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

Well, good morning, everyone. My name is Richard Goyder and, as Woodside's Chairman, I'd like to thank shareholders, the Woodside staff and guests for attending today's meeting. It's actually right, if the light wasn't so bright, great to see so many of you here in person today, notwithstanding the ongoing challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As you can see, we have taken a cautious approach by spacing seating to enable appropriate social distancing. I also extend my welcome to those joining today's meeting online. Before we commence, please take a few seconds to familiarize yourselves with the evacuation procedures shown on the screen above, which would apply in the unlikely event of an emergency. In promoting the process of reconciliation, it's important for us to acknowledge the past and present traditional custodians of this land on which we are gathering today, and I do that. I invite Nicole Crnko, a Woodside employee to the stage to deliver an acknowledgment of country for us, Nicole.

[Foreign Language] Hello. This is Noongar Whadjuk country that we're meeting on today. We acknowledge our ancestors and elders from long ago and from today and extend respect to First Nations peoples of the lands that are connected to us virtually. [Foreign Language] My name is Nicole, I'm a Noongar Warwa woman born in Wangkatha country. A welcome to country is an important protocol for indigenous peoples and can only be performed by those with appropriate cultural authority. I have performed an acknowledgment of country, which is different and an opportunity for anybody to show respect to country and everything connected to it. Noongar country is made up of 14 different language groups. My connections include to Yued country, which covers more with native sentiment, where both of my maternal grandparents were born. My great grandmother was taken from Derby and brought down to Moore River as part of the early assimilation policies, and this is where my Warwa connections come from. Unfortunately, being directly impacted by those past policies leading to a loss of connection, I didn't grow up with culture, and I'm still trying to find my family today. It was only at university that I learned about the sad history behind the stolen generations and government legislation that legalized the social and economic exclusion of my people, and this is where my urge to reconnect with culture began. But it wasn't easy. Trying to earn a culture that is oral, not written down and then not knowing who to connect with to learn that culture has been difficult. And I really struggled until about 6 or 7 years ago, where our film my journey of cultural discovery was accelerated and a lot of that has to do with Woodside and the change in approach to cultural recognition and reconciliation that then provided me a safe space to grow. I believe we now value cultural heritage, aboriginal people and the knowledge and wisdom that we have to offer and started to meaningfully and thoughtfully engage. Woodside understands that we have a voice. And this simple yet powerful shift means so much. It means that we matter. Thank you for the opportunity to share a little bit about my story today and hope that it has reminded you that we have a voice and inspires some action to include those voices in the work that you do. [Foreign Language] May the good spirits be with us today for the remainder of the proceedings.

Thank you very much, Nicole. It's also important that we acknowledge others less fortunate than ourselves who do not currently enjoy the freedom and safety that we take for granted here in Australia, the violence and destruction caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is shocking and distressful. We hope for a peaceful resolution of hostilities that allow those impacted to begin the process of rebuilding their lives. Today's meeting 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 our shareholders and respond to your questions. You'll have a opportunity to ask questions during the formal business. However, I encourage those shareholders joining us virtually who wish to submit a written question to begin doing so now. This will enable the timely receipt of those questions. You can do this via the same platform you're already using to view this webcast by following the instructions shown on the slide. Tap on the messaging icon, type your question in the chat box at the top of the screen and select the send item. Confirmation that your message has been received will appear. I'll summarize the process for submitting verbal questions online and for asking questions from the floor before we begin the formal business section of today's meeting. I'm joined on stage this morning by Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Meg O'Neill and Company Secretary, Warren Baillie. I'll talk later about the CEO succession that occurred during 2021, but I would like to say at the outset that the Board is very impressed with Meg's performance in the CEO role and excited about the future of our company under her leadership. Also here in Perth with us today are Directors, Ben Wyatt, Chris Haynes, Frank Cooper, Gene Tilbrook, Ian Macfarlane and Sarah Ryan. Three of our Directors Larry Archibald, Swee Chen Goh and Ann Pickard live overseas and were unable to travel to attend in meeting but are joining us via the webcast. Robert Kirkby, representing our auditors, Ernst & Young, is also present. A reminder that, as always, Woodside reports its results in U.S. dollars, any reference to dollars today will be in U.S. currency unless stated otherwise. On behalf of the Board, I'm pleased to provide you with an update on a truly remarkable year for Woodside in which we overcame significant global and industry challenges to deliver strong financial outcomes and company-changing decisions that will underpin our long-term success. Woodside is now on the cusp of becoming a top 10 global independent energy company by hydrocarbon production, confident of our role in the energy transition. Today's meeting at which we are seeking shareholder approval to merge Woodside with BHP's petroleum business, is key to unlocking that future. However, before we talk more about Woodside's future, let's reflect on our significant achievements in 2021. With the global economy rebounding during the year, we were able to capitalize on high oil and gas prices to report a 2021 net profit after tax of $1.983 billion, an increase of 149% on 2020 and our highest profit since 2014. We paid a full year dividend of USD 1.35 per share, which was our largest dividend since in 2018. Our final investment decisions on the Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 projects in November and the sell-down of 49% equity in Pluto Train 2 to Global Infrastructure Partners, which completed in January 2022, were major milestones for Woodside. Scarborough is a world-class reservoir containing only 0.1% carbon dioxide that will be processed through the expanded Pluto LNG facility. It is targeted to deliver its first LNG cargo in 2026 into a market with anticipated robust demand for LNG. It will also deliver significant benefits to Western Australia and the nation in the form of thousands of jobs during development, tax revenues and domestic gas supply. In 2021, we also developed an emerging portfolio of new energy opportunities in Australia and internationally. And we announced a target of investing $5 billion to develop new energy products and lower carbon services by 2030. We achieved all this in more during a period of market volatility as the COVID-19 pandemic continued around the world and in Australia, maintaining our strategic focus and implementing rigorous controls to protect health of our workforce and ensuring ongoing and safe production. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank the entire Woodside team who delivered these excellent results in 2021 while continuing to adapt to a dynamic external environment. The COP-26 Global Climate Summit in late 2021 saw a renewed focus on efforts to address climate change. From a Woodside perspective, climate change is a complex and material issue that is directly overseen by the Board. It's also a standing agenda item for each meeting of the Sustainability Committee, led by Board colleague, Ann Pickard. Today, Woodside is an oil and gas company, and these products will continue to be used by the world for decades to come. This is supported by a wide range of scenarios modeled by the International Energy Agency, which also forecast an important role for hydrogen and energy source that Woodside is directing investment towards. In the Asia Pacific region, where more than 1 billion people are expected to join the middle class by 2030, energy use is expected to increase. Woodside, therefore, sees an important ongoing role for natural gas to assist with the decarbonization goals of developing countries in Asia, which typically are fast-growing and often coal dependent. This is because natural gas when used to generate electricity emits around half of life cycle emissions of coal. Whilst energy storage technologies such as batteries continue to improve, natural gas enables cost-effective and reliable conversion of power grids to renewable electricity because of its ability to firm up intermittent generation. Woodside aims to thrive in the energy transition as a low-cost, low-carbon energy provider. Our strategy is outlined in our climate report released to the ASX in February this year. As requested by our shareholders, the report will be put to a nonbinding advisory vote at today's meeting. We recognize that a significant proportion of shareholders who have already voted on this item have not supported the report. The Board stands by the quality of both the climate report and Woodside's overall climate strategy and is confident of our ongoing role to responsibly provide our customers with the energy they need in a lower carbon world. We will continue incorporating feedback from our shareholders on this important issue as we further develop and evolve our approach. At today's meeting, you will also have an opportunity to vote on a proposed change to our company name from Woodside Petroleum to Woodside Energy Group to better reflect our long-term strategic direction and anticipated portfolio evolution through the energy transition. In August last year, Woodside announced its proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business, followed by execution of a binding share sale agreement in November last year. We believe the strategic and financial case for the proposed merger is compelling. It will bring together the best of both organizations to create a top 10 global independent energy company with the scale, diversity and resilience to provide value to shareholders and navigate the energy transition. We're also expecting to deliver significant synergies as we bring both businesses together. It's pleasing to see this case reinforced by the Independent Expert's Report prepared by KPMG, which concludes that the merger is in the best interest of Woodside's shareholders. Your vote in support of the merger will make today's meeting a significant moment in Woodside's history, marking the creation of a new global energy company and laying the foundation for Woodside to continue to deliver value to all our stakeholders for decades to come. I'd like to conclude by recognizing the contribution of Peter Coleman, who retired as Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director in the second quarter of 2021 after 10 years in the role. Peter's focus on safety and operational excellence and his leadership on sustainability are very valuable legacies, and the Board thanks Peter for his significant contribution. Meg O'Neill acted as Chief Executive Officer from April until August 2021 when the Board formally appointed her to the role of CEO and Managing Director. What a fantastic contribution, Meg has already made demonstrating from day 1, her exceptional leadership, vision and energy, overseeing an incredible second half of 2021. My thanks also go to my Board colleagues who have put in many hours and enthusiastically participated in all the transformational decisions taken in 2021. And finally, to you, our shareholders, the Board appreciates your ongoing support. We're pleased to be delivering for you strong financial returns and a vision for our future in which Woodside is an increasingly resilient and diversified company. I'll now hand over to Meg O'Neill. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard, and thank you to our shareholders for attending and participating online today. This is, of course, my first AGM as Woodside CEO and Managing Director, and it is a pleasure to update you on what has been a transformational year -- 12 months for Woodside. In another year of global uncertainty, we maintained focus and discipline to capitalize on our strengths as a low-cost, reliable operator. And we announced key investment and strategic decisions that lay the foundation for Woodside's long-term success. As Richard has mentioned, we delivered strong financial returns across the Board. Beyond our impressive headline profit, we generated an operating cash flow of $3.8 billion, a 105% increase from 2020, strengthening our balance sheet and financial position. We finished the year with more than $6 billion of liquidity and also maintained our investment-grade credit rating. We are in this position of financial strength at a time of significant volatility in global commodity markets, including oil and gas, exacerbated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I echo Richard's comments that we hope for a peaceful end to these hostilities. Against this backdrop of geopolitical uncertainty, security of energy supply becomes ever more important. Reliable supply from Woodside's established and emerging projects will be increasingly valuable to customers in our region. The likelihood that major energy customers will continue moving away from Russian energy sources also strengthens the case for other undeveloped gas fields such as Browse, to be brought online. In 2021, we continued to deliver reliable and low-cost operations, while completing our largest ever program of planned maintenance, which included scopes deferred from 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We progressed work to support the long-term cost competitiveness of our assets and business, achieving a 14% reduction in underlying operating costs at the North West Shelf project. While we recorded 0 Tier 1 or Tier 2 process safety events, our personal safety performance was disappointing. Our total recordable injury rate increased in contrast to the downward trend in previous years. The safety of our employees and contractors is our number 1 priority. And our focus for 2022 is to address common root causes for the 2021 incidents and return to leading personal safety performance. Construction of the Pluto to KGP Interconnector pipeline between Pluto LNG and the Karratha gas plant was completed in late 2021, enabling processing of third-party gas to begin in March this year. The interconnector links our 2 most significant producing assets, optimizing production at both Pluto and KGP and providing us with optionality for the future. We also achieved ready for start-up for the first phase of Pyxis Hub, and for Julimar-Brunello Phase II, which are important tiebacks for the Pluto and Wheatstone projects, respectively. Both were delivered ahead of schedule and under budget. When it comes to securing Woodside's operations into the future, the final investment decisions on our Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 projects approved in November are momentous. These decisions, which increased Woodside's Proved plus Probable Total Reserves by more than 1.4 billion barrels of oil equivalents, are as significant for us as the Northwest shelf was in the 1980s, and Pluto was in the 2000s. On the ground in Karratha, major civil works are already underway on the construction accommodation village for the Pluto Train 2 construction workforce. Manufacturer of the Scarborough line pipe commenced in February and fabrication of the offshore floating production unit topsides is scheduled -- targeted to begin this quarter. Foremost in our minds is the importance of Scarborough and Pluto Train 2, like all Woodside projects in the area, co-existing with the unique cultural heritage values of the Burrup Peninsula. We continue to consult extensively with traditional custodians. Archeological and ethnographic surveys conducted together with traditional custodians have confirmed that the project will not impact any onshore areas outside our current industrial footprint or submerged Heritage nor found any evidence that gas plant emissions are impacting rock art. Construction of our Sangomar project offshore Senegal is progressing well with the Phase I development close to 60% complete and on track for first oil in 2023. We have successfully drilled and completed the first 4 production wells and a second drillship remains on schedule to commence drilling mid this year. Our FPSO conversion activities are progressing, and the subsea installation campaign will commence later this year. I would now like to add some further comments regarding Woodside's approach to climate change, which quite rightly is an issue of importance for many shareholders here today. Woodside's approach has 2 key elements. Reducing our net equity Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions and investing in the products and services that our customers need as they to reduce their emissions. We have near- and medium-term targets to reduce our net equity Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2025, and by 30% by 2030 in support of our aspiration of net 0 emissions by 2050 or sooner. Our 2021 net equity Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions were 10% below the 2016 to 2020 gross annual average and on course to achieve our 2025 target. In 2021, we also announced Woodside's Scope 3 emissions plan, which includes a target to invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower carbon services by 2030. This target is subject to the completion of the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business. Our new energy focus is primarily on hydrogen and ammonia, which can reduce the emissions arising when our customers consume energy compared to unabated use of fossil fuels. We announced new hydrogen and ammonia production opportunities, including H2Perth, near the Kwinana industrial hub south of Perth, H2TAS located in Northern Tasmania and H2OK in Oklahoma. Climate change is one of many environmental, social and governance, or ESG topics that are integral to our success. In 2021, our total social contribution spend globally was AUD 20.3 million, and we launched a new 5-year social investment strategy to guide our future contributions in this area. We also launched our new 5-year Reconciliation Action Plan with Reconciliation Australia, which outlines our commitments to partner with indigenous communities to create positive economic, social and cultural outcomes. We expanded our ESG focus during the year to other important areas for our industry, including the launch of our 2021 to 2025 inclusion and diversity strategy, which focuses on building the workplace culture and capability required to achieve diverse representation throughout Woodside. This was reinforced through the establishment of our Working Respectfully Policy, highlighting Woodside's zero-tolerance approach to all forms of sexual discrimination, bullying and harassment. We also continue to have a strong focus on governance performance, which includes our approach to transparency and compliance. For example, our 2021 Australian tax contribution was AUD 658 million. Before closing, I want to also reinforce Richard's earlier comments on the significance of our proposed merger with BHP Petroleum. The merger is an opportunity for Woodside to increase its contribution to meeting the world's growing energy needs and to build the scale, resilience and diversity to thrive through the energy transition. In February this year, we announced the nominated executive team for the merged company, a team which brings together the very best of our 2 organizations and ensures we will have the leadership capabilities and culture to drive our company forward into this exciting new chapter. Subject to today's shareholder vote, we are focused on ensuring the merged Woodside gets off to a strong start on our targeted completion date of the 1st of June, setting the foundations for our long-term success. In closing, I'm extremely proud of what we have achieved during my first 9 months in the CEO role. I'm equally excited and motivated by the future ahead of us. Our innovation and determination are our greatest strengths. And if we use these to grasp the opportunities before us, I have no doubt we will thrive through the energy transition and continue delivering value to our shareholders for many years to come. Thank you.

