recently. Again, the recovery and the preparedness to get to the ramp up was going very, very well. And it's only this new information that has been unfolding in recent weeks where we had to address the forecast. Again, it's very early days, and things can move from here, but we do have a solution.

We're going to execute against that solution, and it's a positive long-term solution to giving us flexibility to deal with these sorts of things as we go forward over the long term.

Mark (Executive): That's very helpful. I might just add, since the start of the Grasberg, we've also had a model that predicts the future of that wet to dry ratio. And all the way through the life of PV2 and 3, that ratio is generally 2 to 1. Like that we'd have two draw points of dry to one wet. There'd be some panels that are that very, you know, the variability is more across the footprint, but broadly we had a much better ratio that we've been forecasting and using that as part of our mine plans. That's a big part of the reason that we built GBC to be able to be remotely mined from the onset. So we've been working on this for quite some time. You know, it's a bit of a complex model. It's both material characteristics from size and then managing how the water makes its way through the broken rock mass. So our indications were that we're much different over the longer term. It didn't indicate the need for the stimulators at this point of the mine. As Kathleen mentioned, we were working on that and saw certain panels that would require that. But what we've looked at now is a much more taking what we have today and just applying that, making sure that the chutes themselves are not the bottleneck. So the current plan is that we'll replace all the chutes so that we'll have that additional flexibility.

Chris LaFemina (Jefferies): Got it. Thank you very much.

Nick Cash (Goldman Sachs): Hi team, thank you very much. Just wanted to switch gears a little bit here. You mentioned deploying the first initially developed additive and working on a second additive in North America. How established are the supply chains for each of these and how quickly can you scale those additives? And how much of the 800 million guide incremental for leaching is a result from these new additives? And then lastly, given the increased diesel costs and global supply chain pressures, are there any risks to the $2.50 cent unit cost targets for North America in 27? Thank you.

Kathleen (Executive): Thank you, Nick. In terms of the additive, the one that we're deploying now, and we started with one stockpile at Marinci and are now deploying it more broadly across the stockpiles at Marinci, is readily available. And that is, we've got a supply chain for it, and it's being applied, and the results will continue to evolve as we go through the year, and that's the data that we want to see. In the lab, the additive that we're referring to, we've got two additional additives that we're focused on, and maybe more after that, but we call them our next generation additives. We've seen with these additional additives performance in the lab that is a multiplier effect of benefit above the one we're using now. So we have been working with potential suppliers on those. It's not as easy to find and we may have to, you know, have it made as the ones that we're using now. But we've been conducting some meetings in recent months with anticipation that we will commercialize one or more of those additives. And that's really showing potential.

And to answer your question about the scaling, it's the combination of additives and heat that is going to get us to the 800 million pounds. So we can, you know, at the current levels, all of the initiatives we're doing on precision leaching, all those things, all the things we're doing in Leach Everywhere, we've got helicopters that are adding irrigation lines to places that we couldn't access before. All those things are sort of operational work that we're doing and that'll allow us to be in this 250, 300 million pound range. The rest of it really comes from the additives and heat. And it's not just one by itself because the combination of using an additive on side of heat could give you a one plus one equals two and a half or three. And so that's why this heat work is very important as well to get to our ramp-up rates. We've just started at Morenci. We've got a pilot where we're heating the raffinate that will go. We just really just literally just started this to heat the raffinate to try to raise temperatures within the stockpile. We're doing that on a test basis. We have our idea to put in some modular units of heat that could be applied to all of our stockpiles.

Initially, we're using natural gas to heat, but we're very excited about potential to have geothermal heat at Morenci and we've got promise there. We're actually doing some drilling to define a geothermal resource that would be a low cost way to heat the stockpiles. We know that heat works. Raising the temperature of the stockpile will add volumes of significance. That combined with the additives, we have a path to getting to 800. We've got to solve what's the right additive for different material types, and we've got to solve the engineering of how to best get the temperatures raised in the stockpile. Corey Stevens is on. He and his team are leading this effort, and I'll ask Corey to make any, and then I'll come back to your 250 question, Nick, but Corey, if you want to add any color to what I just said, that'd be helpful.

