Prepared remarks
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. This conference is being recorded, and the replay will be available on the company's website at auraminerals.com/investidores. The presentation will also be available for download. This call is also available in Portuguese. Before proceeding, we would like to clarify that any statements that may be made during this conference call regarding the company's business prospects, operational and financial projections and goals are the beliefs and assumptions of Aura's Executive Board and based on the current information available to the company. These statements may involve risks and uncertainties as they relate to future events and therefore depend on circumstances that may or may not occur. Investors should be aware of events related to the macroeconomic scenario, the industry and other factors that could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in the respective forward-looking statements. Present at this conference, we have Rodrigo Barbosa, President and CEO; Kleber Cardoso, CFO; and Glauber Rosa-Luvizotto, COO. Now I will turn the conference over to Rodrigo Barbosa. Please begin.
Thank you very much, and welcome, everybody. Thank you for attending this call again. I'll be happy to go through the major milestones of the company during the quarter. As usual, Kleber will go through the details of the results. Then we will open to Q&A and we also have here our COO, Glauber. If you have any more technical questions, he would also be happy to answer. Overall, the quarter we had weaker production than the first quarter. Nevertheless, all the necessary works and milestones in the background of the results that we will achieve have been completed in order for us to have much stronger production in Q3 and then Q4, as has happened in the past with a weaker production in the first semester and stronger production in the second semester. Actually, this year, as we're going to go through mine by mine, we'll see that this balance between first and second semester can be even larger than what happened in the past. Overall, we produced in the first half of the year 158,000 ounces. As I mentioned to you, we are confident to keep the guidance for the second semester, which means that we will produce a total of between 182,000 and 232,000 ounces during the second half; on average, potentially one quarter below 100,000 ounces and the other quarter above 100,000 ounces. That means we are very much on track to produce a significant improvement during Q3 and Q4, and that is a combination of mine sequencing and also the ramp-up of MSG. Revenues in the quarter reached $336 million — of course, lower gold price and lower production mean lower revenues. When we look at EBITDA, on the other hand, we reached close to $200 million. I would also highlight that for 12 consecutive quarters Aura has been increasing EBITDA. Over the last 12 months, we produced $800 million of EBITDA with the current average gold price over the last 12 months and with total ounces of 313,000. Imagine if we achieve the production that we are promising for Q3 and Q4 — EBITDA can be pushed up significantly if gold prices remain stable or appreciate while production increases. In terms of all-in sustaining cash costs, they are very much in line with what we planned. The initial number close to $2,000 per ounce seems high, but this has been pushed up because of the turnaround at MSG. If you take out the turnaround at MSG, we would have been at about $1,600 per gold-equivalent ounce, understanding that we have significant higher production coming at MSG and significant higher production at Apoena and Borborema. We still expect improvement on all-in sustaining cash costs during the second semester due to mine sequencing and expansions happening at Almas and Borborema. In terms of recurring cash flow, we reached $80 million. When you exclude the losses from the gold hedges, which are happening this year and next year, we would have made close to $120 million of recurring cash flows before the gold hedge losses. Out of this $120 million, we used $54 million for expansion CapEx and an additional $68 million between share buybacks and dividends, which means Aura continues to grow and fund its growth and shareholder returns with our own cash flows from operations despite leveraging for expansion, which Glauber can go into a little more detail about later. In terms of net income, we had a record-high net income of $218 million. The quarter included positive mark-to-market on derivatives, which impacted net income by about $126 million. We just announced, given the strong cash flows from operations funding our growth, a new $60 million dividend, which means $0.72 per share that will be paid during Q3 related to Q2. Together with this dividend, we approved a share buyback program of up to $200 million. From now on investors should see a split between dividends and buybacks in the coming quarters as we continue to remunerate shareholders through both mechanisms. In terms of projects at Aura, most are on time and on budget; I have slides to give more details. Also, average daily trading volume is significantly higher, which was an objective when we listed on NASDAQ. A year ago we were trading $1–2 million per day; now we are close to $100 million per day on average during the last quarter. In terms of safety, as we mentioned last quarter, unfortunately we had one lost time incident at Borborema in March; the person is already recovering rapidly and is working again at site. Although a procedure was not followed, we revised all procedures and conducted due diligence across operations to avoid any future lost time incidents. Over the last two years we had only one lost time incident, but our objective is zero. We constantly