Woodside Energy Group Ltd ($WDS)

Well, good morning, everyone, and a very warm welcome to Woodside's 2026 Annual General Meeting. I'm informed that a quorum is present and formally declare the meeting open. I also open the poll for voting on all items of business. Can I begin by acknowledging the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation as the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today, and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. Today's event is a valuable opportunity for Woodside's Board and management to hear directly from our shareholders and respond to your questions. I am joined on stage this morning by our Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Liz Westcott, and Vice President and Group Company Secretary, Damien Gare. Every member of Woodside's Board of Directors is also here in the room. Nick Henry and Leanne Hassell, representing our auditors, PwC, are also present today. We will take shareholder questions on all items of business in one question and answer session. Only shareholders, their attorneys, proxies and authorised company representatives are entitled to speak and vote at this meeting. If you are a shareholder or proxyholder joining online, please start submitting your -- any questions you got now. You can do this through the same platform that you're watching the webcast on. Instructions for submitting written questions online are shown on the screen now, and instructions for submitting verbal questions online will be shown shortly. We'll try to take questions on a broad range of topics. So questions are not taken in the order they are received. Questions submitted online may be grouped together if there are multiple questions on the same topic. And as I said earlier, given the volume of questions we receive, we may not get to answer every question specifically. And as mentioned earlier, and as I'll say again, if you're asking a question in the room, please keep the question brief, and this is not the forum for making speeches other than mine now and Liz' shortly. So on behalf of the Board, I'd like to update you on Woodside's progress as we position our company to meet growing energy demand and deliver long-term value to all our stakeholders. Since I spoke to you at last year's AGM, geopolitical tensions have worsened and global energy markets have become more volatile. The Middle East conflict and its impact on economies around the world, including here in Australia, has once again highlighted the critical importance of energy security, affordability and reliability. Woodside has been and is a reliable supplier of energy, which Australia and the world now needs more than ever. In this complex and unpredictable environment, investors are looking for Woodside to build a profitable and resilient business that can deliver consistent long-term returns. And stakeholders are counting on Woodside to deliver our commitments by operating safely, responsibly and sustainably and contributing to local economies and communities. I'm pleased to report that Woodside continues to meet these expectations. In 2025, we achieved outstanding production and financial results, delivering strong sustainability performance and continued setting the foundations for Woodside's long-term success. This includes the appointment last month of Liz Westcott as Woodside's CEO and Managing Director. We're delighted with Liz's appointment, which followed a seamless transition process after Meg O'Neill departed Woodside in December to accept the role of CEO at BP. Meg led with clarity and conviction during a transformative period for Woodside, and the Board thanks Meg for her valued contribution. Liz has an exceptional track record of leadership and achievement across more than 30 years in the global energy industry. She is ideally suited to lead Woodside through our next phase of disciplined growth and value creation. You will have seen our operating results in our annual report and ASX filings, so I won't repeat the numbers here. We've continued Woodside's impressive track record of rewarding those who invest in our company, having now returned approximately $12 billion of dividends to shareholders since our merger with BHP's petroleum business. Importantly, we're delivering those returns while maintaining a strong balance sheet to invest in future growth and value creation. Amid geopolitical uncertainty and complex energy transition, countries around the world are increasingly prioritizing energy security and affordability alongside decarbonization. Growth in demand for renewables is occurring alongside of, not in place of increased consumption of oil and natural gas, which Woodside expects to remain essential energy sources for decades to come. Woodside's liquefied natural gas offers Asian economies a reliable and lower carbon alternative to higher greenhouse gas emitting coal, which still accounts for around 90% of the region's power sector emissions. Our domestic gas provides a firming resource for intermittent renewables here in Australia and is a key energy source for the mining and manufacturing sectors that drive our national wealth. In a volatile global environment, Australia has an important responsibility to remain a reliable energy supplier to regional trading partners. We also have a significant opportunity to develop new gas reserves that could underpin national energy security and sovereign capability. We are proudly an Australian company, which has and continues to make a significant contribution to our national wealth. We will continue to support our Australian customers, and we will invest for future growth as long as the investment case stacks up. An example of the investment is the USD 12.5 billion we and our partners are investing in the Scarborough Energy project. We're yet to earn $1 from making this huge investment, but it has already generated more than 3,000 local construction jobs and will provide enough energy for approximately 8 million homes for 30 years. Maintaining a stable fiscal and policy environment is critical to Australia achieving the goals I've referred to earlier. Importantly, that includes the tax regime in Australia. Woodside's climate approach balances ambition with discipline and achievability. We have delivered our 2025 net Scope 1, 2 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and are making good progress towards our 2030 target. Woodside also continues to invest strategically in new energy products and lower carbon solutions, including our Beaumont New Ammonia project. We're very disciplined with our investments in this area carefully monitoring policy developments and staying closely aligned with customer needs. As the Board sets the strategic framework for Woodside to deliver long-term value for our shareholders, we remain focused on succession planning to maintain the high standards of oversight and governance our shareholders rightly expect. We have appointed 7 new directors since 2020 with significant experience in areas that complement the expertise of our longer-serving directors. Today, we ask shareholders to elect Mr. Mark Cutifani, CBE, as a director. Mark's experience leading large global resource companies through periods of transformation and performance improvements will further strengthen the Board's oversight of strategy, risk and long-term value creation. I commend Mark to you. Four other directors are standing for reelection today. Larry Archibald, Swee Chen Goh, Arnuad Breuillac and Angela Minas, have proven themselves valued members of our Board with complementary skills and experience. I commend Larry Swee Chen, Arnaud and Angela to you. Finally, Ian Macfarlane retires from the Board at the conclusion of today's meeting following almost 10 years of invaluable service as a director. The Board and I extend our sincere thanks to Ian and wish him all the best for the future. With these changes to our Board composition, I want to ensure shareholders that we are mindful of the Corporations Act requirement for at least 2 directors of a public company to ordinarily reside in Australia, which I currently has 3 directors that permanently reside in Australia, me, Liz Westcott and Ben Wyatt. Can I close by thanking my fellow Board members, Liz, and her leadership team and everyone at Woodside for another astounding year. And most of all, I'd like to thank you, our shareholders. Importantly, approximately 550,000 of whom are small shareholders for continuing to put your trust in Woodside. I'm very confident this trust will translate into long-term benefits as we build a resilient cash-generative business that is well positioned to enduring -- to deliver enduring value. As I hand over to Liz, please take a moment to watch this video highlighting our achievements over the last year. Thank you. [Presentation]

