BHP Group Limited (BHP) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ken MacKenzie, and I'm your chair. And let me first thank Joe Collard for his warm welcome to country and his kind words about BHP. I should mention that Joe was a participant this week in a traditional owner forum that we had here in Perth. We had 16 of our traditional owners from around the country come together for some dialogue, which I think was we found incredibly valuable. But I'd like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Wadjuk Nunga people, who are the traditional owners of this land on which we meet. I'd also like to pay respects to their elders both past and present and extend that respect to other First Nations peoples who are joining us today. And thank you for joining us, and I'd like to welcome you to this Annual General Meeting. After 2 years of virtual meetings, we're delighted to be together in Perth at the first AGM of the newly unified BHP Group. Western Australia has played an integral role in BHP's history since the 1960s when we first developed significant deposits of iron ore in the Pilbara. And today, our Western Australian iron ore business or Wayo, for short, is the lowest cost iron ore operation in the world. And further, our nickel operations at Nickel West and Western Australia produced an important commodity for electrification and decarbonization. We are very proud of our operations in and our connections to Western Australia. So we're thrilled to be meeting you here today in person and Perth. And today, I'm joined on stage by Chief Executive Officer, Mike Henry; Group Company Secretary, Stefanie Wilkinson; and my fellow directors. Beyond Whisler is regrettably unable to attend today due to a preexisting conflict, which predates us joining the BHP board. We also have our external auditors from Ernst & Young; and Chief Financial Officer, David Lamantin, attendance. And a particularly warm welcome to Michelle Hinchliffe and Catherine Tanna, who joined the Board earlier this year and who are standing for election today for the first time. And we'll get the chance to hear from Michelle and Catherine shortly. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Malcolm Broomhead, who will retire from the Board at the conclusion of this AGM. And John Mogford, who retired from the Board last week. Malcolm and John have been instrumental to our ongoing success. And then particularly over the last 12 months is BHP has navigated major strategic changes such as unification, the investment decision for the Janssen mine, the demerger of petroleum business to Woodside. And I'd like to thank both Malcolm and John for their support and counsel over the years, and we wish them both all the best for the future. Now I can confirm that there is a quorum present, and as it shortly after 10:00 a.m. in Perth, we can now start the meeting. The notice of this Annual General Meeting was sent out and made available to shareholders on the 3rd of October 2022. We -- 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 to ensure that you are able to cast your votes. Now our group Company Secretary, Stefanie Wilkinson will outline the procedures for voting at today's AGM later in the meeting.

In January at our general meeting, I commented that BHP was in a strong position. The 2022 financial year results delivered in a climate that was very challenging, a lot of uncertainty and change really demonstrate that strength. And I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why we believe your company is well positioned today, and more importantly, the key elements we're working on to ensure BHP is positioned for tomorrow, namely our approach to safety, culture and capability. our portfolio positioning for the future, our continued capital discipline and our focus on social value. And I want to begin with safety because it has been and will continue to be our #1 priority. 2022 marked another fatality free year for BHP. And that means your company has gone more than 3.5 years without a workplace fatality. Our safety indicators have continued to improve. For instance, we experienced fewer high potential incidents, which are those that could cause significant injury or fatality. But we're not just focused on operational safety. Our commitment to safety extends the total elimination of sexual harassment, racism and bullying in BHP Workplaces. And that's why I want to apologize to all of those who experienced or continue to experience any form of sexual harassment, racism or being anywhere at BHP. We are determined to eliminate these harmful behaviors. At BHP, we're committed to providing a safe, inclusive and supportive workplace culture where everyone can bring the best of themselves to work. And although we are making progress in these areas, we know we have a lot more work to do. We recognize the important contribution VHP can make both within our industry and to global economic development. BHP has supplied the resources the world needs for almost 140 years. And over that period, as the world has changed, BHP has continually adapted to keep supplying essential commodities safely, efficiently and sustainably. Your Board and management team are the stewards of this successful history. And our collective responsibility is to plan and prepare for the future of BHP with the next 140 years in mind. This means we need to plan and prepare for the long term because mines are long-life investments with a substantial upfront capital commitment that can positively transform the regions in which they're established. This is why positioning the portfolio for the future is so important. And this is a very different company to what it was when we gathered virtually a year ago. It's a company fundamentally repositioned and better positioned for the future. In the past year, BHP has unified our corporate structure becoming simpler, more efficient and agile. We've merged our petroleum business with Woodside and in the process, created a top 10 independent energy provider, and we've given BHP shareholders further choice about their investment in oil and gas. We've simplified our coal portfolio to focus on higher quality metallurgical coal used for steelmaking. And finally, we approved the investment in our new Janssen potash mine in Canada. Potash is a new commodity for BHP, which has the potential to deliver value for a century or more. The changes we've made across BHP align your company with the megatrends of decarbonization, population growth and demand for higher standards of living. And according to our modeling, to deliver our Paris-aligned 1.5-degree scenario, the demand for copper, nickel and steel will grow to enable the infrastructure and products required for the energy transition. And our portfolio has some of the best assets in the world to meet this increase in demand. Wayo is the lowest cost major iron ore business in the world and one of the lowest emission intensity iron ore operations. Escondida is the largest copper mine in the world with the largest copper endowment. Nickel West holds the second largest nickel sulfide endowment and again, has one of the lowest production emissions in 10 cities. While our metallurgical coal business, BMA, is one of the world's premier suppliers of higher-quality metallurgic coal used for steelmaking. And the Janssen Potash project is also expected to be one of the world's largest and lowest-cost potash mines when it comes into production. Now well, we're well positioned for the future, we also spent 2022 navigating significant uncertainty, and the short-term outlook remains complex. The geopolitical landscape continues to change, economic conditions remain uncertain. There's ongoing labor and skill shortages and countries are emerging from the impact of the global pandemic at different paces. And despite the challenging environment, your company delivered strong operational and financial results in 2002 -- 22. Our financial performance included record EBITDA of USD 40.6 billion. That's up 16%. Free cash flow of USD 25.2 billion, and that's up 30%. The return on capital employed was 48.7%, and there was a further strengthening of our balance sheet with net debt at less than $400 million. These results are due to the extraordinary efforts of all the people at BHP and to the leadership of Mike Henry and his management team. And this performance enabled the Board to declare a total dividend of USD 3.25 per share, bringing BHP's cash returns to shareholders for the year to a record USD 16.4 billion. We also distributed a further USD 19.6 billion in value as an in-specie dividend through the merger of our petroleum business with Woodside. Now combined, that's USD 36 billion in value returned to shareholders in 2022. And this is just one part of BHP's total economic contribution, which is a measure of the financial value we create through our ed our approach is deliberate and proactive, measuring the social and financial impact of our choices, and it's delivering tangible outcomes. So for example, we've reduced operational greenhouse gas emissions by 24% from a baseline year. And we're on track to achieve our goal of at least a 30% reduction by financial year 2030. We've reduced our fresh water withdrawals by nearly 30% on our baseline year. And we've increased female participation in our workforce to 33%, and that's up from 17% in 2016, which is the year we set our aspirational goal to achieve gender balance by financial year 2025. And today, we're also releasing our revised global indigenous peoples policy. And our revised policy is based on employment, taxes and royalties, payments to our suppliers, community contributions and yes, dividends to shareholders. In the last financial year, our global economic contribution topped USD 78 billion, and this includes over USD 57 billion in Australia, with BHP paying close to 10% of all corporate tax in Australia. Our total economic contribution is important because it relates to BHP's focus on long-term shareholder value and social value. In June, we released our new social value framework, and this framework spells out our priorities and approach to social value creation. And importantly, it sets targets and goals for 2030 in the vital areas of decarbonization, the environment, indigenous partnerships, workforce, communities and supply chains. A nation with indigenous peoples, global stakeholders and employees. And this policy statement sets out our commitment to respecting indigenous people's rights, listening to their voices and perspectives and embedding that knowledge into how we work in partnership to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. This focus on partnership and mutual benefit is crucial to our business as our operations are often on or near the traditional lands of indigenous peoples. And I'm delighted to announce this next step in strengthening our approach. In conclusion, I want to come back to the strength of your company. Our position, as demonstrated in the 2022 financial year results is a credit to the efforts of thousands of BHP people over the past year. Our success is a product of their relentless focus on safety, culture and capability, the positioning of our portfolio, capital discipline and social value. Our success is also a credit to the support of our stakeholders. And with that in mind, I want to thank you, our shareholders, for your continued support and for investing in the future of BHP. Look, it's now my pleasure to invite your CEO, Mike Henry, to speak with you.

