Thank you, and good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. On the call with me is our Chief Financial Officer, Sandy Sibenaler, our two COOs, Jason Economidis and Noel Pillay. I'll give a short summary of our results before handing back to the operator for questions. Before I go into detail about our results, I'd like to talk about safety. Nothing is more important than the health, safety, and well-being of our people. Tragically, two of our colleagues, Tonela and Alfredo, lost their lives in a fatal incident at Mozal Aluminium in November. Our deepest sympathies remain with their families and colleagues. In response to the incident, we continued our work to fundamentally shift our safety performance and implement our multi-year safety improvement program. Turning now to our FY 2022 results. Our teams delivered strong production results during the year, achieving annual production records at Hillside Aluminium, Australia Manganese, and South African Manganese. We also embedded our recent portfolio improvements in copper and low-carbon aluminum, key metals needed for a low-carbon future. This underpinned strong growth in aluminum, up 14%, base metals up 17%, and manganese up 4%. This growth, coupled with our focus on cost efficiencies, has resulted in one of our largest underlying financial results to date, with underlying EBITDA of $2.53 billion, despite a challenging backdrop of declining commodity prices and industry-wide inflationary pressures. A record $1.2 billion was returned to shareholders during the year, equivalent to 11% of our market capitalization. Today, we have announced a fully franked ordinary dividend of $140 million, or $0.032 per share, in respect of the June 2023 half year. We have also increased our flexible capital management program by $50 million to $2.4 billion, leaving $133 million to be returned by the first of March 2024. Looking ahead, the improvements we have made to our portfolio are expected to deliver further growth in commodities, critical for a low-carbon future. With low-carbon aluminum production expected to increase by 12% in the financial year 2024, as Brazil Aluminium continues to ramp up, and we increase volumes at Mozal Aluminium. Sierra Gorda is expecting projects to increase future copper production, with the plant debottlenecking project underway, and a final investment decision for the fourth grinding line expansion expected in the second half of the 2024 financial year. We also continue to advance our portfolio of high-quality growth options to further increase our exposure to attractive markets. Our Hermosa project in Arizona presents a significant opportunity to sustainably produce commodities for a low-carbon future from multiple deposits, for multiple decades, with Hermosa recognized as the first mining project to be added to the FAST-41 process in the United States. At the Taylor zinc-lead-silver deposit, we're on track to make a planned final investment decision towards the end of this calendar year, and separately, we confirm the opportunity to produce battery-grade manganese at Hermosa's Clark deposit, and have signed multiple MOUs with potential customers for future potential supply to North American markets. We also continue to unlock value from Hermosa's highly prospective land package, recently returning our best copper results to date at Peak. We are continuing to invest in greenfield exploration options to discover our next generation of base metal mines. During the year, we consolidated our position in Argentina's highly prospective San Juan region, exercising our earning right to acquire a 50.1% interest in the Chita Valley copper prospect, and acquiring strategic interests in Aldebaran Resources. In closing, we continue to prioritize a strong balance sheet to fund our growth into structurally attractive markets, while retaining our disciplined approach to capital allocation. The outlook is positive as we continue to execute our strategy, and our portfolio is leveraged to the increasing commodity demand required for the global energy transition. Thank you, and I will now 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 two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Rahul Anand with Morgan Stanley, Australia. Please go ahead. Hi, morning. Thanks for the opportunity. Look, I first wanted to start with perhaps the industrial action that's been talked about re Appin. Now, just wanted to get you a bit more color because we've seen some numbers around the increase that's been offered around 6.5%. But the strike seems to be still going ahead. I wanted to understand, in terms of your production guidance for this year, what type of an impact have you already accounted for? And is there any further risk that we should be aware of for this year? That's the first one. Yeah, Rahul, look, thanks for the question. I probably think more pressing, as you would assume, we did talk about at Longwall 19A. We are expecting to see some production impact there by actually having a longer outage, as we actually do the Longwall move, driven by the regulators looking for an increased setback on Swamp 15A, which has moved from about 61 meters to 120 meters. As you would be aware, you know, Illawarra has had a strong unionized workforce for a long period of time, which we've worked very closely with. We do have one EBA, which you said is currently under discussion. We think when you look at what we've put on the table, it is a very fair and attractive offer for the region. We'll continue to work with the unions, as we always do. At this stage, we don't expect to see any material production impact. We'll continue the dialogue and keep moving forward. Okay. Just to reconfirm, at this point in time, the strike is not part of the production guidance. Is that the right way to look at it? The way I think about it, the roles that we're talking about are essentially not widespread across the business. Yeah. At the moment, we can safely, absolutely run the production as we have. There might be some impacts as we sort of move into the development phase, and we sort of control some of that work, but nothing material