Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the South32 H1 FY 2021 financial results and outlook investor and analyst briefing, U.K. and S.A. All participants are in listen only mode. There will be a presentation, opening remarks, 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. Graham Kerr, CEO. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us for our financial results conference call for the half-year ended December 31, 2021. I'm joined at my end by our Chief Financial Officer, Katie Tovich. On the lines, I have our two Chief Operating Officers, Jason Economidis and Mike Fraser, to answer any questions you might have around their operations. Look, I'll start by just calling out, we provided a short video that provided an overview of our financial results, and that's available on our website. If we take a step back and think, where are we today, a couple of introductory comments. Look, we have a simple strategy we've had in place since day one of the merger that we believe still fits the purpose across all cycles. It's underpinned by a strong balance sheet and disciplined allocation of capital. It's built around three simple pillars: optimize the existing operations, unlock the potential of those operations, and identify new opportunities to grow the portfolio. If we look at those in slices and start with optimize, look, it was really great to see another period of good operating performance by the heads of the operations. We achieved three records of production for the half at Worsley Alumina, Brazil Alumina, and GEMCO. We also upgraded full-year guidance at Illawarra Metallurgical Coal, Cerro Matoso, and Cannington. The work that's been done on the volume efficiencies and cost control means that unit costs are well controlled despite the strengthening currency we're actually seeing. It was really pleasing to see, and you'll see it in the slide pack, our core markets are rebounding, and we're starting to see prices increase as we start calendar year 2021, which has given us confidence for going forward. Today, you would have seen that we are paying a dividend of $0.014 per share, and we increased our capital management program by $250 million, which means we've got $259 million to be returned by early September 2021. If we move to the next pillar of the strategy about unlock. There's some great examples in the pack about what's being done in the operations to unlock the full potential of the business. After doing a great job at Las Esmeraldas, the team at Cerro Matoso are now accelerating the development of the QMP project at Cerro, and they're also progressing numerous improvement and life extension studies across the business to get us to a sustainable level and increase the life of Cerro Matoso. At the same time, we're in the middle of rolling out the EnPot technology at Mozal and studying its application to be rolled out at Hillside. Of course, we're doing all the work around the decarbonization studies that were spoken about in the past as we get prepared to release our updated targets later this calendar year. In terms of our mix of growing or changing the portfolio, we continue to exit lower returning businesses. In the half, TEMCO sale was complete. Metalloys on care and maintenance. We have made some good progress on South African Coal with a couple of significant milestones. At the same time, we unlocked value through the sale of a non-core precious metals royalty portfolio, $55 million to Elemental. At the same time, there were a few surprises in the period. I'm sure we'll touch on it, The Independent Planning Commission's decision on refusing Dendrobium Next Domain for the expansion project certainly came as a surprise to ourselves and our stakeholders, and we can talk through the implications of that. On top of the things that we're working on that way, we've also made good progress, if you like, on the pipeline of growth options, particularly around Hermosa, where we continue to progress the Taylor Project to be completed into quarter four and the Clark to be finished in the first half of FY 2022 with regards to a scoping study. The Ambler PFS is progressing, and we'll be back on the ground with exploration this season following the COVID impacts of the previous year. At the same time, we've got 20+ exploration partnerships where we have with junior companies with a bias towards base metals. In summary, our balance sheet remains strong. We entered the half with $275 million net cash, and that has grown to $452 million by the end of January with working capital unwinding. Our buyback is continuing, and we have major catalysts coming up that will move the quality of the portfolio in the coming year as we start to see a strong uptick in our prices. With that, I'll open it up to questions. Thank you. If you would like 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 are on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Tim Clark with SBG Securities. Please go ahead. Hi there. Thanks. Congratulations on the results. Just a couple of quick questions on the new projects, the Cerro project, and GEMCO project. Just the life of mines there are sort of nine years and 5.76 years. I just wonder if you could comment on the project versus life? My second question, I'd really appreciate a little bit of color on the Cannington volumes upgrades. What's happening there? Why the high volumes? Does that also impact the 11-year life, or is it just better recovery? Thank you. Yeah. Well, maybe we'll start with Cerro Matoso, and I'll get Mike. Maybe you can talk about the projects in the pipeline and where the team's up to there. Good