Corey (Executive): Yeah, thanks, Kathleen. Yep, so yeah, Kathleen said it. We've got a pilot going. We're using that to calibrate our heat models and what we would expect to see at Marinci. And in parallel, we've got a bigger project going where we're going to be tripling the size of that for our elaborate operation that's going to add some volumes there. And additionally, we have a number of other targets where we're looking at a modularized version that can be deployed more readily across the portfolio, particularly in North America. We're pretty excited about where we're headed on that front. Additionally, there's options with chemical heat using pyrite and air. Here in the second quarter, we're going to be starting what we call our perfect pile in New Mexico. And that will have a next generation design on being able to leverage heat from the natural pyrite that comes with the process there.

Kathleen (Executive): Nick, on the 250 question, with the changes in consumable costs and energy costs, we're reviewing what all that means. And it's been a volatile situation. In terms of where we were on that, if you looked at the energy costs, acid costs, all the various consumables in place in recent quarters, together with the addition of these low-cost incremental pounds of getting to our 400 target sometime next year, that would bring us... So we had a path to get to 250. We now need to look at what the right environment is for things that we don't control, like the cost of diesel or other inputs. And so that will cause us to re-look at the 250, but the point is that with the input costs that we've had in place over the last several quarters and the addition of these very low cost incremental pounds, we see being able to get our U.S. costs down significantly closer to where we are in South America. So that is still intact. We just need to continue to monitor what impact these commodity input costs will have on our cost structure.

But the things that we can control, we're working very hard to and have confidence that our unit costs will trend lower, all other things being equal. The sulfuric acid situation, well, as Marie said, we don't have a lot of spot exposure this year. We'll have to see how that unfolds as we get into next year. And while we're hedged, naturally, because we have the smelters, the cost of the acids that we buy will be shown in the operating costs for the U.S., and we'll have an offset elsewhere with the smelters that we have where we actually produce and sell acid. So I hope that helps you, give you some color around that.

Nick Cash (Goldman Sachs): That does. Thank you very much. I'll pass it off.

Bob Brackett (Bernstein Research): Good morning. And staying on the leaching theme, you all have been on a tear in terms of getting patents. I think you've had more patents in the last three years, a couple dozen than you've had in the previous 10, many related to leaching. What's the philosophy of those patents? Are they sort of defensive to make sure you can execute on your inventory, on your resource? Or could they be potentially offensive where you could be partner and get access to additional resources with your technology.

Kathleen (Executive): I'll let Corey add to this, but it's really both. Our focus, we've got 40 billion pounds plus of copper in these stockpiles, which have been treated as waste in the past. And so there is a huge value opportunity for us. And that's our immediate priority to recover some of that copper that's sitting there in stockpiles, which needs a catalyst to produce it. So that is our first priority. The second is, yes, we could leverage any technologies that we develop to potentially partner with others, potentially having synergies in an M&A transaction, et cetera. But our first priority is to maximize the value of our own work here. The team we have working on this, we have a technology center in Tucson, and the team we have working on it is really, really strong. We've added to the team recently, added some chemists and some other disciplines to the team. So we have a multidiscipline team working not only on what's the best additive, but also what's the best way to commercialize it. Our corporate development team has been actively involved in that as well. So it's, like I said, it's a very high net present value project and would transform our U.S. business in something that we're making a lot of advances to, and we're going to crack the code as we go forward.

Corey (Executive): Yeah, Kathleen, you nailed it. Really, we're moving forward with this powerful group of innovators and filling the pipeline. The 42 billion pounds that are within our existing stockpiles don't count the other options that we have within our company for below cutoff grade material that we're currently considering waste today that could be extremely valuable for us in the future as these options materialize. It's a very competitive market, and so, you know, we're being very careful to protect our interests as we come up with these innovations.

Lawson Linder (Bank of America Securities): Thank you very much, Operator, and hello, Kathleen and Richard. Thank you for taking my question and for today's presentation. If I could, I'd like to follow up on the theme of industry cost pressures and just get a sense for what you've provided on the slides. And maybe this is best addressed by you, Murray, just in terms of the sensitivity of diesel. So it's interesting. So versus the Q4 slides, it looks like diesel sensitivity has actually increased. Can you maybe just walk through why that would happen or why there would be a larger impact on EBITDA now than there was three months ago?

Murray (Executive): The slide that Marie reviewed has our sensitivities to copper and all of our input costs, et cetera. And so what we do to calculate the sensitivities is use what's in that forecast for diesel price assumptions and then measure a plus or minus 10% change to that. So we have now incorporated a higher cost of diesel in our assumptions than what we had previously, and that's why a 10% change is more than what it was before.

