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

Well, good morning, everyone. My name is Richard Goyder. And as Woodside's Chair, I'd like to thank our shareholders, Woodside staff and guests for attending today's meeting both in person and online. Before we commence, please take a few seconds to familiarize yourselves with the evacuation procedures shown on the screen which would apply in the unlikely event of an emergency. Following Woodside's merger last year with BHP's Petroleum business, we've evolved into a truly global company. But our headquarters remain right here in Perth on Whadjuk Noongar country. With this in mind, I'd like to acknowledge the Whadjuk people of the Noongar Nation as the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I recognize their continuing connection to culture and contribution to the city that Woodside is proud to call its home. The valuable contribution made by the Noongar people in this region of West Australia conserving and caring for the land on which we live and work every day is something that I'm personally thankful for having grown up on Noongar country in the small towns of Tambellup and Broomehill in the Great Southern of Western Australia. I also recognize the many traditional custodians that protect and preserve the rich cultural heritage in areas where Woodside's operations are located, particularly the [ Ngarda-Ngarli ] people as the collective custodians of Murujuga where Woodside has operated for almost 40 years. As we move towards a referendum on the indigenous voice later this year, I also highlight Woodside's strong support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and our continued commitment to listen closely to and learn from indigenous voices. Our Annual General Meeting is an event 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 an opportunity to ask questions or make comments during the formal business. However, I encourage those shareholders joining us virtually who wish to submit a written question or comment to begin doing so now. This will enable the timely receipt of those questions. [Operator Instructions] 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 by Company Secretary, Warren Baillie. In the room with us are Directors and you might stand as I call out your name, Larry Archibald, Frank Cooper, Swee Chen Goh, Ian Macfarlane, Ann Pickard, Gene Tilbrook, Ben Wyatt, Chris Haynes, Sarah Ryan, Arnaud Breuillac. Also joining us is Angela Minas, who is subject to shareholder approval, will join the Board with the effect -- with effect from the conclusion of today's meeting. Arnaud and Angela will introduce themselves to you during the formal business section of today's meeting when they stand for election. Both bring a wealth of industry, financial and other relevant experience that will make them valuable members of the Woodside board. Last month, Chris Haynes and Sarah Ryan announced their retirement as Directors of Woodside, and they're standing down from their positions at the conclusion of today's meeting. I'd like to sincerely thank both Chris and Sarah for their outstanding service to the Board and the significant contribution they've made to Woodside's success over the past decade. Thank you both very much. Justin Carroll and Anthony Hodge representing our auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, are also present today. A reminder, as always, that Woodside reports its results in U.S. dollars and any references to dollars this morning will be in U.S. currency unless stated otherwise. During today's meeting, we may also make forward-looking statements with respect to various matters, including Woodside's business and operations. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Please refer to the cautionary statement and disclaimer wording included in our ASX announcement released earlier today and our annual report and other filings with the ASX, the LSE and the SEC. On behalf of the Woodside Board, I'm pleased to update you on an historic year for Woodside. We saw us complete the merger with BHP's petroleum business delivered record profit and become an even more significant supplier of energy to the world. Through our diverse global portfolio, we are providing energy to heat and cool homes, keep the lights on and support industry in more places than ever, the value of which has been reinforced by events of the past year. Reflecting on Woodside's significant achievements in 2022, we can see that the benefits of the merger have been immediate. Strong operational performance from our enlarged portfolio allowed us to capitalize on sustained high oil and gas prices across the year. This led to a record annual net profit after tax of $6.5 billion, an increase of 228% on 2021. Importantly, underlying net profit after tax was $5.2 billion, providing us with a strong balance sheet that positions Woodside for major capital investment in future years while returning value to shareholders. Earnings per share more than doubled in 2022 to USD 4.30, while our total full year dividend of USD 2.53 per share was an 87% increase on the previous year. Our maintenance of an 80% payout ratio in 2022 meant that we returned $4.8 billion to shareholders at a full year yield of more than 10%. Our record profit in 2022 also means that we're delivering strong returns through our payments to governments in Australia. Our total Australian tax and royalty payments of AUD 2.7 billion in 2022 demonstrate that when Woodside and our industry performs well, our contribution to government revenue is significant. I'm very proud to chair a company that is delivering these outstanding returns to our shareholders and the broader community while continuing to invest in the oil, gas and new energy projects that are laying the foundations for Woodside to thrive through the energy transition. In November 2021, the Board took the decision on behalf of our shareholders to invest USD 12 billion in the Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 projects in Western Australia. Construction of these projects is progressing well, and we're on target for first LNG cargo in 2026. We're only able to make the decision to invest in Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 because of the fiscal and regulatory certainty that Australia has always offered in the past. We'll only be able to make future decisions to invest in both significant new gas projects and new energies such as ammonia and hydrogen that will power our future if that fiscal and regulatory certainty is maintained. Otherwise, we expose our shareholders capital to unacceptable risk. Internationally, we're making good progress on the Sangomar project, offshore Senegal and remain on track to deliver first oil later this year. We're also working towards readiness for final investment decisions this year on the Trion oilfield offshore Mexico and the H2OK hydrogen project in Oklahoma. Meg will provide further details on these major projects and our strong operational performance at producing assets across Woodside's expanded portfolio. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank the entire Woodside team who delivered these excellent results in 2022. The troubling geopolitical events of the past year and resulting volatility in global energy markets have highlighted the importance of a stable energy transition in which energy is affordable, reliable and lower carbon. This drives Woodside's strategy to continue building a low-cost, lower carbon resilient, diversified and profitable portfolio that can provide energy to the world and deliver long-term value for shareholders across different energy transition scenarios. The projects that we progressed during 2022, which I just mentioned, reflect this diversity of location and product mix. This is also a feature of Woodside's next wave of growth opportunities, including expansion of existing fields in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, development of major gas fields such as Calypso, Browse and Sunrise, and execution of new energy and lower carbon opportunities, including hydrogen and ammonia, solar and carbon capture utilization and storage. Through continued development of this diverse portfolio underpinned by consistently strong financial and operational performance, Woodside can maximize our prospects for long-term success against the backdrop of an uncertain energy transition. Our strategy allows us to remain flexible and adaptable to the needs of our customers as they determine their own decarbonization pathways. We have set out Woodside's assessment of the energy transition and our strategy to successfully navigate it in our 2022 climate report. The report outlines the reasons for the Board's confidence in ongoing robust demand for Woodside's products in a lower carbon future. In particular, the important and ongoing role that gas will play in supporting the world's decarbonization goals by replacing coal as a source of power generation providing firming capacity to support intermittent wind and solar. Throughout the year, we engaged and listened to our shareholders to further understand their expectations about our climate-related strategy and disclosures, and we've taken those into account in preparing this year's report. While our assessment and strategy remain consistent, we provided additional detail requested by shareholders on how we plan to reduce emissions from our operations, manage our own -- manage our use of carbon credits appropriately, consider future investment options in the context of climate change and our approach to Scope 3 emissions. The Board recognizes the ongoing strong interest of our shareholders in Woodside's climate strategy and tends to put our climate reporting to a nonbinding advisory vote of shareholders at our 2024 Annual General Meeting. Subsequent shareholder votes will be held at 3-year intervals unless there are exceptional circumstances. Rest assured, we will continue to proactively engage with shareholders and our reporting and management of climate-related risks and opportunities. Before I hand over to Meg, I'd like to thank her for the outstanding contribution she has made as Chief Executive Officer over the past 2 years. Supported by her executive team, Meg's leadership has seen Woodside reach new heights of success. Her ability to drive day-to-day excellence while also providing the vision and inspiration needed for Woodside's long-term success continues to impress those inside and outside the company. My thanks also to my Board colleagues who have provided valuable guidance and counsel throughout what's been a very successful year for Woodside. And finally, to our shareholders, the Board greatly appreciates your ongoing support. Just under a year ago, you voted overwhelmingly to endorse our proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business. It was clear you shared the Board's view that the merger provided Woodside with the golden opportunity to secure a successful long-term future for our company. 12 months on, there is strong evidence that shows this to be the case. We're pleased to be delivering new strong returns from a quality and diverse global portfolio while charting a path for Woodside's success through the energy transition that we are confident you will want to be part of. Thank you, and I'll now hand over to Meg O'Neill.

