Anglo American Stock

Okay. Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to our half year results. And as some of you know by now, over the years, my tradition is to kick off the full year results. I don't normally come at half year, but there are a couple of reasons why I wanted to introduce today, and I'll come back to those. But as ever, let's start with safety. And I must say how delighted I am and all of the Board are for the excellent progress that we're making and the safety improvements, which are -- have been coming through in the last couple of years quite strongly. I know this will continue to be at the top of mind of Duncan and his team as he moves on and as he takes over indeed the helm at Anglo Teck in due course.

I'm also very pleased, as I hope you are, that with the solid performance of the current business and the benefits of our major portfolio restructuring, which is starting to come through in the numbers. So returning now, why do I want to introduce this session, albeit briefly? Two reasons, really. Firstly, if things go to plan, which I'm pretty confident they will, the close of Anglo American's merger with Teck to form Anglo Teck will happen. And this could mean, therefore, if the timing is as we expect, that it will indeed be my last chance to introduce. So that's one reason.

The second reason is I did want to say just a couple of things about Anglo Teck, an enormously exciting endeavor, which is going to bring really strong benefits to all of our respective shareholders and eventually collective ones and all of our wider stakeholder groups. I have spent 9 years as Chair at Anglo, and I will be handing over that baton to my oppo at Teck, Sheila Murray, and on the closure of the merger, of course, not before. But I'd like to say just a couple of things about Duncan, our CEO, who will become CEO of Anglo Teck. Now, in him, we have a CEO, which I can tell you is utterly determined to deliver all that he has laid out for us and will set out to deliver over the next several years and indeed delivering on all of the cost and the industrial synergies, which we have already announced to you.

Post closure, I'll be watching from the sidelines as he does that. And I will, of course, he'll be ably supported by John as the CFO; and Jonathan Price, who will join the -- as previously announced -- Duncan's executive team. That's all from me. Thank you very much for your continued interest in all that Anglo American is doing. Let me now hand over to Duncan and then John to take us through the results today. Duncan?

Thank you, Stuart. I am indeed very determined to deliver this. All right. Good morning, everybody, for those that I haven't seen outside. It does, of course, continue to be a very busy time here at Anglo American. And I think the overall headline is that we have made yet more progress on our operational, our financial and our strategic plans over the last 6 months. We delivered another period of solid operational stability. And that translated into operating results being on plan across the business despite a number of external challenges, particularly related to weather. Market conditions were pretty tough in diamonds, but De Beers delivered a very robust operational performance, and our Steelmaking Coal business continues to make great progress with higher production rates now bedding in at Moranbah.

We also made progress on 2 of the lowest capital intensity copper opportunities of scale in the industry, and we received final approvals for the Los Bronces/Andina joint mine plan and have now advanced early-stage preparatory work for the integration of Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca. In terms of our strategic plans, we took a big step forward on the outstanding portfolio work with the announcement of the sale of our Steelmaking Coal business to Dhilmar for up to $3.9 billion. We continue to pursue the sale of De Beers, and I'll come back to that a little bit later on in the presentation.

The planning for our merger with Teck has been moving ahead well in parallel. And once we receive our final approvals, the 2 companies will come together to become a strong global mining champion with a compelling set of lower-cost, long-life copper assets alongside high-quality iron ore and zinc. This will be a company with a track record and the resources to grow the supply of the metals and the minerals that the world is counting on for decades ahead, led, of course, by copper.

Now safety remains the foundation of absolutely everything that we do at Anglo American. While our injury frequency rates have stayed at record lows, I believe that there is still room to bring them down further by focusing our activities on planning, raising our standards and above all, getting the critical actions right. This comes down to leaders being visibly pleasant and engaged on the ground, and we're working to embed our safety culture even more deeply with more active control checks out in the field. Now on safety, we can absolutely never be complacent. No matter how good the results, there is always room for further improvement.

Turning to sustainability. We launched our updated sustainability strategy and targets for the simplified portfolio in February of this year, and we're now embedding that strategy and the businesses are making good progress to delivery against their plans. We are beginning to start to see now the benefits of a model that balances group level ambition and direction with locally relevant targets tailored to the priorities of each of our underlying businesses. This approach allows us to deliver consistent outcomes at scale while creating value and driving tangible impact and value on the ground in our countries of operation. We are now 3 years on from moving the accountability of our assets performance closer to the site. And the evolution of that operating model is an important driver in consistently achieving our production targets.

We also kept costs under control despite inflationary pressures stemming from the knock-on impacts of events in the Middle East, and John is going to unpack those costs for us just a little bit later on today. The Copper business produced 344,000 tonnes in the first half, and we're bang on track for our full year guidance of 700,000 to 760,000 tonnes with higher volumes half-on-half to come from both Collahuasi and Quellaveco. Los Bronces was a real highlight for us. The restart of that second plant has added profitable tonnes and the mine is gaining more flexibility with each quarter.

In May, the permit for the desalination plant at Collahuasi was set aside by an environmental tribunal 5 years after it had been granted. Production, however, from Collahuasi has not been affected because we are current -- because we do currently have access to alternative water sources. We are hopeful that a review of the environmental assessment services or the SEA's decision will allow us to restart the ramp-up of that plant later on this year. We do continue to work very hard with the Chilean authorities to make that happen. Still at Collahuasi, the team is managing the variability as we transition through the lower grade and oxidized stockpiles. And indeed, the recoveries have improved in the second quarter of the year.

The mine is on course to access the fresh ore from the fourth quarter, which will be an inflection point after 2 years of limited flexibility. Now next year, the mine plan is characterized by much higher grade benches, but also some more complex faulting that we will need to navigate. But the mine has worked through this many times before, and we remain confident in our '27 and our '28 copper guidance. Beyond that, this ore body has so much potential, and I'm going to come back to that a little bit later on in the presentation.

Quellaveco remains the leading contributor of cash flow to the group, and it is great news to be able to report that we have now paid back the initial investment that we made in building that mine. They had another very strong quarter. Recoveries have picked up well, and we've also benefited from very healthy byproduct revenues there. Our Iron Ore business posted another period of steady performance despite some big challenges with higher costs from both diesel and freight. Performance at Kumba was notable insofar as it had to manage through some of the highest rainfalls that both the mines, Sishen and Kolomela have seen in decades, and they suffered that over April and May. Over in Brazil, Minas-Rio continues to have some of the highest productivity rates that we have in the group.

Now one of the management team's main priorities since the start of this year has been working with Teck on planning the integration for our merger. We are cracking on at pace here with all of that integration work, and there is a lot of work to do, as you can imagine. We're particularly focused on getting the business positioned to stand up on its own on day 1 post closing and getting ready for the 2 new listings in New York and Toronto and all of those associated regulatory processes. We set up an integration management office very early on, essentially a team of senior leaders from both companies that can work closely with me to drive the planning and the state of the readiness forward. They have done an excellent job so far, and we still have plenty to do, of course, but I'm very confident now that we will hit the ground running on day 1.

As the combined portfolio comes together, we will be ready to realize the material value and the synergies that we have identified, and I'm clear that all of the assets can play a meaningful role in doing that. As far as the future growth path is concerned, we will get into that once we have full visibility of all of the information of both companies post completion. Clearly, that's not possible to do given -- currently, given the antitrust and gun jumping rules. So in terms of what that means for market disclosure going forward, we'll start out with the details of the essential architecture that we need to manage the business from day 1 and then get through the more detailed planning that is enabled by full integration. So the initial disclosure will likely cover organizational structure, the group's key financial policies and accounting as well as the disclosure frameworks. We will then update the market in the ordinary course thereafter and continue to evolve as we have more information.

On the timing of completion, the final regulatory approval we need is, of course, as everybody knows, from China State Administration for Market Regulation, or SAMR, and we've been continuously engaging with them and cooperating with them over the last 6 months. We are of the view that the formation of Anglo Teck can only be positive for increasing global copper supply, and it is, therefore, also a positive for our customers. We believe that we will be on track to complete later this year or early next as we announced at the outset of the merger. I am conscious that many of you are going to have loads of questions related to the detail of these interactions and what that might mean. But as I'm sure you can appreciate, this is a confidential process and a really important one, and we don't want to misstep anything in the way to getting these final approvals. So I'm afraid I'm really not going to be commenting any more on that at this stage.

As I mentioned, we have moved forward on the portfolio transformation. The sale of our steelmaking coal business to Dhilmar for up to $3.9 billion was an excellent outcome from a highly competitive process that gives us both cash upfront and the ability to participate in price upside over the coming years. We are working towards satisfying all of the closing conditions and targeting close by Q1 of next year. On Nickel, we are continuing to work through the EU antitrust process on the proposed sale to MMG for up to $500 million. This has taken a lot longer than we had anticipated, but we now have some positive momentum following that protracted delay. And we believe that there are no market supply issues that arise from this transaction and supply has increased and diversified, in fact, further since we agreed this deal. And so we are optimistic now that we will receive this final regulatory approval and complete in the coming months.

Now that takes me on to the last leg of our portfolio transformation, which is the sale of De Beers. Now the team there has been working incredibly hard in a terribly complex environment over the last few years to achieve a responsible separation of that business. And I am pleased to say that things are advancing. That said, we are now in the final phases of our process, and that also is the most challenging phase of our process given the number of parties that we need to take along to the final point and get signing of the final agreements. Our focus remains on bringing this process to a conclusion within an acceptable terms during the second half of this year. And with that, I'll now hand over to John, who will take us through the financial results.

Thank you, Duncan, and good morning, everyone. I'm once again pleased with the financial performance for the first half of the year. We remain on track to deliver our annual production guidance. We've managed costs well in what's been an inflationary environment, and we've further strengthened the balance sheet. As we continue to progress through our portfolio transformation, the financial reporting, of course, remains complex. As we've done at our recent results on this first slide, I've set out as simply as possible, the basis on which our numbers are presented. As a reminder, our continuing operations include both the simplified Anglo American portfolio and De Beers.

Our discontinued operations include Steelmaking Coal and Nickel. Our simplified portfolio, focused on Copper and Premium Iron Ore, delivered EBITDA of $4.1 billion, an EBITDA margin of 46% and underlying earnings of $1 billion, all showing significant improvement on prior year, driven by favorable commodity prices and good cost control. De Beers incurred a marginal EBITDA loss of $0.1 billion, reflecting the continued challenging market conditions mitigated by our restructuring actions. Discontinued operations reported a loss during the period, mainly due to lower volumes at SMC as a result of poor weather and the ramp-up of Moranbah North, which is now, again, operating at normal levels.

Combining continuing and discontinued operations, the group delivered total earnings per share of $0.58 and a dividend of $0.23 per share, in line with our 40% payout policy. Net debt has continued to decrease, ending the period at $8.2 billion, down from $8.6 billion at the end of December last year, although that does reflect some favorable timing, which I'll come back to later. I'll take you through each of these items now in a little bit more detail, starting with the simplified portfolio.

Our basket price was up 22%, reflecting significant increases in Copper, partly offset by small reductions in Iron Ore. Iron ore price realizations were impacted by the diversion of Middle Eastbound product to other markets due to the Iran conflict and rising freight costs on an FOB basis. Production increased 1%, as Duncan mentioned, with slightly higher Copper offset by lower Iron Ore.

The higher prices supported a 22% increase in revenue and a 31% increase in EBITDA to $4.1 billion with around 70% of this EBITDA being driven by Copper. The tax rate in the simplified portfolio was 40%, slightly lower than last year due to the relative mix of profits and reduced impact from loss-making businesses following our restructuring program. This all resulted in a 60% increase in underlying earnings to $1 billion and return on capital employed improved by 4 percentage points to 19%. It's pleasing to see these higher margins and higher return on capital materialize as that was exactly the basis of our portfolio restructuring.

Turning now to costs, where we've got quite a lot to unpack with actual costs increasing due to macro factors and volume, while copper unit costs reduced significantly due to byproduct credits. Starting with total operating costs for the simplified portfolio. You can see here total costs increased by $0.6 billion to $4.8 billion, with the most significant factors being FX, CPI and fuel. There were then a number of smaller impacts, including freight as well as movements in Peru related to the rehabilitation provision and employee profit share provision.

Finally, the restart of the Los Bronces plant and the return to higher activity at manganese had an associated impact on costs. But of course, both of those were EBITDA positive. Moving on to unit costs. We saw a gross 13% increase. However, that is before the impact of byproduct credits and TC/RCs. The combined effect of which was a credit of $0.6 billion compared to $0.3 billion last year, with all of that benefit in copper. The $0.6 billion credit is roughly evenly split between Chile and Peru and is driven by molybdenum and silver. Given the scale of the relative cost basis with Peru gross unit cost being about half that of Chile, this meant that the credits had a much more material impact on Peru than Chile.

Copper unit costs with the credit benefit, therefore, reduced by 12% from $1.55 to $1.36 with copper Peru at $0.45 and Chile at $2.06. Iron ore unit costs increased by 17% to $41 per tonne, reflecting the underlying cost position that I've just described with most of the FX impact being related to iron ore. This left total net unit costs up 4% versus last year. Bringing everything together now in the EBITDA reconciliation for the simplified portfolio. As you can see, the vast majority of the increase from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion is due to macro factors. Our favorable basket price driven by copper and byproduct credits resulted in a $1.2 billion price benefit, partly offset by FX on the South African rand and Brazilian real as well as CPI to take EBITDA before controllables to $4 billion.

Moving on to the controllables. Sales volumes were slightly lower, mainly reflecting timing of shipments in copper. The Los Bronces and manganese cost impacts from the plant restart and increased manganese activity, respectively, totaled $0.2 billion and are spread across each of volume, cost and the other category. These and the other incremental costs I described previously are then offset by the final corporate cost savings, lower TC/RCs and manganese volume to leave this controllable side of the chart, a small net positive in the first half of the year, taking EBITDA to $4.1 billion.