Thanks, Meg. We now move to the formal business of the meeting. There are 10 items on the agenda today. Item 1 is a discussion of the 2021 financial statements and reports. Item 2 is the BHP Petroleum merger. Item 3 is the reelection of 3 directors who retire by rotation and election of 1 director who was appointed since the last AGM; Item 4 is a consideration of the company's 2021 remuneration report. Item 5 is the grant of Equity Incentive Scheme Awards of the CEO and Managing Director. Item 6 is a reinsertion of proportional takeover provisions in the company's constitution. Item 7 is a change of company name. Item 8 is a change of external auditor. Item 9 is consideration of our climate report and Item 10 resolutions requisition by groups of shareholders. General questions and comments 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, including the proposed merger and climate report will be addressed when we reach those items 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 and not have precedings dominated by questions from a small group. Today is an important opportunity for the broad range of Woodside shareholders to ask Meg and me questions on the issues of interest to you. So I ask you to keep your questions brief and avoid repeating issues that have already been covered. Could you please ask no more than 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 on each item, I propose to spend time first on questions from the floor from shareholders and proxies who are in attendance, followed by written questions submitted through the online platform and then turn to audio questions submitted online. Shareholders who wish to ask questions from the floor will be called to approach our staff positioned by microphones in the aisles at the appropriate time and show them your handset. Please give them your name, and they will introduce you to the meeting. I previously outlined the arrangements for submitting written questions online, and these are again shown on the left-hand side of the slide as a reminder. Questions submitted online may be grouped together if there are multiple questions on the same topic. The process for submitting audio questions online is on the right-hand side of the slide. To do so, you must first pause the broadcast, click on the link under asking audio questions. On the home tab, enter the requested details, click submit, request and follow the audio prompts to connect. You will continue to hear the meeting while you wait to ask your question. Voting today will be conducted by poll. Each shareholder present in person or by proxy has 1 vote for every ordinary share owned. Lisa Ahwan 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. I'll open the poll now for voting on all items of business, so that shareholders who aren't able to stay for the full meeting can still cast their votes on all items of business. For shareholders attending in person, we're using electronic keypads instead of paper poll cards. This means we'll be able to share the provisional voting results with you towards the end of the meeting. Instructions for using the handsets and submitting your votes on each item are now on the screen. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with those. 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. Following the discussion on each business item of business, I'll prompt those shareholders who are physically present today to vote on those items. And at the time, your handset will activate and voting instructions will appear on your screen. If you require assistance now or during the voting, please simply raise your hand and someone from Computershare team will assist you. For shareholders requiring assistance online, please follow the instructions on the online platform to access systems on voting. Voting will remain open during the discussion of the items on business. I will let you know prior to the close of the poll -- shortly after close of the poll, the provisional 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 Woodside's 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 the resolutions in Item 10, which are not endorsed by the Board. 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 31 December 2021. 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. Written questions to the auditor have been received and are available at the registration desk and on our website. Robert Kirkby from Ernst & Young, the company's auditor, will respond to those questions first. We will then address any questions or comments on the 2021 financial reports and reports of the directors and the auditor, including general questions on the management of Woodside. If you have a question that relates to a subsequent item of business, please hold off on raising that question until we reach the relevant item. In particular, I'd note that we'll have ample opportunity to explore questions relating to Woodside's climate strategy and approach in items 9 and 10 when we will consider the climate report. I'll defer any climate-related questions to those items. A reminder that you can log online questions at any time. However, we will hold off on raising those related to a particular item of business until we are at that point of considering that item. Again, I request that you please ask no more than 2 questions at a time to give all shareholders an opportunity to be heard. To facilitate an orderly discussion, I'll first spend some time addressing questions from shareholders physically in attendance, I'll then move to written questions received by the online platform and for the audio questions. I now invite Robert Kirkby onto the written questions to the auditor, Robert?

Thank you, Chairman. I refer to the questions posed by the shareholders, which are available at the registration desk. Questions 2 and that part of questions 1 and 3 that relate to the conduct of the audit, we refer to the impact of climate risks on impairment testing of oil and gas generating units as part of the audit. In conducting our audit, we have understood and assessed how the group's response to climate risk has been reflected in the assessment of the recoverable amount of CGUs. We are satisfied that the impairment assessment performed by management, satisfy the requirements of the accounting standards, including disclosure requirements. The carrying value of oil and gas properties was a key audit matter and has been described in our audit report. This includes details of our procedures on commodity pricing, discount rates, production profiles and other input assumptions, including carbon price. These procedures also included testing that the modeled cash flows used for impairment assessment contemplate the carbon cost resulting from the group's voluntary net emissions targets. The major component of question 1 and the first part of question 3 do not relate to the conduct of the audit. Question 4 relates to the determination of key audit matters for inclusion in our audit report. Under ASA 701, the relevant auditing standard, key audit matters are those matters that, and the auditor's professional judgment, were of most significance in the audit of the financial report of the current period. It does not include a summary of all matters considered during the audit. In this context, we assess the carrying value of oil and gas properties as a key audit matter. We understood and assessed how the company's response to climate risk has been reflected in the assessment of recoverable amounts of cash-generating units. Question 5, and that part of question 6, that relate to the conduct of the audit, refers to the audit approach in relation to the group's restoration obligations. During the course of our audit, we obtained an understanding and then assessed how the company accounted for its restoration obligations as presented in the financial report. Our assessment included considering and being satisfied that the group's treatment of the additional costs included in the current year provision associated with the removal of rigid plastic coated pipelines was a change in estimate and was in accordance with the accounting standards. The accounting for restoration obligations was a key audit matter and our procedures on restoration obligations are detailed in our audit report. The remaining components of question 6 do not relate to the conduct of the audit. With that, I'll pass back to you, Chairman.

Thanks, Rob. We'll now address any questions or comments on item 1, including general questions received starting with questions received from shareholders prior to the meeting. So we're going to do those first rather than on the floor. Okay. So operator, please call out the written questions received prior to the meeting.

Mr. Chairman, we have a written question from Mr. Richard Wilkins and is as follows. Page 21 of the annual report notes reversal of impairments for Pluto and North West Shelf, Large impairments were also made for Vincent and Wheatstone in 2020, yet these were not reversed, even partly. Last year's annual report showed that each U.S. $10 increase in oil prices would have reduced the impairments by about $105 million for Vincent and $514 million for Wheatstone. Given this huge increase in oil and gas prices since then, will WPL consider reversing these impairments at 30 June 2022, sorry, or 31 December '22.

So I thank Mr. Wilkins for the question. We need to -- the Board and obviously, the auditor then looks at. The applicable accounting standards to assess impairment on assets each year. If there's an impairment reversal indicator present, and the recoverable amount exceeds the carrying amount previously impaired, it may be reversed, but there's some accounting rules around all that and the amount that can be reversed. So it's something that the Board will keep under review.

Mr. Chairman, I have a written question from Mr. Richard Wilkins. What is the desired timing for sell-down to 51% of Scarborough?

Again Thanks, Mr. Wilkins. And Meg, do you want to take that one?

Sure. So Scarborough is a very significant asset for Woodside. It will be a very important part of our business for the long term. So as we think about selling down, it's important to bring in the right partner at the right price. So we are not driven by schedule. We do want to reduce our equity, assuming the shareholders support our merger with BHP Petroleum will have 100%, and we do want to reduce from that level. But the priority for us is finding the right partner at the right price.

Mr. Chairman, we have another written question from Mr. Richard Wilkins. I welcome the decision to withdraw from Myanmar. What is the opportunity cost of this exit, including giving up the 109 MMBOE of 2C resources.

Meg, do you want to -- again, thanks for the question. Do you want to take Myanmar, then I want to assure shareholders that the board throughout the whole situation Myanmar kept a very close eye on that situation. Most importantly, the safety and well-being of our staff and contractors in Myanmar. And I think that's all gone very well. Meg, do you want to talk about the financial implications.

Sure. And just to echo Richard's point, our hearts go out to the people of Myanmar, particularly the Woodside employees who have supported us in our exploration program there. So the capitalized value for the Myanmar 2C volumes was written down in 2021, so that is reflected in the financial statements. The reserves were written down partially last year and the rest in 2022. So the financial impact has been accounted for largely in 2021 accounts.

So thanks, Mr. Wilkins for those questions. I'll now move to questions from shareholders physically and attended. Are there any questions from the floor. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Geoff Reid, proxy holder representing the Australian Shareholders Association.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm representing more than 600 shareholders today, who are members of our association, who between them hold approximately 2 million shares in Woodside. Mr. Chairman, please, can you or the CEO, give the meeting a progress report on the development of Browse gas field. We note that you're paying the federal government for a production license even though it is not producing. And -- and in your answer, please, can you address the fact that we -- I estimate we spent USD 3 billion so far on Browse, and we appear to have not too much to show for it. And how is the relationship with the other partners to get development approval going ahead.

So thanks, Geoff, for that question. Let me just make a brief comment on Browse and then I'll get Meg to go into some detail. Browse is obviously, a very significant resource. It has a challenge around the carbon intensity of the actual gas. But it's a very important asset. That the Board continues to have significant oversight on in terms of its development possibilities. But Meg, can you go into more detail?

Thank you, Mr. Reid. So Browse, of course, is a very significant asset. It's 3 different gas fields. It is the largest undeveloped gas resource in Australia today, and that's why we have been working very hard at commercializing it for in the 50 years since it was discovered. It is a challenging resource because it is a long way from any existing infrastructure. The concept that we have today, which would bring Browse gas the Karratha Gas Plant, which is an existing LNG facility. We think is the right concept. We have allege opening up already in the Karratha gas plant. There are 3 priorities for us to progress browse. First off, we need to address the carbon challenge, as Richard mentioned with about 10% CO2 in the reservoir. We recognize that in today's decarbonizing world, we need to solve that problem first and the team is looking at CCS. We need a commercial agreement between the Browse Venture and the Northwest Shelf venture. And I'm pleased to say momentum is building in that space. But again, those commercial discussions do require a bit more work, and then we need our environmental approvals, which we've been working on for a bit of time with the Commonwealth and state governments. But I think the opportunity is right for Browse. I think we have good alignment within the venture, and we have -- when you put it in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the world's need for secure energy from safe places like Australia, I think we do have an opportunity to move Browse forward.

I'll go to microphone 1.

Mr. Chairman, this is Ms. Sophie McNeill. Ms. McNeill, is a proxy holder representing [ Mrs. Jan McNichol ].

Thank you. Three years ago, the WA Environmental Protection Authority released a draft greenhouse gas policy, which would have resulted in significant emission reductions in this state. Woodside publicly lobbied and pressured the state government to reject this policy, which it did. Later this year, the EPA will be releasing its new draft policy. Can you guarantee us that Woodside will not act in the same manner and will not stand in the way of any policy that would reduce emissions.

Well, I think -- thanks for the question, Ms. McNeil. I'm not sure whether it relates to the accounts or not, but I'll...

It relates to lobbying and how the company conducts itself.

Lobbying is Item 10, but I'll deal with it now -- and we'll deal with it now. I would actually argue the Woodside has been one of the more significant proponents of appropriate environmental policies in Australia at appropriate way of dealing with carbon and our actions reinforce that in the way we're dealing with the projects we're involved in. So I actually don't see that there's a significant difference between what Woodside proposes, promotes and does with where the world is going. In fact, we're aligned with Paris, as we said earlier, we're aligned with COP26. The proposal here was something within government, it was never a government policy.

Yes. Perhaps if I can add on. So the policy that was tabled 3 years ago was one that was developed without proper industry consultation and our objection was largely around the lack of engagement and the mechanisms that would have been imposed on a handful of emitters in the state. Since then, we have come out with our emissions reduction plan as documented in our climate report and we are quite clear that our goal is to reduce our net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2030 on a pathway towards net 0 2050. And we have actually quite good alignment with the state as to the trajectory and the pathway that we're working on. We do look forward to continuing to consult with the state as they evolve future policies to ensure that the mechanics are workable for ourselves and for other industrial emitters in the state.

So you commit to -- you won't lobby against the EPA's new policy then?

We'll see what the new policy is. Microphone 5.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce [indiscernible] who is a proxy holder representing Brown [indiscernible] management.

My question is for the Chairman. Mr. Goyder, last year, you told the Sydney Morning Herald that activist were overpowering real shareholders at last year's AGM. Mr. Goyder, I am here as a proxy of a Woodside shareholder who has appointed me on their behalf to represent their interests here at this AGM. And yet you have dismissed them by claiming that they are not a real shareholder. Is this not simply contempt for shareholders who have genuinely held concerns about Woodside's track record on climate and emissions merely because you find their views problematic. Will you retract those comments today and reassure all shareholders that they are valued even if they choose to exercise their right to question some of your company's business decisions?

So thanks for the question. I think anyone who knows me would know that my entire business career has been creating value for all stakeholders, including shareholders. And I've spent an inordinate amount of my time talking to and listening to shareholders. And indeed, I am a significant shareholder in many companies myself. We welcome the views of all shareholders. Any comments I might have made 3 years ago would have been to the tune of people who come to meetings like this represent with one share, which today would cost $30 who sell it tomorrow, who actually aren't a real shareholder and who promote their activist views and use this as a lobbying position rather than genuine engagement with the Board on the future direction of the company. I welcome any genuine engagement with Woodside, with us, with the management team on where we're going. I think our track record absolutely indicates that we're up for that.

So you'll accept their views even if they are problematic.

I accept any. I don't necessarily agree but we're happy to listen to any seriously well-thought through views. And clearly, I'm very much of a view that people have different views need to be around the table and engage with so that we can find a way forward. I actually don't think, if I can indulge myself for 1 minute, I don't think the views of the protest that's outside the meeting today and ours are that different. We all want a lower carbon world, and we want to deal with climate change. The only debate is how best we do that. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Ms. Raelene Cooper, proxy holder representing [ Craig Douglas Shore ]

[Foreign Language] Good morning, everybody. Good morning, Woodside. My name is Raelene Cooper. I'm a traditional custodian from the Pilbara, the Burrup Peninsula. We are traditional owners and custodians of Murujuga. This includes the ancient song lines and over 1 million ancient rock art carvings. It also includes the unique plants, animals and other beings at cold Murujuga home and the spiritual traditions that maintain them. Our unique culture and our future depend on the health of this country. It is our responsibility as custodians to protect it. We are deeply disturbed by the Woodside's proposed Scarborough Gas Development. We believe the damage that we've done in our own cultural heritage by this project would be devastating to our people. And we are alarmed that our country would be used in such a way that will harm people all over the world by accelerating global warming. Investors, shareholders and decision makers should be aware that the proceedings with the Scarborough development in the Pluto expansion without the consent of traditional custodians denies our people, basic human rights and is a contrary to the United Nations declaration of the rights and interest of Aboriginal Peoples. As traditional custodians and traditional owners of Murujuga, we are -- we know our culture is more valuable than short-term gas projects. We want to practice, protect and share our unique cultural heritage for the benefit of all people now and into the future. We do not want to see out here to destroy...

Can you ask the question? I don't want speeches.

Well, we are prevented from speaking about our concerns.

If you don't ask the question, I'll close the microphone.

So my question to you Ms. O'Neill and Mr. Goyder. Will you pause any further investment decisions on the Scarborough project until the free, prior and informed consent of all Murujuga traditional owners and custodians are obtained?

So thank you, Ms. Cooper, for the question. And also for the emotion that's gone with it, which I acknowledge. I'd say Woodside is actually proud of its association with Murujuga over the years and the work that we've done together. And clearly, part of the process of getting Scarborough approved has been -- all the environmental approvals required and working with local indigenous groups, Murujuga being the primary one. Meg, do you want to go into any more detail?

Yes. Thanks, Richard. So we have consulted extensively with Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation as the representative of the 5 language groups. We've also, of course, worked for many years with [indiscernible] in conjunction with the North West Shelf development. We value the relationship that we have with the traditional custodians, and we recognize the cultural significance of Murujuga. We've supported the application for National Heritage listing. We support the application for World Heritage listing because we believe industry and heritage can coexist. We have, again, as Richard said, worked very closely in consultation to understand the physical impacts of our development, the ethnographic impacts. We've done groundbreaking research on things like submerged heritage, this research that's really never been done before to get ourselves comfortable and get our -- the traditional custodians comfortable that we will not be causing any damage. So we stand on the quality of our consultation. We recognize we've not satisfied every individual who's a member of the language groups, but we stand by the depth of work that we have done over the years.

