Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today for our financial results conference call for the year ended June 30, 2021. I'm joined on the call today with our Chief Financial Officer, Katie Tovich, and our Chief Operating Officers, Jason Economidis and Mike Fraser. I'll give a brief summary before handing back to the operator for questions. Just as a reminder, there is a short video summary of FY 2021 financial results available on our website. Look, this year has been a challenging year for everyone as the impacts of COVID-19 continue to be felt globally. At South32, we've remained focused on keeping our people safe and well, maintaining safe and reliable operations, and supporting our communities. Despite these challenges, our operations have performed very well. We set three production records at Worsley Alumina, Brazil Alumina, and Australia Manganese. We also exceeded initial market guidance at South Africa Manganese, Cerro Matoso, and Cannington. It's great to see that that strong operating performance has been combined with improved commodity prices, has then translated into 153% increase in our underlying earnings. I'd also like to note the substantial progress that's been made in reshaping our portfolio with the divestment of South Africa Energy Coal and Temco, and a portfolio of non-core precious metals royalties. This greatly simplifies our business. It reduces capital intensities and will improve our margins. In terms of our growth projects and the way forward, at Hermosa, we continue to progress studies of both Taylor and Clark. At Ambler Metals, we commence the summer field season drilling program and continue to progress the study at Arctic. In May, we announced our medium-term target to half our operational carbon emissions by 2035 from our 2021 baseline, supporting our pathway to net zero by 2050. To achieve this, we'll invest in efficiency projects, shift to lower carbon energy, apply low-carbon design principles, and adopt new technologies. At the same time, we continue to increase our exposure to the base metals required for a low-carbon future. Looking ahead, we expect to see strong volumes at our base metal operations, Mozal Aluminium, Cerro Matoso, and Cannington, with improvement projects designed to increase production into favorable markets. At the same time, we continue to pursue cost and volume efficiencies to offset stronger producer currencies and cyclical inflation. We believe we are well-positioned to take advantage of improved commodity markets and continue to transition our business for the future, backed and underpinned by our strong operating performance, our high-quality growth options, and our disciplined approach to capital management. Thank you, and I'll hand back to the operator 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 then two. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. The first question today comes from Kaan Peker from Royal Bank of Canada. Please go ahead. Thanks, Graham. Morning, team. Just great to see a step up in the dividend. Wanted to focus on the buyback. Since restarting the buyback, South32's averaged roughly around $250 million a half. Given free cash flows stepping up in FY 2022, materially relative to FY 2021, why only $250 committed? Also just wondering if that's more a half-year number than a full-year number, noting that talking about September 2022 for the program? First question. Yeah. Thanks, Kaan. Look, I'll get Katie to sort of drill into some of the detail on that being the CFO. I mean, the comment I'd make is, look, what we are applying is a consistent approach to our capital management framework. We've always talked about looking at the cash when the cash is actually in the bank, not in terms of prospective cash flows. Maybe, Katie, you can unpack that a little bit more about how we think about the timing and the amounts. Yeah, sure. Thanks, Graham. Maybe just to recap, just in terms of our capital management framework. Look, once again, it's an unchanged framework, you do see our ordinary dividends starting to flex with increased earnings. That's coming through in our returns this half that we've announced. Look, the announcement today brings total returns in respect of FY 2021 to $670 million. A final dividend payout ratio of 73% of underlying earnings, total returns in respect of FY 2021 to 81% of free cash flow, including equity accounted distributions. I think really the point to reflect on is, as we've said in the past, and as Graham mentioned, look, we won't give cash back prospectively, but we do continue to reassess our excess cash balance on an ongoing basis. Obviously, our goal is to create competition for capital. Should there not be alternatives for that capital allocation, we will continue to return excess cash to our shareholders in the most efficient and timely manner. I think to your point around the volume, look, we've increased the volume by $120 million to that $252 million remaining balance, and that is indicative of what we're able to get away in terms of the on-market share buyback broadly in a half. As you've mentioned, if you look back in the last half, I think we got away something in the region of $230 million. It's about what we expect to get away in a half-year period. Sorry, I'll only be able to count. If you look at slide 16, I think that's a really good slide in the pack that actually talks about our net cash position, our adjusted net cash position, which takes into account commitments, which is pretty consistent. The other thing I'd add is it's great to actually see, internally, we're creating some competition for capital for