Thank you very much. Hello, everyone, and welcome to Fortescue's Annual Results presentation. Joining me today in Perth is Mark Hutchinson, Fortescue Energy Chief Executive Officer, and Apple Paget, Chief Financial Officer. For those who have participated in our calls before, you know about our program called CEO for a Day, where we have aspiring leaders work with our leadership team to learn about the business. So I'm thrilled to welcome a true Fortescue legend, Angus Lane, a drill operator at Eliwana, who joins us for CEO for the Day. Angus is a proud Badimaya, Yamatji, Wajarri, Warumungu, and Arrernte man. He joined Fortescue through our Vocational Training and Employment Centre program, or VTEC, in January last year. Since completing VTEC, Angus has become an integral member of our Eliwana drill and blast team, and I've been fortunate enough to see Angus in action while visiting site only a few weeks ago. We're really fortunate to have you here with us, mate. Welcome. Yeah, good morning. Thank you, Dino, for having me. Look forward to what CEO for a Day has stored for me today, and yeah, very much keen to see what goes on. Thanks, Angus. So our full year result builds on a strong, operational performance, that we shared at our quarterly results only a few weeks ago. We achieved full year shipments of 191.6 million tons while maintaining our industry-leading cost position with a hematite C1 of AUD 18.24 per ton. Most importantly, we did this safely with our lowest-ever TRIFR for metals of 1.3, 28% improvement from the prior year. A truly amazing result. This coming year, we're aiming to build on this performance with FY 2025 guidance for total shipments of 190-200 million tons, which includes 5-9 million tons from Iron Bridge. On the financial results, which Apple will talk to in detail shortly, our operating performance and focus on cost discipline contributed to the third-highest earnings and second-highest free cash flow in the company's history. Reflecting this strong performance, our commitment to delivering shareholder returns, the board has declared a final dividend of AUD 0.89 per share. This, along with our interim dividend, equates to total dividends of AUD 1.97, which is a payout ratio of 70% of full-year NPAT and represents distributions to shareholders of AUD 6.1 billion. We continue to advance our metals portfolio during the financial year, with first ore from our Flying Fish deposit at Eliwana and at the Hall Hub at Christmas Creek. We also ramped up commissioning of Iron Bridge, our most innovative iron ore project yet. Despite some challenges with the raw water pipeline, we've had a strong start to FY 2025, and full production capacity is still targeted for the September quarter next year. On exploration, we advanced drilling and studies on various near mine and greenfield development opportunities, and that's within our portfolio of over 13 billion tons of hematite mineral resources. Outside of Australia, we successfully completed early-stage mining from the Belinga Iron Ore Project in Gabon, with focus now firmly on exploration, drilling, and studies. Globally, we have an exciting exploration pipeline, with programs underway in Argentina, Peru, and Brazil, amongst others. Turning to green metals, which we see as a significant growth opportunity to rethink the entire iron and steel value chain and develop a new green industry here in Australia. Just a few weeks ago, we commenced works on our AUD 50 million green metal project at Christmas Creek, which marked a new milestone in our mission to build a green metal supply chain. We're aiming to produce more than 1,500 tons per annum of a higher than 95% green metal, with first production anticipated next calendar year. Moving to sustainability, which has been at the heart of Fortescue since our founding 21 years ago, and as we accelerate commercial decarbonization of industry rapidly, profitably, and globally, it will be our pathway to success in the future. Today, we released our annual reporting suite, which includes our sustainability report, and outlines our commitment to giving back to the communities in which we operate. Our economic contribution totaled AUD 27.5 billion this year in payments to employees, suppliers, shareholders, and government. We're also proud to be Australia's third-highest taxpayer, contributing AUD 6.1 billion in corporate taxes and state royalties. We continue to see the benefits of initiatives such as our Billion Opportunities program, where only a few weeks ago, we celebrated more than AUD 5 billion in contracts awarded to around 200 First Nations businesses since it was launched with only one in 2011. And through our Vocational Training and Employment Center initiative, more than 1,500 First Nations Australians have been employed with Fortescue. My mate, Angus, here is only but one of them. Through our diversity and inclusion plan, we're building a workforce that reflects the communities in which we live. There continues to be steady growth in gender equality, with females holding 24% of total roles and 37% of senior leadership roles. Our ambition now is to increase gender diversity to reflect 40, 40, 20, where 40% of our roles are held by women, 40% are held by men, and the remaining 20% are represented by any