Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the South32 H1 FY25 Financial Results Announcement Investor and Analyst Teleconference. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you will need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Graham Kerr, Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. On the call with me is our Chief Financial Officer, Sandy Sibenaler, and Chief Operating Officers, Vanessa Torres and Noel Pillay. I'll give a short summary of our financial results and outlook for the first half of 2025 before taking questions. Firstly, I'd like to talk about safety. In September, we tragically lost our colleague, José Luis Pérez, who was fatally injured in an incident at Cerro Matoso. An investigation into the incident was completed during December. Key learnings have been shared across our organization, and improvement actions are underway to prevent a similar incident happening again. We continue to implement our global Safety Improvement Program, and we're determined to achieve a step change in our safety performance. This includes a significant investment in safety leadership through our LEAD Safely Every Day program. While we have more work to do, this program has supported measurable improvement in our safety performance. We've had a strong start to the year off the back of our improved operating performance. To call out some of the highlights from the half, we increased aluminium production by 5%, copper equivalent production increased by 21% at Sierra Gorda. A nd we maintain production guidance across our operations except for Mozal Aluminium, where we have updated guidance as we continue to mitigate the impacts of civil unrest in Mozambique. As announced yesterday, we have now received primary state and federal environmental approvals for the Worsley Mine Development Project. The project will enable access to new bauxite mining areas that are expected to sustain production to at least FY36. At GEMCO, we have commenced a phased restart of mining activities, and export sales are expected to progressively increase over the June 2025 quarter, subject to further potential impacts from the wet season. Across the Group, we remain focused on driving cost performance, with lower operating unit costs for the majority of our guided operations expected in the second half of FY25. In terms of financial performance, we delivered a 44% increase in underlying EBITDA to $1 billion and an increase in underlying earnings to $375 million. Cash flow from operations improved by $361 million, despite a build in working capital due to tying to higher commodity prices and the timing of shipments. A nd we reduced net debt by $715 million to $47 million, consistent with our focus on prioritizing a strong balance sheet through the cycle. As a result of our strong financial position, today we announce a fully franked interim ordinary dividend of $154 million at $0.034 per share and the continuation of our capital management program with $171 million remaining to be returned to shareholders. Turning to our portfolio, the sale of Illawarra Metallurgical Coal in August 2024 for up to $1.65 billion unlocked significant value and streamlined our portfolio. Building on our previous portfolio improvements, that's also simplified our business, lowered sustaining capital intensity, and strengthened our balance sheet. We are investing to grow our future production of critical minerals as we construct our large-scale long-life tailored zinc lead silver project at Hermosa in Arizona, progress the exploration decline of the Clark battery-grade manganese deposit, and continue exploration programs as we unlock value across Hermosa's highly prospective regional land package with recent drilling at the Peake deposit returning further high-grade copper results. In closing, our operations are performing well, our balance sheet is strong, and an unwind of working capital is expected to add cash generation in H2 FY25. We have an established growth pipeline that can underpin significant growth in zinc and copper, and our unchanged capital management framework is designed to reward shareholders as our financial performance improves. Thank you. I'll now hand back to the operator. 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. And if you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, Graham. It's Sandy. Hope you're well. I'm glad to have a positive update on most of the assets, and Graham, good to see the unit costs are falling in the second half. Just on unit costs and maybe just focusing in on Worsley. First of all, I know this is short term, but just the second half cost guidance. It does seem conservative considering that FX is falling and production, in theory, should actually increase in the second half. So just some commentary around why unit costs will be flat at half and half. And obviously, I know that cost consumption and prices are a little bit elevated. And then on the medium-term cost guidance, so thanks for providing that. What I have seen is that I haven't seen an update on FY26 production guidance considering you're heading into that higher-grade area. So, can you maybe just comment on production in FY26? Thanks. Yeah. Look, first and foremost, Paul, with the approval both for federal and state now, we are actively starting the development of new areas, which I think is an important milestone, and as you're aware, it's been a long process for the team, but I think they've got a really great outcome. Look, when we think about our FY25 guidance, our unit costs are still hovering around that $305 a tonne for this year, and that's predominantly due to higher bauxite consumption in the current mining areas. We will be opening those new areas, but we don't see the full production in terms of returning back to nameplate capacity to about FY27. As a consequence, as we sort of think about that unit guidance we're giving for FY25, we have increased that following the federal approvals by roughly $5 a tonne. So that means the range we're giving for FY25 to FY28 is around the $275 to 295 a tonne. And again, as we get into FY27 and get full production, we'd expect to actually see, if you like, that unit costs come down as production grows. The $5 increase in tonnage is really additional administration costs that come with some of the conditions around monitoring, et cetera, that are in place. Sandy, do you want to add anything to that? No, I think that's all right, Graham. The cost consumption's really driven by the quality