Thank you for joining me for this investor update presentation. It is a pleasure to speak with you today. I would like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land upon which I'm presenting from today, the Whadjuk Noongar people, and pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. I also extend my respect to all other Aboriginal nations, the future generations, and their continued connection to country. Please note the disclaimer on slide 2 advising that this presentation does include some forward-looking statements and that our reported numbers are all in US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Slide three provides an overview of the key topics I will address in today's presentation. 2021 has been a remarkable year. We have made some transformative decisions in the past few months to set us on a path to becoming a much larger company with competing growth opportunities and a more significant supplier of energy on the world stage. In August, we announced the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business, and in November, we took the final investment decisions for Scarborough and Pluto Train 2. Now, as 2021 draws to a close, it's an appropriate time to provide an update on how Woodside's strategy has evolved in these pivotal times. In a decarbonizing world, investment decisions need to be made within a robust capital allocation framework. This is how we will continue to responsibly provide the energy the world needs in the form the world needs, and this will be done with a focus on delivering appropriate returns to shareholders. I will then spend some time discussing our approach to climate. We have developed a consistent approach across the value chain which considers the investment needed to meet the world's energy demand, how the energy mix may change in the coming decades, and what we need to do now to continue to thrive through the energy transition. This includes what we're doing to manage our own emissions and our approach to the emissions of our customers, known as Scope 3 emissions. Next, I'll move on to our growing portfolio of new energy opportunities and describe some of the work we are doing to build our own capability as well as develop the market for these lower carbon products. Finally, I will provide an update on the proposed merger of Woodside and BHP's Petroleum business, as well as our Scarborough and Sangomar projects. Let's get into it. On slide four is a summary of the five key characteristics of our vision for Woodside's future. Striking the right balance between these characteristics will be important in delivering our goal of thriving through the energy transition. On the left is low cost and lower carbon. Our customers, investors, and other stakeholders are increasingly demanding low cost, lower carbon energy. Woodside has a history of low cost, high margin operational excellence. We are good at it, and we are working on further improving the way we do things to make sure we are match fit for the challenge ahead. It is equally important that we provide lower carbon energy to a decarbonizing world. In the middle is profitable. This will be an outcome of continuing to deliver low cost, lower carbon energy. Profitability in the longer term will also be a function of making the right investment decisions as we navigate the coming years. Next is resilient, which too is dependent on our ability to remain profitable through various commodity cycles. We test the resilience of our portfolio to a range of energy demand and price scenarios, and these help inform our future investment decisions. On the right is diversified, which is important to reducing our reliance on any single asset, product, or market. The proposed merger with BHP's Petroleum business will deliver increased geographic, product, and end market diversity. Our strategy to invest in new energy projects will provide additional diversity, which in turn will increase the resilience of the business. These five characteristics are interdependent and together will enable us to optimize the value of the opportunities before us and to provide enduring returns to our shareholders. Slide five outlines our strategic framework, which explains in more detail how we are set up to achieve the vision outlined on the previous slide. Woodside has a competitive advantage in the quality of our portfolio. We produce highly valued products from world-class tier one assets. We exploit our deep knowledge of the value chain to identify new opportunities and enable diversification into new energy products and solutions. Investment opportunities are assessed through a disciplined capital allocation framework, which includes clear investment criteria depending on the type of investment. The impact on the wider portfolio under different scenarios is considered, along with shareholder returns and carbon emissions to make sure we are maintaining a profitable, resilient, and diversified portfolio. How we allocate our capital is informed by energy market analysis. Analyzing the behavior of the markets for our primary products and forming a view on how things may change tomorrow helps de-risk today's decisions. This analysis helps us evaluate current opportunities and also to position the business to adapt as the energy requirements of our customers evolve. Of course, none of this will be effective without committed teams working together in a high-performing culture. Two aspects of workplace culture that are important to me are the inward focus, that is how we work together, an engaged, accountable, and diverse workforce making the most of opportunities. Outward, that is an awareness of our role in broader society, our people applying an ESG mindset to guide responsible decision-making at all levels of the business. Underpinning the success of this strategic framework are three primary enablers. First is safe and reliable operations, which is essential to keeping our people safe and safeguarding our revenue. Second is a strong balance sheet, which provides us the financial flexibility to pursue the right investments at the right time. Third is technology, which enhances our efficiency, delivers lower cost, and improves decision-making across the value chain. Moving to slide six. I recognize that environmental, social, and governance factors are integral to our success. The Sustainability Committee of our board recently endorsed these ESG topics as those that are most relevant to our business activities at this point in time. The topics were identified after consideration of our global presence and feedback from stakeholders. As you can see, ESG covers a wide range of topics, so I'll mention just a few. For environment and biodiversity, strong environmental performance is essential, and we do this by integrating world-class environmental management throughout the life cycle of our activities. We perform research in the areas in which we operate to better understand the potential impacts of our activities on biodiversity and to better manage this risk. For social and cultural impacts on communities, we are committed to managing our activities in a sustainable way. This is fundamental to the well-being of our workforce, our communities, and our environments. For corporate governance, we believe that adopting and operating in accordance with high standards of corporate governance is essential for sustainable long-term performance and value creation. On to slide seven. I mentioned earlier that business planning and capital allocation decisions are informed by energy market analysis. As an example of particular relevance, given where we are in the energy transition, here are the 4 scenarios published by the International Energy Agency, modeling a range of pathways by which the energy transition could unfold. They range from the stated policies scenario at one end, which assumes the implementation of climate policies already announced, through to a net zero emissions 2050 scenario at the other, which incorporates further actions required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Each scenario contains different outcomes for the forecast for energy, including from oil, gas, and hydrogen, and hence the investment required to develop these energy sources. Under all 4 scenarios, significant investment is expected in oil and gas, with growing hydrogen investment required, especially in the net zero 2050 scenario. Even in the net zero scenario, the forecast cumulative investment in oil and gas needed to meet the world's energy needs is immense at approximately $10 trillion. It is clear there is an important role for oil, gas, and hydrogen, and our strategy to develop a diversified and resilient portfolio will help enable Woodside to thrive through the energy transition. Slide 8 shows the indicative free cash flow generated by the proposed combined Woodside and BHP Petroleum portfolios under the same four scenarios on the previous slide. There are a couple of points to note in this analysis. First, the range of free cash flow outcomes is driven by the different product pricing assumptions across the scenarios. The stated policies scenario assumes the highest