morning, Tim. Thanks for the question. Cerro's been on a really interesting journey, and one of the things that underpins Cerro's life is what we call contract 051, which is essentially the concession agreement that determines our arrangements with the mining agency. The first part of the contract runs through to 2029, but we have an option agreement to extend the life for a further 15 years to 2044. The option agreement requires us to pay an additional one-off royalty of around $42 million to obtain that life extension. We've been working with the mining agency around the terms of that extension, particularly given when this was negotiated in 2012, the conditions have changed. We're looking at alternative ways of structuring that payment. The projects that we're looking at are all options that we believe provide a very good return, even within this initial period of the contract, i.e., until 2029. In particular, Queresas & Porvenir, as Graham has said, it's an additional satellite deposit, which provides us the opportunity of increasing the nickel grade and provides a sweetener in the same way that Las Esmeraldas did, to provide us with a lift in nickel production over the next nine years. The second project that's been explored is the mechanical ore concentration project, which also provides us an opportunity of lifting production by increasing the nickel ore content over the next nine years. What is also interesting about the mechanical ore concentration project is that in the life extension option to 2044, one of the requirements was to lift the processing capacity by 50%. This mechanical ore concentration, whilst the economics pay back within the next nine years more than sufficiently, it also meets that other condition on the life extension. It kind of hits both those bubbles. What is important to take away is that even without that decision to extend the life, these projects are all hugely value accretive with very, very good IRRs, and allows us to really deliver a nickel volume of around that 40 kt to 42 kt over the remaining life. Again, if we make that decision to extend the life to 2044, this gives us a really good base to continue there. Probably worth noting, Mike, reflective of those good IRRs, it's actually not very large amounts of capital. The team, I think, have shown what they can do with Las Esmeraldas when they deliver that quicker and in a lower cost than what the original estimate was. That's quite correct. Yeah. Tim, are you okay if we move on to Cannington next? Thanks. That was very helpful. Jason, you want to talk a little bit about Cannington? Sure. In short, it's a combination of bringing forward some higher-grade stopes, but also higher production. What we are working on is creating some longer life at the back end with some additional stopes and remnants in the tail. That's the production profile for Cannington. Maybe just a little bit of detail on the shaft, potentially, and the work around that we'll probably conclude in the next six months is worth sharing as well, Jason. Yeah, thanks, Graham. Yeah. We are busy at the moment working through a progression to not use the shaft for hoisting, but to go to 100% trucking. That will actually also give us access to higher-grade stopes that were positioned around the shaft itself, which has actually been quite value accretive for us. Tim, that's probably Cannington, if you like. I'll take the last one around GEMCO. GEMCO, as you rightly point out, at the moment, has a resource life of about 5.7 years, reserve life of 5.7 years and a resource of about 11 years. The eastern leases, if you like, are certainly designed to basically add at least three more years into the reserve life. It is relatively low CapEx as currently into the feasibility study, and we would aim to make a final investment decision towards the back end of FY 2022. On top of that, we think, there are a couple of years on top of that which probably haven't been included in the resource reserve that will eventually move across. Probably the big opportunity for us lies in the southern east areas, where are relatively unexplored. We're in the second stage of an exploration project there. That's a two-year program, which basically has about 94 km of drill lines and 792 infill RC drill holes. That program commenced in October 2020. We've done about 221 holes as at the end of December. Exploration will restart this year when the dry season commences in 2021, being the wet season at the moment. We expect that to be completed by the end of 2021 in terms of calendar year. I think, look, the opportunity there is the resource is large. It's not well explored. This exploration program is going to be important to understand the potential. As we have mentioned historically in the past, I think we're also conscious of the area, probably more cultural heritage significance with traditional owners. We also work with them about what will be available. Too early to give you some color yet on that. We just don't know if it's going to be two, five, 10, 15 years until we've actually finished the program. Thanks, Graham. That's very useful. Thanks. Your next question comes from Myles Allsop with UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah. Maybe if, to go into a little bit more detail, I've been listening to the call overnight on sort of Dendrobium and the implications for Illawarra, the options you have. Does Illawarra stack up as a sort of single longwall, medium term, or are we talking about potential closure in four years if you cannot find a way forward with the water courses? That's the first question. Yeah. Maybe