Thank you. Hello, and welcome to this presentation of Santos' 2022 half year results. I'd like to start by acknowledging the traditional lands of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains from where I am speaking today. I pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. I also acknowledge the traditional owners and indigenous people of all the areas where Santos operates, including in Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, and Alaska. I'm pleased to present yet another strong set of financial results that demonstrate the strength of our disciplined low-cost operating model. They are record results. The highest first half revenue, free cash flow, and underlying profit in Santos' history. Importantly, they are driven by higher commodity prices and strong customer demand for our products. Before I discuss the results, I want to make a few observations regarding global energy markets. The ongoing war in Ukraine and instability in other regions is deeply troubling on many levels. It is impacting the global economy, driving inflation, disrupting markets, and causing volatility in commodity prices. There has been a significant shift in global energy policy towards energy security as a key priority. We are seeing these issues play out in the Asian LNG market as supplies are drawn away from Asia into Europe and fears of shortages flow through to higher prices. These issues are creating structural changes to the global energy markets, which will be with us for some time. These changes are shaping our corporate strategy and the allocation of capital to prioritize shareholder returns and discipline development, along with the need to maintain a diversified and balanced portfolio of assets. They have strengthened our resolve for Santos to be a low-cost, high-performance business throughout the cycle and to become a global leader in the transition to cleaner energy and clean fuels that are both affordable and sustainable. I will now provide an overview of the half-year financial results for 2022 before handing over to Chief Financial Officer Anthea McKinnell to discuss them in more detail. This is the first financial period since the merger of Santos and Oil Search. The results demonstrate the financial strength of the combination and the benefits of creating a new Santos with strong, diversified cash flows and capacity to provide sustainable shareholder returns and fund new developments and the transition to a lower carbon future. Before we start, I draw your attention to the usual disclaimer. The financial results for the first half were outstanding. We set new records for sales revenue, free cash flow, and underlying profit. Strong operational and cost performance, combined with higher prices, delivered AUD 1.7 billion of free cash flow, up 199%, and underlying profit of AUD 1.3 billion, up 300%. We intend to return AUD 605 million to shareholders, comprising a 38% increase in the interim dividend to $0.076 per share unfranked, and an increase in the on-market buyback from AUD 250 million to AUD 350 million. Our journey to become Australia's safest operator continues. Always safe is a core value at Santos. Our expectation is that every day, everyone who works at Santos is focused on keeping themselves and their workmates safe and going home healthy. I was pleased to see our personal safety performance improved in the first half and a continuation of the recent downward trajectory of loss of containment incidents. Importantly, these health, safety, and environmental results have continued to improve as the number of assets in the business has grown. I remain focused on ensuring that we learn from these events and drive for ever safer workplaces and fewer safety incidents. Likewise, we are committed to continue the improvements we have made in recent years in process safety performance focused on driving incidents down. It's been a busy first half for all of us at Santos as we execute our strategy and seek to deliver long-term value for shareholders. The portfolio optimization process announced in February is nearing completion. We have sold 12.5% of Barossa to JERA for AUD 327 million, and we are in advanced discussions with shortlisted parties for the sale of 5% of PNG LNG, with expected proceeds in line with market consensus valuation. The asset is performing well in the current environment, and not surprisingly, there's been strong interest from reputable counterparties for equity in this project. Accordingly, we have decided to only sell 5% of PNG LNG. This would leave us with a 37.5% stake. Today, we have announced a final investment decision to proceed with phase I of the Pikka oil project in Alaska. Pikka is an outstanding project that is ready for development now. We have a strong team and contracts in place to underpin the development costs. Phase one of the project is expected to produce 80,000 barrels of oil per day. First oil is anticipated in 2026. The project has strong economics, is located in a world-class oil-producing province with significant existing infrastructure. It has low emissions intensity and strong support from the Alaskan government, indigenous and local communities. Importantly, it is in a jurisdiction with low sovereign risk, an internationally competitive investment environment, and a workable regulatory regime that ensures world-class safety and environmental protection. It also provides an opportunity for Santos to further diversify its portfolio to include oil production outside our key operations in Australia, PNG, and Timor-Leste, and reduce concentration risk. Santos has emission reduction plans to achieve net zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040, and in line with that commitment, we intend to develop Pikka as a net zero Scope 1 and 2 project from first production, and have entered into memorandums of understanding with Alaska Native corporations to deliver carbon offset projects. Alaska also gives Santos access to potential carbon capture and storage developments that are strongly supported by the Alaskan and U.S. federal governments. Although we have been unable to agree on equity sell down to date with strong supply contracts and the project in an excellent state of readiness, we feel now is the time to monetize this exciting opportunity and are happy to move it forward. Like Barossa, we may yet sell down before first production. We do not need to wait and delay our investment decision and risk a loss in value for Santos shareholders. We have continued to deliver project and cost discipline throughout the first half of 2022. The Barossa and Moomba CCS projects are progressing on schedule and budget. Barossa was 43% complete at the end of July, and Moomba CCS was 20% complete. Consistent with that being experienced across industry, we are seeing some supply chain and cost pressures, but these are being managed within the project contingencies. We have announced reductions in our unit cost and CapEx guidance for this year as we continue to focus on safe, efficient, and low-cost operations. The merger integration process is progressing well with AUD 106 million in sustaining annual synergies delivered to date. This enables us to lift guidance to AUD 110-125 million in annual synergies. Finally, following the board's approval of new capital management framework earlier in the year, we are now in a position to deliver higher returns for shareholders through an increase in the interim dividend and on-market share buyback. The strong first half results enabled the board to increase returns consistent with the company's new capital management framework. Santos intends to return AUD 605 million to shareholders, equivalent to $0.18 per share from the interim dividend and on-market buyback. This slide shows a forecast of sources and uses of cash to 2030. I think the chart clearly demonstrates the scale of the diversified portfolio of cash generative assets we have built at Santos. At a range of $65-$100 long-term oil prices, Santos would expect to generate between $23 billion and $34 billion in free cash flow in this period. The strong cash flows from today's business are further strengthened from the low-cost LNG production at Barossa from 2025 and oil production at Alaska from 2026. This free cash would more than fund our committed project CapEx of about $7 billion. Between $16 billion and $27 billion in free cash would then be available for additional shareholder returns and to drive shareholder value through the investment of capital into development and energy transition projects that meet our disciplined capital allocation criteria. I have already mentioned that Santos and our partner Repsol have decided to proceed with the Pikka phase 1 oil project in Alaska. Alaska has a rich and proud oil and gas history, skilled workforce, strong contractors and suppliers, and a very supportive regulatory regime. Taking FID on phase one is consistent with our strategy of phased and disciplined development utilizing existing infrastructure. Phase one will execute a responsible