gender. Our First Nations workforce is also growing, with First Nations Australians comprising around 15% of our Pilbara workforce. Turning to decarbonization, where we remain resolutely committed to meeting our Real Zero target by 2030. Doing this will see us eliminate fossil fuels from our operations without any reliance on carbon offsets. Momentum is strong, with several milestones achieved during the final financial year, and we're well on track to meet our commitment by 2030. This includes, this year, commissioning of our gaseous and liquid hydrogen plant at Christmas Creek, which is the largest of its kind in Australia. We also tested our battery electric haul truck prototype, Roadrunner, at our green energy hub. And a few weeks ago, we were there to launch a hydrogen battery electric truck to undergo similar testing in the Pilbara. And we're only just getting started. Our mission is to accelerate commercial decarbonization of industry rapidly, profitably, and globally. And on that note, I'm gonna hand over to Hutch for an update on the energy business. Thanks, Dino, and great to be speaking with you all today. Fortescue has always been at the forefront of innovation, and this has set us up for success for the past 21 years, and now the decarbonization of our mining operations, seeing us lead the world once again. The energy team is building on this pedigree and creating a portfolio that's ambitious and develops complementary capabilities across the entire green energy value chain. Our green energy team is very much focused on green electrons and molecule production. Fortescue Zero is delivering battery power systems and developing green technology critical to reduce emissions. We're also looking at green financing through Fortescue Capital. It's these three pieces together as an integrated approach that allows us to be efficient and innovative, while also having the ability to adapt quickly and respond to shifting market conditions. So let's look at Fortescue Zero first. Technology is key to everything that we're doing. That's why we've established Fortescue Zero, evolving the original Williams Advanced Engineering into a team now tasked with engineering, testing, manufacturing, and most importantly, commercializing our green technologies. These products have been born from the Formula E racetrack, and developed in-house by a global team of engineers. The power systems, fast chargers, DC-DC converters, and other solutions that were adapted for our own mining applications, also, we believe, have significant additional commercialization opportunities. But when we think about technology, we think about hardware and software. We've recently signed a multi-year deal with Jaguar Land Rover to use Fortescue's cutting-edge battery intelligence software, Elysia, in its first-generation electric vehicles. We have a need to use these products ourselves, and that is our real advantage. That is what really sets us apart. This is also the message that comes loud and clear from our first customers. We officially opened our Gladstone Electrolyser Manufacturing Centre in Queensland early this year, and we have started selling our PEM electrolyzer systems. So let's turn to energy projects. This year, we've reached some incredible milestones. We turned the soil at the site of the Arizona Hydrogen in the United States, one of the first green energy projects awarded a final investment decision by our board. A liquid green hydrogen production facility is on track to start construction this financial year and begin production in 2026. Our second FID project, the Gladstone PEM50 project, is in Queensland. It'll operate alongside our electrolyzer manufacturing center and use Fortescue's own PEM technology to produce up to 22 tons of green hydrogen per day. Production is expected to begin in 2025. Fortescue is committed to green hydrogen and its derivatives. However, as I said before, our financial discipline always comes first, and we are only focused on delivering those projects which are economically viable. The green hydrogen market globally is still developing, and currently the cost of power in many countries is too high. What we won't do is give up. When power costs are prohibitive, we'll work to bring those costs down. Longer term, we totally believe that green hydrogen is what the world ultimately needs, and that is why we continue to maintain a significant portfolio of potential projects. We advanced green energy projects, including Holmaneset in Norway and Pecém in Brazil. Both of these projects have been awarded early investment decisions to begin the front-end engineering design process. We also have a pipeline of projects in Morocco, Oman, Egypt, and Jordan, which will follow next. There is plenty to be excited about, and we're focused on making business decisions that make sense economically, commercially, that deliver the best results for our shareholders. So let's now turn to Apple to look at the financial. Thanks, Hutch, and a big hello to everyone. It's a privilege to present a summary of our financials, and as you can see from our disclosure today, we have reported a clean and transparent set of results. Our FY 2024 revenue increased by 8% to AUD 18.2 billion, in line with the increase in realized prices. This flowed