let's sort of break those into a couple of components. We'll talk a little bit about the IPC, then we'll talk about what it means, implications, and if we decide not to progress with the resubmission, what does that look like? What we would start by saying, the actual submission that was made to the government and then referred on to the Independent Planning Commission was around Area 5 and Area 6. The government was very supportive in terms of what we were doing there, in terms of how we're managing the water issues, the cultural heritage issues, and the mine planning and subsidence, et cetera. The Independent Planning Commission, unfortunately, last Friday, so it's relatively fresh, surprised ourselves, the government, us supporters of the project and probably the opponents of the project, with the refusal to actually give us approval to go forward. I think the other thing that probably disappointed us was there was not really an opportunity to actually address, if you like, some of their concerns, which we think are factually incorrect. That was probably disappointing from our side. The reality is, look, we take our environmental responsibilities very seriously there. We've been working in that sensitive area in terms of under the water catchment for a period of time. We'll continue to engage all our stakeholders to understand the right way forward. If you think about what's in front of us, what we can do now, there are essentially four avenues that are there. One is to actually appeal the decision. That appeal is based on process and not merits. There are a number of instruments which the government has to intervene and overturn the IPC, if you like, decision. That's sitting there as well. There actually has been a bill raised by one of the independents, if you like, into legislation about trying to get that moving. There is also the option for us to submit a revised plan that addresses some of the concerns from the IPC, or we can accept the decision and optimize the business, if you like, without Dendrobium Next Domain. What we have guided the market to at the moment, because that decision was made last Friday, what we are doing obviously at the moment is understanding all our options. Talking to each of the stakeholders, like the government, where we can, some of the key customers or key stakeholders such as BlueScope, et cetera. There was a round table held by the government this week in Illawarra, which Jason participated in, just to understand all the options that sit in front of us. At the same time, what we're doing is also looking at a plan for DND or Dendrobium Next Domain area, Area 5, which would really focus, if you like, on minimizing, while we're going to agree with them, some of the concerns that the IPC raised. Clearly, we want to complete that plan to understand the economic impact. What does it actually mean for returns? Because we're not interested in doing a project that's not value accretive to our actual business. At the same time, just in case that is not the option that we choose to pursue, we are continuing to look at ways to optimize the Appin complex and also what's left at Dendrobium. If we sort of break that into components, the way we talked about Dendrobium Next Domain is we needed that to sort of come online around 2025. We have some alternate areas that we can look at in terms of the mining areas that we can work in, such as Area 3C. The first probably almost two longwalls or 1. 5 longwalls are pretty easy to mine. After that, it would require a bit of time for gas extraction. There is some options around remnant material that's left at Dendrobium that we could actually mine as well. That's something the team will look at. At the same time, equally important is what we've been doing at Appin in the background. Now obviously, we returned last April to the three-wall long configuration around the complex, i.e., the two in Appin. At that time, we've been upgrading the guidance about how we've been performing. The hybrid plan at Appin at the moment is certainly working well by maximizing the productivity of the two longwall faces. That will continue over the next three years before we transition to a simplified mine layout, and we will talk about that in a second. If you think about where are we today, Appin itself, that is probably running at about a unit cost at the moment, about $112 a ton, and then it is probably about $27 a ton, which is basically sustaining CapEx. As we go into the next phase of Appin, where we increase the longwall length, which reduces the number of longwall moves, it takes away some of the delay of relocating longwalls, obviously, and has benefits for productivity and costs. It also means that we have 30 km underground development to do. We go from four vent shafts to four. We go from seven to four continuous miners, and our gas reads drop as well. We believe, without optimizing it, that sort of takes you to a number which is probably much closer to somewhere between $105-$110 a ton all in. Clearly, Jason and the team also think they have some opportunities to improve that around what they could do around alternate access as the mine gets older and further away and some other productivity metrics. Their target in that case would be pushing Appin only closer to $100 a ton. Clearly the preferred case for us, if the economics stack up, would be to do Dendrobium Next Domain because it allows you to basically, if you like, average the cost. The only other thing you shouldn't sort of lose sight of is generally speaking, while higher cost Appin does attract a higher premium. In saying that, if you move