development plan with a small surface footprint and utilize existing infrastructure, including the Kuparuk transportation pipeline and the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Indeed, the development approach for Pikka is not dissimilar to our upstream hub development approach in Queensland on our GLNG project. We are committed to delivering a net zero project for equity share Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and have signed MOUs with Alaska Native corporations to deliver high-quality carbon offset projects. Low carbon oil projects like Pikka phase I are critical for global and United States energy security. We believe that this is the right project at the right time. Strong investment metrics underpin FID, including a forecast IRR of about 19% at less than $60 long-term oil price. A life cycle break-even oil price of around $40 per barrel, including carbon pricing. The strength of the merged company is best demonstrated by the fact that our share of phase I CapEx of $1.3 billion over four years would represent about 4.5 months free cash flow at average first half 2022 commodity prices. In relation to Dorado and following the exploration success at Pavo earlier this year, we remain disciplined in our approach and intend to undertake further work to fully appraise and optimize the development concept integrating oil and gas production. The current inflationary cost environment, combined with regulatory and supply chain uncertainty, provide additional risk and therefore do not support a final investment decision at this time. This means FID will be later than originally planned, but as I said, we will be disciplined to ensure that the right project is executed at the right time. This is consistent with our disciplined and phased approach to investing in major projects. At Narrabri, we continue with planning for resource appraisal. We are also focused on obtaining relevant pipeline licenses for the project. We have had significant interest from New South Wales customers looking to sign long-term offtake agreements. Narrabri is a very strong project that can supply affordable gas to New South Wales customers. However, in line with our disciplined approach, we will not commit any significant capital until all approvals are secured. Following our merger with Oil Search, Santos is now a global low-cost producer of oil and gas committed to ever cleaner energy and fuels production with operations across Australia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and North America. This slide sets out our investment proposition to deliver long-term value to shareholders. We are a top 10 global independent with a balanced and diversified portfolio of long life assets weighted to gas and LNG. With 8 million tons per annum of equity LNG capacity, we are a leading global independent supplier, increasingly leveraged to strong demand for LNG, particularly in Asia. Our Climate Transition Action Plan, launched in March, sets out our plans to decarbonize our base business and achieve net zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040 through investing in operational efficiency, deploying renewables, carbon capture and storage, carbon solutions and clean fuels. It is the very strong cash flows from PNG, Barossa and Alaska that will help fund our Transition Action Plan projects in the second half of this decade and beyond. Our capital management framework provides investor participation in oil and LNG price upside, as demonstrated today with AUD 605 million in returns to shareholders. I am confident this is a unique investment proposition that will deliver long-term value and build on the same strategy and operating model we have consistently implemented since 2016. It is a successful strategy that has delivered almost AUD 7 billion in free cash flow over the past 6.5 years. Let me finish with some further comments on energy security, the role of gas, decarbonization and market demand for LNG. As mentioned earlier, Russia's invasion of Ukraine brought global energy security into the spotlight, particularly for natural gas, with higher prices and a supply crunch in the wake of rapidly recovering demand. Global energy demand already returned to pre-COVID levels last year. Underinvestment in gas supply saw a 9% increase in coal-fired electricity to a global all-time high. The increase in global emissions from coal in 2021 was equivalent to all the emissions reduction achieved in the U.S. from the integration of renewables over the past 15 years. On the east coast of Australia, we recently saw unplanned outages at coal-fired power stations, leading to a period of extreme gas demand and higher spot prices. Santos responded by diverting gas from GLNG and adding a fifth drilling rig in the Cooper Basin and facilitating time and location swaps with other producers to get gas in the right place at the right time. Gas remains a critical fuel for an orderly energy transition, but we must invest in new supply. Indeed, for any chance of an orderly transition where people can still have access to affordable energy, there is a need for more gas supply, not less. However, it is vitally important that investment in new supply occurs in a sustainable way. At Santos, we are focused on supplying critical fuels more sustainably to meet society's demand. Driving investment in new supply to less transparent producers or producing nations will not reduce global emissions or advance the transition to net zero. LNG demand is at record levels with underinvestment driving significant price increases, as we have seen in Europe, and limiting access to energy for those who can least afford it. In the Asia Pacific, LNG demand is expected to double by 2040, according to this forecast from Wood Mackenzie. As a leading global independent LNG supplier, Santos is well-positioned to benefit from this increasing demand with our 8 million tons of equity share LNG capacity. With our Japanese and Korean partners, we are investing significant capital in bringing new supply to market through Darwin LNG from Barossa. We need stable regulatory and fiscal regimes to enable this and any future investments in Australia. The ADGSM process continues to be very concerning for our neighbors in Asia, who are also the investors and customers that have underpinned Australian resource development for 60 years and rely on us for their own energy and in turn, social and economic security. They are also, in many cases, friends and allies who are crucial to long-term stability in our region. Decarbonizing natural gas supports the long-term supply of reliable and affordable energy, as well as the production of clean fuels, including hydrogen and ammonia. As the head of the International Energy Agency has said, "Reaching net zero goals without CCS will be almost impossible." We have seen the recent Inflation Reduction Act bill passed in the U.S. Senate include significant incentives supporting carbon capture and storage, as well as direct air capture technologies, recognizing the critical need for the development and deployment of these to be able to achieve a net zero future. We are seeing global momentum behind CCS with more than 27 projects across the world in countries such as Canada, the USA, and Norway, storing around 48 million tons per annum. We are developing a three hub CCS and clean fuel strategy across our operating footprint in Australia and Timor-Leste. Our Moomba CCS project, which will be one of the biggest in the world, paves the way for a significant carbon reduction and storage story for Santos and for Australia. We also look forward to commencing trials of Direct Air Capture technologies in the Cooper Basin next year. These technologies could, if successful, leverage our significant infrastructure, CO2 storage capacity, and Moomba CCS project to build a new carbon reduction business for Santos that also helps other industries decarbonize as well as provide significant Scope 3 reduction opportunities. In summary, it was a great first half. The business is running well, and we have created a global energy company of size and scale. With size and scale comes the opportunity to deliver stronger returns to shareholders and progress our aspiration to become a clean fuels company and reaching our net zero commitment by 2040. I'll now hand over to Anthea to provide a detailed review of our financial results. Thanks, Kevin, and hello to everybody. Santos has delivered record financial results driven primarily by our increased working interest in Papua New Guinea and higher commodity prices. I'll go through these items in more detail over the next slides. These are strong results highlighted by record first-half free cash flow of $1.7 billion, up almost 200%. An underlying profit of $1.3 billion, up 300%. Consistent with our capital management framework, we've increased returns to shareholders through a combination of the sustainable base dividend and additional returns via share buybacks. Santos' balance sheet continues to strengthen, with net debt reduced by $1 