at this stage. Okay. Thank you for that. That's clear. And look, the second one, perhaps speaking to the cost angle, I just wanted to touch upon Worsley. Admittedly, I was expecting a bit more cost out to come through in terms of the input costs coming down, and we've seen some of those positive impacts start to show for some other peers in the industry. Now, obviously, you're facing a fair bit of labor inflation as well, in the part of the world that you operate in. I just wanted to get a bit more color on how you're seeing some of those impacts, and how we should think about them in terms of, you know, moving forward in terms of labor costs specifically, and then you've also talked about energy. If there's any initiatives you can take, for a bit of cost out there? Yeah, so look, maybe a good question, and obviously we have some competitors in this space. I think one thing to sort of understand is what we include in our unit cost is slightly different. So we do include the marketing and the royalty- In our unit cost, so that's probably a bit different to some of our competitors down south. Probably the single biggest driver at the moment will be caustic and the impact that that actually has. If you look at our go-forward pricing at the moment, based on the budget, you know, we're using roughly about a $600 a ton caustic assumption. The spot at the moment is probably trading more around the $400-ish mark. So there is potentially some costs that will come out of the business, and obviously the other one to watch is exchange. We are in the process of converting the first boiler from essentially coal to gas. That is included in our plans at the moment, but caustic would be the biggest one to continue to watch how that performs. Understood. Okay, look, that's my two. Thank you. I'll pass it on. Thanks, Rahul. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Redfern with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, Graham and Sandy. I hope you're well. My first question is on copper, please. So, so copper accounted for about 7% of revenues in FY 2023, and like most other mining companies, South32 wants more copper. The media's speculated that South32 is interested in Khoemacau in Botswana. Just wondering, how does South32 think about the Kalahari Copper Belt as a jurisdiction for copper investment? That's my first one. Thank you. Yeah, so maybe a couple of comments is there. One, obviously, we have strong operating experience in Southern Africa or that part of the world, so you know, we're not sort of fazed. I think in all these things, when we look at options for the group, we've been very clear we have a bias towards the base metals, because we think they are important as the world decarbonizes. I think, you know, when we did the acquisition of Sierra Gorda, we've been very pleased with that acquisition. You continue to see improvements in the debottlenecking. You also will see the Fourth Grinding Line, and we've actually increased the resource, and we think there's more exploration potential to add to that over time. So we will look at other copper options at the moment, but we're very focused on value. And from what I've seen, that's probably a very competitive process and one that'll be a little bit too rich for our blood, to be honest. Yeah, thanks. I, we tend to agree, just given the amount of interest in that asset. Turning to manganese, around 90% of manganese in demand is from the steel industry. And I know South32 is excited about the growth of battery-grade manganese as an end market. I'm just wondering, is that enough to make manganese core for South32, or do you think that we could see manganese, I guess, divested in time to focus more on base metals? Thanks. So look, I mean, I would start with the position that we exist to create value for shareholders, so everything's for sale at the right price. That's where I'd start with. We've always called out the manganese as quite a different product versus iron or met coal, in terms of as you recycle steel, you will need to actually add manganese back into the process, so you can't actually thrift on the units. At the moment, as you quite rightly point out, the markets are tight, particularly with not a lot of real estate development work happening in China, and also a large build up, if you like, of alloy products. We do actually see growth in the actual manganese battery space over time. Clark in particular, we think is uniquely positioned in terms of location. It'll be the only real close to ready-go project in the U.S. that can meet domestic demand. And already, as you think about people moving away from those NCM622 batteries, where you use about 17% manganese, to the new ones that are being looked at, they're probably closer to 60%-70%, depending on which path to go down. So we do see potential for both the manganese battery area to develop. I guess, from our perspective, location is probably key in this, and this is where we think Clark being located in Arizona, in the U.S., is really well positioned. To give you a sense, if you think about manganese demand long term, so I'm talking about, let's say, calendar year 2030, you know, depending on how the uptake goes, we probably have a midpoint of about 600,000 tons of demand, but the range could be as high as 1.8 million tons. Of which we probably see North American demand somewhere between 144,000-270,000 tons, and that's why we really like the location of Clark. You know, one of the opportunities that come to Clark as well, is that it actually will leverage off some of the infrastructure that's been put in place at the moment at Taylor, particularly around the dewatering, which is access, power lines, etc. The key for us, as we've spoken about, is to actually get enough of a bulk sample to give enough product to basically our customers, so they can help develop exactly what they're looking for. And in that space, we've got three MAUs already in place. So now, for us, it's about getting that bulk sample out and trying to grow the business. You know, we do believe you could have a mine life there of 70+ years if this can actually sort of be successful. There's