Ms. O'Neill, culturally, Murujuga is not the [ bio and stop all ] of the Burrup and the people. Culturally, there are significant individuals who have an authority, a cultural authority to speak on behalf of Murujuga. Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation does not speak on behalf of all individuals, especially those who have cultural authorities to speak for that Mura -- so I really disagree in terms of that your engagement and consent and prior consent by all traditional custodians, it hasn't happened. I have been a Board of Director on Murujuga for over 10 years. I have thoroughly gone through it. There is not 1 time as a Director, 2020, 2021, that I have seen any approvals or endorsements from the Murujuga Board of Directors who have approved this project. So it stems from the top. The CEO of Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation does not speak for the Mura. He has no cultural authority to speak for that place.

Microphone 5.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Tek Geygan is a proxy holder representing DMB Super Fund.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Your hydrogen strategy is to be customer led. But JERA, the Japanese conglomerate latest tender requires clean hydrogen to have at least 60% carbon capture and storage. Your gray and offset strategy seems to preclude you from participating in this deal. Will you update your strategy.

Meg?

Yes. So we're not going to speak to the commercial specifics of any tender that's commercial in confidence. I will say that we collaborate with many Japanese stakeholders, including JERA on opportunities to provide them with lower carbon products that when those products are used in there, processes and many of the Japanese companies that we're partnering with are looking at using ammonia and coal-fired power, for example. It significantly reduces the emissions at the power plant. Now the balance that we're, of course, working with our customers is 3 things: reliability, and include energy security in that affordability and carbon intensity. And different customers have different prioritization amongst those 3. So there are customers who are willing to work with us on solutions that include offsets and sequestration, if it keeps the price down for them. And that's why our strategy really is customer led. We need to ensure that we're providing a product that is both meets the carbon and the price needs of the customers.

It doesn't seem to answer my question really. I seem to -- that if your offsets don't meet their required 60% sequestration, how will you deal with them if you've got a gray and not clean carbon?

Yes. I've said I'm not going to speak about the specifics of any individual tender that's commercial in confidence.

Okay. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Ms. Jose Alek, proxy holder, representing Craig Douglas Shore.

Good morning, everybody. I'm, a traditional owner from the, I have a question for Mr. Goyder and Ms. O'Neill -- after the Juukan Gorge disaster, Rio Tinto publicly apologize to the PKKP traditional owners for the destruction of their cultural heritage. In the 1970s, Woodside destroyed between 4,000 and 5,000 pieces of rock art in the construction of the Karratha Gas plant. Here today, my question to you is, is Woodside and yourselves willing to apologize for that destruction of our cultural heritage.

Well, I'm not -- thank you for the question. I'm not aware of that destruction.

Thanks, Ms. Alec. We have too, in the past, acknowledged that our actions when we were building the Karratha gas plants, whilst they were best in kind in the 1970s. It's not what we would do today. And we regret the damage that was caused at that point in time. And I'm sure you're aware that subsequently, we attempted to work very closely with the traditional custodians to relocate some of the rock art that we had moved in the construction process to places that would be more culturally appropriate. So we do regret that our actions when we made that initial construction was not where we would want them to be today. And we recognize that as -- we learn more about the cultural heritage. We need to continue to challenge ourselves to do more and better. And I think the work that we did, for example, on submerged cultural heritage is an example of how we've gone above and beyond and really tried to go even further to understand cultural heritage and how our business might affect it and make sure that we weren't having any of those negative impacts.

Yet you keep doing it behind the traditional lines back.

I would disagree. I think we have very active engagements again through MAC as the vehicle, but also.

I'm not the cultural authority. They do not hold no cultural authority to speak for the Mura. Those individuals there do not have a footprint for that place. Mac is not the [indiscernible]. They are not a KLC-- they are an organization.

Okay. I think we'll go to microphone 5.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Stephen Bennett, Mr. Bennetts is a proxy holder representing Mr. Christopher James.

Just look, my question is about the fact that despite referee scientific publications by Dr. John Black and University of Western Australia Professor of World Rock Art, Ben Smith and other scientists, which show that Woodside's massive industrial emissions are degrading the rock art of the Burrup Peninsula. The company continues to claim publicly that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support their scientific findings. So my question is, at Black and Smith's finding supported by Woodside's own internal research and findings. But will the company release its own internal research so that investors are fully aware of the company's current impact on the globally significant rock art of the Burrup Peninsula, which is currently listed on UNESCO's tentative World Heritage List.

So we've been conducting rock art monitoring and air quality studies for decades. We are a participant in the state's rock art monitoring group. We recognize that this is a very important topic. We disagree with the findings that you are in the studies that you've quoted and other independent studies have not come to the same conclusions. But we recognize it's important, which is why we continue to work with the state governments in the area of rock art monitoring. And I think over the last 2 years, in particular, there's been tremendous progress made in terms of pulling together all of the industrial proponents in a project that is led by the traditional custodians to inform the air quality monitoring that is done today.

Look, just to clarify my question, is Woodside's internal research on rock art impacts consistent with what it's saying publicly, for instance, on your website -- or do you have evidence that contradicts your public statements on this topic?

We value transparency. And when we're conducting scientific studies, we think it's important to be transparent with the results. And again, we're working very closely with the state government. They're driving the process these days, which is, we think, quite helpful to be able to pull together data that's gathered by ourselves as well as other industrial proponents on the Burrup who have independent and other -- sorry, other independent monitoring programs.

Microphone 2 then 4.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Alex Hillman, proxy holder representing ACCR.

Just to be clear, I'm here representing [indiscernible] directly in Woodside. So this is a question relating to the responses to questions for the auditor. Mr. Goyder, I'll leave it to you, if you pass this through to the auditor or answer directly. The way the responses we've given quite hard to understand what the question actually was. So I might just repeat 1 question and ask -- we invite yourself for the auditor to address it directly. So the relevant question, did Ernst & Young undertake any sensitivity testing using a 2-degree or 1.5-degree scenario, such as the IEA's net 0 emission scenario. If so, why are the results of this scenario modeling not disclosed in the financial statements or mentioned in the audit report, relative to the base case, how did Woodside's credit ratings access to debt and cost of debt vary under this scenario. If you did not complete this sensitivity testing, can you please explain why?

Robert, do you want to deal with the first bit of that.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. So our testing around -- or our sensitivity analysis around impairment testing is detailed in the audit report and the testing is actually around commodity pricing production profiles and other input assumptions, including carbon price and not around -- not around an assumption of a total environment because the those key assumptions going into the impairment testing have the matters climate matters already included within them. So we don't do specifically 1.5 and 2-degree. We actually look at various sensitivities around pricing and other key inputs into the impairment model.

If I may, I think it becomes relevant because Woodside supports the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the sensitivities tested didn't include something which is reflective of the objectives of the Paris Agreement. So it does seem a little bit odd that Woodside going to spouse and support the future that it isn't actually even assessing the financial impact of. So I don't think that answers the question, why was this sensitivity not completed?

I think in the climate report, we do test cash flows against various scenarios.

Yes, which we welcome but that showed that free cash flow drops from memory by about 3/4 in that scenario, which I see as massively financially relevant for shareholders.

It still shows positive free cash flow there.

Much lower value, but this wasn't subject to audit. So part of the audits remits just on the financial statements. And so maybe a follow-up question for yourself, Mr. Goyder, is if there's a potential feature with let's call it 3 quarters less free cash flow in the future, how come this wasn't deemed material to include in the financial statements?

I mean, what do you include in the financial statements, if there's a look at the volatility of oil prices over the last 10 or 20 years. So that's -- there's so many variables. So I think the financial statements have been thoroughly audited and reflective of the position of the company at the moment, and we're very clear on that.

So maybe as a recommendation to your question, what should include the financial statements, I'd suggest a sensitivity aligned with.

I think we've taken our recommendations and financial statements from the accounting authorities not from you.

Okay. Enjoy. Thank you.

Microphone 4.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Barry Wilson, who is a shareholder.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to thank you and the Board for contributing to more family homes, gas requirements and noting the family to cook a meal every night and to heat the house up during winter. My question is what percentage of Woodside's assets contribute to the country's energy needs? And what percentage currently is the country importing their energy needs. And are you concerned with the Woodside assets and the North West Shelf after the last month. I think it was a Chinese warship was cruising through there.

So thanks for your question. I'll get Meg to go through the percentage. We do have domestic gas requirements to provide gas, which we do domestically. But Meg, can you give some more detail?

Sure. Thanks for the question, Mr. Wilson. So under the our agreements with the state. We have domestic gas obligations from each of our assets. The historic assets, they're asset specific, but for all developments going forward, and this is inclusive of Scarborough, 15% of the offshore resource should be reserved and made available to the domestic. So that's the percentage that we target over the long-term. The existing producing assets have their own individual expectations. It's probably worth noting that assuming the shareholders support the merger with BHP Petroleum, we will have a bigger domestic gas position through the Gippsland assets in Bass Strait, and we look forward to supporting the energy needs of the Eastern portion of Australia. I don't have at my hands the percent of energy that Australia imports today. It is worth noting, of course, that much of oil -- much of Australia's oil needs are imported. And unfortunately, over time, Australia's oil production has declined and refining capacity has declined, but we appreciate your kind words, and we're very pleased to be able to support domestic businesses as well as consumers with their energy needs.

Microphone 1.

Mr. Chairman, this is Ms. Lara Samson, who's a proxy holder representing Dr. Elaine and Mr. Terence Lustig.

My question is regarding the global infrastructure partnership. Have you briefed credit rating agencies in regard to the disproportionate level of risk you're taking on with the GIP deal? And if so, what has their reaction been?

By GIP, do you mean the GIP?

GIP.

The reaction from credit agencies, which I think you can see in terms of their positioning with Woodside is favorable in terms of the sell-down on Pluto Train 2.

And in the event, if there's any stalling of the rollout of the Scarborough Pluto plan?

Well, I think as I said in my address, the arrangements with GIP settled, if you like. It will be adjusted as the partnership goes forward in January. I think this year, wasn't it Meg? So -- and as Meg said in her address, we're already commencing significant construction of that work. So it's at the moment, full speed ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you. Microphone 3.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Michael Dowling, Mr. Dowling is a proxy holder representing Mr. David Farley Akins.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to ask this question. I'd like some clarification on some of the topics that have been covered already. Has Woodside undertaken or commissioned its own review of the published scientific literature, which presents evidence of damage to the Murujuga rock art caused by Woodside's pollution on the Burrup?

Yes. I think we've dealt with that one enough.

Well. Have you released that?

I think Meg deal with that one as well.

Has the actual report being released to shareholders for them to see.

No.

And if not, why not then?

Because there's all the stuff that Woodside does internally, which doesn't get released to shareholders or other stakeholders. As Meg said, we value transparency. We value our relationship with the traditional owners in that part of the world. We've developed a very, very good working relationship. We have to work with groups that represent people who live on the Burrup. And nothing we've looked at internally would be at odds with our public position.

Yes. You do realize it's a culturally significant heritage site?

I think that goes beyond saying we live and work up there, and we know that. Thank you. Microphone 5.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Tim [ Fradin ], who is a proxy holder representing Bruce William Howard.

Thanks for this opportunity. Just relating further back to that issue around transparency. And you've touched on the issue of assets before. In an interview with the Australian financial review last month, actually this month, Ms. O'Neill, you said that Woodside had secured nearly all of the carbon emissions offset credits needed for your 2030 emission reduction target. Will you make that portfolio of offsets publicly available so that the quantity and quality can be independently verified. Thank you.

We're sort of straying to climate stuff at the moment, but we'll deal with this 1 quickly. And I mean we have gold standard offsets. They are independently verified, and the comments Meg made to the financial review, I think we're reasonably accurately reported.

Yes. Yes. And our offsets include a portfolio of offsets that we are generating. And we are quite active in generation space. So we have a number of plantations where we're able to control our own ability to generate those offsets and have absolute confidence in the quality of those offsets. And then we also purchased offsets on market. It's probably worth if you're curious about some of the specifics if you refer to our 2021 climate report, we have a list in there of the offsets that were retired in calendar year 2021. At this point in time, we don't intend to publish a roster of what we have in the portfolio, but we have demonstrated that we will publish when we've retired at the end of the year. I'm going to take a couple more on the floor then go online to microphone 2. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Paul Fanning, and he is a shareholder.

Thank you, Richard, and thank you, Meg, for your reports today. But my question is going to be very much targeted to the financial reports. And I draw your attention to initially to Page 11, which Richard is your report. First 1 is, given what -- given that [ Mira Mar ] has unfortunately has resulted in a total exit of operations through the political influences. I would like to think that the Sangomar development in Senegal will not be affected with any types of political interferences in the future. Now neither Meg nor Richard, but at this stage, you might say, well, Africa is an interesting pace. I've traveled widely around the world. And I do worry about this particular development that you're going through really be able to [indiscernible] the head and sort of say, well, this is where we're going to be in the next few years, hopefully, the development moves forward. We just need to be clarification from the executive and the Board that any political interferences could be dealt with and if so, how Okay. Now do with 2 pointers are Page 23, which relates to a whole other things to do with financial metrics, your debt-to-equity ratio or you're gearing as you term it, is -- has been reduced, decreased from 24.4% to 21.9%, which is very good in this economic climate. But with oil and gas prices, on the increase, while we could probably expect that. Post the merger with BHP Petroleum, how would you see the gearing ratio that, that is the debt-to-equity. And the third thing is hedging. You give a bit of a description here of your hedging policy I've been to quite a few AGMs, but this -- your hedging seems to me a little bit ad hoc. You talk about 50% of oil link exposure, which been related to hydrocarbons each year, which will be hedged. Then you also talk about the TFF, the title transfer facility. And then on the third tangent, you talked about the -- there's a separate hedging policy in place from Corpus Christi volumes. So can we perhaps could be a clarification on that. So unfortunately, although you're with like 3 metrics to comment on, but you're above [indiscernible].

Thank you. I'll get Meg to provide some detail. On Senegal, I don't think there's too many countries in the world at the moment that don't have some political risk, including our own. But a significant partner of ours in Senegal will be the Senegalese government through its own energy company. We're happy with progress to date in Senegal. We're at about 60% completed on in terms of the construction. The key item for us now will be the FPSO. So whereas we actually feel more bullish about Sangomar now than we may have because of prevailing prices. So -- but we expect from time to time, there will be some bumps, and we'll deal with those as they come along. On gearing, yes, a lot depends on pricing and -- but we've tried to give an indication in the explanatory memorandum of our sense on capital allocation on where we see the balance between dividends ensuring we've got a balance sheet that is robust through the cycle, and providing and investing in new energy. So I'm not going to give any predictions on where our gearing will be. But the current pricing regime is obviously favorable for cash flows in the organization. And Meg hedging, I just say on hedging a bit of the hedging was really to ensure that we protected downside as we were committing to significant investments.

Yes. If I build on the gearing comment. So in the explanatory memorandum in the pro forma financial statements of the merged company, the gearing as of -- the end of calendar year 2021 would have been 8%. So you're absolutely spot on that our gearing will be below our target range, which gives us a very strong balance sheet gives us the ability to both return value to shareholders as well as make future investment decisions. Hedging, I appreciate your question, and hopefully, we can clarify this. So as we were preparing for the Scarborough final investment decision, we recognized 1 of our financial risks was in a downward oil price shock of putting our credit rating and balance sheet at risk. So we took the decision to hedge 50% of our oil-linked production. And I'll just remind you that much of our LNG is sold on a Brent or oil price linkage. So it's really to provide that protection in a downside scenario. Corpus Christi is a little bit different. So Corpus Christi, we have a contract to lift LNG Corpus Christi, and we sell that largely in Europe. We wanted to take out hedges that would ensure a positive margin on that trading position. So that was -- those were the actions that we took last year, and it has delivered that outcome for us this year.

