Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Alumina Limited Full Year Results Conference Call. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Mike Ferraro, CEO. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Alumina Limited's results presentation for the 2021 full year. Before I proceed any further, please note the disclaimer. I'm pleased to announce that Alumina Limited has recorded a net profit after tax of $188 million for 2021 and declared a fully franked final dividend of $0.028 per share. Net profit after tax, excluding significant items, was $226 million compared to $147 million in 2020. This was a strong result in a year of contrasting market conditions. Our strong financial performance reflects the resilience and quality of our asset base in the aluminum supply chain. Last year, we saw the aluminum prices reach decade highs and the alumina price climb significantly higher in the second half. These record aluminum prices have been a positive factor for much of the supply chain. Alumina, being its own market segment, was supported by production disruptions and global cost escalation in the second half. AWAC's production costs increased in 2021 as a result of a stronger Australian dollar, higher global energy and raw material costs, as well as costs associated with higher than planned maintenance events. Notwithstanding this, AWAC's margin increased year- on- year to $85 per ton, demonstrating how AWAC's low position on the cost curve and high exposure to API enables it to capitalize on increased prices. The API is being supported by disruptions and higher costs, which may well continue into the near term. The API is currently sitting above $420 per ton. Sustainability continues to be a focus for Alumina and AWAC. In October, the company held its inaugural ESG presentation to the market. The presentation had four key themes. AWAC's assets are highly competitive on key sustainability measures. In particular, AWAC's alumina refining carbon intensity of 0.51 tons of CO2 emissions is the lowest among major producers. Aluminum is core to a sustainable future, given that it is lightweight, recyclable, and is a key metal in a decarbonized world. AWAC has a proven history of ESG management over 60 years. Finally, there is a focus on the future and innovation through technologies such as mechanical vapor recompression and electric calcination. Alumina Limited has revised its climate change position statement, and we will work with the AWAC joint venture to strive to reduce direct and indirect emissions to net zero by 2050. AWAC has a key challenge in decarbonization, which is to abate the fossil fuel used for calcination and steam for digestion. From the Portland smelter's perspective, it can benefit directly in a change in generation mix in Victoria's grid. Inert anode technology, which our JV partner, Alcoa, is developing, offers the potential for future reductions once commercialized. Over the coming decades, as a result of net zero targets, our industry will transition as part of the move to a low-carbon global economy. AWAC is well-positioned to meet transitional challenges and capture opportunities, such as greater demand for aluminum and by remaining low on the cost and emissions intensity curves. AWAC has spent the last decade closing and rehabilitating high-emission assets, such as the Anglesea coal mine pictured on the slide and the Point Henry smelter, and the attention is very much focused on completing rehabilitation and returning them to the community. Projects such as MVR also tick many boxes, including improving energy efficiency, facilitating the use of renewable energy, and decreasing the use of fresh water in water-scarce regions such as Western Australia. I'll now hand over to Galina, who will take you through the financial results in more detail. Thank you, Mike, and good morning, all. I will start with review of the AWAC performance before addressing Alumina Limited results. AWAC 2021 financial results and operating performance reflects the solid earning capacity of our tier-one portfolio of assets, as well as its resilience during the time of market volatility. AWAC recorded an EBITDA of $1.1 billion and $440 million of net profit after tax. Excluding significant items, recorded EBITDA and the profit after tax were $1.2 billion and $600 million respectively. Despite a slight decrease in alumina production and increased input cost, the higher average alumina price resulted in strong cash flow from operations of $780 million. Now let's go through AWAC operating performance in more details. AWAC continued to perform strongly, achieving a first half production record for the portfolio and an annual production record for the Kwinana Refinery. In the second half, an outage of bauxite unloader at Alumar Refinery, the strike at San Ciprián facility, and some unplanned maintenance at Wagerup and Pinjarra reduced the production rate, resulting in total annual production of 12.6 million tons, which is approximately 2% less than the prior year. AWAC average realized alumina price was $321 per ton, $53 per ton higher than in previous year. Early in 2021, we saw an overall increase in alumina prices as demand improved and the aluminum price continued