brownfield opportunities as well. You've seen that with Serpentine, with Q&P, the furnace rebuild and now the [Usmog] project. We've seen it at AP3XLE at Mozal, and we're actually looking at AP3XLE now for Hillside, particularly when you think about when those aluminum markets are. The other opportunity potentially in that space, you would have heard Alcoa talk about potentially restarting a smelter at Alumar. That's something else we've got to consider as we go forward as well. Sure. Thank you. Just a second one, just on Worsley costs. Just wondering if you could give a bit more of a breakdown on the cost increase, and maybe some of the underlying assumptions around FX that are captured in that please. Katie, do you want to cover that one? Look, Worsley cost, if I look more broadly in terms of our cost outcomes as a group, sort of in the FY 2021 year, I think we did a great job in terms of managing costs through the year, coming in broadly in line with guidance. What you will see in our pack is we've shown the half one, half two comparisons of our cost breakdown. We have seen cost inflation coming through into the second half, which we did talk to at the half year. Worsley in particular, you'll see Worsley's cost at AUD 224 and a half. If you actually look at the Brazil Alumina second half cost are coming through at $201. If you add back the benefit of the historical tax credits that they picked up there, actually their costs are broadly in line with Worsley's at $225. I think that's indicative of the fact that we're seeing broad-based inflation across refineries globally. More specifically, that uptick from that half-year number to the higher guidance number in FY 2022, about half of that relates to caustic price increases and freight. Freight for us is a net nil outcome. Other people don't necessarily capture the freight cost in their numbers. We are seeing a fairly big hike in caustic prices, or we're expecting to see that come through. I think the other thing to note there is, certainly in terms of Worsley itself, we are moving into a new mining area. With that mining area, we are seeing a different ore type, which is resulting in higher caustic consumption into the second half and into calendar FY 2022. That is something, and unfortunately it's combining with higher caustic prices, and that is creating probably some more pressure for us into 2022. Probably at least half of that relates to caustic inflation, and it's in line with what we're seeing across the sector. I think to this point, Katie, all the time is it’s a relative game in alumina as well. If you think about our consumption, the Chinese probably sit on average somewhere between 120 kg or 130 kg per ton. Worsley is still floating around that 100-ish mark, slightly up, if you like, in 2022, around 105 number compared to where we had been previously in those different areas. It’s worth just noting, I think that’s a relative game as well. And sorry, just- Before- Question, just quickly to close out on your FX question. Look, it's not a significant impact coming through. It's probably a couple of dollars a ton. Okay. Thank you. Just before I pass you over, could you just remind us of the lag for the caustic, the rough lag for your caustic price contracts? Yeah. It's roughly priced on a quarterly basis. Thank you very much. The only one I'd close off on that one as well, Katie, slide 32, 33, while we focus specifically on Worsley, I think slide 33 in the pack was a real good example of what we've been doing to the cost base, the simplification of the group, in that there's a nice slide that talks about FY 2021 to basically FY 2021 excluding SAEC and TEMCO. You really see almost $1 billion comes off the cost base. If you look forward to FY22, you see our D&A charges will reduce by about $90 million. Our underlying net finance costs will reduce by about $42 million. You see a return to normalized tax rates. At the same time, by taking SAEC, et cetera, out of the business, you increase the margins by about 6%. While some of the cost is driven by inflation, some of it's driven by higher-priced royalties, I think the things that we can control, the teams continue to make big steps in that space. Thank you. The next question comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, Graham team. First point, great to see the dividend payout ratio above 70% and also great to see some pretty positive production guidance for FY 2022 and FY 2023. Graham, can I dig into some of the CapEx and incremental, I guess, creep or growth projects that you've outlined? Can I start with Illawarra and the step-up in CapEx to $215 million FY 2022? That's a little bit above, quite a bit above, I should say, where it's been over the past sort of five years. Can you maybe just step through what's in that number? Paul, thanks. Thanks for the question. Probably the two biggest items of sort of changing, if you like, in Illawarra, is we've always talked about going, if you like, to Obviously, we've got successfully back to that three longwall configuration at Appin. We've also talked about where we want to get to as the optimized mine plan at Appin, which would involve two longwall faces until FY 2024, and then we transition in FY 2025 to a simplified layout along the panels. As I've spoken about in the past, that brings lots of benefits around productivity, cut time, et cetera, less continuous miners, less development meters. That does require, though, is some investment in coal clearance and ventilation infrastructure at Appin, in particular, some work around the shields in terms of you moving to the new area, and also some