demand for oil and gas and highest assumed pricing. Likewise, the net zero scenario has the lowest. This analysis indicates that the combined portfolio is robust to a very wide range of future scenarios. Even under the assumptions of the net zero scenario, we would remain free cash flow positive in the long term, speaking to the value of our low-cost tier-one assets. The analysis also highlights the value of taking prudent action now to develop a diversified portfolio of growth options, including oil, gas, and new energy projects to optimize value as the energy transition unfolds. It's important to note that this scenario analysis is static, meaning it applies a set of assumptions to the merged portfolio and does not factor in how Woodside might respond to changing market conditions over the period. An advantage of our strategy is the optionality to modify our portfolio composition to optimize shareholder returns under various scenarios as the market evolves out to 2050 and beyond. Scenario analysis of our portfolio is an important tool to inform investment decisions and influence where we should prioritize the identification of future opportunities. Scenario analysis at a portfolio and opportunity level underpins all investment decisions. Slide nine provides some examples of further considerations used when assessing individual opportunities and how we might optimize the wider portfolio. The portfolio assessment includes a range of financial and non-financial metrics, including the impact on earnings per share, free cash flow, and the emissions profile. This assessment can apply to acquisitions or divestments, and for evaluating the impact of a new project on the portfolio. At an opportunity level, project economics such as internal rate of return, payback period, and opportunity risk are assessed and evaluated. The aim is having the discipline to move forward only those opportunities that are a good strategic fit. Ultimately, we want to ensure we are making decisions consistent with our vision to build a low cost, lower carbon, profitable, resilient, and diversified portfolio. Moving on to slide 10 and a summary of our capital allocation framework. We have characterized future investments into oil, gas, and new energy. Not all energy investments are the same, and these three investment types are fundamentally different in nature and have different risk-return profiles. For future oil developments, we will target an internal rate of return greater than 15% and payback within 5 years. Oil investments can be attractive due to the shorter development cycle and higher cash generation. Subsea tiebacks to existing oil infrastructure can be particularly attractive. Gas projects typically generate long-term cash flows and tend to be resilient through the commodity price cycle. We will target an IRR greater than 12% and payback within 7 years. The recently sanctioned Scarborough project comfortably exceeded these investment hurdles. Gas projects can also include adjacent hydrogen production, depending on nearby resources and market. Of course, we also see a significant ongoing role for Woodside's LNG production to support our customers' decarbonization commitments. New energy projects tend to carry a lower risk profile, as they are not exposed to upstream or resource risk in the way a traditional oil or gas development is. There is also a lower financial barrier to entry, given the lower capital required for development. The lower project risk means a lower return can be expected. We will target an internal rate of return greater than 10% and payback within 10 years. New energy projects can potentially be scaled up to meet demand as the market develops. The emissions from projects in all capital allocation categories need to be managed to meet our net emissions reduction target of 30% by 2030, and a net zero aspiration by 2050 or sooner. This capital allocation framework will support value optimization, shareholder returns, and the decarbonization goals of Woodside and our customers. Slide 11 outlines our approach to shareholder returns. I have discussed how we are focused on optimizing value and shareholder returns through a low cost, lower carbon, profitable, resilient, and diversified portfolio. That portfolio, through our safe, reliable, and low-cost operations, generates cash, which helps fund investment and strengthens our balance sheet. The board recently reviewed our dividend policy and determined there would be no change. It remains based on net profit after tax, or NPAT, with a minimum 50% payout ratio. NPAT is an appropriate basis given our capital expenditure requirements for Scarborough and Sangomar in the next few years. The NPAT basis helps preserve cash and protect the balance sheet in periods of low commodity pricing. We will target a payout ratio between 50% and 80%. In periods of excess cash generation, we will consider additional opportunities to provide returns to shareholders through special dividends and share buybacks. We can also consider other investments if they meet the criteria of our capital allocation framework and other strategic requirements which I have already spoken about. Moving on to slide 12, where Woodside's decarbonization targets are summarized. We are planning to thrive in a lower carbon future. Our net emissions reduction targets of a 15% reduction by 2025 and a 30% reduction by 2030, with a net zero aspiration by 2050 or sooner, are unchanged and will apply to the proposed merged portfolio. It is important to note that these emissions targets apply to our entire equity portfolio, both operated and non-operated. We intend to achieve them by designing new facilities to be more efficient, operating our existing facilities more efficiently, and offsetting the remainder. We have also set ourselves a new target to invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower carbon services by 2030. This significant investment in new energy will position Woodside as an early mover in the new energy market and support the decarbonization goals of our customers. Slide 13 describes more clearly how this $5 billion investment will help our customers. It also describes our approach to Scope 3 emissions, which are the emissions generated when customers use the energy we supply. I am proud to lead a company which supplies the energy needed by our customers to heat homes, keep lights on, enable industry, and develop economies. The main markets for our products have all set net zero targets for around the middle of the century and have their own paths to achieve those targets. We expect LNG to remain an important part of the energy mix in our region for decades to come, both as a lower carbon source of fuel for coal-dependent countries and as convenient firming capacity for renewables. We can reduce our own net emissions and by supplying LNG, help our customers reduce theirs. Our approach to Scope 3 emissions is threefold, invest, support, and promote. Our new energy investment is collaborative. The core of our strategy is to invest in the new energy products and lower carbon services our customers need as they decarbonize. Like the founding of the LNG industry, this will be a collaborative process. We are working with other companies to study, understand, and potentially develop supply chains, production facilities, and end markets. This approach helps decrease the offtake risk as we are developing supply and demand in concert with our future customers. These products, which produce no carbon at the point of use, will help our customers decarbonize. We have made several announcements in the last few months, and I'll come back to them a little later. We're also looking at developing lower carbon services. One such example of this could involve Woodside offering the use of a carbon capture and storage facility as a service to third parties to sequester their emissions for a fee. Under support, we collaborate with customers and suppliers to realize opportunities that can only be accomplished by working together. Examples of this include the carbon offset cargoes sold to customers this year. In one instance, we work with a customer to offset the emissions from the production, processing, and shipping of a condensate cargo, such that the condensate arrived at its destination port with a net zero upstream carbon footprint. There are also things we can do in our own business, such as business travel, use of our shipping fleet, and the expectations that we communicate with our suppliers regarding lower carbon footprints. Under promote, we advocate for a consistent set of global standards to apply for the recognition and transfer of carbon credits. We were very pleased to see the agreement of the rules to underpin a global carbon market at the recent COP26 meeting, enabling the robust use of offsets and emissions reduction. This year, we agreed to participate in the federal government's Corporate Emissions Reduction Transparency Report scheme. We are also working with customers to improve the standard of carbon accounting and emissions measurement to increase transparency. I'll now talk about how we see our new energy investment unfolding. Our