Woodside Energy Group Ltd (WDS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Well, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Richard Goyder and, as Woodside's Chairman, I'd like to thank shareholders, Woodside staff and guests for attending today's meeting. Before we commence, please take a few seconds to familiarize yourselves with the evacuation procedures, which are shown on the screen above, which would apply in the unlikely event of an emergency. In furthering the process of reconciliation, it's important for us to acknowledge the past and present traditional owners of the land on which we're gathering today. I now invite Andrew Yarran, a Woodside employee, to the stage to deliver an acknowledgment of country for us. Andrew?

Hello, everyone. Before I begin, I want to start by how most indigenous people greet each other. We first start by saying our name, and then we say our family name and where our family comes from. [Foreign Language] Hello. My name is Andrew. My family is the Yarran tribe. My people come from Noongar Ballardong country, which is inland near Kondinin. My grandmother was from Mount Magnet, which is known as Badimaya Country, which belongs to the Yamatji's kin tribe. I've grown from a young boy into a proud and respected Noongar/Yamatji man on [ Bolo ], Perth soil. Since the day I was born, I have been raised to acknowledge my elders, both past and present, pay respect in order to receive respect, never be quick to judge, not to speak out of line unless needed. And I have never been afraid to ask the stories of my elders. My journey with Woodside began 2.5 years ago as a service provider in the mailroom. Even though I thoroughly enjoyed my job with the mailroom and with the workplace management team, I was able to sign up as a digital analyst with Woodside. Through working with Woodside, I've made a lot of positive connections with everyone I meet. And there is a lot of things I do enjoy, but there is nothing I enjoy more than expressing my own culture, inspiring others to learn about their culture through my expression and asking people their stories. I hope with the words I have spoken, you will each feel inspired to individually talk about your own stories. I wish you all the best for today's meeting. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Andrew. And indeed, those values with which you grew up are a good guide for us today, I think. It's good to see you all, and good to see you here in the room today. The COVID-19 pandemic is not over yet, but it's pleasing that we are able to gather here today. But I'd also like to welcome those shareholders who cannot be here today but are able to watch online. This is an important event in our company calendar and one that the Board looks forward to every year as it gives us a chance to hear directly from all our shareholders and respond to your questions. I'm joined today on stage by CEO, Peter Coleman, along with CFO, Sherry Duhe; and Company Secretary, Warren Baillie. We're also joined here in Perth by Meg O’Neill. Mig, can you stand up so that people -- by Meg O’Neill, who the Board has announced will be acting CEO from next week. I'll talk more about CEO succession later. But I do want to say that the Board is grateful to Peter for his decade of leadership at Woodside, and pleased that Meg will be acting in the role. Also here with us in Perth, and if you could both stand, are Directors, Frank Cooper and Gene Tilbrook. Thank you. Our Directors Larry Archibald, Swee Chen Goh, Chris Haynes, Ian Macfarlane, Ann Pickard and Sarah Ryan are unable to attend due to travel restrictions associated with COVID-19, but are participating via the webcast. Mark Cunningham, representing our auditors, Ernst & Young, is also present. Just a reminder that as Woodside reports its results in U.S. dollars, any reference to dollars this afternoon will be in U.S. currency unless stated otherwise. 2020 was a tough year for Woodside, as it was for many individuals and businesses. But there was a lot we did -- which we did right during the challenging period. In 2020, as the world went through a massive shock, we delivered an exceptional operational performance and kept our people safe and COVID-free and our finances robust. We used time wisely preparing to progress our growth plans as the market continues to improve. And significantly, we matured our climate strategy, taking steps along our pathway to net zero for our direct emissions by 2050. When we met last year, we talked about how Woodside was managing the challenges associated and arising from the global pandemic. I don't want to dwell today on the challenges, but I do want to acknowledge the incredible effort from the Woodside team and thank those who went above and beyond to protect our business through the extraordinarily difficult circumstances. That includes all those who spent long periods of time away from home working at our assets in Western Australia's northwest and staff in our international offices in countries severely impacted by the global pandemic. Indeed, in some places, they still are. Our resilience as a business is based on the commitment of our people. And in 2020, our people really stepped up. For the first time in our company's history, annual production topped 100 million barrels of oil equivalent. And importantly, we achieved our best ever safety outcomes. Our underlying profit of $447 million was smaller than usual, but was still a very sound result given the scale of the challenges. If you recall a year ago, our industry was dealing with the shock waves arising from the confluence of demand contraction from the pandemic and a price war between OPEC and Russia that resulted in global oversupply of oil. Our reported loss of just over $4 billion reflects the major write-down of our assets announced in July. At a time of extreme volatility and uncertainty in global markets, we took a prudent and -- prudent view on the carrying value of those assets. I know that 2020 was also a tough year for our shareholders as our share price reflected the difficult environment I've spoken about. And even though we were able to pay dividends, they were consequently less than in previous years. We continue to work to build value and progress our plans for the future. The Board is excited about the world-class Scarborough resource, which can make a very significant contribution to our company's future and to the Australian economy. Scarborough is a globally competitive project that's located close to our core Asian markets. And crucially, it's a development with a low emissions intensity and very low CO2 content in the reservoir. Key regulatory approvals are now in place for the development and commercial arrangements are progressing for the proposal to process Scarborough gas through a second LNG train at Pluto. We're seeing strong interest in Scarborough from customers and have already contracted half of our expected equity offtake gas. As we've said before, we'll be looking to sell down our stake in Pluto Train 2, and opportunistically assess interest in further divestment in the upstream component. We expect there will be strong interest given the high-quality of this resource and the forecast robust demand for LNG in the years ahead. The Board is actively engaged with the senior executive team as the Scarborough joint venture progresses towards a final investment decision later this year. In Senegal, our team continues to progress the Sangomar field development Phase 1 ahead of the development drilling campaign, which is targeted to commence in mid-2021. We've increased our equity in Sangomar resulting in a simplified joint venture structure, and we're looking to simplify the JV further through a current transaction. Our ultimate target is to reduce our equity to between 40% and 50%. While pursuing these near-term growth opportunities in our core businesses, we're also building our position in new energy, centered on hydrogen and ammonia, products that produce zero emissions at the point of use. As I've already mentioned, we matured our climate change strategy in 2020 and continued to meet with investors to understand their expectations. I observed at our last AGM that many of my conversations with our large shareholders begin with discussions about climate change and our role in responding to it. Even in a year when a global pandemic has challenged, the world economy, climate change was still of primary and was and still is a primary concern for all our investors and indeed, our stakeholders. It's a strategic issue for us and one that the Board is actively engaged with as we aim to support key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the objectives of the Paris Agreement. We've demonstrated our willingness to listen to our investors, including by continuing to enhance our annual reporting in line with recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures, and publishing a review last year of the climate policy positions of industry associations. In 2020, we outlined our decarbonization pathway, as we aim for net zero by 2050, targeting a 15% reduction in net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025, and a 30% reduction by 2030. We think our net emissions have peaked and will be declining going forward barring any major new acquisitions. We will continue meeting with key shareholders to better understand their expectations ahead of giving shareholders the opportunity next year to vote on our climate reporting. As we progress our strategy of building on our experience as an LNG producer and doing this in a sustainable way, we want to bring shareholders with us on the journey. Peter will talk more about what we're doing to deliver the emissions reduction targets and the steps we're taking to mature new energy opportunities that are the right fit for Woodside. In a year that was challenging for many in our community, Woodside continued to provide value support -- valuable support to a range of community partners, making a social contribution beyond employing and paying taxes of totaling more than AUD 23 million. The role that businesses play as part of the community is so important, and Woodside does it very well, partnering with groups who work with society's most vulnerable people as well as organizations across education, culture and the arts. I saw evidence of that a few weeks ago when my wife, Janine, and I took a walk along the beach on a Sunday, and we saw scores of kids in colored caps, swimming, paddling and sprinting. Most of them had big grins on their faces, as did their parents, and all of them were wearing Woodside Nippers vests, thanks to our significant partnership with Surf Live Saving WA. In a minute, I'll hand over to Peter. But before I do that, I do want to pay tribute to him for his exceptional leadership in the past decade. Peter and his team did a terrific job in protecting Woodside through the challenges of 2020. The company started the year in a strong position, thanks to the disciplined management by Peter and his team. His commitment to prudent capital management and maintaining a strong balance sheet and liquidity has served Woodside well. Under his leadership, Woodside was able to act decisively to manage the risk and be ready for future opportunities. During his decade at Woodside, Peter has demonstrated a track record for safety and operational excellence that is now ingrained in the company's culture and is world practice -- world's best practice. His commitment to gender equality and a diversified workforce is reflected in the composition of both his leadership team and of the annual graduate intake at Woodside. Under Peter's leadership, we have worked hard to build our engagement within the indigenous community, including through significant growth in employment. Peter, on behalf of the Board, thank you for your commitment and service to Woodside since 2011. The Board was very pleased this week to announce the appointment of Meg O’Neill as acting CEO, while the internal and external search for the next CEO progresses. It is incumbent on the Board to undertake an extensive international search for such a critical role, and we are fortunate to have someone of Meg's exceptionally high-caliber ready to lead at this important time. Meg is a highly talented oil and gas leader with extensive global experience. We've seen this both in her leadership of Woodside's operation and in her current role as Woodside's Executive Vice President Development and Marketing. The Board is confident that she has the drive and expertise to maintain momentum on Woodside's growth projects. Woodside has a very strong capable executive team, and I know that Meg will be well supported by that team. In regards to succession planning and the process the Board is going through, there's been a lot of unfounded speculation. That's not surprising given the prominence of this role. But some of the reports frankly have been news even to me. We're following a very stringent process as shareholders would expect. That process is well progressed. We're engaging with quality candidates here in Australia and internationally. And while we have not yet reached the stage of making any offers, we feel confident that we will have a strong outcome. We're also fortunate to have a Board that is rich in industry experience, which is particularly useful as we prepare for significant investment decisions. And can I thank each of them for their diligence and support over the last 12 months. Now I'll hand over to Peter Coleman to provide some detail on the operational and financial achievements of the past year and perhaps also some reflections on his decade at the helm. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Richard, and thank you to our shareholders for attending and tuning in today. It's a privilege to update you on what's really been a pivotal year for Woodside. Not only did we weather the storms of 2020 and set new operational records, but we also did the hard work to progress our company's plans for the future. It's a future that builds on our decades of experience as a leading LNG producer and draws on our technology expertise to ensure we remain a low-cost, safe, efficient and reliable supplier of energy in a lower carbon world. On all the things that we control, we did exceptionally well in 2020. And when external circumstances challenged us, we rose to the challenge acting decisively to protect our company. We maintained a strong balance sheet, finishing the year with excellent liquidity of $6.7 billion. This was a testament to the effectiveness of the steps that we took in March 2020 in response to market conditions, cutting spending and delaying growth projects. It was pleasing that in February of this year, our BBB+ investment-grade credit rating was reaffirmed by Standard & Poor's, demonstrating the external parties share our confidence in our company's future. And I must say we're the only ones in our peer group to maintain our credit rating. A year ago, our industry was in a very different place, with oil prices plunging to the lowest levels in recent history due to the combined effect of the global pandemic and oversupply resulting from the price war between OPEC and Russia. The reinstatement of supply management within OPEC+ supported a firming in oil prices, which are now back above $60 per barrel, and we're thankful for that. As the vaccine rollout proceeds globally, we're likely to see continued recovery in demand in the months ahead, particularly in the transport and aviation sector. LNG demand held up well through 2020 and continue to grow in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, gas demand grew globally, with spot prices surging to new hires early this year during the cold northern winter. The robust demand for LNG bodes well as we're prepared to progress the proposed Scarborough development with the joint venture working towards a final investment decision in the second half of this year. Now we've been able to use the past year to further improve the development concept and the value it offers, increasing the offshore LNG capacity by about 20% to about 8 million tonnes per annum for a very modest increase in capital costs. This follows our 2019 breakthrough when new 3D seismic processing technology revealed that the field holds 11.1 Tcf of gas that can potentially be recovered. You will recall, that was a 52% increase on the previous estimated volume. As activities ramp up, we're working with our contractors and supply chain so our plans can progress at the right time, aligning with a low point in the cost cycle and expectations of demand growth in the mid-2020s for cleaner and affordable energy. Final costings for the project execution will be firmed up with contractors in the next 3 months based on the new optimized design and increased capacity delivered last year. We've secured key regulatory approvals, including Commonwealth environmental approvals and have been granted production licenses. We're working with government to finalize remaining project development and environmental approvals as we progress towards a final investment decision. We continue to work with traditional custodians to ensure cultural heritage is recognized and respected. We've also made progress on the future of the North West Shelf project, as we transition the Karratha Gas Plant into a third-party tolling facility, executing agreements for Pluto and Waitsia gas. This sets up the Karratha Gas Plant to continue to deliver value and provides opportunities to unlock value from other resources in the future. We're making most of the existing infrastructure, linking KGP and the Pluto LNG plant via the interconnected pipeline that's now under construction. Our development drilling and completions performance has been outstanding as we progress our near-term growth plans. We realized significant cost savings for Julimar-Brunello Phase 2 and Pyxis Hub with no lost time due to COVID-19. Now Pyxis Hub is Woodside's deepest water development yet at a similar depth to the proposed Scarborough wells, and we achieved best in basin performance for these wells. This is an excellent precursor for us in the proposed drilling program for Scarborough. In Senegal, we've taken a final investment decision on the Sangomar field development Phase 1 in January of 2020, and our team has progressed project execution activities, managing the challenges of COVID-19 and staying on schedule. In a major milestone for the project, a 323-meter long oil tanker or very large crude carrier, is currently at a shipyard undergoing conversion into a floating production storage and offloading vessel. Our execution activities were 24% complete by the end of March, and we remain on target for first oil in 2023. Now I want to make some brief comments about Myanmar, where Woodside commenced activities in 2013 when there was optimism about transition to a stable democracy. The events of recent months have been deeply distressing. We condemn the violence and the human rights violations. We've demobilized and repatriated all non-Myanmar personnel and ceased all exploration activities in the country. We continue to provide support to our employees, who are Myanmar nationals, and of course their safety is of paramount importance to us. We do not have any direct commercial arrangements with any Tatmadaw-connected organizations nor do we have any producing assets in Myanmar. Until we see the outlook for Myanmar and its political stability is improved, we'll just keep all of our business decisions under constant review. Now we've already mentioned our exceptional operational performance in 2020, delivering a new company record for production and our best-ever safety outcome. But we're not resting on our laurels because we know there are many challenges ahead. That's why we've used the past year to put in place targets and programs that harness our expertise in technology to ensure our operations remain competitive. Now as I approach the end of my decade at Woodside, I'm proud to have played a role in preparing the company for a future in which our industry will need to be low carbon and high technology. In the past 3 years, we've deliberately shifted our spending from exploration to hydrogen, carbon and technology as opportunities open in the new energy transition. Through the Operations Transformation initiative, we're seeking to improve cost efficiency by 30% over 3 years, which will require taking bold steps to apply technology and deploy this at scale into our business. As the energy transition gathers pace globally, it's clear it will no longer be enough to be low cost. We will need to earn our place in the energy mix by being low cost and low carbon. In recognition of the centrality of this to our business, I last year appointed as Senior Vice President Climate, Dr. Tom Ridsdill-Smith, who reports directly to me. In November, we outlined clear near and medium-term emission reduction targets to be achieved through innovation in the design of facilities, efficiencies in operations and the use of quality offsets. Now since our last AGM, our major markets in Japan, China and Korea have all adopted net zero targets of their own. We're working with our customers in those countries on how they deliver their emission reduction and energy transition goals. Last month, we were pleased to deliver our first cargo of carbon offset condensate to commodity trader, Trafigura. It was the first condensate -- green condensate cargo in the world. We're actively working with our customers across our LNG, liquids and domestic gas businesses on potential opportunities for carbon management in the marketing of our products. Our carbon business has been building its portfolio, including planting some 3.6 million trees in Western Australia during 2020, generating jobs in this state. And we're working to build capacity in both hydrogen and ammonia for domestic and export markets. We've been strategic about the opportunities which we pursue, leveraging our own expertise and partnering with leading researchers, both in Australia and globally. Significant milestones on this path include the agreement with Japanese companies JERA, Marubeni Corporation and IHI Corporation to study the large-scale export of hydrogen as ammonia for using deep carbonizing coal-fired power generation in Japan. Through our investment in the HyNET consortium, which is building hydrogen fueling stations in Korea, we are gaining valuable insight into demand and potential for hydrogen in one of our key export markets. In June, we'll mark the opening of the Woodside Building for Technology and Design at Monash University, a facility that will support innovative approaches to energy technology for years to come. The Woodside Monash Energy Partnership and Futurelab are good examples of how we've invested in developing the expertise to help solve the major challenges confining society now and in the future. Now on that note, I'd like to observe that Woodside is very well positioned for the future. We see strong demand for LNG in the years ahead, particularly as countries in the Asia-Pacific region seek to decarbonize. And we think Woodside's proximity and longstanding customer relationships give us significant advantage. Beyond this, we've laid the foundation for a new energy business that can scale up as demand for carbon neutral energy grows. We're here to talk about the performance of the company and how we've stewarded your shareholding. So I don't want to spend too much time reflecting on my own experiences. But I do want to say that, time and again, the Woodside team has made me immensely proud to lead them. That was true again in 2020 when the team pulled together to deliver impressive outcomes really against the odds. To me, that demonstrated that we built Woodside into a confident company with a strong future, underpinned by world-class assets and a world class team. Over the decade, we've grown our portfolio from one major asset to 3 with the start-up of Pluto LNG and of Wheatstone, building on the success of the North West Shelf project. A further 2 projects are under development in Senegal and Scarborough, positioning our company very well for the future. We've established ourselves as global leaders in the adoption of artificial intelligence and robotics, developing in-house technology that can drive smarter and more efficient operations by creating a virtual replica of an industrial facility. Our team has grown and matured into an inclusive, diverse and highly motivated workforce. Almost 1/3 of our workforce is now female, well above the industry average and a marked improvement on a decade ago. Female representation in middle and senior management has increased significantly, and we have achieved gender balance on our executive committee and our graduate intake. Our indigenous Australian workforce has grown from 58 in 2010 to 144 in 2020. Indigenous cultural recognition and awareness are now core to Woodside's identity and values. Our team understands the importance of working alongside our community, forging long-term relationships with shareholders and stakeholders. Now I'll miss being part of the Woodside team. But I might be out there joining you next year at the AGM as a very interested shareholder, confident that our company is well positioned for the next steps. I want to congratulate Meg on her appointment as acting CEO, and I know should be well supported by an exceptional team. Thank you very much.