into Dendrobium Next Domain, you start achieving that anyway. Does that sort of help, Myles, around that? Yeah, that's helpful. Just to be clear, with Appin, the all-ins, the unit cost plus sustaining, after the optimization would be $105 -$110 a ton. Is that right? Correct. And look, you know- And when- That'll kick in from about beyond 2025. Okay. Now that's helpful. When will we- Sorry, just on top of that- There you go. ...we think there is more opportunity to optimize what we do in that space. That alternate access, except that to push it close is that $100 a ton. Okay. When will we get the next development here in terms of understanding which of those four avenues with Dendrobium are going to be sort of adopted as such? Look, I would say certainly- When will we get more clarity? ...very much by the end of this financial year, we would actually have a firm way forward in terms of what it looks like for costs and CapEx. If we decide to go down the appeal process, that is actually, you've got a three-month time limit to actually do that. At that time, we'd probably start indicating before that, obviously, what our options are. The key, to be honest, at the moment, Myles, is to do the work around what the options are, to understand what the value is for our shareholders and other stakeholders, and that takes a little bit of time to make sure we get that right. Okay. The second question was, just on, sort of South Africa Energy Coal. Hopefully, we won't have to keep asking this every half. Soon it will all be over, but are you still absolutely confident that by the end of this quarter we'll have the deal done? Are there any risks to the deal? How are you thinking about reshaping the balance sheet after the exits and the provisions have gone? I'll let Katie talk about the balance sheet if you like in a second, because that's in her domain. What I would say, though, at the moment is it was an interesting set of results when you look across our peer group. If you look across Glencore Australia, BHP Australia, and Whitehaven, there was about AUD 1.5 billion worth of pain, if you like, US, sorry, rough Australian in terms of write-offs and impacts. It's a very tough space to be at the moment in Energy Coal. I think you see that in our result for SAEC. Look, what I would say is as we sort of progress this deal, if you look at those critical approvals, what actually has been fully done, Myles, is Section 11, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy is done with no onerous conditions. We obviously had a long process around South African competition, which is approved with no onerous conditions. We've been working really hard with Eskom and Seriti about putting together a deal that sort of works for us, Seriti, and Eskom by lowering the average cost of coal by putting the two businesses together. We feel that's in a strong place now where we're fairly aligned, and then it needs to go through, if you like, the governance process internally of Eskom, and then on to National Treasury. All the timelines, all the insurances are that we should meet that deadline by the end of this quarter. I think the only thing that sits in my mind is obviously there's two things going on in South Africa at the moment that have probably slowed this down a little bit in the last three months, and hopefully we're behind those. We've seen the back of a second wave, hopefully now, but obviously South Africa's been hit very hard by COVID cases, officially about 1,546,000 deaths, whereas the media speculates it's well in excess of 100,000 deaths. It's a country that was already reeling around fiscal challenges. Their ability to fund, put a vaccine out there has been a real stretch for them. That certainly had some impact on people like National Treasury and our ability to engage as they've been focused on other issues. The other one that's sort of been bouncing around for the last couple of months is the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, has been going on for a period of time now since Zuma left the presidency. The last three or so months have been very much focused on Eskom's involvement and the purchase of Optimum Coal by the Gupta-affiliated group. That certainly, if you like, had a number of current and previous Eskom executives and senior people going through that process. That's also slowed down involvement of people. As you would expect and as we would want, it's resulting in them following it very carefully in terms of their governance framework into the letter of the law. They're just two things that are sort of playing in the background. Both of them seem to be heading more on a positive trajectory now, obviously, they're the little bit of two wild cards that sit out there. Okay. Balance sheet, Katie? In terms of the balance sheet? Yeah, thanks, Myles. Look, in terms of balance sheet, I think, maybe just as a refresher, we certainly still believe that a strong balance sheet is fundamental to our strategy. We don't believe in combining operational and financial leverage. As we think about our balance sheet going forward, we will absolutely continue to maintain that same philosophy. We have talked about a net debt range of sort of $0-$350 million being our optimal range in terms of our current structure. Certainly post the divestment of SAEC, and also TEMCO, Metalloys, we have said we'll come back with a re-look at that. I think the other thing not to forget is it's a fairly dynamic process for us in any case. We review our balance sheet six-monthly with a forward view in terms of what our capital profile looks like, our capital intensity, and so