Lawson Linder (Bank of America Securities): Is that the question you were asking?

Murray (Executive): Yeah, yeah. No, that's exactly right. It just seemed like it was a bit nonlinear. So that's it. I guess you're just assuming much higher diesel is a base case at this point.

Murray (Executive): Right. Yes. And we'll have to monitor that. We'll have to monitor it as we go. But in our forecasting process, we typically use the prices in effect around the, you know, it's been volatile, but the prices in effect at the time of the forecast. So those 27, 28 have higher diesel costs than we would have had three months ago.

Lawson Linder (Bank of America Securities): Okay, that makes perfect sense. And then just thinking about industry cost pressures, I mean, there's, you know, we've heard of explosive costs being higher, grinding media. You mentioned some insulation from sulfuric acid. When you think of some of the other key cost items for your business, are there other places where you feel there's some level of insulation? And then, you know, where are some of the other items where there might not be and there could be more exposure there?

Kathleen (Executive): It's been very regional, Lawson. As Marie mentioned, we've had a significant rise in diesel costs, but the most significant impact has been in Indonesia and other Asian regions have experienced that inflation more significantly. We haven't seen a lot of things in terms of what we buy being adjusted at this point, but that'll be something that lags and we'll have to see how long the situation continues and whether it'll start to flow through other components of our costs. But some of the things that trade on the spot market you can see have reacted, but a lot of our consumables are contractually negotiated. So we'll have to just continue to monitor those.

Lawson Linder (Bank of America Securities): Okay. Thank you, guys.

Unknown (BMO Capital Markets): Hi. Thank you for taking my question. Recently we saw there was a change to Section 232, tariffs impacting derivative products. Do you see any impact from that or do you expect any impact from that?

Kathleen (Executive): Not associated with what we sell. So that changed a lot of the codes for what gets tariffed. It did not change anything with respect to the refined copper cathodes at this point. And as you know, that is something that the government said they were going to be reviewing potentially by middle of this year.

Unknown (BMO Capital Markets): And then maybe just quickly, I know we mentioned the sulfuric acid, you're hedged, but can you let us know how much of it you actually do purchase in U.S. for your U.S. operations?

Kathleen (Executive): It varies, but we do purchase... Some acid in the U.S., we also have, of course, we have the smelter, which provides a base load of acid to our U.S. operations. We have the, we have actually a sulfur burner where we buy sulfur and convert that to acid at our Safford operation. And so it varies what we buy in terms of the amount of acid we buy. But we internally generate a big portion of what's needed in the U.S. And then, of course, in Spain, where we have a smelter, that's all sold externally. And then in Indonesia, we sell acid. And we'll be selling, as Grasberg ramps up, we'll be selling more acid because we will start to operate both smelters in Indonesia. So we're not long. In South America, we do buy acid. And as we said, we don't have a lot of exposure to the spot market at this point in time. But if this continues, we'll have to look at what it means for 2027.

Unknown (BMO Capital Markets): OK, thank you.

Tim the Tanners (Wells Fargo): Hey, good morning. Two questions for me. I wanted to follow up on the grass bird forecast. I know you talked about it being a timing issue, but I just noticed and it's small, but it does look like some of the revisions extend out to 2029. So just wanted some color there. And then pivoting to Peru, if I could, just would be interested in your thoughts on the upcoming political election given your presence at Cerro Verde? Thanks.

Kathleen (Executive): On the Glassburg, the real impact, the real significant impacts were in 26 and 27. We do have a small impact in 28 and 29, but those are really on the margin, there really wasn't any. We don't, we're not projecting any sort of issue related to this material handling issue as we get into those periods. That's just the normal forecasting updates and there's grounding, it's pretty close to where it was.

Tim the Tanners (Wells Fargo): Got it, okay. And then your thoughts on Peru, if I could?

Kathleen (Executive): Well, you know, politically we work with any administration. There's been, as you know, there have been many presidents in Peru in recent years. And so we're prepared to work with any administration that comes in. And we have a really good relationship, which is really important in Peru, with the local communities. We know we have to earn that every day, but that's really important at the local levels as well in Peru as we manage our risk there. Having that relationship and having the partnership that we have on water that we supply to Arequipa has been really positive for Cerro Verde. In terms of changes in administrations, we'll just continue to work, do the right things, and maintain those relationships.

