and what would be the timelines for funding?

Thank you. Josh, I can answer that. It's worth just remembering that when we entered into the stream transaction, the development plan was the deeper part of the ore body. There's an upper zone and a deeper zone. And the deeper zone is the lion's share of the economics, probably over 95% of the value. So the stream was predicated on getting the deeper zone into production. The company has subsequently reorientated the development of the assets, doing them in a more of a staged manner, which actually is a very appropriate way of developing an asset for a developing company. So all that to say, you know, we still have the right, but not obligation to fund the stream. And, you know, the asset looks great. Glencore's come in with a very considerable financing that gets them off the ground, but our focus is still on the deeps. So when the company moves towards an investment We'll look to do our evaluation and presumably invest the stream at that time. But all the signs we have at the moment are great. The economics of our stream are very robust. And I think having a supportive capital provider alongside us in Glencore is a good endorsement of the project and provides ample capital to get the project up and running and fully developed deep side as well.

Okay, thanks. And then Tereska brought us, I know it's a pretty small contributor today. The release talks about phase two. Is there any goalposts that can be provided in terms of what production could look like when it's expanded?

Yeah, there's been numerous expansion options there, Josh. The phase two essentially doubles So there's an opportunity to triple it from current levels. It is not being fully determined as to how large the production rate goes. There are opportunities to take it even beyond the tripling of current levels. Our investment case predicated on the mine running either at the current name plate of about 20,000 tons. So anything beyond that is great upside for us.

Great. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Fahad Tariq with Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to come back to Ravenswood. In the second half of the year, can you just remind us if that's factored into the 2026 guidance? And I think I may have missed this, but is it fair to assume the low end of the quarterly deliveries at 2,300 ounces per quarter in the third and fourth quarter of this year? Thanks.

Hi, Pat. It's Sheldon. I'll answer that. So we've updated our guidance to say we're looking at the top half of our updated guidance. So, you know, the top half of that 100 to 110, and that does include the Ravenswood stream as well.

Okay, got it. And then maybe just switching gears, one for Eban, on the balance sheet, I noticed the cash balance obviously came down just because of the transaction and the buybacks. But can you just remind us like minimum cash balance that the company typically targets going forward?

Yeah, thanks. We generally, we're a business that we don't really need a whole lot of money to maintain the business. We generally try and limit how much cash we own in the balance sheet, just given we've got a facility that's wrong. So for us, about $10, $15 million is probably about the right number.

Okay, sounds good. That's it for me. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Tanya Jocuzconek with Scotiabank. Your line is now open.

Oh, great. Good morning, everybody. Thank you so much for taking my questions. Maybe just to finish off on the outlook for the second half of the year, just that, you know, Sierra Lindo stepped down, so that's occurring. We've got then Ravenswood Production, you know, starting to contribute. How should we think the rest of the year with respect to Q3 and Q4? Originally, it had been that the first half was supposed to be higher than the second half, but how should I be thinking about the second half in Q3 and Q4?

Yeah. Hi, Tanya. This is Sheldon. You know, we obviously have our, you know, H1 to date and we have our full year guidance. And so, you know, if you're looking for the split between Q3 and Q4, there's no real big differences we're seeing between the quarters. But again, we don't give quarterly guidance. So it's really the annual guidance and working towards that annual figure we give in the market.

No, it's just more with Q3 and Q4. Like, there's not that much difference. That's fair enough. Maybe my next question, if I could, was to come back to James when you talked about those four key assets beyond 2030. You know, you can quickly do the math on, you know, Hope Bay and Arthur Gold and see that contribution. So as you think about beyond 2030, you've got that 150,000 to 160,000 GEOs. Are we looking with the remaining two getting closer to 200,000? Like, is it? something in the 20 to 50,000 ounce range that these additional ounces will contribute.

Yeah, I mean, obviously, Tanya, in defining the outlook, we're focused on the assets that we think have a clear line of sight contributing in that time frame. Of course, there are other development stage projects that are earlier and at study level and need a few things to happen before they could contribute. But they certainly have studies that could show contributions that were built above the island range. But we're always reluctant to include those in our outlook until we gain confidence. I think one of the other big variables is North Parks. There's a lot of potential to add incremental gold to North Parks, particularly given the increased processing capacity and the way that and Volusion is looking at gold-only mineralization of that property. You know, of course, beyond E44, we don't have a great line of sight on that right now because there's still work to be done. But look, I think E44 will certainly continue far beyond the minimum deliveries. The life of that pit is likely, you know, at least double or triple the minimum delivery quantum. I'm very confident there are further gold discoveries to be made. So I think I'd be looking to North Park for some unexpected additions to that profile. And then, of course, as we see projects become more solid from a permitting and capital provision perspective, we'll add those to the profile too. And, you know, we expect that to stack on top of, you know, the numbers we've shared.