on. While we'll come back, it will be an ongoing dynamic process as that capital profile changes, as our portfolio changes. Certainly, the removal of SAEC specifically will improve our capital intensity as a business. The removal of the rehabilitation provisions is also supportive of a more robust balance sheet in terms of, certainly, rating agency perspective. All of those elements will be considered as we complete that work. It's probably back end of April, where we'll be in a better position to have that conversation with you again. Okay. We shouldn't just add the $800 million provisions to the flat $250 million net debt and think that that's the new level going forward. It's going to be somewhere probably a bit less than that. Look, if you think about the provisions, they're actually just part of your denominator, it's a ratio-based way that we think about this. It's definitely not a direct translation. Yep. Okay. Thanks. Let a few other people ask questions. We will come back. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. We'll pause for a moment ta allow questioners to enter the queue. We h ave a follow-up from Myles Allsop with UBS. Okay. Thanks Graham. Just a few other questions I had. I wasn't sure whether there were people in the queue. Just in terms of restructuring and how you guys are going to take the business forward, what other assets kind of sit as marginal? How are you thinking about processing assets, and in view of climate commitments and all the rest of it, how does aluminum sit in the portfolio longer term, and other assets for that? Yeah. Maybe break that into a couple components. Obviously, we have an aluminum chain, if you like, from bauxite to alumina to aluminum. We're long on alumina. We would never build another aluminum smelter. I would say both Hillside and Mozal, for a period of time now, have been actually testing, if you like, their maximum technical capacity. I think both Sam and Calvin have done a great job in terms of not only managing the distraction of COVID-19 and the challenges, but also continuing to lower the cost base and improve the efficiency of those operations. I think that's reflected in the margins you see in the presentation today, that we're seeing the growth. Obviously helped by price, but also helped by scale. From our perspective, I'm not sure in the current marketplace you'd want to be more long in alumina. There's sort of that connectivity for us. You do raise a good point, Myles, around carbon footprint. We also had a slide packed in there that talked about Scope 1, Scope 2. Clearly, when you look at the four operations that make a difference for us, it is Hillside, it is Mozal, it is Worsley, it is Illawarra. Both Worsley and Illawarra have a number of de-carbonization projects underway. Obviously, we've got a number of energy efficiency projects underway at both Mozal and Hillside. At Mozal, one of the challenges for Mike, Sam and the team is to try and secure the future energy supply in that space. Certainly in that space, we're working hard to continue to have that hydro preferential access that we have today, but back that up with gas rather than coal from Eskom as they develop the new fields in the north. Likewise, when it comes to Hillside, and Mike can give you an update in a second about how the power contract's going, but there is a strong push there in South Africa to obviously move down a renewables path as well, and also looking at gas as an option to potentially reduce some of the energy requirements or intensity. They're the kind of things we're talking about in that space. We do plan towards the back end of this calendar year to give some very clear targets and plans of what those decarbonization milestones look like so we can share those with our investors. The team are working hard on the numbers now. Mike, you can make a little bit of comment, if you like, around the Eskom contract and where that's up to for Hillside. Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Graham. Look, it's been a long journey for us, but we've made excellent progress with Eskom. It's been engaging with Eskom for around five years on resolving what initially was a dispute over the term. We realized that this needed to be resolved commercially. What we have landed on is we've got an agreement with Eskom around a new tariff structure for Hillside, which is very similar to the way that we structured Mozal, which is essentially a fixed rand price contract for all three pot lines, so a unified contract for a period of 10 years. It's got a PPI escalator on that. Where's that in the process? We've got agreement with Eskom. It's been through their internal processes, and it was submitted to NERSA, the energy regulator, in the beginning of January. They theoretically have 120 days to assess that. What is also pleasing, and partly why it took so long to ultimately get to NERSA, is that the regulator had asked the DMRE for an updated long-term incentive tariff policy for them to assess this against, and that was released also in around November. That's all available now to NERSA to determine. I think pleasingly, this agreement is in line with that. We should see very low level of anxiety because it'll be aligned to that policy framework. We feel quite good, and we expect that to be delivered in this, in this half. The other thing you talked about. How much are- Sorry, Myles, keep going. ... I was just going to say, how much, what was the relative cost differential of the power that you'll be paying under the new contract versus the current contract as the world looks today? It's already embedded in there