a lot of work still to be done on it, but from that perspective, you know, we do believe manganese, both in steelmaking and in the battery space, has a role to play. Perfect. Thanks, Graham. Appreciate the color. The next question comes from Kaan Peker with RBC. Please go ahead. Good morning, Graham, Sandy, and team. Yeah, two from me. Just thanks for the maiden FY25 guidance. Just looking at Sierra Gorda, the production guidance there and, and that flag copper grade. Can you maybe give an indication if Sierra Gorda is meant to hit nameplate by then, or is, is it just on recoveries that you know sort of expecting in the 70s in terms of copper production? Thanks. Yeah. So there's probably a number of items going on there. One is the copper grade is slightly lower for the next two years as we actually walk into the shoulders of the ore body, so there is actually some impact that comes through there. To give you a sense, the copper grade in 2023 was about 0.42. It's about 0.38 in 2024. As we sort of get out of those shoulders of the ore body and back to the central parts, you're probably getting back to those numbers around 0.42-0.46, and probably think about an average after that of about 0.45, at least out to FY 2041. So from that side, you have the grade benefits. You do actually see the results, the bottlenecking starting to come through. We're targeting from the debottlenecking project to actually get a target of somewhere around 48 million-49 million tons. We achieved that on an annualized basis in quarter four this year, so we would expect FY 2024, with a target of 48.5 million tons, to actually deliver on the debottlenecking. That is the key enabler for the fourth grinding line, and that'll be the piece that we sort of look to sort of complete the feasibility study on that in the second half of this year. Typically, in that, you'd probably see around a three year construction phase, and if you look at similar kind of projects, you're probably looking about 100% in terms of capital build around $500 million, which we believe would sort of lift the production up from that 48 million-49 million tons per annum to about 57million-58 million tons per annum. Sure. Thanks, very detailed. And, the second one, more on the aluminum costs. I know guidance wasn't provided, but so if you strip out energy and alumina, you know, the other inputs, such as pitch and, I mean, what are sort of the expectations over the course of the year? Yeah, look, absolutely. I mean, first of all, I would call out that Mozal, obviously, we had some impacts from the fatalities we had in November, that sort of particularly played into the Q3 of last year, but they were back to full production and quality in the Q4 of the year just finished. But I think Hillside, I'd call out Calvin and the team for an outstanding job, when we've had record load shedding events, and other issues going on around us, of which they, I think they've done a great job. To your point, you know, clearly the inputs that go into the smelter are a big component of the cost base. If you think about the, you know, second half of FY 2022, if you look at the smelter costs, so coke, pitch, HF, alumina, as a percentage of aluminum, you know, that was about 37% in H2 FY 2022. First half of 2023, it was about 43%. Second half of 2023, it was about 44%. So what are we seeing at the moment? You know, we are seeing alumina prices slowly creep up when you talk about the 2024 estimate, and we're seeing the pitch and the coke price starting to come down. So, for example, the average pitch price in 2023 was about $1,162 a ton. Spot on the eighteenth of August was about $1,000. Coke was about $683 as an average for 2023. You know, spot is now about $540. We are seeing that downward pressure on those items. Cool. Thank you very much. I'll pass it on. The next question comes from Lyndon Fagan with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Thanks, and good morning, Graham. My first question is just on a bit of a comp between Worsley and Alumar. There's around about an $80 a ton unit cost difference. Obviously, there were some operating issues at Alumar during the period, but I'm wondering if you can help me bridge the gap on what is driving that spread, and where maybe Alumar is in the long term relative to, say, Worsley, just to recalibrate. Thanks. Yeah, so you will see as years go by that those differentials sort of bounce up and down a little bit. Probably the two biggest drivers in FY 2023 that made Brazil more expensive, one is you've actually got a higher bauxite cost about the way it actually buys bauxite into that operation from MRN. The second piece is, caustic has actually been high in price, but also at the moment, we're probably in a higher consumption area. So consumption's about 94 kilograms per ton in Brazil. As you move into the next mining year in FY 2024, that probably gets closer to the 70, 80-ish to 80 mark, so you will see some coming off there. If you talk about the caustic costs in the U.S. or the U.S. Gulf, you've probably been running at an average in 2023 of $766 a ton. Spot is about $465 at the moment. The other one is obviously in FY 2023, that we had higher energy costs 'cause the smelter's actually tied to a coal-linked energy contract. Thanks for that. So, is it possible to sort of hone in on maybe in a more normalized environment, whether you'd expect or how much of a spread you'd expect between the two assets, or is it just too hard to put a number on? I think there's different drivers around bauxite, you know, where you buy your caustic from. But if I was gonna have a guide for next year, it's probably within ±$10, it would be around that mark. Now, we're not the operator, but that's the way we sort of think about the cost for next year. All right. Okay, thanks for that. The other one is, in the commentary, it alludes to the bauxite permitting at Worsley being delayed. Obviously, we've got a bit of a shemozzle for, for the other operator in the, region. I'm just wondering how you avoid that situation, and, are you seeing any risks here to bauxite permitting? Clearly, you're nowhere near the