billion in the past six months and gearing reduced to 22.5%, positioning the company to fund future activities, including the energy transition. Refinancing of our 2024 and 2026 debt facilities is substantially progressed and will result in no significant near-term debt maturities until 2027, excluding the PNG LNG non-recourse finance, which is funded from project cash flows. We've been very well supported by a banking group in this refinance, and the facility was oversubscribed. The strength of our balanced and diversified portfolio has delivered record financial results for the first half. Operating cash flows increased by 127%, driven by increased volumes and higher commodity prices. The chart on the right shows free cash flow, which has increased almost 200% compared to the first half of 2021. The trend in earnings metrics is a similar story to cash flow. A diversified portfolio of five core assets comprising strong LNG contracts, liquids, and fixed price domestic gas contracts underpin a record first-half EBITDAX of $2.7 billion and record underlying first-half profit of $1.3 billion. This table shows a snapshot of the half-year results, outlining the strengths across our five core assets and their contributions to EBITDAX and margins. It highlights our diversified and balanced portfolio of core assets with strong margins, which increased to over 70% for the first half across our five core segments. Unit production costs increased slightly to $8.16 per barrel of oil equivalent, primarily due to lower volumes at Bayu-Undan and an expected late life natural field decline. We expect Bayu-Undan will reach end of field life later this year. Excluding Bayu-Undan, costs were $7.08 per barrel. Unit costs were driven largely by reduced volumes in both the Cooper Basin, due to planned maintenance and weather effects, and Western Australia, largely due to customer outages. We also have an increased proportion of higher unit cost volumes in Papua New Guinea following the merger with Oil Search. We continue to seek efficiencies and cost savings to offset cost and supply chain pressures we are seeing, and are maintaining 2022 guidance at $7.90-$8.30 per barrel of oil equivalent for the full year. Turning to CapEx, 2022 guidance for the base business is unchanged at $1.1 billion, comprising $900 million for sustaining and $200 million for restoration costs. Importantly, in 2022, this spend is self-funded from within the disciplined operating model. 2022 major project CapEx guidance has reduced to approximately $1.5 billion and includes Pikka phase one now that this project has been sanctioned. Over the four years for the Pikka project, CapEx is estimated at $2.6 billion gross and $1.3 billion at Santos' working interest of 51%. CapEx guidance also reflects our decision to undertake further appraisal drilling at Pavo, which means the FID decision on Dorado will be later than previously planned. In April 2022, we released our new capital management framework. Santos' strategy is to maintain a disciplined low-cost operating model that is designed to deliver strong cash flows through the oil price cycle. Consistent with the operating model over the longer term, we're targeting a free cash flow breakeven oil price of less than $35 a barrel. This includes activities to sustain production at our five core asset hubs and undertake planned restoration work. The free cash flow generated above sustaining capital requirements is available to maintain the balance sheet, deliver sustainable returns to shareholders via the base dividend, plus additional returns when the oil price is above $65 per barrel, invest in major projects, and importantly, invest in the energy transition. The chart represents the breakdown of returns to shareholders for the first half with a visual representation of the calculation methodology. The framework comprises two elements, a sustainable base dividend and an additional shareholder return in the form of on-market share buybacks. The current starting point is the free cash flow breakeven price for 2022, which is currently forecast at around $25 per barrel. Actual free cash flow generated above this starting point in the first half was AUD 1.7 billion. The base dividend policy targets payout of 10%-30% of free cash flow, excluding major growth, up to $65 a barrel at average Dated Brent. Based on $855 million of free cash flow available, the board declared an interim dividend of $0.076 per share, reflecting a payout at the top end of the range. Additional returns to shareholders of at least 40% of the incremental free cash flow, excluding major growth, apply when the average Dated Brent price is above $65 a barrel. Dated Brent averaged $105 for the period. Based on AUD 853 million of free cash flow available, the board has increased the previously announced share buyback of AUD 250 million by AUD 100 million to a total of AUD 350 million, and this reflects a 41% payout. For the first half of 2022, total returns to shareholders were AUD 605 million when combining the interim dividend and additional returns through share buybacks. This comprises about 35% of free cash flow for the period and is a significant increase compared to the first half of 2021. This reflects our commitment to delivering increased returns to our shareholders, particularly during periods of higher oil prices. Refinancing activities have been undertaken to optimize the drawn debt maturity profile by refinancing AUD 1 billion in drawn and AUD 200 million in revolving lines due 2024 and 2026, with fully revolving facilities due in 2025 and 2028 on an amend and extend basis. Following refinancing, there will be no significant debt maturing until 2027, excluding the PNG project finance, which is repaid during project cash flows. Approximately 45% of total debt portfolio is PNG LNG project finance debt, which is forecast to be repaid by 2026. Net debt, including lease liabilities, was AUD 4.1 billion at the end of June. We hold strong liquidity of AUD 5.4 billion, comprising AUD 3.4 billion in cash and AUD 2.1 billion in committed undrawn debt. Under our capital management framework, we are now targeting gearing to be less than 25%. The strong free cash flows generated during the first half have supported rapid de-gearing to 22.5%. With reduced gearing and a strengthened balance sheet, we are ready to fund our projects and the energy transition. Thank you, and I'll now hand you back to Kevin. Thanks, Anthea. In summary, as I said at the outset, I'm very pleased to present a record set of financial results. We have been, and remain, unrelenting in sticking to our strategy and implementing our disciplined low-cost operating model. An operating model that has proven its value by delivering consistent results, keeping the business resilient, and performing strongly. We continue to generate strong free cash flows, maintain the strength of our balance sheet and provide returns to shareholders. Thank you. We'll now be happy to take your questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speaker phone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Tom Allen with UBS. Please go ahead. Hi. Morning, Kevin, Anthea, and the team. Just on capital management, firstly. The distribution payout range for free cash generated when oil price is above $65 a barrel is fairly broad, with a payout of at least 40%. Anthea, slide 22 is helpful, but I was wondering if you could please describe the key considerations or a framework that have led the board to arrive at a payout of 41% of free cash generated over $65 a barrel. Just recognizing that your average Dated Brent over the half was, you know, comfortably over $100 a barrel. Yeah. The 41 really was looking at over 40 and rounded up to 350, which is where we got the 41%. It's a board by board decision that will take into account a number of factors, including you know what we have coming up, prevailing oil prices, debt repayments, et cetera. That was a decision for this board, was to maintain it at the 40, just over 41, 40%. It is a board by board decision. Sure, sure. Commodity prices, is there a bit of a tighter range on leverage that you think, you know, might see that, see a scenario where the board pay a much higher payout on that component? Well, look, I mean, I think, Tom, that that'll be a decision for the board to take, just as it is with dividends, you know, based on the prevailing conditions at the time. It's something that the board will give consideration to as we go forward. There's a lot of flexibility in that, as you can see. Yeah. Yeah. No, that makes sense. Just at PNG LNG, so the Uniper and BP midterm LNG SPAs expire, I think, in March and July next year, respectively. I just wonder if you could provide some color on the marketing strategy for that LNG. Might we see a shift to an equity marketing model at PNG LNG and might that volume be sold at a JKM indexation from the second half of next year? Well, look, Tom, we don't I mean, you're right in terms of the renegotiation dates that you referred to. We can't comment