Thank you. Well, thanks, Ken. It really is great that we can once again hold this event in person and to see so many faces in the audience. This was a big year for BHP. It was a safe and successful year, successful in terms of performance, both operational and financial, and in terms of the strategic transformation to better position the company for the future. And as Ken has touched on, we reshaped our portfolio, increasing our relative exposure to businesses that will generate greater long-term value and returns for shareholders. We unified our corporate structure. We're more agile, efficient and profitable. We set out our Climate Transition action plan, which received strong support from shareholders and our social value framework, which goes to how we will ensure we maximize the value we create with and for the various stakeholders who support or rely upon BHP. And all of this was achieved in the face of significant challenges in our operating environment, high inflation, tight labor markets, ongoing COVID impacts, disrupted supply chains and of course, the war in the Ukraine. And this was only possible with the incredible combined effort of 80,000 employees and contractors across BHP. And I really do want to thank all of them for their hard work and commitment. The combined megatrends of global decarbonization, electrification, population growth and increased living standards are going to mean even greater demand for many metals and minerals and being positioned to ride the tide of global trends like these is part of what has enabled BHP volume growth historically. And we are continuing this track record of transforming BHP to meet the needs of the world. We're positioning BHP at the center of the opportunity these megatrends present. And I'm going to speak more about this shortly, but first, I'd like to mention some highlights from the last financial year. t strong results and of our ability to grow value is our people and our culture. And we've invested and continue to invest significant effort in making BHK better, more inclusive place to work, a place that's more. We continue to deliver strong operational and financial performance and delivered a number of performance records. We achieved record shipments from our iron ore business here in Western Australia for the third year running. In copper, Escondida in Chile had record material mined and near record concentrator throughput while Olympic Dam in South Australia performed strongly after planned smelter maintenance. The Olympic Dam asset is showing much better operational reliability in recent years, reflecting the investments we've made over the past 5 years in asset integrity and on building capability. Our reliable operational performance enabled us to capture maximum benefit from high commodity prices and deliver strong financial results, including record returns to shareholders and contributions to governments. Our results demonstrate the positive momentum we've built over a number of years now. And I hope our ability to consistently deliver financially and operationally in parallel with the transformative changes we are making to set BHP up for a bright future is a source of confidence for you, our shareholders. At the heart of our resilient creative and agile where people look out for one another and where we're able to tap into the ingenuity, motivation and discretionary effort of our teams. And it's not a coincidence that our safety and operational performance has improved hand-in-hand with its focus on culture and the strong progress we've made in achieving a more gender-balanced workforce. As Ken noted, we've increased female participation from 17% to 33% over the past 6 years. And we've increased indigenous and First Nations employment to now represent more than 8% of our operational workforce here in Australia and in Chile and more than 7% in our Janssen potash project in Canada. We've also increased the proportion of the workforce with permanent jobs here in Australia by almost 60% since 2017, adding more than 10,000 permanent jobs. This combination of culture and capability provides us with enduring competitive advantage, allowing us to operate more safely, to reduce our impact on the environment and to generate higher value from our assets. Now notwithstanding how far we've come, it's not yet far enough. We've not yet been successful in stopping damaging behavior in BHP sites and villages. And this includes sexual harassment, racism and billing. And I am deeply sorry and apologize to those who have experienced or continue to experience any form of sexual harassment, raises or belling anywhere at BHP. And I am fiercely determined to do everything I can to stop this conduct, and I know I speak on behalf of the whole of the senior management team in this regard. We are continuing to take action. In the past year, we've spent more than USD 200 million in upgrades to security and accommodation villages with faster progress constrained only by the supply chain's ability to keep up with us. We've enhanced our training programs, including for both leaders and bystanders. And we've established and improved our support services. I know we have more to do on and this is a priority that's reflected in my and our team's performance measures. Like with sexual [ harassment ], 2 years ago, we took the decision to elevate all claims of racism to our most serious category of investigation under our ethics point process. And more recently, we've set up a specific dedicated effort to stamp out races across BHP. 8 months ago, I asked Venditapant to lead this effort at an executive level. And in the period since, employees and contractors across 10 locations and 8 countries have participated in sessions where we've been able to hear about their experiences. A dedicated project management office has also been established to progress our work towards eliminating this behavior and ensuring an environment in which people from all backgrounds can thrive. As I said, our people are the heart of our business, and we must provide a safe, inclusive and supportive workplace that engages and empowers everyone, every day. A key means of truly empowering our people is the BHP operating system. And this is our proprietary way of working that creates a culture and capability where we make continuous improvement central to everyone's role. The BHP operating system is giving people right throughout BHP, both the license and the tools to bring their knowledge to bear in identifying and walking in new and better ways of doing things. Our centers of excellence encourage deep technical capability, allow us to bring in best practice from other industries and enable faster deployment of improvement ideas across our business. And when we combine these with the power of data, we accelerate improvements across our value chain from the geoscience required in exploration through to the marketing of our products. The BHP operating system supported the delivery of over USD 1.3 billion in savings and efficiencies in the last financial year. And we are continuing to grow the talent needed to support us to meet our goals through initiatives such as our Future Fit Academy, in Perth and in Mackay. We are committed to training 2,500 apprentices and trainees through the academy with an investment of $300 million over 5 years, across issues of safety, of culture and capability, we're driving BHP forward, and we're also working to be stronger and better partners to those around us. Given that the time lines of our investments are measured in decades, and our operations can be near and part of communities for 100 years or more, we must be open and collaborative in our meetings with stakeholders. We need to be true partners with the full range of stakeholders we work with and rely upon for our success. And this open engagement was integral to the development of the social value framework we announced in June, along with our 2030 scorecard, which stretches our ambitions and provides a more sophisticated way to measure performance. Our new framework further embeds social value into our thinking, planning and performance, helping us to work with others to create better outcomes, and it includes a new 2030 gold at least 30% of the area of wind and water we steward under conservation, improved land management and restoration, working in partnership with indigenous peoples and local er positioned to grow value as demand for our commodities grows. We have 5 levers available to grow value for shareholders. operation proved productivity. This is getting better at what we do every day. This is priority #1, and it's a lever most within our control. Then it's organic growth, getting more out of these incredible resources that we have. Thirdly, is exploration, finding new resources and potential growth projects globally. Then comes early stage entry. This is getting in on the ground floor with potential Tier 1 deposits found by others but not yet developed, where BHP can bring its capabilities and balance sheet through play. And finally, acquisitions, the right assets at the right time and at the right communities. Now to give some perspective on the scale of this goal, 30% of the land and water that we set is around 2 million hectares. That's about half the size of Switzerland. And as part of our goal to pursue net 0 Scope 3 emissions by 2050, we've progressed partnerships with some of the world's biggest steelmakers, representing close to 1/5 of global production. Our customer partnerships will help to advance the green transition of the steel industry to the development of low carbon steelmaking technologies and their future application at plant scale. We also have, through our ventures work, a number of investments in emerging breakthrough technologies focused on carbon-free steelmaking. We've made significant changes this year to reshape our business with a portfolio more aligned to the global mega trends unfolding around us. So we're [indiscernible] value, always with the discipline to ensure we're creating further value for shareholders. I've already spoken about our to become more productive. On the organic growth front, we've accelerated studies to unlock more corporate Escondida, including a concentrator strategy and leaching operates. And we're now studying 2-stage selling and progressing drilling at Oak dam. At Nickel West, we already have the largest -- the second largest nickel sulfide resource globally, and we've increased exploration spend over the next 2 years on highly prospective areas. We're also increasing our output at Western Australian iron ore to 300 million tonnes per annum with studies underway for a 330 million tonnes per annum option. And Stage 1 of the Janssen potash project in Canada, where we're looking to bring forward production into 2026, and we've already commenced studies on stage 2. We're building our suite of options in future-facing commodities to ensure that the group is well placed in 5 to 10 years' time. Now just before I conclude, I would like to reiterate Ken's thanks to our 2 departing directors, and I'm pleased that both Malcolm and John are leaving at a time when BHP is seeing improved safety, improved operational performance, stronger growth and increased trust from our shareholders. Both Malcolm and John have been tireless advocates for exactly these things in their time as BHP directors. So thank you both. And I hope you'll be able to look back with some pride on what you've helped to create. In conclusion, over recent years, BHP has delivered a strong track record of [ rate ] representative, has 1 vote for every share held. If you all to vote, you have received a handset. The resolutions are displayed on the screen of your device, press the green button to open a resolution and again to vote. To cast your vote, simply select 1 to vote for, 2 to vote against and 3 to abstain each resolution, disciplined allocation of capital and operational excellence, returning profits to shareholders while reinvesting in the business. Our portfolio, our people and our processes are built for enduring success. We're confident of the fundamentals of decarbonization, population growth, rising living standards and urbanization and that they will drive demand for the commodities in our reshaped portfolio for decades into the future. BHP will continue to provide the commodities the world needs and deliver value for our stakeholders. And with your support, we will help to build a better future.

Thank you, Mike. I'll now ask our Group Company Secretary, Stefanie Wilkinson to outline the procedures for voting at today's AGM. Thank you, again, and hello everyone. My name is Stefanie Wilkinson, and I'm the Group Company Secretary of CHP. I will now run through the procedural aspects of today's meeting. Voting on all items poll. On a poll, each shareholder attending or present by proxy or [ corp ] press the red triangle to return to the list of resolutions. 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. Tim Helen 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. Items 1 to 12 in the notice of meeting are endorsed by your Board, and the Board recommends that you vote in favor of them. Items 13 to 15 have been requisitioned by a group of shareholders. Item 13 is a special resolution seeking to amend BHP's constitution. A special resolution requires a majority of at least 75% of votes cast by shareholders entitled to vote on the resolution. Item 13 is not endorsed by your Board. And the Board recommends that you vote against Item 13. Items 14 and 15 will only be valid if Item 13 passes and our advisory resolutions. Items 14 and 15 are ordinary resolutions that require a majority of the votes cast by shareholders entitled to vote on the resolution. Items 14 and 15 are not endorsed by your Board, and the Board recommends that you vote against Items 14 and 15 -- 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 might be able to answer every question or address every comment received. If you would like to answer a question today, please register your question at the registration outside the main room -- please provide your name, together with the nature of your question to the attendant. When it is your turn to ask the 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 the number of your questions to 2 questions and your comments in or 1 or 2 minutes. Back to you, Ken.

Okay. Great. Thank you, Stefanie. We'll now open question -- and as Stefanie said, we'll do our best to get to as many of your questions and comments as possible. And I ask that shareholders and guests are courteous and respectful to others. Item 1 of today's business is to consider the financial statements and reports of the directors and auditor for the year ended 30 June 2022. Shareholders are not required to vote on this item, but you may ask questions or make comments. If your question relates to director reelections executive remuneration or a shareholder requisition resolution, you'll have the opportunity to ask your question when we come to those items. So we're taking questions and comments on item 1 at this point. Go ahead, please. Chairman, may I introduce John Campbell. Welcome, Mr. Campbell.