Well, hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Number of you in person and of course, people online. It's really a great pleasure to address our shareholders for the first time as Woodside's CEO and Managing Director. And I'm honored to lead this great company with its highly talented people and a proud track record. My focus as CEO, supported by our strong leadership team is on disciplined delivery to our plan, creating long-term value for Woodside shareholders, maintaining safe and reliable operations and executing major growth projects to budget and schedule. As Richard noted, the conflict in the Middle East has caused significant disruption. And we may get disruption today, but this transcript is available online, and so I'm going to keep going. We continue to monitor these events with concern for people impacted. It is a dramatic reminder that reliable and affordable energy remains key to global economic growth and the quality of life we enjoy in countries like Australia. As a secure and reliable supplier with a flexible portfolio and trusted relationships, Woodside is well positioned to continue delivering for our customers. In 2025, we achieved outstanding operational and financial results, and that video you saw showed that. By maximizing performance of our high-quality assets, we delivered record annual production, exceeding full year guidance. This was driven by the exceptional performance at Sangomar and world-class reliability at our operated LNG assets. We combine this with improved efficiency, reducing unit production costs by 4% by 2024. We advanced major cash-generative projects to budget and schedule and really set the foundations for Woodside's next chapter of long-term growth and value. This included excellent progress on our Scarborough Energy Project, which remains on track for first LNG cargo in the fourth quarter of this year. We achieved first production at Beaumont New Ammonia and made strong progress on our Trion Project, which is targeting first oil in 2028. And we took the final investment decision to develop the Louisiana LNG project positioning Woodside as a global LNG powerhouse. Since these decisions, we've made great progress on the project at Louisiana, and it's targeting first LNG in 2029. Its value to Woodside has been reinforced through key infrastructure offtake and gas supply agreements that we've signed with high-quality partners. As nations around the world prioritize energy security and affordability alongside decarbonization, Woodside is confident in demand for LNG as a reliable and flexible energy source. Over the past year, Woodside has signed 6 long-term LNG supply agreements with customers in Asia and Europe, some of which extend into the early 2040s. Our global quality portfolio and established marketing and shipping capabilities position us well to meet growing demand and capture additional value as Scarborough and Louisiana LNG come online. Woodside also remains a key supplier of reliable and affordable energy to Australian homes and businesses. We supply 21% of West Australia's gas market, including to the state's mining and mineral processing sectors. And on the East Coast, all Woodside's production is delivered locally, representing 19% of total supply. To capitalize on growing energy demand and to capture long-term value, we continue to actively manage our balance sheet and refine our portfolio. Our agreement to assume operatorship of the fabulous Bass Strait assets combined with our Chevron asset swap in Western Australia will create economies of scale across our Australian portfolio. Our divestment of Greater Angostura assets in Trinidad and Tobago also highlights Woodside's disciplined approach to portfolio management and our continued focus on cost control. Strong sustainability performance underpins Woodside's ability to deliver long-term value, both for our shareholders and communities in which we operate. In 2025, we made good progress across key sustainability areas. We delivered improved safety performance across our global portfolio with no high consequence injuries recorded. We reduced our gross equity Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions. And that is the actual emissions at source without offsets, they're reduced from the prior year despite higher oil and gas production. We also continue to demonstrate that what Woodside does well, when Woodside does well, communities do well, and they benefit from where we operate. We spent $9.3 billion globally on goods and services in 2025, including almost $5.4 billion in Australia, supporting local employment and business opportunities. And we contributed a further AUD 2 billion in taxes, royalties and levies to Australian, federal and state governments. I would like to close by thanking everyone at Woodside for their impressive delivery over the past year. I'm very proud to be leading such a capable and dedicated team. I'd also like to echo Richard's thanks to our shareholders. We appreciate your continued investment and are committed to delivering consistent long-term returns. Woodside's financial position is very strong. Our operations are running reliably. Our growth projects are progressing well, and we are running our business responsibly and sustainably. I have every confidence in our ability to keep delivering strong results in 2026 and beyond. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Liz. We're now moving to the formal business of the meeting. There are 5 items on the agenda today. Item 1 is to receive and consider the company's financial report and sustainability report and the report of the directors and the auditor for the year ended 31 December 2025. Items 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and 2e relate to the reelections of Mr. Larry Archibald, Ms. Swee Chen Goh, Mr. Arnuad Breuillac, Ms. Angela Minas as directors and the election of Mr. Mark Cutifani as a director. Item 3 is an advisory note related to the company's remuneration report for 2025. Item 4 is to consider the proposed grant of performance rights to the CEO and Managing Director. And Item 5 is an ordinary resolution proposing an increase in the aggregate amount of remuneration that may be paid in any financial year to the company's nonexecutive directors. At the time of registration, shareholders attending in person who are eligible to vote would have been given a handset. Proxy holders would also have been given a handset and a summary of their voting instructions. When voting begins, in-room attendees will see today's resolutions on their handset keypad screen. Instructions for how to submit your votes using the handsets are now on the screen. If you require assistance now or during voting, please raise your hand and someone will assist you. Instructions for submitting votes online are now also on the screen. For shareholders requiring assistance online, please follow the instructions on the online platform to access this assistance. The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on each item are now displayed on the screen. I hold open proxies in my capacity as Chair of the meeting, and I will vote all available proxies in favor of each resolution. I will let you know when the poll is about to close. We'll start today with questions for the auditor. Nick Henry from PwC can answer questions during the meeting relating to the conduct of the audit, the company's accounting policies, the preparation and content of the auditor's report or the independence of the auditors. We've received 2 questions for PwC ahead of the meeting relating to decommissioners. The auditors have received the question in full, a copy of which is available at the registration desk and in the meeting documents accessible on the online platform. A summary of both questions is now also on the screen. Can I ask Nick to respond to the question from the floor, please? Can we put a light on Nick, if there's an opportunity? Thanks, Nick.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, shareholders, for the questions. Before addressing the specific questions, let me first explain our role as auditor of the company's financial report. Management is responsible for the preparation of the financial report. The financial report is then approved by the directors as being fairly presented. Our role as the auditor is to give an independent opinion. [Presentation]

Go ahead, Nick.

Thank you, Chair. So our responsibility as auditors is to give an independent opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. In relation to the specific question on restoration provisions, Note D5 of the financial statements, I think it's Page -- sorry, 219 in the Annual Report outlines, management have outlined the way that restoration estimates are considered. And as Woodside's auditor, our role is to assess the financial report as a whole and whether it complies with accounting standards, including considerations of provisions under AASB 137 and whether these provisions appropriately disclose the material judgments that go into the measurement of these provisions, particularly in relation to the timing and nature of decommissioning activities, which our estimates with inherent uncertainty and subject to regulatory outcomes, we also consider where the full removal of facility is required or not. We reviewed the methodology that was applied by management in the recognition of these provisions, including the significant assumptions and data that was utilized in preparing the provisions and the associated disclosures on the financial statements. And we issued an unqualified opinion on our report. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Nick. Liz, can you just add a management response as well to those questions?

Yes. Thanks, Nick. And just let me assure you that as the auditors have just outlined and as is evident in that disclosure note on D5, our financial statements are fully compliant with the relevant accounting standards and that they've received that unqualified audit opinion. Cost estimates that we use in our decommissioning estimates are based on specialist expert updates that are provided regularly. We have formal assessment processes. We look at these cost estimates routinely. Our updated estimates are included in our impairment testing, and they're included in the carrying value of our assets. In the notes, you'll see we've provided detailed information on our restoration provisions, including key assumptions such as discount rates, cost escalation and as well as how sensitive these estimates are to change. We also include additional disclosure on provisions that are not expected to be settled for more than 10 years. We keep our disclosures under regular review, including comparing them with those of our peers, and we'll continue to enhance them where we believe it will improve clarity and understanding for our shareholders.

Thanks, Liz. Are there any other questions for the auditor from online attendees or from the floor? There are no further questions to the auditor at this stage, thanks, Nick. Items 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d, as I said earlier, relate to the reelections of Larry Archibald, Swee Chen Goh, Arnaud Breuillac and Angela Minas as directors. Larry, Swee Chen, Arnaud and Angela have been elected at previous AGMs and retire by rotation at this meeting. Being eligible, they offer themselves for reelection. There's detailed background on each of those directors in the Notice of Meeting. Item 2a relates to the election of Mark Cutifani as a director. Mark was appointed in March 2026 and being eligible, offers himself for election. Mark, would you please come to the microphone and introduce yourself to shareholders?