on the specific negotiation strategies. We will obviously inform the market if and when we're in a position to do so. We'll work, we work alongside the operator and other joint venture partners to develop those strategies and obviously to agree what the outcomes are. It's not what any one party wants. We'll inform you know, when we've got something to tell you. Of course, that makes sense. Just finally, congratulations on taking FID on phase one in Alaska. Now that you've committed to develop that project, can you please just clarify Santos's sell down aspirations from here? You mentioned that Santos was unable to agree an equity sell down to date. Just wanted to confirm if the process has now concluded for the time being. Well, look, I mean, I think as I've said previously in my speech today, we don't think we have to wait to develop this project for other folks. There has been interest in the project and good interest in the project. As I said in my speech, we've been unable to get anything agreed in the timeframe to date. We do know that others see value, but we think it was a project that will become more valuable over time. We think now is the time to develop it. We talked a lot about how the world has changed over the last six months. As I said, we don't need to wait and sell down before we can move it forward. We're still open to sell down during development phase, just like we did on the Barossa project, where we sold down to JERA after FID. Thanks, Kevin and Anthea. That's helpful. Thanks, Tom. Your next question comes from James Redfern with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Oh, hi, Kevin, Anthea. Hope you're well. Just wanted to ask first one, around the 5% sell down in PNG LNG. I'm just wondering, can you confirm that ExxonMobil is happy for Santos to continue to have a higher equity stake than them, of 37.5% in PNG LNG post the sell down? Will that 5% sell down achieve your target of $2 billion-$3 billion of sell proceeds? Thank you. Thank you, James. Look, I think the first question is an easy one for me answer. I can forward you the mobile numbers of the executives at ExxonMobil, and it's like, it's really a question for them. You know, I can't comment on whether they're happy or unhappy. Put it this way, they haven't communicated to me that they're unhappy or that they have any problem with what our equity position is. We do enjoy a very positive and strong relationship with ExxonMobil. A lot of respect for them. They're a very safe and extremely competent operator. In terms of the second part of the question that was focused on the sell down. AUD 2 billion-AUD 3 billion. Yeah, the AUD 2 billion-AUD 3 billion of the process. Yeah. What we're really saying there is that we think that that period, that process, if you like, that optimization process we're running is coming to an end now, where we expect to complete the 5% sell down in PNG over the next couple of months. I would expect that to be closed. We're very happy with the valuation as part of that process, and we've given you some guidance in terms of consensus. We're very comfortable with the valuation of the asset. In terms of the overall number you're talking about, we've completed the JERA sell-down. We'll get the value for that. I think what you have to take into consideration as well, James, is that these assets are generating very considerable cash, and they have done during this period, and we will keep that cash. We've made a decision to draw a line in that sand and not simply stick to a target because I put a target out there in February before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You know, not gonna be that stubborn. At the end of the day, we think these assets are generating a lot of cash. We're very positive on the outlook for our commodities, and as such, that will be drawing a line under that process. Now, you know, an absolute capital basis that might still show fall just slightly short of the lower end of that range. I think if you put the cash flows into that number as well, it'll be comfortably over the bottom end of the range. We believe it's the highest value outcome for our shareholders over the longer term. Okay. Excellent. Thanks, Kevin. Just second question if I can, please. Just in relation to Dorado, FID's been delayed possibly to next year at the earliest, given the inflationary pressures and supply chain issues. Just maybe wondering if you could please comment on what you're seeing in terms of CapEx inflation, relative to the CapEx guidance that was provided for Dorado, previously. Thank you. Well, thanks for that, James. I mean, unlike Pikka, where we've been able to lock in very competitive rates through our contracts. What we found with Dorado really was quite a different environment. I mean, the shipyards environments across Asia, the contract availabilities, the impacts of COVID still with some of those workforces, and of course, the labor shortages we're seeing in certain parts, all add to a very inflationary environment. In addition to that, we've seen a volatility in the contractor environment, where at least one of our contractors is going into Chapter 11 during the period. We think there are other liquidity issues with some of the contractors out there. When you put all of that together and the inflationary numbers we saw coming through in the project, it just doesn't make sense. Now, when you couple that to the fact that we had a successful drilling result at Pavo, however, one that was a little bit unexpected in terms of the fluid composition, we want to establish a bit more gas before we take FID. Bottom line is that the concept will then need to change for what will effectively become a better project, but a different project. Okay. Put a timeline on that, James. We've a bit of work to do, probably a little bit more appraisal and a bit more engineering work to optimize the concept. Okay, perfect. Thanks, Kevin. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mark Wiseman with Macquarie. Please go ahead. Hi. Good day, Kevin and Anthea. Thanks for the update today. Just, I had a question on Dorado as well. Can you just clarify that the phase II project, which was the gas development, it sounds like that will now form part of the first phase. It would be an oil development with a tieback to Varanus Island for the gas from the beginning. Is that? Am I hearing that correctly? What you're hearing me say, Mark, is that we believe that's the concept, an integrated concept that includes the development of gas reserves in the basin. We believe there are very significant gas reserves in the basin. If we can get a development that gives us backfill for Varanus Island for the longer term without having to go spending significant CapEx up and down the Carnarvon Basin, chasing backfill, we see that as an optimal outcome for all parties. Your point is correct. We're viewing this now as an integrated oil and gas project from day one. Okay, fantastic. Thanks for that. Just on slide six, the committed projects CapEx of AUD 7 billion. It actually sounds a little lower than we would have expected, given the backfill projects on the old Santos assets. You know, I would assume for PNG that number would include Juha, P'nyang, and PNG. I guess we would have expected some ongoing CapEx in the Cooper Basin and at GLNG. I just wonder if you could provide some discussion around, you know, what's in that number beyond the major growth projects that you've specified there. All right. Thanks for that, Mark. Look, we're talking here about the major project CapEx here, major growth CapEx as we refer to it. Your Cooper Basin sustaining CapEx is before the generation of free cash flow, right? That's self-funded, and it's absorbed, if you like, in those free cash flow numbers. We're only really talking about the CapEx here for major growth projects. What's important is to recognize that we're seeing only committed projects. We're not including non-committed projects. We may not do them. That's why we say in the other parts of that chart that the usage would be for returns to shareholders and of course for investment in either our Climate Transition Action Plan projects or development projects in the future if they became FID projects. At this point in time, we've not included any project in there that is not committed. Okay. Great. Great. In the seven. Okay. I was wondering- We'll try to give some guidance on that on the chart by listing the major projects that are included in that seven number. Okay. Thank you. I just wondered on the East Coast gas market discussion and the, you know, the ACCC projected shortage for next year. I just wondered if you could provide any updates on whether a heads of agreement can potentially be reached here. Is there anything you're able to say on that? Well, look, I think, Mark, what I would say is that, there hasn't been a shortfall in the last six years. It's not the first time one of the forecasters has predicted there would be. There never has been. I don't believe there will be next year