Chairman, I'm representing Australian Shareholders' Association today. We have proxies for about 6 million shares, about 1,400 shareholders, which is approximately half what we had last time you had an annual meeting in Perth, which was 2015. So I suspect that, that indicates that your body of shareholders as a whole is very happy with the practice SPs made in the last 12 months. And so I think I should express congratulations to Borden management on the achievements. My first question is in relation to coal. The energy market has been boosted by the war in Ukraine, Russia invasion. And so that's how the markedly a major effect on the profitability of the coal division and particularly thermal coal assets. And I know that you tried to do some of those thermal coal assets in the past 12 months on successfully. Just to ask what your future plans are in relation to those assets? And to what extent, if any, they've been affected by recent flooding in the Eastern states.

Okay. Terrific. Well, I'll talk to the -- where we are with the assets. And I might ask Mike to talk to the impact of the flooding in Queensland. But just maybe to clarify for shareholders, the difference between energy coal or thermal coal, which is used for power generation and metallurgical coal, which is used for steelmaking. In January 2022, we divested our 33.3% holding in a company called Cerrejon in Colombia. That was an energy coal business, and we owned 1/3 Anglo American owned 1/3 and Glencore owned 1/3. And it was one of these nonoperated joint ventures. So it was a separate company, and we had only Board representation as a shareholder. We sold our interest Anglo sold their interest as well. And so today, that's wholly owned by Glencore. So that's when... Setting... 2022 following a 2-year review, we determined to retain the New South Wales Energy Coal business. And it's our intention to continue to operate that asset to 2030 at which time we'll close it down. And when I say close it down, there'll still be 10 or 15 years of rehabilitation work that needs to launch actually be active for probably 25 years. But it is our intent to close that operation from e fundamental future of those quantities this is a cyclical business. It's volatile right now. Commodity prices will go up and down, and we have to look through it to manage that, but we have to look through that. And in the case of energy coal, we don't think that's a good place for our shareholders to be invested in, in the medium and long term. So we're not going to invest in those anymore. In the case of metallurgical coal, we still see, as I mentioned in my speech, the mega trend of decarbonization is going to require aa production perspective of energy coal in 2030. And that's been an economically driven decision. It's not been driven by ESG concerns, but this is how we maximize the outcome for shareholders through that process. But what's great about the timing around that, Mr. Campbell is that it's going to give us the time to do a just transition of the coworkers and the community. So it gives us 7 or 8 years to engage with the community engage with the workforce and work our way through life in that region post the closure of the asset. We've also tested our 8% interest in BMC. BMC is a metallurgical coal business, but it was at the lower quality end. So where we are today in summary is we have metallurgical coal assets, BMA. That's some of the highest quality metallurgical coal in the world. And that's important because the higher the quality of the metallurgical coal, the lower the emission profile is when you're producing steel. So that's important. And then New South Wales Energy Coal have talked about, we'll be holding that asset for the next 8 years, and then we will exit. So all of those decisions were driven based on our strategy and our understanding of our commodities and the future and the lot of steel. And so it's going to require a lot of iron ore. It's going to require a lot of metallurgical coal. So the demand for from allergic coal, particularly at the higher quality end with a lower emission profile. We still want to participate there. We think that's in the interest of our shareholders. Yes. So Mr. Campbell, in respect to your question about the impact of flooding on the coal operations, both in Queensland and New South Wales, as has been widely reported from other coal producers, and we indicate as we indicated in our first quarter operational review. There has been impact from wet weather, not necessarily flooding, but the heavy rains that we've seen right across the East Coast. And for the benefit of shareholders, these are large open-cut mines. And so when it rains, it can be quite difficult to run safe to drive some of these large trucks around. So operations will be slowed during that period. And we indicated that did have an impact on production in the first quarter, directly correlated with the level of and frequency of rainfall.

Okay. I do have a couple of other questions on -- of a general nature. Chairman, would you like me to ask them now or... I mean... Typically, we limit to 2, but you are representing 1,400 shareholders. So we'll give you 3. The second question is on the Janssen project. I'd like a bit of background, if I may, on what your competitors are, where potash is provider that present around the world and the market generally for -- and the Board's confidence that the marketplace will handle the volume of potash that you're going to be producing there and perhaps why it's taking so long to get to production? And why you had to write off EUR 1.3 billion a couple of years ago on. I think you're pushing the limit.

That's several questions wrapped up as one. But look, we're really excited about the Janssen potash project. As we mentioned earlier, USD 5.7 billion investment. But that's the investment for Stage 1. This -- we've been working on -- when I say -- BHP has been working on potash for decades. And so up until the final investment decision where we said we're going to spend the final $5.7 billion to bring Stage 1 to production, we'd already spent over USD 4 billion, putting the infrastructure in place that would support not just Stage 1, but Stage 2, Stage 3 and subsequent stages beyond that. The short answer to your question is, because of that upfront infrastructure investment that was done for the scalability of this asset for the next 10 years, some of that had to be written off when we sanctioned the first phase of the project. So that answers that question. We are looking at accelerating it, bringing it forward. So originally, when we sanction it, we would have talked about 2027. Now we talk about 2026. And Mike and his team are already looking at what can we do to already doing the work around Stage 2 as well. It's largely a market that -- to answer your question about competitors, it's largely -- from a geographic perspective, it's Canada and it's the Eastern Baltic states of former Soviet Union. Those are the 2 core markets and our major competitors a company called Mosaic and another company called Nutrien, our 2 North American-based competitors. And I think I've answered all the questions there.

Okay. Well, but perhaps on the market situation, what gives you confidence that the world will take the larger production of potash?

So Chair, I might take this. The -- so there's 3 primary fertilizers, the world's agricultural industry need to have nitrates, phosphates and potassium, potassium being potash. It's an essential element in plant growth. So for plant growth that needs capacity manager gets it from the soil or it gets it from fertilizer. And of course, over time, the potassium available in the soil depletes and so it needs to be replenished with fertilizer Against the backdrop of a growing global population and improving global diet. So as you see economies around the world develop and move out of poverty, the diets intend to become better and more calorie intensive, that requires more agricultural input. Against that backdrop, you have decreasing arable land or constraints on arable land globally. So we're needing to get more production out of the same land footprint. Therefore, more fertilizer needs to be applied to increase that yield. So that combination of global growth, increasing quality of diets and constraints on arable land, we believe is going to drive a pretty sustained strong growth in potash demand for a long time yet. As Ken noted, to really just 2 big basins that are supplying the world's needs of potash. We have the best greenfield capacity. So we're very well positioned to meet the world's needs for potash and more sustainable agriculture.

Chairman, may I ask my third question?

Sure.

When you held your AGM here in 2015, is it just happened the dam had broken a few weeks before. I'd like to know how much it's cost the company to date. I know that it's cost $2 billion in the last 3 financial years, but how much over the period, does it cost the company? And to what extent can shareholders be confident that it's not going to go on costing the company, the money that's been costing in the last 12 months or more. That's probably $0.20 a share in dividends or something like that in our calculation.

Yes. Thanks, Mr. Campbell. Look, first and foremost, Samarco was a tragedy, and it's one that we're never going to forget. And we're deeply sorry for the impacts that were caused and the losses that occurred. And we've been working really hard through the Renova Foundation and through Samarco, which is the asset to put all that right. And it's been a lot of work. So really, the 3 focus areas, remediating the environment. That's gone really well, and we're largely through that, relocating and reestablishing the communities, and that's been challenging to a lot of tape, but also a lot of consultation with the communities. And then, of course, we got hit by COVID, which had an impact, but we're making good progress there. And then finally, there's compensation. And we have a number of -- there's about almost 400,000 people have received compensation now. We've got a system up and running. For those people who have difficulty documenting their losses, and so it's called the Novel system, and it's been core approved, and we're working our way through that. And we're making good progress there now. So I think we're moving more quickly. But the short answer to your question is to date, so this is BHP, not Samarco and not Valley. I'll talk about the total afterwards. But we've spent USD 1.8 billion to date. And then you would have noticed in our accounts that we have a further $3.4 billion provisioned. The latest forecast that we've gotten from management is that a lot of that will be spent in 2023, and the majority will be spent will be complete in 2024. And something like 80% in 2023 will be spent and 15% in 2024. So a lot of work still ahead. The money is there, it's provided for. There's nobody who wants all of these issues resolved. There's 42 work programs here. There's nobody who wants this resolve more than BHP, but it has been difficult. There's a lot of stakeholders. So when I talked about our share in terms of the total impact, it's at least twice that because that Vale would have a similar number and Samarco is also up and running again, generating profit and able to pay some of the expenses itself. So you roughly need to double in a bit those numbers. So it would be $3.6 billion spent to date and $6.8 billion to go in the next 2 years -- roughly in the next 2 years. Is there confidence that you stop the damage each time it rains, does more affluent go down into the river system? And is it... So the river system has returned to pre failure, probably even better, to be honest, better quality than pre. We've done a lot of work actually improving the sewage treatment and water treatment through the whole basin. So I think that will be probably better than it was pre dam failure.

Next question, please. Chair, I would like to introduce you, [ Mio Peppa ]. Welcome, Ms. [ Pepper. ].