of the bauxite that we are working through at the moment in the current mining area. Obviously, as we kind of bring that through and get the stockpiled up, we'll see that benefit in the first half of the next financial year. Yeah, it does swing some roundabouts, and it sounds back end weight of that falling unit cost. So yeah, thanks. And then, Graham, maybe just talking on manganese, and particularly, in particular, I should say, on Australia. Can you provide any color around outstanding spend on the wharf? Any commentary on insurance process? Just trying to match up what the cash inflow/outflow or net outflow or inflow is for that asset. And then also back onto the question mark around manganese is a core. And we know Anglo's been public about their, I guess, view on divesting that asset. So I'm just curious around, it's obviously a hard asset to sell when it's shut down, but your view on actually packaging up the asset on a 100% basis and actually getting involved with Anglo and actually maybe driving that sale process? And maybe any commentary you can provide there. Thanks. Look, maybe let's start with the strategic question. Manganese is a commodity we actually like as we think about long-term peak steel. Manganese in the process of recycling steel, unlike metallurgical coal, will continue to be added back in. We still think GEMCO, for a variety of reasons around quality but also moisture levels, is the most, if you like, attractive manganese out there in the marketplace, and GEMCO, because of lower cost proximity of the mine to the processing, processing to the port, and the port to the customer, is always going to be well positioned on that cost curve, and I think the work we're doing now in South Africa to unlock, and we've spent some of that money around additional capital loop and rail capacity to sort of take more product off the road long term and get on the rail, sets up that business for success. It's particularly we finished a northern block in Wessels, and I was actually there last week looking at progress. I think it means that we like that commodity. We particularly like GEMCO and where it sits in the cost curve. In saying that, everything's for sale at the right price is the way I think about it. We like our position today. We are the operator. Anglo's been a very good partner for a period of time and continue to be a good partner. We operate it. We market 100% of the product. Don't necessarily see why we'd want to buy out Anglo's share unless it was at a discount. From our perspective, if someone else came around and offered us more money than we thought it was worth, we'd consider it like we would for every other asset in the portfolio. But we do believe manganese is on strategy for us and attractive commodity. Look, in terms of what's going on with GEMCO, I'll start with the big call out to the team because the volume of water and the damage done there by Cyclone Megan, as someone who's lived in the northern part of WA and Queensland, never seen anything like what we've seen at GEMCO. If we think about where we are today, some of the key milestones we've achieved, we have resumed production from the primary concentrator. We have completed construction of the haulage road bridges that were absolutely smashed by the cyclones. We've already removed all the undersea structures that existed from the old damage berth. And to me, that was one of the more challenging components of the rebuild. We continue to dewater the mining pits in preparation for resuming full production. We've installed the pilings in new wharf infrastructure. To put that in perspective, we've got 16 out of the 28 pilings completed as of the 12th of February. We expect to have the first dolphin completed by next week, second dolphin the week after. I think the single biggest risk we still see is weather. As you're aware, Paul, the wet season at GEMCO runs to probably late April, and we've had years where we've had relatively benign, and then we've had years where it's been relatively heavy. Just depends on where we land on that space because particularly on the wharf, we won't be doing work in conditions that challenge ourselves and the contractor in terms of swell, wind, and rain. Look, the way I think about it now, we expect sales to progressively increase over the Q4 of FY25. And we have provided guidance around that we now expect to probably produce about one million tonnes coming out of FY25 or coming in that last quarter and sell. And we'd expect to get back to about 3.2 million tonnes in FY26. At the moment, we don't see anything that's going to stop us getting to that position. I think the critical piece for us, again, will be to watch the weather. Now, we've got an additional barge up there now in case weather sort of turns a certain direction. But I think at the moment, the teams are working well. Some really good progress made on the island. The most challenging piece from a safety perspective to me was the removal of the damaged underwater infrastructure, which has all been done and done safely. Now it's just about continuing the piling and watching the weather. Sandy, if you want to add something on the capital spend and maybe just the insurance so people are clear about that as well? Sure. So from a capital spend perspective, our guidance is unchanged. We're tracking the plan, as Graham's touched on. And so we will update if anything changes on that. But at this point, in line with guidance. In terms of the insurance program, as we've touched on there as well, we have had confirmation of it as it being an insured event. We've recovered now $250 million at the 100% level under the existing policies. So therefore, business interruption insurance and for the capital impact. We are continuing to work with our insurers. We've got a phased approach there. So we're kind of submitting costs as they're incurred. And we do expect to see that progressing through this half with ultimately a settlement hopefully in the calendar year. Paul, does that help? It sure does. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi, Graham, Sandy, thanks for the call. Look, I've got a couple first ones on Hermosa. That's an easier one, I guess, and then perhaps a second one on Worsley. So first one on Hermosa, I mean, obviously given the change in government and perhaps early indications of perhaps there being a bit more constructive in terms of domestic mining, have you had any conversations around that land swap, sorry, that you need, I guess, in a period of six years or so after production starts? Any update there would be appreciated. And then I'll come back with a second on Worsley. Thanks. Rahul, maybe just to clarify, we actually don't need a land swap. What it actually is, is probably for the first roughly six-to-eight years of production, we can actually do all the construction on the operating, including the first stage of tailings on state land where we actually have all the approvals. What we need a federal approval for is roughly about six-to-eight years. I say six-to-eight years because it depends on the production rate we're going at and the tailings stack. I think there's more upside than downside on that. We're currently going through what's called the FAST-41 process. We are the only mining project in the U.S. that's in that FAST-41 process. We got put into that process under a Democratic administration, whereas generally, as you're aware, Republicans are more pro-development. That FAST-41 process for us is important because it gives clarity for longer-term investment quickly. To date, that's been tracking well. One of the advantages of the FAST-41 is you do exactly the same amount of work, but there's a lot more focus from the various federal agencies on timelines, resources, commitments, et cetera. From our perspective, look, that is running really, really well. They're ahead of every deadline they've put in there. From our perspective, we want that FAST-41 so we can also do a power connection across some federal land. It's like an easement. We don't necessarily need that from day one, but it's nice to have. But I think it'll just give us a lot more clarity, if you like, on having that full approval probably way before. We've always said that we would expect that federal approval under FAST-41 we would get within four-ish years. We're certainly on track at the moment to exceed that. That kind of engagement we've had so far. We haven't had a lot, but we've had Pat and Judy, who's our external affairs person in Washington last week, obviously talking about the credentials of the project. We've still got the funding in place from the DOD and the DOE for Clark. We've still got a lot of support around FAST-41. We expect the draft EIS for FAST-41 to come out in May 2025. From our perspective, we continue to progress the on-groundwork at Hermosa. We started sinking the vent shaft already. The main shaft we're about to start in this second half of the year. And we also expect to start the construction of the processing plant after doing a fair bit of the foundational work. Does that help clarify? So we don't need any land swap. We can actually get construction operations actually done before we need the federal approval. But we're in a great position where we're using the FAST-41 to actually close out the federal approval relatively quickly. Yeah, no, that's clear because I was just trying to get an update to how that process is proceeding, I guess. And you talked about that a bit. And I guess we'll get a bit more news flow as time passes as well when you get a bit more information. Look, maybe I'll circle back to Worsley then. You did answer Paul's question around that extra $5 a tonne and what that's attributable to. But I wanted to perhaps touch upon your forecast of basically getting back to nameplate in FY27. Obviously, a part of that nameplate return is related to the refinery performance as well. And that's been somewhat variable. So do you think once you've sorted out the mine plan side of things, are there any rectification works going on on the refinery or any changes that sort of give us a more stable sort of nameplate run rate at about 4.6? And then beyond FY36, obviously, you're going to have a significant chunk of measured and indicated resource left as well at the end of that 36 period. So, with this recent approval that you've had, does that open the door for a bit of conversion from that into reserve as well, or is that going to have to be another mine plan approval as you progress through? I understand it's still about a decade away, but it'd be sort of useful to get an understanding of what this approval sort of encapsulates within it. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely, Rahul. Good question. Maybe the simple one first. The additional $5 a tonne is really a result of the additional conditions that have come out of the approvals, both at the state and the federal level, and the way I think about that additional cost, it really is around administration, additional surveys and monitoring that we need to do, recognizing Worsley is in a unique part of the world, so that's what the $5 a tonne represents. If we talk about refining capacity, the refining capacity of Worsley is about 4.6 million tonnes in 100% terms. The capacity of the refinery, if you recall, under BHP, there was a project called the Expansion Project many years before the demerger from BHP. They never actually hit that nameplate capacity, but we did that consistently over the last three, four years until we actually had the bauxite challenge around availability. So I think the biggest issue we've seen really is on the bauxite feed piece. There were some challenges in 2024 around the overland conveyor, which has actually been fixed. And that's just an aging and a maintenance catch-up around the age. But the refinery has not been the constraint for a number of years. What we do get under the current approval is that it allows us to basically get access to two areas, to be very clear around the approval. One is it gives us additional clearing allowance, which enables us to access some of the existing mining areas around Saddleback, Marradong, and Quindanning. And that's until we get to the first or Nullaga. Sorry, pronunciation. And that's probably the key bottleneck in the short term around capacity. We'll get access to those additional mining, these existing mining areas, but it's not where you're getting to the newer higher-grade material. We will get to that in terms of refining that in FY27, which is when you get back to nameplate capacity. Now, clearly, the challenge for the team on that side will be, can we go faster or quicker on that? I think the answer, we've got a very consistent plan, which the team will be delivering on. Obviously, getting access to the new mining areas is important to us. That does extend the life of where we'll actually be for a period of time. It will result in conversion from resource to reserve to actually support that. It basically gives us