to rise. However, at the end of the first quarter, freight costs began to climb significantly. This impacted the Chinese import parity price and in turn constrained non-API. The alumina one-month spot price remained under or around $300 for almost three quarters of the year. During the third quarter, production disruptions reduced the rest of the world alumina supply, and as a result, alumina prices surged, reaching a peak of $484 per ton and averaged $411 per ton for the fourth quarter of the year. Price currently remains above $420 per ton. AWAC cash cost of production averaged $236 per ton, an increase of $37 per ton compared to the previous year. Stronger Australian dollar contributed almost 1/3 of that increase. In Western Australia, the cash cost of production increased in the first half as a result of the higher bauxite costs during the Wagerup crusher move and higher energy costs, which included the full year impact of the new gas contracts. Production costs in the second half increased due to the higher global gas, fuel, and power prices, unplanned maintenance, lower production rate, and increased cost of caustic. Average cost of production reached $244 per ton for the fourth quarter of the year. Looking forward to 2022, we anticipate that the cost pressure will continue, driven by the lagged effect of the higher input prices. Despite the increased cost of production, the 2022 year-to-date cash margin is roughly in line with the long-term average. At today API price, the margin is above the long-term average. Portland Smelter had a positive year achieving an EBITDA of $73 million. This includes $20 million of revenue recognition relating to the government grant. The amount was predominantly non-cash. In March, new five-year power supply agreements were successfully negotiated. This enabled the continuing operation of the smelter and improved its competitive position. In November, the restart of curtailed capacity was announced, with the metal production expected to start in the third quarter of 2022. When the restart is completed, the AWAC share of production would be approximately 186,000 tons per year. With the secure energy supply and the strong positive outlook for the future of aluminum, Portland is well-positioned to benefit. Turning our attention to the AWAC capital projects. Total CapEx in 2021 was higher than 2020 by approximately $30 million, totaling $241 million. Significant project included the completion of Willowdale crusher move, as well as construction and upgrade of tailings and residue storage areas, with the majority of work taking place in Brazil at Alumar and Juruti facilities. Looking forward to 2022, both sustaining and growth CapEx are expected to be higher, taking the total combined CapEx to $340 million. The sustaining component increase will be largely driven by the Juruti mine move and continued development of tailings and residue storage areas. The increase in growth CapEx expenditure relates to debottlenecking work at Alumar Refinery. Now let's look to the year ahead. With the bauxite unloader outage at Alumar and the San Ciprián strike resolved, we expect alumina production of 12.8 million tons, with all refineries producing near or above nameplate capacity. Third-party bauxite shipments are forecast to be 5.3 million tons and aluminum production of 165,000 tons. Total CapEx is expected to increase by about $99 million. Forecast cash restructuring related items has increased by $19 million due to the delayed remediation activities carried over from 2021. An unfavorable input price of approximately $70 million is expected in the first quarter of 2022 compared to the fourth quarter of 2021, of which approximately half is due to the caustic price increases and the other half is due to a significant European gas and electricity price increases. Finally, a payment of approximately $120 million related to the prior year's income tax is expected as a result of higher 2021 taxable income in Australia. Now turning to Alumina Limited results. Alumina Limited recorded a net profit after tax of $188 million. Excluding significant items, net profit after tax was $226 million. This was a strong result and is higher than previous year by 28% and 54% respectively. Alumina Limited announced a fully franked final dividend of $0.028 per share to be paid on 17th of March, representing an average dividend yield of 7.3% over the last five years, fully franked. As previously announced, the benefits of the higher margins in the fourth quarter of 2021 has been reflected in the AWAC net distribution of approximately $150 million in January and February 2022. The board has taken these exceptional circumstances into account when declaring the 2021 final dividends. This has resulted in bringing forward part of the dividend that would otherwise be paid as a part of the interim dividend in September 2022. Alumina Limited maintain a strong balance sheet with a very low level of debt. We have a great confidence in AWAC Tier one portfolio of assets and its ability to deliver strong results through the cycle. Thank you. I will now hand you back to Mike to provide you with an overview of the market. Thanks, Galina. The fundamentals of the alumina industry, being the