BHP Group Stock

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ross McEwan, and I'm your Chair. Hello, and welcome to BHP's 2026 Annual General Meeting. Let me first thank Uncle Allen Madden for the warm welcome to country. I would also like to acknowledge that these are the traditional lands of the Wongal people who have a deep connection to the lands and waterways of Sydney. We extend our respect and to their elders past and present. And welcome to our shareholders. We are delighted to be together in person in Sydney today. We have a long connection with this great state, New South Wales.

Our last Annual General Meeting in Sydney was in 2019, just before COVID, and it's good to be back. Today, I am joined on stage by my fellow directors, including your Chief Executive Officer, Brandon Craig; and our General Group Counsel and Group Company Secretary, Stefanie Wilkinson. We also have our external auditors from Ernst & Young; and our Chief Financial Officer, Vandita Pant, in audience as well as other members of our executive leadership team. I can confirm that there is a quorum present. And as the time is shortly after 10:00 a.m. in Sydney, we can now start the meeting. The notice of this Annual General Meeting was made available to shareholders on the 15th of September 2026, and I'll take this as read. The poll is now open for all of the items to be considered at today's meeting, and you may now start casting your votes. I'll also give you a warning before the end of the meeting so that you have the opportunity to cast your votes before voting closes.

Stefanie Wilkinson will outline the procedures for voting at today's AGM a little later in the meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here in Sydney. And of course, in New South Wales, where the BHP story began more than 140 years ago, about 900 kilometers from here. I have to say I'm amazed by the history of this company. It's an incredible story of perseverance, reinvention and growth that started with a single discovery. I'm actually heading to the Broken Hill soon, and I can't wait to see it for myself. Today's AGM is an important opportunity to hear from you, answer your questions and talk openly about the business. We'll discuss our performance, the opportunities we see ahead and our plans to make the most of them.

Welcome also to shareholders joining us online and from around Australia and around the world. Thank you for your continued support. It has been a big year for BHP. We've had a smooth leadership transition, another strong year of operational and financial performance, and we've advanced growth projects that will shape the future of this company. All that gives the Board confidence in the road ahead. But before I talk about the performance of growth, I want to start with what actually matters, and that is safety. Everyone who works for BHP or alongside BHP should return home safely at the end of every shift.

In the last few months, 2 of our colleagues have lost their lives on site, one at BMA's Peak Downs mine in Queensland and one at Escondida in Chile. These are tragedies. These are tragedies for their family and friends, their workmates and for the wider community. It affects all of us at BHP, including the Board, and so it should. We are asking the hard questions of ourselves and of the business. We owe that to the people affected and to every person who comes to work across our operations each and every day. Mining has made tremendous progress on safety over many decades. Terrible events like this remind us that our work is not done. Our focus remains on eliminating fatalities and serious injuries at BHP altogether.

Let me be quite clear. There is nothing more important. This year marked an important transition for BHP. Mike Henry retired as our Chief Executive Officer after more than 6 years in the role and a long career with the company. Mike left BHP in excellent shape. During his tenure as CEO, the company became simpler and it performed better, and it's much better positioned for the future. And on behalf of the Board, I want to thank Mike for his outstanding leadership and contribution. And we now have Brandon in the driver seat. The Board appointed Brandon Craig following a thorough succession process. He is the right person to lead BHP into this next chapter. Since taking on the role on July 1, Brandon has brought his own energy, clear thinking and deep operational experience. And after 27 years with BHP, working at each of our major operations in Australia and the Americas, he knows this company as well as anyone. He has a strong understanding of our people, our assets and our opportunities. The Board has great confidence in his leadership.

I'd also like to welcome Mark Resale, who joined the Board on the 1st of June. Many of you will know Mark from his leadership of BlueScope Steel. You might not know, though, his first-ever job was working for BHP and Newcastle. Mark brings valuable experience, sound judgment at a deep understanding of Australian industry, and we look forward to benefiting from his insights in the years to come. It was another good year for BHP. But what does that mean for shareholders? For 2026, the Board approved total dividends equivalent to about AUD 2.40 per share. That's an USD 8.7 billion return to shareholders and represents our highest dividend in 4 years and the record highs in our share price over the last few months show how the market is valuing us. Our dividend and share price directly benefit over more than 600,000 shareholders, as well as millions more Australians who superannuation funds invest in BHP. I hope the shareholders in the room were pleased with these results.

For the longer term, our 2026 dividend also says something important about the company and the eyes of the Board. It means that the business is strong and performing well. It means we can fund our future plans and reward shareholders at the same time, and it shows our confidence in the future of your company. One of the reasons we're confident is because of the way our business is positioned for the future. Mining is cyclical. There are peaks and there are troughs. What we have is a portfolio that is designed to perform through the cycle. The world needs growth. It needs new infrastructure, reliable energy, modern technology and food security. All of these things depend on the resources that BHP produces.

China remains a major center of industrial activity and commodity demand. They remain a huge customer market for us. And India is entering what we expect will be a multi-decade period of infrastructure investment, manufacturing growth and economic development. And on top of that, all of the infrastructure and wiring for renewable energy and for artificial intelligence. Taken together, these trends give us confidence that demand for copper, for iron ore and steelmaking coal will remain strong for many years to come. Jansen, our Canadian potash business is on track to deliver its first production mid next year. A growing population needs more food from the same amount of farmland. Fertilizers like potash will be key to improving agricultural productivity. We have a range of options to grow across our commodities. It's a good problem to have. But it also means we pay a lot of attention to competitiveness.

We must always strive to be better than our competition. That's why we remain focused on improving productivity, adopting new technologies, developing our people and making our operations safer and more efficient. Countries around the world are doing exactly the same. We are global allocators of capital. And as many of you will know, capital will always flow to the projects, companies and the countries that can deliver the best returns. That is why we continue to support policy settings that encourage investment, productivity and economic growth. These things matter to -- for us at BHP but they matter just as much for Australia's long-term prosperity and competitiveness. Make no mistake, Australia must compete for capital if it wants to win nationally and in every state.

We're seeing other countries move very quickly. Canada is a very good example. It has recently announced a productivity mega deduction, which allows businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of eligible capital investments. For mining, Canada also makes mine development costs fully deductible in the year they are incurred and that matters. It lowers the tax burden on new investment. It improves returns and it gives companies greater confidence to commit capital. That, in turn, creates jobs. It creates income and taxes for the nation. This is just a particular example of government policy being used to encourage productivity and attract investment. And we've seen similar examples in other countries where we are investing, like Argentina and Chile.

Australia should pay close attention to that. Another area of competition is action on climate change. There is a view by some, the resources companies are moving too slowly. That is not the BHP I see. We've been taking practical action for years. We are cutting greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations using more renewable power and backing developing technologies that can lower emissions from mining, working with industry partners and equipment producers. We're trialing 220-tonne plus battery electric haul trucks in the Pilbara, with our trial of battery electric locomotives set to expand in the coming months. We have an operational decarbonization target in place for 2030 and we're on track to meet it. And we'll do it without putting BHP's competitiveness at risk, which BHP does more than work to reduce its own emissions. We produce materials the world needs to decarbonize. Copper and steel are and the wind turbines, electric vehicles, transmission lines, solar panels that will power the future.

Government has a critical role to play. The wrong policy settings carry real risks to prescriptive to rigid or back in 1 form of abatement when another may prove better tomorrow. Let's avoid tankering with policy settings that are actually starting to work. The world wants lower emissions and so do we. The task is to cut emissions in a way that works, one that delivers real results, protects competitiveness, supports jobs, and it keeps creating value for shareholders and nations into the future.

I'm speaking to a group of our partner and stakeholders about the future last night. And about BHP's history here in New South Wales. It reinforced to me how important our partnerships are. Over many decades, we have built strong relationships with communities, with customers, suppliers, traditional owners and governments. These relationships are not separate from business performance. They are essential to business performance. They help create the conditions for long-term success and allow us to build stronger businesses, support stronger communities and contribute to better futures for the countries where we operate.

This year, we increased our spend with indigenous suppliers to more than USD 1 billion, 3x what it was just 3 years ago. More broadly, BHP's total economic contribution was more than USD 50 billion, and more than USD 12 billion that was paid in taxes, royalties and other payments to governments. Successful companies should create value for shareholders, but they should also make a positive contribution to the communities and economies that support their operations. That has been part of the BHP story for generations, and it remains an important part of how we create value today.

Ladies and gentlemen, BHP enters 2027 in a good position with exciting growth opportunities. We have world-class assets, a strong balance sheet and a highly capable leadership team. Perhaps most importantly, we operate in a world that will need more of what BHP produces. BHP is in a strong health with exciting growth plans ahead. This is good news for the millions of Australians with a stake in the company, direct shareholders, superfund holders, employees, suppliers and the communities in which we operate. To all of our shareholders, whether you're here in Sydney or joining us online, thank you for your continued support. Thank you for your trust, and thank you for your investment in BHP.

It is now my pleasure to hand over to your CEO, Brandon Craig. Thank you.

Thank you, Ross, and thank you to all our shareholders joining us here in Sydney and online around the world. This is my first AGM as Chief Executive Officer, and it is a privilege to stand before you in that capacity. I've spent more than 25 years with I've worked across many parts of our business in different commodities, different countries and different stages of the cycle. And throughout that time, 1 thing has remained constant. BHP has always been at its best when we combine great assets with great people and clear priorities. I take on this role with deep respect for the history of this company and with great optimism for its future.

Before I go any further, I want to add to Ross' acknowledgment of Mike Henry. Mike left us a company in excellent shape. But beyond that, I also want to thank Mike for his generosity and time as I moved into the CEO role. His support has ensured a smooth transition and I have benefited greatly from his advice and experience. I'm honored to serve as your CEO, and I look forward to creating value for you in the years ahead.

My first priority is safety. As Ross noted, we have lost 2 colleagues on site in the past few months, 1 working for a contractor partner at Peak Downs in the bone Basin and the other, a maintenance worker at Escondida. Both losses are simply unacceptable. As leaders, these moments stay with us, they remind us that behind every job, every roster, and every shift is a person who expects to return home safely to the people who matter most. At BHP, we have made progress in improving safety over many years, but progress alone is not the measure. -- the only acceptable number is 0. I believe mining can be fatality-free, and I want BHP to help prove that. That means acting with urgency, learning everything we can from incidents when they occur and applying those lessons across the whole company and sharing them across the industry. It means continuously improving our standard systems and critical controls and it means moving faster to adopt the technologies that help make work safer.

Importantly, we must achieve the same level of safety performance for every contractor and partner working alongside us as we do for our employees. When it comes to safety, there can be no distinction. Nothing we achieve as a company matters more than that.

Turning now to our performance. In financial year 2026, BHP delivered strong operational and financial results. We demonstrated the quality of our assets, the strength of our portfolio and the growing maturity of the BHP operating system. Across our business, our teams delivered safely, reliably and with discipline. We achieved record production at Western Australia iron ore, which remained the world's lowest cost major iron ore producer for the seventh year running. Operational performance in our steelmaking coal business continued to improve. Olympic Dam recorded its highest production in more than 20 years and that Escondida, record material moved and record concentrator throughput help support another outstanding year.

As a result, copper contributed more than half of BHP's earnings for the first time. Today, BHP is the world's largest copper producer. That matters because copper is becoming increasingly important to the modern economy. It is critical for electrification, digital infrastructure, manufacturing and economic development around the world, and our strong operational performance translated into strong financial performance. Underlying EBITDA increased to USD 33 billion, and underlying attributable profit rose 30% to USD 13 billion.

These results are not simply the product of favorable markets. Every 1 of our major assets achieved its unit cost guidance despite inflation, higher diesel prices and global supply disruption, results which reflect deliberate choices we have made. We have simplified our portfolio, focused on commodities with attractive long-term demand fundamentals and invested in world-class assets. And we have maintained the discipline to perform through the cycle. I'm very confident in the future of this company, and I have high ambitions for what we can achieve from here.

While I am pleased with where BHP stands today, I'm even more excited about what comes next. My focus as Chief Executive is centered on 3 priorities. First, strengthening our foundations. Everything else we do depends on them. That starts with safety. It also means building the talent we need to advance our plans, particularly in project delivery, digital and AI. It means delivering on our social value and sustainability commitments, and it means deepening our core relationships. Over the past few months, I've spent considerable time listening to a meeting with our people, customers, governments, communities, investors and industry partners.

Last month, I visited China and met with a number of our steelmaking customers. The conversations reinforced something I've long believed. The strongest partnerships are built over decades. Our customers depend on us to provide reliable supply and high-quality products. We depend on them to help us understand how markets are evolving and where future opportunities will emerge. The same principle applies to governments, communities and traditional owners. Strong relationships build trust, trust creates resilience and together, they create opportunities for growth and development. That is why strengthening these foundations is not separate from business performance. It is an essential part of it.