Thank you, Richard. And thank you to our shareholders for attending both in person and online this morning. It is a pleasure to update you on another successful year for Woodside, in which we completed our transformational merger with BHP's petroleum business, delivered record profit and production from our quality global portfolio, further strengthened our balance sheet and made good progress on our major growth projects. Following the overwhelming shareholder support for the merger at last year's Annual General Meeting, we worked hard to complete the merger on the 1 June and quickly brought together the best of the 2 businesses together. We put in place our new leadership team, refreshed our culture and redesigned the organization to operate more efficiently as a global business across multiple time zones. We also listed on the London and New York Stock Exchanges, increasing our access to global capital markets. Almost 1 year later, we have evolved into a truly global company with a very strong future ahead. I'm very proud of our teams who were able to implement this significant change while maintaining excellent financial and operational discipline. Beyond the impressive headline profit numbers, we delivered strong financial returns across the board. Operating revenue increased 142% to $16.8 billion. Free cash flow increased more than sixfold to $6.5 billion and we maintained low levels of net debt and gearing well below our target range. We also achieved the goals we set ourselves ahead of the merger, delivering initiatives expected to realize over $400 million per year of post-merger synergies. Our excellent financial results were driven by a significant increase in production to 157.7 million barrels of oil equivalent, a result of last year's merger and the strong operational reliability of 98.5% at our LNG facilities. We focus our trading and marketing activities on opportunities that maximize returns from our expanded production. Stepping through our producing assets in more detail. In Western Australia, we achieved steady-state operations at the Pyxis and Pluto North Subsea tiebacks early in the year, adding to production at the Pluto LNG facility. The Greater Western Flank Phase 3 and Lambert Deep infill projects started up ahead of schedule, helping the Karratha gas plant continue to operate at near full production rates in 2022. A real highlight of the year was the successful startup of the Pluto to KGP Interconnector pipeline, resulting in 13 additional LNG cargoes during the year using emerging spare capacity at KGP. The Interconnector marks the beginning of a new chapter for our North West Shelf project as a processor of third-party gas to extend its operating life as legacy fields decline. On the East Coast of Australia, Woodside became a significant supplier of gas through our acquisition of a nonoperated stake in the Bass Strait joint venture. When a supply crunch hit this market in mid-2022, due to coal-fired power outages and a drop-off in renewables, Woodside played its part by delivering as many molecules of its Bass Strait gas as possible to customers who needed it. Internationally, we added more than 20 million barrels of oil equivalents from assets in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago, which came into Woodside's production portfolio following the merger. The contribution to our overall production from these assets will increase significantly in 2023 based on a full 12 months of operations. This includes additional volumes from the Mad Dog Phase 2 project which commenced production earlier this month. Turning now to our growth projects. The Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 projects combined are now 30% complete, and remain on track for first LNG cargo, which is targeted for 2026. Highlights over the past year include the start of fabrication of the onshore -- of the offshore production unit top sides, the start of pipeline manufacturing and completion of the first phase of the Pluto Train 2 construction Accommodation Village in Karratha. The 20-year gas and sale -- gas sale and purchase agreement with Perdaman that became unconditional this week is a significant milestone. Gas for Perdaman's proposed urea plants would be primarily sourced from Scarborough. This agreement demonstrates the benefits that Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 can bring to Western Australia, in this case, supporting new industry and jobs in the Pilbara region. Of course, the Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 projects themselves will directly create thousands of jobs locally and deliver significant revenue to states and federal Australian governments. We look forward to these benefits really starting to flow across the next couple of years as onshore and offshore construction ramps up. As Richard mentioned, we are expecting first oil later this year at our Sangomar project offshore Senegal. 10 of the planned 23 wells are now complete and commissioning of the floating production storage and offloading facility is well underway in Singapore. We are targeting FID readiness in 2023 on the Trion oil project offshore Mexico having completed front-end engineering design activities, issued tender packages for competitive bids and taking forward regulatory approval submissions. In our new energy business, we're making excellent progress on the H2OK hydrogen project in Oklahoma. We completed front-end engineering design in 2022. And late last year, awarded contracts for electrolyzers and liquefaction units to be installed at the facility. This has positioned us well for FID readiness this year. Also this year, we are targeting a final investment decision at our Woodside solar project in the Pilbara, which could make an important contribution to our plans to decarbonize the Pluto LNG operations. This facility could supply 100 megawatts of solar energy to Pluto LNG and other customers located near Karratha, with potential expansion to a maximum of 500 megawatts. The global energy security and affordability crisis that unfolded in 2022 highlighted the challenge we all face as we strive to maintain and improve global standards of living while reducing our emissions. While there is considerable uncertainty over how the energy transition may unfold in the decades ahead, we can be confident that global energy demand will continue to grow as the more than 1 billion people without access to reliable and affordable energy, pursue the same quality of life that we in Australia enjoy. That demand and the role gas can play as a lower carbon source of energy the world needs underpins our confidence in the long-term strength of our business. As I outlined in my speech to the National Press Club last week, the natural gas produced by Woodside can support 3 important interrelated goals. First off, providing affordable and reliable energy for Australians. Secondly, maintaining strategic partnerships and energy security in our region. And third, progressing global decarbonization. Gas is not the only answer to achieve these goals, but it is and will continue to be an essential part of the equation. At home, gas is a flexible source of energy that provides stable baseload power generation, smooth the transition to renewables and is an enabler for industry and manufacturing and abroad by generating electricity with around half the life cycle emissions of coal, gas is helping to keep the lights on in the megacities of our most important regional partners while also supporting their national decarbonization goals. This essential ongoing role for gas in the energy mix is why Woodside continues to engage with the Australian government on policies that support affordable and reliable energy for households and business while continue -- while supporting continued investment in new gas supply and infrastructure. If we don't get these settings right, there is a real risk that energy development will stall and Australia will miss out on the benefits. Not only in terms of energy supply and economic developments, but also the scale and pace of our renewable ambition. As Woodside takes forward our growth opportunities, we do so in line with the commitments under our climate strategy to reduce our net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions and to invest in the new energy products and lower carbon services that our customers require to secure their energy needs and reduce their emissions. As set out in the 2022 climate reports, we are on track to meet our 2025 and 2030 emissions reduction targets of 15% and 30%, respectively, towards an aspiration of net 0 by 2050 or sooner. In 2022, Woodside's net equity Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions were 11% below the starting base, which was adjusted following the merger with BHP's petroleum business. Methane emissions were around 0.1% of our production by volume. And during 2022, Woodside became a signatory to the aiming for 0 methane emissions initiative. At the core of Woodside's Scope 3 emission strategy is our target to invest USD 5 billion in new energy products and lower carbon services by 2030. We have, to date, spent more than $100 million in this area, primarily on our H2OK project. Also during 2022, we supported a number of initiatives to promote emissions reductions by our customers and suppliers and to enhance global measurement and reporting of Scope 3 emissions. Climate change is one of many considerations that drives our commitment to strong environmental, social and governance performance. As our business continues to evolve, so do our ESG focus areas, and we will adapt accordingly through our approach to sustainability and reporting. The health and safety of our people is our highest priority, and it was very pleasing that across our global business in 2022, we recorded no Tier 1 loss of primary containment process safety events, although we did record 1 low-risk Tier 2 event. Our injury performance, however, continues to be challenged. Our total recordable injury rate of 1.80 per million hours worked remains above our target of 1.0. We know we need to improve, and we are making progress. Our focus is on safety culture, leadership and applying human and organizational performance principles to help us learn and return to leading safety performance. Partnering with First Nations communities to create positive outcomes that leave a lasting legacy also remains one of Woodside's priorities. Highlights for the year included successful negotiations with the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation for an indigenous land use agreement to support the proposed Woodside Solar project and approval of the Scarborough project cultural heritage management plan, following extensive consultation with traditional custodians. We continue to fund air monitoring on the Burrup Peninsula in support of the Murujuga Rock Art strategy, and we provide support for Murujuga's World Heritage listing. As Richard mentioned earlier, Woodside has an enduring commitment to listen closely to and learn from indigenous voices. In this spirit, we have publicly declared Woodside support for recognizing indigenous Australians in the constitution and establishing a voice. Yesterday, we announced that we have appointed Liz Westcott as Executive Vice President, Australian Operations. Liz had a distinguished 25-year career at ExxonMobil working in Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy. Before joining Energy Australia in 2018, where her most recent role was Chief Operating Officer. I'm delighted that Liz is joining Woodside. Her extensive upstream experience is complemented by knowledge of the power generation and retail sectors. I would also like to thank Mike Price for his leadership of the Australian operations team over the past 5 months. Now before I hand back to Richard, I would like to echo his appreciation for our shareholders and for your support of the strategy that Woodside's Board and executive leadership team are implementing. The faith you showed in backing last year's merger has already been rewarded with financial strength, operational excellence and the attractive growth opportunities we've outlined today. The opportunity in front of us is to springboard off a very successful 2022 and take Woodside's future prospects to that next level building a company that will thrive through the energy transition and deliver value to you, our shareholders for many years to come. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Meg. We'll now move to the formal business of the meeting. There are 6 items on the agenda today. Item 1 is a discussion of the 2022 financial statements and reports. Item 2 is the reelection of 3 Directors retiring by rotation and the election of 2 new Directors. Item 3 is consideration of the company's 2022 remuneration report. Item 4 is the grant of equity incentive scheme awards to the CEO and Managing Director. Item 5 is a consideration of Non-Executive Director remuneration. And Item 6 resolutions requisitioned by 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 general items 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 Chair. 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. We want to hear from as many shareholders as possible and not have proceedings dominated by questions from any one group. So I ask that you 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 and as in previous years, no speeches, please. When I invite questions later in the meeting on each item, we'll take questions from the floor from shareholders and proxies who are in attendance, written questions submitted through the online platform and 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 required details, and they will introduce you to the meeting. I've 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. [Operator Instructions] 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 PwC, 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 key pads 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 these. 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 discussions on items of business, I'll prompt those shareholders who are physically present to vote on those items at that time. Your handset will activate. Your voting instructions will appear on your screen. If you require assistance now or during the voting, please simply raise your hand and someone from the Computershare team will come and assist you. For shareholders requiring assistance online, please follow the instructions on the online platform to access assistance on voting. Voting will remain open during the discussion of the items of business. I'll let you know prior to the close of the poll. Shortly after the close of the poll, the provisional poll results will appear on the screen behind me. The final results of the polls will be announced after the meeting to the Australian Securities Exchange, the London Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange and will also be available on Woodside's website. I'm holding open proxies in my capacity as Chair of the meeting, and it is my intention to vote all available proxies in favor of the resolutions in Items 2 to 5 and against the resolutions in Item 6, which are not endorsed by the Board. So I'll move now to Item 1, which is the financial statements and reports. 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 auditor for the year ended 31 December 2022. Although voting is not required on this item, shareholders have an opportunity to raise questions or comments relating to the management of the company and the reports. We'll address any questions or comments on the 2022 financial reports of the directors in the order, including general questions on the management of Woodside. If you have a question that relates to the subsequent item of business, please hold off on raising that question until we reach the relative -- relevant items, sorry. A reminder that you can log questions online at any time. However, we will hold off on raising those related to a particular item of business until we are at the point of considering that item. Again, I request that you please ask no more than 2 questions at a time to give all shareholders that opportunity to be heard. 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. Can the operator please call out the written questions received?

No written questions from the operator. I'll come back. So I'll go to microphone 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have Mr. [ Chris Schott ]. He is a shareholder.