Thanks, Richard, and thanks, Liz. Good morning, shareholders, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow colleagues and other participants. First, I'd like to say it is both an honor and a thrill to be asked to join the Woodside Board. I'm Australian, born in Wollongong, trained and shaped in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, lived and worked here for 11 years. I've worked and lived across 4 continents, 5 countries, producing more than 30 commodities, most recently working with TotalEnergies in the energy space. I'm not going to go through my resume. You can Google me if you're interested. What I would like to say, Woodside Energy is a company that is making and can make a material difference to Western Australia, Australia and the world at large. Most people don't appreciate the reduction in our human footprints that we provide through the energy that we provide to the world. If you don't understand gas and its role in powering the future of Australian industry and in domestic use, while being the key to the energy transition, I'd advise you to let Liz and the team tell you their story. Our job as Board members is to support them make a difference. Again, I thank you for the opportunity. It's great to be here and certainly a great privilege for myself.

Thank you, Mark. And based on the votes received to date, your election looks like it will be strongly supported. As I noted earlier, we will now hold a single question-and-answer session during which you can ask questions on any of the 5 items of business. General questions and comments about the accounts and management of the company can also be asked during this session. Please direct all questions to me as Chair. Please keep your questions brief, ask no more than 2 questions at a time and avoid repeating issues or raising matters that have already been covered and no speeches. This will give as many shareholders as possible the opportunity to be heard. We've received a number of questions from shareholders prior to the meeting. So we'll start with those questions. Operator, please read the questions out.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Geoff Reed.

Good morning, Chairman, and thank you for a great year's performance. to you and Liz and welcome to Liz. My name is Geoff Read. I'm a proxy holder for the Australian Shareholders Association. 750 members of our association hold just over 2 million Woodside shares. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask you a question about our production and its sources and destinations. Please can you tell us what percentage of the LNG production is available for sale of spot cargoes? And what percentage of crude or condensate production is available for sale of spot cargoes? Second part is, are these spot cargoes being sought by Australian refineries? And can we deliver them to our Australian refineries at this rather difficult time?

Thanks, Geoff, and thank you for your leadership of the Shareholders' Association. We value the relationship and your shareholders are very important members of our company. I'm going to get Liz to answer both those questions.

Yes. Thank you, Geoff, and a very topical question for many. We have both LNG and liquid fuels, crude and condensate in Australia. And LNG is typically sold under long-term contracts. And we'll see as Woodside that across the '26 to '28 period, 75% of our LNG is contracted. But that does leave 25% available for the spot market. With our crude and our liquids, all of that is in the spot market, and it's generally sold at the -- 2 months ahead of when we expect it to be available for loading. So when we look at the liquids available, we do note that the 2 remaining refineries in Australia are not well suited to the types of products we have. We have condensate, which is an associated liquid with our gas fields. So in Bass Strait, in Pluto, Wheatstone and North West Shelf, it's a light crude, and this is not well suited to the refineries on the East Coast. Hence, this is now sent into Asia to be returned to us as produced products but requires the refineries overseas. We also have some traditional crude in our fields, but that is actually very heavy and again, not well suited to the East Coast. So that crude is also processed overseas, but we understand the fuel scarcity challenge. We remain in good contact with our East Coast counterparts to see if there's any way that we can support them further than what we do.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to jump to agenda item #4, the issue of share rights to the CEO. It's proposed that 40% of the long-term incentive rights will be assessed against ROACE, return on average capital employed, over a 3-year period being adjusted for capital projects not yet in production. To achieve minimum vesting of ROACE, ROACE must exceed 7% and to achieve maximum vesting, it must exceed 8.4%. Mr. Chairman, we believe these targets are too soft, and we note that ROACE was 15% in '21, 24% in '22, 6.4% in '23 and 8.5% in '24. And 6.75% last year. In other words, in 3 out of 5 years, it's already exceeded the minimum -- the maximum target and 2 years did not meet the minimum target. We note also Mr. Chairman, that a large percentage of your shareholders are voting against this resolution. And I wonder if you could please explain why that is and perhaps let us know who they are? And would you consider adjusting these targets to make their achievement a bit more stretching?

Again, Geoff, thank you. We -- after last year's AGM, we indicated that we were -- or at last year's AGM, we indicated we were going to review our executive incentive scheme because the feedback we've had from directors on our previous scheme. And so this component of the long-term incentive is part of that new scheme, as you know. So it's now a short-term scheme, a short-term incentive with 5 key factors. And a long-term incentive, which is all equity-based, all tested over 3 years and all with a 2-year hold on the shares after any shares vest. Based on performance over those 3 years, 60% of that is rolling total shareholder return measure against 2 indexes. And 40%, as you say, of the long-term incentive is around a ROACE measure. The reason we put a ROACE measure into the long-term incentives, one, for feedback from shareholders; two, the Board is very cognizant that we want management focused on delivering strong returns from the significant capital that's being invested in Woodside now and I referred earlier to the USD 12.5 billion in Scarborough, which is yet to start off up. And obviously, we've got Trion, Beaumont New Ammonia and Louisiana, all with considerable capital. So we want the appropriate incentive for management to improve return on capital employed. We think there's a high correlation between growing return on capital employed and shareholder outcomes. Specifically, in answer to your question on the 7%, the reason those earlier years was high was that was prior to the BHP Petroleum merger. And that merger, which took place at high oil prices reduced our ROACE outcomes, if you like, for reasons which you'll understand around goodwill and the asset values that we brought in. We set the target late last year because our year started on the 1st of January. And at the time we set the target was based on our corporate plan plus a premium on oil prices. Now clearly, what's happened in the Middle East has changed that short-term outlook. But importantly, it's a 3-year target, Geoff, and it has to grow over the 3 years, and it's our average over the 3 years. So my view is that the Board is unlikely to adjust the target if oil prices are lower. And let's see how this all unfolds over the next 3 years. But there is stretch in that. There's varying views as to how quickly the markets, oil markets and energy markets recover following the Middle East. So we don't intend to change the targets because, again, if we get strong outcomes, we think that will be good for shareholders. But we will keep an eye on this but right now, we think it's the right target. In terms of shareholders voting against it, it's slightly frustrating that because it's an integral part of our remuneration scheme that we've redesigned that will pass the advisory vote today. So -- and the issue of these shares, performance shares to Liz is only subject to a 50% vote. So it will pass comfortably. We will talk to shareholders following the meeting on any specific issues they've got. But again, I strongly recommend and the Board would strongly recommend that people vote for that because none of those shares will vest to Liz without those performance hurdles being achieved. But I appreciate the question.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Can you share with us what those issues might be right now?

I think -- well, the main issues were potential quantum, but my response to that is Liz gets 0 unless we achieve the benchmark total shareholder returns and ROACE measures and certainly doesn't get maximum until we're in the top quartile. Next question.

Thank Mr. Chair, we have Paul Fanning.

Thank you, Richard, and thank you, Liz. Can address that even thought it was a bit truncated in different parts. I look forward in meeting both of you later. But my questions again probably touch a little bit on the [ Amber ] from the ASA in Item 6, which is the remuneration for the LTI for this, I guess, Page 13 and Page 14 of the Notice of Meeting. What seems to be probably at the crux is, the corporate scoreboard is probably -- it's somewhat opaque. It is referred to in the annual report, which I have actually gone and had a look. The corporate scoreboard is coming up with from FY '25 of 7.0. Now this is meant to feed back into the structure of Liz's remuneration under the LTI. So I don't think it's been really conveyed very succinctly and very clearly. And therefore, the negative vote on the resolution has probably risen. Probably would be worthwhile knowing where those -- where the negative vote is coming from. I suspect it's coming from institutional shareholders in large blocks, maybe not probably retail shareholders. So talking about here about the [ FAR ] and then the [ VAR ] in broad context, I understand it, but I really have my sincere doubts as to whether the voting population is really cognizant of this structure here. Sorry about the qualms. Now can I give my second question? Yes. Okay. Now the second question is on Page 16, vesting conditions. Again, touching a bit more on what Jeff mentioned before. But what I would like to know is your external adviser, who or what assisted you in the construction of the VAR for the performance rights? Did you -- are you able to name the adviser? What dialogue with this discussion did you have? And how did you come to terms with the advice given? And of course, then that then feeds down into the performance rights and then turn that down, which is 60% and 40%.

