Glencore Plc Unsp/Adr

Good morning. Welcome. Thank you for joining us for our 2024 financial results. Joining today from Glencore, Gary Nagel. Gary Nagel, CEO and Stephen Kalman, CFO. Gary, would you like to?

Good.

One year later, now we have reading glasses. Okay, morning. Thank you for joining us, and those joining us from other parts of the world, good afternoon. Those who are here in person, we really appreciate the in-person results presentations. Always think they're very constructive and positive. And those online, thank you for joining us. We'll follow similar format in our presentation, and we'll skip ahead to our scorecard for 2024, which very pleasing results, a very good year for Glencore. We finished the year with an adjusted EBITDA of $14.4 billion. Now, if we split that out a bit, as we always do between our marketing and our industrial business, industrial business was very strong this year. As you know, and as we commented in our production guidance earlier in the year, or our production results earlier in the year, we met our production guidance, the initial guidance that we put out in the beginning of the year, we met that, which is a terrific achievement operationally. We printed a $10.6 billion adjusted EBITDA result for our industrial business, and that largely on the back of a very, very strong metals business, and that despite being a weaker environment on the metallurgical side, on the TCRCs, but our metallurgical business has been very, very strong. Offset a little bit by our energy business. As you know, energy prices down. So we've seen lower energy contributions to industrial adjusted EBITDA. But also very positive is a contribution of a billion dollars from our new EVR business, our best in class tier one steelmaking coal business in Canada, which we're hopefully arranging a visit for analysts to go and see in the middle of the year. So very happy with that. So a very pleasing result on the on the on the industrial side. And the marketing side, also a very good year. As you know, we guide annually to a 2.2 to 3.2 billion EBIT marketing result. We hit the top end of the range again. I know the question will come later to Steve, when do you change the range? I'll leave him to answer that. But from our perspective, another very, very pleasing result. Again, a big contribution from the metals business. Very pleasing to see the metals. You know, in previous years, we've had a very strong contribution from energy, and that just proves the value of this diversified portfolio that we have, the franchise that is Glencore, that in years where we see lower vol and movements in energy markets, we've seen the opposite in metals, and we've done very well in metals. Not to say there hasn't been a very good contribution from the energy side. There has been, but this year it's been about metals, and very happy with that. So, Overall, a very, very pleasing contribution across the business. I guess, you know, those who are in the room, the experts on the mining industry understand that this is where it all is about. Adjusted EBITDA and cash flow. There's some accounting adjustments which get to a net income or a net loss. Some of those who aren't fully across the understanding of how accounting works in the mining industry always seem to report on net income. That makes no sense, as we all know. What really makes sense is cash generation, adjusted EBITDA, and that's what we produced a very good result this year. On the balance sheet side, net debt to adjusted EBITDA below 0.8. Steve will get into the details of the balance sheet a little bit later, but very, very strong result allowing us to return cash to shareholders. So we're very, very pleased to announce today a cash distribution to shareholders following our normal distribution policy of $1.2 billion of cash. as you know how we split that between our trading business or our marketing business and our industrial business. And then over and above that, very happy to resume buybacks, a billion-dollar buyback starting immediately. And the nice thing about this billion-dollar buyback also is that we're going to have this done by the 6th of August. So by the time we get back to our interim results and we're all together or virtually whatever we do on the interim results, we'll be back and be able to look at any additional buybacks cash distributions or buybacks in the middle of the year. So it's been probably, Martin was telling me yesterday, we've been out the market for about a year, not buying our stock. As you know, the reason for that is we bought EVR, $7 billion. So we've been able to consolidate that business into our business, work down the debt. So very pleasing to be only 12, 13 months out of the market, not buying back our own stock, back in the market in a substantial way, a billion dollars and the potential for a lot more to come once we get to August of this year. And then onto EVR, and a little bit of an overview on EVR and how we're going. Very successfully integrated into Glencore's global coal business. As I said earlier, this is a tier one, best in class asset, long life, high quality coal, high quality geography, terrific management team, and integrated very well into Glencore. We're very happy with this asset, a billion dollars contribution to EBITDA just in the second half of last year. And we look forward to continued growth in that business. The 2024 performance, in fact, was a very good performance. If you look at how we performed for the year, 2024 is the highest production that business has had over the last three years. Very much back-weighted and back-ended to when we took over as owners of EVR. So some of the numbers are in the presentation, but nice to see that our production in the second half of the year up 8% off the first half. We took over, I think it was 8th of July or 9th of July, whatever it may be. So production second half and the first half up 8%. But even more pleasing, because it's not just about production, is what our costs have done. And our costs have come down materially, costs down 14% first half versus second half on a FOB cash cost basis. And for those mining engineers or miners around here, before you start thinking there's any sort of high grading or games going on on our BCM rates, down similar amount. So this is real cost savings Glencore's brought to this business. Very, very excited with this. Synergies, we are seeing the synergies. We'll report more of those when we go visit the operations with you in June, but they are synergies across the board. Where we're seeing just synergies, we're seeing them through the value or through the coal supply chain, where we're able to move the tons down the coal chain and create synergies through our expertise having coal chains around the world, procurement synergies, cost synergies, maintenance synergies, mine planning synergies, marketing synergies, you name it. In fact, we had a lot of positive feedback from our customers. Here we are now with these marketing synergies, which are in fact benefiting our customers as well as benefiting us. We are delivering them the call that they need the right quality, the right spec on time as they need it as required. And that's creating value for them and it's creating value for us. So the whole integration of EBR has gone very smoothly. As I said, we're very fortunate to have inherited a fantastic management team there and to be able to have this tier one best in class asset Very exciting for Glencore for many years to come. And with that, I'll hand over to Steve on the financial side.