monitor our internal program to ensure the highest safety standards and that everybody returns home safely. Also, regarding stability of structures, we constantly monitor them with external consultants who assess our geotechnical structures — tailings, underground pits, pads — and they are at satisfactory levels. Looking at quarterly production, on the left side of the slide you see our quarterly production and the 12-month line. Since Q2 2025 we've been gradually improving quarterly production, driven by the ramp-up at Borborema. After weaker production in MSG in Q1 and Q2, we plan much higher production for next year and should see improvement in MSG in Q3 and Q4, along with improvements in other mines. We will continue to see 12-month production improve from 313,000 ounces toward our guidance of 340,000–390,000 ounces by year-end. On the right side, production per quarter per mine: MSG was 9,000 ounces in Q1 and weaker in Q2 due to infrastructure investments and activities we had to implement. Part was planned; part was more challenging as we began producing at MSG and faced infrastructure needs. We chose to prioritize underground development over short-term production because that will structurally change the mine, enabling production close to 80,000 ounces per year and pushing all-in sustaining cash costs down toward $2,000 per ounce. All the groundwork at MSG has been done and we have confidence we will improve in Q3 and Q4 and be prepared to reach close to 80,000 ounces in 2027 with AISC near $2,000–$2,200 per ounce. Regarding Borborema, Q1 was 17,000 ounces and Q2 14,000 ounces — this was planned mine sequencing and grade profile. In Q3 we expect higher grades into the plant, and in Q4 higher grades plus debottlenecking: the current bottleneck is the filters and we are implementing new filters to be online mostly by Q4 so we can increase production. Almas had a slight improvement in production. We built that mine for 1.3 million tonnes; we finished last year running at 2 million tonnes and are upgrading to 3 million tonnes. We expect to finish the year close to 3 million tonnes per year, which will impact production positively. Minosa decreased from 17,000 to 14,000 ounces. We are in a stacking pad area that is more challenging; we had to pile higher than in past years, so recovery takes more time and we have more working capital tied up. We may see weaker production for the next two quarters and then recovery in Q4, and Minosa may be toward the low end of its guidance for the year. Apoena decreased from 7,000 to 6,000 ounces, but background activities — pit openings, pushbacks and development — are in line with forecasts, allowing confidence we will reach higher grades in Q3 and Q4 to support higher production next semester. Aranzazu had mine sequencing with lower grade in the first semester; we expect higher grade in the second semester and stronger production in H2. So overall, the combination of MSG turnaround, Borborema debottlenecking and higher grades at Apoena gives us confidence we'll be within our annual guidance and not near the lower end. Regarding AISC, as I mentioned, close to $2,000 per ounce for the company but excluding MSG we would be close to $1,500, and with higher grades and increased production in H2 we expect improvement. Note that when we issued guidance, exchange rates in Brazil and Mexico were more favorable — for example Brazil was about BRL 5.50 per dollar; now we are close to BRL 5 per dollar, which is a roughly 10% difference; additionally higher oil and chemical prices have impacted costs. We believe the team can deliver results within guidance. Regarding Era Dorada, it is moving in line with the plan. We recently approved full investments; we already spent $15 million and about 60% of groundwork is completed. We are hiring locally and training; 53% of employees are from Asuncion Mita region and 93% are from Guatemala, showing our commitment to local labor. We approved significant improvement to water treatment, moving treated water to potable standards and in agreement with local authorities to distribute treated water to communities once in production. This is an important social benefit in a region with limited sewage or potable water treatment. We also have a transparency house in the city to answer community questions and show project impacts. We have majority approval from COCODEs — community-elected leaders — who are mostly in favor. We continue community engagement and expect the project to reach commercial production without major hiccups, though some delays or negative news may occur. For MSG, I'm very happy to share that productivity underground is in line or above what we projected when we acquired the asset. We have seen resource and reserve growth. We acquired the project with 370,000 ounces of proven and probable gold-equivalent reserves; after six months we are at 753,000. Measured and indicated resources rose from 1.0 million to 1.8 million ounces, and inferred from 1.4 million to above 2.0 million ounces. This long-term upside supports further exploration to increase resources and reserves. The most important aspect is mine development speed underground, which allows inversion of mine sequencing from top-down to bottom-up. We are 80–90% above last year on average in underground development performance. There is still room to improve, but we have confidence that by year-end we can invert methodology and by 2027 produce close to 80,000 ounces and push AISC down to roughly $2,000 per ounce. During the turnaround we compromised short-term production to secure stronger long-term production. We are already at the highest speed in production and should see improvements in Q3 and Q4, with the largest improvements in 2027. Now I'll turn the floor to Kleber so he can present the results.