Thanks so much for having me here today. My [ name is Mio ], and I'm here representing a proxy. I have a proxy representing a shareholder, sorry. And I'm here to ask a question also about Samarco and I thank the Chair for your response so far and welcome the commitment from BHP to repairing the damage there, although the question I have is comes directly from the community, and there are still so many outstanding issues, both environmentally and with the communities. And so I'm here to read out the question directly from the community, which is really more of a picture of what that community is facing now. They say 7 years ago, the fund out down collapsed. Did you know that it's been 7 years since no house has been delivered in any of the resettlements -- and that still there has only been 42 houses partially delivered, placing 42 families there in January 2023, but will be within a construction site. Did you know that 7 years after the CrimeRenovo Foundation has only hired technical assistance in 3 out of the 19 territories affected by the crime. Did you know 7 years after the rupture, the tailings were not removed from RioDose?

And that every year with the floods, they pollute the river, the agricultural land again and contaminate people 7 years after the dam collapse the families of Bento Parco and Gestra still do not have their houses returned in collective resettlements, either because they were not considered or because the works were delayed.

How is this justified?

71 of the approximate 400 houses are being completed according to Renova, 7 years for 71 houses in the middle of a construction site.

Did you know 7 years after the breakup, 100 or more people have died in Moana, saddened after the breakup and without compensation. How does it feel to own a company that killed 20 people, displaced thousands and ended the life of a watershed and still failed to repair the victims.

That is the end of this statement, and I appreciate that there's been comments and that there's a strong feeling and sadness about what has happened. But comments that Mr. Campbell made about the continuing flooding, the tailings issues that are still there and the comments from the community that point to the tailings that are still there and every time it rains that the agricultural land, the fish, the waterways are still being colluded.

We're really keen and really eager to understand what work Renova are doing and what evidence, scientific evidence do they have prepared? And in what way is that being documented, -- how can we see that have visibility over the actual science and the evidence that these areas are being remediated and the progress?

Yes. Look, thanks for your question. I don't agree with all the data, but I appreciate that you've come here that you're representing the community and you're clearly very well intentioned. And I think the progress has been better than what you've talked about. There's 100 cases of resettlement have already been completed. Over 60 homes have been done. They're actually going to be moving into the communities to school, all the infrastructures in place, the hospital -- medical centers, the schools, the roads, the sewage treatment is in place and the families are moving into their new communities in the first quarter of next year in school starting. So I accept that the resettlement process has been slower than we would have liked. We would love for this to be done -- but there's been -- you can imagine when you're recreating a community, just how much urban planning, consultation, approvals need to go on. So there's a lot of -- and we had 3 of our directors go to Samarco this year to see firsthand the progress that's being made. And we are making progress. And I think 2023 is going to be an important year. I think COVID also slowed things down. But -- and then to your question around the scientific evidence, we do a lot of that work, and we're of the view, for example, there continues to be a fishing ban in Rio Deuce. We're of the view that there's no need for that anymore. And many of the government authorities are also of the view that, that's no longer needed. But in the meantime, there's a fishing ban, and we're providing compensation to all the fisher folks who have -- who aren't able to continue to work. So look, 42 programs of work underway. The money has been provided. There's no issue there. We're committed to making this right, and we are working through the environmental resettlement and compensation programs but it's challenging.

Of course, it is, I suppose, from the community perspective, there's an open request here for about accountability and visibility over the studies, the programs of the 42 programs, how long will they operate? Have they -- is there a valuation and monitoring that the community can see and have evidence and visibility over so that the sets of transparency that?

I'll take it as a fact, but I'm surprised by the comment because there is so much community consultation that goes on that I'm surprised that there's lack of information, but I will take it on board as fact. Thank you, and we'll look into it.

Next question, please. Chair, I'd like to introduce Derek Miller. Mr. Miller, welcome.

I'm a long-term shareholder, and I've got a couple of comments I'd like to make. The first is in relation to fly in, fly out, which is a growing issue around the place. And the question is in relation to FY and fly out as a basis for Pilbara mine design. And that seems to be where we are today, fly in, fly out as the basis of design. There's been recent newspaper articles highlighting the problems that Mr. Henry mentioned and then as sold an arrestment of fly and fly out. And there's a report enough is enough, which is well worth reading a very massive report. Fly-In was good in the early days for small mines. And the first mine was Argyle the Pilbara -- or the Kimberly, I mean. And that was in mid-80s, and it's now closed. So it ran for 40 years. So that gives you an idea how long fly-in/fly-out has been around. But it grew massively from Argyle to the fact that it's through the whole Pilbara now and in particular, in some of the bigger sites. It overcome some of the problems in small towns and for short life mines, and that was good. And some people liked it, and some people found it a bit difficult to work with and particularly long-term employees who, frankly, I have find it hard to imagine working fly-in-fly-out for 30 years, and I work something like that for Sites are now very large and a classic example in your case is Mining RFC. The Mining Area C hub is 140 million tonnes a year, which is half your total production. I wonder if it's time now to reexamine the future of fly-in fly-out as the basis for the design. And that point was raised by [ Tim ] recently at an article in the West Australia. Further on fly and flight is now crept not only into the mines, but into the established towns. And I understand that both Hedland and human are now only -- are partly fly in, fly out and partly residential. And to the extent that a significant number of your senior people are actually on fly in, fly out in the mines, not all but a significant number. And this has affected the community. Your senior people are leaders in the community and are not there, the community tends to run down. And in Fort Haden, you particularly got that, I think, with the collapse of service clubs, rotary lines, the collapse of the atlas of the sporting clubs, that's something that he's looking at. And what -- in broad terms, iron ore industry is boom, but the towns haven't. When Mining Area C was first designed, the back hub in the mid-80s, goals with mining had a town included in the design, and that was for 20 million tonnes a year. We're now 140 million tonnes a year. And I would think that hub could support a town of [ size ] rather than fly and flow.

Yes. So Mr. Mill, you're raising some important questions. Let me just respond around Fly and flat. We get the question a lot. Now I'll let Mike talk to the basis of design basis of design question. But we recognize it to attract and retain a talented workforce. So we need to offer a mix of employment options. -- residential drive and drive out and fly in, fly out, all have a role to play. And importantly, some of our mines are a long distance from any regional centers where services are -- or the infrastructure, quite frankly, are insufficient, and it's not practical to have a residential workforce. And the health and safety of our people and communities in which we operate is central to our thinking and it's central to our business. When someone's thinking about joining BHP and making the decision about FIFO, we provide a lot of information about the nature, the challenges and the benefits and the shortcomings to employees and to their families. And a lot of people choose FIFO because it suits their circumstances. And -- but we're always going to support the communities in which we operate. We're doing a lot of work in Portland and Hedland right now to rejuvenate the West and I think we're spending $40 million to rejuvenate the best West End including the Marina that you talked about. So -- and we, as a Board, we're heading up there in the next couple of days, and we'll spend time in Port Hedland, and we'll spend time in the communities and see how it's going. But why don't I I'll let Mike talk to the basis of design.

Sure. Look, thanks, Ken, and thank you, Mr. Miller, for the question. The company doesn't start with a preference for fly-in-fly-out. This is really -- it's driven by employee choice, or prospective employees. We need to be able to compete effectively for talent in the marketplace. And -- some employees prefer residential, and we have options at Port Hedland at Newman at Moranbah, Dysart Blackwater, Rocketon, -- so there's a number of residential communities or mining towns across Australia, where employees who want to live residentially, that option is available to them. There's other employees who prefer to live in an urban setting and prefer the FIFO roster and fitful lifestyle. Now of course, one of the things we always keep an eye on and the Chair alluded to this, is that in providing a fly-in-fly-out option, we don't want to denude existing communities from people. And therefore, we invest quite heavily in ensuring that these communities are attractive places to live. There's more work to be done on that front, but that's an ongoing effort for us. the support services there in terms of medical support services, education, daycare and so on, those facilities are there. And we're also investing in infrastructure. And there's a number of examples in Port Hedland where we're doing exactly that. So I acknowledge that it's -- there's a tension there. We're actively seeking to manage that tension, but it's not always as straightforward as us building a town and employees coming to it. Many employees actually prefer play and fly out. Mr. Miller, I know that I'm just conscious of time here. I know there's a lot of shareholders who want to ask questions. I'm just going to actually ask Geraldine Slattery to stand up. She's our new Asset President for Minerals Americas. You should have a cup of tea with Geraldine at the end of the AGM, and you can ask all the questions around FFO and basis of design and those sorts of things.

I'll definitely do that. Look, I'm just suggesting the balance needs exam by the Board that you've gone a bit far in the fly and flight direction. -- particularly with Mining Area C, which is a project like Janssen, -- that hub will run for 50 years.

Yes. Your major point, Mr. Miller. Understood. Message received.

Okay. Can I have a second question...

Sure. It's going to be shorter this time. Mine, it's going to be shorter this time. The second run relates to industrial relations. 4 years ago, I went to a RIO meeting and raised a question there. Bill shortened had said he was going to run the country like a union. And to me, that was a worry and I asked Rio, why wasn't that on your risk register and it was. And I think just coming quickly to the point, I think we've got the same thing now. The current government is looks like running the country, not like a union, but running at 4 Union -- and I wonder how your thinking in your industrial relations, are resilient you are to handle that because your workplace agreements were introduced 20 years ago. They've worked excellently. Your whole productive performance depends on the consistency you're running without strikes and stoppages. And I worry about that at the moment.

Right. So look, we work with the government of the day. And so we're constantly engaged with government around industrial relations policy, and we get -- the great thing about being BHP as the largest company in the country is that we get access. And so we have the opportunity to put our views forward. That said, if you look at the results of BHP, we are moving forward and improving productivity in the current environment. And -- so I think from a Board perspective, we back our management team to continue to move the business forward and to work collaboratively with our unions and our coworkers and to get the right outcomes for the company. So that's probably why you don't see it on our -- on the risk register is because we feel like we're in a position of engagement with the stakeholders that are important here, and we're making positive progress. But we're not taking anything for granted.