water catchment, as you said on one of the other calls, but it. Yeah, just interested on some color there. Thanks. Yeah, so maybe we'll comment a little bit about where we are and the difference between ourselves and Alcoa. Obviously, they'll talk about their situation better than we will. You know, we have submitted a final environment review document for the Worsley mine development in January 2022. As part of that, we're looking to actually get approved in the larger area, an additional clearance, which gives us a 15-year mine life. We've responded to, if you like, all the submissions that sort of came out of the public review process, and we would expect to get final regulatory approvals in the first half of FY25. At this stage, we haven't seen that we're gonna have any issues around the bauxite supply space, and we have a little bit of a buffer if there are some issues, to be clear. And the other one, to sort of be very clear on, is our long-term approval process is different to Alcoa's current situation. You know, we are not close to any sensitive water areas. In fact, we're about 15 kilometers plus away, so we have a very different approval process. Outside of that, they're probably best to give you some guidance on where they're at. But very different process, and we don't see any challenges in the short term. Good to hear. I might just sneak a quick one in, lastly. On Cerro, with the effective tax rate now at 50%-60%, I mean, can you justify any investment to expand or look at some sort of optionality of the asset, or is it sort of just too hard now from a regime, fiscal regime point of view? Well, obviously, the changes that occurred, occurred in January, we think are very disappointing for the industry. I mean, the country's political situation at the moment is a little bit of up and down. So how long that lasts, well, we'll wait and see. We did actually trigger with the Osmak project, which had a very clear and defined payback, an automatic 15-year life extension. I think the challenge for Cerro Matoso is the sweet spot around nickel production is probably around that 40-42,000 tons a year, and we have some grade dropping off when you look at our future guidance, as we sort of think about the year FY 2025 and out. We also have an FY 2036. We actually have a major furnace rebuild coming as well. I think your comment around justifying further expenditure, we have had some inquiries around what can we do to convert the Class 2 to Class 1-type nickel, particularly if you think about the relationship between Colombia and the U.S. We have historically done some heap leaching work at Cerro Matoso, which obviously is low energy, low costs. That's something we'll have a look at. We'll get that work out and redo some of that work, so you wouldn't see it as a large capital investment. We certainly wouldn't see it as a large carbon intensive. But what I would say to Ricardo on the team at Cerro, if you think back to when we started the demerger, we've had various projects like Esmeralda, then we've actually had the Osmok process. The team have done a really good job of finding ways to create value, so we're not finished, if you like, in what we think we can be done yet, but we're certainly not looking to put large amounts of capital into Cerro Matoso with the current tax structure. Thanks for that. I'll pass it on. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw with UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning, Graham. So a couple from me. So just on the working capital, appears to have stabilized. Can you talk to the movements in the second half and expectations for FY24, please? Yeah, sure, Lachlan. I'll give that one to Sandy. She's itching and raring to go. Sure. So we did see an inventory build in the period with the Brazil Aluminium restart, along with Mozal temporary impact. We don't really anticipate seeing a significant move on these, in terms of Brazil Aluminium component at least. And Mozal, we should see start to clear out in the Q1 of the FY24 year. Okay, great. That's helpful. And then just on IMC, so a couple ones, a couple small ones, hopefully. So just on the BlueScope contract and the work around Dendrobium ton, possibly fulfilling there, what's the update? And then secondly, you know, has the thinking changed around how this asset fits in the portfolio that's tilting more and more towards future-facing commodities? Thank you. Yeah. So we use the word bias to base metals for a particular reason. We do see a difference between met coal and thermal coal. You know, met coal today, there is no replacement for met coal. The world is gonna need high-quality coking met coal, which gets produced out of Illawarra. You know, we're very comfortable with the mine plan that we have for Dendrobium now, after making the decision not to actually invest in Dendrobium in the next domain. And certainly happens a much longer, you know, timeframe that we have to it by 38, 39, depending on how we develop some of the options there. So from our perspective, you know, it's paid its way in the portfolio. We have used some of that, obviously, cash generation when we saw the high prices over the last 18 months to actually, you know, finalize our purchase of Sierra Gorda and get more exposure to base metals, in particular, copper. Where we sit today with BlueScope is, you know, we have a contract that's been in place for a very long period of time, even before the demerger of South32 from BHP. We have a good relationship with BlueScope. We constantly talk to them about the updated mine plans. You know, they have a very good understanding of what we look like in terms of what we can deliver. And it's a good open dialogue, and we don't foresee any major issues in that space. Your next question comes from Paul McTaggart with Citi Group. Please go ahead. Morning, all. So, you know, you operate in a number of jurisdictions, so maybe could you just give us a sense of how you see wage inflation pressures across those various jurisdictions? If I could, maybe you could give me a sense, too, on how you see explosives prices at the moment, and whether there's a variation