additional bench shafts to sort of open up the ability to do that, if you like, simplified mine plan. They're probably the two single biggest drivers in that space. Okay, that's great, Graham. Moving on to Hermosa. Obviously, pretty difficult getting people on the ground up in Arizona, and just getting study work done and, obviously, with COVID on the ground there. I note your CapEx guide is at $45 million for the year, but that doesn't include a bunch of, I guess, additional expenditure, assuming, post the approval of the PFS or release of the PFS. Can you step through again just where we're at with the study work and the PFS? Yeah, look, absolutely. Paul, the first thing I would acknowledge is the challenge of the team. We only got the team back in the office for the first time, probably about six weeks ago. You can imagine trying to complete a pre-feasibility study has been incredibly difficult in that space when you're all working remotely. Particularly as we go through our own internal review process, doing that remote is also not ideal as well. I think on the positive side, you continue to see the mineral resource, sort of get greater confidence around that with the drilling we've actually put out there, particularly the updated mineral resource where we talked about the zinc equivalent grade increasing from about 7.6 to about 8.6. While there is a reduction in tonnage, and that'll actually change as we continue to work through the model. That'll come back as we sort of do some more drilling, particularly as the deposit's still open at depth and laterally. I think the other thing we gave some clear guidance around is that we do see the opportunity to actually sort of go into this and actually look at a dual shaft system. We certainly feel that allows us to actually prioritize early access to high-grade mineralization. I think the other thing we've flagged out here, and that's probably the point that you're talking about, because we've been very clear about the capital expenditure in the first half is about $45 million, but it does exclude, if you like, our expectation around the full FY 2022. The big item there is we want to finish the pre-feasibility study. My expectation is, we've talked about in the past, that we'd have to build a water treatment plant number two. That's the thing we need to finalize during the PFS study. The other piece that we'll probably look to finalize is, there is some material amounts of water. We're going to need water from the ore body. They're on the critical path around the development and approvals process. Certainly, they're the things that we'd like to iron out before the half year end and come back to the marketplace off the back when we finish the PFS study. On the positive side, Clark continues to develop well. What we've been very confident around is the technical viability of a flow sheet to produce battery grade manganese. Two alternatives, we can actually do that, Paul, but both of those have tested well. The next piece for us is working more on some of the marketing side and the end customer opportunities. Obviously, if that progresses well, as we get into the feasibility stage at Taylor, we'd look to combine both the Taylor and Clark resource models to understand the opportunities around integration. By the end of the calendar year, we'll have a greater sense on what water treatment plant number two looks like, and that dewatering, Paul, as we actually finish the PFS. Okay. Thanks, Graham. We'll wait for that. Last question from me is around the incremental growth CapEx. I think you've outlined $100 million on incremental growth costs across Worsley, Cerro Matoso, and Manganese, et cetera. Great to see the additional detail, by the way, on those projects in the presentation. We'll work through all of that. Just high level, can you maybe just give everyone a sense of what sort of IRR or returns all these sorts of projects just on average sort of generate? Yeah, I think, look, that's a really good question, Paul. I'll start by saying that, look, what is really good to see is, as you know, when we started the journey a fair while ago now, we didn't have a lot of opportunities to actually grow internally within the business because the cupboard was pretty bare and it wasn't really a focus. I think now you've obviously seen things like AP3XLE at Mozal, which allows us to increase production by 5% by 2024. You've actually seen AP3XLE also going through the same study phase now at Hillside. We expect to finish that in the last six months. I think the standout story for us has really been around the work that's occurred at Cerro Matoso. Some of those projects, I think, really talk about the benefits of, if you like, a brownfields opportunity versus greenfields. In particular, on slide 38, we spoke a little bit about Q&P, which is a satellite deposit north of the current Cerro Matoso plant. Obviously, that has a very low CapEx around $13 million and has a very high IRR. You see something similar as we actually move into the next phase of development there, which is really around the concentration plant, or as we call it, the OSMOC or the Ore Sorting Mechanical Concentration project. That really replaces the current upgrading circuit and allows us sort of a 50% increase in processing capacity. They're both really high IRR projects in excess of 100%. The other projects, we'll sort of weigh them up as they individually go through the toll gating process. Maybe as the chair of the IC, Katie, you can talk a little bit about how you think about those opportunities. Thanks, Graham. Probably just two comments to add to that. In terms of