So we now move to the formal business of the meeting. There are 5 items on the agenda today; #1 is discussion of the 2020 financial statements and reports; 2 is the reelection of 3 directors retiring by rotation; 3 is consideration of the company's 2020 remuneration report; item 4 is the grant of equity incentives to the CEO and Managing Director; and item 5 is resolutions requisitioned by a group of shareholders led by market forces. General questions about the accounts and the management of the company will be addressed during item 1, along with any questions to the auditor. Questions on each of the other agenda items will be addressed when we reach that item later in the meeting. As this is a shareholders' meeting, only shareholders, their attorneys, proxies and authorized company representatives are entitled to speak and vote at this meeting. Please direct all questions to me as Chairman. I expect there are a lot of different issues to be discussed today. We want to hear from as many shareholders as possible. So I ask that you keep your questions brief and avoid repeating issues that have already been covered. Could you please only ask 2 questions at a time to give all shareholders an opportunity to be heard. I remind shareholders that questions must relate to the item of business under consideration. When I invite questions later in the meeting with shareholders wishing to address the meeting, please approach our staff positioned by 1 of 4 microphones in the aisles and show them your handset. Please give them your name, and they will introduce you to the meeting. Voting today will be conducted by poll. Each shareholder present in person or by proxy has 1 vote for every ordinary share owned. [ Broad Seamus ] from the company's share registry, Computershare, has agreed to act as returning officer for the polls. The polls will be scrutinized by representatives from Ernst & Young, the company's auditors. We're using electronic keypads instead of paper poll cards. This means we will be able to share the provisional voting results with you towards the end of the meeting. Instructions on how to use the handsets are shown on the screen behind me. At the time of registration, shareholders who are eligible to vote would have been given a white plastic smart card and a handset. Proxy holders would also have been given a handset and a summary of their voting instructions. When we reach the items of business, I'll open the poll for voting, and at that time, your handset will activate and voting instructions will appear on the screen -- on your screen. If you require assistance now or during the voting, please simply raise your hand and someone from the Computershare team will assist you. Voting will remain open during the discussion of the items of business. I'll let you know prior to the close of the poll. Shortly after the close of the poll, the provisional poll results will appear on the screen behind me. The final results of the polls will be announced after the meeting to the Australian Securities Exchange, and will also be available on the Woodside website. I'm holding open proxies in my capacity as Chairman of the meeting, and it is my intention to vote all available proxies in favor of each resolution, except for resolutions 5A and 5B, which are not endorsed by the Board. Item 1, the first item of business on the agenda is to receive and consider the company's financial report and the reports of the directors and the auditor for the year ended December 31, 2020. Although voting is not required on this item, shareholders have the opportunity to raise questions relating to the management of the company and to comment on the reports. We received a number of questions from shareholders prior to the meeting, some of which have already been covered in Peter's and my addresses. Mark Cunningham from Ernst & Young, the company's auditor, can answer questions relating to the company's accounting policies, the audit of the accounts or the independence of the auditors. We'll now address any questions or comments on the 2020 financial reports and reports of the directors and the auditor. Microphone 1?