Next question, please. Chair may introduce you to [ Jan Rod ]. Welcome [ Jan Rod ].

International Energy Agency's latest analysis shows that in order to have just a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. -- new or expanded coal mines should no longer be approved and metallurgical coal production must fall by 1/3 by 2030 and nearly 90% by 2050. Yet, BHP is planning new coal mines that could extend into the next century. In fact, backwater South wouldn't even start producing until well into next decade. Why is the company prepared to take why is the company prepared to take on such staggering transition risk.

Okay. Well, we've already had a good discussion around the difference between metallurgic coal and energy coal. And as I've talked about, we are decommissioning our only thermal coal asset in New South Wales Energy Coal by 2030. So we'll not be in the fossil fuels business anymore. In terms of metallurgical coal, metallurgic coal is used in steelmaking and steel is required for the decarbonization and the energy transition. -- wind turbines, they need steel. -- solar energy needs steel. Pumped hydro needs lots of steel. Nuclear needs steel. The reality is we're going to have to continue to manufacture steel if we're going to enable decarbonization and put the infrastructure in place. At the same time, steel emits carbon. And so we've got to look at how do we reduce the emissions profile of steel manufacturing, which is our Scope 3 emissions that we talk about. And we're with partnerships with 6 of our steelmaking customers represent about 17% of global steel supply, working on a number of initiatives to reduce the emission profile of steelmaking. So for example, higher quality iron ore and higher quality metallurgical coal reduces the emissions profile. Looking at how do we use alternative sources of energy to actually power the blast furnace process, alternative solutions and technologies to the blast furnace, which aren't proven yet, but using DIR processes, direct reduction iron than an electric arc furnace for taps replacing metallurgical coal with hydrogen and also CCUS. And the report that you're referring to the IEA, whether it's the IEA or the IPCC, all of them have in their scenario analysis in 2050, the challenge is that -- there is no known pathway at this point in time to reduce steel emissions to 0. It's not there. We're working really hard in these partnerships to find it and to unlock it, but it's probably decades away. And if you look at the IEA IPCC and other scenario analysis, including our own, steel is still emitting in 2050 in their own analysis. And we won't try to get to 0. But the reason it's it is emitting at lower levels is because it's really hard. We're going to have to use CCUS, or we're going to have to use some form of DRI to get there. But in the meantime, you need steel to decarbonize. So it is a challenge. We've laid that out in our CTAP I don't know if you've read our climate transition action plan, we've laid this challenge out and we're working hard at trying to overcome it…

Next question, please. I'd like to introduce Alan. Welcome, Alan.

I'm representing the Australasian Center for Corporate Responsibility and my question is in relation to Commonwealth cultural heritage or reform. Does BHP like the WA Chamber of Minerals regard Commonwealth heritage protection law as needless duplication or does BHP support Commonwealth heritage law and the current codesign process and can BHP point to its own statement of support for Commonwealth heritage protection law or has it relied today on the advocacy of the WA Chamber of Minerals.

Okay. I'm not sure I got to be honest, we might get you to repeat some of that as we go through. But let me just talk about First of all, how we look at cultural heritage in general from a policy perspective at BHP. First and foremost, we've got deep respect for indigenous peoples and their culture, and that's been built up through long-standing relationships or at the state level is informed by indigenous voices. And we've been engaged with our traditional owners and other indigenous leaders across Australia on what's needed by way of legislative reform, but also over a long period of time. And it's really important that our business is informed by the views of our traditional owners. And that's why we had this traditional owner forum this week, where we brought all 16 of our traditional owners together and spend a couple of days making sure that we understand their perspectives and that's an absolutely ongoing process. In our case, you talking about legislation. In our case, in managing cultural heritage, we always operate to a standard that's higher than the existing legislation. And our senior BHP leaders regularly engaged with traditional owners. And -- we want to also make sure that our workforce is inclusive of additional owners. So 93% of our Australian workforce have completed indigenous history and culture training. So we're very alive to this issue. We're just announcing the indigenous people's policy framework today, our new ones where we move that forward in consultation with our traditional owners and other stakeholders. But in terms of the specific items that you raised, I might pass that over to Mike.

So the BHP has been an advocate for a reform of cultural heritage management legislation at the state level pre [ Ducan Gord ]. So in the review that was underway, BHP had provided submission into that supporting reform because clearly, the old standards weren't what BHP was operating to at the time, and there was a clear recognition of the need for higher standards. Now of course, if in any legislation at the national level, it's in everybody's interest to ensure that the processes are as efficient as possible. That's different from saying that there's no need for it. All I'm saying is that you want to avoid double up generally. Now the most important thing is that any legislation is put in place either at the federal levs of the practices that the company adopts and Chair, this is perhaps something because we've got Caroline in the audience afterwards, if there was a desire to discuss further some of the specifics, we can have that discussion post the meeting.

[ Caroline ], I just want to stand up. So Caroline Cox is our Chief Legal and General Affairs Officer, maybe Elie, if you want to, you can connect with her. Thank you. At the break, -- thank you for your question.

Next question, please. Here, I'd like to introduce [ Stephane Gillien ]. Welcome, Mr. Gillien..

At the end of your talk, you mentioned a better future. And I think you were just talking about weak shareholders and employees. You were talking about the whole community. And from that point of view I'm wondering about the steel industry that was in New South Wales, but particularly in the Pilbara, where the initial export licenses for iron ore were only given to give a cash flow to the companies to put in ports and steel mills and rower lines and things. But we haven't got a steel industry in the Pira, which is just relentlessly a disappointment for me, when you were closing down your steel mills out, forget if it was in Newcastle or south of Sydney years ago, I did read that prior to that, that BHP were the cheapest producers of steel in the world, and I couldn't work out why that was closing down steel month. So I made an appointment, and I was going to go over to and talk to one of the directors and then I forget it was Sydney aware of it was where your head office was. But one was coming over here. So I came down from Kalgoorlie. And when I had an interview with him, he told me, we still are the cheapest producers of steel. So to me, getting back to your last statement for the community, we're doing it for the community, all of this. why and how and when are we going to get a steel industry. If we're the cheapest producer of steel in the world, we've got the best iron ore -- let's have -- let's have -- which was the original concept of everyone back when export license. They were only given to give a cash flow to get the steel industry going in the Pilbara and development of which some of the other questions have been indicating. Building a bit...

Sorry. No, that's okay. Mr. [ Gillien ]. You've made your point, and I think Mike wants to answer the question.

Sure. So thanks for the question, Mr. [ Gillien ]. There, of course, has been discussion recently in the broader market about whether there's a rejuvenation of the steel industry in Australia as the world moves towards green steel. And that may yet provide the opportunity. I don't think it will be an opportunity for BHP because as we think about BHP's capital allocation framework and where the company can generate the highest margins, and frankly, where the company's capability set lies because d the fact that it's not within BHP's capability set and it's probably not the place to generate highest return. BHP no longer has the capabilities required to be a good steelmaker. As to whether the -- a rejuvenation of steelmaking in Australia will occur and it will come back to the base economics. And the reality is that going forward, Australia will need to compete against nations where there's an existing steel industry in place. So there's some capital and that will need to be overcome if Australia is to compete globally in the steel sector. Now that opportunity may be presented by green steel, where there's hydrogen production that then goes into steelmaking. But as the Chair noted earlier, that will play out over multiple decades. It won't be something that happens immediately. And it's going to be a business for others, not likely a business for BHP. Given the amount of capital required for BHP shareholders it may be attractive for somebody else. The steel producers, you talked about producing steel at -- with our beautiful iron ore -- and it's cheaper it's cheaper and better to use our iron ore than any other iron ore around the world. I think there might be a little bit in South America somewhere. But one of the things that was talked about by the -- by everyone at the time, including BHP people was that we were going to have in the Pilbara research facilities, a couple of universities and things like that, that was going to be a huge thing for the -- and it still could be if we choose it. And thanks for your answers any...

Next question, please. I would like to introduce you [ Mr. Leggett. Welcome, Mr. Leggett ].

I'm here today on behalf of indigenous communities in the Atacama desert. So last year, BHP reached a conciliation agreement with the Chilean State Defense Council and the indigenous communities of the Atacama desert, where BHP's Escondida open pit copper mine overexploited water sources for 27 years. Under this agreement, BHP has committed to undertaking an assessment of the impact of the mine's operation on the floor and fare of the Bonneville salt flats. Could BHP inform most of the exact date of the launch of the impact assessment it has committed to as part of this agreement. And in regards to the environmental recovery, when will BHP carry out the study to verify the amount of water that it must reinject into the aquifer the sulfide to recover? Yes. Thanks for the question. So for the benefit of all shareholders, Escondida, I talked about in my speech is the world's largest copper mine. -- it had used 2 aquifers over a long period of time where it had licenses for extraction of certain amount of water and had never exceeded those licenses. So it's always been in compliance. And we have made the decision, and we've been successful. We ceased all continental water extraction in 2019. So from the Solar Contenegra, in 2017, we stopped removing -- we stopped using its water. And in 2019 at Monturaqui, we stopped using the water there as well. So we spent USD 4 billion and built a desalination plant, and we pump the water off, and we use no water from the local aquifers anymore at all at Escondida -- there has been some environmental impact, and we have put agreements together with the local communities, and we've got the governance structure set up, and we are working our way through it. In the meantime, there are mitigation actions that we're taking around the irrigation, so public table water off and we irrigate the table lands there in order to keep the floor on the fauna impact until we finish the studies and understand just exactly when it will revert back to where it was before we started extracting water from it.

Next question. [ Yes, I'd like to introduce Liam Lilly ]. Welcome, Mr. [ Lilly ].