Thanks, Mr. Fanning and great to see you. I know you travel across the country to be here with us. So -- and I appreciate you being here. And if I fail to answer the question to your satisfaction, please catch up with us afterwards. And Arnaud Breuillac, who is the Chair of the Rem Committee is here as well and be happy to engage with you on these. Let me again -- I won't repeat what I said to Geoff, in terms of the rationale, which was -- we had feedback from shareholders. The key -- I think the key thing now -- so sorry, let me just talk about the short-term incentive. There are a number of measures in the short-term incentive, which is -- and based on performance, that is paid in both cash and restricted shares. Restricted shares, meaning that they are -- have been earned by the executive, but they will be held for 2 years after they've been awarded. And that's around production. It's around a profit measure. It's around safety and emissions. It's around growth. And there's one other aspect, which I'll think about, climate growth and the base business, how we're running the base business. So safety climate earnings and operating costs, unit operating cost. They're the key measures on the short-term incentive. And then the corporate scorecard is calculated based on how -- and you'll see that in the annual report, and you -- on how each of those measures go against the targets. And then there's a personal performance factor as well, which applies to it. So that's how that calculates. The long-term incentive, which is all performance shares. So I'll reiterate, no shares get awarded without performance hurdles being met. All performance shares is 60% of rolling total shareholder return. Part of that being measured against the ASX 50 and part of that being measured against a global MSCI index of energy stocks. And then as I referred to in my answer with Geoff, 40% based on a return on capital over the 3 years. And again, have to meet those targets over 3 years. And we'll -- as I said earlier, we'll reengage with shareholders. I think I was advised yesterday, we've done about 50 meetings with institutional shareholders over the last few months. And certainly, Arnaud and I did a lot last year as well in the lead up to revising the remuneration scheme. So we'll continue to engage with shareholders to ensure we get the support required for these -- for our remuneration schemes.

Just one supplementary. In terms of the corporate scorecard and the opening statement -- opening introduction given by the Chair of the Rem Committee, it's saying that the corporate scorecard only came up at 7. And what I find the skill probably -- with the corporate scorecard only like 7 out of 10, that's probably a bit mediocre. But then when I drill down and find there are some attributes which -- where the -- where it can be improved or it's rather lacking. And also, there was a significant incident -- a safety incident during the year, which you might like to talk about those 2 aspects. I guess a bit more detail for the broad shareholder base about the [indiscernible] of the corporate scorecard widget and also how that's also going to impact on Liz's performance rights also.

So let's ensure we catch up on some of that detail. But what I would say is score 7 is not mediocre. We had a strong year last year, but there are some elements that pulled it back. And that's why when people talk about the maximum potential earnings for Liz and the executive, it's highly unlikely to occur because literally everything has to go right in what is a complex business. But happy offline to go through some of those other factors with you. I think we detailed pretty clearly in the annual report, the performance against each of those measures and then the individual's performance as well. But I appreciate the question.

Just one final thing on that. Would you like some other ASX 200 companies are doing within the skills matrix, would you be prepared to actually enumerate which directors have which particular skills degree of those skills.

Yes. No, we don't go specifically to directors.

I take it back and talk amongst the Board members because there are companies out there that are doing that, Richard.

I'll have a look at it. Thank you. Next question please? Can we have the next question?

Apologies, Mr. Chair. There's an online question being prepared. But in the meantime, I have Mr. [ Martin Dickie ].

Martin Dickie, I'm a shareholder. The ongoing war in Iran and global supply issues have sent LNG prices skyrocketing. Whilst high LNG prices may be good news for our company in the immediate term, I'm worried about what it means over the longer term. We've seen some recent examples that look to be signposts of a declining appetite for LNG demand in Asia over the long term. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent LNG prices skyrocketing, Pakistan rapidly pivoted away from LNG imports and installed unprecedented levels of solar and battery storage to shield against future price volatility, exactly what we're seeing now. Some countries like India and Bangladesh have recently started gas rationing, whilst the list of canceled LNG projects in Vietnam may soon include the country's largest proposed LNG to power plant. Woodside's LNG is quite frankly, too expensive to compete with renewables and be a cost-effective substitute for coal use in key Asian markets. What makes Woodside so confident in its LNG demand thesis of sustained long-term growth in Asia? Is the company reevaluating these in the light of recent events?

And is that your only question, Mr. Dickie?

No, I have a second question.

Can you ask that, too, please, and we'll respond, without the long speech.

We've heard this morning and loudly a considerable community concern with the impact of Woodside's activities on the natural environment. The whales and the turtles don't vote. So I'd like to know what Woodside is doing to protect the marine environment in the areas in which it operates?

Liz, can you respond on both fronts, please?

Yes, certainly. Thank you very much for your question on LNG demand. Certainly, the last few months have put LNG in the spotlight and when you've got 20% of the world's LNG no longer available to reach customers, we start to see the impacts, and you did outline a number of countries and how they're responding. What it actually reinforces for us is the critical role LNG is playing today, and will continue to play in energy security for many countries. When you've got 20% curtailed, countries are having to take action. And what we can see is that LNG provides so many activities and support so many parts of our society. It can support the power industry, and that's been a great role. It doesn't compete with renewables. It's additive to renewables. So it provides firming capacity for when renewables aren't available and it can provide baseload. It has multiple roles in the power sector. But it does more than that, and it's a feedstock. It's a critical feedstock for ammonia and fertilizers. It provides industrial heat. And that's used in many processes, steelmaking and others. So it has multiple roles around the world. So we can see that it's going to be a required and sustained part of society. But when we look at the future for it, we aren't just guided by our beliefs. We look at scenarios for many experts. We look at the International Energy Agency. We look at S&P Global. We look at Wood Mackenzie, Rystad and their predictions of the role of LNG. They see increasing energy demand in Asia, particularly across the board and the role of LNG continuing to be material. And so we're confident that there will be an ongoing demand for LNG. But then we also talk to customers and our customers tell us the important role it plays, particularly in Asia. And so they're balancing energy security with their ambition in global decarbonization. And they love LNG for its role to do those 2 things for them. And so yes, they're making decisions today around how to keep energy security. And it just shows that complexity that countries have to navigate with energy security, affordability and ambition in decarb.

And protection of the environment?

So change gears, okay, protecting the environment. Environment -- safety, health and environment are one of the key pillars of our sustainability platform. It's something that we take very seriously and protecting the environment is very important to us. It's part of our license to operate. We work through a hierarchy of concepts around environment. We look at how can we avoid impacts to the environment. We then look at how do we minimize impacts to the environment. And then should there be an impact to the environment, we look at how we would remediate and then how we might offset that going forward. And so we've got programs that we outlined in the annual report talking about our activities in each of those areas. We have a pristine area that we work in up in the Pilbara. It's very important to us. We also have that at Louisiana and in many of the locations around the world. And so our programs are worldwide. They look at the global requirements. They look at how Woodside continue to protect the environment and the things we can do like biodiversity programs that can be additive to the environmental outcomes. So we've got wide range of those.

So Scott Reef's [indiscernible] is it?