energy transition plan is outlined on slide 14. We're at the start of a process that will unfold over the coming decade. Today, our focus is on developing a market for our potential future new energy products. As just mentioned, we are building relationships across the value chain in order to capture and utilize the expertise of others who have complementary skill sets to us. Our approach at this stage is technology flexible. We need to be nimble enough to back the dominant technology if it takes off. We are quite deliberately involved in several opportunities to build that optionality. We are securing land in attractive areas, preferably close to available renewables or close to market for development opportunities which leverage our existing capabilities. We're also making headway with developing carbon capture and storage opportunities. Two prospective markets which are getting particular focus right now are heavy vehicle transport and power generation. Using hydrogen to fuel heavy vehicles is a compelling way to seed a hydrogen market as there is limited refueling infrastructure required for trucks doing point-to-point runs from a depot. Just this week, we announced a memorandum of understanding with Hyzon Motors to study the development of hydrogen-fueled truck engines. We expect that in the mid-2020s, the new energy transition will be underway, including the startup of the first of our new energy projects. We could potentially be exporting ammonia from Australia and developing carbon capture and utilization opportunities. We will continue to scale up our carbon offset projects to ensure we deliver on our emissions reduction targets. New energy at scale is expected in the 2030s. Which could include exporting liquid hydrogen from Australia, scaling up carbon capture and storage activities, and expanding production from our existing new energy projects to match market demand. Slide 15 outlines four of our recently announced new energy opportunities. Our projects will be phased, starting small with the potential to build scale. In each case, the project location has been chosen for specific reasons. H2 Perth, located near the Kwinana Industrial hub south of Perth, has a flexible design for both hydrogen and ammonia, and the initial phase is targeting approximately 110,000 tons per annum of hydrogen production, including a 250 MW electrolysis component. We have committed to offsetting all emissions associated with the production of hydrogen and ammonia from H2 Perth, making it net zero emissions. H2TAS, located in the Bell Bay area of northern Tasmania, is targeting an initial phase of 200,000 tons per annum of ammonia generated from 300 MW of electrolysis and has the potential to support up to 1.7 GW of electrolysis. H2TAS is planned to use a combination of hydropower and wind power to create 100% renewable hydrogen and ammonia. We have recently completed design studies which confirmed the technical and commercial feasibility of exporting ammonia from H2TAS to Japan. Our recently announced H2OK opportunity in Oklahoma is intended to support an emerging opportunity to provide liquid hydrogen to fuel the heavy vehicle transport sector. H2OK is close to highways and the supply chain infrastructure of major companies that have signaled their interest in securing lower carbon energy. Lastly, we are collaborating with Heliogen on deployment of their breakthrough concentrated solar technology at a pilot facility in California. We are attracted to this technology, which allows solar energy to be captured and stored as thermal energy, effectively making the energy available even after the sun goes down. On slide 16, we have an indicative new energy growth plan. The timing of projects and expansion would be timed to match growing customer demand. By 2030, we have the potential for approximately 3,000 MW of capacity from lower carbon energy solutions. The projects listed here are the four opportunities from the previous slide, with the addition of a solar power project contemplated near Karratha. The solar project concept is for the supply of approximately 50 MW of solar energy to the Pluto LNG facility and a further 50 MW of solar power to be supplied to Perdaman's proposed urea facility. Moving to slide 17 in our carbon business, which we established in 2018 to build the portfolio of offsets to support Woodside's net emissions targets. We actually started broad scale tree planting back in 2008 in support of the Pluto LNG development. We have built a high quality portfolio of offsets at a competitive cost. This provides us with a diverse, cost-competitive foundation portfolio to support base business and future Scarborough demand. We have secured approximately 10,000 hectares of land, which we plan to use suitable portions of for the planting of native trees. Our existing and planned Australian land-based projects are expected to deliver approximately 2.5 million tons of offsets by 2040. Through these activities, we have secured sufficient offsets to meet our 2025 15% net emissions reduction target for the merged portfolio and are on track to meet our 2030 net emissions reduction target of 30%. In addition to offsets, we are assessing opportunities for carbon capture and storage, including assessing an opportunity to develop a large-scale multi-user project near Karratha, Western Australia. Carbon capture and storage will support further emissions reduction after 2030. As I take a moment to reflect back on 2021, slide 18 provides a summary of what we set ourselves to deliver, shown on the left-hand side. We said we would tackle costs through a cost transformation program, and we've done that through the implementation of our Operations Transform program. We said we'd achieve a final investment decision on Scarborough and continue delivery of Sangomar, and we've done that, including the sell down of 49% of Pluto Train 2 to Global Infrastructure Partners. We said we'd make progress on the energy transition, and we've done that as we continue to build our new energy business. On top of all this, we announced the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business in August, followed by the execution of the share sale agreement in November. It has been a big year for Woodside, and 2022 will be a transformational year as we work towards the targeted completion date for the merger. On slide 19 is the strategic rationale for the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business. It is a natural union. Woodside and BHP have worked together for decades as participants in the Northwest Shelf and more recently in the Scarborough joint venture. The rationale for the merger is compelling. The merged business would have the scale, diversity, and cash flow to better thrive through the energy transition. After completion, we would have a larger portfolio of long life Tier one assets. Increased resilience and increased cash generation to help support future investment and shareholder returns. Woodside's balance sheet would be further strengthened by the addition of the unlevered BHP assets. The increased cash flows will provide flexibility with how we allocate capital in the future. We should have greater capacity to invest in new energy opportunities, supporting our targeted AUD 5 billion new energy investment this decade. We will do this prudently by applying our capital management framework and with discipline. Slide 20 shows the geographic and asset diversity of the proposed combined group. BHP's assets complement Woodside's existing assets very well, and our respective portfolios are of a similar size. The combined portfolio is more diversified by geography and more diversified by product split. It would be a top 10 independent energy company by production, with operations and projects across the hubs of Australia, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Gulf of Mexico. The combination of the Woodside and BHP portfolios can be stronger together than apart. The near-term development pipeline is exciting. The Sangomar project in Senegal has been in construction now for almost two years. Mad Dog Phase II in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to start up next year. Final investment decisions have recently been taken for the Scarborough Project offshore Western Australia and Shenzi North in the Gulf of Mexico. There are other attractive opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico. These, together with other potential oil, gas, and new energy developments, provide an enviable hopper of opportunities competing for capital. Slide 21 provides the proposed timeline for completion of the merger. The share sale agreement and integration and transition services agreement were executed in November. The next key milestones are the satisfaction of the relevant regulatory and third-party approvals and the release of shareholder materials, including the independent expert's report. The independent experts report being prepared by KPMG will contain an opinion as to whether the merger is in the best interest of Woodside shareholders. We have assessed what exchanges would be appropriate for secondary listings, having regard to the