to EBITDA, up 7% to AUD 10.7 billion. The EBITDA margin was 59%, and the metal segment EBITDA was AUD 65 per ton. For those following the webcast, you can see from this slide that Fortescue has continued to generate strong margins through the cycle. The average EBITDA in the past five years is over AUD 60 per ton. The next slide is the year-on-year reconciliation of underlying net profit after tax, with the waterfall showing all the moving parts. Two comments to make here. Firstly, the increase in depreciation and amortization expense. This relates to the lagged impacts of several years of higher sustaining CapEx, together with the commissioning of new assets, and in particular, Iron Bridge, which transitioned to operations in August last year. Secondly, the high income tax expense reflects the highest statutory earnings before tax, as well as a higher effective tax rate, where the main drivers of the increase were the impact of the non-deductible nature of our overseas operations, as well as prior period adjustments. Net profit after tax of AUD 5.7 billion was the third highest earnings in Fortescue's history, and this contributed to a return of capital of 31%. Moving to cash flows. Net operating cash flow increased to AUD 7.9 billion, and free cash flow increased by 18% on the prior year to AUD 5.1 billion, our second highest ever. This was after capital expenditure of AUD 2.9 billion, comprising AUD 2.6 billion in metals and AUD 317 million in the energy segment, with some further detail on this slide. As reported in our quarterly last month, our balance sheet is in great shape. Cash on hand at 30 June was AUD 4.9 billion. Noting this is inclusive of approximately AUD 1.8 billion for the final dividend, which will be paid next month, and gross debt of AUD 5.4 billion. You can see our robust credit metrics on this slide, with debt to EBITDA of 0.5x and gross gearing of 22%. Fortescue's capital allocation framework continues to prioritize maintaining a strong balance sheet, together with capital returns to shareholders and investing in growth. Our dividend policy is to pay out 50%-80% of net profit, and as you've heard, the board today declared a final dividend per share of AUD 0.89. This takes the FY 2024 total dividend per share to AUD 1.97, and this represents a fully franked dividend yield of more than 10% on today's share price. In closing, you can see we have achieved strong financial results in FY 2024. Through a focus on operating excellence and cost and capital discipline, we will continue to deliver benefits to all our stakeholders. I'll now hand back to our operator, Darcy, for Q&A, where we welcome your 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. In the interest of time, we ask that you limit to two questions per person. If you would like to ask further questions, you may rejoin the queue by pressing star one again. Your first question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, Dino and team. Thanks for the call. Look, the first one, I guess, is for Apple. Apple, I just wanted to touch on that depreciation number. You did mention that in your introductory comments as well, driven by the higher Iron Bridge depreciation. That was something that, perhaps, myself and the market were a bit behind on. Can you give a bit of color on how should we, how we should be modeling this going forward? I mean, you are still spending a fair bit of CapEx in FY 2025. So if I look at FY 2025 and beyond then into FY 2026, does that mean that the depreciation still needs to be significantly higher than where we are currently? Just for modeling purposes. Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Rahul. That's a very good question. As I did mention, the FY 2024 reflects a bit of a catch-up after several years of higher sustaining CapEx, as well as the Iron Bridge, which transitioned into operations in August, so we do have that full year impact in FY 2024. We componentize assets and apply the appropriate methodology, which includes something like a units of production or a straight line over its useful life. So, in the case of Iron Bridge, the majority of assets being plant and infrastructure are depreciated on a straight line basis over its useful life. Now, Rahul, you asked about what will happen in the future. For FY 2025, we don't specifically guide on depreciation, but you can anticipate this to be broadly in line with FY 2024, with increases aligned with any elevated CapEx spend. Got it. Okay. And look, second question, perhaps a simpler one on payouts. So you obviously paid out a bit higher in terms of your payout ratio. You're right at the 70% mark, which is the top end of your range. If we look out into the future, we're in a market where iron ore is obviously, you know, weaker in terms of pricing, but then on top of that, you also have realizations coming off. How do you think about your CapEx spend in the future-facing business? Is there any flexibility left in that business? And then if there is or isn't, how does that impact your payout expectations into the future? Yeah, thanks, Rahul. That's a very good question. I think, not to say that we do have a capital allocation framework which prioritizes returning back to the shareholders of 50%-80%. And we do strike a balance between