Good morning all here in the room and those that are listening in on the call. It's great to have you present for our 2024 update financial results presentation. If we... We'll run through slides. Most of these would be relatively familiar. We'll recap 2024. More importantly, we'll get into a range of slides that's more forward-looking. It's just given timing of sequence of our calendar. We'll spend much more time as we recalibrate longer-term guidance around production cost capex, of course, balance sheet and capital management initiatives that we're able to both pay base dividends, reinstate buybacks, and then the promise of more to come as we've absorbed that $7 billion acquisition, of course, of EVR. All the numbers on this particular page, they're really just financial highlights. We'll see detailed slides throughout the presentation that go into a little bit more detail as we follow through. But as Gary mentioned, pleasing adjusted EBITDA performance across 14.4. That was down 16%. A little bit more in the industrial side, primarily on the energy, lower prices. We'll look at spot illustrative cash flow generation at the moment as well. Marketing EBITDA, another strong performance. We keep Obviously, the base has been high as we've sort of come through the 2022, 2023, particularly energy, volatile markets and the opportunities that that presented. But at 3.2 billion, that's obviously a fantastic result in marketing. Too early in the year necessarily to guide for 2025. We normally do that when we report our Q1 production report. But the year started reasonably well in 2025, also on the marketing side. Net debt finishing at 11.2, from which we then set our sort of roll forward on a pro forma basis from which we look to make the distributions and buybacks. There were some movements within that debt that may sort of need to be calibrated within one sort of projection of how that gets reported. Marketing leases within that, which is really the historical operational inputs into our marketing business through storage, through shipping, through chartering, if there's any commitment beyond the The one year those now get capitalized in marketing leases, that sort of was up $400 million just year on year within that. We pull it out for the purposes of looking at capital headroom and comfort around distributions. And EVR, I'll also talk about that later on, where the consolidation of that, notwithstanding it was a debt-free acquisition, we did consolidate and assume $0.6 billion of debt on the EVR acquisition. I'll talk about some of those components. Half of that's going to disappear by the middle of the year. And then we pick up a little bit of Neptune Terminal that we have 46%. So again, we pull that out for the purpose of pro forma and distributions. But from a headline purpose, if you were kind of modeling through that something that yourselves in the market may have missed, something in the marketing lease area and potentially the EVR debt. But that all sort of comes back and doesn't constrain how we think about sort of optimal structure and the ability to make distributions going forward. From a debt coverage, the net did adjust to EBITDA, as Gary said, 0.7, very comfortably below 1%. And that's just with six months of EVR within. So it's obviously, if you put a full pro forma, that number would even be less than that as we work our way through. In terms of industrial performance, it'll sort of aesthetically tabulate as we work through a waterfall chart on the following slides as well. But overall down 20%, but metals and minerals actually creaking up. and improving also on a spot illustrative basis, both from a, there's some pricing benefits, there's some cost benefits, there's some volume benefits. It's all going to come through in the next sort of year or two as we move forward. But that business itself, you can see on the yellow top right, the metals, metals contribution, 5.4 billion up to 5.8. There was also a pickup half year and half year. We were 2.8 and then 3 billion in the second half to deliver 5.8. Some of the contributing factors that we call out on the left-hand side, KaZinc added $500 million. As you well know, you've got both zinc units. The JIRM is ramping up, and it's been quite successful of late, and we're getting to steady-state production in that particular business. And, of course, the gold exposure we have within that operation, both by-product and as a primary gold operation as well. So with gold prices and the likes, that's contributed very nicely on the KaZinc side. Little-known aluminum department is also now coming into its own through our not operation and control stakes, but we've got our 47% in century. Not bad to be positioned in aluminum production in the U.S. these days. With all that's going on, we've bought 33% of Elliot Orte, largest refinery outside of China. That's also contributing well, and we have 33%. 3% odd within CETA, which is a alumina refinery, and Borkstad Operation, also in Indonesia. So that overall complex has moved up materially and has upward momentum, some of which we factored into our spot illustrative numbers as we work our way through. And the nickel department, that is a positive projection, but it's just moving from more negative to effectively break even or slightly less negative, and that's fundamentally the conneambo. having put that into care and maintenance early in Q1 last year. And the custom metallurgical business continues to weigh. Of course, we're probably net-net balanced around treatments, so what you may give away on TCRCs, you're making on the mining side, the concentrate business. But we did see about a 0.6 billion negative variation year-on-year contribution, and that's across copper in North America. You've been to some of those assets. whether it's Horn CCR, our European zinc portfolio, and also we have a zinc smelter in Canada in CZ. So that moved from $7.60 to $2.30 contribution. So that weighed on the metals and minerals. On the energy side, the predominant reduction was clearly the lower prices, particularly on thermal side, on the energy side, so $3.2 billion down across the energy business. Within that, there's a positive billion-dollar contribution from EVR just for six months. that that contributed, but across bottom right still very strong margins reflecting positive positioning within cost curves and competitiveness across the structure at 28% across our metals portfolio and 36% across the coal business as well. If we then look at what the waterfall shows, the big bar on the left, overwhelmingly price driven as we map from 23 to 24, the net three billion reduction on pricing There was 3.7 billion within that of negative contributions and positive of 0.7. Coal was the biggest part, predominantly on thermal, but a little bit on met coal as well. Within our legacy Australian met coal business, EVR, we put in its own bucket, at least for this year, and we'll track its variances going forward. But 3.2 on coal, slightly lower oil prices. We have a little bit of upstream gas and oil exposure in that business. That was 0.1. Nickel continued to decline, stabilizing now, but there was 0.3 negative within that number, and ferro a little bit as well on ferrochrome business, particularly on the smelting side. Positive pricing variances we saw in zinc of 0.4, including the gold business, and copper was a 0.3, which was higher copper net of cobalt, which we have as a pricing variance that we have within that business. The volume variance, the base business declined a little bit in volume. EVR variance, you can almost say that is a positive volume variance. And we do look at our copper equivalent volume growth both in 24 and long term, of which EVR is certainly a big factor. Coal rebased downwards. We've seen some of the volume variances as well. Some of it was some minor closures. We saw Integra and Newlands and And the Dell during the last sort of year or two, we've seen some long-run moves, particularly in Australia. South Africa needed to rebase around export constraints and cold chain down there. That's now again settled at a level that hopefully it can both settle and improve over time. And Colombia has proved to be also a sort of a tough environment around community blockades, permanent approvals, also rain delays that we've had over there. And you'll see later on the full guidance that we have as well, but there was a 5% or 6% reduction across our coal volumes. Zinc improved. We've said gyrum and coal and copper is also more in a temporary sense. We've seen some anticipated lower grades and sequencing around Kaloasi and particularly Antamakai. And we'll show the full base business copper projections later on out till 2028. And then Gary will talk more about the longer-term pipeline and growth projects that we have. Cost containment was quite good in the business. We'll see some of the unit costs as well later on. But in primary functional cost of negative 0.6, that's in the Aussie dollars, the Canadian dollars, and the likes. There was a little bit of currency benefit during the year, but it was more flatter. We've seen a strengthening generally in dollar more recently, so currencies presenting a tailwind as we move forward. It wasn't so much in 23. But net-net, we saw 0.5. increase in cost variance across the business, across our entire cash cost base within the industrial business that represents about 1%. So it really was relatively modest increases in that big inflationary wave that we saw over the last two or three years has largely dissipated and there is more efficiency gains that we're working on coming through the business. Konyamba, we've split out on the right-hand side. You can see the year-on-year positive 0.3 from going from minus 0.4 to effectively 0.5. zeros that businesses in its current state. Important graph but a busy slide, a busy one as it affects all of our businesses running through the financial attributes of cost, volumes, profit by commodity across our four largest businesses today where we sort of provide the building blocks, the guidance, the longer term projections. We'll see spot illustrative analysis later on. We'll also look at some of the longer term rolling from 24 into 25 in the various years. Copper business, we've spoken about the decline in volumes. Cobalt was sold, obviously, 23, like for like down 4%, but again, Kaluasi, Antimachai, particularly going through their grades and sequences, one or two unanticipated, but this was all factored into guidance that was all met during 2023. And cost performance, you can see across all the businesses, has been largely contained. Pre-cost on copper at $2.31 for the year, we were $2.30 for the half. So all that cost within the business has largely plateaued, even declining in many cases, and that's for a $3.8 billion EBITDA within the copper business. That reflects some project spend. That's not underlying-based business. You've got some R and some and some Alpachon and some other costs. We'll show sort of later on that that's going through. Our spot illustrative as we roll forward that business for 25 parameters is moving up to $4.1 billion from that $3.8 billion. And again, we'll see some of the longer terms. The zinc business has been a huge star performer as that business has, A, bringing tons, bringing efficiencies, cost reductions, Being able to focus around its core, Kazakhstan and Australian business, the sale of Volcan and some other smaller assets over the years has certainly sharpened the focus and the efficiencies of that business. But it's delivered 1.4 billion EBITDA and it's 1.9 or 2 billion on a spot basis. All zinc and copper clearly getting held back cost-wise through the struggles in the custom smelting part of the business. Still making coal, still in a transition year where you're reflecting somewhat sort of distorted between half year of EVR and the full year of the legacy Australian business, but that will roll forward. We'll show you what a 2025 really looks like, the better shape of that business. Good cost performance, high margin from the Canadian side, so everything sort of rolling into a higher margin, good quality business across that. And the energy coal, with its slightly lower volumes, still high margin businesses, but we're seeing an increase in their portfolio mix adjustment. On the energy side, where not all coals were clearly created equal, and particularly the sort of Colombian coal, with its netbacks having to sort of compete with a lot of product moving into Asia, its net realizations are... are limiting margins there, and Gary spoke about us looking across the business generally and saying, where can we look at improving margins, supply generally within that business as well. So there is some comments about its sort of geographical disadvantage, which is clearly the case at the moment in our Colombian business. Marketing, very strong performance at 3.2. Again, it was metals and minerals picking up the, Doing the year-on-year big lift, we've seen that sort of switch from energy both in industrially and marketing across 2022-2023 into a stronger performance on the metals. Again, on the yellow graph on the right, you can see a 1.7 to 2.4.7 pickup. That was very broad-based across all our contributing businesses, whether it's copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, ferroalloys. very strong performances. You saw tight physical concentrate markets, TC environments. These were all generally helpful and constructive from a trading perspective. And on the energy side, the 1.7, which was at some sort of unsustainable level, frankly, where normal cruising speed is, it finished at sort of 0.9. We're still continuing to pick up our 50% share on Viterra before that transaction closes with Bangi. We picked up 165 share of net income compared to 321 the previous year. So that was also a year on year negative components. That is somewhat compressed. It sort of belies the true Viterra performance at 100%. Hadn't ever died around 1.6 billion against 2 billion. But because you then have depreciation interest in tax, you sort of pick up a lower net income given how we account for that business. So strong overall marketing performance performance. that keeps delivering as it's intended to do. I think an important slide is we just highlight and account for where we started the year on net debt, where we ended the year 11.249. FFO, which is our effectively operating cash flow list, interest and tax at 10.5 billion. A very strong H2 performance in that. H1 was four. H2 was six and a half. Now, yes, you had Viterra. I mean, you had EVR business coming in. But you had that growth in volumes also, that kicker that we came. Last year was a somewhat H1, H2 weighted across volume. And in almost all cases, we delivered that recovery, if you like, on the production. So that contributed towards a strong FFO. The net cash spend on CapEx, 6.7. We'll have a slide on that later on. The investment, 7 billion, essentially all EBR. The non-RMI working capital generated 800. It did give back some in H2. It was 1.7 in the first half. So there was a 0.9 moving out in the second half still to be a positive contribution. As you've covered us for many years, working capital is a huge part of our business. Movements of 500 million, a billion can be... are fairly frequent and common around commodity prices, opportunities, receivables, payables, gas businesses, margining. There's multiple elements that have gone into that. Through into the end of last year, we did see pickup in LNG prices and European. We have longer-term contracts, supply from US. We do carry longer-term fair value marketing contracts. We hedge all that sort of stuff. There's a bit more that's had to go. It was extreme in 2022. There was elements of that towards the end of 2023. invariably opportunities do open for us as we close into a calendar year around some prepays, extension of terms. There is a lot of industry positioning around balance sheet performance of 31st of December and you will generally see some opportunities that we would be silly not to pursue around year end. So you would normally find that there is always a few hundred million dollars that That sits there at 31st of December, very quickly unwinds. I mean, there was just a particular sort of Brazilian iron ore prepay that we did before the end of the year. It was all taken out, repaid by January already this year. Extremely strong IRRs around these as people look to sort of manage balance sheets around the end of the year. So cyclically, there's always going to be something in Q4. Distributions, those were effectively the base distributions we had in 2024. Now the assumption of EVR debt, we'll just spend a few seconds on that, a minute or so. This is something that, frankly, even I didn't know what the number was gonna be until we bought it 11th of July. We were working through acquisition accounting. By the end of October, I'm like, okay, there's .6 billion from EVR. The biggest component of that, or 300 million of that, is a consolidated loan from our minority partners in EVR. So as you know, we bought 77%, Nippon Steel 20%, Posco owns 3%. The way that that partnership or JV is structured, rather than all equity contribution, there is some share of the loans, the way the tech actually set up that structure prior to its sale. Accounting requires us to reflect that as a liability from our minority, whereas it's really equity. We will be working on some rolling those debt back up into the equity trance. So that 0.3 billion will disappear by the middle of the year. It's not a, none of it is classic financial debt. It was bought as a debt-free business effectively as well. There's 150 million 0.15 of our proportionate consolidation of Neptune coal terminal. We own 46% of that. It itself has some project debt within the business, non-recourse to the, there is some, obviously, Not necessarily take or pay, but there's some usage fees that the business is using to provide the cash flows for that business. But there's 150 of Neptune debt. Again, there's a determination. Do you consolidate? Do you proportion it? Do you equity account? We have