either. The LNG projects have worked collaboratively over that time since the first introduction of ADGSM through the existing HOA to ensure supply was made available to the market. I believe that we can work again with government to make sure that the supply is available to the market. As I've said repeatedly, there is more uncontracted gas than any predicted shortfall, but I still don't actually believe there will be a shortfall. I think it's important to look at the assumptions in the ACCC report, and there are some wide-ranging assumptions there that I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of them. All of those things won't come to pass, I suspect, and hence, I don't believe there will be a shortage. You know, I go back to the point, Mark, there wasn't a shortage this year either. There was a drop in supply of coal and an inefficiency of renewables that meant the gas that was meant for the existing normal domestic market was pulled away for power gen, and that led to the short term, very significant gas spikes that we saw. Okay, great. Thanks, Kevin. Appreciate it. Thanks, Mark. Your next question comes from Dale Koenders with Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Morning. Just a couple of quick questions. Firstly, just building on your comments, Kevin, around shipyards and COVID impacts and labor shortages and et cetera, and the challenges for Dorado. Can you sort of explain why those pressures are any different for the Darwin backfill project? Why we should be- Which are you talking about? -anticipating delays and- You mean Barossa? CapEx for Barossa, yeah. Yeah. Well, look, first of all, I mean, Barossa's contracting was done much earlier and we got our lump sum contracts, got our shipyard slots, and we've. You know, I can't remember the number, but it's a large percentage of our contracts in the Barossa project are fixed price. Of course, at this point in time, we're well advanced. One of the advantages of the Barossa project was in fact that we started it at a point in time where not many people had started projects. We started it in 2021 when we're still during the pandemic. That's given us a bit of a head start before many of these inflationary pressures have come through. that may be good fortune rather than good design, but it's kinda worked in our favors. We are seeing inflationary pressures on the variable components of the project, and if you speak to some of the contractors, we have seen some impact. So far, we've been able to work with that within our contingency allocations in the project. For example, with our shipyard component of that project, we have put some incentives in place to assist the shipyard contractors. You know, so far so good. We're obviously paying very, very close attention to it, but at this stage, Barossa is traveling very well. Okay. No, no CapEx overrun anticipated, is I guess the takeaway. Yeah. Secondly, just on the structure of the dividend with free cash flow, effectively the tier above $65 a barrel. Should we assume that going forward, that continues to be a buyback on market, or will that vary between dividends and buybacks and other things? Well, look, I mean, I can't think of why it would change in the short term, particularly whilst we're out of franking credits. What I would say is that, and I have to say is that will be a decision for the board every six months we take these recommendations to the board. The dividends and the buyback decisions are decisions for the board. Okay. I guess the signal is you think it's a good investment in your stock at the current share prices. If you're asking me do I think Santos is significantly undervalued, you would not be surprised to hear me say yes. I would probably say that most times, but in this, the share price in this climate, $90-$100 oil, I think we are very significantly devalued, and I think that's a good use of the funds for shareholders. Okay. It'll prove over the long term. Finally, just on CapEx for the East Coast gas market. Your joint venture partner, Beach, has sort of spoken about half a billion dollars over the next 12 months. A lot of that is Western Flank Oil, not a project you're involved in. Drilling for the Cooper Basin JV, 100 wells per annum. Do you think that rate will continue indefinitely over the next few years? You know, what sort of contributions for production increases do you think that will provide? Well, look, I mean, we just had the Cooper Basin absolutely humming in 2018, 2019 before COVID came along, and we saw the reduction in CapEx in the Cooper Basin, resulting in a drop in number of wells over three consecutive terms. Of course, we've seen production drop in the Cooper Basin as a consequence of that. Pleasingly, we're beginning to see it bottom out and turning back up again as we're drilling more wells this year. I think we're forecasting around 110 wells this year. We're starting to connect those wells, and we're starting to see it turning around, just as we did back in 2018 when we went through this same experience. I'm confident in the medium term that I think your question goes to, will we have enough good prospects to keep drilling that number of wells each year? Pleasingly, we're seeing a lot of good wells coming on. Some good production rates from some of the new wells coming on. There's still a lot of gas and a lot of liquids across the Cooper Basin, and thus far, at least it's a function of how many wells we're drilling. Look, we hope to get that production back up. Like I say, around about 100- 110 wells a year seems to be the steady-state efficient model. It works well for the Cooper Basin, and that's what we're aiming to get back to. Okay. Thanks, Gus. Yeah. Thanks. Your next question comes from Saul Kavonic with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Thanks, Chance. Look, a few questions, but perhaps just starting with, what are the strategic thoughts behind reweighting the portfolio away from near-term LNG via a small sell down of PNG LNG and more into long-term oil, given general market sentiment prefers more weighting to LNG and less weighting to long-life oil? What do you say to the idea that selling the market's favorite asset, which is PNG LNG, and deferring near-term Dorado, which is a relatively smaller, shorter cycle oil project, in order to do Alaska, is actually doing the opposite of what most investors want? Well, look, thanks for the question. Look, I mean, first of all, it's really about ensuring we've got a balanced and diverse portfolio of assets and really avoiding over concentrating in any one place. Hence, we're only selling 5%, but we think 37.5% is a good equity level to move forward in PNG on. In terms of Alaska, it's really about delivering the highest value outcome from that resource and from that opportunity for our shareholders. We're not doing Dorado. We still see value in Dorado, but we don't think the project is right to go forward at this point in time. Quite frankly, you know, I'm pleased that we're able to show the discipline to kinda step back, if a project's not ready, rather than diving in and going forward at all costs. Look, I think it's a disciplined approach. We can't develop everything at once. But from a portfolio basis, it's really just a case of diversification, not only across products, but across different regions as well. You know, we actually see that we'll grow our LNG production over the next few years. When Barossa comes on, of course, we've got a very strong linkage to JKM from 2025. So we're pretty happy with our portfolio balance going forward. Further on the PNG LNG sell down, where you mentioned you have line of sight to this being in line with consensus, could you perhaps just elaborate on what your view of consensus is? Does consensus refer to what the consensus value for the asset is per percentage point, or does it refer to what consensus view of a sell down will achieve, which some people are doing at a significant discount to the asset value? Yeah, look, I mean, First of all, it's consensus to what the asset valuation, the market asset valuation is. You know, because we're in negotiations and discussions with the shortlisted parties, I'm not going to put a number out there, Saul. What I would say is any of the numbers I've seen flying around, it's, I'm very comfortable with those numbers that are flying around. Understood. If we were to rewind about six months ago, I think there was kind of market expectations that, you know, Alaska would be sold completely. You'd see some big sell downs of Dorado and PNG LNG, and then there could be scope for, you know, a big buyback. It's almost like there's been an about-face on all of those expectations. Is there any prospect of a large buyback occurring now or larger capital management beyond the current formula you framed, or the AUD 2 billion-AUD 3 billion sell down target's kind of on the back burner now, and the scope for additional upside to capital management isn't really there in the near term? Well, look, I mean, first of all, I can't remember ever saying