supply-demand balance and production costs, continue to determine alumina prices. Alumina production disruptions in the third quarter of 2021 in China, Brazil, Jamaica, and the U.S. led to regional shortages, and the price spiked to $484 per ton in October. The alumina price retreated after some production was restored. Also, smelting cuts in Europe, due to higher electricity prices, reduced alumina demand. However, higher energy, caustic, and bauxite freight costs increased the cost of production of alumina in the second half and provided price support. These factors contributed to an average alumina price of $329 per ton over 2021, a 21% increase over 2020. This month, the API has ticked up above $420 per ton, largely due to Chinese production constraints leading up to the Chinese New Year and the Winter Olympics, as well as regional COVID-related disruptions. In 2022, we expect ongoing elevated industry costs to underpin the API. As we mentioned in our half year results, a number of factors, particularly COVID-related disruptions in the shipping market, have caused a sharp increase in ocean freight rates. This reduces the Chinese import parity price, which impacts negatively on the API. Higher freight rates have also increased the cost of raw materials, particularly bauxite. The shipping market is expected to continue to be unpredictable, but likely to remain heightened in 2022, attributed to a host of factors such as COVID, energy market fluctuations, decarbonization efforts, and Chinese policies. China's policies on energy consumption, aimed at achieving its long-term climate target of carbon neutrality by 2060, disrupted both alumina and primary aluminum production in 2021. Production losses of approximately 1 million tons of primary aluminum and 1.1 million tons of alumina resulted from emission and energy-related policies in China. We expect similar policies to remain in force in the long term, which could lead to more Chinese refineries and smelters built outside of China. This year, we expect around 2% growth in both global smelter grade alumina and primary aluminum supply, resulting in a similar surplus of alumina outside China compared with 2021 of 3 million tons. Over 2021, we saw a surplus of 3.2 million tons of alumina exported to China, broadly similar to what we forecast in our half year results. As we saw in the second half of 2021, despite overall quarterly alumina surpluses, supply disruptions can lead to regional shortages with a prompt and sharp impact on price. The main wild cards outside China are whether geopolitical issues or European and Asian energy prices lead to curtailments of alumina or primary aluminum in 2022. In China, stringent controls on energy consumption may impact supply as well. China is expected to again import alumina to keep the global market close to balanced. These two bar charts show the forecast net new smelter grade alumina and primary aluminum production outside China in 2022. This shows slightly less new net alumina being added compared with the increased demand for alumina from new smelting production, which is why the alumina surplus outside China reduces by 200,000 tons, as shown on the previous slide. Average Chinese alumina production costs increased by 18% in 2021. Almost 60% of this increase was driven by energy costs, with surging coal prices in the second half of the year. Other raw material costs, such as bauxite and caustic, were also higher. We have seen some moderation in coal prices since the fourth quarter, but as China continues to enforce its energy policies and more inland refineries turn to using imported bauxite, we expect alumina production costs to be at elevated levels in 2022. As China imports the rest of the world alumina surplus, a higher Chinese cost base should help underpin the API. Decarbonization is expected to have a substantial impact on aluminum demand in the medium to long term. The adoption of renewable energy and electric vehicles, as well as the implementation of sustainable solutions in the packaging and construction sectors, represent major opportunities for the aluminum industry. Total aluminum consumption is expected to grow by 33 million tons this decade, going from 86 million tons in 2020 to 120 million tons in 2030. Around 22% of this demand growth is forecast to come from electric vehicles and 40% from electrical, construction, and packaging sectors. To summarize, realized alumina prices were higher in 2021, but the API was still constrained by significantly higher freight costs. Notwithstanding higher input costs, AWAC improved its margins and profitability. Cash costs in 2021 were again in the lowest quartile of the global cost curve, and our refining portfolio has a lower CO2 emissions intensity among major refiners. Last year saw a lower API driven by COVID impacts and lower alumina input costs until August. The API then bounced higher, supported by regional shortages and higher costs. As noted, the freight market distorted the bauxite and alumina markets in 2021, and this is likely to continue in 2022. On the upside, growing demand for aluminum and elevated cost basis for alumina producers should support the API. As the world transitions to cleaner energy, there will be periods of