I've only been a shareholder since the merger of BHP Petroleum. So I've got the shares issued. Therefore, this is my first AGM of Woodside. I have to say Mr. Goyder as a person who's come from Adelaide for this meeting, I appreciate you very much enjoyed the great football festival in Adelaide 10 days ago, which proved that Adelaide is much the center of Australian rules football as is Melbourne and may be equal with Perth. I have 2 specific questions on the management. I will ask other questions on the remuneration report and questions on -- speak on Item 6 and on the election of Directors. But my 2 questions. In the annual report, you mentioned you're doing business in China and you're doing business in Burma. Let me deal with China first. Do you agree with the assessment in the August report that China is a material threat to Australia? And if so, what are you advising the Australian government they should do regarding the business that you do in China and the risk that, that business may be curtailed if unfortunately, any form of hostilities over Taiwan break out? Second question is Burma. Way back in 1989, I had the good fortune to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, the then democracy leader in Burma. Since that time, over 30 years, she spent about 30 years either in jail or in house arrest. She is under house arrest, a jail now threatened with a long sentence by the military regime that took over. What I am very concerned about is that the money we may pay to Burma to be active there in royalties or whatever, it won't be used to improve the living standards of ordinary Burmese people. It will overwhelmingly be used to pay to the -- for the army to get weapons, et cetera, to continue to suppress the ordinary people of Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi, the last time there was a reasonable election, she got 75% of the Burmese vote and yet she's been locked up. I want an understanding that, one, I think you should withdraw from doing business in Burma until some form of reasonable democracy and human rights are restored. So there are my 2 questions, 1 on China and 1 on Burma?

Thanks, Mr. Schott and I hope you got to at least some of the games. I got to 9 games in Adelaide the weekend before last, and they did a superb job, South Australia did a superb job. I'll quickly respond. I'll get Meg to respond in detail. But the second part of your question on Burma, we've withdrawn in almost every aspect from Burma, but there are some residual issues around some employees that we're ensuring we protect them, but I'll get Meg to give you the precise response on Burma. We've been out of Burma now for some time, I think probably 2 years, Meg? On China, I'm not going to comment on the geopolitical situation government to government, again, Meg can clarify this. We have a long-standing contract with a customer in China that has been long-standing. And as a Board, we look carefully at all risks, risks that we can manage and risks that may be more difficult to manage. And clearly, we look at potential country risk and things like that as we manage the business. And so things that may impact our sales and revenue, we look at how we best manage those risks, but I don't want to get into detail about the geopolitical. Meg, can you just talk a bit about the contracts in China and how we've exited from Burma?

Sure. Thanks, Richard, and thanks for the questions, Mr. Schott. So when it comes to China, we've got business in probably 3 different dimensions. We have a very significant LNG sales contract with the Chinese customer. That customer has been a very reliable customer. They're a co-investor in North West Shelf with a small equity stake there. We construct facilities in China. We constructed the Sangomar floating production storage and offloading facility there. It's now been moved to Singapore, but we're also constructing the Scarborough floating production unit there. And then, of course, like many businesses, we have a supply chain that has many parts and elements that come through China. Look, we have very close relationships with the Australian government. We work very closely with them to understand the state of the relationship and the potential risks in that relationship. We do extensive scenario modeling. As Richard described, we look at all of the risks in our business. And at this point in time, we're still quite comfortable with executing those business activities in China. When it comes to Myanmar, so we entered that country as an explorer when democracy first took hold and that was when the democratic process was really showing signs of hope. Our exploration process, we drilled a number of wells there. We had a discovery. We were optimistically trying to progress the development. But when the coup happened in 2021, we ceased all activities, and we announced to market last year that we were pursuing a withdrawal. The withdrawal, as Richard noted, has some complexities to it. We're making sure that we exit in an orderly manner, but we are exiting our business in Myanmar.

2 questions, but 1 question about China. How much of the revenue of Woodside it comes from what we sell China in both billions and a percentage of our total turnover?

Yes. We don't talk about the revenue that comes from specific customers.

Microphone 1.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce Mr. [ Jeff Reid ], representing the Australian Shareholders' Association.

My name is [ Jeff Reid ]. I'm representing over 1,000 members of the Australian Shareholders' Association who have given me their proxies, which in total amount to 2.3 million shares which if it was 1 block of shares would put us comfortably inside the top 20 shareholders. Mr. Chairman, I have 2 questions for you today, and I would propose to ask them both at once, if that's okay with you?

Yes.

Number one, you said in the annual report that you're considering selling stakes in the Scarborough development and the Sangomar development to other parties. My question is now that we've got the BHP merger bedded down, are you still considering selling stakes in those operations? And if you don't sell a stake in them, can you fund the developments from internal sources? Or will you have to go to the market for funds? Number two, in the U.S.A., the inflation Reduction Act commits trillions of dollars to clean energy. What opportunities does this provide to Woodside, please?

So thanks, Mr. [ Reid Jeff ], and thank you for your -- the opportunity to engage with you as representative of the Shareholders Association and the constructive dialogue that we continue to have with you, and congratulations on the way you represent them. I want to get Meg to respond to both Scarborough and Sangomar and the Inflation Reduction Act. But what I will say is from a Board point of view, one of the things we take very seriously, and we spend a lot of time on is our capital management plan to ensure that under almost any circumstance, we've got the capacity to fund commitments that we've made. And so as a Board, that's a very top issue that we focus on. So we are confident about our capacity to fund the projects that we've already announced and indeed, some of the ones that we expect to announce in the coming period of time. But I'll get Meg to talk more specifically about where we are with Scarborough and Sangomar sell-down and the Inflation Reduction Act opportunities in the U.S.

Thanks for the question, Mr. [ Reid ]. We're pursuing a sell-down of Sangomar. Just for everyone's benefit, we hold 82% and operatorship. Our partner with 18% is the national oil company, Petrosen. So for a period of time, last year, we were pursuing a sell-down. The objective of the sell-down was to bring in a high-quality partner at a price that was value accretive for Woodside shareholders, and we were unable to get that kind of partner. So we've stopped the sell-down of Sangomar, and we're proceeding with our 82%. So very pleased with how the project is going. . With the Scarborough project, so with the merger with BHP Petroleum, we now hold 100% of the offshore. It's probably also worth reminding the shareholders that we did complete the sale of 49% of Pluto Train 2. So we have a co-investor in the train, but the offshore asset, we still hold 100% following the merger. We are looking for a partner, but again, with the strength of the balance sheet following the merger, we're very much focused on bringing in a high-quality partner at a price that is value accretive for Woodside shareholders. So we're being pretty patient in the sell-down process. If we can find the right partner, we'd be happy to bring them on board. And if we can't, we do have the balance sheet capacity to continue to fund at 100%. With respect to the Inflation Reduction Act, I don't know if you heard my speech at the National Press Club, but I flagged this as a game changer. It is a tremendous opportunity, and it will transform the investment opportunities in the U.S., particularly in these new energy commodities, things like hydrogen and CCUS. The U.S. government has done a couple of really kind of fantastic things with the IRA. First off, it's really emphasizing carats. So there's an opportunity for many investors to pursue these opportunities for things like hydrogen production, very attractive, very meaningful incentives for hydrogen producers. And our H2 Oklahoma project was looking quite attractive even before this. The IRA makes it even more compelling. So we are looking at opportunities. We've been working on some carbon capture and sequestration opportunities in Australia. But with the IRA, we're going to start looking at those sorts of opportunities in the U.S. So I'm very excited about what the IRA means for our business and the opportunities we might have in the future.

Thanks, [ Jeff ]. Microphone 2, then I'll go to 4.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have here Mr. [ Trevor Gibbs ], Mr. [ Gibbs ] is a shareholder.

I'm representative of Surf Life Saving. I'd just like to thank the Board and Woodside in particular. We've got the ongoing sponsorship with Surf Life Saving for the program. I presume it's going to be ongoing. Is that right, Richard, please?

It falls within the CEO's authorities, I think, [ Trevor ]. But it's a program that we're actually really proud of because it does amazing things for our kids and for the safety of people swimming in West Australia. So we're really proud to be associated with Surf Life Saving and I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

I'd like to thank -- it's definitely a program that's lifted the profile of the [indiscernible] program definitely having Woodside on board.

Thank you. Thanks, Trevor. Microphone 4.

Mr. Chair, this is [ Josh Kirkman ], who's a proxy representing Mrs. [ Christine Cook ] and Dr. [ Peter Cook ].

First off, thank you for your support of the Voice to Parliament referendum this year. It's really commendable and the country needs it. To the Chairman, a study release last week by Climate and Energy Finance concludes that Woodside faces up to a $63 billion liability to 2050 for the group of projects under the reformed Australian Safeguard Mechanism Policy. The Browse development, in particular, carries significant additional costs due to the need to pay for every ton of CO2 equivalent. How has the Board factored in the mounting costs from climate regulations such as the safeguard mechanism and will it now reassess the development of Browse in light of this?

Yes. Thanks, Mr. [ Kirkman ] for your question and comment on the voice. I'll get Meg to answer in detail. All I'd say is starting is that we apply cost to carbon to all the decisions we make, where that is appropriate. And the Board clearly looks at the risk associated with that risk and any and others associated with an investment. But Meg, do you want to go into any more detail?

Sure. So thank you for the question, Mr. [ Kirkman ]. We've looked at that report. We're not entirely sure how the math was done on those calculations. We model our emissions in every investment decision we make. As Richard said, we apply a cost of carbon, it's actually well in excess of the carbon price that was noted in the reformed SGM, which is AUD 75, we use USD 80 to inform our decision-making. So as we run the forward economics of investment opportunities like Scarborough and Browse, it is inclusive of a cost of carbon and one of the things that we've been talking about, and we've been working on the last couple of years for Browse specifically is a carbon capture and sequestration solution. We recognize that with Browse's reservoir CO2, we need to make sure that we are progressing opportunities to reduce the carbon impact from day 1, and that's underpinned much of our work. So we still view Browse as an attractive opportunity even with the reform safeguard mechanism.

Microphone 3. And I'll just give the operators a heads up. We'll go to any online questions and/or verbal questions next.

Mr. Chair, I have Ms. [ Lara Samson ], she is a proxy holder representing Mr. [ Andrew Nielsen ].

Mr. Goyder, your introductory message in the climate report says that Woodside has explained what it can, but also what it cannot do. Presumably, this is a reference to setting Scope 3 targets amongst other things, why is it that BP, Equinor, Repsol, Eni, Shell and even Chevron can set Scope 3 targets but Woodside can't?