Moving now to our exiting businesses and starting with an update on the actions we're taking at De Beers. The diamond market continues to face both cyclical and structural challenges, but we have taken and continue to take proactive action to preserve value and reduce the net impact to the group. This is evident in the results, which show an EBITDA loss of $0.1 billion compared to $0.2 billion last year, even as prices have moved lower. This reflects the impact of cost savings, but more materially, a lower cost inventory base as recent purchases have been at lower prices.

Although the losses have been stemmed, we're not resting and restructuring action continues while ensuring that we retain upside optionality as markets recover. The most significant action is at Venetia, where production will be paused for around 2 years and capital expenditure on the Underground project will be rephased. This protects near-term cash flow and will allow us to reduce CapEx in 2026 by $300 million, while preserving the long-term value and future production potential of the asset.

Venetia was also contributing loss-making carats in the first half, so pausing this production will also assist forward profitability. Alongside this, De Beers is reshaping its corporate structure, simplifying the organization and reducing the central cost base. This builds on the progress already moved -- already made to remove overhead costs and improve efficiency across the business. Overall, these actions demonstrate a clear emphasis on cash preservation, cost reduction and value protection while also setting the business up for a successful divestment.

Briefly now on discontinued operations. EBITDA was a loss of $0.2 billion, reflecting -- principally driven by Steelmaking Coal, while Nickel was broadly breakeven. I'm pleased with the operational progress at Steelmaking coal with Moranbah, as I said, having a successful ramp-up and now effectively back at normal operating levels. The equity shareholders' loss of $1.2 billion reflects the underlying earnings plus a $0.9 billion impairment of SMC to reflect the terms of the Dhilmar transaction. Applying a consensus-based annual pricing to a DCF calculation doesn't attribute any value to the price-linked consideration. But in reality, of course, we would expect there to be option value from price volatility with payments being calculated on a quarterly basis for 5 years.

Meanwhile, we've initiated arbitration proceedings against Peabody in respect to the previous transaction, which is ongoing. Capital expenditure reduced to $0.1 billion, primarily reflecting the removal of PGMs from the portfolio. And the net debt impact was a $0.2 billion outflow, including the cash received from the Steelmaking Coal deposit from Dhilmar.

Looking at capital expenditure, we've maintained a disciplined approach with CapEx in continuing operations decreasing by 6% to $1.5 billion. This reduction was driven primarily by lower sustaining capital expenditure as the Minas-Rio filtration plant completed and the Collahuasi desalination plant approached completion. We do expect higher capital expenditure in the second half, but we've made some cost efficiency gains, which I'll touch on in the guidance section shortly. Growth CapEx increased modestly year-on-year, reflecting investment in a small number of projects, including the first phase of the Collahuasi debottlenecking initiative and Kumba's UHDMS project along with Woodsmith.

Moving now to cash generation, which, as always, remained a priority during the period. EBITDA of $4 billion translated into $3.5 billion of cash flow from operations. Working capital remained flat with the adverse impact of rising prices largely offset by a number of timing benefits across multiple categories, including receivables, payables and marketing activities. I wouldn't expect all of these timing benefits to endure and therefore, anticipate an increase in working capital through the second half. The $0.3 billion outflow from other operating cash flows is primarily due to timing of market derivative settlements, which offset in EBITDA and working capital. Cash tax and interest payments, distributions to minorities and sustaining CapEx totaling $2.3 billion resulted in a $1.2 billion of sustaining attributable free cash flow, up around 90% compared to last year.

Similar to working capital, where we will see some increase in the second half, both cash tax payments and distributions to minorities were lower than the income statement charges, and this will reverse to an extent in the coming periods. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to see the business continue to generate increased cash flows.

Looking at net debt, we've seen a further reduction to $8.2 billion. The $1.2 billion of sustaining attributable free cash flow during the half was more than sufficient to fund growth CapEx of $0.4 billion, the dividends paid to Anglo American shareholders and the outflows from discontinued operations. And I'm pleased that our net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is now at 1x, while the group continues to maintain a strong liquidity position.

Looking ahead now for the balance of the year, the business remains in a strong position with all operations and controllable costs trending as planned. The only change to unit cost guidance relates to a reduction in copper unit costs, which is a reflection of the byproduct credits, which I described earlier. As I noted in February, our original guidance was conservative on byproduct pricing and foreign exchange, given we were in the very early stages of the Middle East conflict and the associated macro uncertainty. In Peru, with updated full year guidance of $0.65 compared with the first half of $0.45, we continue to be somewhat conservative on pricing of moly and silver relative to current spots, reflecting the sensitivity of unit costs to the size of the credits in Peru, as I described earlier.

In Chile, where the size of the cost base means their unit costs are less sensitive to those credits, we've guided full year at $2.10 compared to $2.06 in the first half. In Iron Ore, we've kept cost guidance the same for the second half. However, we would note that these businesses are more susceptible to oil price movements and do not benefit from the byproduct credits in the same way as Copper. As you will see in our usual sensitivity analysis, which is in the appendix, for every 10% move in oil prices, we would expect a $43 million impact to 6-month group EBITDA.

Moving on to CapEx. Our projects team is continuing to deliver optimized outcomes and the work on both the filtration plant at Minas-Rio and the plant debottlenecking at Quellaveco have come in under budget, which allows us to reduce our CapEx guidance for the simplified portfolio by $0.1 billion. And as I mentioned before, now with the temporary suspension of Venetia, we've reduced our expected spending at De Beers in the second half by $0.3 billion. Therefore, collectively, for the continuing portfolio, this amounts to CapEx savings of $0.4 billion, bringing our total 2026 CapEx guidance now to $3.2 billion for the year.

Finally, as I've mentioned previously, for 2026, we will incur $0.2 billion of special costs for the restructuring and merger, and we will have $0.5 billion of non-cash increase in our net debt arising from lease for the infrastructure related to the Los Bronces desalination plant, which we'll complete in the second half of the year.

So to finish, let me briefly recap on those key financial messages. We delivered strong profit growth with EBITDA from our continuing operations up by 35% to $4 billion, aligned with our portfolio restructuring and a higher exposure to Copper. We managed the controllable costs well and stronger byproduct pricing enabled us to reduce copper unit cost guidance by 12% to $1.36 per pound. Our focus on capital management and project execution has allowed us to reduce planned 2026 capital expenditure by $0.4 billion, which should further underpin higher return on capital employed, which is now at 19% for the simplified portfolio.

The balance sheet also continues to strengthen with net debt reducing to $8.2 billion and leverage reducing to 1x EBITDA, while, of course, retaining significant liquidity. Overall, the simplified portfolio continues to provide resilient earnings with attractive exposure to Copper-led growth and delivering higher margins and returns. Thank you very much, and I'll now hand back to Duncan.

Thank you, John. So one of the biggest differentiators in our portfolio is the potential for us to deliver meaningful Copper growth with higher returns and lower complexity relative to peers with the benefit of building from some of the best copper assets in the world. Now as this slide shows, bringing new copper production online is becoming ever more expensive. The rate of inflation for capital intensity is running at almost double the increase in CPI. Capital is therefore now a bigger part of the project's economics than ever before and returns need to be higher just to justify those elevated costs. As capital inflation continues, the economics of many growth projects are at risk without higher prices. And this is why we believe the copper price has to be structurally higher.

It's also taking a lot longer to actually build and deliver these projects. Back in the 1990s, it took about 7 years from the time that you discovered an ore body to bring it into production. Now over the last decade or so, that has stretched out to almost 18 years. And if that carries on, the cycles will take longer to move from trough to peak, and we'll see much bigger swings in price. This is especially true when so much of the demand for copper is coming from strategic buyers who really aren't all that price sensitive. So in that kind of world, projects that you can deliver in the short to medium term without spending a fortune to build them become hugely valuable.

Now you'll have seen this slide before, but it makes this point well. Our key copper growth options really stand out where it matters the most on complexity and on capital intensity. Over the last 15 years, the industry's CapEx estimates have mostly come in far worse than what was promised at the study stage. So in that world, low complexity and low capital intensity is exactly where you want to be. Starting from lower capital intensity projects, our returns -- starting from lower capital intensity protects our returns and it leaves us really well placed to benefit from price upside that these supply dynamics should drive. And that's on top of a demand outlook that is structurally strong.

Now with all of that in mind, the integration of Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca is a really exciting prospect. Arguably, it is one of the industry's best options for capital-efficient copper growth at scale, and that is actionable in the near term. Now as a reminder, there is a potential to add an incremental 175,000 tonnes of annual copper production at around $2 billion of CapEx. So that's about $11,000 of CapEx per tonne of copper growth. Importantly, the integration would still allow for further growth and both -- from both assets, and this also provides increased flexibility for future options, including leaching and other plant expansions.

We are busy putting the building blocks in place to make this integration a success. We are focused right now on the technical groundwork and on engaging with shareholders across both assets. And just like any other adjacency that we bought over the last few years, it is important that we take our time and we do this properly. Much of what drives the extended schedules for copper projects is the time needed for permitting, planning and stakeholder alignment. So we want to get that right from the outset. We continue to believe that this is, by far, the best way forward for both Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca. It sits right in that sweet spot, low capital intensity, relatively low execution risk, high confidence and near-term copper growth at real scale.

And I'm genuinely confident about the potential here. We can build something pretty special, one of the largest and most competitive mining complexes in the world with decades of accretive growth ahead of it.

Now last month, we announced the final regulatory approval for the agreement to form a joint mine plan between Los Bronces and Codelco's Andina mine right next door. Now if you forgive the pun, it's really groundbreaking work there, a very thoughtful and innovative structure that meets the objectives of both sides without compromise to value creation, and it allows the respective shareholders to participate in the upside on a pro rata basis. Now as we've said before, this joint mine plan will add another 120,000 tonnes of annual average copper production, which will be shared equally between the parties. This -- when we announced this deal, we identified around $5 billion of pretax value uplift to share with Codelco, and that was at a copper price of around $5 a pound. So this is probably the clearest example of us benefiting from exactly the copper dynamics that I've just been speaking about.

Now that we're through completion, the teams are moving into the joint mine plan integration design work. We've got a governance framework in place, and we're now working towards the environmental permits where we're aiming to have them done by 2030. And just like Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca, there could be more growth to come down the line. For example, here at Los Bronces, we've kept the right to develop the underground if the markets can support it.

We're really excited about our future as Anglo Teck and the upside that we can unlock from this in terms of the synergies and the growth. Now as I've said just now, it is going to take some time before we can talk to the deal aspects of project sequencing. However, that should in no way detract from the core of the value proposition because it will continue to be primarily driven by Anglo American and Teck's current portfolio of assets. The key value driver for us going forward, therefore, remains operational excellence. Now that we've built a more stable operating platform, we've got a solid base to plan from, and we're continuously working on systematically optimizing productivity, costs and stability. We're also looking further out to see how we can best manage the natural variation that occurs over the lives of mines as well as the inevitable pressures on grades over time.

So at Quellaveco, we've just completed a debottlenecking program at the plant. Recoveries are up and the mine is operating very well. Now this stability gives us the ability to focus on maximizing the future value. And in this context, we are continuing to shape the production profile over the next decade. As you know, over the next few years, we're going to be moving from the supergene into the hypogene ore body and the hypogene ore body is characterized by lower grades. Now the work that we're doing there is looking to smooth out the production profile during that transition period. And as a consequence, we may take an earlier step down in annual production volumes towards the end of the decade in order to sustain that rate over a longer period of time to maximize value rather than taking a much bigger step down a little bit further out.

Although to be clear, these changes should not impact our current production guidance, and we are continuing to pursue new ore sources that could come into the mine plan over time as we look to optimize Quellaveco's value. It is a highly profitable business, highly cash generative and is well set to be a cornerstone of the Anglo Teck portfolio through the next decade and more, and we will continue to push for further options to enhance its value. At Kumba, what we're doing there with the UHDMS technology is already setting us up to get more out of Sishen. It's going to treble the share of the high-grade product, and that is exactly the quality of product that plays into the key demand trends over the medium term. And we're getting more optimistic about what we can deliver from Sishen over time. However, there is scope for other upsides from Kumba's performance in the near term. And Mpumi is spearheading a full potential program there to improve productivity, costs and return on capital.

Minas-Rio is another mine that is operating well. And as we look forward, we remain excited about the full potential of Serpentina, which is an excellent ore body. Now our focus at Minas-Rio is, therefore, now working through the most capital-efficient and value-accretive pathway to the Serpentina resource with a particular focus on confidence in execution in the context of what we now see as a very much increased challenging and permitting landscape. We have the time to do this work. And to be clear, it does not impact our guidance and the operating stability that's now in place creates a solid platform for us to unlock the full potential of that Serpentina adjacency.

So we are continuing to work hard on how we optimize the long-term potential across the portfolio. And through the merger, we will continue to challenge ourselves as to how we can strengthen sustainable performance even more over time and allow us to make the most of what I see is shaping up to be a fantastic company. So to close, operational excellence is right at the heart of how we're driving better performance across the business, and there's definitely more to come as we set ourselves up to understand and then to deliver that potential from the merged business. After 2 years of hard yards, the portfolio work at Anglo American is nearly done, and we're in great shape to start life as Anglo Teck with a focused set of assets.

In addition to that, we've got near-term growth, we've got medium-term growth and a whole suite of assets and project options to keep us delivering well into the long term. And on a personal note, I am properly energized by Anglo American -- how Anglo American is performing right now and by everything that lies ahead. I am really looking forward to seeing this merger through and to leading Anglo Teck over the coming years to deliver its huge potential. I am determined, Stuart. And with that, John and I are happy to take your questions now. Tyler, you're going to moderate.

Thanks very much. I think what we'll do is we'll start with Matt, as I promised last night. And then we'll do the traditional analyst conga line of questions.

Duncan, it's Matt Greene, Goldman Sachs. I just want to touch on your copper, probably in the near term. Congratulations on the Los Bronces and Andina agreement there. But when we think about this preparation period between now and when this JV kicks in, in 2030, what needs to be done to get this asset ready? You've touched on the tailings, the desal ramping up. But anything else that we need to be considered of here? Anything...