Second, accelerating performance the BHP operating system has already transformed the way we work. Over the past several years, it has improved operational stability, productivity and cost performance across our assets, but I see more opportunity ahead. The next step is combining the BHP operating system with technology more deeply. As we combine world-class operating discipline with world-class technology I believe we can reach new horizons in safety and productivity and increase the velocity of the business. And third, delivering disciplined programmatic growth. We are fortunate to have one of the strongest growth pipelines in our industry. Jansen is progressing towards first production mid next year and will create a significant new earnings stream for BHP.

Importantly, it also diversifies us by commodity and geography, which helps us to perform more consistently in a cyclical industry. Jansen has taken longer and cost more than we originally planned. That being said, we have tightened our controls and our immediate priority is the safe, disciplined delivery of its first production.

In copper, we continue to advance an outstanding portfolio of growth options including projects at Escondida, Copper South Australia and Vicuna. Company-wide, our current plans are expected to support compound annual production growth of approximately 3% to 4% through to 2035, including around 5% annual growth for copper. It is essential that this growth is delivered to plan. That is why we are investing significantly in our project execution capability. Our commitment is to execute projects safely, on time, on budget and with a clear focus on shareholder value. That is our capital discipline at work. Our ambition is simple to win the next decade for BHP.

Let me close with why I believe BHP is uniquely positioned for the future. We operate in commodities the world needs. We have a portfolio of world-class assets. Our existing iron ore business is large, strong and resilient. Our copper position is world-leading and growing. And we have a culture that combines operational excellence with disciplined capital allocation. Our advantage is not any single asset or single commodity. It is a combination of our people, our portfolio and our operating system. The world will need more copper. It will need more iron ore. It will need steelmaking coal and it will need potash to help feed a growing population. As much as this company has achieved over more than 140 years, I believe our best chapters are still ahead of us. I'm excited about the future. I'm excited about what our people can achieve, and I'm excited about the value we can create together for shareholders and the communities and countries where we operate. Thank you for your continued support and trust in BHP. Thank you.

Thank you, Brandon. I'd now like to ask our Group General Counsel and Group Company Secretary, Stefanie Wilkinson, to outline the procedures for voting and questions at today's AGM.

Thank you, Ross, and hello, everyone. I will now run through the procedural aspects of today's meeting. Voting on all items today will occur by a poll. On a poll, each shareholder attending or present by proxy, attorney or corporate representative as 1 vote for every share held. If you're eligible to vote, you can use your own device to vote by scanning the QR code on your voting card. The resolutions will be displayed on your screen. To cast your vote, simply select for, against or abstain underneath each resolution. A tick will appear to confirm receipt of your vote. To change your vote, select click here to change your vote and select a different option. You may change your vote at any stage until the poll closes.

If you experience any difficulties, Computershare representatives are on hand at the back of the room and will be able to provide assistance. Alternatively, please complete the voting instructions on the back of your voting card and place it into one of the available voting boxes. If you have voted electronically using your device, there is no need to complete your voting card or place it in the voting boxes as your vote has already been recorded. The chair has opened the poll and you can vote at any time. You do not need to wait for the resolution to be discussed before casting your vote.

Results of the voting will be announced to the stock exchanges shortly after the conclusion of today's meeting and will also be published on our website. Eva Wilcox from Computershare has been appointed returning officer for the meeting and will scrutineer the vote.

Turning to the items of business in the Notice of Meeting. The Board recommends that you vote in favor of items 2 to 11, Item 13 and Item 14 in the Notice of Meeting, subject to the voting exclusions noted in the notice. Item 12 relates to the election of an external candidate, Mr. Stephen Mayne as a Director of BHP Group Limited. Item 12 is not endorsed by the Board, and the Board recommends that you vote against this item. The Board makes no recommendation for Item 15 as the directors have a personal interest in the subject of this item.

We will ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for shareholders as a whole to ask questions or make comments at this meeting. However, we may not be able to answer every question or address every comment received. If you would like to ask a question today, please register at the registration point outside the main room. Please provide your name and the name of any organization that you may be representing today together with the nature of your question to the attendant. When it's your turn to ask a question, an attendant will let you know to come to the microphone.

To ensure that shareholders as a whole have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at today's meeting, we ask that you respect the rights of others in the room and limit yourself to 2 questions or comments of no more than 1 or 2 minutes. The question registration point will remain open throughout the meeting if you wish to register to ask a question. Thank you, Ross.

Thank you, Stefanie. Item 1 of today's business is to consider the financial report, sustainability report and reports from the directors and auditor for the year ended 30 June 2020. The Shareholders are not required to vote on this item, but you may ask questions or make comments, and I'd love you to do so. I was in London a few weeks ago, and met with a large group of our retail shareholders, and we had a great discussion about BHP's strategy, commodity focus, operational performance and growth plans. It was incredibly engaging. I hope we can have a similar shareholder discussion today, and I encourage you shareholders to ask the questions on these topics or any other matters arising from the reports we have provided to you.

We also received questions in advance of today's meetings. And Brandon and I will cover some of these key topics. We've covered them in our opening remarks, and we'll cover them through as questions come up. In the past, we've asked you to hold questions on director elections and reelections and remuneration until later in the meeting. Look, we're happy to take those questions now. We have a new CEO sitting here beside me, who has 27 years experience at this great company, and I can't wait for you to hear more from him about our business. So I may well throw more questions to them today. We'll also have an opportunity after the meeting to meet you in person, and I know that Board and members of our leadership team are looking forward to talking to you after the meeting over some refreshments in the foyer.

We will do our best to get to as many of your questions and comments as possible. As Stefanie said earlier, to ensure that shareholders as a whole have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at today's meeting, please limit yourself to 2 questions and/or comments and no more than 1 or 2 minutes, please. I ask that shareholders and guests are courteous and respectful to each other. I will now take questions and comments from the floor. We'll move to the microphones to take the first question.

We'll go to microphone 1. Chair may introduce Nathan Hood from the Australian Shareholders Association.

Yes, I'm Nathan from the Australian Shareholders' Association, where a not-for-profit representing shareholders across Australia. My questions are -- the total investment estimate for Jansen Stage 2 has jumped from USD 4.9 billion to USD 6.9 billion and first production pushed out 2 years to late FY 2031. In addition, the project has taken a write-down of $2.3 billion. Our quick estimates reveal that Jansen will have a marginal return even with no further write-downs. What went wrong with the due diligence and how can you reassure shareholders that the root causes have been addressed in the new estimates.

My other question is BHP has had 2 fatalities this year, 1 at Peak Downs, coal mine and the other at Escondida copper mine, both joint ventures. How can BHP target 0 fatalities in joint ventures where it doesn't have full control and what specific actions arise from these 2, including docking of executive pay?

Thank you very much, Nathan. I'll take the first question, which was to do with Jansen and Brandon did speak a little bit about Branson -- Jansen in his opening remarks. It was very disappointing to have to push out the cost of that project and by quite an amount. And the Board had many, many questions relating to that. And I'll pass to Brandon to give you some of the areas that he had to look at because he'd been in the job about 6 months and found that it was looking like costing a lot more in Stage 1. And as we got to Stage 2 at the cost of Stage 2, we could see, given 1 was pushed out when we redid the work on Stage 2. It was very clear that, that was going to cost more, therefore, we had to actually look at the carrying value of the asset, which created the write-down. So that were all semi related to the same thing.

I just want to make a couple of comments on Jansen and Potash. First off, we are developing one of the largest -- world's largest potash mines, not just in Canada but right across the world. We believe it actually will diversify our production and give us new revenue streams. And it is certainly a Tier 1 asset that's being developed, which is on stream with what we want for our shareholders, Tier 1 assets. And it will increase our operational footprint across. So there's a lot to like about this business, but it was very disappointing to have the cost of Stage 1 push out as they did. We believe there's a great future for this business. It has the opportunity of having margins very similar to iron ore and copper and has certainly got a projection over the next 20 to 30 years of growth in this because of the trends, we've got a greater population on the same amount of land that's going to need more production. So the trends are absolutely right for this product.

Brandon and his team have strengthened project management. And we've looked across not just this project, but into all of our other projects to have a look at how will this -- how could this happen again? And how do we stop it? And there's been a program of work going on to strengthen our project management. So we had actually a conversation on that very topic yesterday at our Board meeting yesterday. So I'll pass to Brandon, if there's any other comments, but we remain very committed to the potash business as a business that will serve the time for our shareholders. And we see this as a business that has a very long life to it, 60-plus years, and it's on stream for us. So Brandon?

Thank you, Chair. And Nathan, thank you for the question. I think there will be an opportunity in the break, the President of Jansen is actually in the audience with us. And I'll connect to you when we finish the session. First, I'll just I want to start by just echoing a comment from Ross, which is the quality of the asset we're building. We have an unbelievable resource position in Canada in potash. We have a business that's going to run 70 years and beyond and we're projecting operating costs for Jansen of around $120 a tonne, in the market today that price is at $300 per tonne. So we're expecting a business that will make 60% margins for 70 years plus. And that gave us the conviction to really continue to invest in Jansen because we can see the huge long-term benefit of being in this commodity in this asset.

Having said that, we fully acknowledge our performance on the Jansen project that the costs have increased. And there's a number of reasons for it. I'll cover too. The first is with any major project, when you invest major capital, you have to assume a number of escalation factors for inflation and materials and similar. We use historical trends for that when we did the Jansen project. And what eventuated was inflation post-COVID of 12% or 13% per annum for just over 2 years. And that had quite a big impact on the project. The second key driver was the productivity of delivery in the field. We underestimated the effort it would take us to get the productivity to the benchmarks we set out when we originally estimated the cost for the project. So when we first notified the market that we identified some issues with our performance, we've subsequently done significant work to lift the productivity. I'm happy to report to shareholders that our productivity and performance today is very strong. we're on track for first production mid next calendar year. And we think that's going to be a huge milestone for us because we've been investing in this project for well over a decade. And we're finally going to have an operating business in Canada, which we believe we're going to be very proud of.

Thank you, Brandon. Nathan, your second question was around the fatalities. This has hurt the organization, but these are tragedies for families. And as I said, we want every worker who comes to work on a shift to go high at night safely just as they came to work. You raised the issue about these being not operating vehicles. Both of these, they are JVs, but we are the operator of both of these operations. So the fact that we have other shareholders involved we actually operate these. So we take absolute responsibility for these operations. And one of the tragedies happened to a contractor. And let's be quite clear, anyone who comes on to site for us is effectively seen as one of our people. So even though they were a contractor was exactly the same arrangements. We are having to look at how we operate with contractors though. We've got very stringent arrangements, but we're doing a review to make sure that they fit with absolutely everything we'd expect from an employee of our business. So some work to be done there.

Brandon was on site within 2 days of each of those fatalities. And I think that's really important to make sure that our senior leadership are there, knowing what's going on. There's no point of being there on day 1 or day 2 because effectively, the police, the regulators and the review is being done immediately. But I think to make sure that our senior team are all over what's happening here. So we can -- once the reviews are done, which take months to get the real facts of what happens, we can then read across into all of our operations. And that's certainly what we have been doing just on the information we've received. Yet to get the formal reports, which will also come through our Sustainability Committee up to our Board, and these conversations happen at the Board meeting.

Just so shareholders are aware, the first topic of conversation with our CEO and any Board discussion is safety. We start there, and that's the right place to start when you're in this sort of business. So take it absolutely seriously. Still some work to be done on how do we see that this never happens again, but those work is done. The other piece for our shareholders when we do a review, we don't allow the leader of the business that it's involved to actually do the review. We bring in another senior executive to actually head up the review. So there's a formal process we go through to make sure that we're looking at the real issues and getting the real truth out of these things. But both of these were tragedies, and they've obviously been hugely impactful for families but also for the business. Thank you for raising that topic. Okay. Next question, please.

Chair, may I introduce Peter Star.

On behalf of the shareholders I represent, we'd like to thank Mike for all the work he did and putting the company in such a good shape. We'd also like to let the other shareholders in the room know that we're very grateful that there Ross, Chairman. We think that while you sit there as Chairman, we think the company is in very good shape and know that you have our full support. I look forward to meeting Brandon later on. And just 1 question we have about what happened with the 2 contractors. What follow-up and support did BHP give to those people's families and things if I could get some clarification on that, that would be great.

Thank you, Peter, and thank you for your comments. And it was great that you mentioned, Mike, because he did an outstanding job for this organization. And I think when the chapter of the next BHP books written, I think that will be a pretty good chapter to read. Great for your support, too. I will do my best to maintain this as a great company and continue to push it on. You'll be able to catch Brandon at the drinks afterwards, and that's a great part of having an in-person AGM as opposed to it online. And I know that people say we love the online piece. But actually, we like the interaction with our shareholders, which is real. There was 1 contractor and 1 of our employees, but we take those as exactly the same. And I'll ask Brandon to take you through what happens with the families afterwards because this is just a tragedy, and we do want to look after the people, but also their staff on board as well. who were involved in the shifts and work with these people. So Brandon, maybe if you just take the shareholders through the family contact.