access to a zone for a period of time, but we will have to, after that, go back and get additional approvals for the new area. What I would say is the change this year. There's a lot of lessons that will come out of this, I think, for everyone who operates in the Southwest in terms of the government's obviously gone back. The state government reformed their own EPA process, and that's a public document, so we can talk about that. I think the alignment around some of the critical issues over the last four years has been greenhouse gas emissions, and the government's been very clear on that position, and it's also the first time that the new approval process has sort of been utilized. So I think as we think about those next lot of approvals, I would not expect those to be as challenging as what they are today or what we've experienced over the last five or six years. So I think it's a much more positive outlook for Worsley. As you said, there's a large resource there that we need to work through, but it's a large, long-life, high-quality asset when you think about the grades that it has longer term in terms of not only bulk site grades, but also the reactive silica, et cetera. I don't know, Sandy or maybe Vanessa, anything you would add to that? No, not much. I think current focus of the team right now, the draft approvals, is to accelerate the implementation of the access to Nanga, and that's really the focus right now, and the team is doing very good work on keeping the production we have today with the quality of ore we have today. So it's all positive, I think, for going forward. And just to be clear, Rahul, basically, the new approvals we have take you out to FY36. So that certainly gives you plenty of time to work on your next bank of approvals at the same time. Yeah, no, absolutely. And given what's happened with a lot of your peers as well, perhaps you've got that one way. And now, perhaps it's better to get started earlier, I guess. But that's all for me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Redfern from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning, Graham and Sandy, hope you're well. My first question is for the aluminium market, please. The price has been quite rangebound for the last four or five months at around about $2,600 a tonne. But you're calling out the declining inventories for aluminium, China's capacity cap being reached, 45 million tonnes, and then more recently, we've got the 25% tariffs from the U.S. So I'm just wondering if you could please comment on your outlook for aluminium prices from here. Thank you. Yeah, look, absolutely. I mean, I guess I would start with, if you think about that medium to long-term fundamental shift, we do believe that 45 million tonne capacity is absolutely what the Chinese policy is adhering to, and it really is about self-sufficiency. Yes, we are seeing a little bit of rejigging about the locations of where refining is done and where smelters are. I think the smelting in China continues to be the main game, with some of the refining and bauxite perhaps happening in places like Guinea and Indonesia. But that's what's always underpinned our medium to long-term price assumption, and that remains unchanged. In the short term, obviously, the cost curve of aluminum has been hit by power movement or fluctuation, particularly in Europe, but also the cost of aluminum has been high, which has put a lot of smelters under pressure. The tariffs, obviously, are dominating the short-term picture of how people see the market. The reality is, I think it's roughly four million tons goes from Canada into the U.S. So, 80% of the U.S. primary aluminum and alloy is imported from Canada. It's probably hard to see that that product will move to Europe, or it's hard to say that that product will be displaced into the U.S. Our feeling is the 25%, if you like, tariff duty will basically fall ultimately on the end user in the U.S. We would probably expect to see the regional premium reflect that higher value in the U.S. That's probably the biggest change that we see. Clearly, we sell a little bit of our product from Hillside into the U.S. We also obviously have Mozal and Hillside a fair bit of the product going into Europe. But at the moment, the challenge, I guess, with all the tariffs is how long does it last for? How much is it negotiating? And I don't think anyone knows that. A good anecdotal piece of evidence, I think every single premier from the relevant provinces in Canada was actually in Washington last week. So to me, it's a negotiation rather than a long-term policy. So we'll continue to watch it. We won't probably shift too much of how we think about the medium to long term. And the reality is, from our perspective, it probably won't impact our product placement too much. That's great. Thanks, Graham. Second question, if I may, just relates to Ambler Metals in Alaska and the high-grade Bornite copper deposit. I know it's long-dated, but I'm just wondering if your confidence in the asset potentially being developed has increased since the re-election of President Trump in November, and just how you see the path forward for this asset. Thank you. Yeah, look, I think we won't. We haven't probably shifted our long-term position. We're probably, when we first acquired the interest, the Trump administration was very proactive about developing Alaska then. Obviously, that material is shifted under the Biden administration. And obviously, Trump, if you look at the Project 2025 documentation pre-election, talked about one of the first actions opening up Alaska. And they specifically called out the Ambler District. And again, that's been quoted in some of the recent press since he's actually moved back into that presidential role. I think as we think about that project, to your point, it is a long-dated option. There's two areas of interest. There's bornite and the Arctic. Arctic's a VMS style deposit. Generally, they occur in clusters. We have done a fair bit of work around what potential we see in that region, and we think there are more opportunities for VMS style deposits. The other thing to note is outside of Arctic and Bornite and the exploration potential around Ambler Metals, where we have a 50% joint venture with Trilogy, is we have 100% ownership of the Roosevelt project, which is roughly about halfway down towards the Dalton Highway. And essentially, the key to unlocking that district will be the building of a road. It's about 340 km, which connects the Ambler Metals district