Thank you. reports issued by various national institutions in Peru have verified that heavy metals in bodies of water around BHPs and to MENA copper mine exceed environmental quality standards. The cause has been clearly identified as stills of mining settlements and dumping of industrial waters from BHPs and Samena Copper mine that have put the lives of people and ecosystems at risk. What are the concrete measures that BHP will use to stop contaminating the community and environment around the around antimetamine with heavy metals and toxic waste.

Okay. Well, thanks for your comments, Mr. Lilly, but both either Mike or I are aware of any of those reports or any contamination at amino. This is coming straight from the community. So yes, I would hope and imagine that you would be aware of it is one of our mines. Not aware. I mean, for the benefit of all shareholders, Antamina, we're a shareholder of Antamina, we don't operate that mine. We're a 33.75% shareholder. There are 3 other shareholders. So there's 4 of us. It's a non-operated joint venture. But it all the work that we've done through our influence through the Board is that this mine is operated at the same standards that we would expect if we were operating at. So I'm not aware of these reports or of any contamination of heavy metals. I'm happy for you if you want to engage with...

[ George ] you want happy to engage you right now as a 33% shareholder. You're seeing uninterested in Asia... No, I'm not on an interested as matter of fact, what I'm saying, George, you want to stand up? So why don't you connect with Mr. Lilly?

I'm completely interested, but we're just not aware of any reports and from all the information we have, that mine has been operating to the same standards we'd use elsewhere. And I'd like you to engage with George at the break and let's get to the bottom of it. But reports from the community, let's get to -- let's understand what that means.

Thank you. Okay. I just had a second question. BHP's same mine, Antamina Copper mine has 2 water licenses without quantification. Since the mine's inception, 4 natural guns have disappeared in this region. Why does BHP remove unlimited amounts of water from local people and environment and what will BHP do to acknowledge the situation and restore the lagoon to their natural state. Look, I have the same answer. I'm not aware of any of these issues that you're raising, and I'd like you to talk to George about it afterwards. And if there's something there, he'll bring it back to us. So the Board is not aware of any issues with the Antamina mine in those issues -- that is environmentally or community. Not those issues. No, not the ones you've raised with us, no.

Next question, please. I would like to introduce you [ RianaHardweek ].

Thank you, Chair. And so I'm here with the proxy to ask a question on behalf of the indigenous Guajira community in Colombia. -- who've been impacted and displaced by BHP that are on coal mine. There is a growing sense in the community that BHP sale of their stake in the mine in 2021 is an attempt to evade responsibility over the long-term impact to the community and the environment. After the sale of its shares of the Cejon mine, what actions were taken by BHP in order to not evade its responsibility for the environmental and social liabilities that remained at the time of its departure. And is BHP willing to contribute resources to a reparation fund for the adverse impacts caused by Sedihon? So thanks for the question. For the benefit of all shareholders, it's true. We exited Cerrejon last year, we had a 33% shareholding. Anglo American had a 33% shareholding and Glencore had a 33% shareholding and it was an independent nonoperated joint venture, which meant we could only influence through our Board position. That's changed. The ownership structure now is 100% owned by Glencore, -- they're the operator of the asset. That's a very, I believe, positive move forward for the governance of Cerajon going forward, where Glencore, which is one of the world's largest mining companies, well capitalized. We'll have responsibility for that operation going forward. So the questions that you raised here are to matter for the BHP AGM, but you should raise them with Glencore, who is a responsible operator and the whole owner of that asset now, which I think is a positive going forward for governance.

Next question, please. Chair, I'd like to introduce [ Margaret Cecila Bobeck ].

Thank you for this opportunity to ask a question. I'd just like to follow up on your response to Ms. [ Roder ], and maybe you can elaborate on that. BHP's climate change position statement says the company will support emissions reduction in our value chain and the economy-wide transition is necessary to meet the Paris agreement goals. In this age of heightened regulatory legal and community focus on green washing and misleading claims don't the company's significant coking coal expansion plans post a large legal risk. Are we going to be the next company sued or hold in by the regulator for greenwashing.

When we put the climate transition action plan together, we were very aware of the concerns around greenwashing. That's why, for example, we have only set a goal for Scope 3 emissions in the downstream side of our supply chain because we're not certain of the pathway that will allow us to get to decarbonization. So you should think of it as an ambition as opposed to a commitment to get there. But it shouldn't be interpreted as a lack of ambition because we're doing a lot of work there with -- and I won't go through it again with our downstream steel customers in order to reduce the emissions of the supply chain. To your question around metallurgical coal, I might just ask Mike to comment on the plans for metallurgical coal because your comments aren't quite right there, but I'll let Mike explain.

So thank you for the question. I just want to be clear, and I've been clear about this in the press previously. There is no growth capital, 0 growth capital allocated to our metallurgical coal business. In fact, it's the only one of the BHP businesses, where there's no growth capital currently allocated to that business. Now there was reference made to the South Blackwater process. This is a regulatory application, and it's something that you go through to maintain tenor, and it's largely based upon reserve size, but there's been no decision taken to pursue an expansion. I've been clear externally that we're not intending to allocate any growth capital to the metallurgical business. Now albeit, as the Chair has said, there is going to be a lot of steel needed for the world's transition towards NetCo. And that steel based upon current technologies is going to require coking coal for its productive. BHP is investing in breakthrough technologies for our Ventures arm that may give rise to a solution where steel can be made without coking coal. But for today, the world needs Coca-Cola. And what we're trying to do is ensure that we're producing the highest quality coking coal to ensure that steel can be made at the lowest possible carbon emissions footprint. Sorry, can I just clarify, if you don't mind. So you're saying that it's like ensuring that there's a reserve if necessary, but there are no explicit plans at the moment to expand... I'm saying that there's no explicit -- there's no plans at this point in time to allocate -- or no growth capital allocated to our coking coal business. Now one of the things that we've demonstrated progress in is becoming more productive out of existing assets. And we've seen that in our iron ore business here in Western Australia. So as we become more productive in coal, could that give rise to some production creep, possibly yes, but it's not through us pursuing specific expansion to the allocation of growth capital.

Next question, please. May I introduce you [ Welcome to Billie ].

Thanks very much for this opportunity. I represent shareholder, Peter Seligman. We've spoken a bit about coking coal of metallurgical coal this morning already. My question relates to that as well. BHP's scenario analysis models, metallurgical coal demand over the next 30 years to be only slightly lower in a 1.5-degree Celsius scenario compared to the under 3-degree central case. Yet the International Energy Agency's latest world energy outlook models metallurgical coal demand virtually disappearing by 2050 in a net 0 by 2050 scenario. Can you please explain why BHP's modeling differs so significantly from the most widely used industry source? And will the company conduct analysis against alternative scenarios like the IEAs in the future. You want to share to talk about that.

Yes, sure. So thank you for the question, and it will come down to the scenario in question. And so there's a number of different scenarios, including from the IEA as to how the world progresses towards NetZero, BHP's modeling indicates as the Chair said earlier, that steel is going to be required for a long period of time yet, including in 2050. And that is the case in a number of the IA scenarios and from other leading forecasters. Having said that, I think the point that you -- or the point that you raised in your question towards the end of it is very relevant. And that is us testing against other scenarios. And that's a work that we have underway currently. So in short, the answer is yes. We will be looking to test the HP's portfolio against different centers. And of course, we will continue to look to refresh the HP scenario as well.

Next question, please. Here, I'd like to introduce [ Martin Dickie ]. Mr. [ Dickie ], welcome.

My name is [ Martin Diekema ] shareholder, which relates to those previously. BHP's analysis of its 1.5-degree Paris-aligned scenario projects industrial emissions to remain roughly flat until 2050, leaving a massive requirement for nature as emissions offsets. Is the company concerned that advances in the technology of steelmaking could displace the defend for metallurgical coal at a much faster rate than this 1.5-degree scenario anticipates. Go ahead.

So in short, BHP is investing in the technologies that may make that a reality. So faster displacement of Coca-Cola. And as I said earlier, BHP is investing through its venture on a technologies that may not -- that may give rise to the removal of the need for [ coconcolin ] in steelmaking. In addition to working with steelmakers that account for about 1/5 of global steel production to help them become more efficient in existing steel production as well. Thank you I understand that.

Next question, please. Chair, I would like to introduce you to [ Paul Slide. Welcome, Mr. Slide ].

Congratulations on your performance. I'll take my mask... Yes. The question I have is quite simple. How much value of green hydrogen is being used now to produce green steel? And how much carbon pollution apart from CO2 is BHP causing to produce steel and what allowance is made for CO2 pollution. Can you answer that question, please?

So our customers are the ones that produce steel. And I don't know if you want to comment a Green hydrogen is in the industry is at the very early stages. I mean, maybe just a little bit of a landscape here. The only green steel currently produced in quantities today is recycled steel through the electric arc furnace. And so you take recycled steel, you put it through an electric arc furnace. And if that electric arc furnace is powered by renewable energy, then you have green steel. The problem is there isn't enough recycled steel in the world to meet demand going forward. So we have to make fresh steel, and it's about 30% recycled steel, and it's about 70% fresh steel. And the only economic way to make fresh steel these days is with the traditional blast furnace. Now you can make the existing blast furnace greener by having it powered by renewable energy, but you're still going to have the process itself emitting carbon dioxide. And that's what we're trying -- that's the nut that we're trying to crack by using these partnerships with our customers Step 1 is to improve the existing process through improving raw materials and reducing the emission profile in steel and starting to power some of these last -- these last with renewable energy. Step 2 will be using carbon capture utilization and storage technology, which will still allow us to use the existing blast furnace ecoterrorists legal coal, but we capture the emissions around that. And then ideally, going forward, there'll be hydrogen displacement through the DRI process that I talked about. But it's very, very early stages requires asset amounts of energy, and there isn't enough for the quality of iron ore in the world that actually powers that to input and supply that process. So we're -- we got a crawl-walk-run approach here, and there's going to be 2 competing paths. It's going to be CCUS with the existing technology capturing carbon, and then there's going to be the DRI process, displacing metallurgical coal using hydrogen, but it's decades away from being commercial. Thank you, Mr. for clarifying that. And I'll first like to ask a little bit further is that if the iron ore is being extracted and that is the prime substance of BHP, isn't that…

Correct. Yes.