So thank you, Peter, and thank you for the question. I think my starting comments would be just to acknowledge how significant these impacts are on families and colleagues and friends when they happen. It's clearly very traumatic for the family, and it's dramatic for everybody involved when these events do happen and we are very, very focused on making sure that anybody connected in particular family groups to people who are fatally impacted on our sites are really well cared for. Now in some instances, like these events, we have contract partners that are the direct employer of these individuals that doesn't change, in our view, the responsibility we ultimately have for putting the family at the center of our response.

So the way we normally handle it is we'll put in place what I'd simply describe as a family liaison officer to work directly with the family to make sure we can best support them. Everything from psychological support all the way through to making sure that there's no accidental or adverse effects to the family financially as a result of these types of events because whenever people pass away, then obviously, the authorities get involved. You can have things like bank accounts being frozen accidentally, you can have all of these unintended impacts happening. So we make sure we have a team that monitors that to make sure those types of adverse things never happen. But the whole concept is really the welfare of the family, putting that first and then making sure we do that with discipline.

I think that's a really good thing that BHP does and follows up.

Thanks, Peter. Thank you. Okay. Next question, please. I think we're at mic 2.

Chair, may I introduce Michael Strakos.

Yes. This is a question about the auditor. Has the auditor ever worked for PwC or KPMG in the recent past or ever as the ethics and the professions seem to have diverged significantly in the past little while.

We've had EY for 20 years as our auditor. So I think if they did work for 1 of those firms, it was pretty much a long, long time ago that they would have been working I can ask our auditor to actually make a comment on this one, but I'm pretty sure we have an absolutely clean auditor with Ernst & Young given the time that we've been operating. Other words, I will ask Rodney to maybe just take a question on that 1 given the topic.

Yes. Thank you. So Rodney Piltz is my name on the audit partner from Ernst & Young. It's my fifth year on the engagement. We've actually been the auditors for 7 years. there was a transition. I can confirm through my whole career, I've worked for Ernst & Young the whole time. So we don't have anyone on the team in my knowledge. In recent times, it's worked for anyone other than Ernst & Young and all of our rules and regulations have been complied with, and we've been through significant internal reviews at all times. Does that answer your question?

Not really.

Sorry, what was the following.

The needs of the profession. SP-6 Do you want to comment on the profession? SP-7 The ethics of it, not the profession, just the ethics of the particular instances with the other firms?

Yes. Yes, I'd be happy to have a chat to afterwards. I think that's a question that I should be answering in the conduct of this order because the requirements are for me to answer in the conduct of our audit, but happy to have a chat to afterwards around workers have worked for those companies either.

Could I just intervene on this one? I think we should stay with BHP. We've had Ernst & Young for 20 years. As Rodney said, he's worked for nobody else. I think we're also in very big danger if we're not careful, not having audits if we're not careful, and we desperately need them for your security to have a great auditor. We believe we have got a very independent or a totally independent audit firm and I'll probably leave it at that. But thank you, Rodney, for that. Next question, please. Mic 1.

Chair, may introduce Victor Hyde.

Thank you very much for having the meeting in Sydney that I could attend. What I'm about to raise, I realize I apologize, you may have dealt with at a previous AGM. -- but this was the first time I could say something. In the previous year, you distributed the Woodside shares and declared a dividend. Now this, for me, because I've got a major holding quadrupled my tax and unbelievably, I then got a fine from the taxation department for not advising them that BHP was going to do this. That had to be expensed and overcome. I'm curious why did you do that in that year and explain why you did it? And I do hope you'll never do it again.

Look, thank you for that. I'm pretty sure all those considerations were done the best interest of shareholders to get the maximum value for you and taking those assets out and trading them into Woodside at the time. I'm not aware of the tax implications of those. But I'm sure if you have a chat to someone like Vandita Pant, who is our CFO, she you through it. But I think you will find that BHP did what was in the best interest of shareholders at the time.

You can't explain it. That's what I was hoping.

Well, I think probably best if you get, but Vandita, would you up and we'll get you to meet Mr. Hyde at the end of the meeting. Thank you very much Okay. Next question, please.

Chairman, I introduce Nigel Sandero.

My question was I started to be addressing in your open address. It rises from the media coverage about be HP move to for electrification. We now have a situation where the pressure to remove the current fuel excise rebate on diesel is not likely to dissipate. Plus we have the awards in the Middle East and Ukraine that show no realistic sign of ending anytime soon. Should be HHP's decision defer electrification of the current diesel haul trucks be reviewed, reversed and possibly tolerated especially for Australia.

Mr. Santaco, great question. Wouldn't it be magnificent right now to have electric trucks operating in our mines. The problem that we have is that they just do not operate in a way that is safe and secure and worth funding at this point in time. But by crack, we would love to have them operating now with the price of diesel at the price it is today. So there's a couple of issues that be worth touching on. First off, we are starting to trial now. As we said, we run the very big trucks. These are the biggest mining trucks, 220 tonnes. Now they run at the moment. They'll run for 3 hours, then they need recharging for half an hour, then they run for 3 and need half an hour recharging.

So you've got that pattern going through. Today, the economics on the diesel are still much better because they run for 23 hours, 45 minutes. But you are absolutely right. If we could have electric trucks running efficiently and safely because I'll come back to that point on our mines, we would love to have them there right today. They are just not available. Now there's immediate piece around this, people are saying that these trucks work. Unfortunately, they don't, otherwise, we would have them. And it's an environment that they operate in, that's really important.

These are not running on a road. These are running out in our environment in moving pits and operating environments. So you have to have the environment set up for them, but a great question. Can I take you to the rebate -- fuel rebate because that's been out there in the marketplace as well. When you go to the pump with your motor car, you do pay a fuel tax, right? We don't go to a pump. We don't drive on the roads. We like the farmers who don't drive on the road. We've got them on our property. We maintain our own roads. And I'm pretty sure you would not run us driving 220 tonnes down the main streets of any city or town. So we don't pay -- we don't believe we should be paying a fuel excise tax on this because we don't use the roads that, that tax goes to. But there will be pressure.

There has been pressure, but I think the government has seen fit to say that mining, agriculture, fishing, which don't use the roads, shouldn't be paying the tax. But by Craig, we'd love to be -- have an environment that's a lot more advanced than electric right now given the price of diesel. I think last year, Brandon probably cost us another $1 billion in diesel costs. So if we could, we'd be there. And I think we've still got a fair way to go before we get an environment where we can run these big trucks and the environment that you talk about. It's also trains. That's probably our next big use as the trains, which we're trialing to electric trains to see if they will operate and get them into an environment, but it's certainly something that we're working with all of the big truck and train manufacturers to get us in a position where they'll operate safely, securely and productively in a mine environment.

Thank you for the question. We actually had quite a few of the written questions on that very once. I'm delighted you asked it so that we can actually have a chat about it as well. Thank you.

Chair may I introduce Andrew Summerville.

Just on that last question. You've got a federal tax credit of $622 million in 2425 for diesel. Now you bought 2 electric haulers, as you said. You did buy 62 new diesel trucks. That seems an incredible number of new diesel trucks compared with the 2 electric that you bought. I'm of the opinion that you bought diesel trucks because you're getting this huge fuel subsidy from the government because you're not going on the road. That's my comment. Now my first question is, why not have a hybrid meeting where other people can ask questions online? This is 21st century, your companies that's going very well. You can surely afford to have a 21st century meeting where people get asked questions online. And Will there be a website or a webcast of this meeting on your website this year.

The other comment I have is why can we have a meeting in the city? I get a drive for an hour. I pay $24 a park, which is unbelievable. if we have it in the city, we can have it in public. I tried to use in public transit would take me 2 hours to get here. I did look at that and would it cost me $2.50. But the situation is you didn't get a lot of people here. I think it's high time that you looked at seriously having a meeting in the city where people can get to it and have it in a reasonable location. Other comment is you've had EY for 20 years. Surely, we should adopt the British system where you have a new auditor every 10 years, 20 years is too long to have 1 auditor. I know there's a shortage of auditors in the marketplace, but I think it's high time that we ran a tender and had another look at our order as good as EY may be. There might be somebody out there that's even better.

Just to correct something that it was my mistake an interpretation Rodney has been with EY for over 20 years. We've had EY since 2019 as our auditor. So just a correction on that one. And we -- at this stage, we feel comfortable that EY is doing an outstanding job for you as shareholders, but we do review the time frames that we hold on to our auditor and look to put that out to tender at the appropriate time. Can I take you through some of the points, city, look, we'll take that on notice. The only reason we do this is because if we do get swamped with a lot of people, there are a few venues in the city that will take the numbers that we anticipate, but we'll take that absolutely on notice. I get your point about it would be easier in the city. And certainly, last year, the Melbourne 1 was in the city, and we'll see what we can do next time we turn up in Sydney. But thank you for that commentary.

The second 1 on the hybrid meetings. Look, we run these meetings, you can e-mail us and take -- e-mail into us every day of the week. 365 days. You don't have to wait to an AGM to actually ask questions. You go on to our portal and look at the investor website. You can actually ask the questions you want to ask about your business, 365 days. We actually like the feel of having a meeting where we can talk to you like this and have the conversation afterwards over a coffee. It's pretty much an old habit, I know. But I think it's still 1 that actually gives shareholders a very good opportunity. We move them around the country side. I get the point about everything online. But the question is do you run just an online meeting, then you don't run these meetings where you can physically see you and have a chat with the shareholders.

It also just adds to the complexity of what you do as a part of our business. we're all great for adding to it, and I know that there will be some that it's best practice. I love that term, best practice. But it's these meetings seem to work. We have the opportunity for you to write to us 365 days of the year. It's all webcast. It's out there. People are watching it. and they can write to us beforehand and we have about 25 questions prior. So I think there's plenty of opportunity at this point in time. But I take your point. We'll keep an eye on it. But at this stage, comfortable with having a physical meeting where people can turn up, and we'll have a good look at the venues as well. Thank you.

Just on the trucking. You say we get a subsidy. We don't get a subsidy. We don't drive on the roads, right? We've got these trucks are on our premises on our roads that we maintain. So there's no subsidy. It's actually a rebate against not using the surface and the same as with agriculture and the same it is for the farming community as well. So that's what it's about. It's not about a subsidy. It's about we don't use the facilities that actually you pay your taxes for. Just as you -- if you've driven here today, you will have paid at the pump, something for the fulfilled tax. So that's what it's all about. And if you want to take away the rebate, we'll come and pay for our roads and you'll find the expense that you run through. So I think we've just got to get the terminology on that one right, and that's why the industry has pushed very hard as is the farming community and the fishing community as well. Okay. But thank you for your questions. Great questions. Appreciate it. Next, please.

Chair, may I introduce Bruce Bennett.

Once again, welcome to Sydney. We appreciate you coming here, and I'm sorry that we haven't got a better turnout. But as previous question made the point that this is probably a very difficult Sydney traffic is not the easiest place to get to in the morning. Anyway, my question relates -- the first question relates to BHP's history of research and development. It's been 1 of the companies that's obviously done very great R&D. Sometimes, it hasn't paid off like the rickets plant in the Pilbara, other times it's been very successful. I noticed yesterday that Forest mentioned that Dave made a breakthrough on treating copper raws to container neck. I'm just wondering whether you could explain to us some of the R&D that BHP is currently working on in order to improve its productivity and look to the future. So about the R&D program for BHP would be great.

The second 1 is the commodities that BHP is looking at to grow the business post Jansen. And Jansen are finally coming to fruition. What's the next look at you've got the wonderful copper business. You've got the -- and so in particular, the 2 things. One is, is uranium on your radar? And secondly, what's the process and the thinking, how does the Board go about deciding where we want to go next and why we don't go there and what we're going to do next. And I mean we've looked at some of the other mining companies. And they've done some pretty silly things in hydrogen production. They're not sticking to their knitting and they're getting really hit hard for that.

One of the great things about the strength about PHP is you stay with your knitting. You're a mining company, and you do a great job. And I just want to know how you go about looking at the next opportunity.