or the Ambler District with basically the Dalton Highway for major infrastructure. To me, that's a critical piece. Very clear that the Trump administration and the Alaskan government, state government, are very keen to open up that area. And I'd expect you'll continue to see the push. I think the challenge for us is probably twofold. We've got more exploration work to be done to understand the potential because we think there is a lot there. It's more about you also have a limited season you can get on the ground because of the weather, so you've got to make the most of that. But I think more critical for us is there are a number of First Nations Groups and villages along that highway. Probably fair to say under the first administration, they weren't necessarily proactive about opening up that road for various reasons, and not all related to the mining piece, more that they don't want a public road going through there. And there's been a history of converting private and public roads in Alaska. There's been a lot of work done by the team over the last three or four years to work with the relevant groups there. We're pretty close to getting strong support there. I guess we'll watch with interest what happens from a government perspective. To me, the critical piece is to sort of win the hearts and minds of the people along that road and sort of share some of the benefits of unlocking the district with them. To keep that in mind, one of the major groups there is obviously the NANA Group, who works very closely with Teck at Red Dog. They also have a stake in the Ambler Metals project. I think about it as a good medium- to long-term prospect, but that's the way we think about it. With exploration and consultation with the First Nations groups, the two most critical pieces on our mind, with the road and the administration being the third one. Thanks, Graham. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mitch Ryan from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Morning all. Just with regards to Cerro Matoso, I know it's subject to potential divestment in FY26. It's sort of the commentary you've used today. Just can you refresh us on the process and timing that's going around that asset and how we should be thinking about it going forward? Yeah, look, I think it's a really good question, and subject to, obviously, a number of our people work there. And one thing I love about Cerro Matoso is that you go there and we have such high-quality people who are very focused on delivery. And they've done a really good job, actually, since we de-merged around finding ways to create value for our shareholders, and they continue to actually do that. I think the challenge for us, obviously, is what's happened in Indonesia around nickel has flown on to the ferronickel market and the absolute nickel price. So, it does put an asset under more and more pressure. It's great to see that the team have obviously managed this year to continue to be cash flow positive and actually add cash to the Group despite some of those challenging external issues. I think the key for me is what's the long-term future of that business in the South32 portfolio. It does have natural grade decline that has been coming for a period of time, but there are a number of options that would allow someone to realize more value out of that business. For example, there is an option we've been testing where someone could import some ore from close by to sort of apply like a sugar hit to grade up. There's also the option to ultimately convert to sort of different product like an MHP that would be very useful to the U.S. in terms of they think about some of their independence from China around key battery technology. But there are a number of options around alternative power sources because we predominantly rely on green renewable sources at the moment that are actually quite expensive in Colombia, whereas there are some more cost-efficient, if you want to be quite pointed on it, around gas and coal that we wouldn't actually pursue. So it's one of those ones where I think potentially there's more value in someone else's hands than there is in ours. So we are exploring that actively now. We would expect to be in a position by the end of the full year to sort of give people an update on that. But there are a number of interested parties, which has been a real positive. And as you'd expect, we're going through that normal kind of process now. By full year, we should have some clarity with an eye on, obviously, managing our people there because, like I said, it's a great workforce. But also, Cerro does some great job in the community here, and a lot of regional people depend on that business as well. Thanks, Graham. Can you just remind us what value you carry at that within your books? Sandy, you can give an update on the current book value. Yeah, so we impaired that in the pre-event period. So it's got a fairly modest book value there. I I think it's just under $50 million. Great. Perfect. Thank you. I'll pass it on. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for the call today. First one is just on Brazil Aluminium, w e're still seeing an EBITDA loss there. Just a bit of color on the ramp-up. And I mean, are we seeing full weight of OpEx there, but just not diluting it with full production? Or are we going to see sort of even higher gross costs once production ramps up? I'm just trying to get a better feel for the cost base there. Thanks. So the way I think about it, it is a volume game there. Where we are today, the H1 production is up by about 28% at 64,000 tonnes as the ramp-up continues. We now have 89% of pots online, and our estimate or guidance we gave for FY25 remains unchanged at 130,000. What we do expect to see is you will see the operating unit costs come down as the smelter continues to actually ramp up. The previous guidance we've given there remains unchanged. What we have seen is Alcoa is the operator there, and I'm sure you would have heard Bill talk about their focus on improved performance. We are seeing that on the ground. We haven't seen a change in the ramp-up plan for a period of time in terms of their hitting milestone after milestone where previously they weren't. It does have the advantages of being a 100% renewable power source from a combination of hydro, solar, and wind, and that's a two-times 10-year contract that are predominantly US dollar-based, so I think that's a positive around power contracts going forward. It takes away the currency