Q4 2025 Earnings Call — January 22, 2026

Carlos D'Alba (Morgan Stanley): Yeah, thank you very much, everyone. Great to see progress in Indonesia. Just wanted to understand maybe a little bit the guidance for the outer years, considering the opportunity in leaching that you have in North America. Does the numbers, your guidance, include the leaching reaching around 800 million pounds in 2028, or it is not included in that official guidance?

Management: Good morning, Carlos. We've included in our outlook between 250 and 300 million in 2026 and have not included anything beyond that for expansion. So it's around the long term. We've got around 250 million pounds in these numbers and have the opportunity. We expect to be at 300 this year, with an opportunity to scale to 427. So there's some upside in our numbers, obviously. The slide where we're showing what the potential is getting to 2 billion pounds in the U.S. includes the Baghdad expansion and getting the incremental volumes out of the leach program. So we have the potential to get to roughly 2 billion pounds in the U.S., but those aren't included in the 27-28 guidance at this point.

Katja Jancic (BMO Capital Markets): Hi. Thank you for taking my question. The unit cash costs in South America are moving higher. Can you maybe elaborate what's going on there and how we should think about costs there over the next few years?

Management: Yes. In South America, we're forecasting net cash costs in the 258 range on average for 2026. Those are very similar to what we experienced during the fourth quarter of $2.57 per pound. When you look at the comparison to 2025, the increase relates mostly to labor and energy, power costs as well as labor. You know, you've got also a – a weaker dollar as well. So that's reflective, but it's very similar to what we experienced in the fourth quarter, and we'll carry that run rate forward.

Alex Hacking (Citi): Yeah, thanks, Kathleen and team. The 2027 target to get cost in the U.S. down to $2.50 a pound, Could you maybe elaborate on how you plan to get there? Because, you know, cost last year was around 310. You're guiding to around three next year. Sorry, three this year, even with, you know, a nice increase in U.S. production. Like, how are you getting another 50 cents out by 2027?

Management: Thank you. It's really a target, and it assumes that we're successful with scaling our leach opportunity, as well as continuing to drive efficiencies within the U.S. business. So it's really coming from adding volumes at a low incremental cost. We have a number of initiatives, not only in the leach initiative, but we have a number of initiatives really as we look at U.S. operations focused on minimizing downtime, just improving all of the efficiencies. We have really an opportunity to increase our volumes, you know, basically with the same operating rates that we have today. So that's the target that we have, and bringing in lower cost volumes will bring down the average.

Bob Brackett (Bernstein Research): Good morning. I'd like to talk about slide 14 where you highlight America's copper champion. We think rough numbers, the U.S. consumes 4 billion pounds of copper, 2 billion of which is imported. In that context, if you look at your targets, you'd be adding, you know, rounding up 0.8 billion of that 2 billion of imports, which is a significant amount of those imports. And I'll highlight that leach initiatives deliver refined copper, not concentrate. So I guess the question would be, can you do more? But also the question is, How do you focus on this target in light of what copper tariffs could be going forward? Is that driving this production, or is just the unit economics in any world driving this production target?

Management: Thanks for those comments. And to highlight the LEACH initiatives, the exciting thing about these opportunities for us is that we're able to, with success, and we've got to have success on our additive work and with the heat injections that we're trialing this year, with success, the incremental cost of these pounds of copper that we're bringing on are very low cost, you know, relative to the cost of what you'd have to do to actually mine the material and take it all the way through a smelter. So these are very low incremental cost pounds. They do not require significant capital. We already have the material that's been mined, and it's really the processing piece and spending some incremental dollars to improve recoveries is what we're targeting. So that is really a very exciting value creation opportunity for us when you're talking about adding these kinds of volumes in a relatively short period of time. When you think about copper projects taking 10 years or more, if we're successful here, we can be adding a new mine with very, very low operating costs and very insignificant capital expenditures. So that's a real opportunity for us.