Just a supplementary 1 on the hedging. Hedging will be -- hedging contracts will be constantly evolving over a period of time, I assume. So what we see here, 12 months' time, we'll probably have some more hedging contracts. Is that the nature of the beast? Or -- or am I reading something incorrectly?

Well, I mean, the Board will regularly assess based on recommendations from management what we should be doing on that front, as I said, this was really to protect the downside situation where we've committed so much capital.

They are my questions.

Thank you. I'm going to take 1 more on the floor. Microphone 5, and then we'll go to others.

Chairman. This is Jessica Panagiris. She's a proxy holder for Paul Edwards Hardy and [ Vicky ] Jane Hardy.

Thanks. So looking through Woodside's own documents, for the Scarborough gas field, for example, in the case of a worst-case accident or blow out or gas spill, this could impact the Ningaloo Reef World Heritage Area and looking at the documents for the Browse gas field which you've talked this morning about wanting to open again in the case of a worst case gas spill, a well blowout in the Torosa gas field would release approximately 140,000 cubic meters of unstabilized gas condensate that would last 77 days and spread across Scott Reef at concentrations lethal to marine life, including migratory whales. So my question this morning is, have you quantified the financial risk to Woodside of worst-case gas spills, blowouts and accidents. And do you think that it's acceptable in 2022 to pose so much risk to Western Australian's beautiful marine ecosystems?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So we absolutely endorse that last bit of your question, which is we do have beautiful marine ecosystems. And in fact, we have beautiful land ecosystems in West Australia. And we make it a very important part of we do to ensure that we operate safely for our people and for the environment within those areas. We run a risk register where we look at what catastrophic risks would be and how we would deal with those. The most important thing we can do is operate our assets in a world-class way so that those risks are as mitigated as they possibly can be -- anything else?

And can I just ask a follow-up then? Are you saying that your accident preparedness for a spill at Browse or at Scarborough is compliant with world best practice?

Well, Browse is not even sanctioned as a project yet. So it's well before. But Scarborough will be the world's best practice on Scarborough.

And it's worth reinforcing that the regulatory regime we work in is a very high standard. So the offshore regulator NOPSEMA is extraordinarily rigorous in how they ensure that operators, Woodside and others are complying with the regulations are implementing best practices and then finally, are prepared in the event something does go wrong. Obviously, our goal is to prevent an incident of that nature. But if something is to happen, we need to ensure we are prepared to respond. And as I said, we challenge ourselves to ensure we are rigorous, but the regulator also is very rigorous in their oversight.

So I'm now going to move to take questions from online.

Mr. Chairman, we have an audio question from [ Axel Dohmann ].

I just had a question about Browse and the Karratha gas plant. So the independent expert report by Gas decline for the merger, not the marginal economics, high carbon content and environmental concerns facing the Browse project and -- the report authors give the project a 25% chance of development. Now if Woodside doesn't sanction Browse, what would this mean for Karratha gas plant and the rapidly [ depleting ] fields in the North West Shelf project. And Moreover, when will these assets need to be decommissioned given that Karratha's utilization rates has already starting to fall and that recently signed third-party contracts only cover a small portion of liquefaction capacity. And -- how much is that decommissioning expected to cost?

So thanks, Ms. Meg.

Yes, thanks for the question. So as I highlighted, we already have [indiscernible] the Karratha gas plants. We are working with our partners in North West Shelf joint venture have been looking for other gas to process through this infrastructure, recognizing it's still in very good condition. We have secured contracts with Pluto and with Waitsia to process gas through the Karratha gas plant, and we're very happy to start up the Pluto interconnector earlier this year, Waitsia will start up in 2023. But we do expect to start decommissioning LNG trains in the Karrtha gas plant as early as 2024 to shut in the first train. If we are unable to secure additional gas resources and bear in mind, Browse is a very important one, but it's not the only one. We will be going down a measured and orderly plan to start to shut in additional LNG trains. From the perspective of decommissioning, we have already started decommissioning activities in the Northwest shelf. So we have done plug -- well plug and abandonments. This year, we'll be doing a project to remove some flow line and some equipment from the Echo-Yodel field. So as assets are no longer required for production of gas in the field, we take appropriate steps to decommission those timely. I would point you to the explanatory memorandum for the merger, if you want to understand the cost and the cost profile. There's a graph in that document that outlines the decommissioning costs for both heritage, Woodside and the heritage BHP Petroleum, so you can get a flavor for the pace at which those dollars are spent, but it is spent over 20 to 30 years' time period.

Thanks, Meg. It looks like we've got a number of questions online, which we might go to.

Mr. Chairman, our next question is an online written question from Brett Morgan. What other companies' plans or preferred options for financing the projects that are approaching final investment decision. For example Trion could require significant CapEx from [indiscernible] and Calypso and potentially Browse from about 2025, when the company also has a significant proportion of its debt due for a payment around that time.

So thanks for the question. There's a lot goes to managing the capital side of this. So there's decisions that need -- will need to be made on Trion potentially Browse and expansion in the Gulf of Mexico and indeed, there's significant capital being spent at Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 as well as some of the other smaller projects we've got going across Australia, and there will be a maintenance money required in the other operations. There's also the timing of our cash flows. There's the timing of debt repayments and extending new facilities -- so the board will take all those things into account, preserving a strong balance sheet. There's also the potential of sell-downs as we've discussed earlier on things like Scarborough. So be assured that the Board will be very watchful in terms of any obligations we make and our ability to fund in a way that doesn't create any stresses in the organization and provides best outcomes for shareholders that we can foresee at the time.

Chairman.

Next question?

Mr. Chairman, we have an online region question from Mr. Mark James Horner. Post the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum division, if successful, then what is the proposed dividend policy?

So I think we've been reasonably -- well, we've tried to put out a profile of what that would look like in the explanatory memorandum. And it will depend obviously on what our earnings are. But we've indicated a minimum of 50% payout ratio. We'll also look at the most tax effective way of getting excess funds back to shareholders, but we also have to fund the projects that I was referring to earlier. We -- the Board will always make sure as best we can that we preserve the strength of the balance sheet through any cycle, but we're also very clear that we want to return earnings to shareholders in the most effective way we can.

Mr. Chairman, we have an online written question from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. Did any of the main proxy advisers, for example, ACSI, Ownership Matters, Glass Lewis, ISS and ASA, recommend a vote against any of the Board's recommendations on today's resolutions. Does the Chair and CEO have a view about the proposed changes to Australian proxy advisers -- adviser regulations, which would force proxy advisers to fact check their reports by supplying companies with a copy as it was simultaneously sent to paying clients and then giving companies a right of reply to correct any errors via the ASX announcements platform. The proposal was blocked by the Senate, but Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg is expected to try again if the government is reelected and he holds his seat -- should he do this?

Thanks. I know Mr. Mayne has a view on this. The -- so -- 2 of the proxy advisers recommended a vote against the advisory shareholder vote on the climate report. Other than that, proxy advisers, I think, have gone -- their recommendations have gone with all the Board recommendations. We have very good engagement with all the proxy advisers, and that's where we tend to do our advocacy, if you like, with proxy advisers. I'm not going to get into the politics of any reform to proxy advisers. We -- their information is confidential and I think investors pay for that. So again, I'm not going to get into more detail than that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an online region question from Mr. James Bevin Power and Ms. Jillian Mary Power. And the question is, the notice of AGM and accompanying voting form, together with the merger explanatory memorandum, was received by ordinary postal mail on Monday, 16 May 2022. To be effective, the voting form had to be returned by 10:00 a.m. on the next day, Tuesday, 17 May 2022. This was physically impossible why were these crucial documents not mailed to shareholders in reasonable time to ensure that they could participate and vote on such an important company issue.

So thank you to the Power and can I apologize that you weren't able to get the documents by mail until a couple of days ago. We were careful to distribute materials in time to give shareholders adequate time to consider and reflect on proposals before the meeting today. Consistent with our -- and those materials were dispatched on the 13th of April -- consistent with our views on sustainability. We only sent hard copies to shareholders who requested them. So and most shareholders, I think, have had the opportunity to look online and deal with the meeting online. We agree it's an important issue. And hopefully, the Power had an opportunity to consider and vote in time for today.

Mr. Chairman, we have a written online question from Mr. Matthew Michael Squires. Was Elon Musk right when he said recently, ESG is a scam. When will Woodside have the courage and leadership to assert this too.

Mr. Musk, what he was referring to with ESG, but we take it very -- we take ESG incredibly seriously. We want to create value for all our stakeholders, our shareholders, our employees, our suppliers, the environment, the communities in which we live and operate, and we take our obligations seriously and hopefully, that's reflected in the way we act and behave not just in the way we talk.

Mr. Chairman, this is an online written question from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. Woodside has spent more than $1 million of shareholder funds buying access to our 2 major political parties over the 6 years. When are we going to finally follow the lead of BHP and Rio Tinto and stop giving 6-figure subscription payments to the 2 major parties every year buying access to their senior officials, ministers and elected representatives. At a time when the lack of integrity in Canberra is front and center, surely an evolving ESG policy at Woodside would preclude payments to political parties in the period ahead.

So thanks, Mr. Mayne, for the question. The Woodside board in 2021 made a decision that it would not be renewing or seeking any membership of any political party business engagement forum. We do, from time to time, attend political events. We disclose those attendances if there's a fee to attend events some businesses don't we disclose it, but that's limited to $100,000 each year.

Mr. Chairman, we have an online written question from Mr. Adam Hoye. I merged BHP Petroleum Woodside would be a significant global oil and gas player, which is appealing considering the current elevated oil price. However, in an effort to understand possible risks of the transaction, in your opinion, at what level does the oil price become demand destructive?

I'm not sure my opinion is going to matter much on this. Meg, do you want to offer an opinion?

Look, I think we're actually seeing it already. we're seeing examples of people making decisions about vacationing differently because airfare is too expensive for the long-distance driving trip that they might have made to see relatives is too expensive. We're hearing stories coming out of Europe of small businesses shutting down because their energy bills were too high. So I think we are already seeing the impact -- we're seeing some really detrimental things from a climate perspective. We're seeing businesses switch from gas to coal because coal-fired generation is cheaper than gas-fired generation even at today's coal prices. So we do recognize that high prices are not a good outcome for anybody. That said, in the context of the merger, when we look at the totality of the business, we do still believe that the combined business will give us significant diversification. It strengthens our balance sheet. It gives us resilience throughout the transition. It gives us more commodity diversification as well and market diversification. So we're not concerned that high prices would be detrimental to the merger. In fact, it positions us quite well from a balance sheet perspective in terms of future decisions, both in traditional hydrocarbon business as well as new energy businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I have an online recent question from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. Retail shareholder voting participation has been falling in recent years because we all feel powerless in the face of big institutional votes. When disclosing the outcome of voting on all resolutions today -- could you please advise the ASX how many shareholders voted for and against each item similar to what happens with the scheme of arrangement. This will provide a better gauge of retail shareholder sentiment on all resolutions and was disclosure initiative adopted by the likes of Metcash, Altium and Dexus after their 2021 AGMs. I also note that Woodside has never published a full transcript of AGM debate on your website and was unable to find any webcast archive of last year's AGM. The likes of Crown Resorts, Woolworths, IAG, [indiscernible] Suncorp, ANZ, [ Transurban ] and the ASX now all provide full AGM transcripts plus an archive of the webcast. Will Woodside follow suit in 2022.

So thanks, Stephen. I'd push back on 1 aspect of that, which is the big institutions. I mean the institutions are made up of people investing with them. And if investors aren't happy with the institutions, they should reflect that either in their investment with them or in the appropriate manner with institutions. Institutions often tell us that we, they, the institutions represent thousands and thousands of investors and that all they're doing is representing their views. So I think if investors have a particular view that's a way of dealing with. Consistent with previous years, we'll upload the AGM addresses of me, the Chair and the CEO of Meg O'Neill, we'll upload the voting results for the AGM. And we'll upload a link to the webcast should anyone after today want to watch the AGM, which I'm sure will be compelling viewing.

Mr. Chairman, our next question is an audio question from Margaret [indiscernible].

Thank you for that for the opportunity to ask a question and allowing shareholders to ask questions. Mr. Goyder, you said a couple of times that the Woodside plans are aligned with the tariffs and are aligned with COP26, but the Climate Action 100 plus with 700 signatories responsible for USD 68 trillion in assets under management has recently assessed Woodsiders failing all criteria of capital allocation alignment with the Paris agreement. How do you explain climate actions, 100-plus assessment given what you've said during this meeting.

Yes. Thanks for the question. Meg, do you want to deal with the climate action?

Sure. So look, there are a lot of parties that profess opinions about how individual companies perform. Thanks for the question, [indiscernible]. I'd encourage you to look at our climate reports. In our climate reports, we've got some very useful graphs that demonstrate how our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reduction trajectory is consistent with Paris agreement. I think it's also worth highlighting again that there are many different Paris compliance scenarios. IEA Net-Zero is 1 scenario, but there are many other scenarios that will keep global warming to below 2 degrees C. So the climate report is probably the best source of truth for you to get a deeper understanding of how our business is, in fact, Paris aligned.

Mr. Chairman, I have an online written question from Mr. Joseph Kenneth Kremer, Mr. Kremer writes, I appreciate your thoughtful and prudent stewardship of shareholder capital, also your efforts to maintain availability of energy to people who need it. As some parties seek to limit or end energy production, which has a terrible knock-on effect especially to poorer countries and communities who can no longer afford it, it is encouraging to see Woodside and its leaders focus on making energy available. Can you share your thoughts on how Woodside's energy production efforts contribute to better availability and energy pricing?

So thanks, Mr. Kremer. Meg, do you want to go with that one?

Sure. It's a fantastic question, and I appreciate your recognition, Mr. Kremer that there are still many in this world who do not have reliable access to electricity, who cook with things like wood and dung and who don't have access to reliable heating, reliable refrigeration for their food. So we do recognize that as an energy producer, one of our most important tasks is to help provide energy that the world needs to support economic growth and to support better health outcomes around the world. Look, we have a capital allocation framework that helps frame how we make our investment decisions. We do recognize that we need to continue to also make a financial return for our shareholders. And so that is part and parcel of our thinking. So it really is very much the twofold challenge that we're working is how do we help meet the world's energy needs whilst doing that in a way consistent with Paris. I think it's something. And again, I'll point to our climate report. I think the climate report nicely describes how our business strategy aligns with a decarbonizing world. But we do recognize one of the most important things we do is provide reliable and affordable energy to people all around the world.

Thanks, Meg. Mr. Chairman, we have an online written question from Mr. Richard Wilkins. Does the payment of PRRT give rise to franking credits?

Unfortunately, it doesn't, does not. But thanks, Mr. Wilkins. I think -- I don't think there's any more questions. We might move on to the next item of business, item 2, which is the BHP Petroleum merger. I'm doing the agenda is to consider and if thought fit to pass as an ordinary resolution, the approval of the BHP Petroleum merger. Details of the resolution are set out on Pages 9 and 10 of the notice of meeting and more comprehensive information about the merger is contained in the merger explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting. The notice is now before the meeting. Now are there any questions in relation to item 2 from shareholders physically in attendance? Can we have the lights back on the room, please? Thank you. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Geoff Reid, proxy holder representing the Australian Shareholders' Association.