composition of the shareholder base post-merger, along with other considerations, and made the decision to pursue secondary listings on the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. We will still retain our primary listing on the ASX and continue to be headquartered in Perth, Western Australia. The shareholder meeting to approve the issue of shares is targeted for the second quarter of 2022. It's important to note the comment at the bottom of this slide that we need to run our businesses independently until after completion. We'll need to continue the conversation with you later regarding our future plans for the joint portfolio and joint business. I can provide some high-level indication of how we intend the merged entity to be structured. Slide 22 sets out Woodside's proposed broad organizational design. Post-merger, we will be a global company, and the structure is intended to enable local decision-making within time zones, regions, and operations. We propose that Australia and international operations will be accountable for safe and reliable operations. New energy, exploration and development, and marketing and trading will be accountable for developing future opportunities through the energy transition. Projects will be accountable for high performing and efficient capital execution. Our business services, technical services, finance, and strategy and climate areas will provide support and guidance to the business and the corporation. The majority of our resources will be embedded in the business they support, with small centralized teams of global expertise supporting across the breadth of the business. Moving on to slide 23. The integration team has been working on identifying what opportunities exist to deliver our targeted annual synergies of more than $400 million, and developing plans for how to potentially implement these savings after completion. We have identified a number of opportunities across operations, growth, exploration, marketing, and corporate. For operations, our focus is on the implementation of activities already identified and planned on existing Woodside assets as part of the Operations Transform program, and then look for opportunities to roll these out further post-completion. There is potential to improve inventory management and consolidate contracts. We can also look at best practices across the joint portfolio and whether there is opportunity to take the best from both sides. For the growth pipeline, we can assess whether there are supply service synergies across all projects as well as other saving opportunities. This could include such things as the timing of drilling campaigns across different projects to utilize drill rigs more efficiently. In exploration, we anticipate a focus on high-quality prospects that have a clear path to commercialization. In marketing, we will explore leveraging increased scale to extract value from our portfolio of sales positions. A larger portfolio could provide opportunities to improve shipping utilization. It should also increase the number of optimization trading opportunities across the broader portfolio. Lastly, in corporate, we see opportunities in the future rationalization of applications, licenses, and subscriptions, and some alignment of systems and processes. The organizational design will be optimized to meet the needs of the merged business. We will continue to identify and plan how else we could optimize the merged portfolio so that after completion, we're set up for success and ready to implement and deliver. Before we finish, I'd like to take some time on slide 24 to speak about another major milestone we achieved recently, the final investment decisions of our Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 developments. Scarborough truly is a world-class resource and a globally competitive project. The resource is very large, and the full field contains an estimated 11.1 trillion cubic feet of dry gas on a 100% basis. When we took FID a fortnight ago, we booked 2P reserves of over 1.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The total cost of the development is estimated to be $12 billion, and Woodside's share is $6.9 billion. Woodside's share reflects our 73.5% interest in the upstream resource, our 51% interest in Pluto Train 2, and the additional capital expenditure that will be funded by GIP, the other participant in the Pluto Train 2 joint venture. The economics of the project are compelling. It has an internal rate of return greater than 13.5% and a globally competitive cost of supply of LNG delivered to North Asia of $5.80 per MMBTU. The Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 developments are a game changer for Woodside. We are continuing with our process for selling down our interest in the Scarborough offshore resource with a target equity of approximately 50%, and we're happy with how this is progressing. If we move to slide 25, we are of the view that Scarborough is the sort of LNG development that is well-suited to our times. LNG as a fuel has a role in the energy transition and features incredible decarbonization scenarios. LNG helps enable coal-dependent regions to stop using coal, which roughly halves the carbon intensity of their power production. Many of our target markets plan to use LNG to help achieve their own decarbonization targets. Scarborough will be a significant contributor to meeting energy demand in our region, producing up to 8 million tons of LNG per year with a field life of over 20 years. We're also building a new domestic gas plant capable of delivering up to 225 terajoules per day. To put this all into context, the resulting energy from Scarborough could generate enough electricity to power 10 cities the size of Perth for 30 years. The estimated total Scope 1 and 3 emissions over the life of the greater Scarborough resources are approximately 878 million tons. Noting this also includes the Jupiter and Thebe fields, which are not being developed at this time. Compared to other competing sources of LNG, Scarborough is amongst the lowest carbon intensity projects for LNG delivered to North Asia and has a role to support the decarbonization goals of our customers. The Scarborough reservoir contains only around 0.1% carbon dioxide, and onshore, the new Pluto Train 2 has a design intensity of approximately 0.26 tons of carbon dioxide per ton of LNG. When we set our emissions reduction targets, we factored in the potential development of Scarborough, so our 2025 and 2030 targets and our net zero aspiration already include the Scope 1 emissions expected from Scarborough. Scarborough is expected to deliver significant cash flow, which will contribute to the funding of future new energy investment to support the energy transition, as well as other opportunities and shareholder returns. Slide 26 shows the progress made on our Sangomar development, which is on track for first oil in 2023. As of November 2021, the project is approximately 45% complete. The umbilicals are getting ready for installation and the fabrication of subsea infrastructure and the pipelines is ongoing. Work on the FPSO conversion in Dalian, China is getting to the exciting stage where we are seeing large prefabricated sections of the FPSO being lifted in and connected to the vessel. The two photos on the right show the turret support structure being lifted into position alongside the vessel. Moving on to slide 27, we have some more photos from different yards in China where the various topsides modules and the turret and mooring system are being constructed. A highlight is the progress of the project in Senegal. The key contractor facilities in Dakar, including the liquid mud plant and pipe yard, are now established and operational to support the drilling campaign. Drilling of the development wells commenced in July of this year. The first of the 23 wells has been successfully drilled and completed, and work is currently ongoing on the next batch of four wells. In 2022, subsea installation activities will commence, and a second drill ship will start drilling by mid-year. Our sell down process for a portion of 82% equity in Sangomar continues. We're targeting an equity position of between 40% and 50% for this project with near-term oil production. Moving on to slide 28. I have summarized our strategy to enable Woodside to thrive through the energy transition. We have a vision to build a low cost, lower carbon, profitable, resilient, and diversified portfolio. We aim to do this by leveraging our world-class tier one portfolio and allocating capital to the right opportunities at the right time. Essential to making this work is our high-performing culture and ESG mindset through the entire organization. Informing our investment decisions is robust market analysis, where we understand macro trends for our primary products and the range of potential outcomes dependent on different climate scenarios. We also test our own portfolio against these climate scenarios to inform future strategy. Individual opportunities will compete for capital and are assessed against a range of investment targets in a robust capital allocation framework, always considering the fit with our clear emissions reduction targets. Our dividend policy has been reaffirmed by the board. Today, we announced a new $5 billion new energy investment target by 2030, which will significantly increase Woodside's presence in this emerging market. We have a growing portfolio of new energy opportunities with line of sight to producing hydrogen, ammonia, and renewable power this decade. In 2021, we delivered what we said we would do, plus announced the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business. We took final investment decisions for Scarborough and Pluto Train 2 and continued the delivery of Sangomar Phase I. I'm excited about Woodside's future and I'm primed for a big year in 2022. The company this time next year, all things going to plan, will be a larger, more diversified group that is thriving through the energy transition. Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your questions at the Q&A session shortly. All right. Welcome back to the Investor Update 2021 question and answer session. Today, we revealed our strategy for thriving through the energy transition, outlining our vision for a low cost, lower carbon, profitable, resilient and diversified Woodside. We have set a new target to invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower carbon services. I discussed our capital allocation framework for investment as the energy transition unfolds. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you directly today. With that, I would like to open the session to questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. Your first question comes from Daniel Levy from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, Meg. Thanks for the presentation today, and it's great to see Woodside taking investment in the transition seriously. I'm just looking at the investment hurdles you've set yourself for new energy projects, and they look pretty ambitious versus projects seen to date in the market. The general kind of idea of these projects being low return but low regret. Are you able to confirm if any of those four new energy projects you outlined today have been modeled to have IRRs over 10% and paybacks of less than 10 years? Or are those hurdles kind of reliant on improving technologies and economics between now and FID? Just noting that you plan to take FID on H2OK next year. Well, thanks, Daniel. An excellent question. The hurdles that we've put out are hurdles that we do think are credible, and maybe it's worth talking a bit more broadly about how we've looked at the lower carbon energy space. We've spent quite a bit of time looking at different investment choices. We've looked closely at things like solar and wind, and we've decided those are not areas that we are particularly interested in pursuing. Largely because of the reasons you described, that they have very low barriers to entry, it's a very hotly contested market, and the returns commensurate with that level of competition are lower. When we look at things like ammonia and liquid hydrogen in particular, while those sorts of investments don't have the upstream risk of a conventional oil and gas opportunity, they are projects that do require technical capability. They require the operations of major hazardous facilities. It builds on the capabilities that we have, and we do think those sorts of returns are credible. The projects that we've put forward, we do have line of sight to those sorts of returns for those projects. Of course, it is dependent on stimulating sufficient demand from the market to enable those projects to move forward at the pace that we've outlined. Understood. Thanks for that. And then just finally, I'm trying to make sense of the Scarborough contract with Bechtel. You said 90% of the cost are fixed rate, but you've also mentioned that you're in the process of trying to lock in 75% of steel prices by, I think it was first quarter next year. Are you able to confirm just how exposed the Scarborough cost estimate is or at least was at the point of FID to movements in material costs like steel? I thought they would have been included in the fixed portion of that Bechtel contract. All right. Great question, Daniel. Let me clarify a few points. The Bechtel contract is for Pluto Train 2. The Scarborough portion. Yeah. The offshore, we have a number of different contractors, McDermott for the floating production unit, the Subsea Integration Alliance for the subsea umbilical risers flow lines, Europipe, Saipem, Boskalis for the pipeline, and Valaris for the rig. A number of different contractors there. The Bechtel contract for Pluto Train 2 is a lump sum turnkey contract. When we've quoted things for the total project being either fixed or lump sum, that's 90% across the upstream and the midstream part of the overall development. Okay. I just would have thought that, say, steel is probably gonna make up more than 10% of those costs or at least raw material costs, and it sounds like those costs aren't fixed at this stage. Yeah. It's probably worth highlighting the cost of raw steel actually represents a very modest portion of the total investment. With the rise and fall mechanisms that we have for things like steel and labor, the total risk is about 1% of the total development cost. Okay, great. Thanks. That's helpful. That's all for me. Okay. Thanks, Daniel. Thank you. Your next question comes from Saul Kavonic from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Thank you, Meg. This is obviously a presentation quite heavy on ESG, so I have a few questions on that. I mean, my first one would be the $5 billion target for, I'll call it green investments this decade. Can you give us an indication of what the basis for that $5 billion number is? Is that based on the size of the opportunity funnel you see ahead? Is it based on the balance sheet capacity or something else? Good afternoon, Saul. A great question. One of the things we did when we were putting together that target was looked at a number of the parameters that you outlined. We of course took a look at our balance sheet and our spending capacity, and it is worth highlighting that the $5 billion target is a target that we've set forward assuming the merger goes forward successfully. If for whatever reason the merger didn't happen, we would need to revisit that. Again, we have full confidence that our shareholders will support the merger. We took a look at the opportunities in the hopper, and we've communicated to the market about four of those today. When you look at the rate at which demand is expected to scale up, we think the $5 billion is a target that does represent the portfolio of opportunities. That said, it will require us to get moving with a bit of pace. If you look at the schedule that we outlined on slide 16 of the pack, you know, we've got a couple projects that'll be moving into FEED next year and moving into execute, you know, if everything goes according to plan next year. It is a project or a target that does assume that we move forward with the pace that we've outlined, as described in the pack. Great. Thank you. I guess my second question on the same theme is, can you first outline why Woodside is going to be able to deploy their cash into these green areas better than shareholders can versus, you know, if you just gave it a dividend and shareholders can deploy it into green areas as they see fit? How do you plan to avoid repeating the market criticism that, for example, FMG has received due to its material FFI spend and the market's not ascribing any value to that and actually, you know, in some cases, detracting value from the overall investment proposition? Yeah, fascinating question, Saul. One of the things that we recognize is, as an energy producer, our business is energy, and we view the new energy opportunities we've talked about as in many ways a natural extension of what we do today. Of course, moving into a set of investments that will be lower carbon, particularly for our customers. The answer actually ties a little bit back to what I said to Daniel. The sorts of opportunities that we're looking at actually are opportunities that are highly adjacent to what we do today. It's worth maybe pointing out some -160 degrees C. Liquid hydrogen is -253 degrees C. The sorts of opportunities that we're looking at and the sorts of energies that we're producing are very much like what we do today. Large-scale industrial processes require unique skills in terms of liquefaction and process engineering capability. That's why we feel like these are the sorts of investments that actually are very well suited to a company like Woodside. Thanks, Megan. Last question on this, if I may. Just if we look at those opportunities which may be, you know, taking FID in the next two or three years, could you just confirm that or otherwise that this hurdle rate you presented of the 10% IRR, that that's what you're envisaging the phase one economics to be based on the contracts that you actually have in place, and that those returns are not dependent on, you know, future expansions and future assumptions regarding much higher pricing beyond what you can actually contract in the early phases? That's all excellent questions. Maybe one way to think about the new energy business is it's like the early days of LNG, where both customers and suppliers are going to have to co-invest. As we think about some of these opportunities, particularly for ammonia into power gen or liquid hydrogen into either power uses or ground transportation, we would want to have the contractual certainty that if we built the plants that we would have high confidence that offtake would be available at a price that we would have sufficient confidence in. Even for the early phases of these investments, we would be testing it against the target returns that we had outlined in our capital allocation framework. Great. Thank you very much. That's all for me. Thanks, Saul. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mark Samter from MST. Please go ahead. Thank you. Hi. Hi, Meg. I got three questions, if I can. The first one is a bit off script what we've been talking about today. Just going to the Pluto price review, obviously at the start of the year, you described the adjustments you made at earnings last year. I think you've made clear that the result that was under a provisional pricing basis rather than a firmed agreement with your customer. What's now 20 months past when the price review started? Can you clarify where we're at with it? Are we heading to arbitration or are we close to resolution? Okay, great question, Mark. We are very pleased that we have concluded the Pluto price review with our main offtakers. There's been no adjustments to the adjustments made last year, we should conclude that was done in line with the provisional pricing? Specific outcomes will be communicated in four-tier results. From a materiality perspective, it wasn't something that would trigger a specific ASX. Okay. Thank you. Second question, if I can. When we think about this $5 billion of CapEx on new energy and where it heads to, and you'll have to correct my math if we're gonna have yet more units to deal with hydrogen. I think on an energy equivalent basis, the three projects you're talking about, the hydrogen on an energy equivalent basis, will get you to about 0.8 million tons of LNG, about 350,000 tons a year of hydrogen. So that's a tenth of the Scarborough. I guess it'll be very interesting to see what the numbers drop out at. Let's say on the numbers we have in the industry at the moment, those might cost you about $1.5 billion to build. How do you manage the portfolio, the amount of CapEx you're going to have to spend? If you want to replace Scarborough in the portfolio, we're talking about $15 billion being spent on projects that you're telling us are lower IRR. Like oil and gas projects, we think have very long lead times. Can you tell me, tell us how you're thinking about the more medium-term quantum of capital required and how that plays into how you shape the business? I think it's an excellent question, Mark. I think it is one of the kind of factors where when we talked about the Scarborough LNG and the impact that it would have. You know, the energy density of LNG really is tremendous, and it's extraordinarily hard to compete with. Scarborough would power 10 cities the size of Perth for 30 years, which is quite phenomenal. That said, we recognize the world is changing, and we need to be diversifying, and we need to be offering our customers products that are both cost competitive and lower carbon. Our $5 billion is intended to move us forward with building out that portfolio of products that we can offer those customers. Look, $5 billion is a good step on the journey. I'd probably reference you back to the chart where we looked at the analysis of the IEA scenarios. For new energy to really make an impact, the rate of spend has to ramp up quite tremendously. I think this is page seven in the deck. I think that just hopefully gives everybody a feel for the size of the challenge that we're faced with and the size of the opportunity that we're trying to pursue. Okay. Thanks, Megan. I guess that's quite a natural segue into my last question, but I personally was very surprised to see no change in your gearing target. I mean, I guess to me, we're at the very start of the CapEx cycle that the business hasn't been through for a decade or so, really. Under the low oil prices, but we're probably going to a decade of much more volatile commodity prices and starting to spend a lot more money on new energy and the BHP Petroleum assets obviously have a reasonable amount of decline that you'll either have to invest or offset or just accept lower cash flow from them. I mean, can you talk through the logic of not dropping the gearing range? Do you see any credible scenario where at the start of the CapEx cycle that we're heading into, you would even wanna test even towards the middle of that range? Yeah, excellent question, Mark. I think we communicated this when we announced the merger, but post-merger we expect the combination of the BHP portfolio and the Woodside portfolio, given the fact that BHP's business is coming across with no debt, that will reduce our gearing to about 12%. Look, when we look at the gearing range that we target, we don't look at it in isolation. We look at it in context with the balance sheets and our credit rating that we're pursuing. We are continuing to target investment-grade credit rating. We think the combination of the gearing range that we've outlined, the investment-grade credit rating, and our policies around shareholder returns really land us in a sweet spot that enables us to fund not just the investment decisions we've taken, but the $5 billion that we've targeted and communicated to market today, as well as ongoing, I'll call it more routine, reinvestment in the business. We've taken a real hard look at the numbers, and we feel pretty well positioned to be able to operate within those parameters. Okay. Thank you, Megan. Thanks, Mark. Thank you. Your next question comes from Daniel Butcher from CLSA. Please go ahead. Hi, everyone. Hi, Meg. Just first the question is just around your four hydrogen and solar projects. You've talked a little bit about this already, but just curious, what is your committed spend on those four projects to date? And if they all pass FID, what's your estimated committed spend for all of them? Yeah. It's a great question, Dan. We've not put any commitments out yet or what the committed spend would look like if we got to full scale, and there's a few reasons for that. We're in fairly early days for a number of them. If you look at slide 16, you know, that'll give you a bit of a flavor for it. The projects that are more advanced, we are moving into the FEED phase. We've got scoping level costs, but as we progress each of those individual decisions, we will of course update the market on how much we anticipate spending for each of those individual projects. I think maybe one way to think about it is the $5 billion aligns with the graph that's shown on slide 16. One of the things that has caused us to focus on the projects that we've focused on to date is the fact that there's quite a bit of optionality. So, you know, H2TAS, for example, we've said we have scale-up potential to 1.7 gigawatts. H2 Perth can scale up to 3 gigawatts. H2 Oklahoma has a couple of different phases. And so it's probably too early to say deterministically what the phasing will be, but we have great optionality with all three of these. And Heliogen, you know, we're successful. I think the scale-up potential for Heliogen is really tremendous. Just to sort of curiously talk a little bit more through the moving parts on your 15% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 by 2030, specifically what areas are actually reducing emissions outright and how much is actually just offsetting emissions through the projects. Also obviously noting that your land-based stuff, I think it's 2.5 million tons to 2040, which is only about 3% or 2.5% of your Scarborough emissions. I'm sort of curious how you get to that 15% figure. Yeah, excellent question. I'll just reiterate, so our targets for emissions reduction are 15% net emissions by 2025, 30% net emissions by 2030. Look, we've taken a number of steps in our base business to ensure that we have that chronic focus on ensuring we are managing, not just safety and reliability, but also emissions intensity. I'm very proud of how the operations team has responded and the engineering organization to continue, you know, day in, day out to find ways to reduce the emissions intensity of our operating facilities. We are looking at a couple of steps that can take more significant emissions out of the business and the project or the power project that we've talked about, which could potentially supply 50 MW of solar energy to Pluto LNG. That would be a very significant step in taking Pluto LNG site emissions down. But obviously we have built out our offset potential. The 2.5 million tons that we quote there is associated with the existing and planned land-based projects. We also have been participating in the offset market. And as we note on the slide, we're well on track to meet the 2030 