to proportionally consolidate, so we pick up a share of debt, which is not our debt effectively. And there's a little bit of leases, some old runoff of leases, some fleet and the likes. So that's part of the reporting of net debt, $11.2 billion at the end of the year. As you'll see later on, this was clearly never intended that buying EVR, that any amount we pick up in these categories was going to constrain our ability to make shelter returns and top up. So yes, it's part of the reported net debt. It's been pulled out for the purposes of how we think about surplus capital distributions, and that will effectively migrate and roll out to zero. It's not a vehicle we're looking to finance the group over time as we move. And then the last category of the movement in leases, reflecting primarily marketing leases, which rolled out over very quick cycles as well. If we look at how we've thought about capital returns and the likes, we start about, as Gary said, calculating the base distributions, the billion plus 25% of industrial free cash flows. That's our 1.2 billion. That's the kind of anchor of a cash-type return that we expect every year, and then anything topping up we can allocate towards buybacks or special cash. So we start 11.2 on the graph. On the chart, we pull out the 1.2 of distributions that we're obviously going to pay to look at the pro forma structure of the business. We pull out marketing lease liabilities. We pulled out EVR debt of 0.6. We've also got something relevant, tax receivables. You may recall a couple of years ago when we went the other way around, we generated those big earnings 2022 and we said that we knew there was tax the day of reckoning. I think it was 1.5 billion in respect to Australia and Colombia at the time. It didn't hit the balance sheet in 22, but we knew we were going to have to pay it in 23 in respect to the previous year. We said, this is debt-like. We need to position for this before we think about distributions. Now it's the other way around, as particularly in some of the energy economies. In many countries, you pay provisionally in respect to previous earnings. If you pay too much, you come back in the following year and you get some of those refunds. So these are 0.4 of tax refunds in respect of previous years. We're not expecting to get repaid over payments of tax effectively. We said that's cash-like and an asset of the business, and we can put towards distribution of shareholders. We positioned for the Viterra cash component of that particular transaction, expect to close in the coming months, a billion for that. That then allowed top-up distribution of one billion, finishing at 10.3, circa 10 billion, and allowing the buyback to effectively be implemented now and running until August. The reason it's August and not the end of the year, because we know more is coming. So let's just compress the The buyback before August, it's a business generating $4.8 billion free cash flow at spot prices. There's no cash requirement come August. It's all up for grabs in terms of how it can be deployed within the business. So we will expect to see some continuity in that buyback program, this billion, and continuing at some level beyond that as well. We can certainly also think about the When we do the transaction with buggy closers, of course, there was the cash element. There's also a script element getting 16 or so percent. Yes, there's lockups. Yes, there's other variations around that. But that's something long term. We can think of whether is there any way of sort of accelerating some of that return to shareholders, whether it's through some sort of loans against that non-recourse type funding that we may be able to do against those shares that may allow some early distribution. And something like that could be done out of cycle. It doesn't have to necessarily wait to August if that particular transaction was to close. In terms of CapEx, an important slide as we work through. If you think about 2024, headline of $7 billion capitalized into the industrial business. The cash was $6.7 billion. There was some proceeds of some assets. Every now and again, you trade in, you sell, you do whatever. So the net cash was $6.7 billion. A little bit of leases on that side as well. 6.7 also included 100 million that was spent last year on our various projects that was capitalized. That's the Maras, the Pashans, and the likes as well. So we think sort of like for like, if we were standing here last year, how much capex did we spend on the base business? There was 700 for EVR as well. So the base business was more like 6 billion that was spent spending cash terms, maybe even a little bit below. We had an average cycle guidance Last year, 5.7. And now the average has moved lower because we spent a little bit more last year. It's sort of 6.9 billion. We always thought we may spend a little bit more, but CapEx is such a... You don't know exactly is it going to come in Q4, is it going to come in sort of the following year. That's why we tend now to look at an average three-year cycle, which I think is more useful and valuable in some of that cycle. So if we look forward, we're now talking about a 6.6 billion average... For the next three years, that's the 225 to 227. EVR component of that's 1.4. Base business ex-EVR, 5.2. So we've rolled forward 5.7 into 5.2 now as we add another year, which is always expected to be a bit lower, and we spent whatever we spent in 2025 as well. EVR, if we look at some of the bigger components going forward, 25 to 27, you can see some of the coppers, about 35 to 40% of that spend. Kalawasi, we're no longer, I mean, desalination plant, has moved from a material project now into sort of getting closer to being done and being commissioned through the course of this year. That was part of the biggest spend over the last year or two as that comes through. They're doing a separate project expanding to 210,000 tonnes per day of processing. That'll add some volumes to COPPA-NC later on in the 2027-ish, back in the 26-27 period. That's in these numbers. In terms of the capex, there is higher stripping levels also across the copper business, a little bit in coal. Nickel OD, on a pink depth, it's been a long, drawn-out process, the future units as we get out of the Sudbury Basin. That, again, within the next 12 months or so is when that starts getting to ore and getting to be able to add some units from the old mines that are closing in. EVR itself, we still, Gary said, integration is going very well, but we're still getting to the point of owning all the spend, putting a Glencore stamp of ownership and review and challenge around all that they're spending. There is elevated capital in the EVR business, 1.4 billion, the average for the next three years, then reducing down to 1.1 billion or so. Now, the major front-loading of some of that capex, for those that have followed sort of EVR and tech over the years you would have seen some of those requirements particularly in the water treatment there's permit requirements there and part of licensing and permitting everything else is to at least in the shorter term move up to 150 million litres a day of treatment capacity from 77 it's multiple plants that are being commissioned in various stages over the next two or three years and there's also a big upgrade and expansion around capacity of material movement whether it's in trucks and shovels and that sets up that business for long-term sustainable 26 million tons and potential growth options that can come from EVR. But that steps down as we move on. So that's guidance. We'll factor that into spot illustrative cash flow down the track. Here's some volume and portfolio projections and guidance effectively, out 24, out to 28. What I may do as well, if someone's... Controlling the slides over there is just a jump to slide 31. I think we can quickly run through that. There's a page on each of the main businesses, but I think it's important to look at copper and the various other businesses. Well, we split it up. At bottom left, you can see between the base copper business and the copper units coming from our zinc and nickel businesses, primarily ISA, Kitabit, and Kazink. Those are the businesses that produce copper units. They do decline. basis some closures at Mount Izo and Kidd over the next two or three years. So you see some declines here. The base business itself is really anchored around long life, the low cost assets in Kaluasi, Andapakai, KCC, Mutanda, all of those comprising, you can see 90% of the volumes are going through the system. We do dip a little bit in 2025, primarily in South America at around 50,000 tons and Kalawasi, you can see there is around 30,000, and that's through a period, again, of treatment of lower grade and some water constraints that they're still operating as they then get through into second half of this year in particular. You get the 210 cases that goes through, and that then keeps recovering that 30,000 and then adds another 30,000, 40,000 towards the end of this particular period. There's also periods as we go through Antamina as well as Lomas Bias, Again, some temporary grade sequencing issues at both of those, and you see all of that recover as we go into 2026 and then beyond. We've got the LATAM portfolio then getting up to 650,000 by 2028, and the African portfolio we see at 300,000 times combined, KCC and MUMI by that 2027, a little bit earlier. We've spoken historically about some land constraints and some inefficiencies and some improvements that need to be done around that Africa. We are making progress towards some of that access and the way forward around getting that extra 50,000 tonnes of carbon. This is all before any of the other bigger brownfield growth options projects, the pipeline that Gary will talk about later on, that sort of million tonnes around Argentina, Chile, Peru and Africa as well. So there's the copper profile. This will have a profound effect on both cost structure, given denominator effects, fixed cost business, and ultimately the cash flow generation of this business, and also tapering off of capex as we then go through these various periods as well. Zinc going a little bit the other way around, sort of in the more medium term as the business overall settles more around 750,000 tons. We do have a few mine closures. 225 is a big sugar hit on zinc, not in the zinc business itself, but it's the zinc coming out of Antamina. As you can see, our share, again, bottom left, goes from 92,000 in 2024, stepping up to close to 150,000. So they're going through a very high zinc-grade area sequence of their mine, lower copper, which is one of the reasons why there was a slight dip in copper. And then as we get to 2025, 26, you've got Lady Loretta, one of the satellite operations at Mount Isa on zinc. That's end of life, around the end of 25. And then you've got Kidd and Malevsky, one of the Kazik mines, also during the 26, 27 period. And then you've got George Fisher's and Jyram's and various MacArthur Rivers, a steady state business at that 750, 760,000 tons on the zinc side. It's also reason knowing that we had some volume declines over time, you've seen such impressive cost reductions in that business as that right size for a business that is focused around longer life assets that we have as well. And you can see some of those cost structures down the track. On the EVR or steam coal or met coal business, fairly steady state now, 26 million tonnes with some expansion potential out of EVR, leaving about 9 million tonnes in Australia. No particular closures in Australia during this particular period. If you roll that forward maybe a year or two, you do have some declines in Australia, but very now long life, low cost, high margin businesses coming across those businesses as well. We'll see what that business is now generating, spot price cash flow. And on the energy coal side of the business, 96 million tonne, midpoint guidance this year. Pretty flat consolidated portfolio out till 2028. Beyond that there is some mine closures as we keep the sort of run down working within our targets that we have across this business as well. The one business that will shut within that period out till the end of 2028 is Claremont. It is a business in Australia. It is not consolidated. It is a managed production. It's part of our overall, if you like, reporting of of scope 1s and 2s and 3s, but it doesn't manifest in this particular business. But that's a fairly reasonable-sized mine in the sort of 10 to 11 million tonnes sort of per annum. High-quality business does close within that period. It doesn't show in this consolidated production dip, but there will be a small earnings impact, if you like. It's just an equity pickup that we have on that business as well. If we then return to... We'll return to Paige and then quickly wrap up It was page 15. So that's just putting it all down in less visual format. You can see those same numbers that we showed earlier on. That's showing a 4.2% compound annual growth rate, long-term copper equivalent price that we do use out. You've got copper, as we said, going up a million tonnes. That's also sequenced with potential cobalt additional units coming out of the African business. Again, subject to market conditions, of course, is important, but we do see a period out there in this period when that particular market does start rebalancing and become more interesting for us as well. Nickel, you've got the extra units you can see from 26 to 27. That is OD and the Sudbury Basin over there and steady production from the coal businesses out during that period. What does that all translate into and mean going forward before Gary takes over the real long-term growth options within the business as well? This is base business as well. Costs, I think, are pleasing numbers to report on the cost side. Copper, of course, is being constrained or you've got denominator effect through 24, 25. You do see dips in production, trough periods before you start recovering out to 26 and beyond. You got before byproduct at 231 to 239. That's all denominator effect, actual cost. There is some improvements in this business. And that's 178 after byproduct. That's with depressed cobalt prices, current spot. Everything's working its way through the system. To give you some sense beyond that 26, 27, with that extra volume coming through, Kalawasi comes through, Antipakai, a little bit of Antamina. That 178 moves down into about the mid 140s. We've got 140 on a cost structure, and by 2028, hopefully with something we do have a sort of contangoed view of the world on cobalt. It's not going to stay here forever. It's not going to be bonanza times, but it's going to pick up at some point. You'll have in our modeling some unit costs post-buy product towards $1 a pound by 2028 before the consideration of the longer-term options. Zinc, you can see the massive improvement down to, Down to six cents, that's portfolio optimization and cost initiative generally across the group. They can now focus around particularly Kazakhstan and Australia without getting too sort of distracted and on the weeds in some of the smaller LATAM portfolio that they're historically having to micromanage quite difficult assets, including Volcan and the likes. So very strong cost performance there. Steel-making coal is somewhat of a blending effect of bringing Canada fully for a year at 110 cost structure with an 82 margin and 66 cost. We've got some effects, positive effects rolling through there and you've got some lower revenue royalties. So we'll just wrap up with our chart that we rerun twice a year. I think it's quite useful. We obviously track this as well, the spot illustrative cash flow running throughout all the kind of bottom-up build-up carry it through cost structures, look at byproducts, look at fuel consumption, look at all the different levels within this business. And we've seen all the inputs on the copper business. We pick midpoint. This was using 7th of February macros, which was roughly where we are today in the metals. It was sort of 94, 80 or so on copper. We take a 4% price discount because of quality and other factors on the copper business, but you're generating 4.1 billion of EBITDA there. That's with 0.2 of... that we don't build into our unit cost because it's still to do with bar end projects. You can see the 0.2 at the bottom. That's against 3.8 last year's performance. Zinc at 1.9 with that low cost structure and some volume recovery on the JIRM. Very good performance there. Steelmaking coal now ahead of energy coal at that environment because of the high margin business clearly coming. That was using a forward strip of – that was 206 – forward on the hard coking coal index average next 12 months. It's ticked up a little bit since then. So I think it's around 213 or so. On the energy coal, it used a 123 on Newcastle Strip. That's ticked down a bit. That's probably a 117 at the moment. Those two probably cancel each other out in terms of how they was through the business. So this would still be pretty much where we would validate it if we were to press the sort of update button even as we speak. The other departments, 1.5 across ferroalloys, nickel, aluminum, and oil, and some of the corporate and other, you've got 15.3 billion of EBITDA. You've got your taxes, interest, and other working its way through the system, and that average capex that I mentioned earlier on at that 6.7 for roughly a 4.85 billion or so free cash flow augurs well for that coming here in six months' time and saying balance sheet has generated another X. Here's a top-up of here. and we keep going with those shell returns. Of course, EBR, great business. I mean, we've spoken about all of its things. It consumed $7 billion. Without that, you would have had another $7 billion in your pockets effectively, but we think the better reinvestment was in this business, long-term generation, and it set this business up well. It needs to compete with buybacks. We think it has, and now we can get back into where the best returns are, including buybacks. So I'll hand over to Gary to wrap things up. Okay.