Sensational questions, and thank you. It's great to get those ones in front of an audience about the real business. So thank you very much. And it is good to be back in Sydney, I think the last time I said we were here in 2019. So it's Sidney's turn and again, we will have a look at the city where we can find a spot that's a bit more convenient for you. I'm going to hand the piece around research and development to Brandon, but these come to the Board on an annual basis. And your question about what commodities, the Board does a review with the executive team on an annual basis against a number of criteria and using our capital allocation process as well about what are the commodities that fit with BHP. Because 1 of the really good questions that many shareholders say, why don't you get interested in these new resources or whatever. But if you have a think about what is so attractive about BHP, we have big assets, Tier 1 assets, that are world-class that have a long life to them. Unlike potash will be 60-plus years that Pilbara has still decades and decades of iron ore. So we think about the assets that we can put big amounts of capital into that give you long-term returns with great margins. So we have a formula that seems to be working rather than as you say quite rightly, pushing off into areas that might be attractive today, but might be very small.

Now, we are a producer of uranium as a byproduct. When it comes out of our copper business in South Australia, and I think we're about 5% of the world's uranium as a byproduct. And there will be a time when we'll have a look at that and say, is that going to be big enough for us to be involved in it as an asset that we are focusing on. At this stage, the answer to that is still no. It's just not the market is not big enough.

We talked about Jansen, and we've had that here today. So that first production will come out of Canada midway through next year. We've also got a mining operation yet to be fully invested and with Board approval that's in Argentina in conjunction with the Lundin Mining Company and that's a 50-50. That is 1 of -- probably the 1 of the world's largest copper operations that we've got an investment in, 50%. We've also got a joint venture with Rio Tinto and America called Resolution, which we are 45%. They are 55%. That is again another very exciting copper operation. So we have a number of big projects. The other one, of course, is the expansion of Copper South Australia, which is a very exciting project here in Australia.

Not to put aside the fantastic iron ore business that you've invested in, in WA, which still gets our investment as well. So plenty of opportunities. But I'll hand to Brandon, he can give you a little bit on the research and development process that we go through and maybe concentrate that not just in Australia, but globally as well because that's probably where the Australia is exciting, but there are other parts as well.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett for the question. There's still quite a large amount of research and development that happens inside and we have a number of avenues by which we do it. I think the most interesting 1 is our innovation and Ventures team. So we have a team that is based in North America, that connects into the venture capital ecosystem of North America and supplier seed funding for novel and new research, everything for new hydrometallurgical processes all the way through to exploration technology and similar. And what we find in BHP is the health of that ecosystem is actually the strongest in North America. And those ventures push all the way through into more recent technology like artificial intelligence and similar on how that can be applied to mining.

We also do a lot of direct research ourselves. For example, in terms of how we can improve leaching performance in copper. So we have some pretty substantial test facilities in Chile, for example, where we test novel and new techniques for how we can improve leaching copper recovery performance and similar, which is very important. And then a large number of joint venture interest with customers and partners across a range of areas. For example, 1 of the bigger investments we're making is a joint venture between Hatch, BlueScope and others around new steelmaking technology. So we're investing in an electric multi furnace that we expect will be built in Western Australia to prove out new technology for how we can use Pilbara ores to produce iron ore at 70% less carbon intensity. So these are very important investments we're making to try and understand how we can move towards a sort of lower carbon future, still using Australian or BHP or and similar.

And then of course, there's substantial investments going into partnerships on decarbonization with steel mills, carbon capture in a range of similar areas. So I think that ecosystem in BHP is still quite strong. We still invest into it every year. We have strong plans and budgets, and it's actually performing quite well.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your question. Next question, mic 1.

Chair, may I introduce Lyric Thomas Pera.

My name is Larry, and I'm here with the Pacific Climate areas. So my question today is that BHP spends millions of dollars on marketing to position itself as a future-facing company. Yet it is planning to pursue multiple mine expansions, including peak downs, strategy and coverage mine expansions, which would extend the life of the mines for 90-plus years. My understanding is the environmental approach to -- sorry, the environmental approval decision for Psorid is due today. Is the board concerned about the reputation of risk to the company by pursuing these projects, especially given that green steel is a viable alternative.

Thank you very much for the question. The reputational risks are absolutely part of the risk assessment that the executive team do and the Board do for any of our projects and also the impact on the environment that we will operate in and what are the mitigating factors about that. And we take those through before we invest the money into any of these projects. We also have a guiding view and a very clear plan that is based around reducing our carbon footprint by 30% by 2030, which guides the Board to on all of its actions and the executive team have plans to actually reduce our carbon footprint from a baseline of 2020 to 2030 at 30%. And that's the other piece that guides us as well when we look at climate activity.

And there are many projects that we're already involved in that have to work to actually get us to the reduction that we need because this is a growing business. So we actually have to grow against a growing emission to bring the actual end result down by 30%. So those issues are taken into consideration as our local community issues taken into consideration as well. So very much at the forefront of decisions that our executives and our Board make on a daily basis. But thank you. Thank you very much. Next question, please. Microphone 2.

Chair, may I introduce [indiscernible].

My name is [indiscernible] and I'm Pacific Cloud Warrior. BHP as part of the BHP with Subishi Alliance is planning to expand peak downs. This will dig up 1.3 billion tonnes of coal and create 2.5 billion tonnes of climate pollution. Climate change is already having a devastating impact on the Pacific altering the physical, economic and social landscape of my home country. It is an existential threat to our communities. BHP's Peak Downs mine expansion will significantly increase that threat, putting my family and my culture at risk. Brandon Craig, are you comfortable about the impact that BHP's mine expansions will have on climate impacted communities.

Thank you, [indiscernible], and thank you for the question because we all live in the Pacific, and it's vitally important that the Pacific has looked after. I will hand to Brandon on that 1 specifically about peak downs. But I go back to the point that the Board, your Board and executive are very focused on is how do we get the total emissions down by 30% for this organization. So whilst we're expanding parts of the business, how do we actually, at the same time, bring our emissions down and keep the business going in a way that we are -- the community supports us as well. But I'll ask Brandon to talk about peak downs and the expansion there. But just remember, in the environment, we're working on how do we take our total emissions from 2030 to -- 2020 to 2030, down by 30%, even though we're growing our business so that we actually do less, a lot less damage in the environment. Brandon?

Thank you, [indiscernible], for your question. Let's now I think first, -- we acknowledge that we have a role to play in decarbonizing our operations, and we have plans in place to achieve that. And as the chair shared, we at 33% low absolute emissions than where we were in financial year '20. So we are making progress, and we do have a goal for net 0 by 2050.

Both your question and the previous question spoke about expansions at Peak Downs and some of the other BMA coal mines. There are currently no planned expansions at those mines. In fact, we're actually in a situation where we are not putting further investment capital into those mines currently because of certain policy conditions that exist in Queensland today. Having said that, I just wanted to reinforce, we will continue to work on our climate plans to manage a responsible transition to net 0 as BHP but I just wanted to clear up this point on BMA expansions.

Next question from microphone 1.

Chair, may introduce Jamie Yates.

Jamie Yates representing ACCR today. So BHP has acknowledged the challenging economics of its Queensland coal business, and media reports have indicated that BMA is reviewing the financial viability of its existing operations. yet we're still seeing major expansion proposals being sent through environmental approvals, et cetera. So can the Board confirm the status of this review and commit to disclosing its key findings, including any implications for the future proposed expansions.

Thank you for the question. And I will go back to Brandon on this 1 because I'm not aware of any expansion that we're doing in our Queensland coal business. For our shareholders, I think last year, it produced a 2% return on your capital. So we've been very careful about how much capital we actually put into that business. It's a very good resource though, of some of the finest coal for steelmaking. It's not energy coal. The only energy coal business that we have left is actually in New South Wales, and that is programmed for closure in 2030. And that's about the resources running out in that area. So we'll be closing that business, and we're working through all the optionality of that.

So there's not a big expansion program up in Queensland at this point in time, even though we do have some fantastic resources. We are looking, though, at how do we, on behalf of our shareholders, get that business to produce a cost of capital return, and that's something that Brandon and his team are working on because we've got such a good resource, but it's just not giving our shareholders a return. But there's no -- that aware of major plans for expansion there at all.

Jamie, thank you for your question. I think what happens in the mine is we're not expanding BMA, but we're also not shutting BMA down. And in the ordinary course of business, you need to renew environmental permits and similar things to be able to continue operations. So what you may be seeing is applications in the ordinary course of business, and those should not be confused with plans to expand the operations. Great question.

Yes, I guess they give you the option to expand in the future should, I guess, the timing -- and I guess...

But potentially in future but...

So the follow-up question, I guess, is, I guess, given the current challenging economics, and given the long-term transition risk facing met coal, I guess how does the Board justify pushing these proposals through at the moment?

On met coal, Brandon has talked about keeping the operations going and the approvals we need to do that as opposed to expanding it. That is certainly the position we've taken on our assets up in Queensland. They are great assets. But at this stage, we are not putting major investment other than operationally keeping the business in good shape and making sure it operates safely.

And maybe just if I can ask 1 follow-up question on the fuel tax credit. So obviously, there's, I guess, your position on whether it's right or wrong, is what it is. But I guess, the public discussion and the drumbeat at the moment means there is a public debate. BHP remains a significant beneficiary of the credit scheme and ACCR's analysis suggests that removing these credits could actually make BHP's fleet electrification projects financially attractive, how is the Board assessing BHP's exposure to both diesel prices and potential changes to the fuel tax credits? And how are these risks influencing capital allocation decisions and the timing of fleet electrification?

Super question. Here's our problem. We would love to be running electric trucks in our mines right now. This would be the ideal time with -- you see it at the base well, we feel it as well, even though we don't get the tax -- the rebate -- or we get the rebate on the fuel. But the price of fuel and diesel has gone up dramatically. And even if it was economically attractive to do so today, we couldn't do it because the equipment is not ready and will be years away from being fit for purpose in the mines that we operate. I liken this to -- these are not Toyota high luxes that we run around in a mine. These are 220 tonnes and if you look at the size of them and how we operate them autonomously and that have to be in a safe environment, you have got an entire ecosystem that we're working on to actually get them ready. And then the trucks themselves have to be ready and they're not.

So despite the noise of the now is the time we would love them to be there. So we're totally aligned with you on this one, but it looks like this will probably be late 2029, early 2030 is before we get an environment or any mining company gets the environment. And we had an interesting discussion at the Board, 1 of our directors who's been in mining a long time about 40 years ago, there used to be electric haul trucks in the environment. So we had that conversation at Board about what's happened since. Well, that was a very specific environment that they were operating. And -- but can I tell you today even if the economics are right, the application of it isn't ready, and we have to spend a lot of time getting them safe for our environment. But would love...

Understood. And I guess you're absolutely right, the ecosystem needs to be invested in as well. And I think there's definitely things that can be done today to actually start preparing that ecosystem. And I think we would like to see more activity in that space, especially...

We're certainly getting to -- we're certainly getting our environment so that we are actually ready for them when they're ready and would be. We're working with 1 of the other big mining companies on the development. and to show the support to the OEMs, which are the big truck companies to actually put the effort into so that they put the effort in getting them right as well. Great topic. We have these topics. We've shown people what's going on with these, but the environment needs to be right. It's -- as I say, it's not a Toyota Highlux we're running around these places where you can plug and play them. These are massive trucks that need the energy 23.5, 24 hours a day. But thank you for the Understood. Next question, please, again from mic 1.

Chair, may I introduce Anna Malu.

My name is Anna, and I am a Pacific Climate Warrior. The ICJ opinion stated that nations have an internal obligation to assess and mitigate downstream. -- global impacts of fossil fuel projects approved within their territories. Recently, the High Court of Australia added down a decision in the Mount Pleasant case. The High Court aligned itself with the ICG advisory opinion, ruling the authorities cannot turn a blind eye to emissions. Given these rulings, is BHP considering shelving its coal expansion projects, which would attract legal risks and, therefore, risk to its shareholders and investors.

Anna, thank you. And again, I'm not too sure if I can add too much more to what we've said. As Brandon said, we've got planning approvals to keep our mines going. We do not have major expansion plans in Queensland for our mining operation. We have closure procedures in place for our energy coal business in New South Wales. So that's on card, and that will take place midway through 2030. And we have operational decarbonization programs in place to reduce our carbon by 30%, and that's what we're working heavily on. About 80% of all of the power that we use in all of our mines on a global basis is through renewable sources now. So we've got a few left to go, but we are working very heavily to get the renewable sources in so that we actually work to actually reduce our carbon footprint and our results to date have been very good, but we have to keep working hard at it for the very reason you're passionate about it. It's about reducing emissions for the environment. So thank you. Question from Microphone 2, please.

Chair, may I introduce Barbara Ashworth.

Barbara, thank you for joining us.

I am from interstate, and I did get here on public transport. It was good. My question is about gender. So there are lots of images of women in your publicity, women employees. I wonder what this the gender breakdown for nonadministrative positions at BHP and what strategies are being taken to maintain a safe and supportive environment for women and diverse communities in the current climate of misogyny and Sanova.