No. I mean the critical path now at Los Bronces/Andina runs absolutely through the permitting process. We've got a very good view of what the shape of the mine should be from the agreement work that we did. We've got to keep doing what we're doing in terms of the removal of Pérez Caldera. So that's pretty important because as soon as Pérez Caldera is moved, we can bring back the second plant because you know the Los Bronces plant comes down again to move Pérez Caldera. But we need that plant when we start the joint operations with Andina.

So that's part of the critical path, but all on track and making good progress there. Just as far as the permitting process goes, look, it's a complex permitting environment. Generally, in South America, it's complex. In Chile, it's quite complex, particularly in and around where Los Bronces is because it's so closely located to the city of Santiago. So normally, these sorts of permitting process can take 3 or 4 years. But we have a very front-footed, forward-looking government there who's very excited about the prospects of good and responsible copper growth in the company -- in the country.

And so look, I'm expecting that we've got a number of legal processes that we need to go through. But this is a good outcome environmentally. It's a good outcome in terms of utilization of resources like water and land. So the environmental impacts are much better than 2 stand-alone growth options in the same place. So I'm expecting that we'll have a reasonable ride through that permitting process, but it will probably still be around about 3 years to get it done.

That's great. And then just longer term, Quellaveco, outstanding first half year. So congratulations on the performance there. When you scope the concentrator, you were limited by water. You've been able to manage that. You're pushing to 142,000 tonnes a day by the end of this year. I think there's scope to move to 150,000 tonnes beyond that. Where do you see this as the concentrator tapping out? And then how do you think about the next leg here for Quellaveco?

Yes. Look, I mean, I think this is a great example of continuous improvement and innovation all at the same time. The ore body is the ore body, and it has the grades that it has. And of course, we were limited by water in terms of what we could produce at the time. I think when we permitted the project originally, we could only process 127,500 tonnes a day. As you say, we sort of managed to iterate ourselves to around about 140,000 and now probably have liberated the possibility of processing almost 150,000 tonnes a day.

So what -- how did we do that? Well, first of all, it's a complete optimization of the internal water balance within the plant, making sure that we're recycling as much of that water, not allowing it to evaporate, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a whole bunch of processes that go in and around that. Of course, we implemented our first full-scale coarse particle flotation unit there, and that made a very big difference in terms of the application and use of water. And then there's been a little bit of debottlenecking. In every plant that you have, you really want your primary constraint to be your SAG mill. And so to the extent that you can debottleneck anything around that sort of gives you the benefit.

So the primary constraint here will continue to be water. We're not using any more water than we were going to use for 175,000 tonnes a day. And I think given the combination of where the primary constraint is in the SAG mill now probably correlates with the primary constraint of water. So around about 150,000 tonnes is where it's going to be. So that really just helps us smooth out the production, particularly during that transition period to the hypogenes.

Maxime Kogge from ODDO BHF. So first question is on Collahuasi because it's a bit difficult to understand the situation there with regards to the desal plant. I mean a lot of money has been invested, more than $3 billion over the last few years. It has required 3 years of investing. And yet we had at this eleventh-hour stoppage. So what are, in your view, the stumbling blocks there in your discussions with the administration? And when can we -- can you give us some sense of a time line for restart there?

Yes. So look, as I say, this is a permit that was granted by the SEA more than 5 years ago and was granted off the back of a fully fledged consultation process with all the stakeholders that were involved in it. What has subsequently happened is that a stakeholder group has taken the permit on review. It then escalated through a number of steps to get to the environmental tribunal, who suggested that the SEA who granted the permit will need to review it. So it's just the component associated with the desalination plant. So this is the whole of the EIA for Collahuasi. So it's just the component of the desalination plant that was taken under review.

And this is a process that now the government has to reset, including the consultation process. But we are hopeful that within the next 6 months or so, we should be able to get back on track and be able to restart that plant. As I said earlier, it's had no impact in terms of production so far because we have a number of alternative water sources. But in terms of the long term, we will need the desalination plant to come back on, which we're expecting it will do.

All right. And just a second question on copper. Just about the big spike we've had in sulfuric acid prices. I was wondering what was the net balance for you because on the one hand, you have the smelter in Chagres. On the other hand, you have some consumption in leaching ops. So is it net positive balance? And do you see opportunities in terms of smelting going forward and conversely, some hindrances in terms of leaching production? Yes.

Yes. Look, I mean, as far as smelting is concerned, I mean, we have the Chagres smelter. It is one of the best operated smelters in that region. So it continues to perform very well. It's an integrated smelter for us, right? So we don't take custom material through it. It's really our own material that we put through it. We don't -- I mean, of course, there are very interesting views today on the role of smelting in the system. But as we see it at this particular point in time, we're really not looking to expand our smelting capacity within the group. It is quite capital intensive. We're very happy with the capacity that exists in the market today.

If that environment changes, then we would relook at it. But right now, so long as Chagres continues to perform in the way that it does, it's a very viable component of our portfolio. In terms of leaching per se, another technology that's getting a lot of favor. It's one of these things that the mining industry has been poking at for a very long time in terms of a technology breakthrough. And many mining companies have got various different views of which technologies are good and which technologies are not. I am very clearly of the view there isn't a silver bullet in terms of leaching technology that applies to all mining. Leaching works in varying degrees on different types of ore bodies, and there are many different types of leaching that you would pick appropriate to a specific ore body.

Generally, leaching technology has been at the point where it works very, very well on oxidized ores, but not as well in terms of recovery basis on sulfidic ores. The technology does seem to be changing and moving. So much higher recoveries on some of these technologies are coming through on the sulfidic ores. That would be a very big positive if you had an ore body that was amenable to that sort of leaching because the capital intensity of leaching plants is just so much lower than the capital intensity of concentrators.

It does come with other environmental permitting issues and so on. But I think to the extent that you have operations like Collahuasi, who has a leaching operation already and -- it's a shuttered operation, but we can bring it back on, it gives you a lot more opportunity to make use of a technology that does work for you in that space. So yes, so I think leaching technology is an interesting space to watch, but it's not a silver bullet for the whole of the industry. So it's not something that I see at this point in time that is a mass implementation that completely drops the cost curve of copper mining.

It's Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Just sort of following up on that copper side. And obviously, with the restart of the Los Bronces plant earlier this year, you've been able to add additional volumes. You mentioned the Collahuasi leaching plant. Is there opportunity to do more of that, I guess, into next year, maybe run that Los Bronces plant a bit longer before you move the Pérez Caldera dam or bring back -- plans to bring back that leaching at Collahuasi.

And then a second question, just on the Steelmaking Coal business. Obviously, the unit costs were pretty high. Obviously, a large fixed cost component within that as Moranbah ramps up. How should we think about profitability in the second half? I know you don't give guidance on unit cost and volumes, but just how we should think about that?

Okay. So Los Bronces plant, remember, we -- when we shut Los Bronces down, the plant down, it wasn't making any money at all. And there were 2 key drivers of that. One, it was just the fundamental underlying base of Los Bronces per se, but that plant specifically. And secondly, the quality of the ore that we were able to feed to it. The mine was very, very constrained in those days. You'll remember, we were monophasic, stuck in Infiernillo 5, really struggling at the bottom of that phase to get the volumes at a quality that could support both of the plants, Confluencia and Los Bronces.

And so the decision was an economic one, right? So value over volume was a very important drive for me. It still is today. And hence, the decision to shut that plant down. What has changed subsequently is that the mine has progressed extremely well on their cost management focus, right? They have really focused on where the real numbers need to be, and they've implemented a number of programs that have sustainably delivered better cost performance across the whole of Los Bronces.

But secondly, and probably far more importantly is that the progress that they've made on the development of Donoso 2, which is the phase that will ultimately replace Infiernillo 5 is ahead of schedule. And the consequence of it being ahead of schedule means that, one, we have access to more ore; two, that ore is softer and processes better through the plants and the harder ore that comes out of Infiernillo 5. And thirdly, is slightly higher grade, just given where it is in the mine. It's higher up in the mine than where Infiernillo 5 is. So the combination of those things then made the restart, of course, in the back of some very robust copper prices, a materially viable value solution. So we started up.

Now the constraint is absolutely the removal of that Pérez Caldera tailings dam. So this is a commitment that we have, as you know, that this all sort of emanated from actually a very long-standing commitment almost back to the Exxon days to remove that tailings dam, but even more important in terms of what we understand about tailings dams under the GISTM process. So we are going to move that tailings dam. It needs the water because we're so water constrained in that region that we're currently using in that plant. So that is what we're going to do next. And the rate at which we can move that, of course, the big prize here is to have everything back up and running when we've combined Andina, Los Bronces, so we can optimize the copper production from the combined asset at that point in time.

So the real critical part now runs through the removal of Pérez Caldera. That, as I said earlier, is like on track. It's running very well. I'm not sure whether we can accelerate it yet. It's a little bit early days, but to the extent that we can and optimize the way that we extract it, there is a small probability that we can either delay, but I'm talking about months, not years, the shuttering of the Los Bronces plant or starting it up a little bit earlier if we get the permits back.

And then Collahuasi leaching and met coal?

What was the Collahuasi leaching question?

Just how we should think about the time lines for bringing -- potentially bringing that.

Yes. So look, I mean, the team is working very hard on that right now. I mean I think there is a view that we might be able to bring some of that in during the course of next year, but don't know quite exactly where they've got to at this particular point in time. We have a plant there. So it's obviously -- it's going to have to be refurbished a little bit. It's a specific process. I think what we're also looking at is what the full leaching potential of Collahuasi is. So leaching at Collahuasi, you might think about in 2 phases. One is the restart of the current plant because current copper price environment probably substantiates and supports the restart of that plant. The guys are busy doing the feasibility study now as to when that might come on.

The second phase is actually an application of one of these new technologies that is amenable to the Collahuasi ore body. And we have 2 options here, which is an absolute pleasure, right? One is we've got this massive mineralized waste pile, which is a stockpile that the mine has actually been running off for the last 18 months, which is probably more amenable to leaching than it is to concentration. And if some of these sulfidic technologies work in leaching, we have the Ujina pit and we have a portion of the Rosario pit that would probably be amenable to that. So it's probably a little bit further out, but that's the technological dream and the optionality that we have embedded in Collahuasi.

Then you asked on Steelmaking Coal and the unit costs. So look, the guys had a pretty rough start to the year with weather, right? We had 3 mega weather events across the group. One is in Australia at the beginning of the year, where the open pits were completely inundated with water. Honestly, I've never seen anything like this in my life. We had conveyors that are already 10 meters above the ground that were submerged. So all the resilience things that have been put in place were beaten by mother nature this year around. I mean, so probably a 1 in a 400-year flood that they had there. So it took them some time. And so some of that is embedded in the cost base.

And then we had to be very cautious in how we were ramping up Moranbah. And so a bit slower to get it right. But I'm thrilled to say that over the last sort of 2 months or so, the guys are absolutely consistently hitting their straps kind of getting around about 150,000 tonnes a week of production out of Moranbah. On that basis, we should see some adjustment to the unit cost because the production is increasing. And so long as we don't have another weather event in this year, the open pits are well on their way to recovery there, too.

This is Alain Gabriel at Morgan Stanley. Duncan, a couple of questions. One is on the integration with Teck. Your teams are clearly doing lots of integration planning. What have you learned so far that has surprised you either positively or negatively, given the limitations of what you can and cannot say?

And the second question is on the De Beers probably for John. What are the stand-alone provisions and pensions and long-term liabilities for taxes as well that you can share with us at this stage?

So on the integration, I'm thrilled to say no big surprises. So the challenging work is the volume of work at this point in time. because, of course, we're prevented from seeing commercial data on either side. The companies are actually competitors until the day that we close, and that's a really cool stuff that I really want to get my teeth into big time. But I can't do that until we've completed. But on the other hand, what we do need is -- I mean, we've got a very clear view of where the synergies are that we've announced, and we need to set the organization up now to be able to hit the ground running hard in terms of the rapid delivery of those synergies.

And secondly, we've got -- you just got to have an operating model for the company that everybody knows and everybody understands from day 1, and that's a lot of work. So just understanding what the asset bases are, we rely very heavily on how Teck think about certain things, and they have to rely very heavily on how we think about certain things. And then we've got to put the right operating model in place. So that's all been very good progress.

And then, of course, the company has to actually operate. It's got to have a management system on that day. We've got 2 new listings in New York and Toronto, what you're required to do in terms of the statutory information, the financial reporting, the Sarbanes-Oxley stuff and so on. That's an enormous amount of work to, one, understand and then plumb systemically through the businesses, both in Teck and Anglo. So that's the volume of work. So not the most exciting work. Well, unless you're Siobhan. She loves this stuff. But very important work to run to get right if we're going to have a chance of driving those synergies out in the time that we said. John, do you want to do that?

Just clarify the question. I picked up tax, but I didn't get your specifics on it.

What are the long-term provisions and pension liabilities that are sitting in the De Beers entity?

De Beers. So the pensions in De Beers are in great shape. So like they are across all of Anglo American. So very well funded. We're in the process of moving the majority of those long-term defined benefit plans to buy in or buy out, which effectively means we transfer those liabilities to insurance providers. On taxes, nothing of concern on De Beers on long-term tax liabilities, all pretty in the ordinary course. So no unusual long-term liabilities. Of course, the big long-term liabilities in De Beers as they are with any mining company is the closure provisions and rehabilitation provisions, et cetera, but all in the ordinary course.

And are you able to quantify these long-term provisions?

No, not at this time.

Myles Allsop, UBS. A few quick questions. Maybe for John to start with. Could you give us a sense of how much you are looking to get from Peabody? Is it $500 million? Is it $1 billion? Is it $1.5 billion? Obviously, you've got kind of a better sense now of what you're going to realize and the losses that have been incurred and so on. But it would be helpful just to get a sense of what that potential could be.

Maybe I know it's early days and it will be the new Board decision, but how you're thinking around the dividend policy for Anglo Teck? Is it more likely to be aligned with the current Anglo policy or a more North American sort of structure?

And maybe for Duncan, just on manganese. Obviously, you've done most of the heavy lifting on the restructuring? And is that now, kind of, on the list of things to tidy up?