So just to wrap up, take a snapshot of where we are, our strategy, and how we deliver our strategy over the last few years. We've simplified the portfolio, as you know. We've shut a number of assets or disposed of assets that have been either loss-making in the shape of the likes of Coneambo. We've sold off some other assets which are subscale, not fit for purpose assets. So, we've shut or disposed more than 20 assets, leaving us with a portfolio of terrific long-life, low-cost assets in good geographies around the world, well-diversified, giving us that long-life, low-cost base to be able to project into the future, delivering the commodities at low cost to our customers. At the same time, we've also enhanced our portfolio of organic projects, and I'm going to get into a little bit of that later, but just in terms of our resource base and probably what our two key commodities are where we have, obviously, we've added up EVR. We've spoken a lot about that during this presentation, but that's additional approximately... 800 million tons of additional marketable reserves. Of course, the resource base is much bigger. So that's a, you know, we keep going back to a great acquisition. We're very happy with that acquisition, very happy with that asset. So that's a real growth asset for us in our business. And in terms of our copper business, we've done a lot of work understanding the organic profile and resource base that we have. I think we've reported some of these numbers before, but we have close to 20 billion tons of measured, indicated, and inferred resource. That's a growth of more than 6 billion tons since a previous report in 2022. And that's going to set us up for the future when and the way these projects get developed. And we're going to talk about that, as I say, later. The other part of our business that we've been very busy on and we've done very successfully for many, many years is the M&A side of our business. So just touching on a little bit that we've done over the last few years, EVR, the headline acquisition during 2024, $7 billion for a Tier 1 best-in-class asset, very cash generative, long life, low cost. That was a fantastic asset that we bought. We've also bought other coal assets. As you know, we bought Sarah on about three, three and a half years ago. But the other thing that we also bought during that period is a lot of our minority joint venture partners around the world and more particularly in Australia wanted to get out of steam coal at the time. At the time, coal was a four letter word. It seems in today's world, coal is no longer a four letter word. But at that time, many of our joint venture partners wanted to get out of coal. We were able to buy those coal assets from them. We landed up buying another, if you combine that with Cerrojan, over 20 million tons of annual coal production at a price less than $300 million. Very cash generative. These were acquisitions in our existing mines where we understood them, we know them, we operate them. They're best in class assets in Australia. So a very successful M&A track record in coal, energy coal, a little bit in energy coal, and predominantly in steelmaking coal. So those have been two very, very good acquisitions for Glencore over the last three, three and a half years, and very excited for those businesses going forward. On the alumina side and aluminum side, Steve touched on that earlier as well. We're now 33% owners of El Norte. It's I think the biggest and lowest cost alumina refinery outside of China. Tier 1 asset, really, really well managed, well run. You know where aluminum prices have gone over the last few years, or the last few months, let's call it, and even spot prices today, paying back significant cash to us as shareholders and to our joint venture partners, Hydro. Very happy with that asset. A lot of work being done on both sides to bring costs down, converted to gas-fired from previously being oil-fired, meaning we've lowered the cost of production. A cash-generative business, Tier 1 asset. Very, very happy with that asset. And associated with that, 45% in MRN, the box-type mine nearby, long-life asset, very good feed quality into Alanorte. We also did some big M&A on our Agri side. As you know, we did the transaction with Bungi. We sold Vatera, a billion dollars of cash. That's coming back. We should close in the next few months. And in fact, as Steve outlined in his waterfall for our cash distribution, we're already paying that cash out to shareholders, that billion dollars. And then we'll own 16%, give or take, of an enlarged and amazing agricultural company in Bungi. Run very well. Greg Heckman is a great guy. We've got a great team running that business. Very excited to be shareholders in that for a period of time. But as Steve says, there's an ability to monetize at the right time, in the right way, at the right value, some of that shareholding, and bring it back to you as shareholders. So that's a great piece of M&A. that we're very excited about and we're happy that we concluded that. On the copper side, also done some good work with our colleagues at Tech. We've merged our assets and their assets into a new project called PolyMet in Minnesota in the U.S. Under new administration rules, we're hoping to be able to advance that project into critical minerals, nickel, copper, and the likes. It's a brownfield project. It's low capital intensity. And we're hoping to see that progress. Very happy with that asset. And the other one where, as you know, we picked up the remaining stake in MARA. We were a minority shareholder in MARA. It's a leading brownfield copper project. This is one I'll get into in a couple slides, but we picked up 100% of that asset. It's effectively the extension of Alombrera, a very, very exciting asset. Steve and I were out there last year. We're progressing ahead with the studies, and we'll be looking to bring that to the market at the opportune and at the right time. And I guess the one piece of M&A that... people don't touch on, but we've done very well, and we continue to do, and we will continue to do, is we're buying back our own stock. We've bought, in the last three, three and a half years, nearly 10% of Glenn Callback, over 1.2 billion shares of Glenn Callback. And that, in my view, has been our biggest and our best form of M&A. There's zero takeover premium, Zero due diligence needed. We know our own assets better than anybody else. We're buying it cheap in the market. Everybody talks about a re-rate. The re-rate is coming, and we're doing many things around the re-rate, whether it's the right stock exchange, whether it's advancing our portfolio of projects, whatever it may be. But the best thing about buying back our own stock is we are front-running that re-rate. So the more buybacks we do, the better. Today we announced $1 billion. As Steve pointed out, we're a cash-generative business. By the 6th of August, this buyback will be done. There may be a new buyback coming in August. Again, if our stock continues to trade where it trades, we will continue to buy back because this is terrific M&A. This is taking our company private by stealth. Very happy to do that. We're not out there paying 30, 40% premiums for other listed companies. We're quite happy to buy back our own company at a discount, while it trades at a discount, and we'll continue to do that. So we've bought back approximately 10% of our own stock, and we'll continue to buy back. Terrific form of M&A. So moving on to our copper projects, and I know I think BHP had their presentation the other day. They also touched on some of the organic growth. We're very excited about the organic growth that we have in this business. It's amazing the projects that we have. If you look at the capital intensity of our projects, and I'll get into some of the projects in a bit more detail in a sec, but a $15,000 to $20,000 project capital intensity across a portfolio of up to a million tons of growth. Now, Steve talked earlier and he put up a slide showing that we reset our base business back to a million tons by 2028. That's the base business of this company. We have long-life, best-in-class copper assets, whether it be KCC in the DRC, which goes on for many, many years, KYC, Antemina, Antepakai. These are long-life assets that reset our base business at a million tons a year. We've got the slight dip in the preceding years because of whether it be sequencing at Antamina or the dip that we have because of the water in Kayawasi. We know all about that. But really, what is our base business? It's a million-ton-a-year base business. And we have the ability to bring on, as we want, up to another million tons a year of fantastic quality projects at very low capital intensity. 15,000 to 20,000 tons is sector-leading. and will give us the ability to lever up our business from a million tons to up to two million tons of copper a year. Now, let's have a look a little bit at when we'll do this and some of these projects. The one thing we can assure you, we are not bringing the projects on at $9,500 copper. In fact, we're quite happy to have less copper being mined today and tomorrow and this year and next year while the copper price remains at $9,500. We all believe, we all know, we look at the forecast, we look at the stats, Copper will be in deficit going forward, whether it's grid spending, whether it's AI, whether it's transition to renewables, whatever it may be, copper will be in deficit and copper prices will go higher. We do not want to supply copper into a market that is at $9,500 or oversupply into a market that is at $9,500. So there's no rush for us to bring these on. We will bring them on and we'll bring them on smartly and in the right way. In the interim, while we do that, we go back to what our option is, and everybody always talks about the buy versus build. That's always the big debate that everybody talks about. Do you buy another copper company? Do you build? Well, for us, we do have the third option, and that's buying back our own stock. We spoke about it on the slide before. We can buy. Okay, you look around what's around the world. From a copper perspective, and I think BHP also mentioned the other day, not much out there to buy at good value. We can build. We have great value projects to build, and we will build these great value projects in the right way. As I said, I'll get to those in a second. Particularly with our capital intensity of $15,000 to $20,000, sector-leading in our industry, sector-leading in terms of being able to bring on up to a million tons of additional copper. But while we wait for the market to recover... What the best thing we can do is continue to buy back our base business of a million tons a year. So it's not just buy versus build. It's buy versus build versus buy back. And we will continue to allocate capital in the most capital efficient, value accretive way for our shareholders. So if you go down the wagon wheel that we've got in the middle of the slide, we know a lot about some of these projects. You know about the Mutanda Sulfides. We've spoken about that before. That's a very long life copper project. It's an existing mine. It's very low capital intensity. It's a few hundred million dollars to bring that on once we want to bring that on. We're not rushing to do it at the moment. It's probably 100,000 tons of copper for many, many decades to come. So a very good project in the DRC, which we are continuing to progress that project and ready to bring it on when the market is right. The other one is the Kariwasi Fourth Line. I think Jason had put out a primer on Kariwasi. People know a lot about Kariwasi. We've put information out. Anglo put information out. Probably the best copper mine in the world, in my opinion. And there's great growth that you know a lot about. So I don't want to spend time on DRC and on Koyawase here. What I want to do is double click a little bit onto some of our other projects. Ones that the market seems to not fully grasp of the potential of these projects. And that's Corcovaco in Peru, Amara, which we touched on earlier in Argentina, and El Pachon in Argentina. So let's do that now. I'm going to start in the middle on Corcovaco. Corico-Huaico is an extension and expansion of Antipokai. Antipokai is a terrific mine, produces approximately 150,000 to 200,000 tons of copper a year. And Corico-Huaico is a brand new mine. But when I say brand new mine, it's only approximately 7 kilometers from Antipokai. This is 300,000 tons of copper equivalent production. 300,000 tons that we can bring on. And what we need to do is build a conveyor belt. That's what it is. It's a conveyor belt, some plant upgrades, and bits and pieces. It's very low capital intensity. It's a terrific operation, existing operation, brownfield, and supplements our existing Antipakai business. We've been doing a lot of work on that project over the last few years, and as I say, this is not something that we want to rush to market, give a $9,500 copper, but it's something that probably of all our projects could be brought to the market the quickest and if we do see market reactions to what we all forecast to be a copper deficit going forward. So, a terrific project. Probably, I would say, the lowest capital intensity of all our projects and the quickest to market. 