A super question, and thank you for asking that. I think you'll find the Board incredibly proud of the work that's happened over the last decade on bringing equality into the workforce in the mining industry. And I think you'll find BHP is leading it from the front. To date, we have about 41.5% of female representation across the organization. Your point 2 is admin versus administration roles as opposed to real mining roles. We do look at those, and I'll get Chad to give you the exact figures afterwards. But the mining -- if you stayed up Jad, so the Head of HR for the group you'll find that there is gender balance right across all of our mining operations. There may be a couple that is not there yet at all roles and -- if you have a look at that, it's probably 40-plus percent of female roles across the real mining jobs as well as the operational admin jobs. So worthwhile touching both with Chad on that, also very proud of the fact of our like-for-like pay parity that's the other pieces we're paying the same. I think we're within about 1% of pay parity as well, which is outstanding in any industry, let alone the mining industry.

My last recollection in the mining industry, I think, was at about 25% female participation, and we're at 41.5%, and it's across all areas. So it's standing. But as I say, that was started actually before Mike Henry's time, and Mike picked it up and ran it as something that was vital for our business, and we're delighted with the results. Brandon, I think those are the right stats aren't they? But any comments from you.

Yes. Yes. Just on your question about how we manage conduct. We have a respected work framework as well to make sure that the standards of conduct from all employees is very clear. We take a very hard line approach on that because the culture in the workplace is a function of exactly how this behavior manifests. And we run multiple systems to enable people to report any conduct of poor behavior. All of that is investigated very thoroughly by dedicated teams to make sure the conduct in the workplace is at the right standard. .

Next question, please.

Chair, may I introduce Brynn O'Brien.

I am Brynn. I'm 1 of the co-CEOs of ACCR, we're long-term shareholders in the company, and I'm a long-term shareholder in the company. I'd like to welcome Mr. Craig in his first AGM as CEO, and congratulate him on the appointment. I've been engaging with BHP and its investors for around a decade, which gives me an unusual perspective on the company. And over that time, as you say, Mr. Chair, I have seen its reinvention. Yes, BHP deserves recognition for effectively achieving its 2030 operational emissions target. But it does leave us in a rather striking position. the world's largest mining company whose investors will understand the global decarbonization imperative has no further decarbonization target. The next company-wide operational emissions goal as distinct from a target is 2050.

Over the course of this year, ACCR has engaged with more than 50 of BHP's major institutional shareholders, and we know and you know that there is real concern about what happens beyond 2030. 20 years is a long time, even by mining industry standards. We all know that the decisions that will determine BHP's emissions in the 2030s and 2040s are being made now, but particularly in the 2030s, through choices around capital allocation, fleet replacement and infrastructure. You've spoken a lot about the 2030 target today. BHP has already shown that targets can help drive progress. Your shareholders are paying attention to this increasingly so, a 2040 target would give your shareholders confidence that the Board is actively governing the next phase of BHP's transition, of its reinvention rather than asking them to make a generational leap, not just a capital cycle leap, but a generational leap from 2030 to 2050.

The 2030 target was set under Mr. Craig's predecessor a new CEO is the natural moment to set the next 1 and a 24 target should be set on his watch. Many of the investors we've spoken to would appreciate this commitment. So after 10 years of these conversations with the company, with its board over various cycles, today, I have a very simple, reasonable request which I know will enjoy wide shareholder support. Will you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. CEO, commit today to BHP setting a company-wide 2040 operational emissions reduction target within the next 12 months, not today, just the commitment today, take 12 months, work out what the target should be. Will you commit today to setting that target?

Thank you very much. The answer is no. But I want to tell you why. Because you're quite right, we do have a target for 2030 and we're working very hard to get there. Now we're sitting at 33% on that target at the moment. And people will say, well, that was that's easier, you're going to get there. But we have very big growth aspirations coming through, which means we actually have to increase the amount of emissions coming out dramatically over that next few years. So we are very, very focused on that next 4 years of operation.

As you also said, we have set ourselves a goal for 2050. So that is our guiding light of where the organization is focused on. I'd like you to think about that we just leave us for the next couple of years to get to where we need to be in 2030 with our eyes on 2050. So we haven't taken our eyes off 2050. That's why we gave you the focus out there, but we do need to actually make sure that the actions we've promised you we will get to. And that's the commitment in our climate action plan. And then we're going to assess over the next couple of years, where do we take the organization next.

There are some big things that need to happen. And we've talked about 1 of those this morning, and that's diesel. That is our next big one. And unless we can get that in the environment with the OEMs, so the big truck manufacturers and the battery manufacturers. Unless we can get those things really working well, we will have a difficulty because we're doing so well with the power sources and our mining operations, 80% now renewable. Yes, some way to go, and we'll get there. But those are looking very good, but the big piece for us is diesel, and that is the 1 that we need to find the solutions for, and we don't have that solution in the next 12 months. So for me, your players show us the next 10, 12 years until we actually start really getting those sorted out, it's going to be more difficult.

There's another piece that's happened since we put out our climate action plan. every large organization needs to by legislation put in its plans, its risks and how the environment that it's operating in which you've got in your annual report now. I hope you've read it. We spent a long time putting those 27 pages together for you, but that also is actually going to dictate how the environment operates. So there's a few moving pieces. Our ambition is yours. And be it quite clear, our ambition is there. Please don't take the fact that I'm not going to give you a commitment for 12 months. We are actually committed to the 2030 and we're looking at how do we actually keep our sights very much on the 2050. But to give you a commitment of having another target, I don't think it would be a value today, given what's going on. But I appreciate the sentiment truly do.

Did Mr. Craig want to make any comment on that?

Sure. Thank you. When we set the 2030 goal, it was very important for us to make sure we had a credible pathway and plan for how we could achieve it. During the course of this morning, we've mentioned a number of times of the technology maturity and there's a view that the technology exists, and we do continue to repeat that the technology genuinely is not ready. That is why we're conducting trials on locomotives, haul trucks and the systems we need to build together with our OEMs to be able to make these transitions. Until we understand that, we can't build a credible pathway to a 2040 target. So what the chair has set out where within the next 12 months, can we commit to that. We have to actually invest in the technology development to be able to build out the credible pathway to make this real. And that is not a small undertaking. It's a very substantial undertaking. It's going to be multiple billion-dollar investments on the back of that. And I wouldn't want to diminish that work but just arbitrarily setting a target without having done the work.

Well, and that's what I encourage you to do over the next 12 months to do that work. I'm not asking for a target today, of course. But what I will say is that investor sentiment towards the company goes up and down, and there are good reasons for investors to be less trusting of the company's ambition. The Four Corners reporting, for example, over the last year. So this issue is not going away. I put you on notice that you should expect some robust engagement from ACCR and other shareholders over the next 12 months. I frankly came here to try to avoid us all the work and the effort, but that engagement will be coming, and we look forward to really pushing the company, the world's largest mining company, Australia's largest company into the leadership position that it should occupy that it is not currently occupying.

Thank you. My only add to that is, if you have a look at the results on an independent basis, we are the leading mining company on these areas of decarbonization as well. Our ambitions are the same. I am just very reluctant to put things out there just so that I can satisfy you today. And we've got a lot of work to do, and we're doing that work with great earnest, but thank you for your questions. Okay. Next one, please. mic, again, #1.

Chair, may I reintroduce Andrew Summerville.

Just you didn't answer my question about having a webcast of this year's AGM, when I asked it earlier. I know Stephen Mayne is running on the Board this year because he couldn't get you to agree to have webcast and -- it's operating okay. But asking questions online. Maybe I might consider running next year and give you even more of a headache if you have 2 bill running next year on the [indiscernible].

One of the beautiful things about shareholders, you can run.

I know I'm aware of that. Yes. AI, how many staff have we got engaged in AI? And what future you see for AI in the company? And just on the fuel tax credit, you've done this marvelous book on economic contribution of the money you pay to governments, but you don't put anything in there as far as I can see, about the money that you get from governments in the fuel tax credits. Taking -- going back to my earlier question about you bought 2 trucks, you made a big deal about that, but you've also bought 50 diesel trucks. So I don't think you are very serious overall when you've got Ford buying more electric trucks and you're buying a measly to and you made a big song and answer about it, which your PR department is to be congratulated when you bought those trucks.

Thank you, Mr. Summerville. I think we covered off on the fuel excise on the trucks, we actually have to keep replacing diesel trucks because the -- you get to the point where you have to have trucks to run the mining operation when the electric trucks are not yet fit for purpose. That is why we're buying diesel trucks. We would love to be buying elect trucks if they could be fit for purpose and the environment we operate with. And let's see how these other businesses get on. But we're thinking about your shareholder money as well and making sure it's used properly for the right investments. And at the moment, unfortunately, we're having to buy my diesel trucks because they're not fit for purpose to electric at this point. On AI, we do use artificial intelligence in our organization. We think there's some opportunity. It's very closed loop stays right inside our organization. but we see it in a whole -- a number of areas that will benefit our business by using the enormous amounts of data that we do have on areas like safety, on areas like maintenance, using artificial intelligence across the areas of maintenance of our business.

On all of the mining data that we have, 140 years of mining data, we're able to use artificial intelligence across that to actually improve the business and make better decisions quicker. And that's where we see the advantage of artificial intelligence in our business. And we do have a team of people within our technology area that are actually working across the organization on artificial intelligence to make just better decisions for the business. and we see some opportunities. There are certainly some threats there though. And that's something that your Board takes into consideration when we do meet and have conversations about artificial intelligence just as it is very linked to cyber attacks on organizations as well. So there are some absolute benefits, and there are also some real threats to it that we, as a Board, are having to take -- keep our eye on. Thank you very much for that question. We'll move to the next one.

Chair may introduce Silvana Bien.

Look, after what has been asked and commented on mind, just a bit of a lolly for all you people sitting there. Yes, AGM would be good. I did get here on public transport and made it, but I had to get up an hour earlier, I agree with Mr. small, yes. And I do like the live AGMs. I love the coffee and cake and the refreshments. Thank you. And I'd like, yes, to thank you because Mr. McEwen, I think you said that you'll be meeting us and mingling with us. And that's really very good because I've been going to other AGMs. This is the AGM season. It's almost like the duck shooting season, I think. And it's Telstra and CBA -- as soon as the meeting was over, all of you people imagine you're there, and they took off faster than the -- yes, because I suppose we are a precious lot to the shareholders. And it must be Well, we've all got to keep our cool, but we would like to ask questions. And I think making it live is Well, look at this. You wouldn't get the giggles, if this was online.

Thank you. Loved your comments, loved your comments. And Here's a commitment. We'll all be out to have a cup of tea and a sausage role if there's 1 out there later on. Usually, we have for just myself, just some people were for myself and the CEO, we have about 10 to 15 minutes with the media immediately after this, but then we'll be out, okay? But that's what I enjoy about it. Cabot, Sasson, you can tell us what you really think at that point in time. Okay. Any, we've got another question now from, I think, Andrew Chen.

Chairman, I introduce Andrew Chen.

I've got 2 questions I want to ask. The first 1 is Samago, dam failure, which you have already allocated billions of dollars for the compensation? The most recent news in the -- talking about London more class actions against you. Have you got enough funds to allocate for that? Or it's already been allocated for in the -- in your fines? .

Thank you. And just to remind the audience that Samarco was a dam failure. It was an absolute tragedy. I think about 11 years ago now. And we did do a settlement with the Brazilian government to actually put right what had gone wrong there. And very large amounts of that settlement have already been paid out rehoused the watering system and the river put back into great shape and tested on an ongoing basis. And we do have a super against us in the U.K. and the London courts that we lost. And that will have to wander its way through the next stage of that proceedings. To date, we have still a provision of about 5.2 billion set aside to put right. At this stage, the last time we reviewed that, which was only in the last month or so, we felt that was still the right amount of money. -- but we are conscious that, that case may cost us more than what we have, but we don't think so. We think the provision is about right. So that case will continue on for quite some time yet. And let's see where that goes.

But our objective is to look after the people where we did wrong and make sure that people are resettled and that we look after them. And the aim of that was through the Brazilian case. So I think we're in okay shape, but some uncertainty still with the U.K. class action case.

So it means no more financial impact in the -- for the company?

We don't think so. But until that's resolved, we won't know. So it might be some time away -- but we think at this stage, our provision is right.

Yes. Second question is regard to Jensen project. I'm a chemical engineer working for BHP 25 years ago, where I was directly involved in the direct reduction iron project, your iron ore project in Port Allen. That's the secondary processing for the iron ore mines. At that time, that projects -- it's quite a complex chemical engineering project. And obviously, BHP at that time got no really expertise in that area and got project managers looking out of the project. Just asking about the Jansen project. Is that a chemically sort of a complex project like the direct reduction project in Port Allen. If so, I'm not sure whether the reason for the over budget and the cost of the production as well because at that time, the project was for $1.2 billion to build the direct reduction iron project. And it took -- it was supposed to be 2 years project but it went over to 4 to 5 years. And on top of that, the budget was where -- the project costs went from $1.4 billion to more than $2.6 billion. And the project was never sort of viable or operating well. So it was eventually, as you probably know, it just shut down completely.