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Geoff Reid, he's a proxy holder representing the Australian Shareholders Association.

Good afternoon, Chairman. Thank you very much. Congratulations to all Woodside employees for a really good year's results last year. It doesn't need echoing that it was a fantastic year's results. Thank you also to the Board for holding a real face-to-face AGM. I'm representing more than 600 members of the Australian Shareholders Association, who collectively hold 1.7 million Woodside shares between them. I'd like to ask 2 questions, Mr. Chairman. Would you like them at the same time or one at a time?

Yes. If you can do both. Thanks, Mr. Reid.

Please, can you give us more of an update on the Senegal-Sangomar development? And in particular, the transaction to purchase the stake from FAR Limited. We understand FAR were having a meeting this morning. But unfortunately, it was adjourned without a result and I wonder, is there a way forward forward side with that transaction without FAR's endorsement or another way around the problem, should we say? Second question. Scarborough-Pluto development is clearly important to the company. It's a high quality resource. It's a large resource. It's low CO2 resource. And we need to get it onstream as quickly as we can. Clearly, the development is due to be approved for financial decision in the second half of this year, and that's great. But we also have a new CEO arriving in the second half of this year. And if it's not Ms. O’Neill, who's been right across it all the way through, then it's going to be somebody else. And how do we prevent that new CEO from delaying the Scarborough-Pluto development unnecessarily?

Okay. Great. Appreciate it. Thanks for both questions, Mr. Reid. So on -- and Peter, you jump in on anything. On Senegal, and Peter, I will get you to give shareholders a bit of an update on how we are going, progressing. But on the FAR issue, we have preemptive rights, which we've exercised in terms of their position in the Senegal-Sangomar development. Shareholders were due to vote on that today. That meeting, as you indicated, Geoff was pushed back 2 weeks so that the Board of FAR could consider an offer for the company that is not fully able to be dealt with at the moment so for the Board and others to consider that, so they pushed it back 2 weeks. That really doesn't change anything from our point of view. FAR has obligations as a shareholder in the -- or participant in the Sangomar development, and they need to meet their obligations. And if they don't, there are consequences. And we will continue down the path, and we'll see what occurs in the meeting in a couple of weeks' time. And clearly, the shareholders of FAR will need to look at what they consider the likelihood of an acquisition of their company is compared to Woodside acquiring their interest in the development. So that's the decision they'll have to make. Peter, do you want to give a bit of an update on just where Sangomar is at?

Yes, I would. So as Richard said, the issues with FAR and within the joint venture actually are fairly straightforward. The joint venture operating agreement has certain clauses in it that need to be followed. As you're aware, FAR is currently in default of its payments, so it's monthly payments. We have a backstop date on our preemption that expires in June. And then FAR will actually relinquish their equity in July, if they have not paid their monies that are due. So all of that will play its way through as the Chairman just mentioned. FAR received an unsolicited takeover offer from Remus yesterday. They've had a previous offer from Remus that they didn't accept. And so the Board has just asked for some time to consider that offer. With respect to the project, project is actually going very well. It was a bit challenging through 2020, to be quite honest. Some of the equipment that we were sourcing for the project was coming out of places like Italy, like Scotland and so forth that had been severely affected by COVID-19 and so we saw some delays in the supply chain. But we've caught most of that up now. And if you saw some photos now, the facilities that are being built in Dakar in support of the drilling program, it's very impressive. The drilling rig itself is currently in Spain, undergoing some maintenance upgrades before it comes down to commence the drilling program in June of this year. And as I mentioned, the VLCC is currently in the shipyard up in China. And so all of that is going to plan. So what I would say is we've got the people in the right place. Senegal is opening up. We're able to transit in and out of Senegal. Of course, our people need to go into isolation when they return to Australia, but we -- our Head of the Project is actually in Dakar as we speak. And so for a very -- it's a very complex project. It's -- I was -- must say I had an in-depth review of the project last week and was very pleased. Now key near-term catalysts for shareholders to be watching for as we commenced the drilling program in June, that's -- it's a very extensive drilling program, will go over a couple of years. We'll start to get some results from the wells in late second half of the year, and we'll obviously put them in our quarterly updates and let you know how that's going. So I would say we're very pleased with the way the project is going at this point.

In relation to the second question on Scarborough, I think as Peter and I both said, we think it's a very important project for Woodside in deep for all our stakeholders and the nation. And we're progressing as diligently and expeditiously as we can on that project. And you're right, Meg has been heavily involved in it as obviously,many of the executive and employees in the group. And so we'll continue to move forward in terms of the commercial negotiations, finalizing arrangements with suppliers and contractors and the like, Geoff, and we'd expect to be in a position for final investment decision later in the year. And the CEO appointment will happen before that time. That will give an incoming CEO an opportunity to look at Scarborough because they'll be living with it for a long time, but it's not going to slow down the process. Microphone 3 then to...

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. This is Ms. [ Naomi Hathnakoas ]. She is a proxy holder representing Mr. Leon Orlando Conner.

There is a petition that exists, that calls into question Woodside's involvement with the WA Fringe World Festival. The artist community involved with Fringe World have serious concerns about being associated with a company like Woodside, who have been involved in the destruction of culturally significant sites of First Nations people and you profit off the extraction of fossil fuels. Is the Woodside Board committed to taking meaningful action to listen to the concerns of the WA community around their corporate sponsorship?

Thanks for the question. I think what we do in terms of corporate support is incredibly responsible. And the arts need support from companies and individuals more than ever. And Woodside has, I think, been a significant and important supporter of the art. And that's enriching for the Western Australian community. So the Board's very happy with the work we've done. And last year, I think, more than ever, Woodside made significant contributions to groups in the community that really needed it through the most difficult period. As I said, we do a lot with indigenous communities, we do a lot in the arts and education and in remote communities and in the Northwest. So as I said, the Board is not just comfortable, but proud of the work Woodside does in the community. Microphone 2.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Margaret Bowback, who is a shareholder in the company.

Thank you. Last year, 50% of shareholders called on Woodside to disclose emission reduction targets and capital expenditure plans in line with the Paris Climate goals. Our current 2025 and 2030 emissions targets are consistent with around 3 degrees of global warming and by excluding Scope 3 emissions, only address 10% of our total carbon footprint. On the CapEx side, we're aiming to spend over USD 21 billion to increase production by 70% by 2028 when climate science tells us gas production was fall significantly over that period if we are to meet the Paris goals. So my question is have -- or how have institutional investors responded to Woodside's failure to come anywhere near meeting the demands made by more than 50% of shareholders last year. And what retaliatory actions have investors informed Woodside of such as votes against remuneration, the election of directors or divestment?

So it's up to shareholders, obviously, if they want to divest at any point in time, that's the option shareholders have. In terms of other retaliatory, one of our shareholders did express to us concern that we hadn't done enough in terms of articulating strategy on Scope 3 emissions and that, that would cause them to vote against the reelection of one director, which they've done in this meeting, that's the only thing I'm aware of. But I wouldn't want to say this, we -- as I said during my speech, we now report in accordance with the TCFD requirements. We have put the 2 Paris scenarios in our annual report, if people would like to read those. We believe absent a significant transaction that our emissions will reduce, our net emissions, Scope 1 and 2 net emissions will reduce from here. And our forecasts include -- our future forecasts include the Scarborough development. And 15% by 2025 and 30% by 2030 are, I think, fairly significant reductions. Importantly, on Scope 3, the countries where LNG is exported to and the customers that take our LNG are also committed to net 0 by 2050. So -- and as I said, we'll do some work on the Scope 3 side of things to inform shareholders more by this time next year. And we'll also give shareholders an opportunity to vote on our climate reporting next year. But those customers and those countries are also committed to net 0 by 2050. The point I'd want all shareholders to understand is we think Woodside prospers in a lower carbon world. We absolutely agree and support the science, and we want to be part of a lower carbon world. Microphone 4?

Mr. Chairman, this is Ms. Pia O'Flynn. Ms. O'Flynn is a proxyholder, representing Mr. [ Paul Edward Hardy ] and Mrs. [ Vicki Jean Hardy ].

Hello. My name is Pia. I'm a member of the School Strike 4 Climate movement, and I've been given a proxy to ask a question today. My question relates to the Australian emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement and their impact on Woodside's current activities and the Burrup Hub growth projects. Firstly, does Woodside support the Australian government increasing the ambition of its national targets under the Paris Agreement as many other countries have recently announced. And secondly, has Woodside been involved in any lobbying or advocacy on the issue towards the Commonwealth government.

I'll let Peter answer the second, but nothing -- not that I'm aware of in terms of advocacy. And I'd repeat what I said to the previous question. We support the Paris goals and the targets we've put in place, which we've done this year. And Peter's appointment of Dr. Tom Ridsdill-Smith is all part of ensuring that we meet our obligations. Peter?