Good morning, everyone. We start with a summary of the main financial KPIs for the quarter, the last few reporting quarters and accumulated last 12 months for each reporting period. We're reporting net revenues of $336 million in the second quarter as anticipated by Rodrigo, as a combination of lower production due to mine sequencing and also a lower average price in Q2 compared to Q1. However, looking at accumulated last 12 months net revenues, we are reporting a record high, close to $1.3 billion. In terms of adjusted EBITDA, it's a similar story at $197 million. Accumulated over the last 12 months we are above $800 million already. As Rodrigo anticipated, we've been increasing our accumulated last 12 months EBITDA for 12 consecutive quarters since Q2 2023 — now three years of increasing accumulated EBITDA, showing the direction we're heading. In terms of net income, we report strong net income of $218 million as a combination of operations and unrealized gains on outstanding gold derivatives because there was a reduction between gold prices at the beginning and end of the quarter, so we recognized noncash gains. Excluding these noncash impacts, our adjusted net income is slightly below last quarter at $97 million this quarter. In terms of cash equivalents and net debt, we closed cash near $250 million. There was an expected increase in net debt to $168 million; that was compensated by the increase in accumulated net debt over EBITDA, leaving our leverage ratio stable quarter-over-quarter at 0.2x. Now, understanding main items impacting adjusted EBITDA to adjusted net income: in adjusted EBITDA we had four business units with strong results — Superiore, Minosa, Almas and Araxá — each reporting adjusted EBITDA in the $43–$56 million range. As expected, Apoena and MSG were the weakest in Q2 and we expect stronger results in H2. Amortization and depreciation were $26 million, in line with expectations. Financial net income was $61 million, mainly driven by noncash gains related to gold hedges, partially compensated by realized losses on collars that expired in the quarter — we paid $37 million. Income tax expenses were $20 million as expected. Other items included a gain of close to $10 million mainly related to completion of the sale of the San Francisco mine, which was part of the Apoena complex. We also had a nonrecurring provision for contingencies of $5 million, bringing reported net income to $218 million. Excluding noncash items, adjusted net income was $97 million for the quarter. Now, cash movements between the beginning and end of the quarter: we started with around $207 million. The six mines in production generated $177 million during the quarter, of which a portion was used to pay hedges settled in the quarter; we allocated $37 million for that purpose. We invested $58 million in growth CapEx, mainly expansion CapEx: $53 million mostly split between Era Dorada — Board approval in April and we already invested about $5 million in Q1 — expansion of plant capacity and underground development at Almas, and investments in Apoena. Financial items and capital returns included dividends and share repurchases of $68 million, bringing cash to the end of the period close to $250 million. With this, we end our presentation and open to questions.
Questions and answers
Thank you. Our first question comes from Mr. Matheus Moreira from Banco Bradesco BBI.
My first question on capital allocation. We've seen a very volatile macro environment recently, which has weighed on gold prices. Does this change your M&A appetite in any way? Would you adopt a more conservative stance on M&A in the near term? Within your broader capital allocation framework, you've announced a new buyback program of up to $200 million. How is management thinking about balancing growth CapEx and buybacks and dividends? What are the main priorities going forward? That's my first question, and then I'll ask the second one.
Thank you, Matheus, for the question. First, in terms of M&A appetite, we continue to have appetite independent of gold price. When gold spiked to very high levels in the short term — for example when it reached about $5,500 — the gap between sellers and buyers widened and transactions became difficult. Now that gold is back around $4,200–$4,300 we see more converging price expectations. We remain conservative and do our own analysis, using market-average projections for gold and also for copper.
We don't see any reason to change our M&A appetite because of price volatility; M&A remains an important avenue for value creation. Reminder: Aura's value creation is through three avenues. Number one, execution on greenfield projects — we implemented Borborema, currently doing the MSG turnaround, implementing Era Dorada, and finalizing studies for Matupa. Number two, continue to increase resources and reserves — as I mentioned at MSG we significantly increased reserves and resources by adjusting cutoff grades and inverting sequencing. We actually doubled many of our resources and reserves in our recent report. Third avenue is growth through M&A. The sector tends to pay a better price as you grow; companies approaching 1 million ounces tend to have a fairer NAV multiple. We feel significantly discounted today relative to where we should be, and part of closing that discount is delivering growth. We know how to get to 600,000 ounces in upcoming years, but reaching closer to 1 million ounces will involve M&A. Regarding dividends versus buybacks and funding growth: look at the last several years — 2021 through 2026 — we've been able to do both. Our projects typically have paybacks of about one to two years, sometimes less than one year, so once we sequence projects they produce quick returns. We've been able to implement greenfield projects (Almas, Borborema), acquire assets (Borborema, MSG, Era Dorada), pay high dividends, and maintain low leverage — we are at 0.2x net debt-to-EBITDA. This quarter we produced close to $120 million of recurring cash flow excluding hedge losses, and that cash supported greenfield development, expansion CapEx, dividends and buybacks. We believe Aura is in a privileged position with strong operational cash flow to both grow and pay strong dividends.