300,000 tons in a very good mining geography. Peru, of course, has been, everybody talks sometimes about some challenges in Peru, but Peru has been very stable in terms of a mining geography, and we operate Antemina there very successfully. We operate Antepacay very successfully. And Coracoaico will be a fantastic brownfield expansion for our business, bringing 300,000 tons out of the Coracoaico business. Now onto Argentina. I mentioned earlier, I think that Steve and I were in Argentina a few months ago. We've got two terrific projects there. Mara, we've discussed it at this forum before. It's effectively an extension of the old Alhambra. We were at the Alhambra plant. The plant is in unbelievable shape. It continues to operate. They continue to move the mills and turn the mills and do everything they need to do to be able to turn that plant on when it's ready to go. We have camp facilities. We have all the facilities, transport facilities. The chain is in place. So this is a business that once we decide to green light this project, we're also quite quickly to market, not as quickly to market as Coricoico, but it is a project that can come to market in a very quick period of time. It's a complete brownfield, low capital intensity. It's approximately 17 kilometers, a little bit further away than Coricoico is from Antipakai, but approximately 17 kilometers from the old Alambrera plant. So a very, very good asset. This is about 200,000 tons of copper equivalents per year. It's a 20-year-plus operation, very low capital intensity. We will be putting our application in for the rigging probably in the next two or three months. We want to make sure that that's done properly. We're working very closely with the Argentinian administration, and that RIGI application goes in, and we will then develop that project, continue to understand the project, and bring it to the market when the market is ready. And then the other and the last project to talk about is Alpachon. So Alpachon is a greenfield project, and I know everybody's sitting there going, ah, Glencore, you're never going to develop a greenfield project, da-da-da-da. We've all heard that. And yes, greenfield projects do make us nervous. Now, I know I sound like our previous CEO, but he was right. Everybody should be nervous of greenfield projects. They are not easy to deliver. So what are we doing on Alpachon? Well, firstly, we've now drilled out the resource base further. and we're actually gonna stop drilling, because the more we drill, the more we find. It's an unbelievable resource base. Some of those resources that we spoke about in a previous slide, well, a lot of those are in El Pachon. It's a fantastic, unbelievable deposit. In our view, once this is developed, and it will be developed, this will be one of the top 10 copper mines in the world, no question. Well over 300,000 tons, probably even more, of annual production for decades to come. A very, very good operation. Not much around in the area, which in fact is a positive when you're developing mines. So we don't have too many other social conflicts. Of course, we do everything responsibly. We do things the right way. But in terms of being able to get it through the system and get approvals and start mining, we don't have a lot of social conflicts. In fact, we have the opposite. We have a government in Argentina who is very pro, very helpful. We have a RIGI application for this one as well. This RIGI application will go in probably a month or two after the MARA, and this will go through and it'll give us the stability and the tax breaks and the benefits that we need to be able to develop this project. But the question is, will Glencore develop the Greenfield project? Well, in a traditional way, where we go and we go tell the market that it's gonna take us X years and Y billion dollars, and then we go and build it, and then we have to come back and report that we've blown the budget or we've blown the timetable, We will not do that. We've decided to think a little bit out of the box. We've got a whole bunch of new different ideas where we can massively de-risk this project. Massively de-risk the development of this project. So much so that to the extent that we want, we had always sequenced this towards the back end of our projects because of the greenfield nature of it. But if some of these ideas that we have, which massively mitigate the risk, we were able to maybe bring this thing forward. in terms of our sequencing, because of the way that we will develop it. Now, a bit early to talk about those ideas now. We're still developing them. And, of course, we've got some other projects which are far better and far low capital intensity, like the brownfield ones in Coricoaca and Mara. But Alpachon will come to market, and it will come to market in a different way to what other greenfield projects have come to market, and it will be a fantastic cash generator for Glencore in years to come. So very excited about that project as well, and that contributes to our growth of our base business of a million tonnes a year. This will contribute to that additional up to one million tonnes of additional copper growth. So to wrap up, our priorities, 2025 priorities. First and foremost is safety. We didn't touch on safety earlier, but unless we can operate safely, we should not operate. It's a clear and number one value and priority in this business and will remain throughout and always. Very key. The other area which we always spend time on and we haven't spent a lot of time on during this presentation, but I'm going to spend two or three minutes on it, is our supply discipline. And I did touch on it during the copper discussion. We do not want to bring units into a market that doesn't need the units, and that is why we are not rushing these copper projects. I believe that if these copper projects were in one of our peer companies, they would be rushing ahead, building, developing, bringing the tons onto the market. We're very fortunate they're in our hands, and we're not rushing through, so therefore we're going to keep this market. The market will remain tight, very good for our base business, and very good for the future as we develop these projects. But in other commodities, we also are going to remain very supply disciplined. And we've already taken action, and we're going to take more action. We've seen weak commodity prices now. As I said, I've got no problem with a slight dip in copper production this year and next year until we get back to our base of a million tons. Because why rush tons into a market at these kind of prices? We would prefer tons into market at higher margins, higher cash generations. So what have we done? We've already shut our Porta Vesma smelter. We know the TCRCs across zinc and copper are weak. We've already shut our Porta Vesma smelter. We shut that in September of last year. We continue to investigate recycling options around that facility, working very closely with the Italian government to reinvest in that facility in a smart, cash-generative way to be able to keep that facility alive and keep the people employed and do some good things. However... We have shut that, we've taken action. You've seen the action that we've taken in South Africa. The announcements that we've taken around our ferrochrome smelters. We will not run operations that are not cash generative and are not profitable. So we've already put on notice that we are planning to shut certain smelters in South Africa if we do not see a recovery in smelting margins. Now that can come either through the revenue side or through assistance on the cost side from the South African government. But ultimately we are taking action. In the coal industry, in our coal business, we're a very large steam coal producer. And all our operations, fortunately, on an operational basis are cash positive. And that's great for us. But cash positive is not what we run this for. We run this for returns. We want higher prices. It's great for our business. And we're going through a number of options now and expect to come back to the market in the next little while about production cuts in our coal business. to help tighten up that market. And it's very specific around certain qualities, certain geographies, where being supply discipline will help our portfolio approach. We will do that work now and we'll be coming back to the market with these ideas around supply discipline. And the same goes for other parts of our smelting business. As you know, we have another number of custom smelters. As TCRCs continue to remain where they are, we're not gonna run businesses that aren't profitable. And we are going to take action on some of our smelters around the world. Those announcements will be coming when the time is right. So we're not sitting on our hands. We don't just sit here and say, well, commodities markets are what they are and shrug our shoulders. We take action and we have taken action and we're going to take more action. The other area that to talk about is copper. I mean, we have spoken about copper, but the one thing, and Steve had a great slide, I I forgot to mention it. It was mentioned on one of my first slides, and I skipped over it. I was so excited with all the returns that we're giving to our shareholders that I forgot to mention it, which I shouldn't have, because this is the long-term growth for Glencore. If you look at our CAGR growth in copper equivalents over the next four years, it's sector-leading. It's 4% annual growth over the next four years in copper equivalents. This is unbelievable growth in our market, better than any of our peers are putting out there. And this is real growth. This is not the projects that I've spoken about. This is real growth of our 2024 base business at 4% CAGR a year until 2028. And then you've got the flow coming in of our projects if and when we bring those on subject to the market. So the growth story for us is unbelievable. 4% growth, but this is going to be positive growth It's value accretive growth. That's what we're after. We're not in this market for growth for the sake of growth. It's growth of value for shareholders. So that's very exciting. There's a lot of work to be done on our projects. There's a lot of work being done on our existing operations, and Steve's highlighted how that growth comes through. I've discussed in this forum as well about those projects, and where we bring those on is when they are shovel-worthy. Shovel-ready is not a term that sits in our business. We want shovel-worthy projects. When these projects that I've spoken about, and particularly Coricoico and Mara, if we brought them on a $9,500 copper, we'd make money out of those. But we want to make a lot of money out of those. So we will wait until the market is ripe and ready to bring those on, and that's when those projects are shovel-worthy. On our marketing side, the business continues to perform very well, as we mentioned earlier. Top end of the range. Steve has been through some of the numbers. And, you know, a lot of questions are coming around. Well, there's tariffs, geopolitics, this, that, and the next. You know, nobody can predict what's going to happen with tariffs. Nobody knows. You wake up tomorrow morning, there is a tariff, there isn't a tariff. Is it 10%? Is it 60%? Who knows? What we do know is uncertainty creates opportunity. uncertainty creates arbitrage options. They create dislocations in the market. And when that happens, we do well in our marketing business because of the depth and breadth of our business across the world, our ability to react, that's where we do well. So, although maybe long term these sort of tariffs may not be so good for global growth, in the short term, as we see this volatility and this heightened uncertainty, it raises our ability to get better returns off our marketing business because of these dislocations and arbitrage opportunities. So, So that's not a bad thing for us as Glencore, being the only mining company that has a big part of its business being a marketing business. So going forward, continue to create value for our shareholders. We did mention in this presentation as well, we've now actively considering the right exchange for our shares. We trade on the London Stock Exchange. We're not saying that the London Stock Exchange is bad, but what we're saying is, is there a better exchange for us to trade our securities? and we're under active consideration about whether we move our listing to a jurisdiction that may be more appropriate and give us the value that we want. The joy of not doing it immediately but doing it soon is that we continue to bar back our own stock cheap. So before we move and we re-rate, we get to front run that re-rate. So very happy to have this bar back, but we are in active consideration around moving our listing to an exchange that perhaps... is more appropriate for us, and we'll come back to the market once we finish that analysis. Our focus is on cash generation. Of course, after safety, our focus on cash generation. Steve's put out the numbers. Illustrative spot free cash flow, just under $5 billion. So that means as the buyback finishes on the 6th of August or before the 6th of August of this year, we come back, we report back to you, there's a lot of cash ready to go again. So very exciting times for Glencore, very exciting times for our business, and I'll end there and turn it over to Q&A.