As a result of the accident, some people got killed as well in that plant. So Jansen project is going to be similar like that or it's going to be because you already said it's over the budget is over time. So if it's a fairly chemical complex project, but I'm not sure whether you have the right people, the right set of mines to make the project work and work well.

A very, very good question, Jim, and thank you for raising that. It's the questions that the Board has been asking, have we got the right expertise and we got the right project management? Have you got the numbers right on it. We still -- with all of that, we still believe this is a great product for us and commodity for us to be involved in as we've spoken before. I'll get Brandon to give you the -- because you are at miner, so I'll get Brandon, and I want a miner up here to give you the -- our level of complexity, how complex is this piece of mining in comparison because he has done both of these.

Thank you. And thank you for the question. I'm familiar with the hot brick at iron plant in Port Hedland in the history. And there were tragic events arising from that development, which related to iron ore fines and hydrogen coming together to process brick. And I can assure you that potash is nowhere near a project of that nature. Potash is a wet processing facility. Its analogy would probably be similar to how we wash coal and BMA in the bone basin. Now slightly more complex, chemically than that. but no risk of major safety events in the form that happened at HBI, which is the reason we shut it down. We didn't think it was safe enough for us to be able to operate and post those fatalities, we made the decision that we shouldn't -- but this is a wet chemical process. It exists in multiple other mines. It's a known technology. So we're very confident we can commission and operate this technology.

Thank you very much. Great question. Okay. Next question, please.

Chair, may I reintroduce Brynn O'Brien.

One of the long-standing interest areas for ACCR is corporate political influence and in particular, activities of trade associations. Are you aware that in the 24 year, the financial year, the Minerals Council of Australia, 1 of your chief bodies made a donation to PolynHansen's 1 nation party.

No, I wasn't personally aware of that.

Will you commit to engaging robustly with the Minerals Council to rule out them making further donations to PolynHansens, 1 nation party given their positions on, for example, scrapping the 2015 target for Australia and their pension open questioning of climate science.

Look, I get very involved in the BHP political donations, which we don't make any. But I've got to be very careful. I don't start telling all the associations we're involved in how to operate, we can have an influence on -- but I think we also have to be careful. Look, we don't start picking and choosing which political parties as well because that takes away democracy out of Australia. So I think we've got to be a web careful with that as well. So no commitments here, but I'm not trying to push the agenda 1 way or other. I think we just need to let our political parties play their part.

Look, I'm asking this is an impromptu question for me. And I'm asking because of your remarks and Mr. Craig's remarks about importance of policy certainty and policy targets for achieving that 0. So you are aware, both Poland Hansen's 1 nation and the Federal Liberal party plan on scrapping the 2050 target for Australia if they are in government. Are you aware of that? And how do you propose to deal with that?

I'm going to leave it to the Australian population to actually place their boats where they think is probably right for the economy and for the -- not me?

Yes, of course, I'm nearly questioning the spending of shareholders' money to industry associations that fund organizations that wish to scrap policy targets which are in this company's interest and in shareholder interest.

Yes. We do a review of our associations every year. And we take all -- a lot of factors into consideration, and that's what we will do when we do our next review. It's done through 1 of our committees up into the Board. So we'll have a look at those. But as I say, I think we've got a I don't want to get involved in political pushing 1 way or other thank you from a BHP. That's the rights of every individual in Australia to actually make their decisions on. But we will have a look at the policies of the parties and Brandon and his team will make their views known for each of those associations.

I understand. And look, I'm simply asking because it's in the company's interest and it is in shareholders' interest that national target is maintained. And so threats to that target are very concerning for shareholders.

Okay. Next question, please.

Chair, may introduce Peter Graham.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak but I have no desire to ask a question. What I want to do is make a comment about the notice of Annual General Meeting, you said at the beginning of the meeting, we'll take it as read -- in my view, it is inadequate and it needs to be addressed and the company needs to go back to the way that formally provided notice of meeting before it decided that it would have points without resolutions. May I remind Stefanie that she and I have been engaged in conversation about this a couple of years ago. And the company hasn't fully amended its way needs to do something about it. Her parting words to me on the 22nd of November in 2024, were I feel we may have exhausted the discussion, while I'm raising it again. May I take you to a couple of documents, firstly, the Constitution.

Clause 85 of the Constitution reads sub-paragraph 1, at the meeting at which a director retires under any provision of this constitution, the company may by ordinary resolution fill the office being vacated by electing to that office, the retiring Director or some other person eligible for election. You noticed that I gave some emphasis to the word ordinary resolution. May I take you to 3 provisions of the Corporations Act, which also focus on the word resolution. Not quite all of them, 250 Capital A, talks about the business of an Annual General Meeting, as you would know. And it provide, pardon me, sorry, I'm losing paper. Pardon me. 250, of course, provide in relation to the business. I'll keep going. Sorry, my apologies. Can I go to a section 250A, which sorry, 251 1A, which deals with the minutes of the meeting. And as you would know, the requirement is that the key company keeps minutes of the meeting and record resolutions that are passed.

I'm struggling to get to what's it got to do with where we are today, but I'll give you a...

Let me jump forward. Firstly, what should be in the notice of meeting is to consider and if thought fit, pass the following ordinary resolutions as ordinary resolutions of the company. Number one, to elect Brandon Craig, #2 to elect Ross McEwan, et cetera. That's the way it should appear. And if you have a consideration of a resolution you allow people to speak for and against it so that people can speak why it is that they would wish to vote for a candidate, why against. It is not a question of simply lumping them all together as I think happened last year's annual meeting, where we are invited to vote on everybody without any debate about any individual resolution.

Unfortunately, companies nowadays think that the function of a meeting is to allow questions. That is far from the truth. In olden days, Chairman, some officials Chairman would deny people the opportunity to ask a question because they weren't speaking in support of or against the resolution before the chair, the motion before the chair and 1 had full and proper debate. Nowadays, most companies seem to think the function is to ask questions. That was happened when Section 250S was inserted into the Corporations Act. It was to allow people to ask questions, who would otherwise be silenced by officials Chairman because they failed to speak to the motion. I have to say BHPs come some way this year, in the right direction by having -- on the voting paper, it introduces the word motion and it starts off with if you wish to cast all your votes for or against a motion place a mark in the appropriate 4 box or against box, et cetera.

So the idea of there being motions actually has returned, and the word motion appears on the ballot paper to elect and so on. But there -- the Notice of Meeting is deficient because the notice of meeting should announce that they will be the motions so that people can be invited by the Chair to debate them as they would in parliament and speak for or against them. So all I want is please, next year, get it right.

Mr. Graham, thank you, thank you. A lot to take in there. Can I say, first off, you -- any individual has given the opportunity to talk on any of the directors. You get 2 actually opportunities because I've allowed you to actually do those in the body of the discussion and the Q&A, and you also get an opportunity very shortly when we go through those items. So first point. It's nice to be known not as an efficious Chairman because I have tried to keep this meeting as open, so we get a great conversation. So thank you for that, and people can't ask any of these questions. I think probably after the meeting, if you spent some time with Stefanie Wilkinson, who is our Company Secretary and General Counsel, might be helpful because I think beyond me, we've probably exhausted the discussion, as you said. But thank you very much for Raska.

Now are there any more questions that we have here. I don't think there are. And as there are no further questions, we will actually now move on to the point that Mr. Graham was on, which is the election and reelection of your directors.

Brandon Craig and Mark Vassella are seeking election by shareholders for the first time and having each been appointed as directors after the 2025 AGM. Brandon was appointed Chief Executive Officer and Director of BHP effective 1 July 2026. And Mark was appointed Non-Executive Director of BHP effective 1 June 2026. You've already heard from Brandon -- so I'm not going to ask him to say anymore. I think you've probably heard well from the speech as well as on stage here, but I will now ask Mark to say a few words to shareholders. So Mark, can I invite you to make a few comments, please.

Thank you, Ross, and good afternoon, everyone. It's a privilege to seek shareholder election to the BHP board. And for me, it does feel like a bit of a full circle moment. As Ross mentioned earlier, I started my career at the then BHP and Newcastle still works more than 40 years ago. After a long career across the global steel industry, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to once again serve the company when my journey began. Most recently, I was the Chief Executive Officer of BlueScope Steel with operations in Australia, New Zealand, North America and Asia. My experience has given me a deep understanding of the material value chain. -- what it takes to operate safe and reliable assets and the discipline required to make capital allocation decisions that create long-term value. It's also shaped the way I think about complex strategic challenges, including geopolitical shifts, international trade, industry policy and decarbonization.

Since joining the Board in June, I've had the opportunity to learn more about BHP and the people that are driving this business forward. And what stood out is the quality of BHP's portfolio the significant opportunities we have in the commodities that we produce and the clear focus on safe operations, operating excellence and creating social value with those around us. And if elected, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the board, my fellow members of the People and Remuneration Committee and the Sustainability Committee and BHP's leadership team. to continue creating long-term value and returns for you, our shareholders and delivering on BHP's purpose. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mark. At BHP, we undertake annual Director elections for all of our nonexecutive directors each year. Accordingly, all the remaining nonexecutive directors submit themselves for reelection. Are there any questions on the Board endorsed directors' elections and reelections and Item 2 through to 11. Okay. There are no further questions on these items. Shown on the screen of the proxy results for items 2 to 11.

The next item relates to the election of a nonboard-endorsed candidate, Mr. Stephen Mayne. For the reasons set out in the Notice of Meeting, the Board does not believe that the election of Mr. Mayne is in the best interest of BHP. Accordingly, the Board recommends shareholders vote against this item. Mr. Mayne has advised that he is not able to join us in person today, that has recorded the following message for shareholders.

Greeting shareholders. Firstly, apologies, I wasn't able to be here in person today, and thanks to the Board for offering this opportunity to speak to the resolution. I was really hoping it wouldn't come to this. All BHP had to do was agreed to offer the ability for shareholders to ask live written questions at today's AGM, and I would have withdrawn the nomination. More than 25 other ASX-listed companies, which previously ran physical-only AGMs have agreed to that bargain during the current AGM season, but not BHP, for reasons I still don't really understand. If every other top 10 company offers some form of online participation at their AGM, why won't BHP offer online voting or online questions or preferably both. When I last ran for the BHP Board, it was a surprise to receive 12.4% voting support. Today will be a fraction of that number.

The platform back in 2008 was far more important, opposing what was an overpriced takeover proposal of Rio Tinto. BHP shareholders took the opportunity to vote for me and send the Board a message opposing that deal, and it was called off from the day of BHP's 2008 Melbourne AGM. The platform of online questions at AGMs is trivial by way of contrast, but I hope just going through with the nomination has the effect of persuading the Board to next year embrace a more modern inclusive AGM. We are former build on shareholders in Solivita and the U.K. and BHP shareholders all over Australia can watch and participate live.

In terms of AGM best practice, it will be good if BHP disclosed how many of our 630,000 shareholders have participated by voting on these board elections and how they voted. I'll do a lot better than 12.4% on the headcount metric today. However, corporate elections are determined by the 20 largest shareholders. These big shareholders don't attend or ask questions at AGMs and won't be voting for me. But that doesn't mean holding inaccessible physical AGMs in 2026 is acceptable. And I hope you'll be able to impress upon the Board at today's meeting that they should embrace AGM best practice and hold hybrid meetings from next year on. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Mayne. In terms of the format of our AGM, we have a preference for in-person meetings and have a long-standing tradition of rotating our each year across major Australian capital cities to provide our shareholders with an opportunity to attend. The live webcast is available for those online, and all shareholders can vote and submit questions in advance of the AGM, which we've actually had today. More importantly, we encourage shareholders to ask questions at any time throughout the year, 365 days of the year through our investor portal. Now are there any questions on the non-board endorsed director election and Item #12? I think we have one. Thank you very much.

May I reintroduce Peter Star.

Just for the benefit of the shareholders in the room, I want to say something just on Mark. We're happy that you're going to be on the Board mark. You've got our support. I'd just like maybe Ross, if you could explain to everybody what the Board's session was in opposing this because we're certainly supportive of what the Board is saying in that. So maybe if you could just explain a little bit, that would be great.