Can I rephrase that question back to iron ore production? How much hydrogen is currently being used to produce the iron ore and how much is also the other aspect that I mentioned earlier, how much carbon dioxide is being no for...

Yes. Got it. So Mike is going to answer that question.

So essentially 0 hydrogen being used for the production of iron ore currently, but I think maybe the -- where you're going with the question is, how do we go about removing the use of diesel on site for -- to run our haul trucks and so on. And that's an effort that is currently underway. We're working with the likes of Komatsu, Caterpillar and others to try to develop solutions that allow us to run these big trucks without the use of diesel because diesel makes up about 40% of BHP's operational emissions. There's 40% that comes from the electricity that we purchased to run our operations and 20% from hard to abate. Now for the 40% from electricity, we're making big inroads in terms of moving to renewable power. For example, there was recently a contract entered into to supply 50% of the electricity we need for Port Hedland from a renewable power. 100% of our downstream processing activity at Nickel West moving towards renewable power. So big inroads there, but the technologies are not yet ready to be able to move material on site without the use of diesel. And we're trying to accelerate that through the collaborations that we have with others in the industry and with the equipment manufacturers. I chair an advisory group within the ICMM, which is the Global Metals and Mining Industry Association, where we brought together equipment manufacturers and a number of global industry participants to try to accelerate this effort as well.

Thank you very much for that answer. And I guess fuel cell is also the issue that comes up, and that's one of the key issues as well for the future. Is it not?

Yes. So we're looking at both hydrogen-based options, but also Trolley assist options where we're buying renewable power for trollies movement of...

Thank you again. Thank you, Mr. [ Slide ]. I don't believe there are any further questions on item 1. So we're going to move to the next item, which is the next 9 items actually relate to the election and reelection of your nonexecutive directors. Michelle Hinchliffe and Catherine Tanna are seeking election by shareholders for the first time, having each been appointed a Director after the 2021 AGM. And I'd like to invite them each to say a few words now. And Michelle, why don't you go first?

Thank you, Ken, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It really is an honor to be here today to seek election at BHP. I believe our company is well positioned to create significant long-term value for all stakeholders and particularly including for our shareholders. Since I joined the Board in March earlier this year, I've seen firsthand the company's commitment to social value and capital allocation discipline and applied within a very strong strategic framework, I believe this has produced a high-quality asset portfolio, which really will help build a better world. And for me, this sets BHP apart from its peers and makes it a company that I really am proud to be a part of. Now prior to joining the Board, I was at KPMG as a partner in its financial services division for over 20 years. During my time, I served as a member of the U.K. Board, I was the Chair of Audit and I was also a member of the Executive Committee in my role as the Head of Audit. Prior to this, I was also a senior audit partner within KPMG Australia's practice. And this has given me significant experience in financial controls and risk management, both in Australia and in Europe. After retiring from KPMG early this year, it's been a pleasure to begin my journey on the Board of BHP. I'm absolutely committed to further continuous development and I'm confident I can manage the time commitment to fulfill my responsibilities on the Board. If elected, I look forward to working with my fellow directors and also with the members of the Risk and Audit Committee and BHP's management.

And I believe together we can create long-term value and high returns and deliver on our purpose.

Thank you. Michelle. Catherine, you like to say a few words?

Thanks very much, Ken, and good morning, everyone. And I really feel privileged to seek election to the Board of BHP today, especially at such a transformational time for the company. The HP is reshaping its portfolio and accelerating growth in future-facing commodities. The company is aligning with global megatrends like decarbonization and electrification and is positioning itself to deliver shareholder value for decades to come. So it's truly an exciting period. And I hope that I can bring a value to BHP with my experience in the resources oil and gas sectors, long-life capital allocation and health, safety and environment. Most recently, I was the Managing Director of Energy Australia for 7 years. And before that, I held senior executive roles with Shell and BG Group with responsibility for operations around the globe. I've also been a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia and a Director of the Business Council of Australia. I'm confident that I'm going to be able to devote the time required to this role on the Board and the Remuneration Committee and Sustainability Committee. And if elected, I look forward to contributing to the culture of strong commitment to performance and continuous development here at BHP, so that we can continue to deliver value to you, our shareholders now and into the future. The remaining nonexecutive directors other than Malcolm Broomhead and John Mogford submit themselves for reelection. Are there any questions on director elections or reelection items 2 to 10.

Chair, I'd like to introduce John Campbell. Welcome back, Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Chairman. The question that I've got doesn't relate to the reelection of any individual direction director, but it relates to the size of the Board overall. The operations of BHP have contracted by the removal of petroleum. And that must affect the agenda, I would imagine that board meetings quite significantly. The research that I've read suggests that meetings are more productive and more effective if the less people than tenors, I think the current Board. The meetings are held can be conducted more effectively with less numbers than 10. I'd like your comments, please, about…

Yes. So we're currently Board members, and that will reduce to 10 when Malcolm retires at the conclusion of this meeting. John stepped off last week. That's broadly in line with the ASX 10. So that number of 10 million would be in line with the ASX 10, the largest ASX-listed companies. I'm with you. I favor a relatively small board. So -- but I've consistently talked about 10 being the right number. And that's not something that we pulled out of the air. There's a big workload in this company and for the directors. We have 4 committees. So we've got the Nomination Committee, the Remco Committee. We've got the Risk and Audit Committee. And we have a sustainability committee, which a lot of companies don't have, and there's a lot of work to be done in the Sustainability Committee, as you can imagine, with when you're in the mining sector, not just across the operational safety issues, but climate, indigenous heritage, sexual cell, sexual harassment. I mean there's a lot of work to be done within that sustainability committee. And then secondly, it's a global company, and we need to have a spread of directors from not just a geographic diversity perspective, but from an experience perspective as well. So it's something that we give a lot of thought to and I give a lot of thought to. And I think 10, I'm notwithstanding your comments about smaller boards having probably a better dialogue. This is a very effective collegiate board, where we have a lot of open discussions. And so it works really well at 10. But I think we also need to have 10 in order to fully staff with the right level of experience, the committees that we have in the company.

Okay. As there's no further questions, we'll now move to items 11 and 12. So during the 2022 financial year, our remuneration community continued its focus on achieving outcomes that fairly reflect the performance of BHP and the contribution of our employees and which are aligned to the interest of shareholders and other stakeholders. The 2022 financial year was the third year of the application of the revised remuneration framework that was approved by shareholders at the 2019 AGMs. We believe this framework is continuing to serve shareholders well. And during the year, Mike Henry, our CEO, achieved an outcome of 96% of Target, which is 64% of maximum outcome against the FY '22 cash and deferred planned scorecard, which we set at the beginning of the year. The vesting outcome of the 2017 long-term incentive plans was 100%. And with BHP significantly outperforming both the sector peer group and the MSCI World Index. Now Item 11, request adoption of the remuneration report for the year ended 30 June 2022, and Item 12 seeks approval for share awards to the CEO. Now this year, these awards are being made under the cash and deferred plan and long-term incentive plan described in the framework. And as I mentioned previously, was approved at the 2019 AGM. Both awards are based on strict performance hurdles and are subject to a holistic 5-year look back by the Board on performance. Now in addition, approval is being sought to grant the CEO uplift awards in line with the treatment of employee equity awards following the merger of the petroleum business with Woodside. And the objective here is the uplift awards restore the value of the unvested equity awards to the pre-completion value because Mike is unable to participate or is awards are able to participate in the Woodside shares going forward. So are there any questions on Items 11 and 12?

Chair. I would like to reintroduce John Campbell. Welcome back, Mr. Campbell.

Just on the point of order Chairman before I answer the question on remuneration. I haven't heard you invite questions from the floor at all in relation -- I know we had to preregistered questions. But is it not fair that you ask shareholders to see if there are any further questions that might arise through what they've heard in your addresses in answers to other questions. I'll take that on board. That's the first time that's been raised. We've been using this process for some time, and I'll take that comment on board.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. In relation to remuneration, the size of the company has reduced quite significantly. Mr. Henry's target package is the largest that I've seen in WA. I think the largest other one that I've seen is Wesfarmers at 10 million. Mr. Henry looks like more like 14 million when converted to Australian dollars. Is it not reasonable to us expect the company to look at cutting the pay to reflect the size of the reduced size of the group? Thanks for the question. Look, we had an important year last year repositioning the company. And I think everyone would agree that the Woodside transaction was an excellent transaction. So it was a win-win. We created this top 10 independent energy company. It comes with a lot of synergies. Shareholders were given the option because they received the shares and what they want to continue to participate in oil and gas. And so I think from all perspectives, that's been a terrific transaction. And we've repositioned the company to take advantage of the mega themes going forward, particularly around decarbonization. And I think all of that has been an excellent outcome for BHP shareholders. And I think the results, I think, speak for themselves. For clarity, Petroleum was about 10%, 12% of EBIT from the business since the time I've been on the board now that obviously depends on whether the oil price was $50 or $100. But in general, it's only been about 10% or 12% of our portfolio. Mike is doing a great job and he's creating a lot of value, and we want to retain and motivate him. And so that's really the objective around the remuneration program. And then through the good work of our committee, a remuneration committee, which Christine O'Reilly chairs, we do a lot of benchmarking of Mike's salary versus his peers. And as you know, BHP is the largest mining company in the world. He's still below -- even after all this reorganized -- he is still below. We're still the biggest but market capitalization mining company in the world. He's still below the medium of his peers on the benchmarking. So we think he's well positioned where he is now. As there's no further questions, I'm going to move to the last item. -- or last items. These last 3 items of business have been requisitioned by a group of shareholders that represent 0.008% of the register. As Stefanie mentioned earlier, items 14 and 15 are advisory resolutions and they're conditional on Item 13 being passed by special resolution. If item 13 isn't pass, then these items are not required to be put to the meeting. However, we will allow a reasonable opportunity for shareholders to ask questions on these items. Item 13 seeks an amendment to BHP's constitution for shareholders to express opinions ask for information or make requests about the management of the company by advisory resolution at general meetings. Item 14 requests that BHP advocate for Australian policy settings that are consistent with the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Item 15 requests that from the 2023 financial year, the notes to BHP's audited financial statements include a quantitative climate sensitivity analysis that includes a Paris-aligned scenario limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius across all of our commodities. We gave these resolutions very close consideration and we recommend that shareholders vote against items 13, 14 and 15. So I now invite your questions on these items. First question, please?