If we talk about Scott Reef. So Scott Reef is a really important part of Western Australia and Australia's -- what do I call it? I guess it's a really important reef to us all. We understand how important it is to many people and the living habitats and well migration and the living habitats. Woodside has been supporting the Australian Institute of Marine Science in doing studies of Scott Reef for 3 decades. It's been an area that we wish to learn more about as did others, and we've enabled qualified scientists to do decades of work. They've published more than 70 publications in scientific journals around the world on their learnings from Scott Reef. And in doing that, not only do they inform everyone around how to manage reefs, but they're informing Woodside around the impact that operations could have and in particular, the things you can do to ensure they don't happen. And so we've been working with scientists around Scott Reef, and we're confident that operations that we might propose with our Browse development, which we're very keen to progress, would be well within the acceptable criteria and that we would continue to look after Scott Reef alongside the scientists going forward.

Thank you. Next question, please.

Chair, we have an online question from shareholder [ Lachlan Wells ] and their question, according to a report from Ember, India is moving from coal to renewables without relying on gas as a transition fuel. Plummeting solar and battery costs are enabling cheap, reliable power despite a rapid increase in energy demand. With energy security now in full focus around the world, India is also far less vulnerable to energy shocks triggered by an exposed international supply chain. Your annual report implies that you expect gas to remain a transition fuel in most developing countries for decades. Are you still confident in this view? Or is your confidence now primarily based on project level contracts?

So can I thank Lachlan Wells for the question. Liz, I think you pretty well answered that in your response to Mr. Dickie. Is there anything you want to add specifically on India and the demand scenarios?

I think it's just to reinforce that each country is differently positioned as they see a 20% reduction in their LNG. And India has chosen their path forward. They're accelerating the renewables, and that's great. The role of gas will continue to be complementary to renewables. It's going to be additive. And so each country is approaching this differently.

Thanks, Liz. Next question, please.

Mr. Chair, we have Senator Whish-Wilson.

Thank you. Welcome, Senator.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Senator for Tasmania. I might be a Tasmanian, but I'm also a long suffering Fremantle Docker supporter. It goes to my first question. When you signed your extension of your sponsorship in 2023, I think it was mentioned no less than 6 times in the media release that Woodside was leading the clean energy transition. So my question goes to that. You outlined a $5 billion investment in clean energy out to 2030. Can you give us an update on whether that's still on track. And if you are proceeding -- continuing to push ahead with Scarborough and Browse, what percentage of your assets in 10, 20 years' time will actually be in clean energy?

So thank you, Senator. Can I stand side-by-side with you on the Fremantle thing now that I no longer chair the AFL. But hopefully, we'll both be together in Tasmania when that team starts in not-too-distant future, which will be amazing. I'll get Liz to respond on both those questions on the clean energy transition, the investments we're making against the $5 billion. And she may not have the percentage of -- she may have in terms of what our portfolio looks like. I don't think we know, frankly, in 10 or 20 years' time. But Liz, can you answer the Senators questions, please?

Yes. Thank you. So you're asking a question about our clean energy ambition. If you think about Woodside, we've got sort of 3 core groups of products we produce. We've got oil, we've got gas and LNG, and then we've got what we call new energy. And in new energy, we include services that we might be provided to support reductions of carbon such as CCS, and then new products that may displace hydrocarbons in the service of energy such as ammonia. We made a commitment in 2030 that we were going to have an ambition of spending $5 billion and reducing CO2 emissions by 2030 in that new energy category. And we're very excited that we've been able to bring online and have operational a Beaumont New Ammonia plant in Texas. So this is a major investment for us. It's going to go a long way towards those commitments, and it's now online, producing ammonia. It's producing traditional ammonia, but it will be a lower carbon ammonia facility, one of few. It will enable us to deliver lower carbon ammonia to customers, both in Europe and Asia, who are looking forward to that across the decade. And that's a material commitment. When we look at our new energy portfolio in general, we're guided by 2 very important things. We're guided by what customers are wanting. We need to make sure we're serving customers' needs. And so we have a lot of conversation with our customers, particularly in Asia, around the products they're interested in, the activities or services like CCS that would be helpful to them. And then we think about what role Woodside can play in delivering that and then make sure that any initiatives or projects we aspire to do are going to meet our capital allocation framework and that they're going to be robust for our shareholders. So that guides our work. And we've got early stage projects in a number of those areas as we see customers' interest develop. In terms of the overall proportion of clean energy, I think one piece where we're keen to explain is we see gas and LNG as part of the clean energy solution. We talk about this in our sustainability report. Our core product is a solution for many industries and countries in their decarbonization goal. So I don't want to overplay that, but it is a very important part. When we join companies such as the NeoSmelt initiative in Western Australia, their ability to develop steel or products with gas instead of coal is a decarbonization solution. But our new energy portfolio today is a small part of Woodside, but we continue to be engaged with customers over their interests and we'll respond accordingly.

Yes. Thank you. Second question for me. Obviously, Woodside is a big player in Bass Strait off the coast line of where I live. The same cost line, that's lost 95% of its giant kelp forests due to warming East Australian current primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Last year, Australian Student Marine Science gave marine water briefing at Ningaloo Reef following the biggest marine heat wave ever recorded off the Northwest and Western Australia. Temperatures, I understand in places like Rowley Shoals over 36 degrees in the ocean. Once again, marine heat wave is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. And you're aware of the devastation mass coral bleaching in Ningaloo at the same time it was happening on the Great Barrier Reef. If you proceed with the Browse development, do you take any personal responsibility for the fact that the science tells us that burning more fossil fuels and Scope 3 emissions is a big problem for all energy companies. Do you take any personal responsibility for this climate breakdown that we're seeing, especially in our oceans. Keeping in mind my last point, people in the room may be pleased to know is that we are now facing potentially Super El Nino. The ocean temperatures in the Pacific are still off the charts in the unrecorded temperatures. And scientists are now telling us we're likely to have a Super El Nino with the hottest year on record for the planet, another one broken. How do you weigh this up as a CEO of a company that is one of Australia's biggest polluters?

Well, there was quite a bit in that. I just beat the very last comment you made, but let me go to the essence of your question, which is around the role that LNG and gas play in climate change. I think studies, and particularly from IPCC and others are demonstrating there is no 1 industry, 1 product or 1 country responsible for climate change. And so we think about the role that we play in enabling countries and others to decarbonize. When we look at the use of coal in the energy system and we compare it to the use of natural gas, we can nearly halve the emissions by having coal replaced by gas. Coal is still order -- an order of magnitude more common as a fuel source in Asia than gas. The LNG market is about 12% of the energy supplied in Asia in any given year. We see that our product is actually assisting in global decarbonization. But we take the responsibility very seriously around the emissions that we create in producing our product. And our Scope 1 and 2 emissions are things we track carefully. And the initiatives around methane in particular, are something we are very proud of. So we've had a continuing reduction in our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. You saw in the highlights that we did that despite increasing production. We've got a trajectory of reducing emissions. We use offsets when we aren't able to operate or design them out. And then we continue to see that our emission intensity is as low as reasonable and that we are leaders in the methane area. So we see the product as being a really useful part of the global decarbonization story.

Thanks, Liz. Can we have the next question please? Thanks, Senator.

Mr. Chair, this is Mr. David Ritter.

It's nice to meet you in this context Liz, though there is a certain melancholy that goes with no longer seeing Meg among us. Look, my question really divides from the way you just described Woodside's approach to Scott Reef and to marine science in particular. Now WA's own EPA made it very clear that the risk posed by the Browse development, if it goes ahead to Scott Reef was unacceptable. So Woodside was, as I understand it, asked to go away and prepare some more plans, having already been told that it was unacceptable. And there's probably an important director's obligation point to make at that juncture is, well, did the directors keep an open mind. Did they form an independent judgment at that point? Or were they simply listening to internal sources that kind of said, she'll be right, she'll be right? But well, let's assume that there was some going away and fulfilling of directors' obligations around keeping an open mind and receiving external expertise. So then further submissions go in around management plans for whales, for turtles. Was that giving me a rousing wave because I do appreciate the support, but I'll keep going.