net emissions reduction targets through a combination of own generated as well as market-based offsets. Okay. Thank you. Might just ask one quick one on a couple things about the merger. Firstly, you know, Trion FID looks like it's gonna be happening or could happen shortly after the merger completes. Have you sort of been able to do all the work in advance to verify BHP's work, so you could go to FID quickly after the merger completes on Trion? I guess the second part of that question is, would you consider a buyback to reduce your sort of just the share count when the merger completes, which I reckon could be about $8 billion? Thanks. Okay. Those are two radically different questions, Dan. Let me start with Trion. I'm sure you're aware the project is now in the FEED stage. Through our due diligence, of course, we have developed our knowledge of the project, but we will continue as we move towards completion to ensure we have a good understanding of the project. I do want to highlight, of course, that until we complete, ourselves and BHP Petroleum need to operate as two independent businesses. The mindset that we're taking at this stage is we're treating it as a bit of arm's length, as a kind of non-operated partner view of the project. You're absolutely right that that's a decision that we will need to make shortly after the merger completes, and we're taking steps to ensure that we're well-positioned to be able to make a decision. You asked about buybacks. Let me speak to the secondary listing strategy because that is an important tool in managing the risk of flowback. You'll see in the pack that we did commit to pursue secondary listings in both New York and London. We think these listings are very important to help mitigate the risk of flowback. We think each of those listings actually will mitigate about 6%-7% of the flowback risk associated with BHP shareholders. You know, we continue to progress our analysis of demand for Woodside shares versus the shares that potentially BHP shareholders may either be unable to hold or not want to hold. Our math does continue to suggest that the demand for Woodside shares will outpace supply. At this point in time, we don't anticipate any sort of buyback, you know, around the timing of the merger. As I communicated in the shareholder return slide, that is a tool that we have in our toolkit, and we will continue to look for opportunities to use that in conjunction with our existing dividend policy and special dividends if the price environment allows us to do that. All right. Thanks very much. I'll turn it over. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Tom Allen from UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, Meg. A couple of questions from me. Just firstly, regarding Woodside's carbon offset strategy, there's obviously a range of different types of offsets that can be procured, obviously of varying quality. Now, I understand one of Woodside's sources of offsets via Greening Australia is a source of high-quality Australian offsets. Going forward, will 100% of Woodside's offsets be Australian Carbon Credit Units, or will some offsets be the certified emissions reductions or similar that are procured offshore? Okay. Well, good afternoon, Tom. Excellent question. One of the things that we're really pleased with coming out of COP26 is the progress that's been made on Article 6, which enables or provides a framework for global offsets, a global offset market or a global carbon market. We think that actually will provide the world with a lot of clarity on what quality offsets look like. You know, of course, you're absolutely right that there are differences in the market. Our strategy has very much been focused on ensuring that when we generate carbon offsets or secure them from the market, that they are high quality, reputable offsets. We recognize that's not necessarily the case with all offsets in the market. We think the progress on Article 6 actually is going to be tremendously helpful in terms of making sure everybody's on the same level playing field. Look, we use ACCUs where we need to, but we wanna make sure that we're looking at opportunities to build out an offset portfolio that is quality as well as cost competitive. The challenge we've put to our carbon team is to keep the cost below $20 a ton. Okay. That's really helpful, Meg. Thanks for that. Regarding the CCS concept with the plant near Karratha, obviously offshore sequestration's on a much higher cost base than onshore. At the IBD last year, Woodside shared some indicative data points on CCS costs, but I didn't see those today. Can you share any indicative numbers on total life cycle costs in dollars a ton that you think that concept might produce? And what specifically is the industrial source of emissions that you're targeting? Thanks. Thanks, Tom. Obviously, there's a lot of interest in CCS. We absolutely think CCS is going to be part of the solution to climate change on a global scale. While I appreciate there's not a lot of experience in Australia, it's a technology that's been used for decades in other jurisdictions. The U.S. has a very long history of using CCS, and there's projects offshore in Norway that have demonstrated the feasibility and proven up the technology. We absolutely think the technology is a viable technology. But you're absolutely right that the cost to do it offshore is a bit higher than the cost to do it onshore. One of the things that's really important to progress an offshore CCS project is scale. We need to make sure that we've got sufficient emissions to be able to inject to bring down the unit's cost of abatement. At this point in time, it's probably a little bit early for us to provide any indicative cost per ton. The strategy would be for us to be able to aggregate emissions from users on the Burrup. And that includes, you know, the LNG plants that are there today, potentially, you know, the train two, the Perdaman Urea facility. And we would also want to explore opportunities to bring CO2 in from other locations. Early days in discussing with customers what that might look like. We absolutely need to be finding emissions at scale to bring down the unit cost. Okay, that's interesting. Sounds like there's a potential infra play there on ACCUs as well, which is interesting. Now, last question from me is just can you confirm a few details relating to slide 8? Woodside's indicative free cash flow under various climate outcomes. I recognize there's no numbers on the Y-axis of the chart, and there's footnotes there that indicate that these are illustrative and not guidance. Can you just confirm that that slide suggesting that after spending $5 billion on energy transition CapEx by 2030 under the 1.5-degree pathway to net zero by 2050, Woodside would expect to generate what looks to be very low or near no free cash flow? Tom, so a sharp eye, there's no label on the Y-axis for a reason because it is intended to be indicative. Look, I think it's important to agree the world is on, and while everyone is aspiring to keep emissions down, you know, you'll note on the previous slide, for example, slide 7, that there are two different Paris compliance scenarios listed there. The sustainable development scenario as well as the net zero energy 2050, which is a pathway to net zero. The point of showing the data on slide 8 is to help the market understand that we do resilience testing against all of these scenarios, within many ways, net zero emissions 2050 pathway is one that is quite conservative for our current business. Obviously we're going to have signals as we progress down this journey that will allow us to take decisions that are appropriate as the world becomes or as we gain clarity on which pathway we're on. If, you know, for example, it seems like the world is moving towards that net zero emissions 2050 scenario, I think you would see that we would be pivoting to ramp up our investment in some of those new energy sources. The portfolio that we discussed today is a portfolio that will offer those attributes of being, you know, resilient, diversified, and profitable through a range of scenarios. Okay. Just following that comment on the resilience testing, I just wanna triple-check that under the new capital allocation framework that you mentioned today, can you just clarify that an $80 a ton carbon price is assumed in those new hurdle rates that you've disclosed? That's correct. That was an easy one. All right. That's all for me. Thank you very much, Meg. Thanks, Tom. Thank you. Your next question comes from Gordon Ramsay from RBC. Please go ahead. Oh, thank you very much. At the beginning of the presentation, it was stated that Woodside has a history of low cost, high margin operational excellence. Since I've been writing research on the company, oil has historically generated the best returns, complemented by the steady LNG base in the company. Today, the strategy has been presented that Woodside is gonna transform into new energy products. Does this mean Woodside's project returns will now become lower over time as long-term growth outside of committed existing traditional hydrocarbon projects is now