The Baghdad project is more of a conventional opportunity. As we've talked about, we've got a very significant reserve there, and what we have been talking about for a number of years now is the opportunity to build new processing facilities and bring that value forward. And as we look at that project today, it requires roughly a $4 average copper price to justify the investment. And, of course, copper prices are higher, much higher than that today, and support the project. You know, we look at a broad range of projects, of copper prices when we qualify a project, but this is one we want to put our infrastructure where we have big reserve positions, and this is one where we believe should be developed and can be developed within a short time frame. And so we're working to make sure that we have our arms around the capital and that we can execute the project efficiently. But that will be a nice addition also to domestic production in the U.S. A quick follow-up, please. We're not really looking at tariffs to support this investment. It's hard to predict what those are.

We're just really looking at a broad range of absolute prices and how we can deliver a low operating cost mine and improve resiliency in the US.

Lawson Winder (B of A Securities): Thank you very much, Operator, and Kathleen, thank you for today's update. If I could just pick up on some of the comments you made on Baghdad 2X, can you maybe give us a sense of a more precise timing this year for the update? That would be one. And then thinking about the CapEx, I mean, the slides highlight that the CapEx is still under review. What we've been seeing in the industry over the past several years is typical CapEx inflates at about 5% per year versus the 2023, 3.5 billion. Is that like a reasonable way to think about what's the level of CapEx inflation? And then are there any changes to the plan being contemplated with this latest updated study that could potentially change the approach or the overall mine plan or the CapEx? And then just finally, I mean, you highlight the attractiveness of this project at the current copper price given that it works at $4, I mean, outside of the copper price, I mean, what other factors will you consider when thinking about approving this project potentially later this year?

Management: Okay. So, as you pointed out, the $3.5 billion for the project was based on work that we had done at the end of 2023. And what we're doing in the first half of this year is continuing our engineering work and actually getting to a point where we can have enough of the engineering done to go out to our vendors to actually get fixed pricing. So that's really where we want to put ourselves as we go through the next six months so that we have more concrete bids on what the project will cost. And so we're looking to make a decision on the project in, you know, when we have this information at midyear. And so we don't know the answer to your question yet about this 5% per annum. We know there is cost inflation. We've been trying to assess whether the tariffs will have any impact on some of the components that are involved here. And we'll continue to do value engineering to try to keep the capital intensity of the project as low as possible. But we want to do enough front-end work so that when we qualify the project for investment, we can deliver and execute on that plan. And that's what we're working on in the first part of this year.

We're also doing some work on the power infrastructure and making some deposits there. So we've added $150 million in capital associated with this project that will put us in a position to make a decision. In terms of the factors that we are looking at, in addition to the copper price, and we want to look at the long term and the range of prices and how this project would perform, we also want to make sure that we have the right workforce set up and we've been investing in infrastructure. Labor has been a challenge in the U.S., and that's partially what drove us to going to autonomous during 2025 to set up better optionality for Baghdad for expansion in the future. We want to optimize the performance of the autonomous fleet. We're not getting exactly what we expected to get from the performance of the autonomous fleet, but we've got progress and ongoing to get us to the point where we're comfortable that the autonomous fleet is capable of running at these higher rates.

So we've got some other things going on to de-risk the plan as we go through the first half, but those are the major factors is confidence in our ability to execute the capital plan confidence in our ability to operate efficiently. You know, part of the goal here, in addition to bringing on additional volumes, is to bring on those volumes at a lower incremental cost than our current cost and take advantage of efficiency. So that work we're going to be doing as well over the next several months as we get to an investment decision. But this is a project that is pretty straightforward. It's a relatively short lead time, and we just want to make sure that we can deliver on the economics that we set up, you know, at the start.

Corey Stevens (Management): No, I appreciate that, Kathleen. And just the comment on the Baghdad work, you know, the team is super energized. We're working through a lot of the incoming infrastructure requirements and designs and long lead items from like power upgrades and so forth. And then in parallel, like we talked about, the autonomous work, very inspiring. You know, it's still early days there. You know, we really only went full autonomous late in the summer, so there's a bit of a learning curve there, but we're on a good track, and the team's going to figure that out as we go forward. On the LEED side, the ramp-up is really based on a lot of the initiatives that are coming to pass this year. We talked about at Marinci, at Alhambra, those are big demonstration activities going on there. And then yesterday, as a matter of fact, we started another leach stockpile at our New Mexico operation at Chino. And there we're using chemical heat. So we termed that one the perfect pile. It's an engineered heat that, you know, we build confidence around our lab work there that's really giving us a lot of excitement there that really can facilitate not only a benefit to Chino, but could change the way that we design future stockpiles going forward to enhance the ultimate activity that's coming out of those. So lots of moving parks, lots of activities, more to come this year.