No, I'm not giving you a wave. I'm saying, can you ask the question, please? Well, no speeches. You are the CEO of Greenpeace. Just for the audience to know, and I don't want speeches from you. I want a question. If you haven't got a question, we'll move to the next question.

You'll appreciate there's a forensic context.

David, I want the question, please.

So the question is, given that those submissions went in and given that independent marine experts have now said that the altered management plans were simply cosmetic, will Woodside now do the responsible thing and say, if all that you say is true about the regard for Scott Reef in the oceans. So, well, this is just a bad idea. It's time to give it a miss. We're not going to proceed to drill 57 wells around Scott Reef endangering this pristine marine environment. Question.

Thank you. Thanks, David. Liz -- David, let me just respond on the first bit about the Board. The Board considers information from a variety of sources, clearly, management, but we take our role very seriously. Liz?

Yes. Look, thank you, David. The Browse project has been considering -- it's been considered, if you like, by the West Australian EPA for more than 7 years. It's a project that has had a long dialogue with West Australian EPA. And recently, we've been in great discussion with them about any concerns they've got about the development and opportunities the project has to mitigate or eliminate any of their concerns. We saw at the end of 2025 that the EPA asked for the request for further information from Woodside, and that's been provided very recently. The EPA has not made a recommendation. Importantly, the development that they are now considering has no drilling at Scott Reef. It is not going to be mined. It is not going to be built on. It will not be touched, and the EPA has all of this information. So the scale of what you're describing is a misrepresentation of the project today, and the EPA is now in that position where they will be contemplating this development. The federal government is also in that same space, considering the environmental approval for Browse. So no decision has been made, and we continue to have a great dialogue with them.

Thanks, Liz. Next question please.

We have an online question from [ Eric Kenney ], who is a shareholder, who has 2 questions. The first is, how is artificial intelligence affecting operations? How much money is spent on artificial intelligence each year? The National Australia Bank spends $1 billion a year? The second question. Oil rigs serve as a platform for a lot of wildlife like seals and penguins and fish. Can they be kept in place after the useful life to provide a sanctuary for wildlife?

So thanks, Mr. Kenney for the question. Liz, on AI and rigs.

Yes. AI. It's a really exciting part of the Woodside business. And I might just expand a little bit to talk about technology and its deployment in Woodside as well. We use technology in digital across a number of areas of our business. We have a focus on how do we improve safety, how do we improve our operational reliability. And then we also look for efficiencies. And AI is part of the suite of tools. We have drone applications where we're able to use technology to prevent -- or sorry, to no longer require humans to do some of the inspections. We have digital applications, digital twins, which is starting to use AI, where we're able to replicate start-ups of equipment and assist our operators in doing it safely and reliably. And then AI itself is starting to be used more and more in our operating businesses around assisting operators in doing their work. And so it's used in that role of assisting. It's not going to replace the human decision-making. We are in a really high-risk environment, and we are aware of that. And so these are tools to assist the humans. More broadly across the business, it's absolutely got the application in corporate functions as it would in the National Australia Bank or any other institution that's looking to scale up the use of AI. And so that also plays a role in what we do. Oil rigs. So the oil rigs are an important part of our decommissioning activities, and there's an obligation by the federal government around how you leave oil rigs in situ. We fully support your thesis that there's a lot of marine life that loves our oil rigs, and we're continuing to work with the regulator around the opportunity to enable that marine life to continue.

Thanks. Liz. Next question, please.

Mr. Chair. This is Mr. [ Alex Hillman ].

Congratulations on the appointment, Liz. My name is Alex, I'm a former staff member of Woodside, current shareholder, and I am employed by Australian Center for Corporate Responsibility. I've got 2 questions. The first question relates to the appointment of Mr. Cutifani as a Director. So it's been publicly reported that at the time, Mark Cutifani was appointed to the Woodside Board, he had relationships with other Woodside Board members that should have been disclosed by Woodside, including cofounding a mining advisory firm with Woodside Director, Tony O'Neill. He and Tony O'Neill, both being appointed as strategic advisers to Chalice Mining and Chalice Mining is a company founded by your cousin, Tim Goyder. So the question, what disclosures were made to the full board regarding Mark Cutifani's relationships with other Woodside Board members and your cousin prior to his appointment. Can you please explain how this potential conflict was and will be managed by the Board and confirm which directors recuse themselves from the decision to appoint Mr. Cutifani as a Director.

Is that your only question, Alex?

There's one more? Do you want to do the next one as well?

Yes, thanks.

So our analysis at ACCR shows that the oil and gas sector erodes $0.71 out of each dollar it spends on exploration. Based on our analysis and as we have discussed with you, Woodside's exploration seems to have performed even worse than the rest of the industry. Woodside's exploration spend decreased substantially last year. Could you say more about what the results from spending on exploration over the last decade have been? And if Woodside has recently changed its strategy around exploration, has past performance been used to inform the future exploration strategy.

Yes. Thanks, Alex, and I'll get Liz to talk about exploration a minute, noting that you and Brian and I spoke about that a few weeks ago. But on the question on Mark Cutifani's appointment to the Board, we're thrilled to welcome Mark as a Director. He's got a very impressive track record of business leadership. And as you've seen earlier, the reaction from our shareholders has been overwhelmingly positive. The Woodside Board recognizes that the high standards of corporate governance are essential to our sustainable long-term performance and value creation. And that goes to the appointment and the approach we take in appointing new directors and the management of actual and potential conflicts of interest. And we have a robust selection appointment process, along with a process for managing any potential and actual conflicts of interest. There is no conflict of interest in this one. Woodside has no current or prior business relationship with Chalice or it's Strategic Adviser, Odin Partnership Limited, is well known that Mr. Cutifani, Mark and Tony O'Neill have a long-standing relationship through the overlapping tenure as senior executives at Anglo American. This was known by the Board during the consideration of Mr. Cutifani's appointment as a Nonexecutive Director and appropriately managed. The Board understands that Mr. Cutifani and Mr. O'Neill is consideration of mining-related opportunities in connection with the proposed Gonneville project remains at a preliminary stage, and as such, the Board does not consider there to be any concerns. And all directors are committed to keeping the Board informed on their business activities outside of Woodside and any overlapping business interests with other directors, which will allow the Board and Company Secretary to consider and properly manage any conflict of interest. And Alex, if I can I just say I think Tim Goyder, who is someone I respect stood down as Chair of Chalice in 2021. And I don't have -- and I don't think I've ever had any shares in any of Tim's businesses because I've always been concerned on any perception issues around our relationship. I've been described by someone who's been close to Tim. I think I saw Tim once last year potentially at a function that we were both at, but I'm not sure if I actually saw him last year or not. That's how close we are. So thank you for the question on that. And Liz, exploration.

Yes. Our exploration program is actually a modest program. We're spending about $200 million a year on exploration. And we've got a really disciplined approach to what we're doing. We're focused on exploring our current producing basins with a disciplined approach around looking at new regions that may have scale and longevity for us. So really focus around our existing assets, and it's a modest program.

Thanks, Alex. Next question, please.

Mr. Chair. We have Senator Hodgins-May.

Welcome, senator.