So thank you, Mr. [ Samson ] for the question. We actually do have a Scope 3 target, which is to invest up to $5 billion on new energy projects to support our customers with lower emissions energy. There are -- but I'd also make the point that our Scope 3 emissions are our customers' Scope 1 emissions. I think all of our customers, Meg, in countries that have either net 0 by 2050 or in China's case, 2060 commitments. And so those customers are all in countries that have got the same sort of commitment that Australia has -- similar commitment Australia has to reduce emissions. And we'll work with our customers to reduce their emissions, but it's their Scope 1 emissions. That is their responsibility. Do you want to add anything?

No. That's a good answer.

Thank you. Are there any audio questions online?

Mr. Chairman, we have an online written question from Ms. [indiscernible]. Does Woodside have a Plan B in the event that the current climate debate cast strong doubt in the claim that global warming is real. Many thousands of scientists are providing much data, all of which point to no global warming over the last 20 years. Plan B would mean that Woodside does not abandon its unrepeatable oil and gas assets portfolio. Oil and gas are crucial to Australia's sovereignty.

So thank you for the question. I cannot be really clear that we actually agree with the science on climate change. And we agree that there's -- the climate is changing and that there are causes for that, and we are strong supporters of the energy transition, and we want to be a strong player in the energy transition. So it makes the rest of that questions less relevant. But what I would say and what you've heard this morning is we are making significant investments in our existing portfolio of assets as well as hopefully investments in new energies that give Woodside the opportunity to be a significant player through the energy transition, understanding that there are many, many customers in many parts of the world who will need our oil and gas for, we think, decades ahead.

Yes. Perhaps the 1 point I could elaborate on that is -- fully concur with Richard's comments about we do support that the science is real and that the world needs to adapt, and we need to make changes to limit the potential negative impact of global warming. That said, there are many possible pathways to achieving that outcome. And if you look at the IPCC report, there are something like 200 pathways that are what we have called broadly Paris compliance. And the variability is very wide. And so as we think about our investment decisions and we think about the opportunities that we're pursuing, we want to make sure we stress test those decisions against a range of possible scenarios. That is pretty well articulated in our climate reports. But I think it's important to note that there is uncertainty as to how the world will evolve to respond to climate change.

Thanks, Meg. And any others online?

Mr. Chair, we have a written online question from [ Catherine Holdcraft ]. And the question is, if we are making such a big profit, why don't we pay tax?

Well, the answer is we do. And I think I said that in my opening speech that last year, we paid AUD 2.7 billion in taxes and royalties.

Yes. We're a very significant taxpayer. I think an important statistic to note. Last year, our profit went up 200%, our tax paid went up 300%. Now there's some technicality, some of that tax, in fact, much of that tax is paid through entities that are subservient, but if you look at the total tax bill and our treasurer is happy to kind of report on the checks that we send out, AUD 2.7 billion tax and royalties, and that's both at commonwealth and state level. So a very significant tax contribution. Within Australian framework, we pay a number of different taxes. And it's not just -- it's important to note, we don't pay just corporate income tax, we also pay a petroleum resource rent tax. So we are a very significant payer of petroleum resource rent tax following the merger with BHP's petroleum business. The bill for that alone was $720 million last year and that's only with 7% -- or sorry, 7 months contribution from the BHP Petroleum assets. So we do pay our way.

So Meg, correct me if I'm wrong on this, we pay a 30% corporate -- corporations tax in Australia and then the PRRT is 46% on certain profit. So we could be paying up to 58% of our profits in tax.

Correct. On uncertain projects.

On certain projects, which is a pretty material component of the cash flow.

Correct.

I'll go to Microphone 3 in the room.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mr. [ Alex Hillman ], Mr. [ Hillman ] is a shareholder.

So my question is about on Trion. You're targeting an FID or FID readiness to Trion later this year. The Gulf of Mexico oil projects, for those who are unaware. Your capital allocation framework says that for oil projects you expect to generate 15% return. Based off KPMG's independent expert report and our analysis of that, it doesn't look like Trion meets this hurdle rate, and that's before considering a range of risks such as partnering with PEMEX, a state-owned oil company, which is a poor financial and safety record and has faced serious corruption allegations. How do you consider these projects and country-specific risks considering this 15% hurdle rate across your portfolio?

So thanks, Mr. [ Hillman ] for the question. I wouldn't put too much story in any evaluation of the valuation we'll do, which we are currently doing, and we'll take into account all the risks, some of which you've raised and some other risks. It will to make final investment decision approval on Trion. It will want to make a return in line with our capital allocation framework and we assess the risks around country and partners as well in any evaluation we do. Do you want to add anything?

Yes. Perhaps I can add a point around PEMEX as a partner. PEMEX actually has been a fantastic partner for us. And I think it's worth noting that in the context of historic poor practices or corrupt practices, the way the Mexican government has managed the Trion process from the very first licensing step all the way through today has been one of the highest level of transparency. The bid was conducted in an extraordinarily transparent manner where bidders were submitting bids in a clear plastic box, and they were read out on public TV. So Mexico does recognize that the history is challenged. The new CEO is very committed to improving their ESG performance and their safety performance. There's a great desire to collaborate with international investors on that goal. He's also very committed to tackling some of the historic issues around inappropriate business practices. So we found PEMEX to be actually a very valuable partner, bringing good insight into how to operate in Mexico, bringing tremendous human capability. And we look forward to continuing to work with them on progressing a development that we think will meet our investment targets. And please, you've read closely 15%, 5-year payback is what we're shooting for.

Sorry, perhaps the question now is there's a specific risk profile for Trion, which is not representative of the average oil project. I expect you're not going to challenge that. How would your investment -- investment framework to adjust for project-specific risks when the framework is around a portfolio hurdle rate?

Every project investment decision we make, we look at a range of risks and we run what we call a tornado of economic scenarios where we test what happens if this scenario happens, what happens if this other thing might happen if there's a cost increase, if there's a cost decrease, if we get more reserves, if we have less reserves. So we run all of these cases, and we make the business decision in the totality of that information. Country risk is something that's factored in. So that's one of the key risks that we look at.

And then just wrapping that up, if you don't make an FID in Trion, would you expect to see greater shareholder returns via dividends or buybacks?

I mean our dividend policy is to pay between 50% and 80% of our profits after tax and that won't change, whether we do Trion or H2OK or anything. So -- yes, well the Board, as I said earlier, to a question from [ Jeff Reid ], the Board looks very carefully at our balance sheet, but that return framework won't change. Thank you. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chair, we have Mr. [ Martin Dickie ] and Mr. [ Dickie ] is a shareholder.

I'm pleased to read that Woodside has a new energy strategy. And as a Perth resident, I'm interested in the operations of H2Perth. As I understand it, natural gas is broken down by heat into hydrogen, carbon monoxide and a small amount of CO2. The carbon monoxide is reacted with water to produce more hydrogen and more CO2. The figures that I found in a Forbes report of 2020 stated that for a kilogram of hydrogen produced, 9.3 kilograms of CO2 would result or in energy terms, 0.28 kilograms of CO2 for every kilowatt hour of hydrogen. Given this calculation does not address emissions that result from the use of the hydrogen, how does Reliance on this process help with the company's plans to balance its CO2 emissions?

Yes. Thank you for your question. Meg, I'm going to pass that one to you.

Yes, looks quite a technical question, and happy to lean into the details with you offline. I think at a high level, perhaps the best way to answer the question with our H2Perth opportunity, we're looking at 2 different methods of producing the hydrogen. One is a method that uses gas as a feedstock, which is the method that you're describing. Our commitments with all of our new energy projects is that we are Scope 1 and 2, Net 0 from day 1. And so with an opportunity like H2Perth, that will mean either using carbon capture and sequestration and that may be sequential with starting up the project or potentially using offsets for a particular period to bridge the gap. We are also looking at opportunities with H2Perth to use straight up electrolysis, which is the process of taking a water molecule and cracking that and then using the hydrogen atom itself to produce hydrogen and liquefaction. And you may have seen, Mr. [ Dickie ], that we made an announcement earlier this week about signing an MOU with Keppel Data Centers for liquid hydrogen supply. So there's opportunities in both of those methodologies to produce the hydrogen. We want to work with our customers to find the opportunity that best meets their needs when they look at the totality, the cost, the carbon emissions and the reliability and probably the fourth factor is timing of offtake. So we'll be looking at all of those items.

My second question relates to -- similar, relates to your proposal for ammonia production, which appears to be a sound investment given the need to produce more food from less land in the near and medium future. However, production from LNG appears to be an energy-intensive and dirty process that results in large CO2 emissions, which are the last thing that the company wants to take on at this time. What is the strategy for dealing with this fresh source of emissions?

So maybe I'll go back to our overall investment framework. So our strategy as a company is to thrive through the energy transition. And when we look at the energy demand profile globally and then also of our customer countries, which are largely today in Asia, we see continued demand for gas as those nations seek to diversify their energy mix and decarbonize their energy mix. It's worth noting that Japan, Korea, China, all still have heavy reliance on coal. And as they progress towards their Net 0 goals, which are 2050, and 2060 for China, they've been very clear with us that they're going to need more gas. LNG is energy-intensive to produce here if you compare it to pipeline gas, for example, but when you look at the total life cycle emissions, it is still about half the emissions intensity of coal. So we continue to believe that LNG has a very bright future for decades to come. Ammonia is an interesting commodity that we're looking at, and the use case that we are investigating is for customers in those same countries. As they think about decarbonizing their coal-fired power generation, they're looking at the feasibility of blending ammonia into those boilers. And using ammonia allows them to get the same power output for lower emissions intensity. So that's the business opportunity that we're pursuing with the ammonia opportunities. Again, ammonia is -- think of it as a different way of carrying the hydrogen molecule.

Thank you. I'm just going to go to an online audio question.

Mr. Chair, our online audio question comes from Reuters Nominees PTY Limited.

[indiscernible] you have a decommissioning allocation of [indiscernible].

So we obviously pay a lot of attention to any of these liabilities. And we're -- and our provisions are based on and restoration estimates are based on compliance with relevant regulations in different jurisdictions. So we absolutely report in accordance with our obligations on that. And I can tell you, as a Board, we've approved some significant sums of money in the last 12 months for rehabilitation obligations we've got, and we are completing a whole lot of those in the coming year, including some work to be done in [indiscernible]. Anything else Meg?