Yes, we haven't had any direct advocacy with government. Obviously, we've had conversations with the state government here in Western Australia about their aspirations towards emissions reductions and what we can and should do in supporting that. Equally, at the Australian government level, when it comes up in conversation, of course, they're clear on what Woodside's internal targets are. In fact, we made a decision over the last year and a bit that often governments lag in this particular area, and Woodside needed to be part of a global community. We needed to -- we've got global shareholders. We need to understand what their needs and desires are as well. Very importantly, our customers' desires. And as the Chairman mentioned, our key markets of Japan, Korea and China have already set net 0 emissions reductions targets for themselves, 2 of those at 2050, the other one at 2060. So we're actually -- we're in line with government policy, but we're actually reflecting the pathway that many of our customers and shareholders would like us to follow. With respect to business associations, one of the very important associations that we're members of and I sit on the Board of is the Business Council of Australia, and the Business Council is just finalizing its own energy policy. And under that energy policy, you'll find there will be some specific targets that the Business Council would like to see as well. So we have an informed policy debate in this country. So I think that's an important thing. And of course, it's well informed by the fact that we now have an organization within Woodside, specifically focused on climate under Dr. Tom Ridsdill-Smith.

Microphone 4.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. [ Martin Dickel ]. Mr. [ Dickel ] is a shareholder.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, it's Martin Dickie, actually, D-I-C-K-I-E. Mr. Chairman, it was recently reported -- sorry, I'm a shareholder. It was recently reported that the CEO holds much more optimistic views about future oil prices compared with Woodside's Chief Economist, Paul Tiernan, and consensus views tapped by the company's Board. Can you clarify whether the business case for the Scarborough project is based on the CEO's optimism or the wisdom of the Chief Economist. And can you identify what will be the impact on the value of the Scarborough project if the CEO's optimistic assumptions are not realized.

Thanks. Mr. Dickie, yes. Is that right?

That's correct. Yes.

Thank you. I don't think -- one thing we can be certain of, and I don't think Peter will take any offense if I say this, is both the Chief Economist and Peter will be wrong. It's just a matter of how far wrong both of them will be, but the Woodside Board takes into account a range of forecasts. And takes a fair degree of conservatism into our assumptions in terms of investing shareholders' money in these significant projects. And that's exactly what we've done on Scarborough. And we've also taken a conservative view on the cost of carbon as well. So Scarborough is a robust project in most -- under most circumstances. And that's one of the key things the Board will ensure that we have in the way that as and when we proceed, that the project is built around those -- that conservatism. And importantly, we'll have locked away, as I said in my speech, a fair component of offtake, and we'll have locked down a very significant part of the construction cost risk at the time we commit as well. Microphone 1?

Mr. Chairman, introducing Mr. Julien Vincent, who is a shareholder.

I should also introduce myself as the Executive Director of Market Forces. You've already identified -- coordinated with shareholders for Resolutions 5A and B, so I'm sure we'll have more conversation at that item -- or those items. Very straightforward question to start with, though. Obviously, Woodside is supportive of the Paris Agreement's goals of limiting global warming below 2 degrees and pursuing the 1.5-degree limit. But whenever you read an annual report or investor note, investor briefing, any of the actual material it puts out to market, it's using LNG's demand forecast that are based around a 3-degree temperature increase. Why? Why are you're supporting one thing and then aiming for something else that's kind of like saying you're Dockers fan and then getting a membership out the Eagles?

I don't think we are.

No, you definitely are. I mean...

Just before you...

Your targets are aligned with the government's policy, which is aimed to 2.7 or more degrees of warming. So that's the failure of the Paris Agreement, not the meeting of it. Why the discrepancy?

Firstly, we don't report which scenario that we base our price forecast. And I know this has been an issue with another international company, so you might be getting confused between us and them. The key for us. And just to go back to Mr. -- the previous question. We do all of these things independently. So we have an independent group within the organization, reporting independently up through one of the executives on the Executive Committee who is totally separate from the ongoing business or from moving our developments forward. And we want to do that to make sure that we've got independence and proper challenge. With respect to Woodside's demand forecast and so forth, it's based on a range of things. And as you know, the Paris Agreement, there's a number of scenarios. The majority of scenarios have seen increase in gas usage. There is one scenario that says gas will decrease over time. So we kind of test against all of those. I think the key that you're referring to is that action does need to be taken globally, if we're on the current trajectory, which is not the path that we use for our demand. But if you look at current trajectory without any action, then 2 degrees will be very difficult to achieve and significant change needs to be made. As you've heard from the Chairman, we've already committed to that. We've already got a carbon business. We've been talking to shareholders now for the better part of 3 years around that business. That's a business that we made a conscious decision that was, we'd not be traders in the carbon business, but we would create carbon sinks ourselves. We didn't believe that simply going out and purchasing work that others had done was appropriate for the fact that we were a resource producer that was creating carbon through both the manufacturing and, of course, the end use of our product. So I think we're acting responsibly. And I think our price forecast kind of reflects what we think the world demand will be. And we run a number of scenarios. So it's not just one scenario that -- or one single price forecast will dictate it. But no, we don't report exactly on which scenario it is.

Microphone 3?

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. [ Cerol Thurmond ]. He's a proxyholder representing Mr. [ Peter Raymond Hillard ].

Good afternoon, Chairman. At the 2020 Investor Briefing Day, Woodside Vice President of Investor Relations, Damien Gare, stated, "We believe our pathway is a hydrogen future." Could the Board provide a rough breakdown of capital expenditure currently planned for green hydrogen versus blue hydrogen versus oil and gas production.

Thanks for the question, Mr. Thurmond. We're not going to provide that information because that's information that's sensitive to -- commercially sensitive to Woodside. And as Peter just said, we have ramped up our investment in hydrogen. We've taken investment out of exploration into hydrogen and other new energies, but we're not going to disclose the level of investment.

Or even give us a hint? Shall we say, broad brush answer.

Not even a hint of a broad brush, sorry.

If I can. The Chairman is not trying to be evasive. The hydrogen market is still nascent. It really hasn't been developed yet. And there's a lot of discussion around hydrogen and the potential for hydrogen, and we're believers in it. But the reality is the global hydrogen market now is a captive market. Basically within oil refineries where hydrogen is used as part of the cracking process. There is no hydrogen that is traded on the world seaways, for example. There's only one hydrogen transport vessel that was only launched early last year as a research vessel for the Japanese. So you can see that it's very difficult for us to sit here and say what do we think the capital expenditure program is going to be over the next 5 years. But we do see a lot of opportunity. And so we are getting ourselves ready for that, and we want to make sure we've informed investors. But to put it into context, a world-scale hydrogen plant today, world scale, green hydrogen plant is 5 tonnes per day. That's an absolute fraction of the energy that we produce out of our Pluto LNG plant. So it's got some way to go, but we think we're very well positioned because as LNG was established using bilateral relations with our customers, we think the pathway to a hydrogen or an ammonia future looks the same and that it will be bilateral deals done between Woodside and our Japanese customers or our Korean or Chinese customers.

Yes, we're being a bit optimistic then in saying that our pathway is a hydrogen future. Would that be...

Well, I think hydrogen provides a couple of opportunities for us. You have to look at a future that says, where can you create a competitive moat around your business to ensure that you have adequate margins, but also you have intellectual property, that means Woodside will stay competitive in that particular world. Hydrogen comes in a number of forms. So the end product is hydrogen either gaseous or in liquid form. In gaseous form, of course, you can put it into pipelines, existing pipelines, up to 10%, without any change in the pipeline composition. In liquid form, of course, it can be used in multiple uses, including transportation. For Woodside, we look at hydrogen in 2 ways as the opportunity. One is hydrogen from natural gas is still the cheapest way of developing hydrogen today or making hydrogen today. But it comes with it then a need to capture the carbon that comes out of the manufacturing process. And that's when you get into carbon capture utilization and storage. And of course, again, you look at the skill sets. Woodside is extremely well positioned for that because carbon capture and storage is capturing emissions out of your process and putting it back into the ground. Well, that's what we do as a business. We have very, very intelligent geologists, geoscientists and so forth. That's their business in understanding where those reservoirs are for us to be able to capture that gas. So if you think about your existing business and you think about potential threats, at some point, if customers say we prefer not to have LNG and we'd like a different product, then we're well set up in our existing business and with our existing capabilities to be able to move to a hydrogen pathway at some point in the future. The first step of that, though, is very likely to be ammonia. And the advantage to that is ammonia is already a very stable product and can be transported in bulk. As I mentioned in my introduction, we've got an MOU in place with 3 Japanese companies to study the use of putting ammonia into the coal feed stream for coal-fired power stations, and we're working through that. So that provides another opportunity for Woodside. And that's a technology that's already known. That's a market that's already known. The downside with ammonia is it burns cold or it doesn't have a high calorific value. So it can't be used in a lot of industrial applications, but it can be used in coal-fired power stations. So as investors, what I'd like you to go away with is, we're thinking about these risks and how Woodside would actually play and compete in the marketplace and still maintain the sorts of margins that you desire from us to be able to pay the sorts of distributions that we haven't and stay competitive in the marketplace. Green hydrogen is still some way away. And requires a huge amount of energy input into it. Australia is well positioned. We're ready to do that. We've got a project in Tasmania called H2TAS that we're seeking government assistance for. That will then inform us on our pathway to the future.

Microphone 4.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Ms. [ Matilda Llangorse ]. Ms. [ Llangorse ] is a proxyholder for Mr. [ Bruce William Howard ].

Further to the hydrogen pathway. In its submission to National Hydrogen Strategy, Woodside wrote, "We believe blue hydrogen is the key to building scale and lowering costs in transport and distribution, which will enable an earlier transition to green hydrogen." What date is Woodside currently targeting for producing 100% green hydrogen?

Well, we're not targeting a date for the reasons that the CEO just explained. Microphone 4, again. Sorry.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Dr. Peter Langlands. Dr. Langlands is a proxyholder for Ms. [ Jennifer Gwen Farah ].

We've just heard that Woodside says it supports the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises to well below 2 degrees. However, the Australian Academy of Science notes that limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees is now virtually impossible and its key recommendation for meeting the 2 degrees goal is that Australia transitions to net 0 emissions by between 2031 and 2041. Given this, will Woodside be bringing its net 0 by 2050 target forward to 2031 in order to align with the recommendations of the Australian Academy of Science? And has Woodside assessed portfolio resilience against these targets?

We certainly -- thanks, Dr. Langlands. We certainly look at our portfolio and assess the risks against those targets. As -- we continue to believe that LNG is a very important part of the energy transition. And the reason that demand for LNG looks so strong going forward is because our major customers in the countries in which they're based will be -- will have -- have or will be replacing coal-fired power with LNG. And LNG is still the best source of stable energy supply. Obviously, we -- this year, we've set our targets. That's a significant step forward for the organization. And we disclosed in the annual report and our sustainability report, how we feel that aligns with the Paris obligations. If circumstances change in the future, we'll look at that. Do you want to add anything?