In the merger agreement, you've stated that you expect to achieve merger synergies of approximately $400 million. BHP Petroleum is a big company. Woodside is a big company. Integrating the systems together looks like a challenge to me. And you've got a target dated the 1st of June. So do you expect to integrate the systems and achieve the $400 million by the 1st of June or after the 1st of June? And will you have to buy residual service -- will you have a residual service agreement with BHP Corporate to keep BHP Petroleum running?

Thanks, Mr. Reid. It's a great question. Meg has obviously been intimately involved in all of this. So I'll get her to give more detail, the synergies we expect to achieve over 2 years. Clearly, June 1 is the targeted day 1 subject to the shareholder vote today, and there's a lot to do from June 1 for some period of time. But Meg, can you go to a bit more detail?

Sure. Thanks for the question, Mr. Reid. So what we've been doing over the last 6-plus months is integration planning. So we have had a team of Woodside and BHP Petroleum professionals across all disciplines from drilling to production to projects to HR to procurements, working on how we bring the 2 companies together. So we are ready for legal day 1, which we expect, assuming shareholder support for the merger, to be the 1st of June. But that's when the real work begins. And you're absolutely right that integrating 2 computer systems takes time, 2 ERP systems takes time, bringing the organizations together will take a bit of time. So we expect that the synergies capture will be effective for calendar year 2024 because we do recognize that there is a bit of work to do to bring all those systems together. We will continue to receive services from BHP Group for a period of up to 6 months. And that again, is to help with that transition of those computer systems that right now are fully embedded in how BHP runs its business.

Microphone 2 again.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Alex Hillman, and he is a shareholder.

Very proud shareholder. The independent valuation of BHP merger by KPMG in April shows that just a 10% fall in long-term oil prices below the base case. We decreased the NPV of the recently sanctioned Scarborough project by 80%, and the Browse had actually lose $160 million. Given the current market volatility, how can shareholders be assured of long-term value? And at any stage, are you actually just going to give up on Browse?

So I think -- thanks, Mr. Hillman. And hopefully, you'll start as a proud shareholder. I think Meg talked about Browse and our position on Browse. Scarborough, we think Scarborough's as good a project as there is globally at the moment in terms of its resilience, it's low CO2. As you would may or may not expect, our marketing team is right now is being inundated with calls from customers who want to access gas from Scarborough when it starts producing in 2026. So we feel right now, very positive about the outlook for Scarborough. We've mitigated a lot of the risk around construction costs, and we've got offtake arrangements in place. So we feel at the moment that it's going to be a very good project for shareholders.

Maybe if I can build on that, Richard. So prior to the final investment decision, we conducted very rigorous and robust economic testing of the development to ensure that the development would be robust in a range of scenarios, be it a low side reserve outcome, cost pressure outcome or a low price outcome. The independent expert report, they use a different methodology. They make different assumptions around things like pricing and discount rate. So they may well come to different conclusions but we stand by the quality of the investment decision.

And microphone 2 again.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Paul Fanning, and he is a shareholder.

Richard and Meg, look, these questions are definitely on target in relation to the explanatory memorandum for the merger of the -- you showing interest. I refer you to Sections 9.22 and 9.23, Pages 109 to 110 of the explanatory memorandum. I believe in quite recently, the ATO has issued a class ruling for shareholder relief. To the context, I am a very long-term BHP shareholder and a very proud one. And in more recent years, I'm a very proud shareholder of Woodside. Quantity, my value of BHP Holding is quite significant. So I stand again quite particularly from Section 9.23, Page 110. Now I know the -- I think I know what your response, but I think just for the betterment of and the recording for the AGM, I'd like you to perhaps update the meeting as to the ATO outcome for a class ruling? The second part of my question relates to post the merger implementation, have we got any metrics or tabling on how the share price for both Woodside will look and how the share price for BHP will look because obviously, there's going to be a transfer asset value from 1 side to the other. I've been discouraging through the memorandum, but I don't seem to be able to find anything.

You're right because there will be a forecast, and none of us is in a position to be able to do that. The class ruling is really is a matter for BHP, and it's something we can't go to. The share price -- all I'd say on share prices, Mr. Fanning, is we're in a volatile world at the moment. Wall Street had a tough night last night. We're seeing daily movements in oil prices that move our share price, and then we've got a merger and then there'll be issue of some BHP shareholders who may or may not decide to retain their Woodside shares and the like. So the share price will take care of itself over time. Our focus is to run assuming we get shareholder approval is to run the merged business as well as we can and look after the interests of our stakeholders. And if we run it well, if we meet our obligations -- our sustainability obligations, then we think you'll do okay.

Okay. Just sorry, just 1 supplementary question. So post implementation, which will effectively be a June 1, June 1? Would there be a period where the dividend flow from petroleum interest from ex BHP take to transgress across to Woodside? Or would that be implied being immediate?

Yes. So you'll get your -- as BHP has outlined, you'll get your conversion from BHP to Woodside shares. And how that's made up is clearly, I think, in -- and you understand that anyway, the frank component, the unfranked all that. Then any decisions on dividends beyond that will apply to all the shareholders of Woodside will be a decision for the Woodside Board.

So there could be in the half year results in August, that could be a very small portion that would be the benefit of the...

I'm not going to -- I won't go to any sort of forecasting, if you don't mind.

Maybe to nuance, when we report our half year, it will include the 6 months of Woodside stand-alone plus that 1 month where BHP is a fully owned part of the Woodside business.

Okay. That's what I was wanting to hear.

And correct me if I'm wrong, any dividend will apply to the shares issued at the time the dividend is strong.

Sorry about the position question. That's probably worth comment on the record.

Microphone 2 again.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Will [indiscernible] he is a proxy holder representing Market Forces.

Just a quick question on the -- I guess, the institutional investors who have moved away from holdings in pure play oil and gas companies that retain holdings to BHP. So obviously, internationally, there's quite a few large investors that have policies to rule out investment in pure play oil and gas producers domestically, and some of the biggest super funds, Australian Super, UniSuper, have very limited holdings in Woodside, but larger stakes in BHP. Has Woodside engaged with those investors that have sold down or excluded Woodside shareholdings about what they'll do with the shares they receive as part of the BHP merger? Is there a concern that, that overhang of investments will see a share price decline?

So I mean we've engaged. Thanks for the question. We've obviously engaged with our own shareholders and any prospective shareholder. I don't like to add details on that. And Meg and the team have done significant offshore engagement with shareholders as well as onshore. There will be some potential volatility around the share price as some exit and some enter. We will be a significant company in terms of index funds and based on our performance to date this year. So we're pretty confident that we'll have a very good, if it's the right word, portfolio of shareholders once the -- if approved once the merger proceeds.

Okay. And have you seen an increasing trend of investors that are moving towards selling down pure play oil and gas holdings. And can you comment on whether those are the trends that you expect to see continue?

Yes. I mean not here. Meg might want to comment on it. I mean there's some in Europe as you pointed out. I think increasingly, and even before the Ukrainian situation, the world, I think, was coming to a realization that energy security was a key strategic issue. And increasingly, I think shareholders are seeing that Woodside with what we are doing with our current portfolio, with prospective portfolio post the BHP merger, and then what we're doing in new energy is pretty -- going to be a pretty important player in that energy transition. So we've probably had more interest in incoming shareholders than those exiting in recent times because of that broader geopolitical global situation. Would you agree?

I agree.

Yes. Microphone 2 again.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Kempten Robin and he's a shareholder.

You'll be delighted to know that mine is not a complicated question. I'm wondering how many people in the room have actually lived in Karratha, Broome, Derby, Wyndham. I don't think many have. We need -- we have -- our family has 200 employees in the North. We need companies like Woodside. I don't have much more to say, but -- welcome to the West, Ms. O'Neill and keep up the damn good work.

Thank you, Mr. Robin. Thank you. She's doing a good job. Meg's, I'm now going to sort of create a love like just like thing for, Meg. Meg has been here since 2018, but she's already a very strong female supporter. So apologies to those in the room who aren't. Online?

Mr. Chairman, we have an online question from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. This transaction will double the size of Woodside and also potentially more than double the number of Woodside's shareholders. How many shareholders do we currently have? And what steps have we taken? Or will we take to manage down the size of our share register, given that many of our new shareholders will have a relatively small parcel of Woodside shares? Also, do we have an estimate as to how many Australians own shares in both Woodside and BHP, such that this deal will simply add to their existing Woodside holding? What are the estimates on how many BHP shareholders will not take up their Woodside shares?

So thanks, Stephen, for that, there's a bidding in that. I think BHP, Meg is going to manage a situation where people would end up with a small number of Woodside shares. So that they actually can receive money rather than stock. And so that will be managed. We'll have a look at what the Woodside register looks like post the merger, but we welcome as many shareholders as we can, as many retail shareholders as we can.

Yes. I'd just echo that. We value our retail shareholders, and we value our small shareholders and a meeting like this is an opportunity to engage. As Richard said, BHP is offering some of their smaller shareholders the opportunity for cash in lieu of shares. And there are a number of BHP shareholders, largely in South Africa who for a variety of legal reasons, can't hold our shares. But BHP is going to manage a process to be able to provide cash to those shareholders. At the end of the day, we've done quite a bit of work on understanding demand for Woodside shares versus the available supply. And we do think there will be a very strong uptake. So we look forward to having all these new shareholders on our register.

Okay. Thank you. So I think we're probably done on. I think I now put item 2 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 2 now. Your handset should be activated. So please enter your vote. If you have any difficulties, raise your hand and we'll get someone to come and assist you.

I think the request was for a display of the votes.

Yes. So the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are now displayed on the screen. So I'm going to move on to Item 3A to 3D, the election of Dr. Ryan, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Wyatt. Items 3A to 3C relate to the reelection of Dr. Ryan, Ms. Pickard and Mr. Cooper, directors who are elected at the 2019 AGM and retired by rotation at this meeting. Being eligible, Dr. Ryan and Ms. Pickard and Mr. Cooper offer themselves for reelection. Each year, the Board conducts an evaluation of the performance of individual directors. Based on the 2021 performance reviews, the Board supports the reelection of Dr. Ryan, Ms. Pickard and Mr. Cooper. Item 3D relates to the election of Mr. Wyatt as a director. As Mr. Wyatt was appointed since the last AGM, he is required under the company's constitution to retire at this meeting. Being eligible, Mr. Wyatt offers himself for election, and the Board supports the election of Mr. Wyatt as a director. Details of the directors seeking reelection or election are set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting. We'll now hear from the directors seeking reelection or election to the Board, and then take questions on all elections and reelections together. So firstly, Sarah Ryan, would you please come to the microphone?

Thank you, Richard. Good morning, everybody. So my name is Sarah Ryan. I'm a geoscientist by education. I have a PhD in geophysics. And my background has been in the global oil and gas industry, mostly around oil and gas -- mostly around oil and gas technology and innovation, engineering and services, and mostly with Schlumberger. So I'm currently a Non-Executive Director on the -- also on the Board of OZ Minerals, Aurizon, Viva Energy and also in the Future Battery Industries Co-operative Research Center. I'm an elected Fellow of the Academy -- Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, where I'm Deputy Chairman of the Energy Forum. I'm very pleased to be with you here today and standing for reelection on what's a very historic and exciting time for Woodside in the future. I look forward to working with Richard and my Board colleagues and the management for a bright future for Woodside to provide energy to the world for today and tomorrow. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. Ann Pickard, unfortunately cannot be here with us in person today. So still we will hear from her via video recording from the United States.

Good morning. My name is Ann Pickard. I'm sorry, I'm not here today with you in person, but I think we've become all a lot more adaptable since COVID came. I've been in the oil and gas business for over 30 years, starting with Mobil and then with 17 years with Shell. And then the last 2 years, the most exciting years have been here representing you all on the Woodside Board. My specialty area through the 30 years has been LNG, liquefied natural gas, and I'm excited to be part of Woodside's future in LNG. I'm also headed the Sustainability Committee at Woodside, and that is probably one of the most exciting things to be involved with these days as we look towards the energy transition and how we can continue to thrive and survive 20, 30, 40 years from now, but making the world a safer, cleaner place to operate in. I've worked all over the world, including 3 years here in Australia, where I was Country Chair of Shell's operations and assets. I look forward to representing Woodside going forward, and I seek your support to be reelected again today. Thank you.

Thanks, Ann. Can I now ask Frank Cooper to come to the microphone, please, Frank?

Thanks, Richard, and good morning, everyone. My regime is in your paper, so I shan't bore you with it. I would like to simply say it's been a great privilege to serve on the Board of Woodside over the past 9 years. And this current period is probably the most exciting point in that time with 2 developments we have going as well as the opportunity for the merger with BHP. With your support, I look forward to being able to work with my Board colleagues and the executive to ensure we bring you the shareholder value from those opportunities that you do deserve. So thank you.

Thanks, Frank. Can I now introduce Ben Wyatt. Ben, would you please come to the microphone.

Thank you, Richard. Good morning, everybody. Many in this room will know me from my former role in Western Australian politics. So it is good to see you here. Can I acknowledge and thank Nicole for her acknowledgment of the country and acknowledge the many aboriginal people we work with and partner with and employ within Woodside. To use the parlance of my former profession, I feel a casual vacancy on the Woodside Board about a year ago, and it has been an extraordinary year for a very important Western Australian headquartered company, and not just the appointment of, of course, Meg as our CEO. But maybe that issues that we've discussed this morning around BHP Petroleum, Scarborough, our capital allocation framework. And of course, humanity is great challenge around decarbonization. One thing I'm very, very aware of is a company like Woodside, Israel headquartered in Perth, employing approximately 3,500 premerger, highly skilled, well-paid Western Australians, it is a very important company for Western Australia and for Australia. And our skill set, the skill set of the company is fundamentally important as the world seeks to decarbonize, including, of course, our customers and our stakeholders more broadly. I will conclude by thanking the Board who saw fit to appoint me to that casual vacancy nearly a year ago and to those shareholders who have voted for me and will vote for me. I thank you for the faith that you have in my decisions and working with the Board over the coming years. Thanks very much.

Actually, Ben, you might get a higher approval rate here than you did in your previous role. The motions that Dr. Ryan, Ms. Pickard, Mr. Cooper are reelected as directors and Mr. Wyatt is elected as Director are now before the meeting. Are there any questions on Item 3 from shareholders in the room? Doesn't look like it. If not, I'll move to written questions and comments that are written by shareholders attending the AGM online. So are there any written questions?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a written online question from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. Chairman, Richard Goyder is arguably in breach of the ASA workload rules given that he currently chairs Perth-based Woodside, Sydney-based Qantas and the Melbourne-based AFL Commission, Australia's largest sporting code, which of these roles is the most time consuming and which is likely to end first? Also, when our chair has a clash and is unavailable, could Dr. Sarah Ryan outline who takes on the role of acting Chairman?

So thanks, Mr. Mayne, again for the question. I don't think I am in breach of the ASA workload because the AFL is not a listed company. I've just got 2 listed company Board memberships and both those businesses know that I prioritize my work around that. I'd actually argue that in both businesses, I've been able to commit substantial time, particularly over the last 2 years through the pandemic. And you've seen the workload that we've had at Woodside over the last 12 months. But we've got processes internally if anyone on the Board or anyone else is not satisfied with that, that I'm certainly advised on it. If there is a circumstance where, for any reason or not, that I'm unable to fulfill my duties at Woodside, then the arrangements are that the chair of the Audit Committee would take on those roles while I am unable to do them. I'm more than satisfied and I think the Board is that I can commit the time necessary to discharge the roles effectively, and I understand how important the role is.

Mr. Chairman, and then we have another online written question from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. It refers to Item 3D. Could Ben, please comment on why he is yet to buy any shares in Woodside? Could he also comment on what links he retains with the WA labor government and does he believe he can help Woodside manage its political risks in WA? Also with the addition of Ben Wyatt to the Board, how many of our directors are based in Perth and where do the other directors live?