Okay. Myles, on your first question on Peabody, obviously, the arbitration, as I said, has been initiated. That's a confidential matter, and therefore, I won't comment any further in terms of quantums or amounts. But as we've said consistently, we are very, very confident in our legal position on that case. And your second question on the dividend for Anglo Teck, you quite rightly say that will be a decision for the Anglo Teck Board, which, of course, is not yet formed. And so that would be one of the things when Duncan talked about the phasing of communication that we'd hope to be able to clarify that very early post completion of the merger.

And then on manganese, Myles, you probably wouldn't expect me to say much different from -- we look at all the assets in the portfolio all of the time. And to the extent that we can see more value for them in a different way or in a different format, we would deal with that and manganese would just be one of those. So nothing specific plan on it, but absolutely in line with how we think about asset management and planning for the whole of the business at a portfolio level, it will be looked at in the same way.

Tony Robson, Global Mining Research. Possibly a question to John -- to Duncan. The $4.5 billion special dividend being paid out just prior. So we're talking days, weeks prior to the formal unification issuing of shares to take and so on. And was there any thought about doing that as a buyback rather than a special? Surely, that's in terms of the weighting of the assets, the ratio you require as a merger of equals would have the same impact and reduction in shareholders' equity, I would assume. So it's why a special rather than a buyback?

Yes. I mean, John can comment on the detail of this, but I can assure you, when we were looking at the merger ratios of the company and what we needed to do to put it together, we considered all of the options. The best option for us was a return of some capital to the Anglo American shareholders. And so that was the decision we took. So it's not going to change now. It is a return of $4.5 billion just prior to completion. John, do you want to add anything to that?

No, that's it.

Felicity Robson, Bank of America. The Steelmaking Coal disposal is valued at up to $3.9 billion with $2.3 billion upfront. How can we think about the likelihood and the timing around any of the contingent payments?

Yes. John may have to help me with the timing, but the key differential is -- I mean, the key contingency is just all price related. I think it's probably over a 5-year period or something. John, 5 years. So over the next 5 years, depending on where the steelmaking coal price is, I can't remember the term that we look at it...

It moves around a little bit, but on average, it's in the high 250s.

Yes, high 250s, but it's quarterly or -- so quarterly review tested, we'll get any participation in the upside of that.

Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Just a few quick ones. Firstly, it's been a while since byproducts were this attractive or got this much time in the limelight. So can you just remind us how much silver you're producing, how much moly you're producing, so we can try and get our models sharper for that sneaky little beat you gave us this morning.

Second, John, you teased us on working capital, but how much do you think comes back in H2? And then thirdly, good old noncontrolling interest, you're making a lot of money from Quellaveco, but I saw there was a 0 dividend to your JV partner or your minority partner, so in cash. So I just question when we're going to start to see some cash flowing out of Anglo plc back to Mitsubishi.

Sure. Yes. First of all, on the byproducts, I mean, there's a number of things in there, a bit of silver, a bit of gold, a bit of moly, a bit of acid. And so -- and of course, it moves around depending on where you're at in the ore body. So we're not giving volumes on that just now we -- I think for the first time, given the quantum, felt it was appropriate to give the number, which was, I said, 0.6, I think, 575 to be precise in terms of the revenue. So yes, no more detail to give on that given the variability. And of course, it changes by mine.

In terms of working capital, it was nice to see that working capital remain flat in the first half of the year. Ordinarily, you would have expected an increase given commodity prices. A number of things causing that to be offset. One, the actual sales volumes themselves in December last year were very high in the December month, and therefore, that caused the receivables to be a bit higher. The June month this year in terms of volumes was actually a little bit lower. So that was an offset. And then as I said, there was a number of timing benefits. So we got some receipts from customers a little bit quicker. There was a number of capital creditors that were delayed out a little bit, et cetera, et cetera.

To answer your question, in the round, if you -- what would you have expected working capital to go up by in the first half of the year if we didn't have these offsets, then the price impact, as you saw in my waterfall was $1.2 billion. If you took your receivables somewhere between 30 and 60 days, it's probably somewhere between $200 million and $400 million of a sort of timing benefit that we had in the first half of the year.

And in terms of the noncontrolling interest, then, of course, yes, there will be -- and again, I mentioned this in my speech that there will be -- there is a difference in timing between the earnings coming through and then when those dividends are actually paid out. So yes, I would expect to see over the course of the second half of the year in respect of not only Quellaveco, but also AA Sur, some dividends paid out to those minorities.

It's Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Just one question on the Collahuasi-QB JV. Have discussions advanced much in recent months with Glencore and the other partners at both sets of assets? And in order to meet that 2028 construction start, timetable, when would you need to reach an agreement and make the relevant permit applications?

Liam, so look, discussions are ongoing, right? So it's not only with Glencore, it's with all the other stakeholders, too, in terms of how we can shape this up. Fundamentally, this is going to rely on the stand-alone options that exist in both of the assets and getting those to a level that people can value effectively, clearly because that sets the base, one in terms of the combination ratio of the partners going forward, but also how the synergies will be shared.

So that work is ongoing. Those conversations have started, definitely not concluded at this particular point in time. I think we do need to get that technical work done properly. That is the bit that actually takes the time. To get done. But we should absolutely have that done at a point in time where we are able to go into permitting to get us up and running by the end of the decade, which is where we said that we would do it because don't forget that here, the permitting is materially less complex than would be the case on either of the stand-alone options. Given that this is, by and large, a conveyor belt that just connects to operations as opposed to the construction of a brand-new plant, which is on a stand-alone basis, a massive plant. It would be kind of the size of Quellaveco on a stand-alone basis.

So yes, I think there is time to do this and get it right. Discussions have started and will continue over the next year or so.

It's Chris LaFemina from Jefferies. So just some questions on Collahuasi. So back in 2020, 2021 coming out of COVID, you had 2 fantastic years. Grades were up, production was up materially when workers weren't showing up to work, which was impressive performance, but it was also somewhat surprising. Here we are 5, 6 years later and you're having these geotechnical issues. It was transitional ore this year, these complex faulting issues that you need to deal with next year. So I'm wondering, first, if some of these problems that you're having today or some of these challenges today are a consequence of changes to the mine plan coming out of COVID.

And then secondly, the complex faulting issues that you said you need to work through again next year. I think you said you've dealt with these in the past, but just wondering what sort of risks there are to your 2027 production, you have to slow down mining rates, et cetera, as a result of that?

Yes. Yes. Great questions, Chris. And of course, my adage is once you stop mining to the plan, you pay the piper at some particular point in time. And certainly, there's no doubt that Collahuasi is not immune from this. They have a little bit more insulation around it given the high quality of that ore body, but they are absolutely not immune. And without -- it doesn't take too much of a stretch of the imagination to know that during COVID, they prioritized the resources that they had into the production benches. So the development benches fell behind. The consequence of that is it played out about 2 years ago when they had to catch up the stripping for the next phase of the mine. So this is Phase 15, I think it is, at the mine. And in the back of their mind, I mean, in their defense, they do have the stonking stockpile, here, right? I mean it is a 0.6% grading waste pile.

There are many, many fresh ore mines that would love to have that as their primary grade. What they miscalculated here was the rate at which this material was going to recover. So the grade is actually very consistent. It is there. The trials that they did and the tests that they did during that period of time gave them some confidence that when they process the stockpile, they would get the recoveries that were consistent with the plan that they had put forward. So this wasn't like they completely screwed this up. They had a plan, what they miscalculated was the homogeneity of the refraction of that ore source.

So they have to kind of crack on and get that done. And so that's been the focus for that management team over the last 2 years, which is, okay, we know what we've got to live with now. When does it get sorted out? Back end of this year is when we should have opened up those phases. And we're already starting to switch into a higher proportion of fresh ore compared to the stockpiled ore. So that's all good. As far as the fault is concerned, the complex fault is concerned, of course, all mines have faults, right? If it wasn't for the fault, there'd be no mine at all because that's how copper porphyries are formed is through the fault.

The complexity of this particular one is just the facets that exist within it. So as we get into this Phase 15, we are going against the grain, if you like. So instead of mining straight into the fault, we've got a number of cross faults that creates a bit of wedging, you get a bit of fallout. The geotechs are trying to work out whether we need to slack the angle on that slope. I don't know whether that's going to be needed at this particular point in time, but it is something that we have to consider. I'm pretty confident in our copper guidance. What it means is maybe we just get a bit of lumpy production out of Collahuasi for a period, but there are other alternative sources of ore in Collahuasi, including the leach plant and so on and so on. So just nothing untoward here, but just to know that we are moving into that phase of the mine now.

It's Grant Sporre from Bloomberg Intelligence. A question probably for John. Just you called out the net debt being $6.6 billion, excluding shareholder loans. And I'm guessing you're referring to the Mitsubishi Vale shareholder loans of $1.6 billion, if memory serves correctly. Is there any specific terms for those loans when you have to pay them back? I'm just curious as to why you called it out in your-- in the presentation specifically.

Yes. Yes. Thanks, Grant. The reason for calling it out is that there is some judgment in whether you consider that to be true debt or whether it's more of an equity. And in reality, it's just how those shareholders chose to fund their share in -- those partners chose to fund their share in the project, which is more efficient from a tax perspective, et cetera, whether it's a loan, whether it's an equity injection. So some companies would present excluding shareholder loans, some would present including. So we're just putting it there so as people can make their own views as to which they consider to be the most appropriate measure.

But I think the important thing is that when you're comparing the debt number with an EBITDA number in terms of the leverage in the business that you're comparing like-for-like, i.e., it's either 100% of one and 100% of the other or if you take an attributable EBITDA, then it would be fair to take the shareholder loans out. So that's the reason for showing it.

Okay. And is there any sort of specific terms -- are you expecting to have to pay that back? Or are you sort of seeing it more as an equity?

They do get paid back over time, and they have been paid back. So those balances on -- the most significant one is in Quellaveco with Mitsubishi, and that balance is coming down quite quickly over time given the strong performance of the business.

And then perhaps just a follow-up one. Just in terms of your copper cost guidance, is it a case that you've obviously lowered it. Is it a combination, I'm guessing so, of better byproduct realizations in the first half and then also higher assumptions in the second half that has allowed you to drop that guidance.

When you say higher assumptions, higher assumptions in the second half, on?

Or higher assumptions versus your initial setting at the beginning of the year.

Yes. When you look at the makeup, then effectively, take Peru as an example, $0.45 in the first half, moving up to $0.65 for the full year guidance, then that would imply -- you can see it's not -- the second half is not quite at the original guidance level of $1.0. And therefore, our assumption on pricing, as I said, is not quite at current spots, but it's probably somewhere between our previous conservative assumptions, which was based on last year's pricing and what we achieved in the first half. So still a little bit of opportunity there through the second half.

Alan Spence from BNP. Just actually following up on the unit costs. You mentioned the more conservative byproduct assumptions into the second half. But is there anything on a gross basis? I'm just talking about Quellaveco here that you see inflationary or a headwind to cost into the second half?

Into the second half, I mean, the main one would be what's happening with oil, stroke, diesel. And that we saw that through the first half of the year that the oil price on average was about 20% higher than the first half of the prior year, given the sensitivity for what would come through there. I mean I think difficult to say, but nothing dramatic in the sort of gross cost beyond diesel in terms of uncertainty.

And as I said in the presentation, I'm really delighted with the -- how we've managed to manage those controllable costs through the first half. And so nothing surprising to come through in the second half on that.

Okay. And then back to Peabody, without asking you any kind of dollar amount, what are the pockets of compensation you'll be looking to go to? Is it what care and maintenance you had to do? Is it what a typical break fee would have been if there had been one? Or what are the little pockets you'll be going for?

Yes. I mean, listen, it's a complex legal process to go through. So again, I wouldn't want to comment on any live legal dispute. And I think take us at our word that we're very confident. We're initiating, we're pursuing. And when we have something to say, we will say it. So nothing more I can really say at this point.

It's Patrick Mann from Investec. I've just got one quick question left that hasn't been asked already. Just on De Beers sale, are you still considering the capital market options that you were talking about before? Or are you progressed far enough with the sale that you're confident this is going to be the exit mechanism?

Yes. No, Patrick. I mean, we -- one, we don't think that the market has capacity for a listing of De Beers at this particular point in time. But we probably got there a good few months ago, to be honest with you, and that was also helpfully supported by the fact that we had some real traction in the divestment process with a number of parties that were all deeply strategic type of partners. So we drew some confidence from that. So there is no work going on the listing at this particular point in time. But to the extent that we ever did need it, we'd have to revisit it at that point. But -- so right now, it's a trade sale that we're looking at.

Ben Davis, RBC. Just 2 quick questions. One on possible Canadian indexation proposed changes with the S&P. Does Anglo Teck qualify with a Canadian nexus? And then also just quickly on De Beers, assuming Botswana does give its blessing any regulatory hoops after that?

Okay. We have a czar in the business for indexation, and that is Mr. Broda. So I'm going to ask him to answer that question for you directly.

Great. Thank you very much, Ben. And thank you, Duncan, for bestowing the czar status for that. Let's all pray for me, especially it doesn't go wrong. So what's happened is that the S&P/TSX has come out back in April. They came out with a market consultation. So they were asking the market for feedback on any -- on the potential for adding companies that have material business in Canada but are not domiciled in Canada to the TSX Index, which is obviously very relevant for Anglo Teck. And I think there's a very widespread base of support within the financial markets in Canada across the country for wanting it to be in the index.

And so this is what the consultation was for. They finished that consultation a few weeks ago. I think it was last week. They've now come out with an official rule change consultation. So it's the same thing, but this one is based on a specific rule. It would mean that it would be 50% attribution to Anglo Teck within the index. But I think from a binary perspective, just being part of that index means we'll be part of the Canadian capital markets infrastructure, which we're very excited by with some great investors and obviously, the whole analyst cohort there.

It is expected that, that will finish at some point over the course of the summer, and there will be a determination on a rule change at the start of September. And from that point, I'm not sure exactly how the mechanics will work with the timing of close and when we go right in, but we would be, in theory, eligible if that rule change was to go through. So it should be early September, we get an update there. And back to you, Duncan.

