Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Woodside Energy Group Limited Investor Call. All participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. If you wish to ask a question, you'll need to press the star key followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to hand the conference over to Ms. Meg O'Neill, CEO and Managing Director. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining this call. I'm pleased to announce Woodside has entered into a binding agreement to acquire OCI's Clean Ammonia Project in Beaumont, Texas. Before I get into the details, I would like to begin by acknowledging the First Nations people of the various lands on which we live, work, and play, and pay my respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. I'm joining this call from Karratha, and I would like to recognize the Narlima people as custodians of these lands. Today, I'm joined by our Chief Financial Officer, Graham Tiver, and my Special Advisor and former Executive Vice President of New Energy, Shaun Gregory. In this call, we will provide an overview of the acquisition before opening up to Q&A. Please take time to read the disclaimers, assumptions, and other important information on slides 2 and 3. I'd like to remind you that all dollar figures in today's presentation are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. Today, Woodside has entered into a binding agreement to acquire OCI's Clean Ammonia Project in Beaumont, Texas. This acquisition positions Woodside to be an early mover in the lower carbon ammonia industry and meet growing customer demand globally. It supports our strategy to thrive through the energy transition with a low-cost, lower-carbon, profitable, resilient, and diversified portfolio. This is a mature project with expansion potential. The project is already well advanced with construction 70% complete. Ammonia production from phase one is targeted for 2025, with the addition of carbon sequestration targeted from 2026 to enable the production of lower-carbon ammonia. This acquisition reflects our disciplined approach to investment, whether in new energy or traditional oil and gas. It exceeds our capital allocation framework targets of 10% internal rate of return and payback period of less than 10 years. Phase one is free cash flow accretive from 2026 and earnings per share accretive from 2027. This investment marks a material step forward in delivering our Scope 3 targets, which are twofold. First, we have set an investment target to invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower-carbon services by 2030. Secondly, we have a complementary abatement target to take final investment decisions on new energy products and lower-carbon services by 2030 with total abatement capacity of 5 million tons per annum of CO2 equivalent. Going to slide five, the $2.35 billion purchase price includes the full cost of constructing phase one, which OCI will manage through to completion. OCI is an experienced ammonia plant developer and operator and has provided cost, schedule, and facility performance guarantees, which reduces the execution risk for Woodside. The scope of the acquisition includes the project and, importantly, an experienced team to run and maintain the facility, bringing operational and commercial experience from OCI's history in the ammonia business to complement Woodside's capabilities. Let me explore the key value drivers for this transaction in more detail. Slide 6 explains why this project is advantaged. Its location on the U.S. Gulf Coast provides access to abundant feedstock of nitrogen and hydrogen. It also has access to U.S. regulatory incentives, including the Section 45Q tax credit for carbon sequestration that supports a lower equivalent unit price of hydrogen supply. Importantly, it is well placed to serve the U.S. domestic market as well as European and Asia-Pacific markets, which are expected to lead adoption of lower carbon ammonia due to increasing carbon cost requirements. The project also benefits from incorporating OCI's history in the ammonia industry into the facility design. Since 1997, OCI has built eight world-scale greenfield ammonia plants across the U.S., the Middle East, and North Africa. The Beaumont Clean Ammonia Project is the third of this particular design it has built. Slide 7 describes the acquisition scope, which covers the ammonia production portion of the process. The schematic illustrates why this is a capital-light project, with the feedstock being sourced under contract from third parties rather than having to build dedicated hydrogen and nitrogen facilities as part of this plant. Linde will be providing the feedstock of nitrogen and carbon-abated hydrogen. The hydrogen will be derived from natural gas paired with CCS. The CCS will be provided to Linde by ExxonMobil under a contracted arrangement and is expected to come online in 2026. This is a strong partnership with tier one suppliers with competitive terms that are already locked in. The ammonia plants will have capacity for 1.1 million tons per annum for the first phase and has been designed with scalability to accommodate a second phase, which would add an additional 1.1 MTPA. Woodside is targeting FID readiness for the second phase from 2026. As part of the transaction, phase one will be completed by OCI, started up and performance tested before handover, and includes cost, schedule, and performance guarantees. As you can see from the picture on slide eight, significant progress has been made on the site. The main process equipment is already installed, including the ammonia converter and the synthesis loop compressor, both of which are visible. The Linde facility that is contracted to supply feedstock and the ExxonMobil CCS facilities are also under construction. The ammonia project is