disruption. As we have seen, AWAC performs well through the cycles and benefits from the upturns, as demonstrated in the fourth quarter. Longer term, growth in aluminum demand will support growth in the supply chain. Thank you all for listening. I'll now hand back to the moderator for questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Rahul Anand with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, Mike and Galina. Thanks for the opportunity. Look, the first one was just a quick confirmation, perhaps for Galina. Did I hear correctly that the annual run rate of Portland was gonna be 186,000 tons per annum of production, once it's ramped up in the third quarter, Galina? I just wanted to reconfirm that largely because it is a bit higher than recent years production at the AWAC level. Yes. We expect in the total of 165,000 tons for this year. Once the restart of the capacity completed, which is expected around third quarter, then the full annualized production will go up to 186. Perfect, and that's very close to capacity. Okay, great. Perhaps one question on the Alumar restart. Could I get some visibility around how the alumina supply into that smelter is gonna be priced? What are the pricing terms going to be? It's priced at API. Okay. Perfect. And then one, Mike, on your decarbonization efforts. You have flagged sort of the 2030 targets, so to speak. How should we think about the CapEx required for these targets? I mean, there's two things in there. There's obviously the technology drivers from a process perspective, but there's also the energy grid or the energy supply moving to renewables. If we talk about both those, I mean, how much CapEx for the technology side, and then are you gonna completely rely on third parties to supply renewable power, or are you gonna invest in that yourself as well through to 2030? Well, on the 2030 targets themselves, we're almost there. It's not too far away, so the cost implications are actually quite low. When it comes to Portland, for example, we will be relying on more renewables coming through the grid naturally. That'll take our use of renewable energy from about 30% - 40%, if I'm not mistaken, in renewable energy by the end of the decade. When you're talking longer term, the cost of MVR technology, which is being explored at the moment, is relatively low, as it's been assessed over the next couple of years. Longer term, if it works, it will be implemented across the refinery portfolio, and that has not yet been costed. Okay, perfect. Look, I have a few more, but I'll pass it on and queue up again. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Redfern with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, Mike and Galina. I hope you're well. Just two questions, please. The first one, just maybe a little bit more detail around the increase in CapEx for this year, if possible, please. CapEx of $340 for this year. Just hoping if we get a bit more of a breakdown of the various drivers of the increase. Second question was just in relation to the higher power costs, which I assume relate to San Ciprián in Spain. I'm just wondering, does AWAC buy power on the grid on a spot basis, or are there other term contracts that you can talk to? Thank you. Sure. I'll start with CapEx. As I've mentioned, the biggest project on the sustaining side, the biggest project that we're looking at this year is the Juruti mine move. The next largest expenditure item is the upgrade and maintaining all of our tailings and residue storage facilities. That will be done in Brazil and in Western Australia to some extent. That's the majority of sustaining CapEx. The reason why it's coming up, it's a little bit of a timing as to when those things get in build and when they need to be looking. Once again, the biggest bump up is the move in Juruti mine. That's the sustaining CapEx. The growth CapEx is the largest project there is a debottlenecking of Alumar Refinery. It includes of many sort of little things which improves the flow through the refinery. Once completed, which is about two years project, it will give us an extra 63,000 tons per year of alumina. That's sustaining CapEx. Thank you. On the energy front, you're absolutely right. The increases are coming from San Ciprián Refinery. At perhaps 25% of the energy needs contracted and 75% is on spot market. Okay, great. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Galina. Your next question comes from Matt Greene with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning, Mike and Galina. Just on, I guess MRN, Mike, I mean, I saw South32's purchase of Alcoa's share. Are you able to give us any idea what the consideration was there? Just for clarity, are you completely out of that asset now? On MRN, the consideration was not material, so we haven't disclosed it, and it's been kept confidential. Unfortunately, I can't say any more than that. Are we completely out of it? Once the conditions are met, which include regulatory approval, then we will be completely out of it. Okay, thanks. I guess the guidance for third-party bauxite sales. Just for clarity, are some of your sales from MRN, and does that reflect the sale? Yes, some of the third party volume is from MRN, and we'll continue to have some of the offtake from MRN for a few years ahead. The 5.3 is accurate forecast. Okay, that's great. Thanks. I guess just on the Willowdale move, you're now sort of consuming some more bauxite. Are you able to give us any idea on what the cost of consumption has been versus what you've had previously? Is it still around sort of low to mid $70s? It's mid $70s, so it's a little bit higher than the year before. Not by much. It's about, like, extra 2, 3 kg because of the quality of bauxite, but it's now coming back to the normal low $70s. That's great. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but just on the timing of that $ 120 tax catch-up. Is that at the back end of the year? That'll be around June. June. Okay. That's it for me. Thanks a lot. Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. Look, my first question is on the cost guidance for the first quarter, the $70 million increase. Am I right to times that by four, which is $280 million annualized? Then if I divide that into production guidance or give or take $20 a ton cost impact, is that. Should I be flowing that through the rest of the year? We're given the guidance for the first quarter only because as we just discussed, we buy in the energy export market spot at Subic Bay. Therefore, it's quite difficult to sort of predict as to what's gonna happen in the second quarter and in the rest of the year. If everything stays as is, well, then yes, your assumption is not incorrect. Lyndon Is there anything to suggest it won't stay that way? Well, Lyndon, certainly the plan is to try and contract that gas during the course of this year, hopefully on better terms than we're currently getting. Okay. Great. The next question I had is, it's been quite a while now since EcoSource was put out there as a brand. I'm wondering, in marketing that product, whether you're able to observe any green premiums in the marketplace or whether there's any, I guess, benefit at this stage to having that brand. Well, buyers are still keen to get that, and at times there might be a small premium paid for it, but it's not significant. I think our assessment is we'll need more consistency and higher premiums for the metal itself. Once that's coming through and in Europe, I think we're seeing premiums of between $25-$35 a ton for green aluminum, less so around $22-$25 a ton in the U.S. Once we see premiums being consistent and hopefully higher in the aluminum space, then we'll see commensurate premium increases in EcoSource. Okay, thanks. Just one final one. You know, I guess with a pretty strong demand outlook, when is it time to revisit the on-again, off-again expansions out of WA? I guess, you know, it was looking fairly likely some study would be looked at, not that long ago. Is it time to revisit that? As I noted in the presentation today, we think the global surplus of alumina this year, or sorry, rest of world surplus, will be about 3 million tons. My own view is you probably would need to see that surplus come down somewhat. Secondly, there's quite a lot of work going through at the AWAC level on mine planning and assessment to assess how best to use the reserves and how to maximize the margins over the longer term. That will drive when and how expansions would take place. Really, the mine planning work, which will be completed probably around the middle to the second half of this year. At the same time, an assessment that surplus will be coming down, which would mean we would need new smelters, greenfields and brownfields in construction mode. Okay, thanks very much. You're welcome. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Good morning, Mike. First question's just on a little bit more detail around the $70 million increase for costs. You say it's split between raw materials and energy, and I understand what Galina said about the exposure to spot energy. But how much of the $70 is energy and how much is raw materials? Can you maybe provide more color? And then the second question is just around. You make a comment that just at the beginning of February, you made a submission to the ATO, and you want them to rule within 60 days. Could you maybe help me understand exactly what that is? Is that you want a ruling within 60 days to put this all to bed or just on your submission? If you could maybe add some more color and, you know, how long this could drag on? Thanks. Well, let me take the cost question, and then Mike will talk about ATO. With regards to the $70, it's caustic soda and energy, and it's half and half. That's it. Sorry, Galina, can I Yes. Galina, can I ask, you know, if you look at the caustic price today, has it all flowed through in the first quarter given the lag? Or if caustic stays where it is, do you think there'd be even more caustic into the second quarter? It will. You're absolutely right. It will be more caustic in the second quarter. Not as much as in the first, but it'll be some more in the second quarter. Okay, thanks very much. On the second point about the ATO, Glyn, decision was made to serve these formal notices on the ATO at the beginning of this calendar year, really driven by the fact that there wasn't any real progress in getting an outcome from the ATO during the informal objection