across jurisdictions? Yeah. So maybe if we tackle those piece by piece. If we talk about labor costs, I mean, clearly an area of high inflation has been in Australia. You know, that is something we've seen in terms of competition for roles. It kind of feels like in some of the functional support roles, that is easing a fair bit at the moment, but probably too early to say. You know, obviously, we've got a relatively high level of inflation across about 4.5%-5% across the Australian region at the moment. If we think about the U.S., the U.S., where obviously we've got the most of project coming along, specific roles around electrical work and some specialized roles have actually increased quite substantially, but on average, still cheaper than what it would be to operate in Australia. Probably not seeing huge wage pressure outside underlying inflation in Southern Africa at the moment. And probably similar, if you think about what's going on in, in Colombia and Chile at the moment. There are some increases, if you like, I mean, wages, but probably not huge in the scheme of things. I don't know, Sandy, would you add anything different to that? No, I'd agree with that. And look, I think we've really maintained on all of our union agreements, positions that are within or below inflation across the board, so really maintaining our position in the market. But just on Chile, so obviously BHP, I mean, they call out, you know, wage inflation in line with CPI, which has been 17%, now 12%. Do your wage agreements for Sierra Gorda, are you locked into that level of inflation? We didn't see that level of inflation as we went through our most recent union agreement, so we were substantially lower than that number. Great. Your question. Yeah, look, explosives for us, I mean, obviously, we don't have the same exposure as you would see for a large operation like Escondida or what the guys see in the Pilbara, in iron ore. So don't probably have the top of my head, but Ben can chase it down, but it's probably a material number for us. Cool. Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Morning, Graham, Sandy. Graham, can I just get you to be a little bit more direct? I mean, Illawarra, I mean, I know you say you appreciate, you know, South32 exists to create value for shareholders, but is Illawarra on the block? Glyn, I think we probably get asked this question every time we do results, and I guess the answer remains the same. Everything's for sale at the right price, no matter what the asset is. Are we actively out there running a process on Illawarra? No. Do we think met coal still has a role to play for the next 20 years? Absolutely. That's probably as clear as we can be, if that's helpful. Yeah, no worries, no worries. I guess, is it too hard to run a process while BHP is running theirs, or is it just you, you don't think it's the right time? Well, I think in all these things, you have to look at what's happening in the external marketplace, and there are probably a limited number of buyers at the moment. You know, obviously, we do have a long-term contract that sits there with BlueScope. You know, for some people that might be attractive, for other people, it might not. Again, we're comfortable with where we are with the operation. Okay, that's great. Thanks, Graham. And then, just maybe can I draw you a little bit and get your thoughts on costs? I mean, you've given us 2024 guidance, and I think almost in every asset you call out higher labor costs. And I assume labor is what, in the order of 30% or 40% of your cost base? Maybe I'm, maybe I'm wrong. Just where do you, where do you think, I mean, if I look at 2024's cost guidance, you know, it's generally, it's up on 2023, and if I look back, you know, two or thtree years, you know, costs are materially high now across your business and, and, and all your peers. What's the medium-term outlook, do you think? I mean, is this the new norm? You know, like, where, if you look across your asset base, where could you see material step back down to history? Or is this the new norm, thinking beyond 2024? Thanks. Yeah, look, Glyn, I think that is a good question. If you take a step back and look at the broader industry, I do think it perhaps is the new norm across the industry when you think about that medium-term timeframe, particularly in many of the commodities where, you know, new production coming to the market is probably not that strong. And even if you are bringing new production to the marketplace, the capital costs are probably more intensive than they were five, 10 years ago. So I think that also will ultimately shape the cost curves in terms of inducement pricing. I think the challenge for us is how can you continue to sort of be one step ahead of your peers in that space? Particularly, you know, for every one of our operations, we have what we call in place, a TARP system, where we respond to certain prices, and we think profitability is at risk. And that's something we've had in place for a number of years now. I think we, we're quite realistic in some places, like GEMCO, where we've given guidance for a long period of time, the stripping ratios were gonna shift as we move. As we move into areas like the Eastern Leases, you've got a longer trucking distance. How we actually try and get the unit cost down, it's through some improvements, as you'd expect us to do all the time, but it's actually volume increases. And you think about where the volume increases, obviously last year we had the production record that was actually set at both South African Manganese and Australian Manganese and Hillside. I think Sierra Gorda has the option, obviously, of the debottlenecking project and the fourth grinding line, which should help with lower steel costs. But some things like Cannington, you know, we're actually doing more stopes, you know, and the mining's become very different than what it was 10, 15 years ago, so there is upward pressure on the costs. Illawarra, I think this year is more of a volume input, particularly around that section, Longwall 19A. We did not expect to get that regulatory commentary around basically having a larger