Great, Rodrigo, that's very clear. My second question is on MSG specifically. It was good to see the significant step-up in both PMP and M&I over recent months. You continue to move forward with the turnaround. Production in Q2 was impacted by significantly lower grades. Can you give an update on the key bottlenecks you've been addressing, more specifics on operational priorities, and how you see grades and production evolving over the next few quarters? For MSG specifically, do you see risks to guidance on both production and costs?
I'll start and then pass to Glauber for greater operational detail. We had more challenging production in Q1 and Q2, but that was a choice: we prioritized underground development and mine preparation infrastructure rather than short-term production to secure a better medium- and long-term outlook. That means we might be at the lower end of guidance; there's always risk, but we're confident the groundwork will enable production near 80,000 ounces and AISC near $2,000 per ounce. I'll let Glauber expand on why grades decreased in Q2 and why we expect improvement in Q3 and Q4.
Yes, of course. Rodrigo commented that this year has been focused on housekeeping and preparing operations to sustainably achieve around 80,000 ounces and AISC around $2,200 per ounce. Straight to the point: the bottleneck is the mine. The challenge is to increase production from the underground mine, which has much higher grade, even considering some open-pit contribution. The lower grade in Q2 is mainly because we drew on lower-grade stockpiles on surface to keep the plant running while we prepared and developed the underground to release stable reserves for production. We used lower-grade stockpile ore to keep throughput and production while we worked on underground development and upgrades. The good news is that we've increased underground development performance by about 8–9% compared with last year, due to infrastructure upgrades in H1 and upgrades to the underground fleet. When we acquired the mine, fleet reliability was a constraint; we have upgraded equipment, increasing availability and productivity. We used a period of lower production to refurbish and upgrade equipment to reach better operating levels, increasing availability. Going forward, we expect to see quarter-over-quarter production growth at MSG in Q3 and Q4 and into Q1 2027 as development advances and throughput and grades improve. We'll be able to gradually increase grades and plant throughputs.
Our next question comes from Mr. Lawson Winder from Bank of America.
Solid capital return again — great to see you leading the pack on that. I wanted to ask about costs, which are critical to maintaining free cash flow and supporting investments. Year-to-date, at what rate would you say your cost inflation is running, and how does that compare to budget? As you move into budgeting for 2027, what inflation rate makes sense to assume for 2027 versus 2026?
Thank you, Lawson. I'll let Kleber go into more detail. Our local teams have been fighting inflation and renegotiating specifications since 2022; they've had some success. Most of the impact we see stems from FX and oil prices, but Kleber will give more color.
As Rodrigo commented, we feel impacts from diesel and other inputs. Diesel is typically 5–10% of total cost depending on the operation, so changes affect costs and have indirect inflation effects. We have initiatives to fight back these impacts: strategic sourcing projects, contract renegotiations, efficiency programs. For 2027 it's still early to give a precise assumption as we've just started the budget process. Structurally, we see big upside opportunities from operational improvements across the company — particularly MSG bringing its AISC down — and expansions at Almas, which should positively affect company-level AISC. But raw-material inflation assumptions for 2027 are still being developed in the budgeting process.
Okay. Helpful. A follow-up on M&A — your portfolio already contains a number of brownfield and greenfield projects. Would your preference be for operating assets rather than greenfield projects? And regarding your team's capacity, do you have the bandwidth to take on another project if you were to acquire something?
Good question. We focus on being able to deliver on what we acquire. The last acquisition was MSG while we were building Era Dorada. We don't want to construct two major greenfield projects in parallel with the same core team, so we are careful about timing. The turnaround team and construction team are different, which allowed us to do MSG and Era Dorada concurrently. Looking ahead we'll consider both operating assets and greenfield projects, but we would avoid committing to a greenfield we must immediately start constructing in a way that would overlap heavily with Era Dorada. A greenfield could be something that allows a 1–2 year redesign or phasing. For acquisitions, we would consider assets that we can sequence so we do not overlap major construction efforts, and we prefer opportunities in the Americas with gold and copper exposure. We like adding copper but opportunities have been scarcer and gold returns have been higher, which is why recent deals skewed to gold.