Yes. Thanks, Peter. Look, I'll cover that again because, look, people can watch this life, they're more than welcome. They can ask questions any time. We did give some thought to should we have these operations so that they can ask questions on the live screen and whatever and that was a consideration that was given on this. And believe, look, let's keep this very simple and have these available for people to turn up and ask the questions in real life, and actually get the real conversation. So that's what it was. We have also had some feedback from companies that have gone down both which is live streaming with questions can become somewhat disruptive as well where these ways it's real shareholders asking real questions rather than somebody who was sitting with 1 share having a go on a live streaming that takes a long time. So that's where we got to. And we accept that Mr. Mayne put himself forward on that basis. To be quite honest, I think having a director that has only 1 cause in life I don't think sits particularly well for BU having a BHP shareholder with that intent. So that's why we've certainly voted against it.

And we did do the review as we do for all directors, whether that was the appropriate person to be on your board, and we found the answer was no. But thank you very much. Okay. Any other first questions on this -- on this item? If not, shown on the screen of the proxy results for item 12. We'll now move to items 13 and 14, and we are nearing the end of the meeting. So your opportunity for questions is ending shortly. So this is a reminder to register your questions outside the main office should you wish to ask another one.

During the 2026 financial year, our People and Remuneration Committee continued its focus on remuneration approach that supports the group's global strategy and enables us to attract, retain and motivate our global executive team. This is critical to ensure the best outcomes for all BHP shareholders. Since its introduction in 2019, our remuneration framework has received strong support from our shareholders over that time. Item 13 requests adoption of the remuneration report for the year ending 30 June 2026. Item 14 seeks approval for equity awards to the CEO. This year, these awards are being made under the cash and deferred plan and long-term incentive plan. Are there any questions on items 13 and 14? If there are no further questions on these items, shown on the proxy -- shown on the screen of the proxy results for Items 13 and items 14.

Now Item 15 seeks approval of potential leaving entitlements. Australian law restricts the benefits that can be given without shareholder approval to individuals who hold or have held in the last 3 years a managerial or executive office or station of their employment or retirement from the office with BHP Group Limited or another group entity. Shareholder approval was last obtained at the 2023 AGM for 3 years, until the conclusion of this year's AGM. Item 15 seeks to refresh the approval for a further 3 years on the same basis until the conclusion of BHP's 2029 AGM. The details of this are set out in the Notice of the Meeting. And are there any questions on item 15?

Chair, may I reintroduce Bruce Bennett.

Mr. Chair, it's -- actually, it's not a question on Item 15, but it's something that has come up in the media this morning, and that relates to the difficulty that Fortis SKU is having in its discussions with China in selling its iron ore. And I just wonder whether how BHP is managing the change in attitude to China in terms of the way they want to buy the iron ore.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Look, our biggest customers are in China. We've had a relationship with these parties for over, what, nearly 40 years, so we've got very strong relationships. But we do enter into now what seems to be an annual negotiation with the buying group in China called CMRG. You're seeing all of the companies at some stage having to go through that negotiation. And I won't make any comment on any other firm, but we went through that about 5 months ago. And will position ourselves to be ready for the next negotiation. But I say that our relationships, I think, are very positive with China, but they're very, very big and powerful purchasing organization. And these commercial negotiations happen every year. And that's what you see emerging in the paper, be the facts right or wrong, those negotiations do happen. Thank you. Thank you for your question.

Just taking us back to item #15, on the screen of the proxy results for this item. Okay. Now Stefanie, are there any other registered questions. We have 1 more question. Thank you.

Chair, may I introduce Margaret Gilchrist.

Sorry, my plane was canceled. So I've just sort of rushed in at the moment last moment. Margaret Gilchrist. My question is about water. Professor Irene Watson in her submission to the Roxby Downs Amendment Act in June 2026 dated. Water is sacred. It flows and connects country, and we all have a responsibility to ensure its ongoing health for all life that depends on water to survive. The sacred and unique Mount Springs near [indiscernible] also known as Permit Hill in the Lake are Basin area are of World Heritage value. Once flowing freely providing much needed water to this test epiment, are now barely existing. Each year, we see more and more springs become extinct. Already, the water table has dropped 10 meters over a vast area. Submissions from Arbonne and Dairy traditional owners who host special water licenses for the extraction of artesian water from Borefield A and Borefield B areas have clearly stated a request to close Borefield A immediately. As many other submissions from knowledgeable parties.

My question today to BHP management and the shareholders is Borefield A currently extracts about 4 million liters per day of water. Borefield B extracts 36 million liters per day. The cat limit for both A and B is 42 million liters per day. BHP on its website has publicly and repeatedly committed over many years to see traction from Borefield A by 2030, not 2036, which is 10 years away. So why not cease the 4 million liters extraction from Borefield A now temporarily added to Borefield B if needs be and close Borefield A immediately. Some of these springs will be lost to the world forever, but we must try to reverse further damage while we can. To transfer the costs would be minimum. It's a win-win situation, a win to the shareholders and a win for the environment. That's my question.

Thank you very much, and a very, very relevant question for what's going on in the environment. So I thank you for asking it. Water is an integral part of what we do absolutely every day. and we depend on water access and cannot operate without our water stewardship position statement outlines our vision for water sources worldwide by 2030. I'm going to ask our CEO to actually pick up on your specific item. But we are looking to find other sources of water that are much lower grade sources. -- for example, seawater through desalination plants, which we run a number of rather than using high-quality water, which is what you're talking about. So thank you very much. But Brandon, you want to...

Thank you for the question. I think first, we want to acknowledge the point you're referencing in terms of the significance of the Mount Springs the value, the heritage value and the environmental significance of them. In addition, I think just -- when you look at our operations in South Australia, we extract water from the great Artesian Basin. And the plans we have currently as to work to put in place the Northern water project. So we're working together with the South Australian government to actually put in place infrastructure that would provide desalinated water through to these operations. That's an active piece of work that is underway. In doing that, we will be able to completely replace drawing any terrestrial water from the Artesian Basin and in doing that, then provide the ultimate protection through to the mount brings you're referencing. So that is something that is an active piece of work, and we look forward to keeping you up to date on that over the coming years.

Is it possible to take an extra 4 from B in the meantime?

That is something I'd have to reference with our technical team to be able to answer it. But if I step back from that level of detail, I wanted to provide you some assurance that as BHP, we're working on a plan to limit altogether terrestrial use from the basin because in doing that, then we have 0 impact on those entities.

Thank you very much for the question. If there are no other questions, this brings us to the end of our items of business. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for attending today and also asking questions in a good spirit. And I think they were very business focused. Now I think it's been a very good meeting. We've bad your comments and your feedback and the poll will close in 5 minutes after the conclusion of this meeting. So if you haven't already done so, please complete your voting now. Results of the meeting will be announced to the stock exchanges shortly after the conclusion of today's meeting and will be published on our website.

Now one of the question was about coming and having a cup of tea and with you. We now invite you to join the Board and management team for refreshments and a great opportunity to ask any other questions and meet the executive team and the Board. Ladies and gentlemen, I now declare the meeting closed, subject to finalization of the poll. And thank you very much for joining us today. Thank you.

Just ask you to take about 15 seconds and get seated, and then we'll keep going with BHP, please. So let's take some seats. Okay. Good morning, everybody. For those of you I haven't met, I'm Jason Fairclough. I run Metals and Mining Research for Bank of America in EMEA. On behalf of myself and my new colleague in Australia, Kate McCutcheon, very pleased to welcome our next speaker, BHP CEO-elect Brandon Craig.

Brandon has chosen a hybrid format, so he'll do a few slides, and then we'll have a fireside chat. Brandon, welcome to Miami, and over to you now for your presentation.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the warm welcome, Jason. I know most of you are probably more familiar with seeing Mike Henry at this conference. Mike has led BHP with clarity and discipline. And I'm quite deeply honored to be succeeding him as the Chief Executive on the 1st of July. With that date very fast approaching, I thought it would be appropriate that it would be better that I turn up at this conference today and speak to you all.

Mike and I have spent a lot of time on the road together since our announcement, speaking with our workforce, meeting with our key stakeholders and shareholders. The message we have heard is pretty consistent, which is BHP is performing really strongly. There is also very massive opportunity ahead of us.

If I can just draw your attention to the disclaimer slide. BHP has evolved generation by generation to meet the changing needs of the world. Under Andrew Mackenzie, BHP simplified its portfolio, and under Mike, we have pivoted to future-facing commodities. We have built a truly world-class portfolio of growth options and embedded the BHP Operating System, which we affectionately just call BOS, to build a culture of high performance.

BHP has a clear and compelling strategy, and that is to invest in highly attractive and durable commodities, to operate world-class tier one, and I stress tier one, world-class tier one assets with excellence, and offer a distinctive approach to social value, and of course, to allocate capital with discipline. This strategy has been very successful.

Since 2020, we have delivered total shareholder returns of more than 300%. That is around 25 percentage points higher than the average of our closest peers and significantly above the MSCI World Materials Index. So today, I want to talk about the strength of the position we are in right now and the potential I see for BHP to operate at even higher velocity with increased ambition to lift safety, productivity, and growth to the next level.

So let's start with where we are today. Our half-year results demonstrate the underlying quality of our business. We have margins averaging over 50% for 25 years. We have a strong balance sheet strengthened by actions to unlock undervalued and underutilized capital.

We have a track record of more than $110 billion returned to shareholders over the past decade and a strong pipeline of organic growth. That gives us a truly strong platform to deal with the world that I think we can all see is changing at pace. Geopolitical complexity is increasing, trade flows are changing, and energy and resource security is front and center.

These dynamics bring significant challenges but also opportunity. In this environment, asset quality, operating discipline, and the ability to adapt matter more than ever. A key pillar of our strategy and reason for BHP's ongoing success is operating tier one assets with excellence. Low-cost, high-quality assets operated well with discipline generate higher margins and cash flows through the cycle, and this is even more relevant in periods of high inflation. That is where BHP is truly advantaged.

And in times like this, the cost gap between efficient and less efficient companies grows, steepening cost curves. The result is the ability to capture higher relative margins through the cycle, and in short, we are built to be more resilient and to create value. Of course, strong foundations start with safety. This is non-negotiable and my first priority.

We have an improving track record, but we are not yet at zero, which is where we intend to be and need to be. We will keep strengthening our foundations through a safety-first culture, faster and more rigorous intervention alongside the improvements enabled by our Operating System. And we will use more technology to keep people out of harm's way and detect and control risks earlier.

One of the reasons I'm so passionate about this sector is that no matter how well you are performing, there is always another level we can reach when we stay focused on what matters most. A new horizon of performance lies ahead of us, and I'm determined to lead BHP there. We will accelerate performance by pairing the BHP Operating System with the faster adoption of technology to unlock even greater safety and productivity.

As these two systems reinforce each other, the rate of improvement can be even greater. We'll continue disciplined and consistent growth, developing the pipeline already in front of us and staying ready to act when value-accretive opportunities emerge. The point is not growth for growth's sake. It is value-accretive growth that ultimately matters.

We will also be stronger and more resilient, building and investing in strategic relationships supported by the creation of social value to navigate and grasp opportunities in what is an increasingly complex world. And we'll do all of that while maintaining a strong focus on capital discipline and attractive shareholder returns, which is exactly what our investors expect from us.

I've been fortunate enough to work across the majority of BHP's assets. What I've seen is that operational excellence comes from disciplined systems, world-class teams, and a culture of disciplined daily improvement, and an operating system that makes all of that repeatable. That discipline creates stability, and that stability unlocks performance. The quality of this system and the consistency with which we apply it is a competitive advantage. We have seen the power of BOS in our iron ore business in Copper South Australia, and more recently at Escondida.

We assess BOS maturity through an Operational Excellence Index. As you can see on this slide, Escondida's OEI continues to trend upwards and is already world-leading against external benchmarks, and the results follow. As we reported last month, Escondida delivered record material movement and concentrator throughput for the nine months through to March.

The exciting point is how much opportunity still remains. We continue to progress BOS across the company, and the opportunity now is to lift our rate of improvement even further by pairing BOS with emerging technology. Together, they can create a compounding effect, stronger safety, accelerating productivity with greater consistency.

Great operating performance and a diversified portfolio drive strong cash flows that underpin shareholder returns and reinvestment. We are focused on growth and generating it in a very disciplined way. Over the past two months, we have achieved two very important milestones. We have submitted the environmental permit application for Escondida's new concentrator, and Resolution Copper completed its land exchange, which enables the important work to better understand the ore body now being able to progress.

Our high-quality, capital-efficient organic growth options are expected to deliver compound annual copper equivalent production growth of 3% to 4% through to 2035. And this includes growth of around 5% per year on average in our copper business that will further increase our exposure to forecast copper prices.

In copper, we are the world's largest producer and we plan to increase production on an attributable basis to about 2 million tons per annum by 2035. We have a strong pipeline of growth options today. We are not stopping there. One of my priorities will be ensuring we have options to grow well beyond 2035.

That means increasing exploration, seeking opportunities to partner with peers to unlock value in adjacent operations, and by executing smaller bolt-on acquisitions, and when the value case supports them.