period, and we were concerned that the period would continue to drag on. Now, there may be legitimate reasons for that. The ATO may be under-resourced. There's a lot of stuff going on, people working from home, so on. Anyway, the decision was made to serve the notice, which requires the ATO to respond formally within 60 days as to whether it accepts the objections and reverses the assessment or whether it confirms based on its knowledge at the time that the assessment will stay in place. If the decision is positive, then that's the end of it, and we'll get our refund, and we deal with the interest credit. If it's negative, then the formal processes would start in commencing legal proceedings. Mike, I'm no legal expert, unfortunately, but can the ATO just simply say, "Yep, we wanna proceed," and drag it out? Is that the only- Yeah. Is that the simple response they can make? Yeah, the ATO. You know, if the ATO is not fully prepared and hasn't fully assessed the position and all the submissions that we've made, then there's a likelihood that they would say we confirm the assessment that we made, and then it would be up to us to AWAC to institute court proceedings. In that sense, it can't be extended any further. The formal next step phase starts. Okay. They say, "We want more time," and you say, "Fine, you start court proceedings." Okay. Right. Thanks a lot. Okay. Thank you. Colleen. Your next question comes from Paul McTaggart with Citigroup. Please go ahead. Morning, all. Obviously, we've got some, you know, restructuring charges that are still gonna run through this year. Can you give us an update around, you know, the profile of those cash components of those restructuring charges over the next couple of years? You know, obviously, they seem to become a kind of almost permanent feature of the results. As you know, we have three closed facilities which we're currently undertaking the bulk of remediation activities along with Point Henry and Anglesea is almost completed, so there is still cash to be spent there, which we provide the guidance on. It's mostly done. In terms of how long it will take, it may take a few years because you're supposed to do one step and then get it approved and down to a certain level. It's quite a lengthy process. As far as expenses, cash spend, those two are almost done. The two other facilities, which is Suralco and Point Comfort. Now, I'll start with Point Comfort because that is the $90 million increase in the cash restructuring item relates mostly to Point Comfort because due to the COVID interruptions and everything, there wasn't much of the work done at the facility. That is still almost all the way to go ahead. Suralco is about a half point of going through the remediation. Okay. Effectively, we should still see another couple of years of these costs. Correct. for those two. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Your next question is a follow-up from Rahul Anand with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Oh, hi. Thanks for the opportunity again. Look, two from me. One was related to the freight rates. Mike, you had a chart showing that the Guinean freight rates seem to have normalized to historical levels into China, yet the handysize obviously remains elevated. Is it fair to say then that the Chinese cost base, at least from that perspective, has bottomed and any sort of upside that you get from the freight rates coming out from the Aussie side are gonna be net benefit to the seaborne trade at alumina price? That's the first one. Then the second one is on San Ciprián. I just wanted to basically ask more of a strategy question. I mean, if you look at the NPV of this asset versus your potential expansions, admittedly, there's a surplus globally at the moment. However, you know, you will move down the cost curve if you expand your production and perhaps, you know, if you were to get rid of San Ciprián or sell it, wouldn't that be a better outcome for the group, both in cost perspective and NPV perspective? How do you think about this asset, being core or non-core going forward? Thanks. You're talking about San Ciprián, were you? Yes. On freight rates, yes, there's been some reduction, I think, on bauxite transportation from Guinea, but we're expecting them to increase again due to a whole range of factors, including, you know, these COVID uncertainty demurrages and hold ups and so forth. We're expecting those to add pressure to the cost base within China. On the Handysize freight rates, I've noticed today they've jumped up again over $50. It does not help us for the Handysize freight rates to be high because the Chinese, when they're importing, in setting the import price of alumina, they take into account their transportation costs as they would. The higher the freight rates means a lower API and the price at which they would be buying. We actually want those Handysize rates to come down. In San Ciprián. Sorry, I almost forgot that question. That's an important one. On San Ciprián, right now it is challenging, you're quite right. I suspect a dozen or so refineries and also a number of smelters in Europe are having the same problems with energy prices. It is a point in time, and there is a degree of uncertainty. I