there was gonna be any major buyback. I don't think we ever put that out there. That may well have been an expectation of some. What I would say, Saul, is what I said earlier. You know, the world has changed a lot in the last six months. There's a focus on energy security that wasn't really there when we last talked, results in February. Since then, the world has changed very considerably. When it comes to Alaska, we did run a process. We were not able to get the sell down we wanted that we thought was a good value outcome in that timeframe. Now, that's not to say that we will not sell down during the development phases. I've said earlier on, just as we did with the Barossa project, and we're open to that. We'll remain open to that. But we do believe that project will become more valuable with time. And we believe that the need for oil production and from an energy security point of view has increased quite significantly during that period, and we're getting a lot of support for that project. So look, I mean, I think as I said in the speech, you know, we don't need to wait to sell down. We believe now is the time to develop it. If we do sell down during development phase, we'll update you when we do that. As for any major one-off buybacks, you know, I'd say the board's focus was more on a rolling buyback program, which we have communicated to the market a few months ago, and Anthea has talked about that on this call today. That's our focus. If we get into a position where we accumulate a lot of cash, we go below the sort of bottom of our gearing range, then that may be a consideration for the board at that particular time. Thanks. Just on the balance sheet, I mean, obviously, forward curve prices are high now, but we're also heading into a recession, so we can't discount downside scenarios. If we do see a downturn, you know, oil goes back to $40-$50 for a few years, where does that leave balance sheet credit ratings, those kind of metrics, for the next few years now that you are committed to Pikka and Barossa? Well, Barossa is 43% complete. I'll let Anthea talk about credit ratings in a second. What I would say is we're gonna continue to run the business in a very disciplined manner, funding it within our means. We run our business as you know on a free cash flow break even basis across our assets. None of that will change. I was pleased to see in the results, if you back out the late life production costs at Bayu-Undan, you'll see our average production costs are lower than they've been at any other point in time over my six years here in the company, despite the inflationary challenges we're seeing across the industry. I was also pleased to see that the integration synergies we've delivered, around $106 million at the end, sustainable annual synergies at the end of last month. We've upped the guidance now between 110 and 125 million dollars in annual synergies. I'm pleased to see we're still making progress and maintaining that discipline of running the company with a low cost focus. Anthea, do you wanna talk about credit ratings? Yeah. I suppose just to add to that. The disciplined operating model does ensure that from a sustaining business, we are resilient at lower prices. We do phase our CapEx to live within our means. We do model forward views at downside oil prices to ensure that the portfolio is resilient to lower prices. Having a kind of de-geared balance sheet, so the gearing has come down considerably over this year. That positions us quite well if there was a downturn in the future. From a credit metrics perspective, we're extremely strong in the metrics, so there's definitely room to move from a credit rating perspective. Having the three ratings there is very helpful too. We're fairly comfortable if there was a dip in the oil price in time, that we'd be very well positioned to get through that without losing the credit rating. I think it's also worth so just to add to that. You know, we've put guidance out before about our gearing ratio aspects of our operating model ceiling. We wouldn't be taking FID in any of the projects if we thought we were ever gonna exceed that. That would be the constraining metric, if you like, for any other capital investment decisions. Thanks. Look, one last one from me, just focusing on Alaska. You've broken down where the cost risk sits with Alaska. So obviously like Barossa, you've offload a lot of that cost risk to contractors. Is that the same case in Alaska, or is the inflationary environment we're seeing there, Santos? Where is that? And I guess the second point on this is, why should investors have confidence that Alaska is worth what you say it is, if no other industry participant has been willing to put a bid on the table, which remotely reflects that, so therefore, you weren't gonna sell down on that basis? Look, I think as I said earlier, others do see value in Alaska. All I've said is we've not been able to agree a deal in that timeframe. We think, you know, we do think it'll become more valuable over time. It's really a case of us not waiting forever for other people to finish their processes. We don't have to do that. The project's in good shape. We've got good contracts in place that we want to maintain. We wanna maintain, you know, the cost of steel that we've got secured. You know, the interesting thing about the Alaska project is that the civil works are largely done for this project. So it's really drilling. Drilling is the biggest cost in this project, the cost of the wells. We have those contracts in place for the drilling rigs for this project. It's very much like an upstream project you would see onshore Australia other than the environment, which is quite different, as you know. It's an upstream project, it's drilling costs and it's pipeline connections essentially with relatively simple processing facilities. There's no big LNG plants, there's no offshore shipyard vessels. Risk was a big factor in prioritizing this project over the other opportunities, as well as the economics. It's a very strong project. We've got a world-class team in place. I've been over there, spent some time with them. It's a very assured project, so we're very confident that and in fact, because of the long time we've been asking these guys to recycle this project, it's probably the most FID-ready project I've experienced in my career. With engineering done to a very high level of completeness at FID. I'm feeling good about the risk profile of this project. As I say, the major cost exposure is drilling costs. Thanks, Kevin. Thanks, Anthea. That's all for me. I'll hop back in the queue. Thanks, Tom. Your next question comes from Mark Samter with MST Marquee. Please go ahead. Yeah, morning, guys. A couple of questions, if I can. Kevin, I'm gonna ask a bit more direct one about the buyback and the capital returns framework. Obviously, you've said it's all between a gearing range of 15%-25%. I won't, we won't quibble on exactly what consensus is for a PNG sell down, but broad numbers, a 5% sale, given, you know, I mean, cash flows from LNG, as long as you produce, is pretty much locked in given the lag in contracts. Gearing probably is gonna be ±15% by the end of this calendar year. Slide six shows us that at $65 oil, you got 100% of your market cap to return to shareholders over the next eight years. Share price, I think in both of our views, is ridiculous at these levels. I guess I just cannot understand why the board wouldn't be looking to return materially more than the 40% as we get to next year. That sounded more like a statement than a question, but there was a question mark at the end of it. Well, look, thanks for all of that, Mark. I'm gonna try and cover, I was taking notes furiously as you were running through those different points. Look, first of all, I'd say the 15%, you're right. If we get below that, you know, that's a very soft balance sheet, if you like, at that point. A very strong balance sheet, but you know, a very delevered balance sheet. Consequently, that would be a consideration that I'm sure the board would make at that point in time. I can't speak for the board. What I would say is that the board made a first step in that direction this year with the new capital management framework. You know, I was very grateful to the board for doing that and returning more value to shareholders. They've been true to that throughout the year. I expect that they'll continue with that framework for the foreseeable future. If the gearing, if we do complete in that timeframe and the PNG sell down, the gearing does go below that level, then I'm sure they will consider, given the strength of the balance sheet at that time, whether or not to return additional returns to shareholders. As we go forward, and if we are in a world of higher oil prices, and we are generating those cash flows like we've shown on slide six, then I'm sure that would be a more regular consideration for the board. Okay, thanks. Second question. This is a slightly strange one, but I guess when we're thinking about Alaska, and