No. Okay. And I think there's a couple more written questions.

Yes, Mr. Chair, we have a recent question from Dr. Diana Lynn Sainsbury and Mr. Peter Jeffrey Sainsbury. The question is, in Ms. O'Neill's opening remarks, she argued that gas plays an important role for baseload power generation and load balancing. In the 2022 climate report, Woodside uses the Australian national energy market as a case study of those dynamics. Could you please clarify how important the NEM is to Woodside's gas business today? And why was that chosen as a case study?

Meg?

Sure. So as I noted in my remarks, following the merger with BHP's Petroleum business, we are now a significant supplier of gas in the East Coast Australian market, also known as the National Energy Market or the NEM. We provide about 40% of the gas in Victoria and about 20% of the gas in New South Wales. We used that as a case study to illustrate the point and to illustrate a couple of things. If you look at South Australia, for example, South Australia has been very successful in deployment of renewables, but gas continues to be a very noteworthy portion of their energy mix to provide that firming capacity and to complement the investment in renewables. When you look at other sections or other states, there's still a very heavy reliance on coal. And I think this is a great example of a couple of things in South Australia, you see how gas is the natural partner for renewables, the lowest emissions intensity choice. And then in the other states, we see the opportunity that's created for gas. Now as you note, and you see in our business, the Bass Strait business is an important element of our company, but given the new size of Woodside, it's one of many important parts of the business.

Thank you. And can we go to the other online question, please?

Mr. Chair, our online question comes from Catherine Holcroft. As a shareholder, I have read the latest Woodside Climate Report and commend the acknowledgment of climate emergency, but it is not clear to me how the company is going to effectively address their responsibilities. I'm worried about the vague use of carbon capture and carbon sinks, which seem to create excuses to keep up fossil fuel production and are unreliable and an excuse to keep doing what we are doing. 2050 is too late. IPCC says no new fossil fuel activity. Does Woodside aim to achieve that? Can't Woodside be a leader in developing renewable energy, not high-energy consumptive hydrogen that is good for the people, the planet and the company. I feel like we are doing way too little, way too slowly. I'm extremely worried for the future of our planet and our children.

So thanks for the question. Can I encourage anyone who hasn't read our climate report to read our 2022 climate report. I think it sets out very well our response to the significant issues that this question raises and more generally raised by the community. I'd make a couple of comments, and then I'll get Meg to expand on. What I would say is that the world is committed to reducing emissions, and we have a plan post Paris to do that. Now it's an uncertain plan, and there's a lot in the energy transition as we've already articulated today that is uncertain, but I think we've made a lot of progress over the last 5 years. Woodside is determined to be part of that. And we're very confident we can in terms of reducing emissions through the use of gas, particularly where it substitutes the use of coal and through new energies. And we know we can run our businesses in a way that's ethical and responsible and meet the obligations. 15% reduction in emissions -- net emissions by 2025 and a 30% reduction by 2030. So I think Woodside is incredibly important to the energy transition so that we're all less worried about the future of the planet, and we meet the targets that we've set, but Meg, do you want to add any more than that?

Well, perhaps I can point the readers either online or in the room to Page 13 of our climate report, which I think helps illustrates the uncertainty that faces us and as we think about the challenge of decarbonizing the world. The reality is there are many pathways that are compliance or meet the objectives of the Paris agreement, which, as Richard said, the world has signed up for -- most of the nations of the world have signed up for, we, as a company, have signed up for. I think the debate is really about how we might get there and how we get there in a way that provides, we'll call it, energy justice for the people of the world. Obviously, there's work that needs to happen in the developed world to reduce our use of energy, to reduce our energy intensity, and the carbon intensity of the energy we use, but there's still 1 billion-plus people who are living without access to reliable electricity, who would like the benefits of the society and the modern living that we all here enjoy today. And there's been tremendous work done by the scientific community outlining what scenarios might look like that deliver a Paris compliance outcome. And again, if you go to this page in the reports, you'll see that there's a very wide range of the oil and gas usage that might be present in 2050, what the world's total energy consumption might be in 2050. An element of the question around CCS and carbon dioxide removal that has absolutely got to be part of the solution. And that has to grow tremendously. And Woodside is doing work to look at opportunities both in Australia and in the U.S. for carbon capture and storage, because that is going to be part of the solution that the world needs. So those are some of the key thoughts, but as Richard said, our climate report provides a lot of discussion on these topics, and I'd encourage everyone to read it.

Thanks, Meg. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chair, I have Dr. David Dale. He's a proxy holder representing Conservation Council.

Thank you. Hello. Is Woodside Energy prepared to make a major, major investment in additional emissions reduction equipment at the Burrup Hub. The result of that would be reduction in acid rain and particles and would fit in with the company's proclaimed carbon reduction and environmental protection policies.

Thanks, Dr. Dale. Meg?

Sure. Thank you for the question, Dr. Dale. As we described in the climate report, one activity that we undertook last year was to really do a lot of work on our asset decarbonization plans. And as we've talked about in the past, we've got a hierarchy for action on emissions. First off is design out. The best way you can get rid of CO2 emissions is to not have them in the first place so where we can, and this is applicable to our new investments in things like Scarborough, Pluto Train 2, Trion. We are challenging the team to ensure that from day 1, we are designing the -- those facilities to have as low emissions as we possibly can. So that's design out. Operate out is the second set of practices. And it's the way we run our business, and it's from my level, all the way down to the frontline operator where the operators have the authority and the confidence to make decisions around how they run the plants and decisions that they can make to save emissions. And I was really pleased when I visited the Karratha Gas Plant and had the utilities panel operator very proudly point out to me that he had turned off a certain gas turbine generator to reduce our emissions. That's operate out. Third tool is offsets, but to your challenge, Dr. Dale, we know we can do better, and that's why we did the asset decarbonization plans, which has mapped out significant steps that we can take in each of our operating facilities to make further investments to reduce those emissions. I spoke in my opening remark about the opportunity that we've been working on to progress the solar project that would bring solar power directly into the Pluto LNG facility. That would be a dramatic change in how LNG facilities are done. We think it's probably the first opportunity of this nature globally to bring solar straight into a power plant. And this is an opportunity we hope to make an investment decision on this year.

Thank you. I heard you address to the press counsel a few days ago and I was impressed. Thank you.

Thanks, Dr. Dale. So sorry. Microphone 3.

Mr. Chair, this is Ms. Jessica Panegyres. Ms. Panegyres, is a proxy holder representing Litigo Dion Nominees Pty Ltd.

Good morning. I have a question that follows on from the discussion around Woodside's climate plan. So the International Energy Agency has backed out its net zero emission scenario and they say that this is the most technically feasible, cost-effective and socially acceptable Paris-aligned scenario. So they've mapped how the world can meet its energy needs and meet the globally agreed target of limiting global warming towards close to 1.5 degrees as possible. Why then does Woodside attempt to discredit this scenario in its 2022 climate plan as up half, but not necessarily the path. And my question to the Chair is, does the Woodside Board think it knows better than the International Energy Agency.

I'm not going to respond to that question because you'll then put out a press release. So I'm not responding to that. I'll get Meg to respond to. Our climate report talks about a range of scenarios. I don't think anyone has absolutely clear-eyed view on exactly what -- how these scenarios will play out and if anyone thinks they have, they've got the answer that no one else thinks they have. Meg?

Yes. I have my climate report open to the exact page in question, which is Pages 12 and 13, which talks about the IEA net zero 2050 study in the context of the IPCC total range of studies, and it's worth noting that the IPCC is the grouping of all the thousands of scientists around the world who do work on this topic. The IPCC's scientists have come up with, as I said, approximately 200 scenarios that are Paris compliant. The IEA has offered one possible pathway, but there are many possible pathways. And we need to make sure that we're following a pathway that achieves the goals of the Paris Agreement, but also, as I said, ensures that we're continuing to provide reliable, affordable and increasingly lower carbon energy to citizens, both in Australia and in our customer nations.

Thank you. Can I ask a follow-up then. If we're going to talk about the IPCC, they put out their most comprehensive synthesis report on the climate science this year. And what they said in there is that existing fossil fuel infrastructure already takes us over 1.5 degrees of global warming. So why then is Woodside investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure at the risk that, that drives more dangerous global warming.

Look, I think you need to get into the detail and you need to go look at the 200 case studies. And again, gas is probably the best example. If you look at the range of IPCC outcomes, there are outcomes where gas use in 2050 is actually higher than what it was in 2019 or today. So the IPCC would identify that there are very credible pathways that are Paris compliant where gas use increases. Now you have to look at the totality of the scenario, you need to look at all of the complexities. As I said a few minutes ago, things like CO2 removals are an increasingly important part of the mix. So CCS, carbon to products, direct air capture, all of these things need to have increased investment from where they are today to ensure that the world gets on to the right pathway.

Thank you. Microphone 2.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Ian Stan. Mr. Stan is a shareholder.

Listening to all the reports that you've given and also the fact that we have this huge problem with climate change. I have to state that I studied nuclear power way back in '73 from Imperial College, London. And I studied it at that side mainly because I could see that the world would have a pollution problem in the future, and we knew it well. Of course, today, we still have that, and it's only come to the fall. And of course, we are going in for nuclear power submarines. And of course, the Karratha relies on a baseload and nuclear power is ideal for baseload, because it sits down there sitting and churning out power all the time at zero emissions. And why is that not part of the plan or the energy mix in addressing climate change.

Well, it's a very good question, and it's not one that I can answer because I think it's a question that is actually much more national policy. In fact, I think at the moment in Australia, it's illegal based on the legislation we've currently got. So it can't be something that we are actively, and it's not something that we're actively considering. It's something that would have to be brought about through a change in government policy. Microphone 3. I'm going to wrap this section up in a minute. Microphone 3.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. David Ritter. Mr. Ritter is a proxy holder representing Mr. Thomas Joseph Hunt.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Woodside is a key industry partner for the Australian industry energy transitions initiative, which earlier this year launched a comprehensive report into decarbonizing the LNG sector. Now that report outlines a 73% drop in LNG production by 2040 alongside rapid and stringent on-site emissions reductions. Will the Board commit to aligning Woodside's plans with this study in which it was a key partner?