the USD flowing through that improvement and life extension bucket, we do expect that to sit around that $100 million mark over the next two years as we move forward. We do have decarb CapEx also in those numbers, albeit relatively low volumes, for the next two years as we work through study phases on the various projects, including the mud washing projects and some of the energy efficiency projects across the group. As Graham mentioned, I think in terms of our goal here, it's about competition for capital. We're allocating capital predominantly towards our base metals and ally value chain businesses, and looking to ultimately drive production growth and production creep across that group of businesses. I think Cannington's probably one also to call out in terms of the transition to trucking and the longer-term outlook there, and the medium-term targets there. I think, look, ultimately, Paul, it's about generating that competition, allocating capital wisely in that space and really looking for those productivity improvements across the group. Life extension, there's probably some worth calling out, Eastern Leases and Worsley North also captured in their early phases of study. They will come through over the next three, four years in terms of you'll start to see some more information around what CapEx looks like for those projects over the medium term. MRN is probably the other thing that's still on the radar in that window. We'll continue to work with our partners around options in terms of life extension for MRN as well. I think, Katie, the vehicles around the Cannington trucking study, low CapEx, high return, Q&P, OSMOC. They're the kind of things that we're really trying to eke out of the portfolio, Paul. I think those ones such as the new mining areas at Worsley and DND Adapt. Obviously, as we get more detail around the PFS, that's what we'll outline in more detail. Yeah. Understood. I'll work through it all. Thank you, Graham. Thanks, Katie. Thank you. The next question comes from Lyndon Fagan from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. The first one is just to focus a bit on the rehab charges. Can you maybe walk through what's driving such a high charge at Worsley? I did see the discount rates come down, but can we maybe flesh that out a little bit? Katie, do you want to take that one? Yeah, happy to do that. Look, we did at the half year in December, is probably where the bulk of that movement came through. Certainly, at the half year, as part of our annual discount rate review process, we did make an amendment to our discount rate, which did flow through into increased provisions. Provisions were up $875 million from June 20 to December 30. That's where you see the large bulk of the movement. The other thing that came through at the half year was also a considerable uptick in terms of FX impact. What we're seeing now from the half through to June 30 is an uptick ex AE of about $113 million. The bulk of that does relate to Worsley, and it really relates to mine life adjustments and cost adjustments at the back end as we've reviewed our rehab provision. Okay, thanks. The next question is just on the Dendrobium extension project. Can you maybe provide an update on the latest thinking for Illawarra and what degree of certainty there is now on any kind of project proceeding? Yeah, look, Lyndon, good question. We tried to put a slide in the pack to actually address that. If you focus on slide 44, I'll probably use that as a reference point. As we've spoken about in the past, there have been a couple of developments over the last six months, in particular, since we had the refusal by the IPC. 1 of those is we're going through additional review of the IPC decision at the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. As that progresses, that's something we think we need to do because we didn't agree with some of the findings of the IPC. If that's successful, that's more than likely to kick you back into having. The second thing that obviously was around the state legislative council passing, requesting that any future developments of DND be declared a State Significant Infrastructure. That really gives the minister, once we finish looking at a Dendrobium Adapt project, to actually look at the project and run it through its own kind of approval process. What we outlined on slide 44 is there's three options that exist. One is to go with the original DND mine plan, and that would be based on being successful at the judicial review, and that would mean you'd have minimal changes potentially to that plan, and we outline the CapEx or timeframe on that. The second one, which I think is probably more likely than anything, is the DND Adapt process. The DND Adapt is really taking the original Dendrobium Next Domain plan and saying, "Okay, if we listen, while we don't agree with some of the findings of the IPC, how can we actually adjust the mine plan that sort of deals with lots of those issues, and allows the minister to be in a position to say that, 'Look, we've responded to some of the concerns'?" That results in a mine plan that is slightly different. Its focus is much more on high-quality coal. Probably has less land disturbance. It's further away from water tributaries, et cetera. We're doing that mine plan at the moment. We expect the PFS and feasibility study to be completed towards the back end of this calendar year. That allows us to actually talk to the minister. Obviously, if the DND Adapt numbers don't stack up economically or we get kicked into an IPC process after a successful judicial review, the other option we've got is to actually