Very good answer, Tyler. Good job. So on the statutory approvals for De Beers on a sale, of course, they will be. And to some extent, it does actually depend on the final makeup of the consortium that we put together. I think we can probably expect the likes of the U.S., China, Europe and so on to be involved at very least in this thing. I mean the estimate is about a year, but we'll confirm that when we do the transaction.

All right. And with that, Myles, I have the mic now. And therefore, that is the end of the Q&A session. Duncan has to go off to do some more interviews, so we'll have to close it there. But yes, just I don't know if you have any last words, Duncan, or if you just close.

No, Tyler, look, thanks, everybody. It's, as I say, a good half, I think, building off some tough work that we had to do in terms of resetting the portfolio and changing the accountability model within the business. It's mining. There are always going to be ups and downs in it, but I am confident that we've got the right people in the right place to deal with that and very pleased with where we are, both from an operations point of view and from a transformation point of view and very excited by ultimately getting the merger complete so we can build on the strengths of both of these companies.

And any other further questions, obviously, we're around. So thank you.

Okay. Good morning, everyone, and a very warm welcome to Anglo American's 2025 Results Presentation. Just a few words from me before I hand over to Duncan and John. Of course, first, as always, safety. It's our very first value and our #1 priority, and we are making very, very good progress. We recorded our lowest ever total recordable injury frequency rate last year. But in spite of this great progress, we actually had two workplace fatalities last year, tragic and of course, unacceptable.

Duncan will mention this and talk a little more about it in his presentation, but let me add that we cannot and will not rest until we are consistently achieving zero harm. So now as many of you know, 2025 was a year of transformational progress at Anglo American. We've executed major portfolio changes to unlock substantial value for our shareholders, and that has paved the way for what we now see as the next step in our journey and our strategic phase of value creation. And that is, of course, to form a global minerals champion in the shape of Anglo Teck, setting up exceptional investment exposure to copper in particular.

Now whilst offering compelling value, of course, through the exceptional synergies, both industrial and other, this combined entity will be set up also to create long-term value based on the many things that these two companies have done so well over so many years, focusing on safety and health, being responsible and inclusive, environmental stewardship and social progress for our many stakeholders.

Our Board looks very much forward to progressing this formidable combination towards completion once we have received the final outstanding approvals. Briefly on Board changes, Anne Wade joined our Board at the beginning of last year as a Nonexecutive Director, joining also our Audit and our Sustainability Committees. She's already made a significant contribution to our Board discussions, particularly bearing in mind her deep buy-side capital markets experience. And then in December, Hixonia Nyasulu stepped down after 6 years with the Board, and we thank Hixonia for her many contributions to our discussions over that time. Thank you. That's it from me.

Let me now hand over to our CEO, Duncan Wanblad. Duncan?

Good morning again to everybody, and thank you for that introduction, Stuart. As Stuart said, a pretty big year for us in 2025 and one that I do think was pretty transformational in the context of Anglo American's history. We had significant strategic delivery, laying very strong foundations for the next phase of our journey, which will be in the form of Anglo Teck. Now those of you who are regular attendees at our results will recognize this slide particularly. It is the 3 pillars of our strategy, which is operational excellence, portfolio optimization and growth. And these are the key drivers of how we move this business forward. And 2025, as I said, was a year with substantial execution progress against each one of these three objectives.

My pages got stuck together, so I nearly got to the conclusion. Questions, Jason.

Starting off with operational excellence. Our focus was unwavering here and I believe continues to drive the right results for us. We've got very high-quality assets, and we are running them very well with a focus on maximizing returns for the long run, which is after all and after safety, the most crucial deliverable for our shareholders. Our copper and iron ore businesses have performed very well, delivered on their 2025 production guidance with effective cost control across the businesses, seeing us deliver our cost savings targets, and John will talk about those a little bit later.

Now these cost savings were supported by the delivery of the recent head office transformation program that we ran, which resulted in a 21% headcount reduction. The growing stability in our asset base is allowing us to better identify and manage risks early and also to increasingly realize opportunities within the businesses. The evolution of our culture to prioritize and drive local accountability, where people on the ground actually have the power to shape the best outcomes is enabling these results.

The portfolio optimization also took great strides forward during the course of last year, and I'm thrilled with the execution of the PGMs demerger. The successful demerger of Valterra and the full sell-down of our residual 19.9% stake has helped to unlock material value for our shareholders. And of course, very helpfully, we raised approximately $2.5 billion out of those sell-downs, which went a long way to helping us delever our balance sheet. We continue to work towards streamlining the business, and I'm going to talk a little bit more on that later on when we get to the transactions underway.

Copper is absolutely at the forefront of our growth ambitions. Finalizing the agreement with Codelco to implement a joint mine plan for our adjacent operations, Los Bronces and Andina, was a truly remarkable transaction. It in and of itself unlocks $5 billion of pretax value across the complex and more copper tonnes for both companies as well as for Chile with minimal incremental CapEx. We've demonstrated what is possible when we can come together as an industry and partner with each other, and that translates, I believe, into compelling industrial synergies with huge significant upsides. And finally, we announced the merger with Teck to create a global critical minerals champion. The merger will position us in an increasingly competitive landscape to be able to create substantial value through industrial and financial synergies and cement the combined company as a world-leading copper producer.

Now since announcing the merger in September of last year, we've made very good progress in forming Anglo Teck. Over the recent months, we've achieved several major milestones. First, overwhelming support from our shareholders on both sides. Several major regulatory approvals have already been secured, including the approval under the Investment Canada Act at the end of last year. Our focus now is, of course, moving to integration planning, and that is progressing at pace as we work together with Teck to find the optimal organizational structures, the optimal systems and processes that will make this the most outstanding business in the sector.

We have had fruitful conversations in the context of integration planning. As I said, the new Board and management team will be formed on completion, and we are aiming to hit the ground running in Vancouver from day 1.

I will continue to oversee the crucial integration work together with Jonathan, that our teams are now progressing jointly ahead of closing. I would hope that everyone will understand that this is going to now take some time during the course of this year, which will mean that we're not going to have a lot of new news publicly certainly anyway until we get much further along this process. We still do expect completion around 12 to 18 months from the date of announcement. So closing, our best estimate remains now somewhere between September of this year and March of next.

Real process is still to happen are the regulatory processes, which includes China. So we've got South Korea and China to go. These processes are on track, and we'll update you all as that happens. Once these processes are cleared, we would expect the path to completion to be relatively swift with the $4.5 billion special dividend payable to the Anglo American shareholders of record on or around completion. I remain really excited by the benefits that this merger is going to deliver.

Now moving to safety. And as Stuart said, this is absolutely our first priority and will continue to be our first priority. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there isn't a single tonne of any material that we produce that is worth the cost of a human life. And during the first half of this year, we sadly had to report two fatalities in separate incidents at our managed operation. One was in Brazil, a projects contractor working on our filtration plant in Minas-Rio, who fell from heights and the other in an LHD accident in Unki in Zimbabwe just prior to the demerger of Valterra. These tragedies weigh very heavily on all of us and in the starkest terms, I think, remind us of the critical importance of running a safe business.

There is always going to be more work to do, but I am encouraged by the improvement that we're seeing in our injury rates across the business with the frequency rates now, as Stuart said, down to the lowest recordable levels in the history of the company and 20% lower than they were last year. We're driving on the right path with the right trajectory, and this is enabled by the critical action programs that we've installed in the business and further strengthen our focus on the most impactful safety actions as well as leaders having the time to spend in the field and more meaningfully engage with the frontline teams and specifically on safety.

In 2026, we're going to continue to strengthen that approach with our leaders and allowing them to spend even more time in the field. We do this by, as I said to you a couple of years ago, ruthlessly prioritizing their work and simplifying the work that they need to do, and that gives them time to properly engage with the people doing the work, not only in a one-way conversation, but in a two-way conversation that helps us understand better how we can design the work for people to execute. These changes reflect our unwavering commitment to safety as the foundation of stable, predictable and high-quality performance. We have more work to do here, of course, but the progress is clear and our focus remains firm.

Turning then to our operational performance and our outlook. I'm very pleased with the performance that we've seen in our copper business during 2025 and the fact that it met its production guidance. In Copper Chile, as you know, Collahuasi will be going through a much lower grade phase in 2026 with performance expected to improve significantly from 2027 onwards as they access the fresh ore in the Rosario pit. Pleasingly, we are also seeing the benefits of our previous reset to the Los Bronces mine plan, and that has restored both optionality and flexibility within that business. The team has delivered really well on the development of Donoso 2. Donoso 2, as you all know now, is the next production phase of the mine, and it is characterized by much higher grades than where we're mining today and slightly softer ores. So coupled with the very strict cost control and discipline that's being embedded across the business, this has enabled us to reassess the economics of restarting the second plant at Los Bronces in light of the current copper price environment.

So we have now restarted that plant, and it will deliver cash-generative tonnes throughout 2026, but we will need to shut it down again, of course, at the end of the year because we need the water that we use to run that plant to move a tailings dam to be consistent with our GISTM commitments. That's the Perez Caldera tailings dam. We will then obviously have a lot more flexibility on restarting this plant again permanently when we combine the two mines, Andina and Los Bronces closer to the end of the decade. Our newest copper mine in the portfolio, Quellaveco, has delivered strong operational financial results with throughput exceeding the design capacity.

And while we continue to increase our understanding of this ore body, which is pretty typical for new mines, Quellaveco remains positioned as a high-quality, high cash flow generative asset, operating stably producing around 300,000 tonnes of copper a year in the coming years. And although Quellaveco is not going to have the same long-term grade benefit that will accrue to the likes of Collahuasi or Los Bronces over time, the mine is an absolutely key asset in the portfolio and provides a very strong base for expansion in Peru.

We are now entering a phase where we should see rising copper volumes without doing too much differently. The stripping at Collahuasi will have caught up, and we will be fully into Donoso 2 at Los Bronces. This should drive around 125,000 tonnes of lower risk growth in the short term. After 2028, we will be approaching the integration for our two major JVs, leading to the next leg of growth, which I'm going to speak about a bit later. And then the new Anglo TecK will also have substantial optionality into the future.

Turning to the iron ore business, which has been demonstrating consistent and strong performance. In South Africa at Kumba, preparations are now well underway for the UHDMS tie-in, which is set to happen later this year at Sishen. That project is progressing to plan and on budget, and we see the production will be down around 4 million tonnes during the course of this year as we do that tie-in because the DMS plant is offline as we do it.

We do, however, have -- I mean we have, however, prepared and do have ample stock available, which we will draw down on during this tie-in period, and therefore, we should see sustained sales volumes to similar levels of those that we achieved in 2025 as a result. This is a project that is going to significantly increase the proportion of premium quality iron ore as it ramps up to full capacity by the end of 2028 and allows for more flexibility in our mining. We retain conviction in the long-term demand fundamentals for higher-quality products, where we expect to see increased price realizations as steelmakers decarbonize and as steel markets evolve.

Our Brazilian iron ore operation at Minas-Rio has really been the star of operational excellence during the course of this year. Despite the impact of the planned pipeline inspection, which was conducted in August of this year, production was broadly flat versus prior year. This is a testament to the focus of the team on continuous improvement to optimize an integrated system. This operational effectiveness will especially be helpful from 2028 onwards when the mine transitions from its current ore body in the soft, friable ores into areas with much more feed variability. Work to integrate even higher quality DR-grade Serpentina resources to supplement the production in 2030 is progressing well.

Turning now to portfolio optimization. In steelmaking coal at Moranbah North, following a very long journey with a number of stakeholders, which include our own workforce, the regulatory authorities in the form of the RSHQ and other industry safety and health representatives were very pleased to receive regulatory approval for a remote start of these operations back in November of last year. And in the couple of weeks -- in the last couple of weeks, so beginning of February, we received the final lifting of the directives by the regulator, which now enable the mine to ramp up in the normal course to full production.

There is also good news from Grosvenor. We secured approval for the first stage reentry back in August, and that enabled visual inspections, which then confirmed limited damage to critical infrastructure as a result of the fire there several years ago. The teams are now developing plans for a restart, which could enable longwall production to recommence from as early as 2027 under new ownership. Off the back of solid operational progress and the strong inbound interest that we have received over the last few months, we restarted the formal sales process at the end of last year. The first phase of the new tender process commenced in early January with us aiming to achieve an announcement of a sale during the second quarter of this year, and we are targeting completion by the end of this year.

There is healthy interest in our steelmaking coal assets. Long-term supply and demand fundamentals remain relatively attractive for this sector and prices have recovered in recent days. In nickel, we signed a definitive agreement with MMG back in February of last year for proceeds of up to $0.5 billion. The regulatory processes to complete the sale for the business are continuing. And now we have the final stage to go, which is the European Commission, but they have progressed this now into a Phase 2 review. So both MMG and Anglo American are working very closely with European Union to ensure that they have a complete understanding of what we believe a transaction -- that this transaction means to the market and one where we believe it preserves and actually may even enhance market competition.

Lastly, a word on De Beers, where we have now a very well progressed and responsible exit in the advanced stages of discussions with a select group of interested parties. All of these parties are strategic, and we are at the back end of our formal processes. We continue to have very constructive discussions with the government of Botswana, who, of course, are going to be crucial in the determination of the endpoint of this process.

With respect to diamond markets, although we have seen stability in the end market for natural diamond jewelry over the last 6 months or so, the diamond market remains very challenged, exacerbated by the increased supply, specifically from Angola and tariffs-driven uncertainty. We are focused first and foremost on achieving a responsible exit, but we will continue to work closely with the De Beers team on the actions required to optimize cash flow performance, both now and over time.

And as I've said before, with some of the best diamond mines as well as resources and marketing capabilities in the world, De Beers is very well positioned to emerge and thrive as the market leader and as the market recovers. We continue to believe that there is significant upside potential to this business for the right owners, and we continue to keep the market abreast of these developments.