Thanks, David. And you looked very good on television last night by the way.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Meg?

Yes. Thanks for the question, David. Nice to see you again. There are a number of different pathways. And I'll again go back up to the high-level message of there are many Paris-compliant pathways. Gas is going to play a very important role in helping the world meet its Paris ambitions. So within an Australian context, we will do our best. We will continue to be an important partner in the conversation. If you look at, for example, our commentary, which is available on our website on the safeguard mechanism reform. We acknowledge that the 4.9% annual emissions reduction target was a very challenging target, but we backed it. We said that this is important for Australia. And we said it's important that we have a level playing field in all 200-plus safeguard mechanism facilities work to the same goal and have the same challenge. And so we feel like we're doing our parts within the Australian context. There still remains really attractive gas development opportunities in Australia that can help our customers meet their energy needs whilst they also decarbonize.

So is that a no?

Have you got your press release ready to go, David, again?

You could still make it much more interesting. I mean I'm a Western Australian, you're a really significant company. It seems to me observing the corporate culture from the outside that there is a great tendency to always assert Woodside's correctness and to cast doubt on everyone else. Now why can't you be more ambitious about this? Why can't you pick the most ambitious pathways as the right way for the company to go forward instead of the -- I mean, if we had a sort of prize for every mention of the word uncertainty, what about an ambition?

Well. Actually we'll differ on that, David, because I think we're ambitious Thank you. I think we've got another question online. I got to wrap this up soon because most of the questions are on the same matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have an online question from Mr. Ian Thomas [ Dunlov ], again, regarding the Paris Climate agreement, 1.5 and 2-degree scenarios. Mr. Chair, your climate report justifies gas expansion on the ground that it can still fit within the IPCC scenarios which will deliver 1.5 degrees with a 50% probability of success. If the probability of achieving the 1.5 or even 2-degree targets is raised to probability levels consistent with the LNG business, say, 90% or 95% at least, there is no carbon budget left today under any scenario. You and the Board would not get on an aircraft to fly to Perth if your chances of safe arrival were only 50%. Why then are you prepared to gamble the future of the company on this level of risk?

I think the analogy is completely wrong, and we've addressed and Meg has spoken about it today the IPCC scenarios previously and there are a wide range of scenarios. And I think, again, shareholders should look at Pages 12 and 13 of our climate report and if they won't read the other scenarios. I'm going to go to microphone 4 but if it's a question on environmental issues, I'm not -- I'm going to conclude the session. Microphone 4.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Tim Fudge, who is a proxy for Mrs. Susan Edwards.

If it's a question on environmental issues, I'm going to move on.

This question concerning your carbon offsets, so will you still pass on that.

No, we'll talk on offsets. Yes.

Great. I just want to start by acknowledging it's really great to hear that you've got a support for a voice for Parliament as well as the federal resolutions on the safeguard mechanism as it stands. So thanks for that. At last year's AGM, a shareholder question was asked if Woodside would publicly release accurate and detailed information about its carbon offset strategy for independent review. And the answer by Ms. O’Neill was that the company's offsets strategy was based on world's best practice. Section 3.6 of your climate strategy leaves me feeling a little less confident because it sort of tends to refer to and attribute to various standards and scenarios, but there's no clear mapping of what that offset strategy is going to be. So subsequent requests for you to disclose that strategy in detail, yielded no response. Are you able to now address the credibility gap and [ distill ] security and make your offset strategy methodology publicly available?

So I'm sorry, I missed your name.

My name is Tim [indiscernible]. I'm a.

I'll get -- I think we've gone into a lot more detail on offsets in our climate report this year, Meg. And it's an area that where there's now been an independent government assessment on offsets as well, which validates the use of offsets. And I think absolutely validates the offsets that we're using. Did you want to add anything to that?

I think you've made important points, Richard, that the independent study has verified the use and in the SGM reform actually, the government is emphasizing the role of ACCUs in helping -- Australia Carbon Credit Units in helping meet the decarbonization goals of the safeguard mechanism facilities.

Will those offsets be inclusive of scope 3 emissions, which represent more than 90% of the company's emissions strategy.

I think we've already clearly addressed that our emissions reduction targets for Scope 1 and Scope 2 are to reduce by 30% by 2030 and offsets as part of that mix. Our Scope 3 target is to invest $5 billion in new energy products and carbon solutions by 2030.

Microphone 3. But if there are questions on the matters we've already covered that I'm not going to deal with them, so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mr. [ Paul Slife, ] Mr. Slife is a shareholder.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me. And I just wish to ask a simple question and Woodside considered an investigated title power as a positive way to boost complementary green energy base extension 24 hours, 7 days a week. This has been successfully operated in France for some 40 years, and it is still operated today. This has been investigated by others over many years here in WA since before 1980. And perhaps has a similar 7 meters rise in the time I just suggest that this is a positive way of overcoming some of the problems we're faced with today. The second question is the voice, I mentioned in the -- by the executives saying that they have made a decision how they're going to vote for the voice as it stands. And I'm saying this is not necessarily right. All the shareholders should have their equal right to say how they feel. And I do understand that all the original people have exact right. But the question is how it goes about should be something that each individual shareholder to be able to make a decision on that matter.

Thanks, Mr. [ Slife ]. We'd actually agree with you on the second part of your question. We think it's absolutely a matter for every one of our stakeholders, whether they're employees, whether they're shareholders, whether they're our customers in Australia or whatever we think it's an issue for the Australian public. As a group, we have a view, but it's a view of a group of Woodside as a company. And I'll get Meg to respond on the title power question.

Yes. Thanks for the comments, Mr. [ Slife ], I appreciate your perspective. We keep a watching brief, and we scan a wide variety of technologies. And I guess going back to Mr. [ Stan's ] question, we do keep current with evolutions in nuclear power. We do monitor what's happening in things like title power. At this point in time, it's not a direction that Woodside is choosing to pursue. It requires a skill set that's a bit different from the skills that we have in our company today. Part of why we're focused on things like hydrogen and ammonia as those are very large-scale industrial facilities, processing at very significant quantities of energy. So those skills are very adjacent to what we do in the LNG industry. Title is something that doesn't necessarily align with our skill area. But -- and we continue to watch all these technologies. And if our strategy changes, we'll keep our shareholders apprised.

Thanks Meg, Microphone 2.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Thomas Hartigan. Mr. Hartigan is a shareholder.

I just want to complement which side on what they've been able to achieve on a worldwide basis, especially the assistance that you're giving to Victoria and New South Wales in relation to gas suppliers to reduce the electricity costs, but I would also think it's appropriate given the large scale of operations of Woodside around the world, and supplying gas into Asia and so forth. Western Australian users of gas which helped to produce their electricity and so forth. They've had 2 increases in the last 2 financial years, and I think they could have been modified to reduce the cost in Western Australia. We've traditionally had this reserve supply of gas, which has been a blessing to West Australians. I would like you to comment about why the increases have not been held to help people in their cost of living circumstances in Western Australia.

So thanks, Mr. Hartigan. Again, Meg might want to comment. I'll make a couple of things. Western Australia has a different domestic gas policy than the rest of the country, and we have a gas 15% domestic gas reservation policy in this state, which has assisted industrial and commercial and private residents in terms of access to affordable energy. We shouldn't assume that it lasts forever because as our existing and others existing gas projects come off stream as they deplete their reservoirs. Unless we develop new opportunities in Western Australia, we won't have that we've already -- that we've enjoyed for some decades in this state. As Meg said earlier, we're doing everything we can to bring every molecule of gas into the East Coast energy markets at the moment because there are supply issues on the East Coast. And there's obviously government policy at the moment capping pricing, but the domestic gas prices is more an issue for the retailers and government than it is for us. Thank you for your question. Microphone 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Ms. Anna Chapman. She is a proxy holder representing Terrence Edward [indiscernible].

So I missed the name.

Ms. Anna Chapman.

Planned growth from Australia's coal and gas producers is enough to see Australia's fossil fuel interests exceed the entire safeguard mechanisms emission budget in 2030, rendering our climate goals and achievable, how does Woodside plan to achieve gross emissions reductions, excluding efficiency measures that will actively and fairly contribute to cuts required to meet Australia's climate goals.

So thanks, [indiscernible], I think we've dealt with that today already. Thank you. Microphone 1.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce Dr. [indiscernible]. Dr. [indiscernible] is our shareholder.

My question concerns Woodside's failure to act to eliminate the harmful nitros oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, which are a byproduct of its operations and which are harming the Murujuga rock art and the local people's health. In June last year, the EPA recommended oxides of nitrogen emitted by the Karratha Gas Plant being reduced by 40% by 2030. In March this year, the EPA buys Woodside to act urgently to ensure that air emissions from the Pluto proposal do not accelerate the weathering of rock art on Murujuga beyond natural rates. There's also strong evidence these emissions are affecting the health of local people, children are hospitalized for asthma at almost twice the Western Australian state average and for bronchiectasis, which is a damage and widening of the airways 11.5x more than the WA state average. I know Woodside disputes the impact of these harmful emissions, but surely, the precautionary principle is advisable, especially as there is available technology to almost entirely eliminate these emissions. So considering it's $9.65 billion profit after tax last year and its desire for social license, why won't Woodside put in place the comparatively cheap scrubber technology to minimize its emissions and the impact on the world heritage nominated Murujuga rock art and the health of local people.

Thank you. Meg?

Yes. So a few comments. I appreciate the questions. So Woodside has been active in monitoring rock art and air quality since we -- since early days of operations on the Burrup. And we are active supporters of the Murujuga rock art monitoring program, which is now run by the Western Australia Department of Water and environmental Regulation and administered by the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation of the traditional custodians of the land on which we operate in the Northwest. We have continued to work very closely with them to understand the reality and understand exactly what is happening with the air quality. We have worked very closely with these groups for many years. But that said, we do recognize that we need to continue to take action to address our missions. I spoke earlier about our design-out philosophy. So for example, with our Pluto, Train 2 design, we took a number of steps to ensure that, that facility is more emissions-efficient than any other train on the Burrup. We take action, and we've been taking action to address the emissions in our existing and operating facilities and the Karratha Gas Plant has facilities that are 40-plus years old, but we've taken steps to try to reduce the emissions from those facilities. And we implemented a project last year on Train 1 to capture some of those additional emissions. So we are taking steps, and we are working very closely with the government. The EPA has imposed some targets for us, and we will work very closely to achieve those objectives.