going to be driven by lower returning and longer dated new energy projects? Gordon, that's a great question. It's one of the things I think we're trying to outline with the capital allocation framework is that the three pillars that we anticipate investing in oil, gas, and new energy offer different outcomes financially as well as to the portfolio. When we think about being resilient through the energy transition, you know, we look at the three pillars and our belief is that we need to be investing in all three pillars. Each of them offer something different. As you've highlighted, oil offers high returns, faster payback, but of course it declines quickly, so you're on a bit of a treadmill to replenish that profitability. Gas, of course, is quite stable over time. We see new energy actually as offering some of the same attributes as gas without the upstream resource risk. We expect that when we develop these facilities, which in many ways are more like manufacturing facilities, you know, the production year on year will be quite stable. The revenue year on year will be highly predictable, and we don't have that dependency on a depleting resource. We do see the three pillars as being important to our future, providing us with that diversification and that resilience, as the world evolves and as the world adapts to climate change. Okay. Just to follow up on that, the next question would be, does that change in strategy have any impact on the long-term dividend policy of the company which you stated is maintained at 50%-80% policy payout ratio on the dividend? Can that be maintained as the earnings stream in the company changes over time? Excellent question, Gordon. We had a lot of discussion with our board about this in our most recent board meeting, and they affirmed the dividend policy with a 50% payout ratio based on NPAT. Obviously, with targeting a range of 50%-80%, depending on market conditions and investment needs. For ground transportation, it's a relatively new technology. It exists. I actually had the opportunity to drive a hydrogen vehicle just last week, and it was quite the experience. It's still a very emerging market. We think the advantage of moving early in this space is strengthening those relationships with customers, building up that supply chain from the supplier end through the transportation phase into the customer end, and it's in the collaboration that we have. One of the things I'm really pleased with is the way we've been able to take our existing relationships with many of the customers who buy our product today and progress that conversation to how they might buy some of these new energy products. I think that's where the early mover advantage comes from. That's great. That makes a lot of sense. I guess linking into that, and you talked about partnering with customers. What's the appropriate level of equity ownership in these projects for Woodside? Are you looking to take a 50% stake? Will you go lower? How important is operatorship here? Or are you happy to cede control to the right partner? Excellent question, Nik. It's a question that we're discussing with the new energy team on an almost daily basis. You know, one of the things we want to do is ensure that we're able to bring the right partners in. If we have a customer or a partner who is interested in an equity stake, we're obviously keen to progress that. Everything we've announced thus far, so the three hydrogen projects, Perth, Tasmania, and Oklahoma, we've taken those positions ourselves, recognizing the value that we can have by being able to offer those customers and those business partners opportunities. You know, right now we're taking a more significant equity position. I would envision that over time, we will bring partners into those investments, and that will allow us, again, to continue to diversify where we spend our dollars. That's great. Thanks, Meg. Thanks, Nik. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mark Wiseman from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, Meg. Thanks for the update today. I just wanted to ask on the exploration side of the business. You know, historically in more normal times, Woodside would have invested something in the order of $200 million or so on exploration, and I think BHP Petroleum, you know, more than that. You have listed that as one of the synergies of the transaction. I can't help but see with all the high quality 2C that you're acquiring from BHP, you know, there's probably about 10 years of reserve replacement within that 2C book, that looks pretty realistic. Can you really just take the foot off the pedal on the traditional oil and gas exploration side and use a whole bunch of those cash flows to fund this $5 billion? Yeah. Thanks for the question, Mark. If you think about Woodside's journey in exploration, you know, probably just five years ago, we were spending closer to $400 million a year, and that has ramped down considerably over time, as we've refocused our exploration efforts to try to be oriented towards assets that have a rapid pathway to commercialization. As we think about the merged company, you know, that is an area that we want to look at, is to understand how do we best feed the growth pipeline of the merged company. It'd be premature to say much more specifically at this point in time, again, recognizing that the two companies need to continue to operate independently, until we get to that completion milestone. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's fair enough. I mean, just thematically, are you sort of comfortable with reducing the level of traditional oil and gas exploration risk spend? Look, maybe a different way of answering the question is to say that where we explore, it needs to be with a clear pathway to commercialization. I think our industry has a bit of a track record of doing exploration where we have technical successes, but the commercialization takes tremendous time. I mean, Scarborough is probably a great example of that. It was discovered more than 40 years ago. With the pace of the energy transition, we can't afford to be investing to find fields that won't be developed for 40 years. We've absolutely got to have that sharp focus on pathway to commercialization, and that's the pivot that the Woodside exploration team has taken. Yeah. Okay. That's great. Just on the leverage of these green projects, I mean, one of the great things about renewables is the ability to use leverage more easily than the traditional oil and gas business. Are those IRRs that you've quoted as greater than 10%, is that a levered IRR? No, Mark, those are unlevered IRRs. Okay. I mean, would you expect to be able to lever up these ventures at the project level? Is that something that you would seek to do? Maybe. I think we're open to a range of partners and open to a range of financing approaches. The key focus for the team has been, you know, we need to kinda get after these projects, and we need to get to the point where we can really have those discussions in a meaningful way. I think there is structuring flexibility with these sorts of investments, and we'll certainly keep the door open to those kinds of conversations. Again, just recognizing the imperative to move with pace, we wanna get the projects a little bit further along before we start having those discussions in any depth. Just finally from me, I mean, Woodside's gonna become a fairly powerful investor in this new energy space, you know, with the quantum of CapEx that you're investing. I mean, that could create quite a bit of value for some of the entrepreneurs that you're working with, you know, the likes of Hyzon and Heliogen. Is Woodside able to take a stake in those stocks? Is that something that you would consider doing? Yeah, look, we're certainly receptive to that sort of opportunity. I think a bit, you know, in the new energy space, it's gonna be a bit of a different mindset and, maybe if I give you the flip example, you know, in the LNG space, we saw customers wanting to take equity positions historically. You know, if you look at our Pluto partners, those are customers who wanted to be partners with us. As we think about some of the new energy opportunities, I think we will take a look and try to understand what's the best way for Woodside shareholders to create value and to deliver the returns that we've promised. But again, everything needs to be consistent with that capital allocation framework. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mark. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Ms. O'Neill for closing remarks. All right. Thanks again for your time today and for your questions. Woodside is at a pivotal moment in our history. We've announced the proposed merger with BHP's petroleum business, targeting completion in the second quarter of next year. We've recently taken final investment decisions for Scarborough and Pluto Train 2, and the energy transition is gathering speed. We have an exciting period ahead of us, and I look forward to providing another update at our 2021 annual results in February. In the meantime, best wishes to all for the upcoming holidays and the new year.