mean, it's complicated, obviously, by the factors between Ukraine and Russia and whether gas is going through the pipeline or not, the new pipeline. In the short term, you'd say, yes, make some drastic decisions. I think you've got to sit back, wait and see, and understand it and see how it unfolds, and then assess it going forward. You know, in the past, San Ciprián has had both good years and some bad years, honestly. I think it would be premature to make that decision today based on a high level of volatility with energy costs. Also, really, as I mentioned in my speech. Quite a lot of this transitional period with energy moving to green energy over the longer term, we will see these periods of volatility until it's all settled and green energy tends to dominate, particularly in Europe, which is really moving ahead the rest of other nations. I think it'd be too premature to make that decision now. Sorry, long way of saying, we sit back and see how it unfolds. No, that's fair. Thank you very much. Your next question comes from Peter O'Connor with Shaw and Partners. Please go ahead. Morning, Mike, and morning, Galina. Hi, Peter. My first question, growth. Circling back to your comments you made about the growth portfolio and what you might do with it. Just to understand the timing, do you need to wait for the supply and demand balance to materially change? Or did I understand your comments as you would just wait to see smelters and refineries start to line up to build, and that would be the trigger? I think it'd be a bit of chicken and egg, Peter. I think you certainly want a clear indication from directors that the supply balance will continue to reduce. You know, we're pretty good at forecasting as proven in the past. I'm not sure we'll do that in the future, but just assuming we're still pretty good at it, we have a pretty good line of sight of what can happen over the next few years. It really depends, as I said before, on smelting production growing, and that's the big $64 question. You know, if I was a smelter operator, and I'm not, but if I was, having gone through many years of tough times and losses, I'd be sitting back for a period of time and take the benefit of higher prices, and then making the decision to expand either greenfields or brownfields in a significant way. That time hasn't come yet, but I think it will come. You're seeing the push with electric vehicles. You're seeing the push to decarbonization. You're seeing the push that aluminum recycling of the product can deliver. I think it will come, and we can read the tea leaves. I don't think we need to wait for the balance to reach zero, but we need to have a good indication that it will continue to fall. Based on these comments, any CapEx that we've got, we keep seeming to move out in our models, it would be years away before this apparent lining up of smelting would be in place to give you that confidence. It's not a 2022, it's not a 2023, it's probably not even a 2024 spend. Second to that, China, your comments about China's capacity will increasingly be built outside China, not least because of their bauxite issue and power issues. Do they shoehorn you out of the market, and do you lose that opportunity? No. On the latter, I don't think you'd lose that opportunity at all because it depends on what the alumina slash aluminum consumption mix is going to be outside of China by the Chinese. If they're building more smelting, and they've invested in two refineries in Indonesia, now investing in a smelter as well. Remember, you need at least twice the alumina to produce aluminum. If they're building more smelting capacity, that will help us, and that will reduce the global balance. Can you remind me your first question, Peter? Oh, just the timing. It's, we all have this logic- Oh, the timing. in our models about growth in WA. There's no doubt. As you've seen, our CapEx is going up this year, and there's quite a bit associated, as Galina pointed out, with the mine move in Brazil and also the spending on residue facilities and investment in MVR technology will come hopefully if it works. We're also looking at an investment in, as you've seen before, in high purity alumina. Do I know when? I don't know when, but I would expect with the movement an increase in aluminum demand between now and 2030. I would have thought it's gotta be during the course of this decade we make some serious decisions. Okay. Second, narrative item, dividends, dividend policy. The shift to a new policy was about a year ago when you went to the, just that change from the way you were doing it before. Now you've gone off piste and gone semi back to that. Just take us through the logic of the board, why, when, and how we see this year play out and how we have to adjust our mechanics for getting the dividend right this year. What we've done this year with the final dividends is we're not going back to our policy. We're just acknowledging that the fourth quarter spike was so significant, and the cash that came in in January and February this year, we just felt that it would be more fair to give it back to shareholders rather than hold it within the company until September next year. The additional dividend that's coming through that would otherwise be paid in accordance with the normal policy in September is reflective of the cash we received in January only, which was about- Yes. $30-odd million. That's right. February, we hold on to. We're not changing. We basically kind of are. We're not changing back to dividend policy only. Going back to what you had. I acknowledge you're being flexible, but so we take that sort of extra $0.014 out of our numbers than the way we would work it out normally out of 2022? Correct. Yes. That's right. Okay. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Galina. Your next question comes from Paul Young with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, Mike. Hi, Galina. Most questions have been asked on short-term cash flow, but Mike, I had a few questions on the medium to long run, particularly around the investment in the WA refineries. It does seem to me that, you know, Alcoa's pivoted a little bit with their strategy and, you know, at their last quarterly, they did, you know, outlined potential $200 million of spend over 2023, 2024 on the MVR, electric calcination, high purity alumina, those three projects potentially, and pushing out the, you know, investment in the green projects that we've sort of been on and off talking about for three or four years. Has there been, in your view with discussions with Alcoa, a change, a pivot in strategy with now more of a focus on just decarbonizing these assets rather than keeping these assets? Well, certainly what you're seeing, Paul, is there is a focus on decarbonization and greening, and that's quite consistent with the rest of the industry. We're not outliers there, and I think it's something that we have to do and our stakeholders expect us to do it. You would approach us quite negatively if we didn't do it when the rest of the industry is doing it. That needs to be done, and it's a must-have. Ultimately, that should not dissuade us from making the right long-term decisions. We don't want our portfolio to diminish in production over a long period of time. We don't want our mines to run out of bauxite without identifying new resources and new opportunities, both in bauxite and refining growth. Yes, money is being spent in the next few years on greening, but over the long term, you know, we're spending quite a bit of time thinking about and talking to them about the refinery of the future, for example, which is some way away and quite a lot of work needs to be done, so I can't really tell you much more than what I've just said. As I said, the mine planning work assessing our bauxite reserves longer term and determining what we do and how we use them and where the growth is. I don't think this takes our eye off the ball, Paul, of longer term growing the portfolio, if it makes sense. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Mike. Lastly, can I ask about just third-party bauxite sales? I mean, they've been going backwards or flat to backwards for three or four years now and, you know, the market's changed, right? With obviously the exports out of Guinea by Chinese companies. What is the strategy over the medium to long term that, you know, and what are your discussions with Alcoa on what you do with third-party bauxite exports? Certainly on the third-party bauxite, as you see, we're sort of maintaining or slightly reducing because the market is oversupplied and will continue to be oversupplied. In the medium term, we don't see that to be a significant market opportunity for us beyond what we're currently producing and selling, unless conditions change. If conditions change or there's a major hiccup in Guinea or something else changes that's unexpected, then we can relatively with ease ramp up production out of Brazil, for example, and potentially start selling again some of our WA bauxite. From a longer-term perspective, the fundamental foundation of this business is the bauxite reserves. That's really important to us to ensure that they are there the long term. We continue to keep our foot on opportunities that arise. That's probably the best way to sum it up, Paul. Okay. Thanks, Mike. I'll sneak another one, last one in there. Are you still looking around Weipa? Are you still looking at, you know, adding resources in that region? We've always had tenements in Arnhem Land and places like that. We're always looking to see whether there's opportunities to get bauxite reserves longer term. That hasn't changed, but it's not an easy thing to do. Okay. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Galina. Okay. Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Thanks. Just a really quick follow-up. In terms of the holding costs for the idle assets, is there any hope of actually restarting the refinery in the U.S. or has it been demolished? No, it's in process of being demolished. No, there is no restart there. Right. Yep, that was it. Thanks. We're showing no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Ferraro for closing remarks. Thank you all for listening today. I know you're all got busy timetables and reporting season, so I appreciate your time and the questions, and I'm sure we'll be talking to a number of you over the next few days. Thanks very much. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.