Okay, Ian.

Hi there, Ian Rousseau from Barclays. Gary, just on your comment around you'll only bring sort of these projects if the market's right, looking through your portfolio, there are quite a few assets that's not generating any cash today, like your African copper business, Australian zinc business. You mentioned, obviously, the smelters and some coal assets as well. I mean... are these assets still the right assets for the Glencore portfolio, particularly the copper, sorry, the African copper assets where cobalt prices is at the moment, it's probably not making much or negative free cash flow. So, will you continue to run these until the market improves or there's obviously some interesting projects like the Mutanda Sulfide that can improve this, but just wanted to get your thoughts on some of these assets.

Good question. The I mean, if you look at Mutanda, Mutanda we're not running at full capacity. In fact, we're not running much out of Mutanda at the moment simply because of that value that we see is not there. Of course, we could ramp up Mutanda tomorrow. We can get Mutanda up to 80,000, 100,000 tons of copper a year. But we're not doing that. We're being supply disciplined. It's a finite resource. Yes, it's a long life resource, but it's a finite resource. We do not want to ramp up to 100,000 tons of copper a year in a market that doesn't need it 9,500 tons. With regards to cobalt and the bar product, yes, cobalt prices are not great. We know that, and we don't expect them to recover in the short term. However, the joy of these assets is the quality of these assets, high-grade copper deposits. And the one thing that always people forget, I mean, I guess we had the sugar hits and the sugar high of $80,000 cobalt for a while, and we thought these are cobalt mines with copper bar products as opposed to the other way around. But when we bought in and when we developed these operations, these operations, we didn't know what to do with the cobalt. It was never a business plan to have cobalt. We just stockpiled it. We didn't know what to do with it. These are copper mines. That's what they are, and they're copper mines. So whether cobalt is $10,000, $80,000, or zero, these are standalone great copper mines that will make a lot of cash for this business and its shareholders in Glencore and our joint venture partners in the DRC will make a lot of cash going forward. very high quality grade, probably the highest quality grade copper in the world, open pit mines, you don't have this risk of all the underground, deep underground, all those sorts of things, very good relationships with the DRC government, with our joint venture partner in KCC, and these are long life mines, very long life mines, and Steve talked about some of the costs, the costs will continue to come down, we continue to optimize those businesses, there's always challenges, every country has its mining challenges, DRC has its own challenges, but Many of those challenges we continue to unlock in conjunction with GECAMINS, who are a very collaborative partner with us, and we're very excited for them.

Hi, just a follow-up. On EVR, you said it's sort of early days on getting and integrating and bringing the cost down, but what's your sense for potential synergies post-integration?

I mean, synergies, I mean, Xavier is here, our Chief Operating Officer. He could probably talk a little bit about synergies generally. We're not going to give numbers now, and that's something that will come later, maybe on the EBR site visit. I think I touched on it earlier. I mean, if you can go through this, I mean, just look at what we've done in the second half of the year. The second half of the year, now that's not synergies, that's, well, you could call it synergies. We've reduced operating cash costs per ton by 14%. We've increased productivity. Now, some of that cost saving comes through the fact that there's higher volume, and where does that higher volume come from? It's productivity enhancements. Where does that productivity enhancement come from? from Glencore operating practices, standards, and the way we do things. Some of it is just genuine cost savings as well. So we've done that. That is a synergy standalone. 14%, you think Steve put out the costs of production of our Coke and Coal business, 14% of that is real big numbers. You can do the math. So we've got major synergies in cost through operational excellence and the way we operate those mines. Procurement. And we'll come back with those numbers. But it's just natural. Tech is a much smaller company to Glencore. We buy more trucks than them. We buy more shovels than them. We naturally have bigger discounts than them when it comes to whether it be Caterpillar, Hitachi, Liebherr, Komatsu, whatever it may be. So explosives, all those sorts of things. That's a natural synergy that we have. Okay, that's just because of size and scale. So we bring that to the business. On the marketing side, we know the expertise we bring on marketing. But the marketing synergies, and I want to emphasize this, the marketing synergies aren't to the disadvantage of our customers. It's about optimization of products, qualities, and impact. particularly having the Australian business and our third-party trader business, to be able to optimize that book that allows us to be able to give our customers what they want, when they need, but at the same time optimize our revenue line. So it's a win-win for both. So those synergies are material. We'll have a bit more granularity on it when we go out to EVR in June, but we already see it in the costs. Jason.

So, Jason Faircloth, Bank of America. So, speaking of synergies, just wondering if we could get an update on the synergy discussions with tech around Koyawase and QE2.

Slow. Okay. Ask Jonathan on Thursday.

I will. The... Beyond that, you know, if we think about M&A more generally, your name's been mentioned in the press twice, I think, in the last six weeks. So once was with Rio, once with your African copper assets. How are you thinking about that more broadly? Are you, you know, actively considering other options? I mean, you talked about actively considering a new exchange. By the way, we hope you don't, right? But, you know, is there a bigger trade here?

It's not a bigger trade, Jason. I mean, this company was built on M&A. I've said it before, it's in our DNA. So whether it's buying, selling, merging, we all look for value-accretive transactions. And I mean, at the right value, there's something to be done. Now, is that buying something? Is that selling something? Is that merging? It's got to be done in a value-accretive way. Nobody wants to do M&A for the sake of M&A. Nobody wants to grow for the sake of growth. Big is not necessarily good, but big may be good if you can create value for your shareholders. So as Glencore, we're always open to opportunities. Now those opportunities are value accretive opportunities for our shareholders if those are there, and this is no different to what this company's been for 50 years. When there's a value accretive opportunity, whether it be a small operation, a small mine, a UG2 plant in South Africa, as you see we've just done some transaction today with Sibania, a small UG plant in South Africa, a large copper mine in Argentina, a corporate transaction, a coking coal, steel making coal operation in Canada, If it's value accretive, and we believe value accretive for our shareholders, we'll pursue that. And it's not a change of focus. It's not something that we're now doing. And I spent some time on the M&A bit that we've done over the last three and a half years. Had I gone through the last 15 or 20 years, we would have been here for four days. So we've done M&A. We've done M&A well. And we continue to be open and alive to M&A at all levels of this business in a value accretive way. Thank you. Ephraim.

Thanks. Talking about sugar rush commodities, gold and silver has kind of clearly delivered in your zinc business. Are you thinking about kind of taking advantage of this and either IPOing some assets or streaming some of those more aggressively?

I mean, you know. At the moment, it's very cash generative. We know we're a big gold producer and silver, in fact. The cash flows are very helpful, and Steve's illustrated how they help our business in terms of a C1 cost after byproduct. But it goes back to Jason's question. I mean, I don't think streaming, no. I mean, it's not something we would be looking at. You know, if gold isn't core to us, of course, we do have a distinct gold operation. If somebody wanted to buy a gold operation at spot gold prices, we'd consider it because it goes back to the M&A. It's about value. Is that value accreted for our shields? We don't want to necessarily erode from our base business, but at the right price, of course, we would. But gold is not a core commodity for us. So it's not that we're out there trying to sell it or do something, but... Gold is very flavor of the day. Prices are very strong and we have a good gold operation.

And then just a second one on Viterra. You have kind of started taking into account the Viterra cash proceeds in your shareholder returns, which is not the case six months or 12 months ago. What gives you confidence that the deal is sort of closer to closing and you can kind of take that into account?

Well, we're sort of reflecting as much as anything from their piggybacking on these statements as well. So they've obviously had their results, I think, a couple of weeks ago or a week ago. They spoke towards sort of coming months, I think, was obviously their language that they used.

But at some point, I think it's also now with the fact that EVR has been fully absorbed, the businesses back to these levels in terms of sort of de-gearing and it's throwing out strong free cash flow it's not like you're having to take a particular view is that going to keep you maybe above these sort of thresholds now that we've already blown through we thought we can put it in there with it doesn't reflect a change in confidence now I mean obviously today we're a day closer than we were yesterday that's that's the only certainty we do know And it's appropriate to obviously put it through also the fact that we now are where debt levels are and we're generating the sort of cash and we're looking forward to what we can do in August and possibly before.

Thank you. Alain.

Thank you. Alan Gabriel at Morgan Stanley. A couple of questions. First one is on the way that you looked on lock value. You talked clearly about M&A. You talked about looking at the listing, and you stressed a lot the buybacks. Are there opportunities to trade non-core or non-critical assets for cash that you can use for buybacks?

Well, Steve spoke about the bungie stock. I mean, we're very, you know, we'll be very supportive shareholders, and we have a lock-up period, but in the long term, you would expect that that would be a non-core asset for us. Now, we're not rushing to get out, and certainly anything that we did do would be done in collaboration with Boongi after the lockup and would be doing it in a value-enhancing way. But that's something, and Steve talked about some short-term ideas around that to be able to accelerate returns to shareholders around that shareholding. So certainly that is That is on the table, and it could be done out of cycle, as Steve said.

On that second point, Steve, are you able to give us a bit more color on your creative thinking around the stake?

Well, it's not about creative thinking. It's this classic you can do just non-recourse loan-to-value type structure. So it's not something that sort of hits the market at all, but you've got a liquid secure stock. It's worth, I don't know, three, sort of pick a number. Depending what day of the things, you can get 50% loan-to-value type non-recourse. There's so much headroom over there. That, given the nature that that is a step towards, as Gary said, it doesn't matter two, five, ten years down the track when it finally gets monetized in the best possible way for Glencore, that is cash. That doesn't impact the other liquidity. It's non-recourse, clearly non-recourse. to the rest of the business. It may show up as debt, but that may be an appropriate adjustment for which to say that, say, 50% of that could be applied towards an earlier distribution of what is capital headroom in the business that would otherwise be the case. So it's going to be done collaboratively with Bungie. We believe in that company. We see significant synergies and value-creative opportunities over time. So, I mean, that's stock for us. We need to think what's the best-valued DCF today of a variety of sort of time horizons of ultimately being sort of non-core, which it clearly is within our business. But that's a way of accelerating potential, both liquidity and definitionally how we can think of capital in the business for the ability to distribute it.