Our next question comes from Mr. Henrique Tavian Marques from Goldman Sachs.
I wanted to follow up on the share buyback program. This is on top of the dividend you're already paying above policy. You've increased trading volumes significantly. Why opt for a buyback program instead of increasing dividends further? Was there any valuation threshold or metric that made you announce a buyback? What is the optimal balance between dividends and buybacks going forward? Also, on a different topic, you sold the San Francisco mine which was under care and maintenance. You also have Tolda Fria under care and maintenance in Colombia. Can we expect similar monetization for that asset? Does the recent change in the Colombian government change anything for that asset or its prospects?
Thank you. We announced the buyback while mindful of liquidity. We don't think buybacks will significantly harm daily trading volume, and we will perform buybacks as long as liquidity is not jeopardized. Going forward expect a combination of buybacks and dividends; we don't have a fixed split to announce publicly, but we intend to split capital returns between the two. Don't expect dividends and buybacks to both be extremely large simultaneously every quarter; rather, a balanced program. Regarding San Francisco, the sale took time to approve and transfer. Regarding Tolda Fria in Colombia, there was a recent government change. That project has been challenging on licensing; we are monitoring the situation and will reassess whether to invest, continue care and maintenance, or seek a sale depending on licensing developments. We will have greater clarity after Q3 and Q4 as the new government policies become clearer.
Our next question comes from Mr. Lucas Laghi from XP Investment.
Two quick follow-ups. Energy and cost inflation are top concerns among investors. On MSG, you mentioned in the release that production and sales evolved through the quarter, with lower sales in April and increasing production later in the quarter. Could you provide how production actually evolved throughout the quarter? For example, the run rate in June compared to April, and how July/August are tracking relative to the end of the quarter? That would help comfort investors on the turnaround pace. On cost inflation, any specific mitigating initiatives you've implemented recently? Have you changed hedging policy? Any specific measures on chemicals, fuel, or other inputs that we should be aware of, particularly given geopolitical tensions such as the U.S.-Iran conflict?
I'll give a quick view on MSG and then Kleber and Glauber can add detail. There is no formula to do a turnaround while increasing short-term production — maintenance, infrastructure work and underground development typically reduce short-term output. So we compromised short-term production to improve the long-term profile. Glauber will provide more specifics on the month-over-month progression and why we expect Q3, Q4 and 2027 improvements.
What we expect is an increase in production in both throughput and grade. Compared with first-semester performance, we expect roughly 50–60% increase in throughput in the second semester, and an increase in average grades of roughly 25–35% as underground ore replaces lower-grade stockpiles used in Q2. These are rough numbers but represent the path we expect as we increase ore from underground and stabilize plant operations. As throughput and grade increase, unit costs should decrease as a consequence. We are also changing mine design and working to recover more ore in previously mined areas. We are on track to meet internal targets and our long-term objectives, though the process took some time due to the necessary preparation and upgrades — that was a deliberate choice to ensure sustainable growth.
In terms of cost initiatives, there is no silver bullet. We have strategic sourcing projects to review material agreements and find synergies across business units, and an internal continuous improvement program with targets to reduce costs line by line. Individually some initiatives are small, but together they make a material difference. This approach helped last year and will help this year, even though we don't expect to beat our guidance by the same margin as last year given current FX and inflation impacts in Brazil and Mexico. Our culture is to be lean at all levels, and that remains the approach.
Great. Glauber, just a quick follow-up: you mentioned a 50% plant feed increase and a 23% grade increase earlier in comments. Could you confirm the exact numbers and timeframe? Is that Q3 vs Q2 or H2 vs H1?
Roughly comparing first-semester performance to second-semester expectations: throughput increase is expected around 50–60% and average grade increase around 25–35%. The improvements are expected across Q3 and Q4, with sequential month-over-month gains as underground ore contribution rises and lower-grade stockpile use declines.
Our next question comes from Mr. Marcelo Arazi from BTG Pactual.
Two questions. First, regarding M&A, historically you have purchased single assets rather than whole companies with multiple assets. Given Aura's growth and movement toward 1 million ounces long term, is purchasing an entire company with more than one asset under consideration? Second, Aura has experienced higher-than-normal share price volatility lately. Of course gold prices affect this, but could you share your thoughts on the reasons and whether anything can be done to reduce such volatility?