Yes. Look, sorry, as I mentioned during the previous answer, the industry -- the hydrogen industry, in particular, is nascent. So it's still developing. And we've spent the last 3 years informing ourselves and spending money that previously gone into exploration to look at what a hydrogen or an ammonia future look like for us. I would say, today, we've set goals that we know that we can achieve. So 15% reduction by 2025, 25% by 2030. They're targets that will be a stretch for us, but we know we can achieve. I think over time, let us work with those targets and make sure we achieve those. Over time, we'll continue to review those targets. One is, we've got some run time with actually achieving them. And then equally as society -- societal needs will change as well during that period. At the end of the day, these are important questions because it's about deployment of capital. And nobody really has a solution today that is easy to deploy and still maintain the sorts of returns that shareholders desire out of the company. You've seen some of our peers in the industry have made some pretty bold statements and are making some pretty bold investment decisions. We're watching that very closely to see what's appropriate for Woodside. So please be sure, we're not resting on our laurels. We just haven't put a target out there just because they make it somebody else's problem. We've put targets out there that we truly believe that we can and will achieve. And if we can better those targets and it's a sensible thing to do, then we certainly will.

So will you bring forward the net 0 emissions to 2031 in line with what the scientists are saying?

Well, I'm actually not familiar with that particular report. So maybe it's something you'd like to take up with Dr. Ridsdill-Smith afterwards. So as you know, there's many reports out there at the moment. This is an area of great public debate. I just want to assure you and assure shareholders that we've set some targets, and we're committed to meeting those targets. As we gain more and more knowledge, then of course, we'll start to review whether those targets are appropriate. But I can't sit here today and tell you that we have a logical pathway to achieving that or not. The only assurance I can give you is this is under constant review.

Microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce [ Andrea Dakota ]. Ms. [ Dakota ] is a proxyholder for [ Elizabeth Gaze ].

It was reported earlier this year that Woodside had spent AUD 335,415 in political donations last year and almost $2 million in political donations over the past 2 decades, making Woodside one of Australia's top 3 biggest political donors. As the ABC Four Corners program showed on Monday night, these donations are coming under an increasing level of scrutiny. Is the Woodside Board comfortable with the increasing risk associated with these donations? And does the Woodside Board see these donations as good value for money?

Thank you for your question. So just to be clear to shareholders, these donations reflect basically subscriptions to, what I call, business forums, business forums that each political party has. And we disclose them. Others choose not to, but we do. And that's -- so we don't make any direct political -- any direct contributions to any of the political parties. The Board does, however, review this each year. And the Board will sit down and have a look at it again shortly. But it's -- these are for business forums that actually have, I think, more widely subscribed to them, you might think and no direct political donations. The Board will, as I said, keep it under review. Microphone 3, and then 4.

Mr. Chairman, this is [ Leslie McNulty ]. She is a proxyholder representing Mr. [ Allan Wesley Coleman ].

In regards to your equity share method of setting emissions reduction targets, do you expect your other equity share partners to contribute to reducing the carbon pollution that Woodside has the legal responsibility in Australia. And if so, how do you anticipate this will occur? And if you are successful in bringing new equity partners into the Scarborough project, what will this mean for the ultimate level of emission reductions or cost of offsets that will be delivered by Woodside?

Well, certainly, our equity partner in Scarborough, now BHP, has the same ambition that we have, which is net 0 by 2050. And they're our only equity partner at the moment in Scarborough. I think that's right, Peter? Yes.

Yes, you'll -- ultimately, we're hopeful that the ownership structure will be different between the offshore and the onshore part of it. And so we would expect any equity partner that we bring in will hold the same or similar aspirations that we do. You're correct about the legal entities and so forth in those liabilities. We're working with our North West Shelf partners around our carbon business. Some have their own carbon business; others, don't, particularly our Japanese partners. And we're talking to them about how we could -- they could purchase offsets of us over time to be able to meet their commitments. So it's an active conversation within the joint ventures. I really can't see us bringing in a partner that would not share our aspirations.

And have those joint venture partners committed to offsetting their equity share of the Scarborough project?

As the Chairman just mentioned, our equity partner in the offshore is BHP. And BHP is, in many ways, been leading the charge on offsets in Australia. So I can't speak for BHP. I won't speak for them today, but I'm very comfortable that they'll have the same aspiration as us. In the onshore, we still own 100% of the Train 2 concept. We'll be going -- we're going through an equity sale on that this year, that will be part of the consideration for the ultimate partner.

Microphone 4?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Dr. Jane Genovese. Dr. Genovese is a proxyholder for the Yago superannuation account.

My question relates to carbon offsets. What price does Woodside expect to pay for carbon offsets if Australia increases its national emissions reduction target? What is the price range that Woodside expects to pay for carbon offsets in the future in order to meet its emissions reduction targets?

Look, we've published what we think a carbon price will be in the future, so if you want to use a carbon price as a proxy for what it might cost us to purchase offsets in Australia. And I know a few of you might be interested in carbon projects, but we've put it at $80 per barrel -- oh sorry, $80 per tonne, I should say, on a long-term basis. Obviously, today, it's just a fraction of that in the marketplace, but as more and more companies are required to purchase offsets in Australia, then that price is going to go up. Now of course, we're working with government to try and increase the size of the opportunity pool for people to be able to invest, to develop carbon offsets in Australia, they're called ACCUs, for those who are not familiar with them. We see those as actually particularly good job generators in country and regional areas as they bring in very talented people, and they provide long-term income for farmers in those areas. So we've been encouraging governments to get their rule set into place and the Western Australian government is quite active in that. But to answer your question, the proxy for it would be USD 80 per tonne in the long term.

Microphone 1.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. [ Ivan Quail ], who is a proxyholder representing [ Peter and Robin Tuft ].

Chairman, it looks like environmental groups are playing a significant campaign against the Burrup Hub projects, which reminds us of the huge wasted cost and time that went into the failed attempt at James Price Point. Can you outline what you were doing to avoid a similar outcome, where billions of dollars are wasted on developments that do not proceed.

Yes. Look, let me answer James Price Point. It's probably unfair for the Chairman because he wasn't on the Board at the time, I was. Let me assure you, James Price Point was not stopped because of the environmental lobbying at the time. It was stopped because the project was simply uneconomic. The cost of it had grown from an original estimate of around USD 30 billion and was well north of $70 billion by the time we shut it down. So it's just simply an uneconomic project, and it would have exposed Woodside and our shareholders to a very unnecessary amount of capital overhang in our shares. So that was the fundamental reason. Now you're correct, there was -- there were a lot of environmental debate around James Price Point as there was around land ownership and so forth. That was all important, very important in the consideration at the time, but it wasn't the primary driver for us moving -- not going forward with James Price point. Now Scarborough is completely different. And we've -- as I mentioned in my opening, we've made very, very good progress on many areas, environmental areas and emissions. And in more recent times, of course, there's been a concern around what we call submerged heritage. We've completed the surveys, University of Western Australia has completed the surveys for us. I'm pleased to report to shareholders that no submerged heritage was found in the easement in which we planned to run the Scarborough pipeline. In fact, the only submerged heritage is some 5 kilometers away from where our activities are. So good news on that front for us at this point.

Microphone 3.

Mr. Chairman, this is Ms. [ Rhiannon Hardwick ]. She's a proxyholder, representing Mr. [ Michael Williams ] and Mrs. [ Margaret Williams ].

Mr. Chairman, you've previously stated that the Burrup Hub projects will not prevent Australia from meeting its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement even though these projects will result in increased direct emissions here in Australia. Can you explain how you've reached that conclusion? And has Woodside identified emissions reductions in other parts of the Australian economy that would make up for the growing pollution from Woodside's operations.

So the -- what I said was that we've taken Scarborough into account in terms of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, in terms of our targets that we've set. And as I alluded to earlier, barring acquisition of new assets, we expect that our emissions have peaked and that we'll, through initiatives to reduce direct emissions and through offsets, reduce our net emissions in the years ahead. And that's what we'll be doing with Scarborough. Microphone 4.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ Ted Keegan ]. Mr. [ Keegan ] is a proxyholder for Mr. [ David Farley Akins ].

Woodside has made several announcements about the company's purchase of carbon credits and offsets. Will Woodside release specific information about the projects, which the company has purchased carbon credits from? And are the carbon credits that Woodside will purchase to meet emissions reduction targets certified under the Australian carbon credit unit framework?

The answer is yes to the second bit. And I mean, as Peter indicated, the pricing will depend on demand at the time.

So Mr. Keegan, as you know, there are 2 types of offsets. So for shareholders who are not familiar with it, there are offsets that are governed under Australian regulation laws and regulations that, as I referred to, the ACCUs. They are credits that are generated in Australia and only used in Australia. They -- those offsets are the ones that we use for what we call our mandatory offsets. So those that are governed by law, regulation. And of course, some of our facilities have those requirements. So when we are talking about using offsets in our business here in Australia for those areas where we have a limit and we go above that limit, then we'll use those ACCUs, and we'll go into the marketplace. As I mentioned, we planted over 3.6 million trees last year. So we're in that business now to try and generate our own units, but we don't -- we haven't generated any today because the trees are still seedlings. With respect to then carbon offsets in excess of that, where Woodside has voluntarily set targets over and above what's regulated, then, of course, we've been tapping into the international markets, but we've only been tapping into those markets where we are very, very comfortable with the provenance of those credits. And of course, it's public record that there are some parts of the world where the provenance of those credits are unclear. Woodside is not purchasing any credits in those particular areas. So it's only areas where we believe the provenance is very similar to the generation of ACCUs in Australia. And we just simply do that from a cost point of view. We're trying to minimize the cost exposure to our shareholders. And so we use the international markets in that regard.

All right. I think we might just take one more question on this particular area, and then we might move on to give all the shareholders an opportunity on other items of business. Microphone 4, and then I'm going to move on.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Ms. [ Lucy Murdoch ]. Ms. [ Lucy Murdoch ] is a proxyholder for Ms. [ Joanne Maples ].

Yesterday, a friend of mine forwarded me an e-mail from Greenpeace, asking their supporters to e-mail the Woodside Board of Directors urging you to drop the plans for the Burrup Hub and the Scarborough project. I was wondering what -- how many e-mails you've received so far? And what is your strategy for dealing with campaigns by environmental groups, if they escalate around the Burrup Hub or other Australian-based projects?