So the directors based in Perth are Meg, myself, Ben Wyatt, Gene Tilbrook and Frank Cooper. So there's 5 of us based in Perth. I don't think it's relevant, anyone's connections with any political party in terms of their ability to take out their role. We appointed Ben to the Board because we felt he would bring enormous capabilities and capacities to the Board. He has leaving politics aside, a very successful career in the Australian Parliament, a very successful time as State Treasurer. And prior to that, a very significant academic and background. So -- and thus far, the Board is very, very pleased with the contribution Ben's been able to make to the Board, and I think Meg, even the executive would say the same in terms of the way Ben's been able to assist you in things he's been able to assist on in terms of making your jobs better. So we're really positive on the contribution Ben can make. And Ben, over time, we'll acquire the shares that we now require shareholders to hold -- directors to hold. He gotten yet -- and he's already got -- how many he got? A whole 800. They're going -- they're more expensive anyway. So that will start happening. I don't think we've got any other questions. So I now put Resolutions 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D to the meeting. Each of these resolutions is independent and should be voted on separately. Please enter your votes for items 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D. A summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on these resolutions is now displayed on the screen. I bet you didn't get 98.65% vote in Victoria Park. Item 4 on the agenda is to consider the company's remuneration report for 2021. The report is set out on Pages 69 to 92 of the annual report. It explains the company's policy on the remuneration of directors and senior executives and provides remuneration information for 2021. Although the vote on the remuneration report is only advisory, the Board will take the outcome into consideration when determining the remuneration policy. The motion remuneration report for the year ended 31 December 2021 is adopted is now before the meeting. Are there any questions in relation to item 4 from shareholders physically in attendance? Here we've got microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Paul Fanning, he is a shareholder.

Richard, you'd probably be thinking I've been scaring the annual report. I may have been to some extent.

I probably right. I wouldn't know.

Well, I've had the benefit coming over from Melbourne. So I've been looking through the annual report and picking the headlines out of it. In regard to looking at Page 73, and then probably Page 74, 75, there's a bit of a shakeup Sherry Duhe, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, has ceased to hold the role. So therefore, is not an executive KMP for the purposes of the remuneration report. We don't seem to see who is the replacement. We don't seem to see the replacement having figured in here as the list of senior executives. Would that be strange, unusual? Or is that just a -- some other reason?

I think I've got this right. Sherry left between the end of the year and when the annual report was prepared. We've appointed Graham Tiver. Graham stand up, as Chief Financial Officer. So Graham will definitely be in next year's REM report.

And Mr. Fanning, just to clarify, Sherry's remuneration is reported in here because she was [indiscernible] perios. So Mr. Tiver will be reported in the 2022 report.

As a KMP.

I see. In regards to your -- the composition of the metrics for your REM policy, you have -- as I understand, a 70-30 split, 70% related to corporate introduced and 30% related to individual on KPIs. How do you -- how you as the organization, do you frame up the weightings of the -- both the short-term KPI and the long-term KPIs for making the appropriate executives? Do you go to an actuary? Or do you have some solvency that you look at?

Well, we have an external adviser, a remuneration of adviser, who provides external advice build. The Board early in the year and ideally prior to the start of the year, agrees with Meg and her team, the key issues that we'll be assessing their performance on during the year. And then the way the scheme works is 87.5% of the award out of the scheme is in shares, which is very strongly aligned with the interest of shareholders. So shares go up over time, the reward to the executive goes up. Of those, I think I'm right on this, 27.5% vest after 3 years. And then there's 30% that is RTSR tested over 5 years and 30% the vest after 5 years. So the long-term performance is around the total shareholder return over 5 years, which again, is very aligned to the interest of shareholders. And then -- and the only short-term award really is a 12.5% cash in the first year.

Yes. Do you -- just supplementary question, Richard. Do you see this sort of policy reasonably phenomenous with other entities of a similar scale to Woodside be it in the materials sector, albeit in the petroleum sector space?

Yes. I mean remuneration schemes are different. We've tried to put together a scheme that attracts and retains the best talent -- and that's more important today than it probably has ever been. And it will be very significantly important for us with the merger of BHP Petroleum business. We also want to make sure it's a line to the interest of shareholders and that it is that those interests are more than the short term. And we think the design of it works pretty well. And this is without preempting the vote here, I would say we've had more support for the scheme this year from institutional shareholders than we've had for some time. I think because of the way it's aligned and the way the Board from time to time -- hopefully, not too often, but from time to time. So its judgment on various things, if there has been misalignment with shareholders, and we saw that a couple of years ago. Thank you. So if there's no questions in the room. Are there any online questions?

There's one. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have 1 written question from Mr. Richard Wilkins. The 5 scorecard measures are worthwhile, but they are either absolute numbers or open to judgment. There is nothing that assesses added value relative to the asset base. Please include a measure for ROA or ROACE in the future, perhaps instead of delivery against business priorities?

So thanks, Mr. Wilkins. And I'll ensure that Gene Tilbrook chairs the REM Committee has looked at. But we've done a lot of work on the measures of scorecard measures. We actually would disagree with your notion that the added value relative to the asset base production is very important. And as our earnings and the costs go to -- the way we measure cost go to ensuring that where we remain disciplined on that front, i.e., we're not getting production at any cost or we're not getting marginal profit at any cost. The delivery against business priorities is incredibly important because if you look at the last 12 months and look at the things that Meg and the team have been dealing with, which we're talking about today. They're the sort of things that we want team -- the executive team to be focused on and deliver as well as operational excellence. So at the moment, we feel pretty good about the measures and the way we deal with it from time to time. As I just said, the Board will exercise its discretion and judgment on things, but our preference is not to do that too much because it devalues the scheme. That's it. So I'll now put item 4 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 4. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are displayed on the screen. And we'll move to item 5, which is the CEO, Executive Incentive Scheme Awards. So item 5 is to consider the proposed grant of restricted rights and performance rights to the CEO on the terms set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting. These Executive Incentive Scheme Awards form part of, is the annual's remuneration for the 2021 financial year. The motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions on Item 5 from shareholders? Are there any written questions? Or online? It doesn't look like there are. So I'll now put item 5 to the meeting. If you've not already done, so please admit your vote on item 5 now. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are displayed on the screen. I hope. There we go. So Meg, the shareholders want you to work hard and get well paid. Item 6 on the agenda is to consider and if thought fit to reinsert the proportional takeover provisions contained in Schedule 1 of the company's constitution. Details of the special resolution is set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting. The motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions on item 6 from shareholders, either online or in the room? It's a pretty simple one, I think. And I'll put item 6 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 6 now. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on these resolutions are displayed on the screen. And then we'll move on to item 7, which is the change of company name. Item 7 of the agenda is to consider the change of name of Woodside Petroleum Limited to Woodside Energy Group Limited. Details of the special resolution are set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting. The motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions on item 7 from shareholders in the room or online? If not, I'll put item 7 to the meeting. Again, if you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 7 now, and we'll put up the proxy direct votes received before the meeting, we'll display those on the screen now. So I'll now move to item 8, which is the change of external auditor. Item 8 on the agenda is to consider the change of order to PricewaterhouseCoopers. PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed following a competitive tender process and will take over from the company's existing audit firm, Ernst & Young. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to sincerely thank Ernst & Young for their dedicated service to Woodside over many, many years. Details of the resolution are set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting. The motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions in relation to item 8 from shareholders in the room or online? If not, I put item 8 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 8 now. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on these resolutions are displayed on the screen or will be -- thank you. So I'll move to item 9, which is the climate report. Item 9 on the agenda is to consider -- I don't know if anyone's feeling cold in here, but -- there's no global warming in here. Item 9 on the agenda is to consider the climate -- the company's climate report. The report summarizes Woodside's climate-related plans, activities, progress and climate-related data for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021. Although the vote on the climate report is only advisory, the Board will take the outcome into consideration when reviewing the company's approach to climate change. The motion that the climate report for the year ended 31 December 2021, is it be adopted is now before the meeting. Are there any questions from shareholders physically in attendance, and I'll go to microphone 2.

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Geoff Reid, a proxy voter for the Australian Shareholders Association.

Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, I'd like to commend you and the Board and the company for producing this report, and also for putting it to an advisory vote today. I think it's a great step forward. Can you please tell us when will be the next occasion we get to have an advisory vote on the climate report?

Yes. Thanks, Mr. Reid. We were asked by shareholders to do this, which we've done. We've engaged significantly, as I said in my earlier comments, with shareholders. I think we've had more than 110 meetings with stakeholders through the last 12 months. The Board will post the meeting today, review not just the vote, but also comments and feedbacks we've had from proxy advisers and shareholders on the report. And as part of that, we'll consider what timeframes we consider bringing this report back to shareholders for an advisory vote. One of the points I'd make is that it's pretty ingrained with our overall strategic direction. And there's not a lot of point in putting this to a vote every year if the strategy on it hasn't changed. But if it does change, then clearly, we'll look for feedback from shareholders. So that's something we'll look at post the meeting.

So indication, Mr. Chairman, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years?

Somewhere between every year and never.

So no, I think it would be unfair to -- I think the Board needs to have a good conversation on this. And clearly, we're getting fee. I don't want to be flippant.

Geoff, clearly, we'll take feedback from you and from other stakeholders as we look at that. But we've had a fair bit of input on this just in the last week. And we want to step back as a Board to have a considered conversation about it. This is incredibly important to Woodside and incredibly important to our stakeholders. And therefore, whether it goes to an AGM or not, the engagement with shareholders will, in my view, only increase because of the importance of this issue.

Might I suggest that the climate report we've just received reflects Woodside. Next year's, if there is to be 1 reflects Woodside plus BHP. So perhaps our vote next year might be appropriate and then to yearly.

Well, certainly in -- we will have sustainability reports and climate reports. So the question is then, do we put it for a shareholder vote. And that's one of the things we'll think about. Microphone 1?

Mr. Chairman, this is Sofie McNeil. Ms. McNeil is a proxy holder representing Mrs. Jan McNichol.

The widely respected independent group, Climate Analytics, has calculated that Woodside's emissions from the Burrup Hub project will be 6.1 billion tonnes. This is approximately 12x Australia's current annual emissions. Climate Analytics concludes that Woodside's Burrup Hub is incompatible with the Paris agreement. And in fact, the Scarborough-Pluto expansion is incompatible with the Paris agreement on its own. Why is Woodside undertaking projects that will push the world over 1.5 degrees of warming into dangerous climate change?

Meg?

Sure. Thank you for the question, Ms. McNeil. So first off, for accurate estimates of the emissions associated with Scarborough and Pluto Train 2, I would point you to our offshore project proposal, which is the document we filed with Nguyjima and which Nguyjima has approved, which describes Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. I'll point you back to the climate report, which does describe how our emissions with our Scope 1 and 2 emissions reduction commitments that we have made as a corporation do, in fact, align with the Paris agreement. And I think it's worth noting that even in the IEA's Net-Zero 2050 scenario, which is a very aggressive decarbonization scenario. The world will continue to be using gas out to 2050. In fact, the world will use about half as much gas in 2050 as is used today.

But the IEA has said no new fossil fuel projects, that's very clear messaging from them.

So people are very good at cherry picking selectively from the IEA's report. If you look at the totality of the IEA's report, gas will be used extensively in 2050. As I said, about half of the gas as is consumed today. And if you overlay energy security, I think it's very important that customers take a hard look at where they get energy from. And I think Australian LNG absolutely has an important role to play in helping the world meet that energy need both in the near, mid and long term.

Ms. O'Neill, the UN Secretary General says that fossil fuel companies like yours that are opening up new fossil fuel projects at dangerous radicals. How do you respond to the UN Secretary General?

I think we are actually a very responsible player. If you think about the number of people around the world who don't have access to reliable energy, who don't have access to heating when temperatures are cold, we are providing a very valuable commodity that the world needs to be able to function. And we do it in a way that is extraordinarily responsible and highly transparent. And if you look at other producers in this space, you wouldn't have the opportunity to have these sorts of conversations with, for example, Russian gas producers. So we think what we do is very important, and we think we do it in a way that is extraordinarily responsible.

Microphone 5. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce [ Talia Salafsky ]. She's a proxy holder representing [ David John Grass ].

My question is for Ms. O'Neill. The Pluto Greenhouse Gas Abatement plan claims a 30% reduction by 2030 using a baseline derived from a 2006 environmental approval of a 2-train facility that was not developed. Using the actual production capacity of Pluto Train 2, the real emissions reduction equates to almost half of what is claimed. You have repeatedly mentioned today Woodside has a priority commitment to emissions reductions. If this is a genuine priority, why are you starting from a false baseline?

So our emission reduction commitment is at a corporate level, and we baseline off our 2016 to 2020 average emissions, which is clearly documented.

No, I'm talking about the Pluto Gas Abatement plan.

I understand your question. You're talking about one site. Our corporate emissions reduction commitment is at a corporate level so it's not all of our activities.

Please don't interrupt.

Sorry, but that's not -- that wasn't the question.

Yes, it was. You asked about my corporate -- our corporate commitments, and our corporate commitments are for the whole of Woodside and they're based off 2016 to 2020 actuals.

Well, why would you use a false baseline in that figure then, in the emissions reduction for Pluto?

So the Pluto site greenhouse gas management plan, which is filed with the state, started from the emissions level that the state-approved at the time of Pluto initial sanction.

If that was a different project, that had a higher production capacity.

Yes. And we've taken decisions as we went through the design of Pluto Train 2 to have a train that is less emissions-intensive than the one that was contemplated 10 years ago. I think that's actually a great example of our hierarchy of emissions management, which is to avoid in the first case, operate out in the second case, and offset in the third case. But the work we've done technically with Pluto Train 2 is designing an LNG train that is far more emissions-efficient than what we had contemplated a decade ago. I think that's a real win.

But we're talking about yearly emissions reductions, and the -- yes, the Pluto Greenhouse Gas Abatement plan has been based on a prior project, which was about 15% more production of LNG passing through. So how does that reflect?

I mean I think I've answered the question. The starting point was the initial project proposal. Our new LNG design is far more efficient with emissions down below there.

But it's not just design. You're not processing the same amount.

I think the point though is -- and we'll move on to microphone 3. I think the point though is that we've made commitments at a group level to what our reductions will be, and those commitments are based on 2016 and 2020 baseline. That's what's important.

Okay. So we'll just ignore the detail.

That's all. We move to microphone 3. Thank you.

We're just going to ignore the detail.

Mr. Chairman, this is [ Victoria Pavi ]. Ms. Pavi is a proxy holder representing Mr. [ Trevor Jones ].

Last year, the International Energy Agency made it clear there should be no new major oil or gas developments if the world wants to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees. Since then, you have announced a final investment decision on Scarborough, and you were seeking to double your fossil fuel interests with the merger. So my question is, why has Woodside not followed the IEA's recommended road map to net zero by 2050?

So I'll get Meg to -- I think Meg has already answered that but she can repeat that so we don't have to do it again and we won't take any more questions on the IEA. On the merger with BHP, I'd ask you to step back, it's -- no, no, no. Don't step back from the microphone. My apologies. No, no -- step back and look at, well, the merger of BHP Petroleum and Woodside increased CO2 emissions by one molecule. It actually won't change it. So if I tell you, say -- yes, you asked why we're doing it, we'd argue that BHP is a terrific company. We'll argue that -- we would argue that we'll be a very good owner of these assets. And the ambitions that we have, the reductions in emissions for 2025 and 2030 apply to the merged business. And in fact, we'll have a more detailed reporting of emissions from the BHP Petroleum assets because they've only ever reported from their controlled assets, where we'll report the equity emissions. So I think on the merger, the proof will be in Woodside achieving the ambitions that we've stated. On the IEA, Meg, can you repeat the answer you gave before? Because I think this is misquoted too often.