In this way, we will deliver more programmatic growth and while we will remain extremely disciplined, our diversified model and strong balance sheet gives us the ability to move at pace if the right opportunities present themselves. Credibility with investors is built over time, and it is built through delivery. Our focus is straightforward. Set clear commitments, allocate capital against them, and then execute.

More simply put, we do what we say we will do, and in turn, we create value for shareholders. And copper is a very good example. We have increased our copper production guidance for the next two years at a time when supply across the sector remains constrained and peers have revised their production expectations downwards.

This gives us more exposure to a constructive copper market in a way that is underpinned by assets, operational performance, and disciplined execution, not simply aspiration. That is the kind of growth we want to be known for, growth that is visible, growth that is executable, and growth that is value accretive.

In closing, BHP thinks and plans in decades. We have done very well over the last decade, and we set up to win the next. We have a simple and clear strategy. My focus is to accelerate performance, more velocity, more ambition, and stronger discipline. That means higher productivity and improved capability. It means consistent, disciplined growth, and it means an even stronger, more resilient BHP.

We have an extremely bright future ahead, and I'm excited to lead this next phase for BHP. And I look forward to connecting with all of you as I get around the place in the coming months. Thank you.

Thanks, Brandon. Why don't you join us for a little fireside here?

Thanks.

Thank you. I can see some killer charts in the making there, so.

I'm going to be borrowing some of those.

So let's get into it. Let's start with a simple one. And you touched on it in your presentation, Brandon. What is your vision for BHP under your leadership?

Thank you. I think the simplest way I can describe it would be to say it's accelerating performance to the limit. Maybe I'll just talk about that very briefly, through the lens of safety and productivity. So on safety, I have a view that if you don't have safe and stable operations, you don't have the right to do any further growth or any further investment in your business.

Investing heavily and making sure we can eliminate fatalities from our business is a key priority. So we will be doing a significant amount of work of pursuing absolute zero in terms of fatalities in our business, and supporting that thinking across the industry. On productivity, I think we have seen in BHP that implementing our Operating System has been a formula for accelerated productivity, but we can also see a lot of emerging technology coming towards us.

And I have a view that if you can couple the Operating System together with some of the latest advances in technology, we have the ability to compound and accelerate how fast we can go after that improvement. Technology also changes the structural limit of productivity. So, technology allows you to unlock a level of performance that with more traditional approaches you cannot achieve.

So that combination of an Operating System and technology is very powerful. And then on growth, there's two components. The first, organic growth and delivering that with discipline and confidence so that people can actually bank that growth in terms of how they look at our business is really important.

And we'll be strengthening our organization to bring that delivery reliability to our capital projects. But I also want the organization to be a lot more creative in terms of how it thinks about unlocking additional growth. Now, I described in my presentation a concept of programmatic growth. I think it's critical that a business like ours has an underlying growth rate banked into it, which then gives you the degrees of freedom to be able to pursue more interesting and more creative options in the future. If we can put all of that together, we can drive BHP's value to the next level, and that's what I'm gonna be focusing on.

Let's just back up a little bit. Something we're asking most of the CEOs today. Obviously, we have a situation in the Middle East. How is that impacting your business, so far on the supply side, on the demand side? And there's a particular focus on diesel, and particularly with some big miners that are moving a lot of dirt, like you. So, how do we think about that?

Listen, I think like most other mining companies, we're watching what happens in the Middle East very, very carefully. Most of our businesses do run on critical input supplies like diesel, explosives, and similar. So those inbound supply chains are really important. If I answer the question through the lens of, I think, looking at BHP as a business, what's important is the underlying demand for our products is very resilient. So that's important because when you have conflict, the risk is you can get GDP impacts, and you can get demand destruction that happens.

And BHP, we're not seeing any of that at this stage. Iron ore continues to be strong. Copper continues to be strong. We're obviously very pleased about that. But on the inbound side, you know, we did have a concern, could there be a disruption to critical supplies like diesel? Fortunately, we have very strong supply arrangements in place. We have very strong supply relationships in place and because of that, what we've seen is the Middle East disruption translates more to a pricing impact to a supply chain risk impact, particularly when you're a business as strong as BHP.

I think what we see in the market is for the supply and demand to balance out through energy products, it's the more marginal producers that are ultimately impacted by disruptions in supply chains. So for BHP, it's fundamentally a pricing effect that we have to manage. And it's still not immaterial though.

I mean, when if you want to put that into numbers, $1 per barrel of diesel translates if you assume you have to carry $1 a barrel over 12 months, that translates to about $10 million of EBITDA impact for a company like BHP. So, it's not insignificant, but I think the quality of the portfolio, the tier one nature of our assets, the quality of our supplier relationships, is translating to the business being incredibly resilient during this period.

Okay. Thank you.

So BHP seems to have rebranded themselves as the world's largest copper producer, which is technically true. Tell us a bit about that, Brandon.

Yeah. I'm not quite sure if it's necessarily a rebranding per se, but I think we've been working really, really hard in our copper business to try and lift our productivity, to try and lift our performance. In recent years, we've managed to unlock sort of 30% underlying growth in the copper produced from the business. And we've done that really through productivity and focus on business performance.

So it's something we are particularly proud of to have accomplished. But it's not meant to be a signal to anyone that we're trying to necessarily become a pure play copper business. I think similar to what Simon was describing earlier, we do fundamentally believe in the diversified model. We think that gives us a unique set of advantages to be very successful in the market.

But copper clearly is a focus. If you have a look at the slides, you'll see some of the organic growth options we set out earlier. Those are highly attractive options. Copper is an incredibly resilient commodity in the sense that it's not easily substitutable. It's quite ubiquitous in the development of countries. A very strong demand profile over the next decade. So we're very bullish copper, but we still fully intend to remain a diversified company.

And so given that you're bullish on copper, what does that mean for the other parts of your business in terms of attracting capital when copper's possibly the standout?

Well, we certainly apply capital across the portfolio still. The single exception is probably Queensland. We obviously have a set of royalty arrangements in Queensland we're not very comfortable with. And because of that, we're not investing significantly into Queensland. But across the balance of the portfolio, potash, copper, iron ore, I think if you refer to the chart I had up earlier, there's still investment going into all of those businesses.

Now the level of investment in each one is different. I think you can see there is a bias to copper. We have the view that it holds probably one of the longest, one of the strongest long-term demand profiles of all the commodities in the portfolio. So we think it's right that it attracts a disproportionate share of capital.

But we're certainly not starving the capital that goes to the balance of the business, and we will continue to put capital into iron ore and potash as well.

And so if we come back to the copper growth in the portfolio, there's probably a couple of things to unpack. How do you think about the capability of the business to execute or manage projects? And then does that hit differently for the greenfield optionality you have versus the brownfield optionality?

I think if you, if you have a look at BHP's track record on major projects, our underlying track record is actually very strong. If you look at the last $35 billion of investment over recent years, we've delivered that capital to within 3% of the cost estimates we set out to the market. I think the single exception is Jansen, where we got some productivity assumptions incorrect, and where we didn't estimate inflation and escalation appropriately.

I think going through 2021, when we had COVID, and we ended up with inflation levels higher than what we expected. But if you have a look at the underlying capability in BHP to deliver major projects, we've got very strong project systems. We have very strong project talent, and because of that, we're very confident we have the internal capability to be able to deliver major projects.

And it's important to understand when you have a look at the portfolio, how we think about the projects, because we're not carrying every growth option alone. If you have a look at Escondida, for example, that's probably one of the projects we're carrying as BHP. But if you go into Vicuna, we're doing that jointly with Lundin.

If you have a look at what we're planning for resolution, that's going to be done together with Rio Tinto. So the fact that we've partnered, that partnership helps us distribute risk. You put all of that together with our projects being in different jurisdictions. Our projects are not competing with each other.

We've set risk frameworks up through who we partner with, and we've got very good embedded capability for delivering. So you package all of that together, and we're very confident we can deliver the set of projects we've currently set out.

Let's dig into Vicuna a little bit, right? I think it's interesting because you mentioned it's a JV. It's a JV where you aren't in the sole driving seat. How are things going with Lundin so far?

Yeah, great. Great, actually.

Good answer. Good.

Yes. No, it is genuinely good. I think as BHP, historically, we shied away from joint ventures and partnerships. We had a sense of discomfort if we didn't have direct control over the work that we were undertaking.

That's post Samarco particularly?

No, not necessarily post Samarco. I think our sort of strategic philosophy was always own and operate. And that was the dominant thinking in the business. But I think we've seen that we can be a little bit more nuanced and a little bit sophisticated about how we think about managing risks, particularly in more complex jurisdictions.

And putting together a way of working that allows us to address the specific issues we need to manage. If you look at a project like Vicuna, I think there's no disputing the quality of the resource base. There's 47 million tons of copper in the Vicuna resource, which is phenomenal. But we needed to make sure we could create an investment approach that would give us confidence we could deliver. In Lundin, they have a track record of delivering projects in more complex countries.

They'd been in Argentina for a very long time. So because of that, we can partner with a team that actually has demonstrated capability of successfully working in these jurisdictions. So that's valuable for us. But in addition, the way to think about this is the complementarity. You can bring the best of both organizations together in terms of how you structure these arrangements. so when you look at the joint venture structure we've established with Lundin Mining, we can both vend in talent into that structure.

We can take the best of standards, policies, and systems for both organizations to put them into that vehicle. And that combination actually is really, really interesting because it allows you to take the best of Lundin, which is speed, agility, a level of entrepreneurship, incredible focus on cost.

And you can couple that with BHP, which has probably got more rigorous systems, more rigorous governance. That combination together is proving to be really successful. So, we actually find the more we operate in this manner, the more we find that it's beneficial. And at the same time, in a country like Argentina, a structure of this nature, because it's a joint venture and the scale of the investment being by the time we get to Filo, $18 billion, being able to risk share that through more parties is a very sensible thing to do.

Okay. I'm aware of time. Let's see if we've got any questions from the floor. Anybody got a burning question? There's one right behind you there, Jack.

Going forward, how do you see the production of iron ore in Australia? It mean, to maintain because of the resource replacement and or option of growth.

I'll speak to BHP's component of that. So we currently have a number of investments underway in our iron ore business. We have what we call the Western Ridge project, which is an extension of our Newman mine. We have Ministers North, which you could see as an extension of the old Yandi mine. We have infrastructure investment both in rail and car dumping and port infrastructure.

That combination will allow our iron ore business to grow to about 305 million tons. And then the opportunity for BHP is to capacity creep that volume through productivity. Cause the way to think about our business is you don't want to over-invest in infrastructure. You want to make sure you're harnessing the maximum productivity potential, so you get the best capital efficiency out of your business.

So for BHP, the ultimate constraint in our iron ore business is the volume we can put through the port at Port Hedland. That's about 330 million tons. So if you invest in infrastructure and mining capacity to get to 305, that delta is just a huge opportunity to do through pure productivity and capacity creep, where you can get all that volume at zero capital.

So that's gonna be the focus for us. We'll deliver the projects we have in train, and then we're gonna push really hard on how we can deploy the operating system, the technology I described earlier, to be able to then unlock future volumes, but at very, very low capital.

Could probably squeeze one more in. We've got one right here we can go to.

Hi, Ben Shrewsbury from Aberdeen Investments. Could you maybe talk a little bit around the infrastructure portfolio and what is non-core, what is core, and just sort of, the value unlock opportunity for BHP with, I suppose, that non-core segment, please?

Sure. Sure. It's interesting to think through that question through a lens of history. When you develop major mining infrastructure, what tends to happen is there's very little state, province, or country-level infrastructure. You have to carry a lot of infrastructure directly as the business. If I use Escondida as an example, you have to put in the power infrastructure, you have to put in the water infrastructure, you have to put all of that in place.

When you do that, you end up in a situation where you've had to put the infrastructure in place. But if the infrastructure existed, or you were later in your development, you wouldn't need to put that infrastructure there. So in many respects, it becomes somewhat unnecessary, and it becomes low returning capital within the portfolio.

And it would fit the descriptor of being better owned by, a sort of, larger major company or state sort of state energy corporation, for example. Those opportunities, I think, are where we have opportunity to try and monetize that infrastructure in some way.

Having said that, I think we've shared with the market that we believe there's about $10 billion of opportunity for BHP. I know we've delivered about $6.3 billion of that so far. So there's $4 billion to go. We know what those opportunities are, so it's not an undefined quantum of sort of capital improvement. We're busy actively working through those residual opportunities.

But I'm not expecting any opportunities beyond that $10 billion number. Now there would be capital that, in theory, you could recycle in that manner. But you start to approach a point where you either lose operating control or create operating risk by doing that, and that's a level we don't want to go past.

Okay. Could you join with me, please, in thanking Brandon for his presentation?

Thank you.