obviously you've been through an attempted sales process. I'm just really interested if there's anything that potential buyers are seeing in this asset. I guess with your conversations with the market too, when I sit down, I'm not asking you to comment on your competitors' projects, but I just find it absolutely incredible that people are worried about your balance sheet and stressing a scenario of oil going down to $40 or $50 when there's a very large other Australian company that's taken FID of the project at 100% equity on something that's 25% of their market cap and another project at 82% that's 10% of the market cap. Yeah, Alaska's 6%-7% of your market cap, your net CapEx on it. Is there something you're butting up against from corporates in particular, why they should be so panicked about this project versus other projects? Well, look, I mean, I said in my speech, Mark, that we think it's an outstanding project. It is true that I wanted, and I communicated previously, that I wanted to get a lower equity level in this project and that we would be open previously to all types of offers. You know, for a number of different reasons, people may or may not come forward and put that offer on the table. Some of that can be strategic, some of it can be political. The volatility that we've seen over the past six months has made it very difficult. In fact, I would argue the volatility has made it difficult to sell anything other than LNG projects. You know, if you've got a good LNG project to sell equity in, then I can't see why you couldn't do that in this environment because most of them have got long-term price contracts, and it's quite easy to evaluate. Less volatility, if you like, in those long-term LNG valuations than there would be in oil or even in some cases, domestic gas. For us, I think the volatility has certainly played a part. What I can say is we've had a lot of interest in the asset, and as I said earlier, people have seen value and do see value in it. So far, we've not been able to progress that. We've made a decision that we didn't wanna be sitting here waiting forever. We think the best way to monetize this asset is to FID it while remaining open to a sell down during the development phase like we did in Barossa. If that happens, we'll obviously communicate that to the market if and when it does. We believe there's a lot of value in this project, and it will become more valuable over time. The one thing I would like to passionately agree with you, I mean, there's not a lot wrong with a forecast IRR of 19% at less than $60 oil. I believe this will deliver excellent value to shareholders if we end up developing it and holding our equity in it. Okay. Thanks, Kevin. To To start, I'm very keen to get all the ExxonMobil executives mobile numbers off you if you want to give them. Okay. I'll bear that in mind. Thank you. Thanks, Kevin. Yes. Your next question comes from Gordon Ramsay with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and congratulations, Kevin, on Pikka. I mean, it's very rare that you see 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil in an OECD country in a pro-developed. Pro-development state. I think potentially it'll be an outstanding project. Just on that, there had previously been some press commentary about road access and the potential cost of that and how that could affect the project. Go ahead. Assuming you've FID now, has that all been sorted out? Well, look, the permit's been granted for road access, and that remains current, Gordon. There is currently an appeal on that, so you know, I'll be up front with that. However, that should have no operational impact. We're very confident. It may, you know, may well end up in the future that the commercial terms get adjusted, but the permit's been granted, and there should be no operational impact. We're looking forward to going to work in a few months' time and start our drilling campaign. again, on this project, now that Willow looks like it's getting, you know, moving forward with the environmental aspects of that project potentially getting approved, is there any potential to work with ConocoPhillips on accessing some key equipment that might be similar, or has there been any discussion at all about that to try and lower costs? Absolutely. You know, I think Conoco are an excellent operator. I've worked with them over many years. Always made the point that the strong safety culture and a strong operational culture, we will want to work with Conoco in that region when we go forward. You know, hopefully that can be beneficial for both parties. Indeed, you know, they will benefit from our oil in that pipeline, as you know, as that will lower the tariff for everybody, as it's volume-based. Look, as I said earlier, we're pleased to be there and we're looking forward to working with Conoco and the other operators in the region. I was up there recently and, you're right, if Willow goes ahead, there's gonna be a lot of activity and the most activity that's been there in quite some time. Okay, just jumping across to Dorado. I think Anthea had mentioned that, you know, and you followed up with further appraisal drilling on Pavo. Clearly that's oil, but you also mentioned you wanted to firm up gas. Can we be looking towards a multi-well program in the future in the Bedout Sub-basin? Well, look, it's too soon to say, Gordon, what the program will be like. We're very mindful of managing our CapEx within our guidelines, as we've said previously. We're now looking at the appraisal opportunities, and we'll work with our joint venture partner to agree on that program. You know, I don't wanna be down on Dorado. I think it's very important. Yes, we've deferred it. Yes, we have said it needs more work, and we are focused on looking at an integrated concept, integrated for oil and gas. It's an excellent prospect. You can't do everything at once. What I would say is that Pikka won the race in terms of economics and readiness. Dorado will have its time. It's just not now. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks, Gordon. Your next question comes from Nik Burns with Jarden Australia. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks, Kevin and Anthea. Just another question on Alaska. Overall, the numbers you presented today look broadly in line with what Oil Search presented, say, 18 months ago. Can you just talk about the work that you've undertaken since taking over the project? And are you comfortable with the work that Oil Search did, and whether you've made any changes in scope in any way, or essentially they are identical to the project that Oil Search was proposing? Thanks. Look, there's been shaping up, frankly, over time, and that's the team and country doing most of that work, Nik. You'd see CapEx has come down a little bit. I would say that what the main work we've done over the last sort of year or so or six months, I guess, has really been in contracting and getting the right contracts and getting the readiness to do the project and de-risking the project. Look, I think a lot of the work Oil Search did was excellent. Again, it's the team and country that have led most of that work. As you know, they were probably set up as a quite independent team in the previous Oil Search organization. What I would say is they're a little bit more integrated into the overall Santos. We've spent six months assuring and linking them to the corporate center so that we've got that governance across the operations and building the connection between the team and country with the corporate body back here in Australia. As I say, I spent a bit of time over there with some of my team recently. Met all the local stakeholders, the indigenous stakeholders, governors, senators, federal senators, and I got a lot of support for the project. I would say, you know, we'll make sure and we'll look forward to introducing to our shareholders and yourselves at the next Investor Day some of the team from Alaska. It is a world-class team. I have been very impressed by the team that Bruce has assembled in country with a very experienced, Alaska-experienced individuals making up that team. I'm sure they're very happy today with this announcement, as I know they've been anxious for some time now. Great team and country, a great asset, low risk asset, Nik. You know, as I say, it's mainly a drilling project now. The majority of the civil works are done. You know, the pads are there. I was on the pad just a few weeks back, and the roads are there. Yeah, we're in good shape. That's great. Look, my other question, I guess, you mentioned that you see further upside in your share price, probably not too surprising. From a market perspective, feels like one of the factors weighing on the share price recently has been this ACCC report on that predicted a gas shortfall this year. Now irrespective of any realism around that shortfall emerging, it does feel like the market is looking for some degree of clarity or certainty around any potential impact on Santos from any rule changes that might