And we are supporting World Heritage.

Yes. And we support the World Heritage listing. I think that's important to note. We work very closely with Murujuga. We listen to them. We're informed by their wishes. As I noted in my speech, the Scarborough Cultural Heritage Management Plan, I think, is a great example of how collaboration between industry and traditional custodians can deliver better value for everyone.

Sorry, could just ask a follow-up question, which would be very quick. -- the technology that -- that I understand could be used as a selective catalytic reduction system, what percentage actually of your profits would -- I understand it can reduce emissions virtually to zero. What percentage of your profits after tax would it cost to install that?

I don't have an answer. I would -- is Peter here today. Peter here. Tony Cudmore will be here. So I might get Tony Cudmore, who looks after sustainability for the group to catch up with you afterwards and follow that through. And thank you for your question. Thank you. I'm going to take one last question on item 1, Microphone 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mr. Ted Kagan. He is a proxy holder. He's unable to identify for whom.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. O’Neill. My question is on offsets. And as you mentioned, climate justice, a report published by the CSIRO in 2023 on mitigation and offsets to Australian greenhouse gas emissions, Australia has a capacity to offset 86 to 163 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. However, Australia's latest emission figures reported to the UNFCCC totaled 498 megatonnes with 537 megatonnes actually [ relates ] to the atmosphere. Why then is Woodside continuing with its plans to apply offsets to cover the majority of its future emissions reductions? And how does this relate to climate justice?

Thanks Mr. Kagan. Meg?

Sure. So I'll reference again the climate report where we have some very, I think, constructive illustrations of the role of offsets in meeting our 2030 emissions reduction targets. I think an important point to note and in response to a previous question, we've taken steps over the past year to really increase the amount of emissions that we can operate out or design out. So the emissions that we can actually reduce from our facilities. Offsets will remain a portion of our components or a portion of our emissions reduction target will be met through offsets. Look, we've done a lot of work over the past 5 years to build a carbon business, which gives us the confidence that we will be able to source high-quality offsets to meet those emissions reduction commitments.

Thanks, Meg. I'm going to move on to item 2 because I think we've exhausted the questions, both online and in the room on item 1. Items 2a, 2b and 2c relate to the reelection of Mr. MacFarlane, Mr. Archibald and Ms. Goh as directors who retired by rotation at this meeting. Being eligible, Mr. MacFarlane, Mr. Archibald, Ms. Goh offer themselves for reelection. Each year, the Board conducts an evaluation of the performance of individual directors based on the 2022 performance reviews, the Board supports the reelection of Mr. MacFarlane, Mr. Archibald and Ms. Goh. Item 2d relates to the election of Mr. Breuillac as a Director as Mr. Breuillac was appointed since the last Annual General Meeting he's required under the company's constitution and ASX listing rules to retire at this meeting. Mr. Breuillac, being eligible offers himself for election. The Board supports the election of Mr. Breuillac as Director. Item 2e relates to the election of Ms.Minas as a director, elected Ms. Minas will be appointed with effect from the conclusion of this Annual General Meeting. The Board recommends the election of Ms. Minas as a director. Details of the directors' second election or election are set out in the explanatory notes 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 can I ask Ian MacFarlane to come to the microphone, please.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, shareholders, for attending the meeting. Can I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners on the land on which we meet and the land on which we operate. And can I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Over the last 6.5 years, I've been able to contribute from a unique set of skills, not only in farming and resources, but in science, innovation and commercialization through a diverse background in developing public policy and also in the area of public policy around climate change and carbon reduction. I seek your support for a further 3 years as a Board member of Woodside on the basis that I still have more contributions to make to ensure that we achieve our goals. Thank you.

Thanks, Ian. Can I now ask Larry Archibald to come to the microphone, please.

Good morning. I'm Larry Archibald. I've got -- I'm an American with about 40 years of experience in the oil and gas business with several large multinational companies, fortunate to have had experience in many of the hydrocarbon basins around the world, including places where Woodside has producing an exploration interest today. It's been a real privilege to serve on your Board for the past 6 years and to be a part of such an effective Board and a great management team and seek your support for another term and really enjoy working with these guys and are proud of what they've accomplished, both in the base oil and gas business. And what we're very thoughtfully doing in new energy and managing the energy transition. Thank you.

Thank you, Larry. Can I ask Swee Chen Goh to come to the microphone, please?

Thank you, Chairman, Richard. Good morning, shareholders. My name is Swee Chen Goh. I'm currently based in Singapore. I have 40 years of experience. In the last 3 years, I've divided my time equally between for-profit boards and also nonprofit boards in education, in the ads. And also specifically, in addressing some of the issues that face our societies and communities today such as mental health and sustainability. I am quite hopeful that with my past experience in digital technology, in running and leading businesses that are customer-centric, in running Shell in Singapore through an energy transition that I, together with the members of the Board of Directors within Woodside that we are -- I am hopeful that we will responsibly steward Woodside through an orderly and just transition that will meet the needs of both its shareholders and its community. I'm also hopeful that you, as you look at the experience that I have, could see that I can contribute based on the experiences in the past and also the term that I have served in the last 3 years in Woodside that we collectively continue to steward Woodside to greater heights and greater success. Thank you, and I appreciate in advance your approval for my renomination.

Thank you, Swee Chen. Can I now ask Arnaud Breuillac to come to the microphone, please?

Thank you, Richard. I'm very pleased and honored to be here today to attend this AGM of Woodside Energy, your company. I have been working -- I have retired, in fact, last year from Total -- now TotalEnergies after 40 years with the company. I was involved in project and operation for 20 years and than the other 20 years involved in asset management and the last 8 years as a member of the Executive Committee of TotalEnergies in charge of E&P and as part of that team, I got very much involved in the definition of the new strategy of the company with regard to new energies and the strong development of LNG. So I'm passionate about providing affordable, reliable and clean energy to people. And I hope that I will be able to contribute to the successful development of your company, and I seek your support for my election as a board member. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Arnaud. And can I now ask Angela Minas to come to the microphone, please, Angela.

Thank you, Chairman, and good morning. I'm Angela Minas. I have over 35 years of experience working with energy companies across the energy value chain. I have done so in consulting senior executive and over the last decade, Board of Directors and Audit Committee roles for internationally listed companies. I am very excited and passionate about the opportunity to be able to work with Woodside Energy and serve on the Board of Directors during this critical period of energy transition and decarbonizing the world. I appreciate your support.

Thank you, Angela. So the motions that Mr. MacFarlane, Mr. Archibald and Ms. Goh are reelected as Director. Mr. Breuillac and Ms. Minas are elected as directors are now before the meeting. Are there any questions on item 2 from any shareholders, either online or in the room. Microphone 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mr. Chris Schott. Mr. Schott is a shareholder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a view that one of the important things in internal company democracy and external is, of course, the election of directors who have to take responsibility. I've looked at the individual members you put forward, some to be reelected and some too to be added. I don't have on an individual basis, any criticism of the career each of those people have provided, but I raise a broader issue, Mr. Chairman, that the Board is aware this company, the issues it's facing which many other people have raised today about climate change, the future of gas in the world, et cetera, and other fossil fuels, but in the future, this board is going to have to be have members on it that have a background, not just individually in the industry but have genuine knowledge of where the -- or what the issues are facing. Now I find it interesting that I'm here as a former -- I've got shares issue because it was a BHP shareholder. Over 10 years ago, BHP took a big decision. I was there when they announced it at the [indiscernible].

I don't want to be a long speech.

No, no, no. I come to the say, they took a decision to get out of fossil fuels. And that was a Board decision. And the reason I think it occurred is that there were 2 or 3 members of that Board, a woman, in particular, who shifted the focus. I just draw it to your attention that I think -- I'm sure you will do it as the Chair and there's a nominations committee, but you're going to have to, I think, be much more sensitive of how you put a Board together that faces the challenges of a fossil fuel industry over the next decade.

Thanks Mr. Schott. I concur with your comments. It's something we take very seriously. I take and the rest of the Board takes the composition seriously of the Board, and we think governance is incredibly important. But what I would say is the current directors of Woodside are very, very aware and responsive to the issues that we've discussed this morning that I would say it's along with appointment of CEO, significant transactions like the BHP Petroleum merger that how we navigate our way through the energy transition and how we allocate capital through that would be the most significant issue we discussed as a Board. But we're always looking to renew and we're looking to bring people not just on the Board, but into the executive team that bring the capabilities that you're talking about to the table. And we're very alert to it and I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Microphone 4.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Will van de Pol, who's a proxy shareholder for Dr. Linda Young.

Thanks for the opportunity. Mr. Goyder at last year's AGM in response to questions about the Board's and Woodside's unresponsiveness to a significant shareholder vote for a climate-related resolution back in '20, he mentioned that there was significant support for the reelection of directors, and that indicated significant support for the direction the company was headed in. I will note that the average ASX Director is passed with about 96.5% support of shareholders. So my question is how much of a protest vote will take on the reelection of directors today for the company to recognize that shareholders do not support the direction that the company is headed in, particularly in its climate strategy.

I think the most -- thanks, Mr. van de Pol. I think the most important vote we've had in the last 12 months was the shareholder vote on the merger of the BHP Petroleum business, which was overwhelmingly supported by shareholders.

That's -- sorry, not a response to my question at all.

Microphone 3. So if there are no further questions, and I don't think we've got any online, I now put Resolutions 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E to the meeting. Each of these resolutions is independent should be voted on separately. Please enter your votes for items 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E. A summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting of these resolutions will now be displayed on the screen. [Voting]

So we'll move to Item 3 now, which is to consider the company's remuneration report for 2022. The report is set out on Pages 75 to 98 of the annual report. It explains the company's policy on the remuneration of nonexecutive directors, the Chief Executive Officer and other senior executives and provides remuneration information for 2022. Although the vote on the remuneration report is only advisory, the Board will take the outcome into consideration we're determining the company's remuneration policy. The motion that the remuneration policy for the year ended 31 December 2022 is to be adopted is now before the meeting. Are there any questions on this item from shareholders, either in the room or online. Microphone 3.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Chris Schott again.