Yes. I think the IEA net zero 2050 report is often selectively quoted. If you read the report in its full detail, you'll see that oil and gas continue to be used extensively. I'll also highlight that, that particular report is one scenario that gets the world on a 1.5-degree C pathway. There are many scenarios that also achieve that outcome. And again, I'll point you to our climate report, the SDS, which is another IEA scenario, is a scenario that delivers a world that warms 1.5 to 1.65 degrees and has considerably more gas use than the net zero 2050 case. The reason I point to those is there are a range of possible outcomes that will help the world get to its decarbonization goals. And again, a responsible operator like Woodside operating under the regulatory scrutiny of both NOPSEMA and the state and commonwealth environment departments, I think, provides more responsible gas to customers that need it than others in our space.

So you're acknowledging then that Woodside's plans don't aim to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees?

Our emissions reduction commitment is consistent with the 1.5 degree C pathway, and I'd encourage you to look at the climate reports. Let me pull out the exact graph for you. Page 15 of the climate report shows how our Scope 1 and 2 emissions reduction targets are consistent with the 1.5 degree C world.

Thanks. Microphone 2?

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. [ Alex Hillman ], and he is a shareholder.

A happy shareholder.

Happy proud, I think, is the word.

Proud, sorry.

You'll be happy as well. And last one, I promise. When we were talking about the audit report, you mentioned the scenario analysis and the climate report. So to your desire to keep questions on topic, I'll talk about the scenario analysis in the climate report now. So as you pointed out, the climate report scenario analysis presents results using free cash flow as the metric. And I think the purpose of framing that, I suspect, is that it demonstrates free cash flow in every scenario over each of those time frames. Free cash flow, however, does not consider debt repayments. And so therefore, without an analysis that considers debt repayments, you can't actually demonstrate that Woodside remains solvent in all of those. So I'm not suggesting Woodside wouldn't be solvent, but can you let me know how you've assessed if Woodside remains solvent including in a 1.5-degree scenario analysis that you've modeled? And if you've done this analysis, what was the impact that you've assessed on your credit rating and debt repayments under each of those scenarios?

Yes. I think the scenario analysis is a broad view on ensuring that in those scenarios, you generate cash. Clearly, the Board would be looking at debt repayment schedules, cash -- nearer-term cash flows and the like, to make any decisions around those sorts of things. I think this is a much more general piece of -- if in this scenario, we're cash flow positive, that's a good thing.

So to the question, have you assessed whether or not you can afford future debt repayments in the...

Well, right now, of course, we can.

But you did the scenario analysis presented as free cash flow. That explicitly doesn't include debt repayments. Has that analysis being done by Woodside?

Alex, I think we'll have to get back to you on the debt repayments because I thought that was included, but we will follow up with you on that particular matter. I think it's worth highlighting that the way we've modeled these scenarios does not include any management action, and it only includes decisions that we have made to the point in time of the report. So it's inclusive of Scarborough investment decision. It is not inclusive of other investment decisions. And one of the things we realize is if the world is on the faster decarbonization pathway, we'll do a few things. We'll manage our operations. We'll be doing things to control our costs to try to keep free cash flow up. The other thing that's important is in that scenario, that's a scenario where hydrogen demand will be taking off. And part of why we're investing as much in these opportunities for new energy, as we are, is to give ourselves that resilience. So if there is a scenario where the world is decarbonizing more rapidly, if we have those other opportunities up and running, we view those as profitable. But we'll get back to you on the debt question.

Let's go to -- thank you, microphone 5.

Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ David Ritter ], who is a proxy holder representing Mr. [ Alejandro Debrutz ] and Mrs. [ Augustina Garcia Clovera ].

And a proud proxy, if I may say. Mr. Goyder, the United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres said this year that investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness. Woodside clearly is planning to significantly increase investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure and production, including developing the Scarborough and Browse gas fields, building Pluto 2 and expanding the North West Shelf as part of company's Burrup Hub vision. Do you consider this planned investment to be morally mad, economically mad or both?

Or neither.

So this is another instance when Woodside thinks it knows better about what is good for the planet than the United Nations. That's an extraordinary position.

No. I think the United Nations would say that actually, energy security and providing people who are moving to have a sort of standard of living that you enjoy today, supported by fossil fuels today that they're entitled to that. And the businesses like Woodside that are part of the energy transition that are part of moving the world to net zero by 2050 are an important part of it.

Look, a gas company seeking to gaslight the United Nations is quite something.

That's not...

This is not a statement.

Can we close down microphone 5, please, and we'll move to microphone 3. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. [ Hamed Sami ]. Mr. [ Sami ] is a proxy holder for [ BDD Pty. Ltd ].

A Woodside spokesperson was reported in the media earlier this year saying that it is "incorrect to report that Woodside is planning to not develop any new oil and gas projects beyond 2030 to meet its emission reduction target." If that is the case, do you have an expiration date from which you will no longer develop any new oil and gas projects? And if not, why not?

Meg, do you want to...

Yes, we don't have a date. And it goes to the comments I made earlier about there being tremendous uncertainty about how the world will decarbonize. And there are a number of technologies that will be extraordinarily important in any decarbonization scenario, things like carbon capture and sequestration, carbon capture and utilization as well as new energy investments. And for new energy investments to be affordable for customers, some of those investments may need to start with fossil fuel as the input source. So we have not set a date, and we certainly don't intend to set a date after which we wouldn't do oil and gas investment. We think it's an important part of the world's energy mix. We recognize that we need do it in a way that is aligned with the world's decarbonization goals, but we don't want to be cutting off levers and cutting off energy sources that are extraordinarily important in helping literally keep lights on and homes warm.

Thanks, Mr. [ Sami ]. Microphone 2?

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. [ David Wood ], and he is a shareholder.

Just an investor and looking for a bit of clarity and making observation. I had a couple of questions. They have beheaded people outside that could probably be a lot more effective if they move to overseas embassy. Questions on the climate, the -- is each field got a different rate of carbon production?

Yes is the short answer. So the actual composition of the gas from each of the fields we produce is a bit different. The fields that we produce today, so North West Shelf and Pluto, averages, we'll call it, around 2.5%. The Browse fields has more CO2 in the reservoir gas. That's closer to 10%. And that's why it's so important for us with Browse to have a solution to that, which will likely be something like carbon capture and sequestration.

Okay. On the recovery and the transmission, storage and delivery, has -- have you exhausted all the filtering mediums to extract the carbon? And is the gas still a good efficiency after...

Yes. Absolutely. It is. So most of the gas we sell, we sell as liquefied natural gas. And to liquefy natural gas, it has to be extraordinarily pure. So at the front end of our LNG plants, we have processing equipment that takes out impurity. So it takes out the CO2. It takes out other sorts of heavy gas molecules, for example, that wouldn't be able to get through the LNG process without causing problems in the plant.

Are there any innovative filtering processes that are coming forward that can improve it further?

Filtering processes, probably. Maybe what I'll point to is our Pluto Train 2 design. So we took a lot of steps in the Train 2 design on our machinery. So one of the sources of energy demand and in LNG train is the machinery that you use to compress the gas. It's really like a giant refrigerator. And if you can make the refrigerator motor more efficient, then you have less emissions in the process of making the gas cold. So we've taken steps in the Pluto Train 2 design to really improve the machinery that we use.

So virtually, Woodside have done the very best to minimize the carbon content.

We have really challenged the team on finding ways to bring the carbon content down. And when you look at the totality, so the Scarborough field being processed through the Pluto LNG Train 2, that will be the lowest carbon intensity LNG coming out of Australia.

Thanks. Microphone 5 and then 3.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ Amos Smith ]. He is a proxy holder representing [ McCloskey Investments ].

So Scarborough having a 0.1% reservoir CO2 doesn't materially change life cycle emissions. So my question is, why do you keep overstating the climate benefits of a low CO2 field?

Well, it actually is extraordinarily important if you compare it to other gas fields that are being developed in Australia and other locations. And there are other gas fields being developed that have reservoir CO2 10% or in excess of 10% where that gas is vented. So Scarborough is important in that it's got that very low CO2. So there's very little CO2 that's coming from the ground being released as we produce the reservoir.

Microphone 3, then 2.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce [ Pamela Riordan ]. Ms. [ Riordan ] is a proxy holder representing Ms. [ Helen Danes ].

Your net zero plan for 2050 excludes Scope 3 emission targets. Scope 3 accounts for 90% of Woodside's emissions. So why aren't these emissions included in your plan? And if they're not, doesn't that render your emissions targets mostly meaningless given that you're only counting for such a small percentage of the total pollution?

Thanks, Ms. [ Riordan ]. I'm glad you asked the question. Meg, I'll let you go on this one.

Yes. I think the important thing to recognize about Scope 3 is that Woodside Scope 3 are our customers' Scope 1, and our customers are in countries like Japan, Korea, China. All of those countries have net zero mid-century ambitions. So Japan and Korea, 2050; China, 2060. Many of the customers that we work with, so companies like Tokyo Gas, Kansai Electric, Uniper, they also have decarbonization commitments. So in many ways, for us to have a Scope 3 target, it's a bit of a double-count. We see the opportunity for us to address Scope 3 by working with those customers on finding ways to help decarbonize their business, and the opportunities that we're pursuing in new energy, the hydrogen and ammonia projects, those will allow us to produce energy that again, when those customers use it, there is no CO2 generated in the use of those products. So our Scope 3 strategy is all about working with our customers on their decarbonization journey. And again, all of -- well, most of our customers and the customer nations where our product goes all have those Paris-aligned net zero ambitions.

A quote in the Netherlands, in Hague, deemed last year that Shell by law had to report not just Scope 1 and 2, but they had to consider Scope 3 emissions and had to include those in their targets. On page 40 of your report, you actually put a number on your Scope 3 emissions. So shouldn't you at least be reporting that number each year and having an ambition to reduce that number each year so that you know where you stand essentially on a worldwide basis?

So we do report it each year, and we are committed to continuing the climate reporting that we've done for many years, and we report Scope 3. But as I said, for us to make Scope 3 targets, I think, is in some ways meaningless because again, we're working with customers, and the customers are the persons who are actually creating those emissions. There's a lot of double-counting as well on Scope 3, and I'll draw your attention to one of the lines in the table, the Scope 3 associated with traded LNG. So if we buy LNG that somebody else produces, sell it to a third party, we have to report it as Scope 3. That person is also reporting it a Scope 1, and the originator is reporting it is Scope 3. So there's a lot of just sort of funny math associated with Scope 3. We feel like the best thing for us to do is work on those new energy solutions that help our customers actually reduce emissions.

Microphone 2?

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Will van de Pol, a proxy holder from -- representing Market Forces.

The scenario analysis presented in the climate report doesn't include any indication of Woodside's own sort of base case assumptions and base case outcome. Just wondering the sort of best that I can gather in terms of that base case is from the commodity prices used for impairment testing presented in the annual report. Those prices seem to be roughly in line with the IEA's announced policies scenario. Is it fair to say that Woodside's base case assumptions for pricing and demand trajectories are somewhat similar to that IEA scenario?

Sorry, when you say base case, what are you referring to?

So is there a base case that Woodside uses for its asset valuations and strategic decision-making?

Yes. I mean we update our base case at least annually and more often if there's more volatility, which we use through our evaluations and the like, yes. But that's based on a whole lot of data inputs.

Yes. And including a forward-looking price assumptions?

Yes.

Which -- sorry, in the impairment testing, those are roughly in line with the IEA's announced policy scenario?

They may or may not be, yes.

And for future strategic decision-making, is that base case sort of aligned with that similar demand and price trajectory?

It will be based on our best thinking at the time. We tend to take a reasonably conservative view on it.

And could you commit to sort of providing that demonstration or assumptions in future disclosures so that we can sort of say in a scenario analysis where Woodside sees itself positioned?

Yes. I know why you're asking, but we wouldn't commit to doing that because it -- obviously it goes to our commercial evaluations of various things.

Other companies are providing that in their scenario analysis. They have sort of...

Well, we might for scenario analysis but we won't -- we wouldn't put our -- the assumptions we would be making for commercial adjustments, we'll keep those commercially in confidence.

Okay. But for the scenario analysis, please take that into consideration.

Yes. Look, I appreciate the perspective. Well, we've -- in our capital market framework, we've outlined the price assumptions that we use and the investment returns that we're expecting to get at those price assumptions. It is worth again highlighting though that when we make actual investment decisions, we do test across a wide range of scenarios and really do try to ensure that the investments we're making are resilient in those low-side scenarios, be it low-side pricing, high-side -- low-side commodity price, high-side carbon price, for example. So we do those stress tests.

And did you stress test the -- sorry, the offshore, Pluto and Scarborough fields -- or Scarborough, okay. Did you stress test Scarborough against the 1.5-degree scenario before that final investment decision?

So we tested it against low-side commodity pricing and high-side carbon pricing, absolutely.

And one of those was 1.5-degree aligned, the commodity pricing?

We've stress-tested against a range of different scenarios. Again, the way the economics are modeled, it's a little bit different than what's shown here, but we have stress-tested against a range of scenarios.

Microphone 5 and 3.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ Stephen Bennett ]. He is a proxy holder representing Mr. [ Christopher Tims ].

My question is your compliance report from March this year states that Woodside has relied entirely on international credits to offset emissions from Pluto. Does this mean that you have reconsidered your previous commitment to large-scale tree planting in Australia?

No. Meg, do you want to respond to that?

No, we haven't. So the Pluto tree project continues and the trees continue to grow. And we have, as part of our carbon business unit since 2018, been investing in new origination projects in Australia because we recognize a couple of things. For our Australia regulatory obligations, we need Australian carbon units to be able to satisfy those. So by generating carbon credits domestically, we really control our own fate and have our own ability to meet those without having to go on the market. For our voluntary commitments, we do purchase carbon credits on the international markets. And we've got a very strong focus on ensuring the quality of those offsets because we recognize there's a lot of debate in the market around offsets. The reality is they are part of the Paris Agreement. It is recognized that the world needs offsets to be able to meet its goals, but there is a variety of standards, and we're very much focused on ensuring we have quality offsets when we do go to the marketplace.

Thank you. Microphone 3?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ Nick Doyle ]. Mr. [ Doyle ] is a proxy holder representing Mr. [ Campbell McKellar ].

In 2020, 49.63% of Woodside shareholders supported a resolution seeking that Woodside set that Paris-aligned Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions reductions targets. Rather than listening to this, Woodside is planning to increase production and substantially increase Scope 3 emissions. So my question would be, why are you ignoring what is essentially half of your shareholders?

Well, we're doing what we think is in the best interest of all our stakeholders in terms of the investment decisions we're making. And interestingly, while shareholders have a view on some of these things, they also, it looks like, have very strongly supported the merger with BHP Petroleum and the reelection of directors. So it feels like there's pretty strong support from shareholders for the direction we're going in. We clearly have work to do in terms of articulating -- not articulating, in getting the support of our shareholders in our climate report, and we'll further engage in that after this meeting. But we think the targets we've set for Scope 1 and 2 are appropriate. We've got plans beyond 2030. We'll need to articulate those as we go forward. And I think Meg's well described the Scope 3. There's challenges around Scope 3.

And with the Scope 3 emissions, investing in like one of the plans or investing in carbon capture and storage, do you think this is adequate to address the Scope 3 emissions when various experts have said there is not a viable technology to reduce emissions?

What's interesting, the CSIRO came out yesterday saying that they regret that they haven't done the work to promote carbon capture and storage as a viable means of reducing carbon. So there will be all sorts of people who have different views on it. We'll -- it is one area that everyone will look at, and there will be other new technologies as well.

So you have any other plans then to adjust the Scope 3 emissions or as we said before...

As Meg said, the -- our Scope 3 emissions are -- [ everyone else has ] Scope 1.

So it seems like you're sort of scaling the responsibility on to other people.