And with that, I'll hand over to you now, John, just to take us through the '25 financial performance and the guidance.

Thank you, Duncan, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased with the financial performance of the business for this year. We delivered on our production and cost guidance as well as our $1.8 billion cost-out program and saw further reductions in working capital. This focus on total cost and cash is now firmly embedded throughout the organization and our performance management processes. These achievements are all evident in our financial results. But of course, as we progress through the portfolio transformation, the financial reporting again is complex. This slide aims to try and help navigate through that complexity. Our continuing operations include our end-state simplified business, but also include De Beers at least until the sales process is further advanced. While our discontinued operations include PGMs up to the demerger in May of last year as well as steelmaking coal and nickel.

So continuing operations EBITDA of $6.4 billion and earnings of $0.9 billion are not fully reflective of the high-quality financial profile of the go-forward business. The simplified business focused on copper and premium iron ore delivered $6.9 billion of EBITDA, 44% EBITDA margin and underlying earnings of $1.6 billion, benefiting from strong realized prices and delivery of our cost savings. De Beers reported negative $0.5 billion of EBITDA, and I'll come back to that in more detail later. The discontinued operations generated $0.1 billion of EBITDA in the year, reflecting 5 months of earnings from PGMs before the demerger, partially offset by losses in steelmaking coal following the operational incident at Moranbah North.

The effective tax rate for continuing operations was 52%. This reflects the impact of De Beers rather than any underlying tax rates with the go-forward simplified portfolio tax rate being 39%, as I'll explain shortly. The combination of continuing and discontinued operations has resulted in underlying earnings per share of $0.54, which translates into full year dividends of $0.23 per share, in line with our 40% payout policy. That includes the final dividend declared by the Board of $0.16 to be paid following shareholder approval at the beginning of May.

I'll now move on to talk through each of these areas in a bit more detail. Starting with the simplified portfolio, we've delivered a strong set of results. Our basket price was up 2% as higher LME copper prices were partially offset by lower benchmark iron ore prices. Realized prices, however, were up in both businesses, benefiting from provisional pricing impacts. Production was down 4%, mainly due to lower ore grades and recoveries at Collahuasi as we process stockpiles while developing the mine towards the sustainable higher grades expected from late 2026. There was also an impact from lower plant throughput at Los Bronces as the smaller processing plant was on care and maintenance.

Despite the lower production, revenue increased by 4% due to the higher realized prices. And when combined with our focus on costs, this flowed through to generate EBITDA of $6.9 billion, a 9% increase year-on-year. As you can see from the slide, copper and premium iron ore contributed $4 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively. Consequently, our EBITDA margin improved 2 percentage points to 44% with return on capital also higher at 17%, underlying earnings increased by 1% to $1.6 billion with higher net finance costs, partially offsetting the benefit from a lower effective tax rate with a simplified portfolio of 39%. This reduction in tax is driven by a lower unrecovered corporate costs and is broadly reflective of the blended rate across our operating jurisdictions.

Looking specifically now at our unit costs. In copper, we benefited from lower TC/RCs, partially offsetting the impact of lower production from Collahuasi. Quellaveco delivered another standout performance with unit costs of only $0.89 per pound. In our premium iron ore business, Kumba was broadly flat year-on-year, while Minas-Rio incurred higher costs from the planned pipeline inspection activities. And as you've heard me before say, I know the industry focuses on unit cost reporting, but we are focused on managing the total cost base. And on that basis, I'm pleased to show only a 1% increase year-on-year, reflecting good cost management across the business as well as the impact of lower volumes, which offset the impacts of stronger producer currencies, CPI and one-off impacts such as increases in rehabilitation provisions.

Looking now into the drivers of our continuing EBITDA after stripping out the impact of De Beers. Favorable realized pricing in copper and premium iron ore resulted in a $1 billion EBITDA uplift. That was partly offset by the stronger South African rand and CPI inflation, which together impacted EBITDA by $0.3 billion, while lower volumes from Copper Chile had another $0.3 billion impact. However, I'm delighted once again with our focus on cost savings this year. We realized gross cost savings of $0.6 billion, while cost headwinds of $0.2 billion, primarily from additional stripping at Collahuasi were fully offset by that $0.2 billion benefit from lower copper TC/RCs. The other bucket mainly reflects the nonoperational impact of increases in long-term rehabilitation provisions for Copper Chile, bringing EBITDA to $6.4 billion.

Over the last 2.5 years, we've committed to delivering total cost savings of $1.8 billion across our business operations, corporate overheads and initiatives. As a reminder, in 2024, we realized $1 billion of savings and at a run rate of $1.3 billion coming into 2025. We targeted to realize an incremental $0.5 billion in 2025 and have managed to deliver slightly ahead of that at $0.6 billion. That reflects $0.2 billion of operational savings from the business as well as $0.4 billion from corporate restructuring and initiatives. So we now stand with realized savings of $1.6 billion, and we've executed all the initiatives needed to achieve the total $1.8 billion, with the final $0.2 billion before the impact of dissynergies also of around $0.2 billion to be realized in 2026. Of course, we've embedded a strong cost culture through the organization and our core processes, which will support continuous improvement going forward, including through the Anglo Teck integration process.

Now moving on to our exiting business, starting with De Beers. Market conditions continue to be challenging, driven by the impact of lab-grown diamonds, U.S. tariffs and increased supply. As we came into the year, we were very focused on ensuring that De Beers was self-sufficient from a cash perspective. This meant that we undertook initial cost-out initiatives and drove inventory down by both managing production closely and responsibly increasing sales. You can clearly see the impact of these actions in the results. Sales volumes and revenues are up despite lower prices, while unit costs are down 8%. These actions could not offset the lower pricing environment, and so EBITDA was a loss of $0.5 billion compared to breakeven last year. However, the fact that we fulfilled a large portion of those sales from inventory meant that we reduced that inventory by $0.9 billion in the year and kept the business at broadly cash breakeven. This means that we now have midstream inventory at broadly normalized levels.

As part of our year-end processes, we undertook an impairment review of De Beers and have recognized a $2.3 billion impairment within special items. This reflects our latest views on the near-term adverse macroeconomic conditions and industry-specific challenges. Since last year, the key changes are largely attributable to an extended period of lower rough diamond prices, driven by a slower differentiation of lab-grown and natural diamond markets, continued weak China demand and increased supply. The impairment, along with other movements in capital employed, brings the carrying value of De Beers as a whole to $2.3 billion, of which our attributable share is $1.9 billion.

As we move into 2026, we will continue to focus on cash preservation. With less opportunity to release cash from inventory, we will be very focused on taking action to reduce structural costs and capital as we transition through this challenging market period and towards exit.

Briefly touching on our discontinued operations, EBITDA was $0.1 billion, reflecting lower PGM's earnings with only 5 months consolidated in 2025 and those 5 months being impacted by the flooding at Amandelbult. This was offset by a loss in steelmaking coal, given the impact of Moranbah and Grosvenor. This translated into an underlying loss of $0.3 billion. There was then a loss on demerger of PGMs that we reported in the first half of $2.2 billion, which drove the statutory loss of $2.5 billion. The net impact from the discontinued operations was a net cash impact, sorry, from discontinued operations was a $0.7 billion outflow for the full year, and I will explain this in a subsequent slide.

We continue to maintain a strong focus on cash generation. Our sustaining attributable free cash flow benefited from $0.6 billion working capital inflow, primarily from that reduction in diamond inventories. Excluding that benefit from De Beers, the go-forward business kept working capital broadly flat, which was a good achievement given the increased copper prices. This resulted in the conversion of operating profit to cash, including sustaining CapEx of 107% for continuing operations as a whole and 91% for the go-forward business. And this left sustaining attributable free cash flow for the year at $1.4 billion.

Moving on to net debt, we've seen a $2 billion reduction to $8.6 billion. The sustaining attributable free cash flow generated by the continuing operations of $1.4 billion more than funded growth CapEx as well as returns to shareholders. Discontinued operations resulted in a net cash outflow of $0.6 billion, reflecting the Jellinbah proceeds, offset by the impact of the PGMs demerger and the negative cash cost of steelmaking coal following those operational incidents. The overall reduction in net debt was therefore largely driven by the $2.4 billion proceeds from the sale of the residual 19.9% stake in Valterra, which happened in September and leaves net debt to EBITDA at 1.3x. Excluding shareholder loans, net debt stands at $6.8 billion.

The group continues to have a strong liquidity position, and I would expect to see leverage come down further as we conclude the remaining portfolio transactions, coupled with the strong underlying momentum in the go-forward business. On capital expenditure, we took decisive action in 2024 to reduce CapEx and rationalize the spend, and we've seen a 16% decrease in our CapEx in continuing operations to $3.3 billion, which was below our guidance. This has been supported by the establishment of our projects group, who manage a significant portion of our spend, thereby driving efficiency and effectiveness benefits across the group. Growth CapEx included $0.3 billion at Woodsmith as well as spend for the Collahuasi debottlenecking and the Kumba UHDMS project with a reduction year-on-year driven by our slowed approach at Woodsmith. Excluding De Beers, the CapEx for the simplified portfolio was $3 billion.

Turning now to our guidance. In 2026, our copper unit costs will increase to around $1.72 per pound from $1.50 per pound. This is mainly due to the impact of a stronger currency where we're assuming CLP 860 and PEN 3.2 to the U.S. dollar and in part due to the change in production mix between Los Bronces and Collahuasi. Our premium iron ore unit cost will be around $41 per tonne, once again, predominantly driven by stronger producer currencies with ZAR 16 and BRL 5.3 to the dollar incorporated, but also reflecting the tie-in of the tailings filtration plant in Minas-Rio.

On our other 2026 guidance, the group underlying effective tax rate for our continuing operations is expected to be between 44% and 48%, subject to the mix of profits and timing of the exit of De Beers from the portfolio. It's not shown on the slide, but our long-term guidance for the simplified portfolio, excluding De Beers, remains unchanged at 38% to 42%, in line with the 2025 outcome that I shared earlier. Continuing depreciation will be between $2.4 billion and $2.6 billion, a slight increase from 2025, reflecting some major projects coming online in copper, such as the Collahuasi desalination plant.

From a cash flow perspective, next year, we're expecting around $0.2 billion of restructuring and merger costs. And from a net debt perspective, we expect a one-off noncash impact of $0.5 billion from the recognition of lease liabilities associated with the Los Bronces integrated water solution project that will ramp up during this year.

Moving on now to CapEx. Clearly, all of our capital allocation decisions for 2027 and beyond will be shaped by the merger with Teck, which will only be determined by the new Board in the period post completion. As such, our CapEx and asset plans will, of course, be subject to revision in due course. But in the meantime, we expect CapEx for the next 3 years for the simplified portfolio to range between $2.6 billion and $3.1 billion, which is very close to our previous guidance. We also expect De Beers's CapEx to be around $0.5 billion in 2026, similar to previous guidance, but slightly higher than 2025 due to deferred spend at Venetia Underground, although we will obviously be keeping that under close review.

Sustaining CapEx for the simplified portfolio over the long term will be around $2 billion per annum with fluctuations over the next few years, reflecting modestly higher stay-in business CapEx across a few of the businesses. On our growth CapEx over the next 3 years relative to previous guidance, we're seeing lower capital spend come through in copper due to the Los Bronces/Andina joint mine plan and the potential Collahuasi QB adjacency as we pursue more capital-efficient options.

On Woodsmith, we will be spending less than in 2025, at $250 million of CapEx in 2026 and 2027, in addition to $50 million of OpEx as we continue to work towards having at least a real option for consideration over the coming years. This is, of course, still guided by our three conditions needed to move towards final investment decision. Those three options -- those three conditions being a completed feasibility study, having the project syndicated and our balance sheet being in robust financial health. This will be in 2028 at the earliest, at which time the Board of Anglo Teck will be able to consider this project within the context of the wider portfolio.

To finish off, I'll recap briefly on the key financial messages. Our focus on safe and stable operations as well as structured cost control is driving strong EBITDA margins across our copper and premium iron ore businesses. We've successfully delivered our $1.8 billion cost-out program with realized savings in 2025, slightly ahead of plan. Strong cash conversion reflects our focus on working capital management and capital efficiency. And together with the proceeds from the sell-down of our stake in Valterra, we reduced net debt by $2 billion with further deleveraging expected as we secure proceeds from the divestments of SMC, nickel and De Beers. All of this means we look forward with confidence as our reshaped portfolio will deliver higher margins, higher cash conversion and higher returns on capital employed.

Thank you, and I'll now hand back to Duncan.

Thanks, John. So turning now to the biggest component of our go-forward business, which is copper. If you go back 100 years and look at the copper returns on capital employed, it helps to contextualize, I think, the current copper price environment. So while copper prices may be at record levels in nominal terms at the moment, the increase is only now just starting to translate to the returns that we've seen in comparable historic situations. This makes sense in the context of the inflation in capital intensity and operating costs that has been experienced, especially since COVID. This is also very unlikely to be a short-term phenomenon given the combination of structural demand growth and the extended length of the capital cycle on the supply side, which has been key to extended upward trend patterns in the past.

This is where the inherent value in our portfolio of copper assets and growth pipeline optionality really shines through. We have world-class assets well positioned to benefit from this upturn. And for Quellaveco, for example, that means it's now on track to deliver a capital payback this year, only 4 years after first production, which in and of itself is quite an incredible milestone.

So this follows on well to the next slide, which says that the copper industry has generally been pretty awful at estimating costs for new projects. The chart on the left here shows that the average milled copper head grade for new greenfield projects is materially lower than the current installed capacity. But despite this, the estimated average capital intensity for new projects is at $19,000 a tonne, and that is materially lower than actual projects that have actually been built since 2010, which are at almost $30,000 a tonne adjusted for inflation.

So we have two key things going in our favor in copper. One is our project development and sustainability capabilities, and I'll talk about that on another slide in a moment. But second is that we have a much lower starting point relative to the intensity of our capital projects than the industry average. This difference in our growth profile where we will have the ability to develop less complex brownfield adjacencies should reduce the risks around the magnitude of the potential cost overruns that have consistently plagued the industry over time.