Chris. Hey, guys. It's Chris Lafamina from Jefferies. Just following up on some of the M&A questions. So we talk about non-core asset sales and potentially using proceeds for a buyback. But what about... considering selling like you're really tier one, like, for example, sell Kaliwasi, use the proceeds to buy back 20% of your shares, there would be, I would assume, a very high multiple in the market that somebody would pay for that, and your equity valuation itself is very low. I mean, you're not going to obviously trade assets around, but it seems like there's a pretty big arbitrage in terms of selling a high-quality copper asset in the market today where you're actually monetizing some of that future upside to the copper price that's reflected in valuation. So is that something you consider doing?

Chris, everything's for sale at the Rothpros.

Good answer. Second question, Steve, just on the EVR shareholder loans, when those convert to equity, does your ownership stake in EVR go down or will you still be at 77%?

No, it's exactly the same. This is just within that JV of how sort of ourselves and those minorities are sort of represented within that capital structure. So it's a mix of shareholder loans and sort of equity. We would just roll it up into the equity. Everything's proportionate within that. I mean, there's no change. It's purely accounting geography that moves from a debt positioning within our balance sheet up to a non-controlling interest within the equity of that business. Nothing changes anywhere else.

Liam.

Morning. Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Two follow-ups. Firstly, on the listing, is it safe to assume that it's the US that you're mainly looking at, and can you give any kind of guidance on the timeline for this decision process?

Yes. The leading candidate would be the US. I mean, we're not excluding any other exchange, but clearly the US is the leading candidate. We've seen Barrick is now also considering it, and you see some of the valuation multiples and the money that's available there. Look, with that said, we still have a very strong US presence on our register. On our institutional side, I think we're close to 50% US investors. So, but US is the leading, but we would consider all of them. In terms of timing, you know, the reason why we raise it here is because it's always something that, and I think every management team should always be alive at any time, at any board, should always be alive to are they being traded on the right exchange. And we've always been alive to that. But what's moved between where we've sat here before and where we sit here now is we are actually engaged with experts and are actively considering it. So I can't tell you it's going to happen in three months or six months or one year or five years or next week. But it's about work that's being done for us to assess and make that decision whether we stay, whether we move, what do we do, and that's happening at the moment.

The second one is on M&A, which I know is the hot topic at the moment, but you've made no secret in the past that you think big consolidation makes sense, but you've got two businesses which could be impediments to a merger, which is coal and maybe marketing. So I'm curious where that leaves Glencore. Does it mean that big deals are off the table or would you potentially be open to breaking apart parts of the business for the right deal?

I mean, I'll say it two ways. One, Jeffrey's answer, anything's for sale at the right price. But more importantly, I don't agree with you that coal, in fact, either of them are impediments to a deal. Let's look at coal first. You've got coal, you've got steelmaking coal firstly, and Steve's taken you through the numbers. Steelmaking coal is becoming a bigger part of our coal earnings than energy coal. And steelmaking coal is recognized as a critical mineral in many countries around the world. Many of our peers have steelmaking coal. And it's recognized that this is needed for the transition. So steelmaking coal is in a completely different category to energy coal. Now let's talk energy coal. Energy coal, and I did say it in my presentation, coal is no longer a four-letter word. In today's world, the pendulum has swung back and recognizes that energy coal is needed today. as the world transitions. We can't transition overnight, and energy coal is required as the world transitions, and there will be good margins out of an energy coal business, and the extremism of anti-coal has come out, and I think everybody recognizes that. But the most telling factor, and this to me is the most telling factor of why coal is not an impediment and why anybody would be happy with coal, any of our peers would be happy with coal, is as follows. If you look at, we did a consultation in July last year, July, August last year with our shareholders. And we said, do you want us to spin our coal? As I said, we consulted more than two-thirds of our register. Over 95% said keep coal. And who's on our register? Well, it's the same shareholders as all our peers and everybody else. They've all got the Black Rocks, the Capitals, the Vanguards, et cetera, et cetera. They're all there. So if they're happy for Glencore to keep coal, then surely if one of our peers wants to merge, buy, combine with us, if they're happy it's in Glencore, they'd be happy it's in whoever the competitor is.

But it's more coal asterisk Glencore strategy, which is the responsible rundown, which earlier had got an over 90% support at our AGM for that rundown. So it's not coal blinders. It's coal rundown strategy responsible.

Exactly. So they approved our rundown strategy over 90%, and it goes hand in hand. Steve's right. They approved the rundown strategy, the responsible management. Don't put it in irresponsible hands. Keep it in responsible hands like us, and they approved keeping it. These are the same shareholders in every other mining company around the world, all your customers, all your clients, the same shareholders. So if you're a, excuse me, using one as an example, if he's Hambro Blackrock, if he's a shareholder in Glencore, and if he's saying keep coal, because I'm happy Glencore you keep in responsible hands, and I'm happy it should stay with you, keep coal, I don't want you divesting it, then why would he be upset as a shareholder in any of the other mining companies, if we decided to do some transaction with another mining company, why would he not want it in that mining company? He's very comfortable with it. So, coal is not the four-letter word it was. It's recognized to be required and needed today in responsible hands, and all our shareholders are the same, and our shareholders have told us they're happy with coal within Glencore. So, certainly do not see coal in any shape or form as an impediment to any sort of M&A. In fact, it's a value in an M&A for somebody else, because this is a very cash-generative business, and many of our competitors don't have it. They got out of it for various reasons historically, and if they wanted to do a transaction with us, it's an opportunity to get back into the best steam coal energy business in the world. So, there's nothing wrong with that. On the marketing side, well, our marketing side is absolutely unique, and And many of our competitors, and I understand, well, I know, many of our competitors have tried to replicate it. And you've seen it over the decades. Many competitors have tried to replicate what we do and have not been successful. It's something they would love to have in their business, to be able to bring that additional value, particularly the base tonnage that they have. The value that we create for our base tonnage, let alone just our third-party tonnage, the base tonnage that we have through our marketing expertise, Our competitors, we understand, would be very happy to have this marketing business. It's something that's a value add to their businesses. They've tried it. Many have tried to create it. They failed. It's a very unique skill that we own and would be an attraction if there was some sort of transaction to be done. So I completely disagree. I think that those are two unique characteristics of Glencore that we have that many don't have that would actually maybe promote some sort of excitement.

Myles? miles also bbs maybe um another quick question on the potential us listing have you looked at the friction costs and obviously you're very complex structure um yeah there's obviously been it's been well built to minimize tax leakage have you is a listing um going to be challenged by costs do you think from your early discussions or is that not an issue

I mean, you know, all I've said is we've started the analysis and friction costs, whatever those may be, would be part of that analysis. We're not going to be blind to that and we'll do the work that needs to be done.

You haven't got a preliminary estimate of what those could be at this stage, no?

And maybe... Friction costs itself is not, wouldn't be a material impediment to any relisting or something somewhere else. Shouldn't be.

Maybe one of the other debates we've got with shareholders is around coal pricing and how low can we go. Can you maybe talk a little bit about the markets today, both on the thermal coal side, on the met coal side, how you see prices evolving over the next six, 12 months?

Yeah, on the steelmaking coal side, you know, we remain very bullish. We've had a, you know, we've seen these continued steel exports out of China through the course of last year, over 100 million tons of steel exports. And that is effectively an export of steel-making coal because they're using the domestic Mongolian coal, converting it to steel and exporting it. So it's effectively an export of that. If we see a reduction, and we do believe there will be a reduction in steel exports out of China... associated with growth in steel production in places, particularly places like India and others, blast furnace production with steelmaking coal. We believe the market comes back into balance and we see upside for steelmaking coal. So that's good. On the supply side, other than Mongolia, there's a lot of constraints. Nobody's really expanding. There's not much expansion. You've got Grosvenor that's closed. Australia is, you know, Mark's been quite vocal about not spending more money on BMA because of some of the history around Queensland. So there's no expansion in BMA. We're not expanding in EVR. There's very little at the supply side ability to supply response or respond on the supply side. The North American market or high cost, or I say North American more the U.S. market is high cost. And we probably will see some of those times come out of the market in the current environment. So I think the upside from here in steelmaking coal is good. Energy coal as well. Last year was a big import year for China, 373 million tons of imports. We see them this year continuing to import very strongly. It's obviously very dependent on what they do domestically in terms of how much domestic coal they produce versus the import. We're happy to reduce our own production, and I've mentioned in our presentation that we will likely to take concrete actions in terms of supply response on our side to help contribute towards balancing that market. So I think from there, you know, you sort of – and there are operations already now which are at the cost curve or the cost curve is above the current pricing, and it will be struggling at these prices. So we expect – we'll take proactive action. We're all cash positive across the board, but there are operations that I believe with time will come out the market as well at these kind of prices. So that will give us an opportunity for prices to recover.

Just on the timing of your action, do you say it's during Q1?

I mean, we do the work. I don't want to be specific on timing, but I would say probably, yeah, I would say probably Q1.

Bob?

Good morning, Bob Brackett from Bernstein. Very quick question on the primary listing shift. Does that require a shareholder vote or simply a board approval, or have you determined that?

Steve, do you know?

Sean? Okay. Very clear. And then the answer is maybe. Okay. It was one of the three possibilities. Coming to copper, 1 million tons of potential copper growth, $15,000 to $20,000 a ton, that's a check of $15 to $20 billion, or sort of four years of the free cash flow, that consensus numbers that you might generate this year. That's a big number. Of the three projects you highlighted... They're all sitting at 100% working interest to Glencore. There is a lot of copper to be sold by selling down working interests, finding partners, and whatnot. And two of the – let me pause there. What's the right working interest for those projects?

I mean, it will depend on, A, the project and, B, the risk that goes with it and the capital check that goes with it. I've touched on the Greenfield project, and I think that one, as I said, we're going to look at some out-of-the-box ideas where we limit our exposure to risk and capital blowouts and time blowouts. Does that mean that we're therefore no longer 100% owners of that project? Possibly. I mean, you're not going to do that without giving up some of the equity interest, but that's fine. I mean, if it's going to be, and we believe it will be, one of the best copper mines in the world... we're quite happy to not own 100% of it and partner in a smart way with one, two partners, whatever it may be. So it doesn't have to be 100%. It also depends how we do it, who we do it with, where do those tons go. We may not own 100% of the project, but we may keep 100% of the tonnage offtake. So there's a lot of work still to be done.