Bill Peterson (JP Morgan): Yeah. Hi. Good morning, team, and thanks for taking the questions. It sounds like Indonesia is on track with the timing guidance from last year. I was wondering if you can add any incremental lessons learned at Grasberg since the November update. You know, you called PD2 and 3 on schedule for QQ26. Any further granularity you could provide on timing, where it could land in the quarter, where, you know, what would make it come in faster versus extended?

Management: Thank you. And Mark Johnson's on the line, and he can add to these comments. But, you know, we did a update in mid-November on the investigation, and we have learned a lot. And as I mentioned, we are adopting the recommendations from the investigation. The plan in terms of, you know, what we laid out in that timeframe in November is very much the same. We've been executing on that plan. We've been achieving the results. As we mentioned, the mud removal within the mine workings has gone well. And we're 97% of what we need to be to start up production blocks two and three. We've just completed a cement pour at one of these protective barriers that we talked about that's needed to restart production block two and three. And so the work that we're doing between now and startup really is related mostly to infrastructure. Now that we have these plugs in, we'll be able to advance that more. But we haven't given a specific date within the second quarter, but we would expect it would be in the first half of the second quarter at this point and we're on track to do that.

Mark Johnson (Management): Yeah, the plan, as you stated, that we came up in November, the team's done a great job of executing that. It was primarily driven at first, with the cleanup of the mud, that is essentially complete for the PB2, PB3 startup. Obviously, there were some challenges there that a lot of, you know, it's not, it's kind of a unique work environment. We dealt with some localized drainage issues, you know, required pumping, and the team was quick to respond. Very happy also with the response from some of our key suppliers. A lot of this infrastructure that we're building is the communication systems that allow us to do the remote mining. So, our suppliers on that end have risen to the challenge, so we don't see any problem with the supply chain side of things. We continue to work with our consultants and verify our plan, make it more robust. We're looking at some new tools for our cave management. That'll also play into how we look and mitigate risks. And all of that's progressing quite well. Really, I don't see any real hurdles at this point to be able to start up as we've planned. You know, any variation I think will be relatively minor, plus and minuses.

I think it's a very solid plan to start up. The wrap-up is something that we've spent time looking at as well. We have good history on that as to how we'll reopen some of these draw points, do it in a very cautious and safe manner, step by step, and observe and adjust as we go. So anyway, I'm very happy with the overall progress and where we are today. So PB2 and PB3, you know, is the lion's share of our production, and then obviously we're also working towards the PB1 area restart.

Liam Fitzpatrick (Deutsche Bank): Good morning, Kathleen and team. Just a couple of follow-up questions on the GBC profile. It sounds like the initial startups for 2026 are going to plan, but in terms of 2027, is it possible that PV1S could be brought forward ahead of the mid-2027 startup that you have? And then for PV1C, if you conclude that you can't restart production from that block, do you have the flexibility to open up other areas and bring those into production also by late 2027?

Management: With respect to our plans for PB1, the work that we've done to lay out this plan, we're continuing to expect that Production Block 1 South will be a mid-27 startup, and then we're going to continue to evaluate the PB1C. Our focus really is getting the 85% up and running that we're talking about during 2026. And as we go through and in parallel, we're working on PV1. But our focus for the current period is to get the substantial amount of production restored. And then we'll look to see how to optimize and enhance it. But we're not, at this point, not looking at advancing. But we'll, you know, we'll be in a position to continue to evaluate that as we go.

Management: If we decide not to go back into PB1C? Yeah, we have some other, you know, we haven't had to face this yet. But some of the other challenges or some of the other opportunities there would be to change our sequence and go to PB1 north. We also have some options to incrementally add production from deep MLZ. It would be at a lower grade if we did that. And, you know, the potential would be to continue to develop and ramp up PB2, PB3 beyond what we have in our plans. But all of those are, you know, forward-looking. We don't have any Our plan is still to proceed as we've shown. On slide 31, a lot of those initiatives there on the mud removal are focused on PB1. So the execution of those and the results of those will very much drive how we look at what our options or what our future plans may look like.