As we move through the merger with Teck, we will have a host of projects to choose from that further cement this low capital intensity base. One such option is the Collahuasi-Quebrada Blanca adjacency, which we've talked about in some detail when the merger was announced. The industrial synergies are really attractive there, and it is also very capital efficient. There is, of course, plenty of work to do to make this a reality, and that's getting underway now. The focus now is on working towards the right plan to optimize that value, and we are working with our other stakeholders to achieve this common goal. We have extensive experience in negotiating adjacencies, so we are well aware of the commercial considerations that will be required. This is an opportunity to drive substantial value creation for all.

Just to note, as it relates to the broader copper pathway, no decisions have been made about the sequencing of projects in the combined portfolio, and all of this will need to be planned within the capital allocation framework that we will have to put in place for the merged company. However, the slide highlights that we do have the benefit of many options to consider.

Our project delivery and development capabilities are the foundation of how we expect to create value from this growth pipeline. Our approach to project development is a fully holistic one. Our study and project teams are focused on investing both the time and the money upfront on the right type of analysis underpinned by years of expertise and experience in delivering well-sequenced brown and greenfield projects, which inform the optimal development pathways for the growth options that we have.

We believe that this rigor in our studies approach is a differentiator, enabling projects to be confidently delivered at pace. Given the recent uptick in commodity prices, we do expect that the industry more broadly is likely to rush to bring tonnes online. And history has shown that this less mature approach leads to having to build and adjust plans in the field as risks reveal themselves pretty late on in the execution. And therefore, you have less flexibility for adjustment, and that typically is much more detrimental to project returns.

The other side of the project development capability, which drives our differentiated positioning is sustainability. Our capabilities there have been built up over decades. Sustainability is not something that is stand-alone. Environmental and social considerations are deeply integrated into the way that we design and develop our mines, operate our assets, market our products and leave an enduring benefit, we believe, to the environment and the communities at the end of the life of a mine.

As a responsible operator with a long-standing reputation to match, we have the experience and track record, which helps secure our social license to build projects and supports our ability to access future development resources and opportunities, both from the significant endowments within our business as well as more broadly.

In the same vein, our sustainability strategy is designed to enable our business ambitions and is focused on three key themes that will be familiar to you certainly since 2018. These are being a trusted corporate leader, enabling a healthy environment and supporting thriving communities. We have been updating the strategy for our simplified portfolio, ensuring that it is aimed at protecting and creating value for the business and for all of our stakeholders with a real impact tailored at the local level, the communities and the natural environment around our operations where it matters the most.

Now to be clear, our update work has so far only been focused on Anglo American simplify portfolio, and we will now need to work together on the Anglo Teck sustainability strategy. This will, of course, need to follow completion of the transaction. But given the associated time lines of that, we wanted to provide the market with an interim update. And on that basis, a little later today, Helena Nonka, who is our Chief Strategy and Sustainability Officer, will be joined by Patricio Hidalgo, who is the Chief Exec of our Copper business in Chile; and Mpumi Zikalala, who is the CEO of Kumba in South Africa for a webcast panel discussion and Q&A on the way that we are evolving sustainability in Anglo American and why we believe that is a real enabler of value creation. So please do join that session and learn a little bit more about how we're putting all of this into practice.

In conclusion, we've had a truly transformational year. The business continues to embed operational excellence and leaves us well positioned to deliver strong performance in the coming years. We are working hard on the final elements of our portfolio transformation alongside the final regulatory approvals to create a global critical minerals champion. The merged company will have an outstanding portfolio with leading exposure to copper and other commodities and products with a structurally attractive outlook. That includes a variety of pathways to accretive expansion in shareholder value, including some of the most exciting adjacencies that exist in the mining industry today as well as a number of project development options.

We know there is plenty to do again this year, but we are completely energized by the opportunity and the belief that we are creating something very special here indeed.

And with that, Tyler, I'll hand over to you to moderate the questions.

Great. Thanks very much, Duncan. I see Liam is in the Golden Chair here today. So here you are.

Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Just had 2 or 3 questions on Collahuasi and QB and kind of the timing and process. So I think you originally said you wanted to begin construction from 2028. So can you walk us through when you would hope to reach an agreement with Glencore and the other partners and when you would need to make the relevant permit license applications to meet that deadline?

I think Glencore has said recently that they would like to be a kind of equal owner with you in that future JV if that's where it heads. Is that a deal breaker? Is that on the table? And final quick one, has your team visited QB since the due diligence in the summer? And are you happy in general with how the TMF work is progressing?

Okay. Thanks, Liam. Look, the baseline for growth at Collahuasi is the fourth line. And that has a very key milestone in and around the back end of 2027, where you have to commit to the development of the fourth line. Once you start deploying large amounts of capital into a new plant, that starts to materially impact the viability and the returns associated with the combination of Quebrada Blanca and Collahuasi. So around 28 on current production rates at Collahuasi is when we would need to be sure that we are going down the combined mine path or we are taking a stand-alone fourth line pathway.

I mean it is clear to me that based on all the economics that I've seen of both of those options that the combined QBC option is by far and away the most attractive, not least of all because of the lack of complexity, relatively speaking, in terms of building that plant and infrastructure, but also because of the capital intensity associated with it. And that's a very big driver of returns in the copper mining industry. So on that basis, we really do need to get a crack on and we need to get the ownership arrangements sorted out. We need to get the shareholder agreements in place and move on.

I'm very well aware of Gary's wishes. We have had a conversation. So Gary and I directly, he's been very forthright in terms of what he would like at the end of the day. I have been similarly forthright as to what I would like at the end of the day, and now we are negotiating. I'm not sure what Gary will choose to do here, but I won't negotiate this in public. So we will just keep going until we've got a plan that makes sense for all shareholders and get it done as quickly as we can because the value at stake is pretty high here.

I don't believe we have actually visited [indiscernible] Quebrada Blanca since the diligence in -- just before the announcement in September. But I do know that we have provided some assistance to Quebrada Blanca on the technical side in terms of them working through the most optimal way to manage the paddocks around the development of the tailings dam and provided some advice and information to them on the cyclone modifications that they have just installed and seem to be operating okay.

We'll go to Ian [indiscernible] back and forth with Russouw equally.

Ian Russouw from Barclays. First question on Woodsmith. It would be great to get a bit of details around that and how the feasibility study is going in the shaft. And around the -- I guess, how should we think about this partnership? Obviously, you mentioned a 25% equity stake. Is that a fixed number? Or can that swing around? And then secondly, just on De Beers, obviously, it's been great to see the working capital release sort of help bring that cash flows to neutral. You won't have that card to play this year in a still challenging market. How can you sell a cash negative asset? Are you confident that you can do that? And how should we think about the structure? Should we think about a sort of low upfront value and then deferred sort of number contingent on the recovery in the diamond market?

Okay. On Woodsmith, the progress of the feasibility study. So I think last year, this time, we were pretty clear on the three requirements that we needed to get to a point where we could ever even contemplate a full notice to proceed sanction for the project. One of those was a feasibility study. The second was a syndication and the third was having a balance sheet that was robust enough to carry the development of the project in its syndicated form forwards. Specifically to your question on the feasibility study. So in accordance with the slowdown plan, it's progressed really rather well during the course of last year. So they got to about 30 kilometers on the tunnel of 37 kilometers with a single tunnel boring machine, and we got pretty well into those sandstones.

The outcome of that experience in the sandstones is that we can absolutely mine at more than a meter a day, which was the key determinant point in terms of whether it was going to swing one way or the other. There's more water than we would like in those sandstones for sure, but the drilling rate is fine or the cutting rate is fine to support the current economics in the feasibility study -- in the pre-feasibility study. And then as far as the syndication is concerned, of course, we're delighted that Mitsubishi has taken an option on this thing. They have invested quite a lot in this thing, both directly into the project, but also in their own understanding of the end markets themselves. So Mitsubishi have now got a reasonably well-developed trading desk in fertilizers. They've developed an understanding and knowledge of this. And I think that, that gave them enough confidence to acquire an option for a 25% stake in the project if and when it gets to feasibility study. So I think that that's very positive on a momentum basis, but still a long way to go given the timing to get to feasibility.

I mean just on feasibility, the next hurdle now having understood the sandstones and the impact of sandstones to the project is to get close enough to the ore body, so we can put some lateral long holes on top of the ore body with some deflections down into it, and so we can start to characterize and define the detail of the ore body to help us develop a mining plan that will ensure the payback period if we sanction the project. And I think as John said, given all of that stuff that's going on, I mean, it's running exactly as per the slowdown plan at the moment, no chance of any of that happening before 2028.

On De Beers, regarding the working capital release, yes, I think Alan and the team did a really good job of that. And as John said, we now have inventories that are down more at sort of normal levels, the consequence of which is whilst there's probably still a little bit that we could do there, it won't have the same impact in 2026 as it did during 2025. The consequence of which is Alan and the De Beers team are looking really hard at other mechanisms of cash flow preservation during the course of this year. And some of those are going to be potentially big changes in terms of overhead costs and other areas of that De Beers have under management at the moment.

As far as the divestment process is concerned, I'm not really worried about that because the parties that we have in the divestment process all genuinely understand diamonds and diamond markets. All of them have deep experience in the type of cycles that are experienced in diamond businesses. And certainly, all of them recognize the deep value in De Beers and the quality of the assets that we have in De Beers, so not only the brand in the business, but also the quality of the underlying assets, particularly the Botswana assets. So I don't think that this has a material impact in terms of where we are in terms of the desire for a strategic buyer for the business. Of course, that will play through into the structure of the proceeds that you get for the business because if the business is cash flow negative for a while, it will need to be funded for a while. And I suspect that we will see some form of structure in the consideration of the business. So some upfront payment perhaps and then some contingent payments depending on the time it takes for the industry to recover.

We go to Ephrem?

Just a first question follow-up on De Beers again. I get it that like the participants in the bidding process are our industry veterans in the diamond industry. But at what point in time or at what parameters would you consider a spin-off or a spin-off to shareholders versus a demerger versus a sale? I mean, in terms of how much of that value deferral can you take versus a demerger. So I think just some criteria like the fertilizer, three points that will guide your decision, North Stars would be helpful.

Secondly, on copper, and the thematic in general, streaming has been a big sort of theme for all the diversifieds this result season. And you are one of the few people whose cost is actually going up year-on-year from a guidance perspective, presumably due to lack of precious metals credits. Is there some rabbit in the hat that you have, which we are not aware of where you could kind of stream and surprise the market?

Let me deal with that one first. There aren't really any rabbits in the hat because the streaming of the minor metals is a function of what's actually in the ground and the resources that we have aren't well endowed with silver and gold, unfortunately. The fundamental underpin to the costs going up, as John pointed out on his slide, are driven by two factors. The first of these is that we have strengthening producer currencies relative to the dollar. But at the same time, it also reflects the mix of products that we have during the course of 2026 relative to 2025. But that mix also changes back again in 2027.

So we're producing from the lower grade, higher cost Los Bronces mine more proportionately than we would be from Collahuasi, just given that we're moving through that pushback phase and still reliant quite heavily on some of the stockpile production during the course of the year. But as we move now into in 2027 back into the fresh ore in Rosario, that cost profile changes again because we're in that better, higher-grade ore. And at the same time, in 2027, we will have moved more around the mine in Los Bronces, and we'd be producing predominantly from the Donoso 2, which is a higher grade phase of the ore and so the costs will adjust associated with that too. So those are the two primary drivers. And unfortunately, I don't have enough silver and gold in the ore bodies today. Quellaveco has some silver, by the way, and doing very well out of that.

Can I just add on the cost point on the -- on that point on some silver at Quellaveco, our cost guidance doesn't assume those prices are at sort of current levels. So more consistent with a little bit more conservatism given volatility. So if we were to see silver prices stay up at sort of current levels, then there would be some upside to that cost guidance.

Your question on the spin of De Beers is a good one and slightly complicated in the context of if we were to spin De Beers today, it would be a real challenge in the context of where markets are and where comparables are for a company like De Beers. And therefore, we've chosen to prioritize the strategic sale of the business. This does not remove the option of being able to list De Beers at a time in the future, but it's unlikely to be in the current market environment. And therefore, the sale is the priority that we are focusing on right now.

Go to Myles, and we'll come back after that.

Myles Allsop at UBS. With the demerger, is there anything that could go wrong now? I mean, how have your discussions with the Chinese regulators been progressing? Is there anything kind of that we should be mindful of? And then thinking about the $800 million, obviously, you're doing more work. That was an audited number. How much upside do you see to the $800 million? That's the first question.

Myles, so there is actually nothing to comment about in terms of the China regulatory process as it is at the moment. It's pretty much going as we expected it to do at this particular point in time. There have been no odd asks at all, and we're just in the process of providing the information that they've required under the usual process at this point in time. So as I said, we expected fully that this would take sort of 12 to 18 months. Nothing has changed our view on that at this point.

As far as the $800 million go, I don't have a new target that I'm putting out in the public at this particular point in time. Safe to say that cost management is a very key component of what we think makes a successful mining company going forward. And we are in the process of developing a really strong muscle on cost management throughout the business. And I think you should expect that to continue as we go forward. So whilst there isn't another target at this point in time, we are still absolutely working on bringing the overall operating costs in the business down. As John said, we are less focused on C1 type of costs because it's like a balloon, you squeeze it here, it pops out somewhere else. I care a lot about the total costs in the business, and that's what we manage on a day-to-day basis.

And then maybe just a bit like the streaming question, infrastructure, and other assets in the portfolio, things like water assets, obviously with one at Collahuasi. Do you see -- are you actively exploring other opportunities to kind of optimize value through the portfolio? Samancor as well, I guess that's always one that kind of sits in the shadows and there's potentially a pathway to some restructuring there?