setback, so that obviously means we're producing less as we have a longer time for the longwall move. Sierra, you know, is gonna be about having a number of production units in there. But in broad terms, I do think, you know, medium-term inflation is sticking, it's hard to get out of the system, and you're gonna see that come through on operating costs, probably across the board and also CapEx. And I think that's what you're really seeing this reporting period, if you look across the industry at people reporting, that's been the two common themes. And then to take that a step further, Graham, which prices that you're exposed to do you think will benefit the most from maybe some adjustments to your long term? Have you been thinking about that and where you see the curve maybe steepening faster than certain commodities that you're exposed to? They're probably the ones that we would see that we'd probably be more bullish than consensus. I would actually say it is copper, it is zinc, and I'd actually also say aluminum. Okay. That's great. Thanks, Graham. Your next question comes from Paul Young with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, Graham and team. Graham, I have to ask a question on Hermosa, seeing as we had the site visit there recently. A couple of things. First of all, just update us on the dewatering, the commissioning of that plant, just how that's going, because obviously that's key for the shaft construction and underground development in general. And then, I know the feasibility study is coming up, but just, you know, with the recent write-down on the asset and talking about inflation and CapEx going up on the PFS, what sort of inflation have you seen across some of the packages, you know, that have gone up? And I think you did call out steel and electrical across sort of the plant and underground development. Any sort of thing you can add and sort of help us out, you know, what's actually occurred would be helpful. Thanks. Yeah, so look, I think that's a good question to ask. I mean, what I would start by saying, you would have seen we're now obviously talking about increased mine lives at Taylor from 22 to about 30 years. We are talking about Clark going up to about 70 years, and you would have seen the total resource at Taylor grew by about 11%. Importantly, as part of the study work, the measured resource is up by 41%. Certainly, if you look at the early mine year life, we've probably got higher grades than the prior estimates. Again, Taylor is still open in a number of directions and at depth. And the other one, obviously interesting for us, would be the Peak Deposit, where we've now dropped about 17 holes, and of that, we have four holes around 100 meters apart, that are all running over 1% copper, between 50-100 meters thick. So I'd tell you that the prospectivity of the land package continues to be attractive. So I think the impairment is important to understand. It's a non-cash impairment, and it's based on the Taylor Deposit as it is in the pre-feas on the feasibility and pre-feasibility. It's not based on the upside of what we can add there in resource. It's not based on what Clark can deliver, because that's a separate unit. It's not based on anything like peak, and it's one of those things around the timing impact. What has been disappointing, we've made no sort of bones about that, is we are moving more water than we expected, and that's certainly, if you like, given us, if you like, delays in terms of, you know, probably two and a half years and probably another 18 months for COVID. So we've lost some time there, and about $365 million more capital for the dewatering. What I can tell you is water treatment plant number two, Paul, that you would have seen when you came for the site visit, is being commissioned. So it has been commissioned both dry and wet, so that's up and running. Probably the two most important holes we've sunk around the shafts, and they've been executed to plan in terms of where we want them to go. They will now be in the process of starting to dewater, and we'll probably have a good sense over the next eight weeks what that looks like. But so far, there's no major surprises there. But until you start pumping the water out, you're not completely sure, and the other holes are on track around the dewatering. In terms of, you know, what are we seeing in industry-wide cost escalation? Again, I think the only one we had good line of sight of when we actually had the analyst tour was around the shaft sinking at that stage, and that has pretty well held up. Where we have sort of seen increases, as was spoken about in the past, have been electrical, the concrete, and even fabricated structural steel. So to give you a sense of some of those areas- You know, the industrial building construction index has increased by about 37%. So I'm talking about between January 2021 and May 2023. Concrete's up by about 29%, steel's about 60%, and construction wages, you know, I made the comment earlier, we haven't seen a move in operating wages, but specific construction wages are probably up about 13%. Now, again, we're coming close to finalizing the study. We will do as we always do, a comprehensive dive into that to understand what it looks like, and then we'll take it to the board on the back end of this year for a final investment decision. Okay. Thanks, Graham. Look forward to the study outcomes. Second question is on Brazilian aluminum. It's one of your key, I guess, growth projects from a volume perspective. This smelter, looking at the guidance, it's a four-year ramp-up. I've never seen an aluminum smelter restart and take four years to ramp up. And I know in the past you've spoken about some challenges with the old pots, et cetera. But can you maybe give us an update on, again, why it's taking four years to ramp up? And then, secondly, you know, I can't obviously use the costs that you've just reported as a go-to. We need to look at the fixed and variable costs. So anything that maybe Sandy can chip in and add about, you know, what is the- Are the fixed costs, you know, 25% some of the SA smelters? And, you know, are the