Timna Tanners (Wells Fargo): Hey, good morning. Wanted to ask in light of the sharp move in copper lately if you have any fresh thoughts about the recycling opportunity. I know that you have a plan and program that aligns with copper. Are there other potential initiatives that could, you know, leverage secondary material? And then along those same lines, any thoughts on substitution, you know, copper for silver and solar, but also aluminum for copper and other applications? It would be great to get your thoughts.

Management: You pointed out the circular project that we're doing in Spain at our facility at Atlanta Copper where we're completing a project to process scrap from electronics. So it's got a lot of precious metals associated with it. And so that project we're completing the middle of this year. We do some scrap processing in the U.S. at our existing facilities. It's not, you know, we follow that business, but it's not the core of what we do. You know, our core really is around, you know, producing mining and processing what we mine. But we'll look on the margin if there's an opportunity, but it's obviously not our business. In terms of substitution, that is a topic that people have long talked about. You know, we believe that the properties of copper, because of its superior conductivity, are compelling. When you talk about data centers and that sort of thing, copper still is a very, very important component of data centers. There will be substitution and thrifting as prices rise, but when you look at the big picture, you still need a lot more copper to be able to support the demand, the secular demand trends that are ongoing. So we're very confident that copper will still be viewed as a superior metal, really, from its conductivity, recognizing that there will be thrifting, there will be substitution that takes place as that relative value changes.

Brian MacArthur (Raymond James): Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Two questions on Indonesia. First, In the fourth quarter, I see there's no export duties, but when I look at your guidance going forward, TCs are up to 43 cents versus historical levels. Can you just tell me how you're accounting for that, whether there are export duties in that guidance going forward or what's going on, or whether that's just inter-transfer of costs as you go to the new smelter as things ramp up? And my second question has to do with KL. Obviously, it's getting bigger. Is that all additive post-2030, i.e., the higher production at KL, you still have the milk capacity, you don't have to do anything, and I see capital has gone up. Is that just inflation, or is that given that KL is a little more complicated and you have to do something else?

Management: In terms of the question around export duties, we're no longer exporting concentrates. And so we don't have any export duties in our numbers. The TC number is really just the internal smelter cost, the operation of the existing smelter, as well as the towing fees that we pay the operating costs of the new smelter and the totaling fees we pay at PT smelting. So they're really kind of internal costs. Of course, it doesn't include, you know, when you're comparing selling concentrate to a third party, that rate reflects all of the byproducts and the free metals. So going forward at PTFI, you're going to have the cost of the smelter in that processing line, that TCRC line, but all the benefits that you get from the free metal, the byproducts, et cetera, will be in the revenue line. So it's a little different than historically when we've been just, you know, selling most of our concentrates.

Management: Okay. And Brian, we can follow up more with you on that if that didn't fully answer it. But on the Coochie and Lear, this is actually a positive here. We've been looking for some time at what's optimal between Grassberg Block Ks and Coochie and Lear operating rates to look at what is optimal from an NPV standpoint. And as you know, the footprint of KL is very big, and a lot of it was just carrying forward after 2041. But in looking at the Glassburg Rock Cave and Kuching Liar and the need potentially to invest in pyrite handling and processing facilities for certain types of ore, we developed a plan that allowed us to defer a significant amount of pyrite processing that would have been associated with Grasberg Block Cave and actually defer that out. And so you see KL rates going from where we were projecting 90,000 tons a day to 130. So we've added production from KL. Grass-fed block cave is slightly smaller. All of this is just timing because with an extension, we'll get those reserves over time. But this plan allows us to defer processing to our rights.

Management: Got it. So you wouldn't have to make – I mean, the mill would be, what, 240 or whatever, and it's maxed like it used to be before. You're just substituting A for B in this process.

Management: Right, exactly. And what it allows us to do is defer the timeframe when we need to spend capital on the pyrite handling.

Brian MacArthur (Raymond James): Great, thanks. And just back – we can take the rest of this offline, but just that $0.43 for Indonesia this year for treatment charges – Is that inflated this year because we have a lower production rate and it's a ramp-up, i.e., on an ongoing basis? Would it be better than that?

Management: Yes.

Management: Okay. Thank you very much. And I will now turn the call back over to management for any closing comments.

Management: Thanks, everyone, for participating, for your questions. And if you have any follow-ups, David's join is available in our Management team is available, and we look forward to reporting our progress as we go through the year. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our call for today. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.