Thank you for having me today. I'm Senator Steph Hodgins-May, and I'm currently chairing an inquiry looking into the taxation of our gas. Ms. Westcott, we invited you to appear at our inquiry in Perth, tomorrow but you refused. So I decided to turn up today to ask you some questions. Woodside told the media this week that a 25% export tax would kill the Browse project. If giving Australians a fair return for their own gas, makes your project unviable, doesn't that show that the model is broken and depends on Australians effectively giving away their resources for free?

And is that the only question, senator? Welcome, by the way.

Well, my supplementary is, will Ms. Westcott front up to the inquiry tomorrow? It's certainly not too late to do so.

Thanks, senator. Liz, on tax?

Yes, certainly. Maybe I'll tackle your second question first. We certainly respect the role that your committee is playing, and we've reengaged very constructively with the inquiry. Mr. Graham Tiver, our Financial Officer, Chief Financial Officer; and Mr. Tony Cudmore, who's our Executive Vice President of Sustainability Policy and External Affairs will be representing Woodside at the inquiry tomorrow. And they really are best placed looking after tax and policy to be able to assist the committee with what will be detailed questions.

Let me deal with the first bit, if you like. Do you want to do that?

Yes. So the role of the tax system is vitally important, and we respect the right for Australians and agree that they need a fair return for these finite resources. We understand the critical role gas is playing in our industries. And so we also understand the need to have an appropriate tax system. The current tax system is giving Australians a fair return. In 2025, Woodside paid $2 billion in taxes. We have an effective tax rate of 44%. We are giving back to Australians. Our new projects generate a huge amount tax. The estimated taxes all in from the Scarborough Energy project is AUD 55 billion. These are what the current tax regime will deliver to Australia as a fair return for these massive investments. And so the team tomorrow will be supporting, maintaining the current tax regime.

Senator, the only other thing I'd add to that is, and Liz, thanks for the answer is, as I said earlier, these projects don't just happen. They require significant investment. Scarborough is USD 12.5 billion, and we are yet to receive $1 of income from -- and our shareholders $1 of income for that investment. The way the PRRT is designed is so that there is the capacity for investors to get a return on that invested capital before an elevated or super profits tax applies. And that's why it is so important to the investment climate in Australia that we don't have super profits taxes that disregard the investment made by businesses. And Liz said, we already pay a significant amount of tax, and we're a top 10 taxpayer, and we're the highest PRRT taxpayer in the country. But all the best with your inquiry. Can we have the next question, please?

Chair, we have an online question from shareholder, Stephen Mayne. The question, the proxy votes [ fletched ] up for a few seconds show that one of the directors received a 7% against vote, which was below the 18% vote against rem and the 34% vote against the CEO's LTI grant, but still noteworthy. Did any of the proxy advisers recommend against any of the directors? And are you aware why there was a modest protest vote on the director resolutions? Also, at next year's AGM, please disclose the proxies to the ASX earlier, along with the formal addresses to provide more timely market disclosure and allow for a more fully informed AGM debate. Second question, when was the external audit last tendered? And when will it next be tendered?

So thanks, Stephen, for the questions. In terms of the director elections, all proxy advisers supported the election of all of the directors, the reelection of the 4 and the election of Mark Cutifani. I think the one who probably had the 7% vote against is Larry Archibald, who is the longest-serving director, but that would be the only correlation I can think of. Larry is an amazingly good Director of Woodside, and I'm delighted that he will be reelected today as a director. On disclosure, Stephen, we'll have a look at that to see if that's appropriate. So I'm looking at the Company Secretary, and we'll go away and have a look at that. So thank you for that. I think this is the -- so I'm looking at Nick now. This is the second year of PwC's -- fourth year of PwC's appointment, Woodside. Prior to PwC's appointment had a long-term audit engagement with EY, I think it was. So I don't think we have any intention of tendering it in the near term. But if that changes, we'll let you know. The next question, please.

Mr. Chair, I have Mr. [ Matt Roberts ].

Thanks. My question is there were a lot of comments there around gas and the role that it plays in decarbonization in the Southeast Asian market. There was a leaked report from the WA government that they commissioned through Deloitte last year that actually showed that gas is displacing renewable energy in the market. And that it would be cheaper for those countries to actually wait for the transition completely to renewables rather than going through gas and that there is a significant plan for decline in the use of gas in those markets. So given that, how do you respond to that we have these lines about it helping decarbonize, but the evidence suggests otherwise?

Is that the one question, Matt, or have you got a second one?

No, that's the question.

Okay. Thanks, Matt. Thanks for that. I think Liz has tackled this on 2 occasions. One of the things that is happening right now, though, I think, is that we're actually seeing because of what's happening in the Middle East that a number of our near neighbors to the north are either reactivating coal-fired power stations or seeking more coal imports because of energy security and supply. So I think, as Liz's earlier comments about the transition is complex and it's made more complex by geopolitical issues. But I think we've dealt with that in previous questions. I appreciate the question. Could we have the next question, please.

Our next question is an audio question from [ Hereditary Chief, Na'Moks ].

Hello. I am Hereditary Chief Na'Mok of the Wet'suwet'en Nation in British Columbia, Canada. Today, I'd specifically like to comment on LNG expansion in Canada. There is a very risky bet on LNG expansion in Western Canada, currently sitting on Woodside boats. Woodside has joined the Rockies LNG partners to promote the Ksi Lisims LNG proposal, a floating terminal that connects a larger project, the Prince Rupert Gas Terminal, PRGT. Both Ksi Lisims and PRGT are proposed to be built on territory that indigenous rights holders have not granted consent. In fact, 5 nation groups have chopped Ksi Lisims and its associated pipeline project in court. And members have initiated a lawsuit to project proponents for the economic damage that this will cause their nations. This economic damage is from both the volatile market for this project and from the environmental, human and ecosystem health impact that these projects will pollute and destroy. In addition to lack of indigenous consent and support for these projects, which Woodside is invested in, these projects are fully American owned by billionaire investors that were clients of Jeffrey Epstein, and work closely with United States President, Donald Trump. How can Woodside's Board support continued investment in Ksi Lisims and PRGT LNG projects at a time when gas has proven to be an insecure and volatile fuel and will damage 5 First Nations economy. Will you consider withdrawing from the Rockies LNG and end your involvement in indigenous rates, violation and tax offers funnel to American billionaires?

Thanks for the question. Liz, you can respond on Canada?

Look, thank you very much for your question, and I can hear your passion for the issues for your Canadian LNG project. Woodside has no ownership in the project or the pipeline that you've been talking about. And as such, it's not appropriate for us to even represent those projects and engagements. But I do understand the importance of dealing with First Nations people. We fully respect the need to consult with First Nations people and wherever we operate in the world, we make sure we do that through the nominated and authorized representative institutions.

Thanks, Liz. Go to next question please.

We have 2 online questions from [ Natasha Michelle Lee ], who is a shareholder. The first question, what were the main reasons for the change in carrying values of oil and gas properties from 25,787 M to 23,091? How does the level of recoverable deposits and current resource prices affect this valuation? The second question, Woodside has 30% female participation on the Board, which is below the world's best practice of 40%. Will the Board commit to achieving at least 40% female participation on the Board?

So thank you for the question. I'll answer the second question first, and then Liz, I'll get you to just talk on the book values -- the carrying values. So the conclusion of the meeting today, Woodside will have 10 directors, 9 nonexecutive and Liz. There will be 4 female and 6 males. So we'll be 60-40 at the end of the meeting today with Ian's retirement. Liz, on carrying values.

Look, the carrying values have a number of things that go into them. I believe that the change we've got that you're referencing here is really due to changes in depreciation. The properties are going to be measured at cost. They look at the current pricing. So that's not a feature, and we do assess this biannually.

Thanks, Liz. Go to the next question, please.