full fixed costs reflected in the FY 2023 cost base? So I'll get Sandy to go through that in detail. Generally, we've spoken about the cost structure is not dissimilar from Mozal, if we think about how to split the costs. Look, I mean, Alcoa is the operator, and they started the restart in June 2021. You know, the smelter had been in a period of care and maintenance since 2015. There is no doubt that the restart has been disappointing from an Alcoa and our perspective, and has really underperformed. With some of the key issues, particularly in the early days, were relating to alumina bath and the compressor area. And that was followed by assessment of the pot conditions, which ended up being worse than they actually anticipated. And certainly we saw a number of significant early failures. Longer term, craneage is probably the, you know, the crane availability is the next issue. They're running at about 70%, where it needs to be closer to 90%, and that impacts any change out to the metal tapping the pot restart program. Now, in saying that, we are seeing them slowly now move into position where line one now is completed. Line two is well advanced, with about 65% progress and expected to complete ramp up by March 2023, which has obviously happened. It is more now ramping up the third line, which is probably about 55% complete. They currently have about 500 pots out of the 710 in operation, in operation. From our view, there was, you know, we probably had always a slightly more conservative view than they did in terms of the ramp up, but it's certainly proven to be more challenging than they expected, and to be honest, what we expected. Maybe Sandy, around the costs, just to give Paul some color. Yeah, certainly. So in terms of the operating costs, we do anticipate it'll have a similar structure to our other aluminum operations, with around 70% variable and 30% in our fixed cost base. Obviously, we'll be heavily Brazil-denominated currency there, so we will be exposed to that through the period. It will be powered by 100% cost, by 100% renewable power under long-term contracts, with a mix of hydro and wind. So, positively, they are secured for the long term. We do expect our break even, like, our costing to ultimately land close to those of Mozal. So if you're looking for a reference, that's the best reference point. So, Paul, no, you know, the performance has been disappointing by the operator. We try and work closely with them to try and rectify that as quick as we can. You know, you might argue we're probably being slightly more conservative now, but they've had two goes at forecasts that haven't been met, so we're quite cautious now. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Sandy, just to confirm, you, you're saying that, yeah, fixed costs 30% of the total cost base. Is it, w ere all the fixed costs carried in FY 2023? Is there more labor, you know, fixed cost components being added this year and as you ramp up? We're not expecting materially more fixed costs being added. We do really see more of the variable coming into play now. Excellent. Perfect. Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone. Your next question comes from John Schultz with Macquarie. Please go ahead. Good morning, all. Just a question on the outlook for South Africa. If you can give us just how you're thinking of the country and your operations there? I notice there's no growth in the portfolio. It doesn't seem to be a particular focus. Yeah, it's an interesting one. I wouldn't say there's no growth options in the portfolio, particularly in the Kalahari, with manganese, there is the ability for us to substantially shift the production coming out of vessels. Yeah, they did set a production record last year. I think the bigger challenge at the moment is probably the performance of Transnet, and what the next contract might look like in terms of transportation of manganese by rail, and then obviously to the port handling. So that probably is the key to unlocking growth potential in the Kalahari. When it comes to Hillside, we're investing in AP3XLE, but that is really about energy efficiency, not expansion. You know, clearly that has to be the objective when power is a constraint. Richards Bay, I mean, I was there three weeks ago. I mean, I think the team there continue to run a really good operation in quite challenging circumstances, with the additional- coal trucks coming through. But also, you know, we've seen record load shedding that hasn't actually had an impact on us. So I think the team there have done a good job. We're quite clear, you know, what we're looking to grow, to growth in, is the base metals business. So we will have a look at geology in Africa. If we can find the right thing, we'll have a look at pursuing it, but it's got to stack up against other growth options we have in the U.S., South America, Australia, wherever we operate. I think the one we shouldn't forget, we did increase our stake in Mozal a couple of years ago when Mitsubishi sold out. You know, that was a really good deal with a short-term payback, so it made absolute logical sense to do that. Excellent. Thank you. And maybe just on GEMCO, updates on the Eastern and Southern Leases. Yeah. So GEMCO obviously is something we've talked a fair bit about for the period of time. We do expect the first ore to come out of the Eastern Lease South in FY 2025. That gives you about 1.5-year mine life to FY 2028. CapEx, you know, we've got in the 2024 estimate of about $35 million for that move and about $9 million in, in FY 2025. We're also doing some more work on what's called the Eastern Leases North, which adds probably about another 0.5-1 year, and then the southern areas have about another two years, and we expect to complete a pre-feasibility study on the southern areas by the end of this calendar year. Okay, thank you. Your next question comes from Paul Young with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi, Graham. Just take a few in on, on Sierra Gorda. Firstly, just on the resource upgrade, I guess you can call it that. Can you just step through how much does that of that was based on