have a look at an Appin. That's the other exercise that the team is working on. How do we change the cost base? How do we look at the productivity to make Appin a potential option? Part of the reason we took the impairment is the uncertainty around Dendrobium Next Domain and what does it actually look like. Certainly, the team's working hard to finalize the feasibility study on DND Adapt, we'd be looking to talk to the minister. Thanks, Graham. Just a final one, just more broadly on the portfolio. Obviously, growth is a focus. I am wondering whether you would ever consider a lithium asset in the portfolio. I think we've always talked about, we've got a bias to base metals. We like the bias to base metals because we think in a low-carbon future, that makes sense. Lithium is obviously a commodity we've talked about internally a lot over the journey. The view we'd have today is it's priced reasonably well. If you could get the right asset which sat in the right position in the cost curve, you might think about it, I think it's probably hard to get that at the current price today. I'd never say never, I'd also say it's not the commodity we're knocking down the door to get into. Thanks very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, Graham and Katie. Thanks for the opportunity. Can I perhaps start with a capital allocation question? Perhaps ask the question a different way. SAC is out of the group now, and I was hoping that we'd be able to see a target net debt range being provided. How should we think about that going forward? I'll come back with you after that. Thanks. Okay. Why don't you take that one first, Katie? Yeah, sure. Look, I think probably the best way to talk through that is what we've said is the right balance sheet for us is one that enables us to maintain investment-grade credit rating through the cycle. That's based on our view of our portfolio, our forward earnings and our low profile, and our capital profile going forward. What the capital management decision today has done is brought us to a net debt position around about $150 million. Which right now, as I said, based on our current portfolio, and our forward profile of CapEx, we believe is the right starting position for us at this stage to ensure we can maintain that investment-grade credit rating through the cycle. I think going back to, I guess, the point in terms of generating excess cash, we will continue to reassess our balance sheet for excess cash. As we have done in the past, we will continue to look to return that excess cash to shareholders in the most efficient and timely manner possible. Okay. Thanks for that. Perhaps a couple for Graham then. In terms of the Worsley Alumina costs, I just wanted to understand how long should we expect for you to stay in those low-grade zones? That's the first one. Perhaps the second one for you, Graham, was around the caustic consumption that you talked about. In terms of China being 120-130 kg per ton versus Worsley at 100. In terms of Shandong, which uses the Guinean bauxite, do you have any stats around what they might be using per ton? Yeah. Maybe I'll let Katie answer the cost one first because she's an ex-CFO down at Worsley as well, so she knows that internally. Why don't you do that one first, Katie, then I'll do the second one. Yeah. I think in terms of how long we're in that zone, I think it's an area that we're going to be in for some time. We're going to need to look at opportunities to further optimize our cost outcomes to help mitigate some of those increased consumption rates over the next couple of years. Hang on for one sec. Sorry. Look, with regards to the bauxite coming out of Guinea, I guess what I'd start with first and foremost is, that's certainly a trend that we've actually seen continue as you've seen China actually continue to basically import bauxite coming out of Guinea or other places and do the heavy lifting, do the processing in China. We don't expect that to actually change. Obviously, there's not only the cost of mining, there's the cost of transportation actually getting it there. Certainly, when we think about our long-term price around alumina, it's very much informed, if you like, about what we expect to see continue to happening. We expect probably two things to continue to happen is, one, that we do expect to actually see that China continues to basically import material out of Guinea in terms of bauxite and doing the refining on the coast in China. We also expect to actually see Indonesia do the refining and potentially they'll do the refining actually in Indonesia and maybe the smelting, but more than likely send the smelting back to China as well. That's actually built into our numbers when we actually think about it. In terms of the reactive silica levels, I think they're more comparable to what we see in Worsley, but that's something I'll probably chase it up a little bit with the team and circle back to you. I don't know, Alex, if you're on the line and you can recall by any chance? No, Alex is not in the room. Oh, okay. Okay. No, I can get a follow-up on that. That'd be great. All right. Final question from me was just around the working capital release. We saw about $170 million released this period. Just wanted to quickly follow up and see, are we at normalized levels now, Katie? Or do we expect some of that to go back into the business, going forward? Yeah, look, I think probably the best way to answer that is that price and FX at these levels are going to be the key drivers of working cap for us as we go forward. Certainly in terms of debtor days, they're broadly normalized. In terms of