Yes. So I suppose the simplest answer to your question is we look through the portfolio all the time and look for these value-accretive opportunities. And to the extent that they are genuine and are long-lasting in their effect and not just a sugar hit, we will pursue them pretty rigorously. So that includes having a look at the infrastructure options that exist throughout the portfolio too. But very often, you are kind of hooked up on the back of the fact that unless you have multiple offtakers on a particular set of infrastructure, it still all flows directly through to your balance sheet on a look-through basis. So it doesn't really change much other than add potentially a margin that you're going to have to swallow somewhere along the line. But where there are opportunities, where there are multiple offtakers and you can do something with the assets, and it doesn't compromise the viability of the current operations or the potential future viability of expansion or development of those businesses, we look at that very closely.

Samancor, I mean, that's manganese. As I've said it before, that's a wonderful option that we've still got in the portfolio. It's producing really well. So now having come back after the cyclones in Australia a year ago. It's a nice little cash producer. I don't feel like I'm in a great rush to have to restructure anything on that at this particular point in time. I think it provides good optionality within the portfolio on a future basis.

All right. Let's geographically go with Dom.

Dominic O'Kane, JPMorgan. I just want to touch on Codelco. So you have a very strong and a very close working relationship with Codelco. So is there any update you can provide us with on your Andina conversations, but also how do you sense the engagement with Codelco is maybe changing for your organization and the industry more broadly? Do you see more opportunities for your group and the industry more broadly to work more closely and pursue those type of opportunities that Codelco has at its disposal?

Yes. Thanks, Dom. Look, I mean, you're right insofar as we've had a very long-standing relationship with Codelco given that they have been a partner of ours for many, many years now on Anglo Sur, which is on Los Bronces, El Soldado and the Chagres smelter. And certainly, through many years of that sort of partnership, the operational relationships have been excellent. So even before we did the Los Bronces/Andina deal, we had to work very closely with them in terms of managing operational interfaces on the border of Andina and Los Bronces, and that was generally very effectively done by the two general managers and the people working for them.

What we were able to do with the synergy and liberating that wages that exists between the two, dropping the huge expansion CapEx load on both sides of the fence, I think, is very much a function of how Codelco has been thinking for several years, certainly under the leadership of Maximo Pacheco. Given that these were hugely value-accretive opportunities for Codelco, very commercial in the way that they approached it and thought about it and just certainly given how I perceive it has been accepted nationally in Chile and within the various arms of government, I can't really see why that should change in the future.

Of course, we know we are going into a phase now where there's a new government in Chile and there could be some changes in the leadership of Codelco. But I think what fundamentally underpins, what's happened today is a very hard core commercial rationale and Chile is still very, very positive foreign direct investment growth and copper growth, particularly.

Jason?

Two quick ones. First one is on BHP. So you had a brief follow-up with them in November. Some investors were surprised it was so brief. So I don't know if that's a question for you or for the Board?

And maybe for Mike. No, I mean there was -- it was a conversation that was had and neither party felt it was worth pursuing after that conversation.

Okay. Second one, just to follow up on our favorite salt mine. How do you justify putting more capital into this when you're trying to capture a re-rating based on being seen as more of a copper pure play?

So it certainly is completely consistent with the strategy that we laid out and presented to the market in the middle of 2024. There's no new news in terms of this particular story, and it is the best value-accretive option that we've got for that asset. So it just makes sense in terms of option preservation to get it to a point where we rarely do know whether we can or can't take it forward from an investment point of view. Otherwise, it would be a massive write-off and that wouldn't make any sense given the direction of travel and what we understand of that asset today.

Can you just remind us the carrying value and the Sun Capital in the asset, Dunc?

John, can you?

Yes. We've -- the carrying value today is just around $2 billion and total invested capital over the period is about $5 billion.

Matt, please.

It's Matt Greene at Goldman Sachs. Probably just continuing Duncan with Woodsmith. You touched on the fact that you want to get through the sandstones to get to a technical point to underpin the feasibility study. You're now going and seeking $0.5 million to go that little step forward. So it sounds like this agreement with Mitsubishi that you're still taking on a lot of the risk here. So what do they -- do they need to see anything in particular here? And I guess just when it comes to bringing in further partners and syndicating here, are you -- what are you looking for in a partner? Because -- is this just a financial partner? Or are you looking at someone that's going to take perhaps disproportionate risk on the marketing side of this product?

No. So I think Mitsubishi are looking for exactly the same things that we're looking for in terms of a feasibility study. One is continued confidence in an ability to build the market for the product. And as I said earlier, they have developed an in-house capability to test that. So it's hugely validatory from our perspective that it's not just us in an echo chamber about how we think this product is landing in the market and how effective it is in the market. We've got a genuine independent view of somebody else who's trying to look at it through the same sort of lenses that we are. And of course, they are absolutely going to need to understand what the capital cost for development of this project is on a go-forward basis, and what the risk inherent in the development of that project is, and that can only be determined by a quality feasibility study.

They do cost a lot these feasibility studies. I'm completely cognizant of that. And -- but the reality is that this was true for Quellaveco 2, slightly different scale, but we had to spend a lot of money upfront to fully characterize the risk that we had in that ore body and in the development of the infrastructure around that ore body to know for sure that we had a very high probability of meeting the capital costs within the contingency that we had specified for that project. And this is no different, right? I mean these are -- if you want a proper and a secure understanding of what these projects are going to cost and how much they are going to likely to be -- to return to you, you need to do the homework upfront. And so it is this trade-off of how much you spend upfront versus how much of a risk or a gamble you're prepared to take on imperfect information and data to go forward on a project.

We elect to spend a little bit more upfront to get much better security of information and data that then defines not only the execution period of the project, but also the life of the project. And I think that, that was well underpinned by what we saw happen at Quellaveco, not only during the project development and execution phase, which is one of the very few projects in the industry in recent times that was absolutely on time and on budget. But not only that, it did kind of what it said it was going to do on the [ tin ] and reduced an 8-year payback period to a 4-year payback period. I mean that is real value going forward. And that's sort of what I believe Mitsubishi is looking at in the same way that we're looking at, very like-minded, right? Bear in mind, Mitsubishi is also our partner on Quellaveco.

In terms of do we have criteria for other types of investors. So Mitsubishi now have an option to go up to 25%. They're not limited to 25%. So if they chose to, they could go more than that if they would like to. And we are absolutely open to bringing on at least one more partner. The idea here is that it's not only financial. I mean financial risk mitigation is a very big important part of that. That's exactly why we brought on a partner for Quellaveco. But at the same time, to the extent that we can leverage a partner's capabilities, particularly in the mid and downstream of this is where we'd like it to go. And as I said, Mitsubishi is developing that capability. They have a very strong trading capability in that business anyway. So they have access to markets and are learning quite a lot about the product, too. So it's that type of partnership that we would see as very valuable going forward.

That's great. Sorry, if I could just have a follow-on on Collahuasi on the fourth line. Just to get your guidance next year, you had about, I think, $600 million on copper growth. Los Bronces was in there. Obviously, that's not happening anymore, and you had Collahuasi fourth line. There's no mention of that anymore. Should we read into that at all? This fourth line option has been floated around for 15 years or so. You presented your slides of how many options you have in the pro forma portfolio with Teck. If Glencore doesn't come play with QB, is there an option here that we could see the fourth line deferred again?

If Glencore doesn't?

Obviously, you want to get a QB scenario here. But is there a point that you actually decide as Anglo, you do not want to pursue the fourth line because you have alternative options?

No. Look, I mean, we'd never be churlish about this for sure. I mean what we're trying to do is, is mine the right resources in the right way and at the right time? The fourth line is an option, but it's certainly not the preferred option for Collahuasi. As I say, as I look at the pre-feasibility studies versus the concept studies and so on at this particular point in time, there is a much better option in terms of both risk and capital intensity by doing the combination of Quebrada Blanca and Collahuasi. I mean I would hope that all the partners would see it that way as we move forward. And certainly, I mean, that has been fundamentally the driver of the thesis for Collahuasi on all sides of the fence for a long time. It's -- now it is fundamentally how do we set up a new shareholders' agreement? How do we share the value of the synergies, and that's the negotiation.

We go to Chris.

Duncan, it's Chris LaFemina from Jefferies. So first, Jonathan mentioned yesterday on the call that you received U.S. regulatory approvals. You mentioned it again today. Is that like full Hart-Scott-Rodino, DOJ, FTC, U.S. regulatory approvals are done, which, in my opinion, would be a major step forward because of the fact that copper is a critical mineral now as per Congress and Teck's biggest shareholders are Chinese. I thought that would be a hurdle to getting this across the finish line. So are you fully done with U.S. regulations is the first question?

Yes. Well, certainly, all the regulations that we needed to have applied for consent under we have at this particular point in time. The only two outstanding are South Korea and China.

And then secondly, on Moranbah North, I think back in August, you said the run rate was costing you $45 million a month or something that was 6 months ago. In the last couple of months, has it been similar to that level? And then with the phased restart of the longwall now, and I think you referred to it as a structured restart of the longwall, what exactly does that entail? And what are the cost run rates on -- as you're ramping this thing back up?

Okay. John's probably got exactly the numbers, but of course, they will be lower for two reasons. One is from November, Moranbah South -- Moranbah North got back into production in a limited fashion, but there is actually coal being cut and it is being sold. That's point one. Point two, it's being sold into a higher price environment at the moment, which is also pretty helpful. But specifically, to your question about what is actually happening in terms of the ramp-up again at Moranbah North. First of all, the permission that we got to restart the mine in -- at the end of October last year, so really restart in November was conditional on the fact that when we were actually cutting coal with the longwall, we didn't have anybody underground.

Until such time as we got far enough away from what was believed to be the source of the incident. And during that period, therefore, we had to remotely operate the longwall, which is a good thing, right, because that's generally a more productive way of doing it over time. But because if you have a roof fall or anything that sort of impacts the whole chain and the longwall and so on, you have to stop. We had condition that said we had to see what happened to the atmosphere, the environment down there. They had to get to sort of stable levels in terms of carbon monoxide and then we could send people down. And so the gap between a stop and a restart was anywhere between 6 and 12 hours. So it's pretty unproductive.

We are now, as of the beginning of February, in a position that we can run the mine completely unrestricted in that context. We have an agreement with our own workforce to be about 120 meters away from where that incident occurred before we actually start running it in an unrestricted sort of fashion. We're at about 90 meters now. So another few weeks to a month is where we would now then be able to just start ramping up under normal conditions with the natural variations, which are attributable to that type of ore body.

Can we go to Alain quickly, if that's all right. And we keep it to one question from here on, as we've only got a few minutes left, if that's okay.

One question from my side, Duncan, is granted, you've got your hands full with completing the Teck transaction, but you've also got a very capable project team at Quellaveco. Do you see opportunities to leverage their capabilities in exploiting inorganic options such as partnership with other majors in Latin America where you can best utilize this team?

Alain, you are quite right. I have an absolutely capable team across all fronts. And certainly, [ Alan ] and the projects team are looking for every opportunity that they can as well as Helena and the business development team. And to the extent that there are opportunities for us, we would, of course, engage in those. They would have to fit all the criteria that we have in terms of how we allocate capital, how we manage risk in the business going forward. We don't have any external options that are on the table that you don't know about today in that space and particularly not in Peru at this point.

Tony?

Tony Robson, Global Mining Research. Possibly for John. Carrying values for De Beers, $2.3 billion. Could you remind us, please, I'm sure it's in the accounts. Is that before or after any debt within De Beers? Or is it net or gross? And secondly, any -- given it's a discontinued asset and you're much closer now to realizing its value or knowing what its value is, any accounting IFRS rules that say you have to market to market? So is that -- but I still assume it's on future prices, cost discount rates and so on, your $2.3 billion.

Yes. So the $2.3 billion is on an enterprise value basis. So of course, there is some intercompany funding within De Beers, but from a valuation perspective, that sort of nets out that sort of some capital from an Anglo American perspective. So the $2.3 billion, which is 100%, remember, not the Anglo American share is on an enterprise value basis. In terms of the accounting, then you have to sort of look at the fair market value and the value in use when you're doing your impairment assessment. So you have to take both of those things into account. So there is no absolute requirement to mark-to-market, but you, of course, have to take into account information you have around what that market value could be as you are forming the impairment assessment.

And we go to Ben and Alan quickly here.

Ben Davis, RBC. Just on De Beers, I was wondering if you could give us any color on the potential bidders. Has that settled down now? Has that bedded? It feels like we've had a lot of media reports of various government interest, consortium interest and how well financed those are? And also, are those consortium include governments, et cetera?

So they're all consortia that are involved. Some of them include governments and some of them don't. So there is a possibility that there will be -- our share will be sold in three parts potentially or two parts potentially. That depends on where we get to in the negotiation in the next few weeks.

Grant?

Patrick Mann from Investec. Can I just ask a little bit more on the time line? So it looks that the optimal scenario here would be dispose of steelmaking coal, close nickel and De Beers before Anglo Teck closes at the end of the year and pay the special dividend. Are you confident in the timing of that De Beers thing? Or could we see a scenario where Anglo Teck closes and you're still trying to exit De Beers post that fact?

And then I understand that your -- still your best estimate is 12 to 18 months. But given there's only two outstanding regulatory requirements, I mean, what is the soonest this could happen? I mean, could we wake up in a couple of months and it's done?

There is nothing in terms of the Anglo American portfolio restructure that is contingent on the completion of the deal with Teck. So the sequence that you described would be absolutely ideal if indeed we could make that happen. But there's no contingency of that to -- or contingents of that to the completion. So the consequence of that is that it is highly likely if the deal closes in that 12-month window, so around about September or so of this year, that De Beers will still be in the portfolio. I'm targeting, of course, to have it sold at that particular point in time, but it then will be running through its statutory and regulatory processes for completion. So it would be in Anglo Teck's portfolio until such time as it was gone.

In terms of the 12 to 18 months, I mean, I think theoretically, that there's not much change in that 12-month time. And therefore, that is the most likely period where we would expect it to be completed.

Very good. I think is that -- are there any other questions left in the audience? There aren't. Okay. Well, in that case, thank you very much for all of your questions at the end of a very long week. We really appreciate it. And I look forward to following up with you in due course. Thank you.

Thank you.