returning back to shareholders while focusing on those CapEx requirements and future growth. We have paid a significant dividend payout ratio, but it is, to note, a matter for the board, and all considerations will be factored into it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Just a clarification, sorry, Apple. If you look at the second half EBITDA, if you annualize that, it's actually 14% up. Is that just high in the second half because strong units of production in iron ore? Just trying to understand why it doesn't step up 14% if you annualize the second half. Yeah, thanks, Glyn. Yeah, look, all I can say is there is a huge catch up of the high sustained CapEx, and you do have the full half of the Iron Bridge that has gone through. So you have to take into account not just the units of production, but the useful life, and the guidance around the depreciation would be per our policy in Note 23. So you should view it all on a full year basis. Okay, that's fine, and then maybe just a question for you, Hutch, if I could. Is there any early indication you can give us on the size of the CapEx for Norway and Brazil? I wasn't even gonna try and pronounce the names of the projects. Is it similar to the sort of orders of magnitude of the projects that were FID-ed in FY 2024? The Holmaneset is in Norway, Pecém is in Brazil. Look, I think the way to think about this is. And look, we're working hard on getting these projects to the next phase, and we'll provide more information later in the year, early next year, as they come through the system and the board approves them. But the way to look, Holmaneset is they're both ammonia projects. The Holmaneset is roughly 200,000 tons of ammonia and circa, you know, kind of low AUD 1 billion mark, from a CapEx perspective. So that should give you some idea. Now, the intention is that we would get going on the project, we would bring bank debt in at some stage, probably at financial close for 50%-60%, and then we'd sell down some of the equity. So the intention wouldn't be to ever fund that all ourselves with our capital. So actually. And that project actually also has a grant from the European Commission for EUR 200 million, so that goes against the CapEx. So and then, you know, Pecém is roughly 3x the size of that, so to give you some indication. But those projects are, you know, we're working on very hard. They'll be the next projects that you'll see, and as soon as they kind of come through the system, we get board approval, you'll, we'll give you more information on them. Thank you. Your next question comes from Jon Bishop from Jarden. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Look, my first question is just around your green hydrogen strategy. I think, Hutch, you called out electricity costs being currently too high to make the widespread adoption of green hydrogen challenging at the moment globally. I guess the irony we're being sort of exposed to real time is the escalation in electricity prices on the east coast of Australia due to the move away from baseload fossil fuel generation electricity to renewables. So I guess I'm sort of wondering, what are your thoughts on how this is realistically bridged to ever make green hydrogen cost competitive? So great question. You know, I think you know, on our journey, you know, in the green hydrogen space, I think we've learned a lot over the last couple of years. And the power cost is obviously very, very important, and that's why if you look at our first really, you know, first projects, we're focused very much on hydro. The cost of power is relatively low, and it's fully firmed as well. So there are certain advantages with those projects, you know, based on the power baseload. I would say, I would make a general comment is, as we look around the world, where you're competing with an economy which is decarbonizing, you really have an issue with competing with, you know, increase in power costs. After that, economy decarbonizes, and they have excess power. So Australia as a is probably a good example of that. You look on the East Coast, we're still going through a decarbonization process. The cost of power will change over time once the economy decarbonizes, and there'll be excess power available for export, which is really what green hydrogen is. So I think, you know, I look at the Australian market, there's definitely a long-term market. It's gonna take some time to adjust, but it does mean that there are opportunities outside the NEM if we can get the power costs down. Okay. Thank you. That's, that's excellent. Just second question, sort of slightly related. I think you've flagged, at the front of your release today, your AUD 6.2 billion U.S. decarbonization plan. That number was released in 2022. Do you still feel it's contemporary, or should the market really be looking to adjust for, you know, inflation that all of your peers have called out over the last two years? Thanks, John. Dino here. Well, I mean, we're steadfast to the AUD 6.2 billion, and we're working hard with technology providers, and also our own technology to ensure that we're well within that and on track. I would just add on that, Jon, also, you know, there's many companies kind of, you know, taking a different position to their targets. We are absolutely steadfast in our targets, and we will achieve them by 2030. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan, from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Good morning. Dino, you called out the Green Iron project, AUD 50 million and starting up relatively soon. I'm wondering, can you expand a bit more on your vision for Green Iron? And I guess, is there any room in the medium-term capital expenditure budgets for any material spend on Green Iron? Thanks, Lyndon. Short answer is watch this space. Longer answer is, we are, you know, really doubling down on green iron. What's become quite evident in China, although a lot of reporting around, you know, the structural change potentially of China's market, but one thing that's coming out is their insatiable demand for green products. And I think Australia is uniquely positioned for its next boom, beyond commodities, but green commodities. And that's why we're putting so much effort into our Green Iron plant in Christmas Creek. Within 12 months, we will show the world that it is possible to make green iron metal, so a 95%+ pig iron, that is in granules out of Pilbara-based iron ores, with hydrogen as a reducing agent derived from the sun, and in the future, the wind. Within a year, you'll see us making, I think, further announcements around what the next stage of green iron development in Australia or around the world could look like. I'll just add further to what Dino was saying, Lyndon. As you rightly pointed out, AUD 60 million, that's in our guidance under iron and iron ore projects of AUD 150 million for FY 2025. We do want to note our strong balance sheet capacity for both projects, which includes Green Iron. Thanks. And just a quick follow-up, just further on the Brazil and Norway hydrogen projects, or I guess you're now calling them ammonia projects. I'm wondering if you're able to give us a broad capital intensity, even a range to think about in how we should be looking at those projects from a CapEx perspective. Thanks. Yeah, so look, as I mentioned before, I think the way to think about this is, you know, 200,000 tons of ammonia, you know, on Holmaneset, that's kind of the production we believe on the phase one of the project, will be, you know, CapEx circa kind of, low AUD 1 billion-ish mark. As I said before, we have, we do have a grant from the European Commission, which is gonna help us with that. And, you know, you can look at, Pecém being, you know, three times the size of that, roughly. And as I mentioned, the intent is to, for us to get going with these projects, you know, through to financial close. We'll then bring some debt in 50%-60%, and then we'll look to sell down part, part of the equity over time. So it's not gonna all be on balance sheet. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rob Stein from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Thanks for the opportunity. Just a question on Real Zero. So understand you're not going to be pursuing offsets. Understand that you're gonna be trying to reduce carbon at a rate that's quite aggressive compared to where the Safeguard Mechanism threshold may lie. With those Safeguard Mechanism credit units that you may generate in that process, are you going to surrender those straight up, i.e., not trade them and not retain them for future use, et cetera? And then I've got a follow-up. Thank you. It's, yeah, it's a good, good question, Rob, around trading the ACCUs. Yeah, look, our first prize is actually getting to Real Zero, and we're getting a lot of support from the government around Safeguard, Headstart funding. And, on the trading of the ACCUs at this stage? Oh, I was just gonna suggest we're exploring, you know, for all options there, Rob. You know, that's the best outcome. But yeah, maybe let me take that on notice, and I'll come back offline. Good question. Yeah, because if you're generating those credit units and then you're trading them to others to effectively offset their emissions, yeah, one could argue that, so it's not really Real Zero, so you'd have to probably surrender them. But I mean, I was just sort of thinking about how you would think through that process. I guess another sort of question around how your carbon neutrality in broader terms in your hydrogen projects and the like, and trading Green Ammonia. Are you factoring green premiums to your IRRs for those projects and the thresholds? We've seen some of the competitors sanction or buy ammonia projects and having to, you know, consider premiums to, I guess, get thresholds, internal rates of return. Just wondering how you're thinking through that. Yeah, I think, you know, our view is there will be a premium eventually for green hydrogen, green ammonia, and we're building part of that in. I think we're working very hard on offtakes and seeing where the market lands on this. But yes, there are some premiums built into that. Just to add to what Hutch says, as with all modeling, we do have a base case, and we do flex it on the normal case as well. If I just use the other comment here, as long as we look at the European market, and you look at particularly RED III on some of the penalties that will come through as a result of that, you can kind of almost add that to the price of gray, and you end up at where we think the price of green product is gonna land. Rob, can I just come back to the first question? I wanted to make sure we have on record that we are going after Real Zero in our decarbonization plan, so there'll be no transferable mechanisms that we're going to put in place at all. That's why we moved away from net zero to Real Zero. Yeah, yeah. I think that's. I just wanted some confirmation of that, 'cause there's a lot of questions around how that Safeguard Mechanism market will work. And I was just wondering, you know, whether you were going to be a seller into that market, or whether effectively by retiring those credits, that market would be tighter and make it harder for others to get to, yeah, their commitments. Yeah, understood. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from David Coates from Bell Potter. Please go ahead. Good morning, team. Thanks for the opportunity to ask a question. Just a broad one on the energy division, so probably one for you, Hutch. When would we maybe expect to see more details on individual projects in terms of, you know, CapEx, operating costs, and so on? That's my question. Yeah. So, we have two projects through FID at the moment, and we've released some details around those. And you'll see. We, you know, that's kind of our phase one approach. They're smaller projects. We're getting going, we're learning from them, and then I'd say the Norway project and Brazil will be next. You'll see those next, and we'll give you details once we've gone through the board process. And then the kind of third phase behind there is the work we're doing in places like Morocco and Oman, which are probably, you know, bigger phase projects. So we have a clear line of sight to what the pipeline's gonna be over the next few years. As the projects kind of reach the maturity that we get approval, we'll give you more information. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Kaan Peker from RBC. Please go ahead. Morning, Dino and Mark, capital team. One for Dino and one for Mark. Maybe on Iron Bridge. I know that asset had a pretty good finish to FY 2025. If you can maybe provide a update over the first couple of months of FY 2025, how it's going. I'll circle back with a second. It'll be a short answer, Kaan. Yeah, actually a really good start to FY 2025, and hence, yeah, we remain unchanged with our September quarter ramp up. Thank you. Maybe following up on Glyn and Lyndon's question, so it seems like from their questions, there's probably about AUD 2 billion-AUD 2.5 billion of CapEx FMG share prior to equity sell-down over the next 12-18 months, on the energy projects. Is that sort of a rough ballpark figure? No, I think it's gonna be less than that. We give guidance this year for AUD 500 million in this CapEx in these projects, which is consistent with last year. So it's gonna be less than that. And the intention of these projects is to get debt in and sell down some of the equity before we actually spend all the CapEx on the project. So you can kind of, given the guidance given before, you get an idea of what they might cost over the next, you know, three to four, five years. But we won't be using the balance sheet for all those projects, no. Just to reiterate, Kaan, that all energy projects in the pipeline will be subject to FID. Yeah. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS. Please go ahead. Morning, team. Thanks very much for your time. Maybe can I start with just a clarification related to Chichester and just around the new hubs, Flying Fish and Hall Hub. What's the expected impact of those on product quality across the portfolio? And I'll come back with a second question. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. So the Flying Fish is at our western hub area, so that's near Eliwana. And the key reason for bringing that into the portfolio is exactly the reason you ask around product strategy. So we remain unchanged in terms of the total suite. The Hall Hub is a supporter for our Fortescue blend product, Lachlan. Okay, got it. Thank you. That's helpful. And then just a second question. So, just on a I guess green hydrogen and ammonia and the offtake around that. So there's clearly a lot of policy support in many jurisdictions. There's been a lot of momentum with projects, MOUs, et cetera. But to be clear, like, can you just help us understand the precise critical path factors to getting, you know, sort of some of those commercial offtake deals in place? Is it price? Is it funding? Is it demand? What are actually the key roadblocks that we should look for to get more confidence in the strategy? Thank you. Yeah. Look, Lachlan, good question. Look, I, I'd start with the government side first. I mean, there's been plenty of announcements. You know, these policies have got to, you know, kind of turn into law, and so the IRA is a good example of that. We're still somewhat in a bit of limbo on the definition, and that's not gonna change until probably after the election, and it might be dependent on who gets in that determines what happens and the definition there. And the same, you know, with other places around the world, it's just making sure that the legislation gets locked in. So I think, you know, watching that space is gonna be important. And