volatility you used to see when we originally had that smelter up and running, but it's purely a volume game is the way I think about it. If you think about long-term cost base, where should it position itself? It's probably very similar to what you've seen in Mozal historically, very similar kind of cost structure, and that's where it'll be when they're at full production. Thanks, Graham. Another one from me is just some quick financials. So why aren't we seeing an impairment reversal at Worsley? Just putting that out there to discuss. The other one is basically the share buyback deployment of only $29 million. Still got $170 million left. I mean, it's a pretty slow run rate. What's holding that back? Thanks. Yeah. Well, maybe I'll answer the buyback one and then Sandy can talk about the impairments because that's a lot of accounting policy. Look, from my perspective, when we think about, sorry, one second. On the buyback, if you think about that first half of the year, we've had a lot of periods where we've either been talking to the state or federal governments, and there have been large pieces of blackout periods where there's been discussions ongoing around what's happening there. Likewise, with the Mozal civil unrest, as we've sort of been working through that, we've had large periods of blackout periods, more than we would have had probably in the past. Just speaking to the Worsley impairment question there, so under our accounting policy approach, impairment reversal trigger testing is done based on a sustained low commodity price. On that basis, we don't have a trigger for an impairment reversal. That's a consistent policy we've had for many periods. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from Kaan Peker from RBC. Please go ahead. Hi, Graham and Sandy. One on the balance sheet and maybe extension of Lyndon's buyback question. But I mean, the priority was maintaining investment grade and keeping that net debt range of $0.5-1 billion. Is the plan to keep the balance sheet conservative over the next few years as investment in Hermosa ramps up? Look, I'll get Sandy to answer specifics. What I would say is we have always sort of looked at our balance sheet in the context of the operating assets we own and also what our forward profile looks like. And we've given a range. Clearly, the sale of the Illawarra sort of has an impact around sustaining capital levels. But we are spending more capital than we have in the past on growth, clearly around the first phase of Hermosa. But maybe Sandy, you can talk about our position and how it's unchanged, really. Yeah, no, that's great. So the capital management framework is unchanged. We are looking to maintain our investment grade credit rating in a sustained low. And we do believe in that kind of principle of competition for capital. We have the remaining buyback for $171 million, and that is consistent with our approach of allocating excess capital. At this price point, we do consider the buyback our best value option for shareholder returns. You touched also on our net debt target range there. We've actually updated that. It's about $0-500 million in the early stage of the tailored capital program. Naturally, more conservative at this stage in the program, as you touched on there. We will continue to iterate that range over time, and that's really consistent as we have done in the past as well. Sure. And on the buyback, as far as I understand, if that isn't complete, does that top up the full-year dividend? So we consider that at the time. So in the past, we've looked at it both as either a roll forward in an extension or we've considered it as a special at the period end. That's something we consider under the capital management framework at the time. Sure. Thanks. And the second one on Worsley, can you remind us of the legacy Alumina contracts to Hillside and Mozal? Obviously, it's to supply the equity share of feed. But do they reset, and what's the linkage to LME? Thanks. Look, the way I think about the sales, they are different: Hillside and Mozal. Hillside is purely at the index. Mozal has a number of legacy contracts that are sort of driven as a percentage of LME. So, you'll see their cost profile will be a little bit different from Hillside. A little bit of difference in the power cost, but probably the biggest driver will be in how the actual Mozal contracts work. Maybe I can give you some more detail offline later, but essentially, there's a component which is percentage of LME, and it just has some colors and costs and timing around it. Is there a reset? Or is it just life of mine? There is a reset opportunity that presents itself. That reset opportunity is about, I think, 2025, yes. Just double-checking. Sure. Thank you. That's fine. Thank you. Your next question comes from Paul McTaggart from Citi. Please go ahead. Morning. So two questions. Firstly, with copper, it sounded like you were saying that you'd expect the U.S. LME price to reflect the premium or the Midwest premium to reflect the tariffs. Do you see the same playing out in copper, in COMEX copper? Is that your kind of base case view? And the second question is really, how much of that working capital increase in the half, the $270-odd million, how much of that unwind should we expect or should we think about for the second? Yeah. So I'll get Sandy to take care of the working capital question. She'll be my last component that was in the aluminum value chain, but she'll talk to that. Look, the copper one's an interesting one because I don't think there's absolute clarity yet on what copper looks like. There is a lot of lobbying in the U.S. around copper around it being a strategic commodity, which is something the prior administration hadn't really engaged on. And that will have implications potentially on new project developments, but also existing operations there. And also, there is some policy under Trump that's talking about investing in U.S. companies to explore and develop copper overseas in places off the DRC. One of the talks around tariffs is it could be around 10%, but there'd be exempt countries, exempt industries. I think only one person knows what that's going to be, Paul, at the moment. And that person, you'll probably read it on some form of social media before you hear it from the U.S. government. So, we'll watch that interest and see what it looks like. Our product, Sierra Gorda for us, is marketed by KGHM. We get market price on that. I'd have to go back and look at the breakdown of