come through in the forms of a revised ADGSM or HOA. Can you talk about the timeframe where we can get that sort of information in the market so we can all make an assessment about what that potential impact might be? Thanks. Well, look, thanks for that, Nik. First of all, what I would say is I've been really encouraged by the tone and the comments that have come from Madeleine King around this issue. She's taking a very mature and balanced approach to understand the issues and to work with the issues. Likewise, what I've heard from our new prime minister is very encouraging. They're taking a very measured approach to understanding this issue. I think in the past, that's not always been the case. Indeed, you know, with dare I say it, chest beating, threatening to intervene in markets, which has never happened, of course, never occurred, only causes that instability. More important than just me whinging about the impact that has on my share price is the impact that has on our foreign investors, the people who invest in these projects in Australia that underpin these long-term developments, and the customers, of course, who offtake from these projects. These are the same customers and the same investors we will need for clean fuels in the future. That's why I said in my speech, it's important that all stakeholders remember the need for a very stable regulatory environment and government policy environment when it comes to domestic gas. I'm on record as not opposing gas reservation on a prospective basis, and that's something that I'll put out there again that I've never, ever opposed. Now, not everybody agrees with me on that, but that's fine. That's my view. When it comes to domestic gas going through LNG plants and potential domestic gas market shortfalls, I would just ask you to think logically about how you would solve that when you have uncontracted gas available that is of a higher volume and you know, there's more of it than any forecast shortfall in the next year or two, versus why you would ever want to go and break into international offtake agreements. There's a few countries that have tried that over the years. Very few have succeeded, by the way, and most of them have destroyed their export markets in the process. I don't think that's what's going to occur. I'm very confident that the LNG projects, as they did last time, when asked, sat down with government, put an HOA together, and we solved the problem. However, the problem will never go away unless governments, and I say governments with an S, unlock new supply. It comes down to supply at the end of the day. I'm hopeful that with what I'm hearing from Madeleine King and the Prime Minister on this issue, that be able to get all the key stakeholders together to think longer term and get the right policies in place to support new developments in a sustainable way that can then help take this issue off the table and ensure we've got a supply of gas for our manufacturing and gas users on the East Coast. That's clear. Thanks, Kevin. Cheers. Thanks, Nik. Your next question comes from Daniel Butcher with CLSA. Please go ahead. Okay. Thanks, Dan. I think you're the last one on today. Over to you, mate. Oh, great. I can ask a load of questions then. Thanks. Look, just quickly, just to clarify a couple of little things around Alaska first. It's still considered non-core, and you said you would take offers during construction if they came in. When will you actively try and sell it down again? And are you still aiming to sell the whole 51% despite calling it outstanding? Look, we're going forward on the project, Dan. That's our focus. I wanna provide certainty to our organization and everybody on this call that that's what we're doing. What I'm saying is we're still open to a sell down if anybody comes forward during the development, but we're not running any specific processes or announcing any processes. That would just be like we did with Barossa to get to an optimum level. I think I've answered that enough during this call already, and hopefully, that's clear. Okay, great. Maybe just trying a little bit again on the contracting strategy for Alaska. You mentioned a little bit about locking in competitive rates. Can you talk a little bit about what aspects are locked in on fixed rate per day or lump sum, and which ones are- Sure Exposed to increases in any areas? Also, is that part of the reason why you went to FID now, to sort of lock in those before they roll off on previous contractors' offers for EPC contracts and so forth? Well, look, it was a consideration. I think one of the things I would say is that on all of our projects, I conducted a review a few months back of our contracting strategies, looking at which countries a lot of our contracts were with. That was really in response to the invasion of Ukraine and trying to understand what risks we had in terms of anything being manufactured or fabricated in Ukraine. You'd be surprised how much comes from that part of the world or nearby countries where gas might be cut off to those countries and our supply chain be impacted. We've reviewed that. We've looked at China and the Chinese exposure for contracting and other parts of Asia. One of the things that makes me feel very comfortable about Alaska is that 89% of the spend, not that I wanna be too specific, but I think you'll find it's on chart six, I think. Oh, no, we didn't put that in the slide. I'm sorry. It's in the release. It's in the release. 89% of the spend is within North America. There's very little contracting outside of the U.S., which is in this very volatile and unstable environment we see as a big advantage. There is no Russian co-content. Around about 55% or so of the cost on this project would be fixed rate. The remaining 45% or so is mostly labor costs with most of that cost. Of course, we're carrying a contingency in the project as well. I think we include close to 10% contingency on this project. It's a relatively low-risk project because we don't have any of those huge plant, like an LNG plant or an offshore vessel components to the project. It's really a drilling project with some processing kit, which makes it a relatively low-risk project. It's the variable drilling costs. It's more about the days it takes to drill wells as opposed to the rates, if that makes sense. No, that's great. Thanks for the color. That makes perfect sense. Look, just a little detailed question, but you sort of said AUD 1.3 billion, which is the upper end of the old Oil Search range of AUD 1.1 billion-AUD 1.3 billion. I'm just curious, in the course of the scope, was there any shifting of the maintenance well drilling from post startup to pre-startup or vice versa? Curious. No. All we're doing is taking 51% of the 2.6 CapEx to nameplate capacity, Dan. Obviously, well, it's just the arithmetic. It's just our share of those costs. There's no shifting of anything around. All right, great. I guess I might just try again on the PNG sell down. What were the cost base for the sale? Would it be acquisition price from Oil Search, or would it be your original investment, which might get a bit of capital gains tax on that sell down? There's details in the accounts. It's in the held for sale note. You can see the amount of the 5% that we've pulled out of the accounts. That's where you get line of sight to that. That's for the tax cost base, not for your accounting cost base. Tax cost base will be a little bit different. Yep. Yeah. Are you able to get a hold on that? Yeah. We can't really because it depends on the consideration. We can give you the accounting base, but any tax calculation would be depending on consideration. Okay. Can I have a punt at what consensus is? Is it just under our AUD 300 million that we have in our model for per what percent of the asset? You can have a punt, Dan. You've got an idea for consensus, can't you just tell us what it is? No, Dan, we're right in the middle of negotiations with our short-listed parties. Okay. All right. I just don't wanna put any numbers out there. No worries. All right. That's very helpful. One final question, if I can. If the ADGSM was invoked and if GLNG as a non-net contributor was hit and had to divert some cargos, on what price linkage would you need to sell the gas domestically? Or could you get away with selling it domestically? I'm confident GLNG won't be hit, Dan. All right. Fine. Thanks. I'll leave it there. All right. Thanks, mate. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further questions. I'll now hand back to Mr. Gallagher for closing remarks. Okay. Well, look, I'd just like to thank everyone again for their attention this morning, and just reiterate that, we're very pleased with the strong results. The company is in great shape. We're generating very strong cash flows with higher returns, and that gives us the ability to get higher returns to our shareholders and the confidence to develop new projects. Thank you very much, and I look forward to talking to many of you over the next few days on our roadshows. Thank you.