our inventory pipeline, that's also comfortably within our operating window now. I think really price and FX are going to be key variables. Probably one thing to call out, though, we will see an unwind of the Hillside accrual for energy from FY 2021. It's almost $90 million. It unwinds over two years, in monthly increments from August of this year. You will see that unwind, going forward. Okay, perfect. That's very helpful. I'll pass it on. Thank you. The next question comes from Paul McTaggart from Citigroup. Please go ahead. Morning. Maybe could we just circle back to DND Adapt for a moment, because you said it might be the most likely outcome. In terms of tonnage, you've sort of got broadly the same tonnage as the original plan, if not marginally higher. You'd have to be steering clear of some of the reserves that you're going to mine in the original plan. How should we think about mine life under the Adapt model compared to the original plan? I think that's one of the opportunities that we continue to work through, Paul. As I mentioned before, that actually is in the feasibility study at the moment. It certainly does target higher-grade material than what we had in the original DND mine plan. It concentrates on the higher-grade material and leaves some of that lower-grade material behind. As a consequence, you get a better product coming out. I think the thing we're still working through at the moment is what does the unit cost look like in terms of panel sizes, length of long walls and productivity rates. That's the other piece we're working on at the moment. When you look at this problem in the face here, and it's part of the reason I said DND Adapt is probably the more sensible case. The more we've actually worked through that, the more DND Adapt looks probably better than the original DND project. Again, we have not finished the study around that piece yet. The less tonnes you disturb overall, higher quality tonnes. What we haven't quite worked out yet is the optimal size of the long walls, the mine productivity rate that runs from that. Okay. Thanks, Graham. Thank you. The next question comes from Matthew Hope from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hi. Yeah, thanks for taking the question. Just wanted to focus a little more on aluminum and just to start with on Hillside. Just wondering what the cost would be to implement that AP3XLE, and what benefits would have that for efficiency. What would we see out of that? Probably a little bit of a difference, I guess, between the AP3XLE that we'd actually put in at Hillside versus Mozal. For Hillside, as we actually look at that project, it's probably far more around energy efficiencies rather than actually production increase. The project itself is subject to final investment decision towards the back end of this calendar year. We'll actually look to run a 20-pot trial to conclude in January 2022 with an execution start in FY 2023. Again, probably similar to what we saw at Mozal. We haven't given the exact number yet, you're not talking about a magnitude of CapEx in that space. There's obviously the money that you spend around relining the pots. There's a license fee around the technology, you're not talking about vast amounts of capital. Okay. Thanks. Quickly to add to that. If you look at Mozal was around about $18 million to roll out. That will give you a bit of perspective. Hillside's just marginally more than that given size. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. You talked about pot lining at Hillside. Was that to be higher next year? Is that part of this project? Certainly there's some red line going into a trial of the pots, but there's naturally a sequence of how we line the pots as well, where you do see some natural variation up and down, just depending on the life. Right. Secondly, I just wanted to look at the CO2 issue. Obviously, you want to cut by half through to 2035, and I guess that really is all about the aluminum dropping because that's how much of your portfolio. Now, what confidence do you have that you can actually hit that target given you're really dependent on Eskom? Is there anything you could do, or South32 could do yourselves to actually help in reduction of CO2 emissions from South Africa? Yeah. Look, I think maybe I'll get Mike Fraser to answer the specific question, because we've got a project called Green Shoots at Hillside Aluminium in a second. Maybe if we take a step back, and if we look at where we are in our portfolio and what our carbon emissions profile looks like, I think we have a pretty good slide that sort of talked about some of the projects we're working on slide eight of the pack. Obviously, it's not just around Hillside Aluminium. There's some things that we'll do around Hillside Aluminium with the energy efficiency, then there'll be some things where we've got to work with partners outside the fence. I'll get Mike Fraser to talk about Hillside Aluminium, but some of the things that we're driving across the rest of the business, obviously, is at Worsley, we're looking at mud washing. We're also looking at a change in energy supply there to go from actually coal to gas and ultimately to another greener form such as hydrogen. We're also, if you like, doing some work around Illawarra, in particular our efficiency around drainage, and also, if you like, working with CSIRO on some technology to basically take out the ventilation methane. There's a number of fronts we're working on, but you are right, the big one we have to make some progress on is around Hillside. Maybe, Mike, you can talk about some of the work Eskom and the government