We consider alternatives case by case. Historically many opportunities we've engaged were single-asset transactions, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't consider a multi-asset company if it makes strategic sense. Regarding share price volatility: we are a high-growth company — last 12 months production was 313,000 ounces and we project 340,000–390,000 this year, with MSG not yet in full production and Era Dorada ramping later. This growth profile creates higher sensitivity to the gold price and higher upside potential, which markets price with greater volatility. Many peers with lower growth have more of their NAV already in current production, while much of Aura's NAV is in growth opportunities. As we continue delivering growth and operational results, the market should start to narrow the valuation gap, but volatility is natural for companies in rapid growth phases.
Is the volatility something that concerns you as CEO or shareholders, and is there anything you are doing about it?
No, I think it's natural. As long as we continue to deliver results and growth, volatility may persist, but the upside is greater. We are focused on execution and delivering the growth that will prompt the market to re-rate the company over time.
Now we will take some written questions. Our next question comes from Mr. Graham Tanaka from Tanaka Capital Management.
First, please give us your outlook for gold prices and whether you will adjust hedging strategies. Second, can you give estimated ROI on internal expansion and mine investments versus ROI through M&A? How much has the difference changed over the last three years? Third, how have your realized ROI outcomes compared to expectations on each of your acquisitions? There were a lot of questions; please address the gold price outlook first.
Graham, thanks and thank you for being a long-term investor. On gold prices: they got depressed to about $4,100 recently. Many macro and geopolitical dynamics can push gold higher. Fundamentals are strengthening: the U.S. fiscal deficit remains high with little visible progress on addressing it, inflation dynamics remain uncertain, and geopolitical tensions such as conflict in the Middle East push investors to seek safe assets. China continues to buy record amounts of gold. These factors can support gold appreciation. While we can't predict timing, we are constructive; gold at $4,200 is not bad, but we see potential for $5,000–$6,000 or higher in the medium term if these macro pressures persist and currency dynamics evolve. Watch U.S. fiscal dynamics, yen behavior, and Chinese demand as key variables. Regarding hedging strategy, we are active in managing hedges but we do not speculate; we use conservative market-average assumptions in our project analyses.
On ROI and IRR: our investment strategy targets at least a 20% internal rate of return using conservative gold price assumptions. In many actual projects the IRR was well above 20%: Almas was above 50% at feasibility, Borborema close to 40% at feasibility, and Era Dorada over 30% in feasibility. Those are typical examples. Beyond favorable gold prices, the returns also came from how we unlocked value operationally: for instance Almas and Borborema were built on budget and on time, and since then we've extended mine life and expanded capacity, which increases expected inflows and overall returns well above initial expectations. So both internal expansions and acquisitions have delivered very high returns versus our minimum thresholds; some brownfield expansions are particularly attractive due to existing infrastructure, and acquisitions have also delivered strong returns as we optimize and integrate them.
Our next question comes from Mr. Rafael Araujo from Itaú BBA.
A question related to El Niño: there has been discussion about potential climate-related impacts across Latin America. Could you comment on whether El Niño poses any relevant risks or operational challenges for Aura?
El Niño can change rainfall patterns in Central America and could impact Era Dorada construction, but we don't see major impacts that would jeopardize construction. We will monitor water inflows; for open-pit operations in Honduras significant excess water could impact productivity in Q3 and Q4, but across Aura overall we don't expect major impact. We will continue monitoring and implementing mitigation as needed. We are finishing the call now. Quick wrap-up: thank you for participating and for the challenging questions. It was an important quarter. I invite investors to look at what can happen in Q3 and Q4 as we expect continued production improvements across most mines. We're comfortable and confident that the guidance will be met today for production and AISC. Looking at last 12 months EBITDA of $800 million with 313,000 ounces, we project between 340,000 and 390,000 ounces this year, so with Q3 and Q4 improvements we expect EBITDA to improve significantly by year-end. Equally important is the groundwork we are laying for a stronger 2027: MSG turnaround on time and on budget, Borborema debottlenecking by Q4, Almas reaching higher capacity, Era Dorada construction progressing, and Matupa and other options for continued expansion. We've doubled EBITDA in the last three years and I see no reason why high-speed growth in production and revenues with controlled cash costs shouldn't continue. Thank you all and see you next quarter.
Thank you, Rodrigo, for your final remarks. Aura's conference is now closed. We thank you for your participation and wish you a very nice day.