Mr. Schott?

All the environmental questions, I'll leave to others. My other question is about the remuneration report. It's the biggest individual section in the annual report, dealing with income to half a dozen of the top executives. It's to have the fact that this report that our annual report, biggest area written about is remuneration for senior executives, bigger than any other issue. I understand Mr. Chairman, that you are required by law to have very detailed explanation, but I would just wonder, is it possible to make it much simpler to explain rather than having to be Einstein mathematically work through the justification for these bonuses, et cetera. I've raised a question of BHP, Westpac, for exactly the same reason. They all give the same reason, the government requires by legislation to be this detail. I just hope in the future, you can get it to be a much smaller section, and there's more detail on the real issue of the business plan.

Thanks, Mr. Schott. So hopefully, through the rest of the annual report and the sustainability report and the climate report, you will get in good information on the company and also online and when we do things like investment briefing days similarly. I'd commend to you and other shareholders that you look at, particularly when we do presentations to shareholders of the investor briefing days. I take your point on remuneration. Unfortunately, it's where we're at. I can't give you a good response other than a lot of shareholders demand the sort of information and certainly proxy advisers demand the information that we put in the annual report. I share your pain. Microphone 3.

No more further questions.

I don't think there's any more. If that's the case. I am going to put item 3 of the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 3 now. A summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting are now displayed on the screen. [Voting]

I'll move to item 4, which is the CEO, Executive Incentive Scheme Awards. Item 4 on the agenda is to consider the proposed grant of restricted shares and performance rights to the CEO on the terms set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the notice of meeting. These executive incentive scheme awards form part of Meg O’Neill's remuneration for the 2022 financial year. Yes, from her outcomes for that year. The motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions in relation to item 4 from shareholders either in the room or online. If there aren't I'll move to put item 4 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 4 now. And again, I'll put up a summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on this resolution on the screen. [Voting]

Thank you. And I'll move to Item 5, which is non-executive directors' remuneration. Item 5 on the agenda is to consider if thought fit to approve the increase in the maximum amount available for payment of nonexecutive directors remuneration as set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the notice of meeting. This motion is now before the meeting. Are there any questions. If not, I'll put item 5 to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on item 5 now. A summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on these resolutions are displayed on the screen. [Voting]

I'll now move to Item 6, which is on Constitution and capital projection. These are requisition shareholders. Item 6A and contingent Item 6B on the agenda relate to the resolutions request -- requisition by a group of shareholders representing less than approximately 0.002% of our shares. Details of the resolutions and the Board's response are contained in the Notice of Meeting. The first resolution is a special resolution sticking to amend Woodside's constitution to facilitate advisory resolutions relating to material risks to the company. Item 6B is conditional on Item 6A being passed by the required majority of shareholders. This resolution requests that the company disclose in subsequent annual reporting information that demonstrates how the company's capital allocation to oil and gas assets will align with the scenario to which global energy emissions reach net zero in 2050. The Board has responded to the requisition resolutions in detail in our Notice of Meeting. Further information on Woodside's climate relating plans, activities, progress and climate-related data, as we've already discussed, contained in the climate report. While Item 6B is contingent on Item 6A being passed by the required majority, as foreshadowed in the Notice of Meeting, we would invite questions and comments on both resolutions before I formally point -- put 6A to the meeting. So are there any questions on Item 6A and 6B and it looks like we've got one online.

Mr. Chair, this online question comes from Mr. Robert John Brown and Mrs. Muriel Elizabeth Brown. As an energy company, is the Woodside management mindful of a very different company personality that energy companies will need to have by 2050 and beyond, and more specifically, why is it not actively transitioning its business model away from fossil fuels towards energy sources that are inherently sustainable and do not require unproven and unscalable Band-Aid solutions like CCS, witnessed the poor performance of the Gorgon CCS endeavors.

I thank you to the Brown foundry for the questions. I think we've pretty well done this. Do you want to just add anything on CCS.

Yes. I think I will add something on CCS because it is a technology that is probably misperceived in an Australian context. So carbon capture and sequestration has been used for decades successfully in the United States. It was initially used for enhanced oil recovery. So to use CO2 to try to get more oil out of the field, but that has proven up the technology. It's proven up what's required to get CO2 into the ground, how to store it safely there, how to ensure that it's captured. The technology has been used in an offshore setting for more than a decade in Norway. So whilst there's only one CCS project in Australia and the operator of that project has admitted there were challenges during the startup, they are sequestering CO2 today. And the technology itself is not only viable but it will be essential to help meet the world's decarbonization goals. So I think it's important that we continue to pursue these opportunities, both in Australia and in the U.S. and recognizing that the U.S. has significant financial incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act that makes those even more attractive as investment opportunities.

Thanks, Meg. Microphone 4.

Again, have Mr. Will van de Pol, who's asking the question as a proxy for Dr. Linda Young.

Thank you. The Board's recommendation on this resolution states, the Board considers that the climate report 2022 satisfactorily addresses Woodside's approach the risks and opportunities presented by climate change and the energy transition. Before going on to conclude, accordingly, the directors are of the view that the directors -- that the resolution is not necessary. Given 49% of your shareholders voted against the 2021 climate report and the lack of progress since then has seen significant shareholder votes against the reelection of one director in particular today. Will the Board now accept that the climate report does not satisfactorily address Woodside's approach to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change and that the company's existing decarbonization steps, public commitments and reporting practices are not sufficient for the Board to conclude that this resolution is not necessary.

So thanks, Mr. Van de Pol. I think you read out our response, and I'm not going to reiterate that. That's the response the Board has to that. I would say that we've made a significant advancement in our climate report 2022 over '21 based on a substantial number of meetings, many of which I've attended myself with shareholders as have Meg O’Neill, Graham Tiver and the executive team, we have done dozens and dozens of meetings with shareholders on our approach to climate and the 2022 report is proof of that, as is the commitment we've made to put the 2024 -- 2023 report to the 2024 AGM and I don't accept the other elements of your question. Overwhelmingly, shareholders have been very positive about the performance of Woodside over the last 12 months.

I think 35% vote against the reelection of a director is an extremely rare occurrence and that would speak to the fact that shareholders are not overwhelmingly supportive of the company's directors.

Ofcourse, that directors are former politician. So he recons anything above 15% is a great outcome, but thank you very much Thanks, Mr. van de Pol. Microphone 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mr. David Ritter. He is a proxy holder for Thomas Joseph Hunt. David?

I think it's good afternoon now, Mr.

Probably.

So I appreciate the opportunity to -- or the invitation to read the climate report in detail in its latest climate report, the company refers to a technically unfeasible scenario from an old IPCC report from 2018 and it relies upon that to argue that increasing global gas use remains a valid 1.5-degree pathway, but this scenario involved extraordinarily high levels of carbon capture and storage that would require capturing 8.8 gigatonnes of CO2 every year from now until 2100. Now currently across the world, only 0.04 gigatonnes of CO2 is captured every year, which is 220x less than what's required under the outdated scenario that's relied upon by Woodside. So given what you've just said about the significance of the climate report, will the Board commit to stop relying on outdated carbon capture assumptions in its next final report.

Meg?

Well, thanks for the question, David. We continue to review, revise update as new information becomes available. The IPCC synthesis report was released recently and the outcomes of that will get incorporated in the 2024, I guess, the 2023 report for 2024 voting. So we continue to update as new scientific information becomes available. But I think any of the -- many of the IPCC scenarios and you look at the range associated with the Paris-compliant IPCC scenarios. All of them do require substantial CO2 removals, which is why we are very actively working on things like carbon capture and sequestration as well as technologies in the carbon to product space, which takes CO2 and create something useful from it. So we continue to update our science and look, David, it's probably worth offering a follow-up with you and our climate team as well to make sure that we've got clarity and have those open lines of communication, and we welcome the input from you and your associates.

Thank you. I don't think you've said yes to the request for merging so far. So it's nice to get that very public acceptance here.

I know I was going to say the same thing, David. I think it's important that we engage even on some things we don't agree, we should be engaging and see where we constructively move forward on some things that are important to both Greenpeace and Woodside.

Well, I think -- I mean, the matter, I think we probably don't agree on most of all is, again, just that level of ambition. And I think I heard you earlier on Meg, say that the best way with this effect that the best way of reducing emissions is outsourced. And I don't think we would disagree with that if that became the guiding principle of Woodside's future as a business.

I now put item 6A to the meeting. If you've not already done so, please submit your vote on Item 6A now. A summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting of this resolution are displayed on the screen. [Voting]

It's clear from the proxy instructions received that Resolution 6A will not be passed by the 75% majority required for a special resolution. As Resolution 6B s contingent on 6A, it's not required to be put to the meeting. However, in the interest of transparency, a summary of the proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on Resolution 6 be also displayed on the screen. That now covers the formal business of the meeting of the voting system will close shortly. Please ensure that you've cast your vote on all items. [Voting]

Is everyone still voting? Do you want to help? I'm not -- I'll just wait for a minute to formally close the poll until you've got an opportunity. Just give me a minute to say this shareholder convert, please. What I will say is 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 Australian Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange after the meeting. Just once we've cleared this shareholder, I do want to thank everyone in the room for your constructive contributions today. And look forward to continuing the conversations in and outside this room as we move forward. Have we got that done. Warren, can I close the poll? So the provisional results on the screen will be the combined results of the votes cast by shareholders present today and those previously submitted by proxy. You can see the provisional results show. Hopefully, you'll be able to see soon. Waiting. [Technical Difficulty]. So if you didn't hear Computershare just closing the poll and then the provisional results should come up shortly. Here we go, now on the screen. As you can see, provisional results show that each of Resolutions 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 3, 4 and 5 have passed. 6A requisition by shareholders numbers by the Board has not passed. Again, thank you very much for your constructive participation today, and I wish you all a good day. I now declare the meeting closed. Thank you.