are doing, and then some of the work we're doing on Green Shoots. Thanks, Graham, and thanks for the question. Look, one of the things that's really helped us with Hillside is securing the 10-year extension of the power contract from Eskom, because what we do believe is it just gives us time to actually study and explore what that transition will look like. As Graham has said, I think it's coming from multiple fronts. First and foremost, Eskom is driving a renewable strategy of their own, which will see a reduction in the carbon intensity of the grid emissions, which will be helpful, and we should see some of those benefits emerging over the next decade. If we truly want to deliver a zero-carbon product, we're going to have to move a lot faster than probably what Eskom can move. We're addressing it in a number of fronts. Firstly, on the Scope 1 emissions, looking at opportunities and as technology advances, how can we improve the Scope 1 emissions profile of the asset? The biggest by far is the Scope 2 emissions, which needs to be addressed. We have got initiated a project. We're in pre-feasibility on that project, looking at a number of options that could be available. We believe on a model basis, that there is a technically feasible solution that can be achieved, using a combination of solar PV, wind, as well as modulation technologies for the smelter, and that would give us the ability to moderate what is still not available. I think there's a couple of things that we have to work through there, in particular, given our significant proportion of the grid that we make use of, is how do we work with Eskom on that transition? We do realize that we will both still need each other, both on a backup power as well as from an Eskom point of view in terms of the load shedding that they utilize us for to stabilize the grid. Obviously, there's a significant deregulation that needs to take place. There's already been a lift in the self-generation to 100 MW for a smelter that uses 1,205 MW of continuous power. This is a significant transition that would be required. At a conceptual level, we believe it can be delivered. It's just going to require a significant amount of work on the deregulation to enable that and then the partnership with the primary generator to make this work. From a high-level technical and economic perspective, we believe over the next decade this will be achievable. It is a big project to deliver. I think the key point is it's not around the technical aspect. Certainly, there are some challenges, and technology continues to develop quickly over the next 10 years. It's our ability to influence government policy. We have seen some of those shifts already where the government sort of surprised on the upside about giving people the capability to do self-generation, which wasn't what we expected to see. They came back with a much higher limit than people expected. I think the other piece would be even this week you've seen André de Ruyter, who's the CEO of Eskom, talking about how they plan to green the network. We need to continue to help them actually do that. As Mike says, we're very joined at the hip around this. To be very clear, 10 years of a power contract gives us time to do that. We need to have a green power contract going forward because Hillside is roughly 89% of our Scope 2 emissions. Right. Thanks. Just one follow-up on that. Of course, obviously we've seen the proposed CO2 border tax equalization in Europe. If that comes in around 2024, how would that impact Hillside, do you believe? To be perfectly honest, when the teams have done the work around that and had a look at it, and sort of not just across aluminium, but all our commodities. I guess the broad overview, that's more symbolic than impactful in the short term, mainly driven by the fact that it's a gradual implementation which is phased in from calendar year 2026 to 2035. If you think about our 10-year power block, it fits in with the time that we need to get things actually right. Certainly, if you think about the impact on aluminium price, it is limited due to global average direct emissions of 10 years, about 2 tons of CO2 per ton of aluminium. We think that's something that we can manage over that timeframe. We don't think it's going to have a huge impact on us. Okay. Thanks. Probably one thing that I'd just jump in and add there is, if you think about Hillside, about 30% of Hillside's volume is domestic as well, in terms of market. Mozal having hydropower access, and delivering into Europe, is well-placed. Sure. Thanks very much. I'll pass it over. Thank you. At this time, we're showing no further questions. I'll hand the conference back to Mr. Kerr. Thank you. Look, thanks, everyone, for your time today. Maybe just a couple of really quick messages to sort of wrap it up, and obviously, if you've got any follow-up, reach out to the IR team. Key messages are our operations are performing strongly, and I think we are positioned to take advantage of strong commodity markets. We've really seen that in the second half of this year. If you look at spot compared to the second half of the years gone, they're even stronger. We do continue to reshape our portfolio for a low-carbon future by exiting those low-returning operations and investing in base metals for the future. The important thing, we've talked about it a fair bit, but our approach to capital management remains unchanged, and it's working as we intended to work. We're rewarding our shareholders as financial performance improves, and we're consistently applying that. Look, thanks for your time today, and stay safe and stay well.