Thanks for your question. I haven't received any. I think Woodside has received some, but I certainly haven't received any e-mails. As I said earlier, I think the one thing that shareholders should understand is that this -- we certainly don't see this as a fight or a battle. We see that we're very much aligned to the ambitions of Paris and indeed the ambitions of all our stakeholders to reduce emissions, as a lower carbon intensity will then reduce the impacts of climate change. We are -- I think Peter, to his great credit, has been a very, very forceful advocate in the Australian context for change. And positive change in setting an appropriate price for carbon, if you like, and advocating policies to reduce CO2 emissions. So I think all shareholders and proxyholders of the meeting should actually take heart that Woodside is absolutely committed to reducing our net emissions, Scope 1 and 2. We'll give you more information on Scope 3 next year on how we intend to work with our customers who are also committed to reduce their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. And as we've indicated, we'll also look at new opportunities for new energy in the years ahead in a way that we think can create value for our stakeholders. Thanks for all the questions and comments. We did receive a written question to the auditors. And I'll ask Mark Cunningham now representing Ernst & Young, Mark, if you can just respond to those questions that I think were available at reception. Weren't they? Mark?

Thank you, Chairman. Questions 1 and 3 refer to the identification of specific climate-related risks as part of our audit. As part of our audit, we consider risks which we expect to have a material impact on the financial report. In this context, our consideration of risks included consideration of climate risks. Questions 2 and 4 refer to the adequacy of disclosure of climate-related risks in the financial report. We have understood and assessed how the company has addressed the impact of climate-related risks on the financial report. In particular, in its assessment on the potential impairment of assets. We are satisfied that the impairment assessments performed by management satisfy the requirements of accounting standards, including disclosure requirements. Impairment of assets for both oil and gas properties and exploration and evaluation assets were key audit matters and have been described in our audit report. The other parts of question 4 do not relate to the conduct of the audit. Questions 5 and 6 refer to information in the annual report, which is outside of the financial report. I can confirm that we did read the statements referred to. Our responsibility and work performed in respect of information other than the financial report is described in our audit report. Questions 7 and 8 refer to assessment of impairment of areas of interest and cash-generating units, respectively, specifically climate-related considerations and related disclosures. As mentioned, impairment of assets for both oil and gas properties and exploration and evaluation assets were key audit matters and have been described in our audit report. In that context, we did consider the impact of climate-related risks in our overall risk assessment and testing strategy. We are satisfied that the impairment assessment performed by management satisfies the requirements of accounting standards, including disclosure requirements. Question 9 refers to identification of significant deficiencies in internal control. An auditors work is not carried out for this purpose of giving a separate opinion on the adequacy of internal control. However, I can confirm that in conducting our audit, we did not identify any significant deficiencies in internal control relevant to our audit. Finally, the auditor provides reasonable, not absolute assurance that the financial report taken as a whole is free from material misstatement and that it's prepared in all material respects in accordance with Australian accounting standards and relevant corporations law. Thank you. I'll pass back to you.

Thanks, Mark. We'll now move on to the next item of business, which is items 2a to 2c, which is the reelection of Dr. Haynes, Mr. Tilbrook and myself as directors. Items 2a and 2C relate to the reelection of Dr. Haynes and Mr. Tilbrook as directors who are elected at the 2018 AGM and retired by rotation at this meeting. Being eligible, Dr. Haynes and Mr. Tilbrook offered themselves for reelection. Each year, the Board conducts an evaluation of the performance of individual directors. Based on the 2020 performance reviews, the Board supports the reelection of Dr. Haynes and Mr. Tilbrook. Details of the directors seeking reelection are set out in the notice of meeting. We'll now hear from the directors seeking reelection, addressing the skills they bring to the Board. Firstly, Chris Haynes via video recording from the United Kingdom.

Good afternoon. I've had the privilege of serving on the Woodside Board since June 2011. I was initially a Shell-nominated Director, but when Shell sold down its interest in Woodside, I was invited to remain on the Board as an independent non-Executive director. I've enjoyed the experience, learned a lot, and I'd like to think made a real contribution to Woodside in both good and challenging times. I'm a professional mechanical engineer by education, I have nearly 50 years experience in the oil, gas, LNG and petrochemical businesses, including some senior positions and CEO roles in a number joint venture and operating companies. I retired from full-time employment in August 2011. I lived and worked in 8 very different countries, including Australia. I'm currently resident in the U.K. [ I would stick on with ] Woodside from 1999 to 2002, during which period, I led the North West Shelf venture. I bring to the Board deep and broad knowledge and experience in managing the development and operational activities in oil and gas businesses, an international perspective of the global energy business, a good understanding of the principles and best practices of corporate governance, strategic planning and society's expectations on the environmental impact of our activities. Currently, I am also nonexecutive Director of Worley, a Sydney-based international engineering services company. I've worked in many senior leadership roles with significant responsibilities in [indiscernible] my time. And even in these most unusual times, I'm confident and continue to manage my time and make the necessary arrangements to ensure that I remain fully involved with the activities of Woodside and can responsibly discharge my duties as a director. Today, I'm seeking your support for my reelection as a non-Executive Director of Woodside as it sets out on major investments and embarked on its energy transition journey. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. Can I now ask Gene Tilbrook to come over to the microphone and tell the meeting a little about yourself and your skills. Gene?

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I joined this Board in 2014, sometime into my non-Executive Director career phase. Prior to that, in my executive career, I was focused in strategy, finance and capital projects with Wesfarmers. After the volatility of the past 12 months, this experience going back a long way, I think, still aligns with most of the key opportunities for Woodside that we've been talking about today, whether they're in traditional or new energy. As our deliberations step up, it's a privilege to work in the Board with colleagues with a wide range of experience and insights in these matters. During the time I've been a non-Executive Director, the range of issues for large companies has expanded considerably. On Boards in sectors including logistics, property and global mining services, I've had roles across sustainability, risk management, enhanced reporting and capital transactions, many of these underpin the processes and investment decisions which we face. We're in a world where investors are increasingly focused on a wide range of sustainability issues. At the same time, it's the key driver of generating long-term value. All these issues focus around the role of gas as a transition solution and new energy sources as we aim for a zero net carbon world by 2050. There's clearly a great deal of issues to balance through this work, and I believe that my experience enables me to address a range of these. Finally, in my committee role as Chair of HR and Compensation, we have a deal of work -- ongoing work with investors to align long-term performance and outcomes. I appreciate the opportunity to work with investors around those alignments, and I would very much appreciate your support, a new term with Woodside. Thank you.

Thank you, Gene. Item 2B relates to my reelection as a director before handing the Chair to Peter from my reelection. Let me just say a few words. As Chris and Gene have just done, I joined the Woodside Board in August 2017, just prior to retiring as CEO of Wesfarmers, where I've been in that role for over 12 years. And I've chaired Woodside since April 2018. I feel incredibly fortunate to be working with exceptional individuals on the Board and in senior management. And working for a company like Woodside has been a trailblazer in energy development and production in Australia, but also doing some of the other good things and leading the way on a number of fronts. We've had Board meetings over the last few days and what has been really evident over the last few days is what an exciting future Woodside has with great assets, phenomenal opportunities and terrific people. The skills I feel I bring to Woodside as an ex-CEO, a broad management, commercial and indeed as a son of a farmer, who -- my parents, I think, were environmentalist well ahead of their time and understanding of pragmatic and how important -- pragmatic understanding how important the environment and other good behavior is to a company into the world. So I'm really keen to be part of the future of this company and really keen to do my bit to help us fulfill the opportunities we have and to fulfill those for all our stakeholders, for you, our shareholders, for our employees, for our customers, our suppliers, all the communities in which we operate, but particularly the northwest of Australia and for the environment. So I look forward to your support. There have -- from time to time, there are questions raised about my capacity to do this role. I would -- in a sense, I'd leave that answer to my co-Directors, but I can give you my assurance that Woodside receives a lot of my attention, and I think I'm well and truly able to deal with the workload of this and my other listed company, Qantas. I have said to people in the past that I'm busy, but if you want to know what busy is be a CEO, and so I feel I'm well equipped to handle the workload that is coming my way at the moment. So thank you in anticipation of your support, and I'll now hand the chair to Peter.

Thank you, Richard. Now Mr. Goyder was elected at the 2018 AGM and retires by rotation at this meeting. Being eligible, Mr. Goyder offers himself for reelection. Based on the 2020 performance reviews, the Board supports the reelection of Mr. Goyder. The motions that Dr. Haynes, Mr. Goyder and Mr. Tilbrook are reelected as directors are now before the meeting. Are there any questions on the reelection of Mr. Goyder? Number three.

Mr. Coleman, this is Guy Macdonald. He's a proxy holder. [ No one has question? ] Okay. I take that back.

Okay. Are there any questions? Well, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, if there are no further questions, I'll now hand the chair back to Richard.

Thanks, Peter. Are there any questions on items 2a or 2c relating to the reelection of Dr. Haynes or Mr. Tilbrook? If there aren't, I'll open the poll and put Resolutions 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) to the meeting. Each of these resolutions is independent and should be voted on separately. A summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on these resolutions will now be displayed on the screen. Your handset should now be activated. Please enter your vote for items 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). If you have any difficulty with voting on your handset, please raise your hand and someone will assist. [Voting]

Just need some help down here on -- yes. I'll now move on to Item 3, which is the remuneration report and the agenda items to consider the company's remuneration report for 2020. The report set out on Pages 59 to 82 of the annual report explains the company's policy on the remuneration of directors and senior executives and provides remuneration information for 2020. Although the vote on the remuneration report is only advisory, the Board will take the outcome into consideration when determining the company's remuneration policy. The motion that the remuneration report for the year ended December 31, 2020, be adopted is now before the meeting. Are there any questions in relation to Item 3? If there aren't any questions, I now put Item 3 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on Item 3 now. Proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are displayed on the screen. Item 4 on the agenda is to consider the proposed grant of 118,007 performance rights to the CEO under the terms of his contract. The performance rights form part of Mr. Coleman's remuneration for the 2020 financial year. The Board recognize the significant achievements in 2020, resulting in record production and best-ever safety performance. However, in light of the impact of the decline in oil and gas prices on our financial outcomes and major growth projects, the Board exercised its discretion with respect to the CEO's 2020 performance award. This include reducing the total award to 50% of target, award with no cash award or restricted shares. I note there is a minor update required to the international peer group set out in the notice of meeting as 2 companies have been affected by corporate actions. They can no longer be included in the peer group, namely Anadarko and Noble. The motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions on Item 4? Microphone one.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Geoff Reid, proxy holder, representing Australian Shareholders' Association.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask about the interplay of these performance rights, which I recall, are 3-year performance rights. With Mr. Coleman's retirement in 8 weeks' time, will they run for the full 3 years?