Chair, I would like to introduce Alex. Welcome, Alex.

My name is Alex [ Hillman ]. I'm from the Australasian Center for Corporate Responsibility. I had a question around policy advocacy. So BHP has been telling its shareholders since -- sorry, since 2020, that a decarbonization pathway that is aligned with 1.5 degrees is in our best interests due to the enhanced demand for our commodities. The efficient economy-wide carbon policy is the most effective mechanism for driving this outcome, and it is, therefore, in our interests for BHP to advocate for this. Within the notice of meeting, you recommend against Item 14 stating BHP already advocates for Australian policy settings that are consistent with the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. We note that a very few policies currently calibrated to this level of ambition in place or being proposed in Australia. So 2 questions. First one, can you provide examples of 1.5 degree aligned policies that BHP is advocating for? Secondly, would you support an increase to Australia's nationally determined contribution above 43% so that it becomes 1.5 degree aligned.

Okay. Well, first and foremost, let me respond to the resolution in general. Alex, I'll be honest with you, when you submitted this proposal to us on my first very quick reading of it, I thought -- this isn't a problem. This is what we do. That's what we expected. Yes. But unfortunately, the devil is in the detail here. And the concern that we had with this resolution, I'll repeat a little bit what's in the notice of meeting, but Australian policy is a very broad and ambiguous term.

Does that mean government policy, does it mean opposition policy? Does it mean your policy? -- whose policy are we talking about here?

So for us, it just wasn't clear enough. The second point I'd make is just because the policy is aligned with the 1.5 -- with a 1.5-degree Paris-aligned scenario doesn't mean it's a good policy. So we don't want to be required to advocate for policy if we don't think it's good policy or there's better policy. So I think that's an issue with this resolution.

And then the other question is, well, what does advocate mean? Does it mean that we do it in private? Does it mean that we do it in public. Does it -- if we decide not to advocate, does that mean we have to explain to people why we're not advocating on a particular issue. It just -- when we got into the detail, it was ambiguous. And then finally, it's a big overreach to require management and the Board to have this positive obligation that cuts across our ability to use our judgment on where we want to advocate and where we don't want to advocate. And I think the other thing is we need to be careful here. We should be advocating where things have relevancy for our business, and we should be advocating where we can have impact, not everywhere. Otherwise, we end up like we're crying wolf on everything here comes to PHP again advocating on this issue and we get lost in the woods. We need to advocate where awe can have to have impact. Now I don't know, Mike, if you want to talk to current policies that...

We're doing a lot of advocacy work, but... So I'd make 2 points, there. So the -- you're right, we've said that a 1.5-degree world is a more valuable world for BHP because of the demand that creates for our commodities. But of course, pretty much all of what BHP produces is being exported to export market. So where that impact is going to arise isn't here in Australia. So I just want to make that clear for the -- for shareholders that the policy -- the change in policies that's going to drive that more valuable scenario for BHP is primarily outside of Australia, not in Australia. Having said that, here in Australia, we have been strong advocates initially for the moves for the increase and ambition to the 43%. We've supported the strengthening of the safeguard mechanisms that's currently underway. Outside of Australia, we've then been active participants in determining how better reporting standards get established for emissions. But we've participated directly in things like the first movers Coalition, where I don't know if we would classify that as advocacy or not, but through our actions, we're seeking to set a standard that others are then able to emulate so seek to lead the industry towards a 1.5-degree scenario. But it's a combination of our main focus -- or the main impact on BHP commodities is going to occur in the export markets. However, we also engage in advocacy here in Australia because it's where we operate and we're start as largest company.

So to the first question, Mary, can you identify examples of 1.5-degree airline [ policies that you're advocating ] for?

So we've -- I would say it's directional, and it's directional. So first step is increase the ambition in Australia and the new government, of course, has locked that in. It's also around the strengthening of the safeguard mechanisms. We had one of our senior leaders in the press last week talking about or advocating for strength and support for faster deployment of renewable -- or electric vehicles here in Australia as well. So when you advocate directionally for improved policy, do you also highlight that it's not 1.5 degree aligned if that's in the best interest of the climate and your shareholders?

Sure. Well, this is -- we're now getting into the whole this year here...

Exactly. You're asking us detailed questions about where we're advocating and where we're not. That's really left to our judgment. The other thing I'd say is -- if you look at the leadership of BHP in the corporate market here, we were the first company to bring a climate transition action plan to its shareholders for a vote. And now there's a number of other companies that have followed suit. And that transaction climate transition action plan lays out all of our policies, all of our ambitions, all of our targets, and it's a scorecard that people can hold us to account for. So I think there's -- Mike has already talked through many examples of the advocacy work that we're doing. I think we've made our point on why we don't think that shareholders should vote in favor of this resolution. You're providing your view, which is absolutely fine on why shareholders should, I think we've all made our point here, and I think we should leave it to shareholders to vote. Second part of the question would you support Australia increasing its NDC nationally determined contribution to be aligned with the 1.5 degrees... So I think -- to be honest, I think Mike answered that question, but go ahead. I was just going to say it comes back to whether it's the details of the policy. And this is something where, first of all, matter for government. But in whether BHP advocates on it, we would have to be confident that BHP's advocate was going to make a difference. And secondly, we would have to look at the details of the policy because not all policy is good policy. And this is one of the key points that the Chair was making. So it's hard to respond to that in the hypothetical.

Chair, I would like to introduce to you David Wood. Welcome, Mr. Wood.

I apologize I had to go and register the question. So my thoughts come when you were covering... Action. Go ahead. My concern is the corporate Australia and there's a lot of AGMs on moment and looking through all the remuneration reports, it's pushing to have the disparity between the low income and the corporate Australia is getting really, really stretched out. And Corporate Australia can afford the housing can afford the $80 million for a house yes, nobody the Pollak that's got to buy the house next door has got up his left to get it. I think as a responsibility -- I mean 2 or 3 years ago, $23 million for Qantas. -- who needs that much money to live on. Everything that thing should be based on the pension, if you took multiples of the pension to everybody's awards and CEOs and so forth, you guys would be 1,000x the pension. That's -- it's getting too far apart. There's got to be some responsibility on PorgeAustralia to stop out beating each other to get employees.

Yes. [ What ] I acknowledge everything that you're saying. And -- but I think the reality is that leadership matters and talent matters. And so we're in the market trying to attract the best talent that we can for this company. We want to attract them, then we want to retain them and we want to motivate them. And to do so, we've got to be competitive in the marketplace. We do a lot of work to make sure that we're not outside the bounds. As a matter of fact, I talked about it earlier, Mike is below the median of his peers, even though he's running the largest mining company in the world. And so we're very conscious of this issue. And I take your comments on board, but it's a competitive market. And we -- if you just look at the results for the business, I think it's the market is what the market is, and we need to play in that market and compete in that market and get the best talent that we possibly can, that's one component. The second thing is we need to make sure that Mike's remuneration is aligned with your experience as a shareholder. And so I think the worst examples of corporate remuneration is when a CEO gets paid bonuses and things when the company isn't performing. This company is performing, and we work very hard to make sure that the at-risk component, the bonus component of Mike's remuneration is aligned with the performance of the company. We've got a lot of tools at our discretion to use discretion to make sure that the outcomes align with you.

Now I think everybody would acknowledge that year was a fantastic year for shareholders. And so for it to be -- it makes sense for it to be a good year for Mike Henry as well. If you go back 5 years, last 3 years, there's been some vesting at the LTIP. There was a period at BHP, 5 years in a row where there was 0 vesting of the long-term incentive bonus programs, 0 vesting, and that's because the company was underperforming. So I think BHP has a really good track record of remuneration being aligned to the shareholder experience. But thanks. Comments. With some of the STIs LTIs, -- some of the smaller companies, I'm not saying BP, the directors end up reprove years with 51% of the company. And the other point is, why not train up in-house people to lead the company. It's like the tape, if you don't get apprentices in for the trades, then there's no tangent around to the form the work. Look, good stuff. Mike Henry is a product of BHP. So... The good news is we built him... And he's doing... And I think we did a pretty good job.

But thank you, Mr. Wood. Look, as there's no further questions on these items. That brings us to the end of the formal business of the meeting today. shown now on the screen are the proxy results for items 2 to 15. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for attending today and for your questions. We value your comments and feedback, and we'll continue to work for ongoing improvement on your behalf. I'm going to close the poll 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 ladies and gentlemen, I now declare the meeting closed, subject to the finalization of the poll. And we invite you all to join your Board and management team for some refreshments just outside here. So thanks so much for joining us today.