which market it hits, but from memory, it's not into that U.S. market. But I can clarify for you about that when I come back to you. Maybe on working capital, Sandy? Sure. So the working capital did increase over the period, as you know, to $167 million, largely related to building finished goods and raw material inventory in the Alumina value chain. We do expect to see that unwinding through this half. We also finished the period with elevated receivables, and of course, they'll be received in the half. Do I think of all of it being unwound or half of it? Sandy? Look, I mean, obviously, it depends a little bit on what happens with the input costs as well. So obviously, some of these things depend on a number of factors. So we have seen elevation in the input costs going in close. So if they kind of normalize over the period, then I think you'd expect to see the inventory being held, coming down in value for that very factor. And of course, the rest has just got to balance on timing of shipments and then receipt of cash. So we would anticipate it normalizing during the period. We don't put out a percentage, of course. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rob Stein from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity. Just the Cerro Matoso capital allocation on any asset sale, how should we think about returns if and when you do sell that? Sorry, maybe the Cerro Matoso? Sorry, just on capital allocation around the returns from the sale proceeds, how should we think about that? Is that coming 100% back to shareholders? Yeah. Look, I think the way I think about any sale we have of an asset like we do with the Illawarra will go back into the center. We'll go back into the normal capital management framework. And if we have excess cash in line with our prior guidance around balance sheet strength and the net debt number we're looking for, then we'll apply the same capital management framework we have in the past. Keeping in mind in the second half of this year, cost guidance is down for the bulk of our operated assets. We've also got an unwind of working capital. We've also deferred some of the prepayments or early payments around Hermosa. So, we expect to be generating strong cash flow in the second half of this year. Thank you. And then just following the coal transaction, you had talked to corporate overhead simplification. Can you just give us an indication of how that's tracking, noting that there's probably a little bit of extra cost associated with Worsley and the process there? But can you just give us a feel for how the business is simpler following the divestment? Yeah. Look, the bottom line is South32 has changed over many years. If you think about our original composition, we had roughly 50% exposure to coal, of which the majority of that was met coal and thermal coal. We don't own those two commodities at the moment. Along the way, we've adjusted our portfolio and our support structures to actually match that. The sale of Illawarra for us was opportunistic. It's not like we did a lot of met coal. We just saw a good price and a good opportunity to sort of increase our exposure to what we think are the more attractive commodities long term, i.e., copper and zinc. As you would expect, and I think we've spoken about publicly in the past, that sale has yet to be completed in terms of we've transferred it across, but we're providing transitional services around some of the functions or some of the functional support to the new owner as they set themselves up. When that's completed, we are expected to be in a position where we will obviously be better off from a cost perspective compared to when we owned Illawarra. Keeping in mind, we also continue to look at our functional support about where it is located as more and more of the business grows in the Americas. But we will certainly be net net no worse off, and net net we'd expect to be a little bit better off. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Graham, Sandy, g ood morning. Firstly, just one for Sandy. Sandy, you talk about the working capital unwind, and I know it always builds and unwinds. But we're six weeks into the half, a re you actually seeing it, or is it still an expectation? I'm just trying to make sure it's actually happening and not going to be an expectation. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks for the question. We have actually started to realize that benefit through into January already. Through January and into February. Okay, so before you pay the dividend and start the buyback up again, then we're back at net cash now? We expect to be in a strong position to enter into those elements, Glyn. No worries. And Graham, just one for you on the strategy of the business now. I mean, Illawarra sold, you're future facing. I know you were hoping to recycle the capital from Illawarra into Sierra Gorda, but your partner doesn't want to sell now. You probably didn't get the cash flow you expected out of operating cash, given commodity prices haven't done what we all thought. With the balance sheet where it is, it is conservative, but do you still feel the portfolio is right, or you do need something extra in the portfolio, more future-facing? Look, I'd say look, the portfolio has always evolved and will continue to evolve, Glyn. We would like more exposure, say, from an operating perspective in zinc and copper. Probably like everyone else, we've been looking at those opportunities. We've looked at participating in some of the processes, and we haven't necessarily seen value for ourselves in that space, even though we've participated in some of those processes. So I think discipline and allocation of our capital management framework makes sense. Size for size doesn't make sense. It's got to be any kind of growth we do is over value. Logically, Sierra Gorda for us, we like the asset. We love the upside around the fourth grinding line, but also the resource potential growth that we see towards the north of the current existing operation is exciting, and obviously we've got growth potential at Peake around copper as well. Look, KGHM here has been a really good partner. We have no problems with that. We've been on the record to say we'd like to own 100%. I'd say at the moment, that's not on their radar. They've been publicly clear about that, but it doesn't mean that the world doesn't shift. We like that asset, but we also like other copper assets if we can find the right pricing point. So, we'd like to have one more operating copper and zinc asset and then probably another project close to execution in either of those two commodities, if that helps, Glyn. But I'm probably guessing we're like many other players out there would like something similar as well. The advantage, I guess, we have is we don't necessarily need the scale of some of the majors. I appreciate that. Thanks, Graham. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lachlan Shaw from UBS. Please go ahead. Good morning, all. Thanks very much for the opportunity. Just two from me. Firstly, just the Alumina market, obviously, spots come back a fair way. I'm just interested in what you're seeing there in terms of your read on China, but also your read on the bauxite market in Guinea, and then I'll come back with my second question. Yeah. Look, I mean, I think a good one to sort of cover because clearly, Alumina was on a bit of a tear for a period of time, and that was really driven by some production capacity issues in Australia. But obviously, another big one was some of the disputes that were occurring around Guinea and exports not sort of flowing to the Chinese market. What we are seeing now, if you look at the spot cargo availabilities in the short term, you have certainly seen an easing in that space. We have seen some of the uncertainties around exports in Guinea sort of start to come off a little bit. And as a consequence, you started to see some of the actual tightness in the market start to evaporate. We've also seen resumption of production from the Gladstone refineries. We're seeing some more raw material coming out of Indonesia as well. So, from our expectations, we would say the market has shifted dramatically from where it was 6 to 12 months ago. And I'd expect to see a little bit more downward pressure, if you like, on Alumina pricing in the short term. So, we would probably see, if you think about the next six months, you're probably trading in a range of somewhere between $400-500 a tonne. All right. Thank you. And then maybe just the other one. So I know you've got fairly defensible grounds for not giving us a bit of guidance on the aluminium costs, but I just wonder, obviously, this is where some growth is coming on a one-two-year forward-looking basis in terms of volumes. The aluminium market's changing quite a lot in terms of the China cap, in terms of tariffs in the U.S., and potentially, it can be a more important contributor to the business. What can you do there to maybe help us understand the cost base a little more, perhaps sort of looking forward? Yeah. Look, that's a good question. And as you know, we're sort of prided ourselves pretty much from day one on providing a level of transparency and detail. We can certainly have provided in the past, and we can again if you think about the composition of our operating costs. For example, if you take Hillside, 61% of our cost base in the first half of the year came from raw materials and consumables. And I'll come back to what that looks like in a second, but that's something clearly we don't have a huge amount of control over some of the pricing there. What I would say on top of the 61%, 27% of the cost base is energy. So if you add that up together for Hillside, you're looking at about 88% is driven by market pricing. If you sort of go to Mozal, Mozal has a very similar structure where 54% is raw materials and consumables, with the difference between the two being sort of structured around how the Alumina pricing works at Mozal, whether it's a tighter percentage of Alumina, and their energy cost is around 30%. What we would also say, if you take a step back and sort of think about if you've got roughly 80% to 88% of your costs sort of driven by some of those market consumables, what do they look like? And I think that's where it becomes more challenging because it does fluctuate a fair bit. If we have a look at our historical performance in that space and talk about what it looks like, for example, if we look at a smelter raw material basket cost of the inflation, so that includes your coke, your pitch, your AIF, your Alumina as a percentage of aluminium. If you look at H1, FY23, it was 43%. H2, it's 44%; H1 of FY24, it's 42%. H2 of 2024, it's 43%. First half of 2025, it was 55%. And some of the big drivers in that, if you look for example of our caustic, our caustic in the first half of the year was trading about $430 a tonne, whereas in 2024, it was $372. That's one of the big drivers when we look in those spaces. And the coke itself was $382 versus $458. So that's where we probably see a fair bit of the movement. The other clear one is the Alumina price has been on quite a tear for a period of time. 50% of our product that we produce in the Alumina space across our business goes into the smelters on average. I think it was 51% in this half, but on average, it's about 50%. So it's not the fact that we don't like giving that level of information, but if you want to pitch coke, caustic price, and what. It's very hard for us to sort of go to that level of detail because it just moves in variables that we don't control. So again, as a rule of thumb, you think about a smelter, generally speaking, you'll probably see about 80% to 88% of your costs made up of power and made up of actually those raw materials. Things like your labor and the cost that you control is probably closer to 15%. That's great. Thanks, Graham. Thank you. That does conclude our time for questions. I'll now hand back to Mr. Kerr for closing remarks. Thanks, everyone. I appreciate you taking the time today to sort of go through some of those questions and where the business is at. I guess the messages I'd leave you with is, look, one, our operations are performing well and have been over the last couple of halves. Our balance sheet is strong. We do expect stronger cash flow generation in the second half as we see an unwind of our working capital. Our growth pipeline, we have the ability to actually have significant growth in both zinc and copper. Our unchanged capital management framework, as always, is designed to reward shareholders as their financial performance improves, and I think our team have done a really good job over the last six months battling some of the headwinds around the GEMCO recovery, but also getting the approvals that we're seeing. We should see the benefits of those over the next 12-18 months. B ut thanks, everyone, for your time, and look forward to seeing you on the roadshow. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.