drilling? How much of that, from a tonnage perspective, could have been on, on, you know, change the cut-off grade, and any sort of sense of how that impacts sort of life of mine grades and grade profile? Yeah. So look, Paul, the first thing I'd say is it's the first time we've put out a mineral resource estimate. And as you know, we used a JORC estimate as part of the acquisition. We have a certain time frame to do the resource work. The team have done that resource work within the time frame they needed to. You know, obviously, the next piece for us would be is we do the mine plan to actually look at the reserve and resource, et cetera. From that perspective, you know, the estimate was about 1.89 billion tons at about 0.41 copper equivalent. You know, if you look at the acquisition case, that's probably about a 47% increase, of which mainly the increase is in the inferred. There's about 34% contained copper metal increase, but overall, the grade is sort of a bit lower, from about 0.36 to 0.4. The resource itself is still open at depth, and we're gonna have some more drilling campaigns to sort of test the potential for future growth. Grade would have been consistent at a lower cut-off price, so I wouldn't sort of focus too much on that. For me, it's gonna be more about the more drilling work and exploration work we do over the next 12 to 18 months. And also, as we sort of pushed in some of the new areas, we have found some interesting targets we'll continue to pursue. Yeah, that's great. Thanks, Graham. And then the second one, just on the fourth grinding line, and I think we touched on this in the past, but you know, I was in the region late last year, and you know, KGHM seemed a little bit more upbeat on the timing and wanting to get on with the fourth grinding line, and construction and approvals. So is it really contingent on bedding down the debottlenecking and getting the HBGRs and just the front of the circuit working? You know, "All right, guys, you've got to get this working before we commit to you know, the larger project," or is it more around the re-estimation with you know, escalation and also just labor availability? Yeah, look, I think at KGHM, obviously, are keen to always progress this stuff, which I think is important. At the moment, we probably have a bit of a difference of when the study will be finalized and peer reviewed, so they're talking about Q4, calendar year 2023. We're probably one quarter later, so I don't think we're magnitudes different, Paul. I think for us, the key is just bedding down now the debottlenecking project for that lift of production to about that 48.5 million tons, which they achieved that on an annualized basis in the Q4. That's been a key enabler for the fourth grinding line expansion. The other key component there was to achieve commissioning and finalize the third tailings stacker and achieve solids of over 60%. You know, in June, they've got that now to about 61.7%. So from our perspective now, it's about finalizing the study work on the fourth grinding line to take it forward. If they can progress the work farther, faster, we're obviously not gonna slow it down. Obviously, we'll make sure we have the right technical and financial checks in place. But at the moment, we're about a quarter different, so I don't think we're majorly different. Thanks, Graham. You're always have the detail. Appreciate it. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw with UBS. Please go ahead. Oh, thanks, Graham, for taking my follow-up question. Just a quick one. So CapEx guidance for FY 2024, little bit of a step up there. I'm just wondering how much of that is scope versus inflation? Yeah, Sandy, you can take that one. Yeah, sure. Look, it's predominantly scope. While we have seen some inflationary elements bleeding into our CapEx profile, the bulk of the movement in the upcoming year is related to scope. So we have a number of activities across our portfolio that are important, particularly for our safe and reliable operations. You see that stepping up with planned activity consistent with our life of mine plans there. And then obviously into the growth program, that will heavily depend on the FID outcomes for our Taylor FID decision planned for November and the fourth grinding line decision, which Graham has just alluded to. Yeah, great. Thank you. So maybe if I can sort of turn that around a little bit. So a step up, more scope of work, but maybe not quite keeping pace with production guidance. So is that the other way to say that this is increasing intensity of safe and reliable? Is that fair? I would, I wouldn't say that's necessarily something we're expecting to see. There are specific activities across our operations that are particular to this year. So, you know, if you look through the operations, you can see it in each of the guidance notes. So, for example, if you think about Illawarra, which has a significant increase in FY 2024, it does relate to vent shaft seven and eight, allowing us access into vent, into area seven there. And that's just part of the long-term mine plan, but it is obviously crystallizing in the FY 2024 year. So that's an example of one where it is consistent with the mine plan, but not something we expect to see in the long run averages. Oh, okay. So in terms of taking that forward, then, we shouldn't be looking to bake in that FY 2024 as fully the new level, if you like? No, we'll be baking that in as a standard IP level. Okay, that's fantastic. Thank you. Your next question. Apologies. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Kerr for closing remarks. Thank you, and thanks, everyone, for joining us today. Look, in closing, we continue to prioritize a strong balance sheet to fund our growth in structurally attractive markets while retaining our disciplined approach to capital allocation. We still believe the outlook is positive, and we continue to execute on our strategy, and our portfolio is well leveraged to increasing commodity demand required for the global energy transition. Thank you very much for your time today. I'm sure we'll see you on the road shows over the next couple of weeks.