then, and buyers are also, you know, looking at those markets to see what happens. So, you know, we're in discussions with buyers on the demand side. They're watching, you know, to see what happens on the government support side as well. And it's really trying to land the planes, you know, based on that. So I think the demand is there, our belief is there. Price is probably the critical issue, and there's some indications actually, if you look at H2 Global, the first tranche that came out a few weeks ago, and that gives you some indication of where the market will probably be. So understanding, you know, where the price lands, I think is gonna be important. What on the demand side, what the customers are looking at as well. Thank you. Your next question comes from Guangshuo Zhang from Guotai Junan Futures. Please go ahead. Okay, morning, Dino and team. My first question is on the shipment guidance of the iron ore. I noticed that the guidance for FY 2025, the range between the upper and lower boundary now is wider, especially for the lower end, is now even lower as compared to FY 2024. So what are the risk factors the company is considering by announcing the guidance in this way? I will follow up on the second question later. Yeah, thanks. I mean, again, I wouldn't read too much into it. As we've expanded our production profile over the years, our guidance was extremely tight. Now we've also brought in the Iron Bridge product. If you look at the midpoint of it of 195 million tons, it's forecasting to be another record year for FY 2025. Okay. Okay, thanks for that, and my second question is, also on the Green Metal project. My understanding is that, the capacity expected from this project is actually coming from the existing production capacity of Chichester Hub. So I'm just wondering, in the future, if the company decides to scale up or expand the project, and if the strip ratio at this project differs from the existing one at Chichester Hub, will that overall production number be affected? It's a really great question. So as you can imagine, our vision is, in the longer term, to convert all our iron ore into green iron metal, which, when you do the math, will account for about a 100 million tons circa or a bit more of our hematite operations. Which actually means you get a lot of rail and port capacity back, so it gives you a lot of options to then do you ramp up your hematite and the balance or other options. No, it certainly does give you flexibility in your flow sheet. Thank you. Your next question comes from Anthony Barich, from S&P Global. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, just wondering about that, the whole green iron thing. You mentioned how you're doubling down on that, and just can you flesh out a bit more about the demand there and how. And there was some comments around, we've got the cash, a strong cash balance there for growth in green iron. What are you referring to there? Like developing more. I know you literally just said we can convert all our iron ore. So is that what you're referring to there, or are you talking about potentially making more green iron plants in Australia or in Africa, or somewhere else, or? Yes, so all of the above, Anthony, is actually our options. But when we say doubling down, our focus is making sure our Christmas Creek green iron facility is working. We're actually testing a number of different paths to green iron, so a higher grade iron metal out of Australia in its first instance. But again, as Hutch spoke about before, the key to green iron is actually renewable energy costs. So we are also looking around the world where our renewable energy costs is low enough for us to look at investments of green iron plants around the world. But our first step is proving the technology with the lower to mid-grade hematites out of the Pilbara, 'cause that is the step that really hasn't been done yet economically. Right now, the green iron projects around the world utilize a very high-grade feed, and there's not many places around the world that actually produce that. So if you wind the clock forward and the trend of decarbonizing our steel industry, there will be a real challenge for high-grade iron ore. So the world needs to solve low to mid-grade iron ores. And for Australia, where we hold a preeminent position in this space, we see endless opportunities to develop a green iron metal industry here in Australia. Is that a preference to others like Rio Tinto and that have talked about blending, you know, high-grade Simandou with here? But you guys are involved with Rio and BHP in developing, you know, that, some of that green iron, I think, as well, right? So how do you see that localized green iron option as opposed to the blending option, which others are talking about, or are they complementary? So we support all activity in terms of the green supply chain of steel. We're technically not involved with BHP and Rio and their BlueScope venture, which was announced a few months after our green iron plant in Christmas Creek. So blending in our perspective will get you so far down the track, but really the ultimate goal, because you still need to blend with that really high-grade product, similar to our Iron Bridge product, for instance, we don't see the global