expected to start up in 2025 before the Linde and ExxonMobil facilities are available. During this time, the project will produce unabated ammonia. Early feedstock supply will come from multiple suppliers, including Linde, from available capacity on the Gulf Coast. This is an example of the advantages of this location with multiple feedstock options. The Linde production facility is targeting startup in early 2026. The ammonia becomes lower carbon ammonia when the CCS becomes operational, which is targeted also for 2026. Going to slide 10, the value proposition for this transaction goes well beyond a simple acquisition of infrastructure. We are excited to welcome a number of experienced OCI professionals to Woodside and place high value on the world-class ammonia business capability they will bring. We see a strong cultural fit between our two companies, including commonalities in approaches to safety, process safety, operations, and project execution. We also expect the project will benefit from Woodside's existing customer relationships, marketing experience, and operational expertise. This combination positions Woodside strongly in the emerging lower carbon ammonia industry. As you can see, this is an advantaged opportunity with strong players through the value chain. Let's now step back and talk about the increasing demand for lower carbon ammonia. Ammonia today is a vital commodity used in fertilizers and chemical processes. Current demand is almost 200 million tons of product produced per annum. This means there are established value chains reducing the market risk. The ammonia market is forecast to double by 2050, in part due to expected growth from traditional uses as the world's population increases. But we also expect demand growth for lower carbon ammonia from new uses, including power generation, marine bunkering, and as a hydrogen carrier. Importantly, lower carbon ammonia is expected to make up two-thirds of the market by 2050 as industries move to decarbonize and stricter regulations are implemented. This project provides Woodside an early mover advantage, well positioned to supply this growing demand and establish preferred provider status with customers. Evolving policies are establishing a framework to incentivize lower carbon ammonia. In Europe, the enacted Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, will apply a carbon tax on imported products, including ammonia. The requirement to purchase CBAM credits will begin phasing in in 2026 until fully phased in by 2034, as illustrated in the bottom chart. This will create a pricing advantage for low carbon ammonia relative to conventional unabated ammonia. The OCI Clean Ammonia Project, with its lower carbon intensity, will have the potential to attract premium pricing when compared to conventional ammonia producers. Similar economic policies are evolving in markets like South Korea and Japan, providing direct or indirect subsidies for the importation and use of lower carbon ammonia for power generation or as a carrier mechanism for hydrogen. Going to slide 13, one of the most attractive parts of this opportunity is the returns. We have high confidence in the costs through the cost, performance, and schedule guarantees secured as part of the transaction. The supplier agreements for feedstock are also locked in. With this, phase one generates over a 10% internal rate of return. Underpinning this, we have made assumptions about a price uplift for lower carbon ammonia. This starts out as zero and is phased in over 10 years using the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as a framework. We expect phase two to see even more competitive returns, benefiting from the design decisions for phase one, allowing for efficiencies when phase two is executed. And again, the value of this opportunity goes beyond the returns to include the capability and positioning in a market with significant growth forecasts. Now that we've shared the value we see in this opportunity, let's look at how it fits into our capital management framework. As we reiterated in announcing the Driftwood transaction, we are disciplined in creating shareholder value and have a track record of positioning the balance sheet to accommodate growth. We recognize that our strong dividend payout is an attractive reason to invest in Woodside. Our capital management framework remains unchanged. Phase one of the project is under construction and is forecast to be free cash flow accretive from 2026 and earnings per share accretive from 2027. Our balance sheet continues to be well placed. We have a strong underlying business generating significant cash flows. We continue to have capacity to pay strong dividends. Let's move now to slide 15, where we discuss climate considerations. In 2021, Woodside set a Scope 3 investment target, aiming to invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower carbon services by 2030. In February, we announced a new complementary abatement target to take final investment decisions on new energy opportunities by 2030 with total abatement capacity of 5 million tons per annum of CO2 equivalent. As well as generating solid returns, the OCI Clean Ammonia Project acquisition makes a material step towards delivering on these Scope 3 targets. Phase 1 has a capacity to contribute up to 1.6 million tons per annum of carbon dioxide equivalent abatement when the CCS component is operational. The carbon abatement by a CCS will result in a lower emissions profile for the hydrogen that's used as a feedstock and will, in turn, enable the project to produce lower carbon ammonia compared to traditional projects. Moving to slide 16, which reinforces the attractiveness of this investment and highlights the climate analysis that was incorporated as part of the investment assessment. We presented a