Yeah, I'm just really interested, James, in these four. Like, what could these four contribute?

Well, yeah, I mean, you could put the studies together, Tanya, and I think that there's probably quite a bit more that Arthur could contribute beyond the PFS. You know, I think Hope Bay has a great deal of potential over and above the $400,000 to $435,000. I think in the In a mid-2030s, that could be a much bigger number. You know, I think MS go for longer, but the annual outputs are probably, you know, fairly fixed by the study. But I really think it's Arthur and Tope that have the greatest potential to grow annual production above the numbers we have in front of us today.

Yeah, that's about 15,000 GEOs. I don't know what the other two would contribute. Sorry, I was just trying to So greater than $15,000. Okay, my next question then comes back to just maybe Eban, how are we handling, just how should I think about the capital return from your share buyback versus your dividend? You know, you bought back that $20 million this quarter. Should I be thinking that, you know, if we would were to stay in this share price range, that you will continue the share buyback?

Thanks for the question. We just raised our dividend, and NCIB is part of our broader capital allocation strategy, and we look at that along with deals that we're working towards and going down the pipeline. So we'll be active on the market opportunistically and we'll step in when we see value. So that's pretty much it. We've got a program in place and we'll exercise discretion as we see fit.

Okay. And I guess my final question then is just on the transaction environment. Maybe just kind of review it. Anything in that has changed. We talked about it last quarter. It was in the 100 to 500 million range. It was mainly in asset builds and maybe some third party royalty transactions. So where are we on this now? Has anything changed? Has the structure of some of the deals changed? Anything for us to be aware of?

Hi, Tanya and Sheldon. I'll take that one. Really, it's remarkably the same, and you've seen how much we've managed to deploy over the last 18 months, and I would say the pipeline right now seems as robust as it's ever been. That transaction range that you cited I think is still pretty accurate, that 100 to 500, but we're also seeing some transactions that would even be larger than that. also comments on jurisdictions. I'd say generally what we're seeing are jurisdictions that shareholders would generally be comfortable with. So anyway, we're still active. The corp dev team is busy and, you know, we're going to see what we can do.

And Sheldon, are they mainly in gold or are you seeing some silver transactions as well?

You know, it's really a mix of metals, you know, including like, you know, There's some silver as well. There's probably some non-precious that might be attractive as well, but the bulk of what we're looking at really falls into that precious metals, again, right down the fairway of what our shareholders really are looking for.

Sheldon, you said non-precious as well. Is that something like you're looking at beyond gold and silver and non-precious?

Yeah. We have a long list of things we look at, and there are some non-precious. And we've done that before, right? Like Trey Kourbatis has been a fantastic investment for us. And so we'll look at that on a very opportunistic basis. We're never going to take the portfolio away from being like a 90% gold and silver portfolio. Okay.

All right. Thank you so much for taking my questions and good luck.

Thanks, Sonia.

Again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 in your telephone keypad to raise your hand and enter the queue. And your next question comes from the line of Brian MacArthur with Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. Most of them have been answered. But can I just ask about Impala? I mean, you got $10.5 million this quarter. I'm not as familiar with that asset, but it's ramped, you know, it's changed over the last number of years. But that got significant versus any other time period and, you know, gold prices down over Q1. Is that a normal run rate going forward? Is something changed there or was there a catch up or how should I think about that going forward?

Brian, thanks. I'll take that question. So typically, Impala has been pretty consistent on a quarter over quarter. I think what you're probably seeing this quarter is one of the last deliveries slipped into Q2 from Q1. That's probably why Q2 is a little bit higher than the prior quarters. But typically, they're pretty consistent in terms of quantum of the deliveries.

More generally though, Brian, there is a... You can expect to see slightly higher deliveries coming out of the steel drift mining area in the next year or two. The companies be very public about increasing the output of that mine, not hugely, but there is an uptick from the current level expected.

Right. But if I were sort of just to look at, so divide by two over the six months and have a bit of a ramp and adjust for the gold price is how I can think about it. Yeah, that's reasonable. Great. Thanks very much. Thanks, Brian.

That concludes our question and answer session. I will now turn the conference back over to Mr. Sheldon Vanderkooy for closing remarks.

Thank you, Angela. And thanks, everyone, for dialing in to our call. We've had a very strong start to the year, and we're looking forward to continuing the performance over the back half of the year. Thank you all for attending. Bye.