A quick one. Does out-of-the-box, is that similar to across-the-border for El Pishon?

Everything's on the table. Matt?

Hey, it's Matt Green from Goldman Sachs. Perhaps I'll start with a copper question. How patient can you be in Argentina, just given your eligibility for the RIGI bill? There are some timelines being put forward there, so can you just comment on kind of how patient you can be before you have to make a decision?

We can be patient. You know, the big step is to get the RIGI application in. And as I said, we've got two RIGI applications going in in the next six months. And the turnaround time to get that approval is quite quick. and we engage very closely with the Argentinian government, so we expect no issues around that. Once you have your RIGI approval, there's obviously some minimum spend, but it's not material, but there's a lot of flexibility within that in terms of bringing that to market. It's not that if you get a RIGI approval on Monday, you have to start digging on Tuesday. You've got a lot of flexibility around timing and how you develop the project. So more important for us is getting that rigging application in and getting that approved, which we're very comfortable with. We'll have those in, as I say. And beyond that, we can then be flexible around the timing to be consistent with where we believe the market needs the tons rather than worrying about timetables.

That's great. Thanks. And then just on coal, you touched on the end about sort of potentially taking supply out of the market. I guess more broadly, the cost curve is falling on FX tailwinds in places like Australia, but I think you also touched on just the product mix. We're seeing quite a big discount at lower-ranked calls. What are you thinking here? Are you thinking improve the pricing line, more premium-ranked calls? Are you looking at maybe pivoting to low-grade? And could that translate to, I guess, lowering costs and potentially capex as well?

Remember, we don't produce much low-quality coal. We have a little bit that we do domestically in South Africa that's supplied to the local utility, but really we play in the high-quality market. There is a slight overhang. There's more of an oversupply in the low-quality, and that will look after itself. But there is some oversupply in the high-quality, particularly that's being blended to go into China as a 5-5. And that's the area that we can influence, and that's the area that we're looking at where we can try to balance the high-quality market. And that's only what we're interested in. What the low quality does, the low quality does. And in many cases, the low quality is not even related to the high quality because of this step-up difference in value. If you're talking a 4.3 versus a 5.8 in terms of material, CV of the coal. So we play in the high-value market, in the high-CV market. We look at the surplus and deficits within that market and how we can influence that. You can't just substitute between high CV and low CV in many markets.

Alan. Thanks. Alan Spencer from BNP. On copper, what is the scale and duration of the deficit you would need to see to be a signal to you to bring some of those new projects on?

You know, it's not around exact numbers. It's about confidence that, you know, we've all got these models that says there's going to be a big supply deficit, and AI, increased inference, grid spending. It's all those sorts of things, and that's great. But we actually want to see the actual demand coming through in the numbers. Now, Chinese demand last year was very strong. We expect Chinese demand growth to be strong again this year. So it's not so much around how you've put it, but more around... as we actually see the demand coming and the inability of supply to respond, we'll see, obviously, price reaction. At some point, you'll have some demand destruction. But if it happens the right way, you'll see gradual price increases. It's the physical manifestation of that deficit that we want to see. Now, that doesn't mean that we see it so we can then start demand tomorrow. We know that doesn't work. But it's a sustained, continual demand growth that the supply side is unable to meet. Now, while that's happening, we're not sitting on our hands. We've spoken about what we're doing on these projects. A lot of work being done, whether it be rigging applications, whether it be drilling, whether it be pre-fees, feasibility, whatever it may be, out-of-the-box thinking on structuring, buying some land, permits, et cetera, et cetera. So we continue to compress the timetable. And as we see that deficit manifest, and I've said it before, I'd rather see... I'd rather be late. In fact, I'd love to be late to that party because when the party starts, it's going to be great and we don't want to mess up the party. So let it go. Let the price run. And if we're not delivering the tons into it, who cares? We're a million ton a year copper business. If we have zero copper, then I don't want to start building today. But we have a million ton a year copper-based business. We're back to a million tons by 2028 with our base business, not on any of these projects. So let it run. Let it run. Let it run as long as it can. And let the other miners blow their brains out on bad project execution and not bring the tons to market because that will keep the market tight. That's cool. And then we'll make a lot of money on our million tons. But when we see that sustained growth and the inability, sustained inability from the supplier to meet it, that's when we want to come.

All right.

Thank you. Ben. Ben.

Hi, Ben Davis, RBC. Just a quick comment on Connie Ambo. There were some bids in, I think it was January. Were they serious bids and just ongoing costs associated with that operation?

I mean, we engage with a few parties and we continue to engage with them. We'll see where that goes. Ongoing costs are immaterial.

Okay.

Yeah. Hi, Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Two questions. I'll ask the question on the marketing EBIT. So 2.2 to 3.2, what's holding you back from lifting the range and also should you lift the range and therefore, in consequence, lift the base dividend from marketing?

I think what we'd said before is that we're waiting for and we've all had to be very patient to see the close of the Terra transaction as being sort of once that's announced, that's the catalyst because that comes out of it. It's always been a smaller... component of that thinking about the 2.2 to 3.2 was probably 200 or so within that as part of a midpoint of 2.7. Now of course I can sit here and we could have come here with some new things but that just seemed sort of the right timing to say you've taken off this wedge that was a business that was part of marketing and then in anticipation thereof we'd have to have a good internal think about what re-number that we're willing to calibrate but the upside pressure clearly has been building and The performance has been very strong. Volatility through a range of commodities seems to be more structurally embedded as opposed to cyclical around that. Our business has expanded in some commodities. LNG didn't exist a few years ago. We do a bit of lithium now. That's also contributing within the business as well. You've seen some general inflation, so a kind of a real to nominal roll forward of these things. So there will be an increase in that range, and that makes sense. We just want to be... get the right timing, and when it makes sense, I think the market is probably kind of broadly there, potentially, or if you're not, then fine, there'll be a lift at some stage. It's material, but it's not something to move the needle hugely, whether 2-2, 3-2, or you sort of nudge it up a few hundred million here or there. Obviously, on a spot illustrative, that should translate through midpoint. That'll elevate that, obviously, somewhat. It translates almost dollar for dollar down through to through cash flows. I mean, the cash conversions, obviously, fantastic has been. CapEx is low. Tax rates tend to be lower in that part of the business as well. So I've always said, let's wait for this sort of transaction, and we've said we will come back. That's the commitment to come back and recalibrate what's a sensible range at that point.

And lifting the base distribution as a result of that lifting, Rich? Yeah, we could consider that as well. Okay. And then the second one is just on EVR, the medium-term CapEx of 1.1 billion. Does that include any capex on the Fording River extension, or should we be thinking about that as an additional number?

Yeah, we haven't sort of fully calibrated the, yeah, I mean, obviously there's life and mind plans, but there's a real kind of nearer term heavy investment in that business through water treatment and through sort of capacity itself. Now, FRX of course it's an extension 1.1 a year I mean let's see whether that itself these are brownfields not like you're going and I mean this is just extension by its definition it's extension it needs the permitting of all these things I'm not sure it's going to on an average cycle necessarily needs to sort of step up necessarily it needs the permit the processing all the different commitments and the process through BC with all the sort of stakeholders but maybe Xavier's But I wouldn't see that that necessarily needs to itself sort of feel another big potato or something that sits on top of that. I think there's a lot of capex, even at $1.1 billion across the business, once this next three-year investment has obviously occurred, setting itself up for a very long term, that may well be able to just maintain at that level. But that's also something we can revisit at the site visit that we're talking about in June. We'll have a better handle on it.

Thanks. Alain.

Morning, Alon Olsher, Bloomberg Intelligence. Could you just say a little bit more about geopolitics, particularly the tariffs, Russia, Ukraine, things are moving quickly, it's very dynamic, but your marketing business is clearly positioned to take advantage of some of the volatility, but what's your kind of internal thinking on the industrial business and what it does to some flows of your key commodities?

Well, I mean, everybody can be an expert, but you wake up tomorrow and there's a different tariff here and a different tariff there and a fight with this one and a peace deal here. I mean, it's unknown. So we're not going to sit and guess. We obviously understand. We're a very flexible business in how we move. We move very quickly. I've explained that the more that you have those incidents or changes, the better for our marketing business. And You don't have to position yourself specifically for a specific tariff or geopolitical event because we're naturally positioned like that. We're naturally positioned through both our industrial business and through our third-party trading business that we're naturally positioned all around the world. For us to move cargoes, divert cargoes, and we've done it historically where you even divert cargoes on water, on the water that's on the way to a customer but to somewhere else because there's an arbitrage opportunity and replace it with some other destination. That is the nature and the franchise of Glencore. And it's the ability that we can do that at any time and any moment in our marketing business. So, you know, we don't sit and second guess and role play or war play what happens if there's a peace deal in Ukraine, if this happens, if that happens, all those sorts of things. So from a tariffs geopolitical perspective, more volatility, better for our business because we naturally position for that. On an industrial business, you can look at it in many ways. Tariffs naturally are a one-time inflationary measure. You know, if the tariffs stay, it's a one-time hit to inflation. It's not a continuing inflation. It's just a one-time hit. And they do disrupt, in a sense, global growth. We know that because now all of a sudden there's a bit of conservatism. That naturally won't be good for demanding commodities and naturally, therefore, won't be good for producers. But we are prepared to make supply... changes to our commodity portfolio to be able to immediately respond to any of those changes. So that's fine. But on the other hand, if you do have some sort of geopolitical solutions in places like the Ukraine, there's a massive rebuilding effort that's going to be very commodity intensive. You'll have Russian material back in the world, possibly. That'll be opportunities to be able to get back into the Russian business if they're not sanctioned, if they're all back in the world. Who knows? So there's many, many opportunities, more positive opportunities for Glencore with the outlook to this uncertainty. And it's strange to say it's positive because of uncertainty, but the uncertainty is more positive for us, and we look at it and we can capitalize on these uncertainties across our business.

Got it. Thanks. Thanks. And then just quickly, I may have missed this, but did you say you'd be coming back to the market on the RPO, sorry, on the listing decision at some point this year? Is there a firm date? There's no firm date.

Okay, thanks, Alon. And with that, we'll need to wrap up now. Gary, would you like concluding remarks?

No, I think thanks for the support and all the excellent questions. It's a very exciting time for Glencore, a very cash-generative business. We're very happy to be back in the market, buying back our own stock. And going forward, we're always available for any further questions and look forward to seeing you guys in Canada in June.