at the moment because of the interim agreement, so you're seeing that. The way I think about it in broad brush strokes, as Mike described it, is think about the Mozal kind of cost of contract. It's similar around that. Okay. Yep. Myles, maybe the one thing that makes it really hard to determine is because you are moving away from a contract that was U.S. dollar denominated and linked to the LME price to a fixed rand base. It actually is very volatile from period, depending on where the currency is and depending on where the price sits, where the, yeah, the LME price sits. Myles, probably the other one worth covering when you talk about portfolio, obviously, is the work we're doing on exploration, but probably more importantly at both Mozal and Ambler Metals is the rebalance of the portfolio for base metals. There's a couple of drivers for that. One is around the demand supply fundamental, and as you know, those are the kind of products that are used more, if you like, in the decarbonization and greening. I think the other option there is they're both new operations that certainly give you the opportunity to have a much smaller, not only environment, footprint overall, but obviously an impact on the climate. For example, we've been looking at things with tests around battery-operated trucks, electric equipment underground with Sandvik. They all bring those kind of benefits. Obviously the other one is some of those will be used, silver in solar panels from Taylor. If you think about Clark, that's a zinc-manganese oxide resource, and that's certainly tilted towards a manganese sulfate monohydrate, which is a precursor for battery market. I think that helps us sort of move the portfolio away from those heavy and processing-intensive industries to those metals that are more suited to that growing demand and that opportunity. Okay. Maybe, it's always good to hear your views on the manganese market. Obviously, it's seen a bit of a recovery in the price, how sustainable do you think that is as we look through the rest of this year? Look, it's an interesting one because obviously we had a slide in the pack as we always do about some of the markets that matter to us, and manganese is certainly one of those. You'll see that's in the pack towards the back end of the pack. Just bear with me for a second. It's on page 28 of the pack. What we're really showing there, I guess, is the continued charts that we're showing in the back. Maybe before we touch the chart, if we just touch on the themes. Global supply remains tight despite the rebound, which is providing support to actual ore. If you look at calendar year 2021, yeah, look, we'll be driven by supply with alloy demand expected to remain strong as steel production actually stays strong. Long-term, our view hasn't changed that the marginal cost of production will be set by supply transitioning underground over time. Probably the real informative chart that we show down the bottom is if you look at the bottom right-hand slide, you'll actually see in that space there, that what you do see is while the stockpiles, which is the gray back area, have increased in China, the reality is the port consumptions in months haven't moved up the same relativity. That's really driven by that comment that we've made over the last couple of years, where you've seen the domestic product really fall away, if you like, in China. They are heavily dependent, if you like, on the imports. As a consequence, the port stocks have gone up, but if you look at port consumption in months, it's not such a big jump. What you have seen in the last couple of quarters is you're actually seeing the seaborne exports recover, particularly coming out of COVID. Particularly you see the jump between quarter two calendar year 2020 to quarter three calendar year 2020, where you've actually seen, if you like, the South Africans come back in a relatively big way. I think trucking out of South Africa probably jumped from 20% the prior year to about 40% this year as people continue to look out for those opportunities. Where do you see the marginal cost now at the support level? Yeah, look, we'd still say the marginal cost where you are today will actually be driven obviously by the trucking costs, and that is still very dependent on your position on rand and the grade that's actually coming out. From our perspective, we see that we generally talk about somewhere between the $4- $5, but it's probably sitting around the $4.20, $4.50 at the moment, depending on your view on currency. That's at 44% equivalent. Yeah. Great. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Kerr for closing remarks. Yeah, look, thank you very much, and thanks everyone for your time today because I know it's a busy day ahead, and it has been a busy day for many of you. Look, what I would leave you with the comment is it's great to see a strong operating performance from the teams again in this six-month period, which I think is building a strong track record. We're really pleased to see some of our key commodities that have been under price pressure for probably the last 12 months have very much turned the corner at the start of this calendar year, which is always a positive. I think, our strong balance sheet, our ability to increase shareholder returns, and the fact that we have a couple of key inflection points with momentum around our portfolio with the divestments and project progress, I think is important. I think that positions us well to be in a great spot to create value for our shareholders as we go forward. Finally, just to thank you for your time again today and your support.