Yes, they will. Thanks very much, Mr. Reid. They'll run for the full 3 years. They'll vest if -- you know the vesting conditions. They'll vest if those performance conditions are met. And I've had conversations about this, but it's part of Mr. Coleman's remuneration for last year, but will only vest if those performance criteria met vis-à-vis RTSR performance versus the ASX 50 and versus a portfolio of other oil and gas companies. And I think it's entirely appropriate that -- well, the way the award structure is appropriate and a lot of what will be happening in 3 years' time will be as a consequence of the work Peter has done over the last 10 years. So I think that all fits well. If there is no other questions, I now put Item 4 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on Item 4 now. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are displayed on the screen. [Voting]

I'll now move on to Item 5. Items 5(a) and 5(b) on the agenda relate to the resolutions requisition by a group of shareholders holding approximately 0.01% of our shares. Details of the resolutions, the Board response are contained in the notice of meeting. The resolution seek firstly to amend Woodside's constitution to facilitate advisory resolutions relating to material risks of the company; and secondly, to request that the company disclose an annual reporting information that demonstrates how the company's capital expenditure and operations will be managed in a manner consistent with the climate goals of the Paris -- excuse me, of the Paris Agreement. The Board has responded to the resolutions in detail in our notice of meeting. Further information on Woodside's approach to climate and our aspiration of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, that is implicit in the Paris Agreement, is also available in our 2020 Annual Report and Sustainable Development Report. These are issues we already take very seriously, and of course, we've discussed today. The motion that the constitution be amended is now before the meeting. Are there any questions in relation to items 5(a) and 5(b)? Microphone 3 then 1.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Guy Macdonald, who is a proxy holder, representing [ Seaview 54 Wilika Mason ].

Thank you, Chair. Carbon capture sequestration technology is very important to low-carbon emission gas power and to blue hydrogen. Over the last decade, carbon capture technology has underperformed predictions of cost reductions whilst battery and solar technology has exceeded predictions of cost reductions. If this trend conditioned -- if this trend continues or worsens, is the market for low-carbon gas and blue hydrogen at risk? And if the market for gas and blue hydrogen is smaller than forecast, can Woodside transition both financially and in core competencies to green ammonia and hydrogen without the stepping stones of your more familiar competencies?

Thanks, Mr. Macdonald. I'll get Peter to probably give a bit more detailed response, but I don't necessarily think that the two are linked. I think the transition is something that we've talked a bit about that in terms of new energies is something we're working on. Obviously, dependent to a degree on the cash flows, we can generate from our existing operations and -- but very dependent on technology and market developments as well. So I don't think the two are necessarily linked. But Peter, do you want to add anything?

I'm actually really glad you asked the questions. And so we can differentiate on some of the public commentary around carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage, as I mentioned, previously, fits very well with our technology and competencies we have in Woodside, simply because to be able to effectively have carbon capture, firstly, you have to be able to capture it out of your process. And for Woodside, of course, we've got a lot of expertise in process engineering. So we understand how to do that. The second part then is actually finding a reservoir to be able to put it into. And people talk about carbon capture and storage as being a panacea for everything, and the reality is, you have to have a reservoir that's proximate to your manufacturing facility. For us, our manufacturing facilities are an LNG plant. So we have surveyed the area around our facilities up in Karratha. And within 160-kilometer radius, we've identified a number of reservoirs that we believe are satisfactory for long-term carbon capture and storage. One of those, of course, being one of our depleted fields that we already have offshore at Angel. And of course, we'll be then also looking at the North West Shelf reservoirs as they deplete, but there's also some onshore storage areas that have significant potential as well. Similarly, as we look at the Browse Basin, we look at the Browse development. We've identified where we can inject down dip in the aquifer -- down dip from the current gas resource. So carbon capture and storage is a well-known technology, as you said. There have been -- there's been one major project in Australia that overran on its cost. So I wouldn't say globally they underperformed. It was one that ran over on its cost. That issue was more around the fact that the project had been delayed and some of the equipment or pipe was not of the quality that was required for that particular process. So that is now operating and operating efficiently. So we do think carbon capture and storage is important. It's going to be part of that segue from blue to green over time because, as you know, the amount of carbon that you generate with blue hydrogen, meaning hydrogen developed from natural gas, the energy that you have to put into it is such that any benefits that you'll get at the end use with the customer are offset by the additional carbon that you generate in the manufacturing of the product. And so the 2 are inextricably linked. If we're going to be successful in a lower carbon world with blue hydrogen, then carbon capture and storage goes along with that.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Macdonald has a follow-up question.

I'd like to direct you to my concerns around relative cost competitiveness against other battery and renewable technologies versus the underperformance of carbon capture with the predicted cost reductions that they haven't achieved over the last decade, and concerns may be that they will continue that trend.

In the total cost of a project, carbon capture and storage is just one component of it. It's not the project itself. So you don't build a carbon capture and storage project without all of the other capital that's required. As I mentioned previously, we're already testing our economics a carbon price of USD 80 per tonne in the longer term. We use that carbon pricing as a test for us as we're looking at carbon caption and storage opportunities to be able to say, can we actually drive the cost down of those facilities. So they're actually much lower than the price that we've already put into the economics of our projects. So our Browse project, for example, is tested with an $80 per tonne carbon cost built into it. And then the carbon capture and storage project that we are now considering as part of that project, we're driving that cost down. So it's well below that. Again, we'll take issue to your kind of broad point saying that these projects haven't worked. It's a well-known technology, well-known business in the United States, as you know, the use of for miscible floods in a lot of the onshore basins in the U.S., where it's been difficult. And it's not a usual process, but where it's been difficult is where people have simply got the design of the facilities incorrect. And of course, it all comes down to the quality of the reservoirs. So that's kind of where we are on it. And it's one of those ones that it's part of the total project cost. We benchmark it against the alternative, which is to go out and purchase carbon credits, and then we determine whether that's the appropriate technology...

Microphone one?

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Julien Vincent, shareholder and representing Market Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I could come up with any number of questions to ask. I suspect that I probably know the answer to most of them. So I might just take a couple of minutes speaking in endorsement of these resolutions and speaking not just to you, but to share -- fellow shareholders in this room and listening in online.

I'd rather -- I think we want questions, not speeches. Thank you.

Well, we've got a lot of work to put this resolution together with 100 other shareholders.

Yes. I know, but you can come...

I've got a lot of questions I can come to.

Well, I'll ask -- I'll answer a certain number, but I don't -- I'm not going to have a speech. Thank you. It's an AGM. It's not for you to make a speech. You've made a speech through your 0.01% of shareholders. You've dominated this shareholder meeting, and you've had an opportunity to put through your resolution to shareholders, which frankly shouldn't -- in my view, shouldn't be allowed at 0.01%, but that's a matter for ASIC and the Treasurer to deal with in due course. So I don't think we want -- we're now going to have a speech because I think you've had plenty of opportunity to raise the issues you want to raise. I don't want a speech. Microphone 4. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. John Clancy. Mr. Clancy is a shareholder.

You were talking about you committing a fair bit of gas from Scarborough, and are you keeping some for the spot market? And did you miss any spot market cargoes this year? How the split go this year between contract and spot markets?

Yes. Let me answer that. And John, thanks for the question, and I missed you at last year's AGM. So I'm really pleased you've come along for my last AGM. So thanks, mate. I appreciate you making the trip across the notable. With respect to that, yes, it was an interesting year in 2020. We learned a lot from, as you would have seen from our annual report just as the market crash was the time when it's the kind of the fiscal year for the Japanese. And so they set their, what we call our annual delivery plan from April through to March. So think about what was happening in February last year as we were negotiating that annual delivery plan. And so for them, they exercised what we call downward tolerance on their contracts, and they're able to exercise roughly a 5% plus downward tolerance on their contracts, but all of them did it at once because they just weren't sure whether they could -- what they could do with it. So we ended up with a lot of spot cargoes at a point in time where we really didn't want spot cargoes. And real credit to our marketing team that we're able to get them into the marketplace, but of course, prices were very depressed. This year, of course, we saw that coming, and we made sure that under that sort of circumstances -- again, we weren't exposed by it. Well, as it turned out, this -- and so we've gone out and committed more of our cargoes this year, but we're still in the range that we typically advise investors in that kind of 15% to 20% range of spot cargoes. We're able to take advantage of some of that during January and February as prices spiked. But I'd say, this year is a more normal year for us with respect to the amount of spot cargoes that we have.

Microphone 2, then 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question from Rebecca Pers. Ms. Pers is a proxy holder for Ms. Karen Higgs.

The IEA 2020 Sustainable Development scenario models, the effect of an early peak in natural gas demand around the 2030s. Is the business case of Scarborough resilient to an aggressive decarbonization pathway eventuating in Woodside's targets markets such as under the net zero emissions 2050 scenario?

Yes. Thanks for the question. We're -- I mean we're testing Scarborough against a whole lot of different scenarios. And obviously, the role of the Board is to ensure that it is resilient under a number of circumstances. We continue to believe that Scarborough is very prospective in terms of project and delivering LNG to our customers for some time, and they've indicated to us that they'll want product for some time as well and subject to final investment decision. They are committing to offtakes for considerable periods of time. So -- but we'll look at all that, as you'd expect us to. Microphone 3.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Ben Lawrence. He is a proxy holder, representing Margaret Mary Taylor.

My question is in relation to Woodside's recent carbon neutral carbon condensate shipment. How many tonnes of CO2 has Woodside committed to offset with regard to the shipment? And does that number represent Woodside's equity share in Pluto LNG or the emissions equity share of all the joint venture partners?

Let me answer that. I don't have the exact tonnage off the top of my head, but it was a condensate cargo for us. The offsets that we had were for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions out of it. I think the -- and of course, the Scope 3, we went and purchased on the international markets. I think the key there to that message, though, really is around the fact that our customers now are starting to test the market, and our customers are more and more willing to pay the additional costs for green cargoes. And of course, we share those costs. It's a negotiated outcome. We try and get the credits as cost-effective as lead as we can. And of course, they've got to be able to place that cargo into the marketplace as well and get it away for a price that works for them. But the real message around it is that more and more, we're starting to see -- early days in LNG, this was the first condensate cargo that went through. So it was more a message around marketing and trading than it was around a specific project.