volumes of that higher grade at the right cost point that is competitive to the hematite position that we have in Australia. Hence, the importance of using our own ores, our loaded mid-grade sector, in creating a 95%+ green iron product, which uses no coal in its reduction process. Thank you. Your next question comes from Jon Bishop with Jarden. Please go ahead. Sorry, being a bit greedy here, asking another question. In terms of your hydrogen fuel cell technology, you're talking about testing a prototype at the moment. Is it a realistic solution for your HME replacement haulage requirements by your 2028 target? I mean, I guess what I'm calling out here is that the current quantities of hydrogen required by the vehicle versus your sort of daily production rates at the moment, it's sort of only equivalent to maybe half a day's usage out of that truck. John, really good question, and I always try and clear up a few myths of the technology in the future. At its base, all HME in the future, and we're already seeing that with diesel-powered variants now, will have electric motors driving the wheels and electric power system. So think of it as a Prius, right? And then it's what you plug into that is based on the area that you are operating. In the past, you've been constrained by getting diesel to the mine site. In the future, with hydrogen fuel cells, battery electric, and also green fuel in combustion engines, they will all be paired with a electric powered drive system, similar to the trucks we are developing. But what's unique about a decarb's future is some mines which were uneconomic in the past. We're now re-looking at the economics of those mine sites because they are potentially in areas where the cost of producing the renewable energy is already now at a price point where you can convert that into hydrogen or directly into battery electric. Then, on the use case, it's a little bit like towing your boat or your caravan with your electric car at the moment. You're not gonna get a hell of a lot of range. You tow that with a hydrogen fuel cell, the torque and recharge rates of your battery electric car go up, so you can actually have enough energy to tow those loads. It's the same application that we're solving in mine sites. You can't think linear anymore. The future, you have so many different options based on the energy profile and the equipment profile in your mines that you operate. Just adding to that as well, Dino, the way we look at the technology here is very much looking at how we decarbonize our own operations, but we're also looking at, you know, how we commercialize this to others. So we always have that in mind as we do our prototypes. Maybe just to finish that, for our operations in the Pilbara, we have committed to a full battery electric truck, but we are developing the hydrogen fuel cell equivalent, for other use cases around the world. But for our application, where the solar direct to electrons into the truck is the best economic case for us. Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Oh, thanks, Dino. Just a quick one for you. Just, your peers have called out that they've been putting a few more tons on the ground at the ports in China to enable blending. I was just wondering if you've done similar over the course of 2024, and to what quantum, if you have? Thanks. Yeah, no, that's not the case for us, Glyn. We have noticed some of our peers, you know, putting 10 million more for blending opportunities. No, that's not our position, Glyn. Okay, and just your overall sense of the market at the moment? Yeah, yeah, a good question. Obviously, the near market, we've seen some uncertainty with demand and stronger supply coming on. We've seen a most recent price uptick. We've seen some tons already starting to come out of the market, predominantly from India. So our view is, yes, the market is going through a transformation. Very encouraged though by diversification and the robustness of the Chinese market. And for us, again, the demand upside for green products is much, much higher than we expected. I'll give you an anecdote. When I was there a few weeks ago, the Chinese government made an announcement that 10% of all coal-fired boiler feedstock will actually be ammonia. Now, if you do the numbers, China burns 2 billion tons of thermal coal a year. 10% of that by mass is 300,000 tons of ammonia. That's nearly 50 million tons of hydrogen to get to that ammonia amount. So yeah, you just have to look at the actual investment in transforming a huge industry like that, and the train has definitely left the station in this one. Thank you. That is all the time we have for questions today. I'll now hand back to Mark Hutchinson for closing remarks. Thanks very much, and really thank you for joining us today. I'd really like to take this opportunity, though, to thank the more than 15,000 team members of our team globally. We really are a global Fortescue family, and our strong performance this year would not have been possible without their dedication, commitment to achieve our stretch targets every day. So as we continue this exciting phase of growth in Fortescue's journey, our work will always be underpinned by our unique culture and values. So we look forward to speaking to you very soon. Thanks again.