No, I don't think so. We're going to invest -- we said we would invest up to $5 billion more if we find the right opportunities in new energy solutions in the coming years to support our customers to decarbonize their business.

There's nothing on the agenda at the moment.

Yes, it is. Yes, we've got a significant team and already doing significant work in spending material amounts of money on some material projects that we've already identified in our communications with shareholders. Microphone 5, and then I think we might go to the online.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Ms. [ Jessica Panagiris ]. She is a proxy holder representing Mr. [ Paul Edward Hardy ] and Mrs. [ Vicky Jane Hardy ].

As a very proud Western Australian, I'd love to see WA leading the world in the provision of genuinely clean renewable energy, including to key Asian export markets. The agent with Sydney Morning Herald recently reviewed a report that Woodside commission from a national science agency, the CSIRO, that found that supplying more gas into those key Asian export markets would either have no change or no net benefit or a negative impact by delaying renewable energy uptake. So my question is, how is Woodside addressing the risk that pushing more gas into our key Asian export markets may be displacing renewable energy? And we know that solar is now the cheapest form of new energy in the world. Sorry, are we actually causing harm by pushing more gas instead of renewable energy?

Yes. And look, I think the premise of the question has flaws to it. The CSIRO reports did not contradict our advocacy, and it did find that substantial emissions reduction can be achieved from increased gas supply. I think in Australia, we're lucky that solar is affordable here. But if you think about our customers in Japan, solar is just not pragmatic. Yes, there is a bit, but it's not really a practical alternative to be wholly dependent on renewables, which is why our significant efforts -- while we're making significant efforts on hydrogen and ammonia opportunities, particularly working with Japanese partners and figuring out how those might become part of the energy mix in Japan as well as in places like Korea, again, which aren't blessed with the renewables that Australia has.

I understand that, but it's not just Australia where solar is the cheapest form of energy. The International Energy Agency has said now the cheapest form of new power at any time in human history for the world. So I guess my question is if CSIRO has said that there's a chance that more gas will displace renewable energy into key export markets, what side -- what is Woodside doing to address that risk?

Yes. So again, we don't accept the hypothesis that you start from. And again, we work very closely with our Japanese customers who are utility providers, and they're very clear that they cannot meet their customers' needs through solar and wind alone. They need other sources of energy. And that's why we're working very closely with them on things like using ammonia and coal-fired power stations so they can continue to be cost-effective in their provision of energy but bring down emissions over time.

Thank you. Just to clarify -- can I just clarify that you disagree with the CSIRO's findings. So you disagree with that premise?

I think you're grabbing one line out of a very long report.

Thanks very much. We'll go online to the audio, I think.

Mr. Chairman, we have an audio question from [ Axel Darmond ].

I have a question about offset. So clearly, Woodside is relying quite heavily on offsets to reach its greenhouse gas emission targets. And Ms. O'Neill, you mentioned earlier that it's really that you view that's the third and last option after [ a void ] and design out. But based on the reductions that have been made to date, it looks like around 80% of your reductions to date have been made through offset. That seems to be sort of one of the first measures that you grab for. Now in the merger and explanatory memorandum, you say the company has got numerous uncertainties inherent -- "there are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating the quality and quantity of offsets generated by these types of projects, including many factors which will be beyond the merged group's control, such as rainfall, bushfire and regrowth rates for native reforestation projects." And so we've already heard that these reforestation projects are -- remain a central part of your offset strategy. So why are you relying so heavily on that method of carbon emissions reductions rather than actual abatement when you're aware of how unreliable it is?

So thanks, Mr. [ Darmond ], for the question. I think I disagree with part of your question or statement, which was -- that offsets are our priority. Our priority has been to reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions through better engineering, better design and other things. But Meg, can you just talk about offsets?

Yes. It's worth again going through the hierarchies that we avoid emissions where we can. We reduce as a second priority, and I think there are some great examples of things we've done to reduce emissions. We've installed a battery on one of our offshore platforms, for example, to reduce the amount of gas that we use for energy generation locally on the platform. We're also working on our culture. And I was very pleased in one of my recent visits to the Karratha Gas Plant at the operators, a very sharp focus on the emissions and the decisions that they could take to reduce emissions in their day-to-day operating and maintenance activities. So that absolutely is our priority, and we continue to progress a number of projects in all of our assets to try to reduce emissions. Now that said, when you have older equipment, there are things that are just going to be difficult to tackle without significant investment, and that's where offsets come into the mix. Offsets do have risks just as any investment has risks, and that's the -- what you're describing out of the explanatory memorandum. One of the things we do to mitigate those risks is diversify. So we have diversification of offsets within Australia as well as within our international portfolio to prevent the situation where if there happens to be a forest fire or rainfall that's different than expected that affects one of our opportunities, well, we still have other offsets from other places. So that's the approach that we take to offsets. Perhaps it's worth noting also that we are very much focused on CCS, and we see that as a technology that within Woodside's portfolio will come into play likely in the back half of the 2020s and 2030s, and we've got a number of opportunities that we are progressing to try to mature CCS opportunities.

Thanks, Meg. Is there another audio question?

Yes. Mr. Chairman, this audio question is from [ Margaret Kichler Obeck ].

I'd just like to say I also consider myself to be a good shareholder as I want Woodside to be part of the planetary solution rather than contributing to the ongoing problem. But to my specific question, the climate report referred to by the CEO, Meg O'Neill, which claims that Woodside's emissions target to align with the Paris Agreement is based on the IEA SDS scenario, but this is actually aligned with heating of 2 degrees and not 1.5 degrees. So how can you claim to be aligned with Paris when you are using a non-Paris-aligned scenario as your point of reference?

Thank you. Meg?

Yes. I'll take you to the description of the scenarios, and I'll read it out for the folks who don't have the report handy. The sustainable development scenario is a well below 2-degree C pathway and represents a gateway to achieving the outcomes targeted by the Paris Agreement. There's a fair amount of detail there, and I'll get to the punch line. This scenario is consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 1.65 degrees C with a 50% probability. With some level of net negative emissions after 2070, the temperature rise could be reduced to 1.5 degree C in 2100. So that is a Paris-compliant scenario.

All right. Thank you. Have we got any online questions?

Mr. Chairman, we have an online question from Mr. [ Stephen David Mayne ]. Two years ago, the Woodside proxy votes on various shareholder resolutions were not disclosed until after the debate was finished. ASA best practice is to disclose the proxies before the vote. Given that you mentioned earlier that two of the proxy advisers recommended a vote against the climate report, could you please disclose the proxy position on this item and the contingent items and also explain what aspects of the climate report, the proxy advisers were concerned about?

Well, again, thanks, Mr. [ Mayne ] for the question. So the proxy advice research is confidential. Their position, two of them were to advise voting against the report, which I stated earlier. We're recommending investor support. The climate report is -- outlines our clear strategy to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions and investment products and services that our customers need to decarbonize, but I think we've done this issue pretty well, pretty -- given it a pretty good go. So I'm now going to put item 9 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 9. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting of this resolution are displayed on the screen. And I'll now move on to item 10. Items 10(a) to 10(d) on the agenda relates to the resolution requisitioned by a group of each -- by a group of shareholders, each representing less 0.01% of our shares. Details of the resolution and the Board's results -- response are contained in the Notice of Meeting. This first resolution is a special resolution seeking to amend Woodside's constitution to facilitate advisory resolutions relating to material risks of the company. Of the subsequent resolutions, item 10(b) requests that the company disclose, in annual reporting, information that demonstrates how the company's capital expenditure and operations managed in a manner consistent with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. Item 10(c) is a resolution related to Woodside's public and private advocacy so far as it relates to climate change. Lastly, item 10(d) requests the company to disclose, in its annual reporting, information on the decommissioning of onshore and offshore oil and gas infrastructure. The Board has responded to the requisition resolutions in detail in our notice of meeting. Further information on Woodside's climate-related plans, activities, progress and climate-related data are contained in the climate report. The report includes a summary of Woodside's climate-related advocacy. It also describes the key climate-related risks and opportunities, including those relating to financial resilience testing of Woodside's portfolio. The merger explanatory memorandum accompanying the notice of meeting contains additional disclosures on installed onshore and offshore oil and gas assets and decommissioning expenditure. These are issues we always take very seriously. While items 10(b) to 10(d) are contingent on item 10(a) being passed by the required majority, as foreshadowed in the notice of meeting, we'll invite questions on all 4 resolutions before I formally put item 10(a) to the meeting. Are there any questions in relation to items 10(a) to 10(b) from shareholders in the room? Microphone 5?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ Ted Keegan ], Mr. [ Keegan ] is a proxy holder representing [ DMB Super ].

Mr. Goyder, a question for you -- a statement first.

Now please, I don't want a statement.

It's only a very short one.

Just short is good.

Short is good, yes. Scarborough has been subject to two separate legal challenges in the WA Supreme Court. It has faced significant public opposition and is widely referred to in media circles as a controversial project. Why do you think Scarborough has proven so controversial?

Well, I think Scarborough is a great project, and the Board strongly endorses and is actually quite excited about Scarborough and what Scarborough will do. And we think, as we've said at great lengths today the Scarborough, we think, is an important part of the whole energy transition. And legal cases have failed, and we're fully on board with progressing Scarborough. Thank you. Microphone 2?

Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Will van de Pol, a proxy holder representing Market Forces.

I'll give you a quick too.

A quick one, thank you.

A really short question. What's it going to take? I mean 2 years ago -- sorry, at the AGM last year, we had 19% of shareholders go so far as to vote for a resolution calling on Woodside to stop managing down production in line with global climate goals. The year before that, 50% of shareholders voted for emission reduction targets, including Scope 3, to be aligned with the Paris goals and capital allocation plans aligned with the Paris goals. Today, we just had 45% of shareholders vote against the company's climate plan. What is it going to take for Woodside to actually bring its strategy and plans into line with global climate goals?

Well, Will, as you know, we think they are. There's clearly elements, as you've just referred to, that shareholders are concerned about it. And importantly, the stakeholders -- as I think as I replied to a question from Stephen made earlier, investors in institutions and the like, superannuation funds, clearly have a concern, as we all do, about climate change and the impacts in the world. The issues that shareholders have indicated that they would like more information on and more clarity from us are mostly around Scope 3 emissions and offsets. They're not about whether we should be doing Scarborough. They're not about whether we should be doing the merger. So not about our fundamental strategy. They're actually about the nuances around -- not nuances, they're important, around offsets and Scope 3, and I think we've given Scope 3 a really good...

[ But talking ] about your strategy. I mean a strategy that involves increasing production and therefore increasing Scope 3 emissions is Woodside's strategy, and that is the strategy that investors are clearly concerned about. It's the Scope 3 issue, [ not random ] issue.

Our investors are also concerned about our production and all of those things, as you know. I do think -- I know you understand and I know others in the room do understand. A lot of people don't truly understand what Scope 3 emissions are. They don't actually understand what the Scope 3 emissions are from iron ore exports in Western Australia. They don't understand their own climate carbon footprint. So yes, there's a fair way for the world to go in terms of dealing with some of this. We are investing heavily in -- and we'll invest heavily in new energy, and we're excited about that -- being part of the whole energy transition.

Sorry. Yes. I just still don't understand. There's no question -- answer to my question as to what it's going to take.

Well, I don't...

Does it need 100% of shareholders?

No, because -- well, the interesting thing is that you've -- the shareholders have turned out today. So they're investing in Woodside. So what we think is to maintain the confidence of the capital markets that we need to perform well in our operations, safely perform and meet the expectations of our stakeholders in terms of -- whether there's mergers, synergies, [ whether it's our ] costs, whether it's using new technology. And we have to meet our climate obligations. We've set our climate obligations out. We have targets to '25, we have targets to '30, we'll develop targets post 2030, and we've modeled in line with Paris obligations. We think Woodside will be part -- a significant part of the solution in all of this. There will be some things clearly that we'll continue to discuss and probably disagree. We welcome those discussions with you and your colleagues. Thank you. Have we got any online questions?

Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have a written online question on Item 10(d) from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility. The question is, Woodside states that regulator decisions could inform "significant differences in the restoration provision." Offshore regulator NOPSEMA's base requirement is the full removal of all infrastructure at the end of life. Considering some recently approved decommissioning plans have forced Woodside to remove more infrastructure than it intended, how confident is Woodside that the offshore regulator will approve its decommissioning plans in line with its current restoration assumptions? In other words, how great is your underprovisioning risk?

Thanks. Meg?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So we work very closely with the regulator to understand their expectations. Of course, the rules are fully removal unless a different outcome can be proven to have a better outcome. And there is precedent for leaving some equipment in place. That equipment is largely things like steel and cement, but there is precedent for the regulator to approve leaving a certain amount of equipment in place. We continue to work very closely to understand the regulatory landscape. We work very closely with the regulator. The rules are nonprescriptive, and they vary quite a bit. Other jurisdictions have probably longer track record of demonstrating how leaving equipment in place can actually have better environmental outcomes than removing it. And perhaps by way of example, if you take a look at an offshore platform or equipment that's been on the seabed for many years, it creates a very vibrant marine habitat, and ripping that equipment out will destroy that habitat. So those are the sorts of conversations that we have with the regulator. If you look explanatory memorandum, I think there's tremendous detail in there on the basis of our disclosure, and we will continue to work closely with the regulator updating those year in, year out.

Thanks, Meg. Other questions online?

Mr. Chairman, we have another audio question from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility.

This year, Woodside was given an organizational score of just 41 in the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark assessment of climate policy engagement conducted by InfluenceMap, indicating a misalignment with the Paris Agreement. Negative climate lobbying has been identified as a problem internationally. And in March 2022, a coalition of leading international investor groups, including AP7, BNP Paribas and The Church of England Pensions Board, released the global standard on responsible corporate climate lobbying. This global standard outlines 14 indicators that companies can use to ensure lobbying practices aligned with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to just 1.5 degrees. Will Woodside commit to aligning its lobbying practices with the 14 indicators of the new global standard so that investors can have more assurance that future lobbying practices will meet an independently verifiable standard?

Thank you. Meg, do you want to do that?

Yes. Thanks for the question. Look, I'd highlight that our advocacy is very much focused on working with key stakeholders to ensure that projects like Scarborough, which offer the potential to help our customers with their decarbonization journey and provide reliable energy, that those projects are understood by government and that we have the support that we need. With respect to the specifics of your question, we take a look at these types of standards, and we will assess that particular one in due course.

Thank you. Are we done on that? So if there are no further questions, I'll now put item 10(a) to the meeting. So if you've not already done so, please submit your vote on Item 10(a) now. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution are displayed on the screen. It's clear from the proxy instructions received that resolution 10(a) will not be passed by the 75% majority required for a special resolution. As resolutions 10(b), 10(c) and 10(d) are contingent on resolution 10(a) passing, they are not required to be put to the meeting. However, in the interest of transparency, the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on resolutions 10(b) to 10d will now be displayed on the screen. That now covers the formal business of the meeting. The voting system will close shortly. Please ensure that you've cast your provide on all items. Is anyone still voting? Ladies and gentlemen, I now formally close the poll. The provisional results you will shortly see on screen will be the combined results of the votes cast by shareholders present 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 screen. As you can see, I show that each resolutions, 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, I think have passed. Item 10(a) requisition by shareholders, 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. It's been a long day. Your overwhelming support for the merger makes this a momentous day for our company. Can I also thank all those of you who asked questions for the polite way in which the meeting was conducted, and we appreciate that. We know that different people have different agendas, but it was done in a way that was respectful and I think we all appreciate that that's the best way of doing these things. Early next month, we'll step forward as Woodside Energy, a learning global energy company that is well placed to thrive through the energy transition and deliver ongoing value our shareholders. I now declare the meeting closed. Thanks very much.