Microphone 4, then 3.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Ms. Ram Timfay. Ms. Timfay is a proxy holder for Mr. Nicholas Howell Gilbert and Mrs. Carol Dan Gilbert.

I would like to thank you to Mr. Coleman for including Myanmar crisis in your speech and condemning the military coup in Myanmar. In recent months, Woodside announcement plans to demolishing or demolish drilling and reduce workforce in Myanmar. However, continue to drill. We are a subcontractor Transocean for a number of weeks. I understand that operations and future planning is now under review by the company. Could you please clarify whether the subcontractor has now stopped? And explain under what conditions would we continue exploration and drilling in Myanmar?

So I think we're dealing with item 5(a) and 5(b) at the moment. I'm happy for one of the representatives of the company, maybe Sean Gregory, to talk to you about what we're doing in Myanmar, but we should just deal with 5(a) and 5(b) at the moment.

Microphone 5.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. James Haley as a proxy for Ms. Lillian Cedulas.

So I'm James Haley. I'm a student. Regarding the court challenge brought by environment groups, was Woodside notified about their concerns prior to the court action? And was there any action taken by Woodside to address the concerns so as to avoid court proceedings?

Yes. We're not going to comment on anything that's before the court at the moment. Thank you, Mr. Haley. I'm now going to put 5(a). Go ahead, Mr. Vincent, ask your question. Question and not a statement.

Certainly. Okay. Given that this company on a total shareholder return basis over the last 10 years has offered about 16% of an investment based on 2010, which is about 1/10th of what the people in this room would have made if they just invested in the ASX. And then we've seen write-downs or impairments to the tune of $7 billion as the company has written down or revised down the oil price from $100 a barrel to $65 a barrel over the last 7 years. And that even today, as you say that you've got the backing of shareholders, not one of the Climate Action 100's indicators for performance about climate risk management is met by this company. How much of a vote from shareholders will it require for a resolution like this, before the company stops spending billions of dollars more on stranded assets and putting more money into wasted capital and value destruction for your shareholders?

I think, Mr. Vincent, my response to that is in 2 parts. Firstly, if you personally don't believe that Woodside is a good investment, then don't invest in Woodside. And that's clearly your prerogative not to do that. But there is many, many shareholders in Woodside who want Woodside to succeed and want us to prosper and to provide the distributions that they need for their income in the future and the like. And -- but they also want us to do it in a sustainable way, and that's why I -- that's why -- so I don't see that we're markedly different, actually. We want an outcome, which is a lower carbon world. I think you probably want outcome of Woodside out of business, but that's clearly not what we want. But we will work very diligently with all our stakeholders to reduce our emissions on a net basis and to achieve the goals that we've talked about ad nauseam today. And we'll invest money. We won't -- clearly, we'll never always get it right, but we will be diligent in the way we assess investment opportunities. We will take into account the risks that can be foreseen or sensibly foreseen, and we'll make the -- any investment as robust as we can as well as investing in new technologies. And I'm happy to continue the conversation after the meeting with you as well. Thank you. Microphone one.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Michael Wilson. He's a shareholder.

And I wish you all the best for the future, Peter. So well done. Firstly, I guess, I have a strong background in science of many, many years. And the -- I would you say, the -- our green myth of having a carbon-neutral energy field by 2050 is a total myth? If you look at any of the signs whatsoever, it is just totally impossible to ever achieve that with the existing energy infrastructure we have today? And the only solution, of course, is to continue with hydrocarbons, methane. It's primarily methane as a clean energy. And the idea that Woodside clearly are throwing their hat into the hydrogen ring and while that has some possible advantages, at the moment, it's got more watts on it than the rear end of a warthog. It's very, very difficult for a whole bunch of technical reasons as I'm sure you're well aware. But at the same time, carbon dioxide emissions produced or anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is clearly shown by all the veritable signs around that has absolutely no effect on global warming. And that's clearly, clearly, clearly, as you could ever wish it to be. Despite all the huff and puff we've heard here this evening you might notice all by proxy shareholders, so for the genuine shareholders here, I'd point out that they're certainly not here for your benefit, they're here to serve the pot, so to speak. As I stated clearly, you have scientific advisers so you know or they should know if they don't know that there is absolutely no evidence of anthropogenic CO2 having anything to do with global warming, which is the crux and crunch of all this global title that we hit with every day. And so my question -- do you have something to say, mate?

I said what happened to no speeches.

You are the no-speech person, not me. So shut up. So my question to you is, I think it's time that with the scientific background that Woodside had, that have that they should at least stand up to some -- how would you put it, position, to point out that hydrocarbons and burning methane primarily does not contribute to global warming, hence, while I admit that all your stakeholders or client or clients basically been committing to that, and you're seeing it around the world daily. So my question is that I think it's more than time that Woodside at least stood up and started to state the true facts of the matter rather than the green hypocrisy that we're inundated with daily.

Thanks, Mr. Wilson. Thanks, Mr. Wilson. It's -- obviously, you're entitled to for that view and you have your expertise. We would disagree with your view, and we actually do believe the science on climate change, and that's why we committing to the things that we're doing, but I appreciate your question. Microphone 3.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Ms. Rachel Raney. She's a proxy holder for Mr. Marcus Charles Leon.

In light of recent moves by the Commonwealth government to strengthen requirements for oil and gas companies to meet decommissioning and rehabilitation costs for offshore projects, has Woodside conducted a detailed assessment of decommissioning and rehabilitation costs and liabilities for each of Burrup Hub projects? And will Woodside release this information so that the market can have full visibility to these costs?

We certainly are very diligent in terms of the work we do on rehabilitation of our assets. Peter, do you want to add anything?

Look, it's a good question. It's something we actually do on a yearly basis. And by rotation, we look at all of our assets on either -- sorry, each asset on either a 3- or a 5-year basis, depending on the asset. So every year, we actually look at these provisions. Actually, every reporting period, we look at to see if the provisions are adequate. We currently have $2.1 billion on our books for our share of what those provisions are, and we're actually actively decommissioning one of our fields now infield. So we're learning as we go as well. So no, we see this as an evolving area of our business. We've actually just set up a separate part of our organization that specifically looks at decommissioning so that we can develop a center of expertise within the company to ensure that we do this as efficiently as we can. But I can assure you the provisions that we make are very robust. They are looked at in great detail by our external auditors, and the feedback that we have is that there are gold standard within the industry.

Microphone 4 then 3.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. Maru Ratestock. Mr. Ratestock is a shareholder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe this is towards the last round of questions. Hence, it's a question now. Approximately 5 to 6 years ago, Woodside planted 26 million trees as part of your carbon offset program. What is the survival rate of these trees been so far? And in terms of sustainability, was a biodiversity mix of flora also planted simultaneously with these trees so the plantations will integrate with the associated Australian landscape.

Let me answer that question. The trees, I believe, you're referring to weren't planted 5 years ago. They're planned a number of years ago as part of our commitments to the Pluto project. So when we first built Pluto, one of the Commonwealth government's requirements was for us to offset that by the planning of trees. And of course, in those days, and it was about AUD 100 million commitment to that. In those days, of course, it was still mainly plantation type arrangements. And so there was an organization that we commissioned to go and plant those trees and are planted around Australia. We've recently, in the last 1.5 years or so gone back and looked at how effective that planting has been, and in fact, it wasn't as effective as we'd hoped. Some of the measurement processes have changed. So the company who was providing those carbon credits was using a particular methodology. The federal government's methodology has changed. We use that methodology. We audited it and found that we had to make a reduction in the number of credits that we were generating. I don't recall the exact percentage, but we then went out and purchased the credits that we were missing to ensure that we met our obligations.

And the biodiversity aspect of it like?

No. That's a really good question on biodiversity. I'm glad you brought it up because that's now central to our carbon team in the way that we are working with Greening Australia on developing new carbon sinks as that it's really based on -- it's a nature-based biodiversity program that we have. So the one we had for Pluto was kind of your typical plantation type thing. That was best practice at the time, but the world's moved on. Knowledge and understanding has moved on. So that's why we're confident now that with the biodiversity that we have, and you can go down to the Great Southern and see where we've planted down there. It's actually in the migratory path of some of the birds down there. That's really designed then to actually assist them in their migratory pathways. And we're also looking at working with farmers so that we can ensure we've got proper biodiversity on farming land, and it's currently utilized for other things.

Microphone 3, and I think I'm going to wrap it up after that.

Mr. Chairman, introducing Ms. Anne Prior. Ms. Prior is a shareholder.

Chairman, I want to take issue with your chairmanship. This resolution before us is about the amendment of the constitution. None of the speakers, none of the questions, none of the comments, none of the discussion has actually been about this resolution. Could we please get the meeting back on track?

I think most of the questions have been in relation to 5(b), which isn't around the constitution. It's actually around the capital -- spending of capital in the current environment. And I think most of the questions have been around 5(b).

Well, perhaps, we need to go on to 5(b) then.

I think we've done 5(a) and 5(b). So I'm now going to put 5 -- items 5(a) to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on Item 5(a) now. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are displayed on the screen. So it's clear that resolution 5(a) will not be passed by the 75% majority required for a special resolution, meaning that Resolution 5(b) is not valid and it's not necessary to vote on that item. However, in the interest of transparency, the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on Resolution 5(b) will now be displayed on the screen. That now covers the formal business of the meeting. An item as Item 6 was withdrawn by shareholders who requisitioned it, Item 5 was the final item of business. The voting system will close shortly. Please ensure that you've cast your vote on all items. [Voting]

Ladies and gentlemen, I now formally close the poll. The provisional results you'll see shortly on the screen will be the combined results of the votes cast in the room today and those previously submitted by proxy. Computershare will undertake an audit of the results, and the final results of the voting on all resolutions will be available and released to the ASX after the meeting. The provisional results are now on the screen. As you can see, they show that each of the resolutions, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3 and 4 have passed. Item 5(a) requisition by a group of shareholders and not endorsed by the Board has not passed. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Board and staff of the company, I thank you for your participation today. We appreciate your ongoing support and continue to focus on delivering value for you. I now declare the meeting closed, subject to the finalization of the poll. Thank you very much.