Mr. Chair, we have Mr. [ Vince Maxwell ].

Good morning, Chair and the rest of the Board. There's a little radio station in Perth, you probably heard of 6PR, and they tend to be running some adverts. I think it's for the Nurses Federation making the claim that nurses can't get a pay rise because gas companies don't pay tax. I just wonder if you could maybe just give us the headline values for the various taxes the company pays in regards to company tax, payroll tax, resource rent tax, et cetera. And if you -- and can you also tell us if you've considered doing something publicly to try and correct that public misconception. And one suggestion I could make is you have a well-known West Australian on the Board, Ben Wyatt, and he's got some credibility as the former State Treasurer. You could wheel him out on the radio and he could maybe put some -- correct the public misconception on this a little bit.

Thanks very much for the question. It's a good idea, Ben. Again, I think we talked about this earlier. We paid $2 billion in Australian taxes, royalties and levies last year. We're a top 10 taxpayer in the country. Our all-in tax rate over the last 4 years has been around $0.44 in the dollar. And then don't forget, with our after-tax profits, we've typically been paying 80% of that back to shareholders. And I said earlier, there's a lot of small and large shareholders in Woodside that rely on those dividends as well. But we're -- but your point is well made. I think there is -- there are misleading comments made about the tax we pay. And Ben might become our tax advocate in -- but I appreciate the comment and the opportunity to clarify it. Thank you. Thank you. Go to the next question, please.

Mr. Chair, this is Ms. [ Victoria Pavi ].

The last vote on Woodside's climate change report resulted in a world's only ever majority vote against a company's climate change report. In 2024, you said there would be a 3-yearly shareholder vote on Woodside's climate strategy. Can you please confirm there will be another shareholder vote on the climate change plan at the 2027 AGM?

Yes. So thanks for the question. We've obviously got enhanced disclosure on annual report this year, which is based on new mandatory disclosures. And for those of you who want a doorstep have a look at our annual report now, but there's very significant disclosures on climate and sustainability in it. Having said that, we did make the commitment that we would do another one in '27. We've had a number of shareholders say to us that they prefer we didn't. But at the moment, our commitment is to do it. If that changes, we'll let you know. But as I say, our commitment was to do a climate -- a CTAP vote in 2027. So thank you for the question. Next question, please. Now can we go in the room, please?

Mr. Chair, I have Mr. [ Sean Chang ].

Mr. Chang?

As a long-term shareholder, I'd like to express thanks on behalf of all long-term shareholders for your conduct, your staff and the security today. In the 6 waves of protest, there was a WA Greens MLC, Sophie McNeil, who leads this every year. The -- her colleagues were asking you questions. They flew from Victoria and Tasmania to be here. Isn't it true that we've had 20 years of a failed experiment? We've got our young people totally brain wash. They come here, they protest, they jump on stage. They bring a smoke bomb, they push. Meg O'Neill disrupted her lifestyle in Australia, and she's out of Australia now. Isn't it time that we recognize that there's no such thing as cheap and renewable energy until there's a crisis. The only renewable about renewables is the tax subsidy. $19 billion a year is spent on EVs, batteries. So for -- my first question is about -- for our students, for us. We've had 6 waves of protests today, down from 12 or 15 smoke bombs, threats and so on. Isn't the time to send a message that they have all failed. We need Woodside, we need fuel, we need petrol. What message can you give our young people, Mr. Chairman?

And is that your only question, Mr. Chang.

I've got one more.

Yes. Can you ask that, too, please?

Contrast myself to the senators that flow from Victoria and Tasmania. They could have attended it by...

Just ask your question.

I drove here today. My 1 liter $2 fuel took me 10 kilometers. If I put it in neutral, it will take 10 kilometers of energy to push it back. Is petrol, Mr. Chairman, the dense best form of energy?

Thanks for the question. Those aspects to your question, which I agree with, which is Woodside is an important company. We think it's very important to have an aspiration of net zero by 2050. We do agree with the science that the climate is changing, and we are serious in the commitments we make on that. I think the question about kids education is a bit hard for me right now. And I'm not going to give you any advice on what sort of motor vehicle to buy. But I appreciate you being here and the question. Thank you. Can we have another question, please?

Mr. Chair, we have Mr. [ Peter Stan ].

Yes. My name is Peter Stan. And I asked this question 2 years ago of you, Richard, and was about nuclear power and its use in the Pilbara. Now you said at that time that we are the only G20 country in the world with a ban on nuclear power, the only G20. And at the same time, we are, as a country, the world's biggest polluter per capita. Put those 2 together. And to me, we have to go for nuclear power. Otherwise, we're never going to reach net zero. And really, since that time, I have followed up, and I noticed that the UAE have got a 5,600 megawatt nuclear reactor there, 4 of them and they supply quarter of the UAE's power. Why not use nuclear? And Liz mentioned about new energy sources, why not use one of those power stations? You don't have to design something new, and it would compress all the gas that we need. We could then sell that gas instead of burning it and with all the fossil -- what you call it emissions, which are going on the -- what do they call it, those. And then we could unsell that power to power the whole of the Pilbara. 5,600 megawatts was double Perth's capacity today really. And so all the trains, everything could be powered with that 1 station. And I'm not talking theory that exists in the UAE right now, so it's just been completed in 2024. So the question is -- my question is, why not use nuclear power as an energy source. And I know that's banned in Australia. Change it. It's not written in the 10 commandment.

Well, I'll answer it in 2 ways. Firstly, it's not -- clearly, Australia is going to have energy requirements. And I note today that one of the large Microsoft is going to invest significantly in Australia in terms of data centers and AI facilities. So we are going to need energy. It will be up to policymakers to determine the best way, most efficient way of ensuring we've got energy supply going forward. Woodside will play our role, but we don't have any expertise in nuclear, and we're keeping an eye on it. But I think that's one for someone else. We're going to wrap up in a second. Moderator, any other questions?

We have a summary of a few online questions. With the current pricing environment, can you please provide an outlook or view on the expected impact to Woodside's revenue? And the next, with Woodside's growth and shift to a global footprint, how do you see the trajectory and geographical revenue going forward? Will there be a shift from Asia Pacific to Europe?

Liz, do you want to comment on those 2 questions?

Yes, certainly. At the beginning of the question-and-answer session, we talked about contracts and having contracted supply and spot market supply. And so a large portion of our revenue has been established under contract conditions some of the spot market prices are starting to flow through. And you'll see we have our first quarter results next week, and so you'll be able to get an indication of how that's playing through. But it's a modest impact to Woodside going forward. In terms of our global footprint, it is a good question. Today, Australia, we're a very proud Australian company and continue to be. 80% of our profit before taxes is from Australia. And as we move forward, though, we do see that shifting to our international business, and we will become a truly global business. with revenue coming from multiple locations around the world.

Thanks, Liza. I think we've really, for the most had a healthy discussion today, and I appreciate those in the room the way they've conducted themselves. So thank you, and thank you for the way you've conducted that. That covers the formal business of the meeting, and the voting system will close shortly. Please ensure that you've cast your vote on all items. And I'll now formally close the poll. We're just going to tally up the votes. [Voting]

The provisional results are now on the screen. As you can see, those results show that each resolution has passed. The final results of the voting on all resolutions will be announced after the meeting of the ASX and will also be available on Woodside's website. On behalf of the Board, can I thank you for your participation today. I know from time to time, it can be trying, but we value, particularly having our retail shareholders with us. I will remind retail shareholders, we also have done a retail online forum just some weeks ago, and we'd love you to participate in that as well. So can I thank you for your participation. Please now join members of the Board and the executive leadership team for some light refreshments. I now declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much.