similar slide for Trion when we made a final investment decision on that opportunity last year. Going to slide 17, I'm very excited about today's announcement. Since the merger with BHP's petroleum business, we have made significant investments across all three pillars of the business oil, LNG, and new energy. Last year, we took FID on Trion. We recently announced the acquisition of Tellurian and the Driftwood project, which remained subject to satisfaction of relevant conditions precedent. Today, we have announced a valuable investment in new energy. We are continuing to ensure that Woodside will thrive through the energy transition. To recap, this acquisition fits our strategy. It positions Woodside strongly in a growing market, is expected to exceed our capital allocation framework targets, and it can make a significant contribution towards achieving our Scope 3 investment and abatement targets. I will now open up to Q&A. I ask you to limit your questions to two to provide everyone with an opportunity to ask a question. Thank you. 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 Saul Kavonic from MST Financial. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks, Meg. I guess my main question is, can you perhaps elaborate on the strategic rationale for this deal and, in particular, touch on what the value-add or competitive advantage Woodside might have, given this was a competitive process that OCI went through? Thanks, Saul. So for those of you who have been following us for a while, you would have heard us talk about hydrogen and particularly ammonia as an area of interest for several years, really since 2021 when we first laid out our new energy investment target. S ome of the constraints that we've been encountering as we've been trying to progress that strategy is this chicken and egg between the capability that we have and what our customers are looking to see. With this OCI Clean Ammonia Project in Texas, it in many ways vaults us to the front of the queue. I t positions us to have ammonia plants with significant CO2 abatement through the CCS agreement with Linde and ExxonMobil downstream of that. It is a material step forward. It allows us to go out and talk to customers with confidence about marketing a product that we have confidence we will be able to deliver to them in 2025 unabated and then 2026 again with CCS up and running. An additional factor that's really attractive about this particular opportunity is the capital light structure. So as we've looked at our own greenfield low carbon ammonia developments, one of the things that has jumped out at us is the complexity of those sorts of plants. What OCI has done really is elegant in terms of focusing their capability on the ammonia process and allowing others, industrial gas companies with different expertise, to build to the front end. So when we look at the capital intensity of this OCI Clean Ammonia Project, it's much lower than if we were to try to do a greenfield project ourselves. A gain, as I said, it vaults us to the front of the queue. Now, if you ask, as you did, why Woodside and what do we bring to the table? A couple of things. I think we bring the opportunity really to marry up the best of what OCI has done with their long history in the ammonia world and the capability that they bring with our expertise and particularly our customer relationships. A s we think about the new uses for ammonia in power generation, as a marine fuel, as a hydrogen carrier, the customers who are going to look to use ammonia for those purposes are customers that we have deep relationships with today. In many ways, I think we'll get the best of both worlds by bringing the two teams together to be able to really successfully market this product into a marketplace that's evolving as we speak. Thanks, Meg. Perhaps I guess it's related, but it comes back to the priorities of capital allocation here. Why is this $2.35 billion not better? Why is it better spent on an ammonia project making a 10%-odd% return instead of a buyback if we think Woodside share price is at least 20% undervalued? Look, Saul, we take a look at all of the ways we can deploy our capital. One of the things we're keenly focused on is generating long-term shareholder value. We absolutely see that potential with this clean ammonia opportunity. As we highlighted, the phase one returns are expected to meet our targets of 10% IRR and payback of less than 10 years. As we showed you in the pack, we think when we move forward with phase two, that that'll offer even more attractive returns. Again, when we think about how we position the business to be successful into the 2030s and 2040s, this is an investment that we think will generate long-term shareholder value. Thanks. I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you. Your next question comes from Gordon Ramsay from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Congratulations on another acquisition. My first question relates to project risk, delivery risk. You seem to be pretty confident in the timing, and yet you're relying on other projects, then developing the H2 and N2 supply, but also ExxonMobil with carbon capture storage. What if one of those projects delays, or do you have any guarantees from them that they'll supply no matter what in terms of being able to meet your timetable? Yeah, thanks, Gordon. Part of why we put the schedule chart in, which I think is chart nine, was to help illustrate how all the pieces fit together. One of the things we really like about this project is its location in Beaumont, where there already is a network of industrial gases available. W e are well positioned. As I said in the call, we've got certain guarantees from OCI around the startup of the ammonia project. W e've got high confidence in the cost of the scope that we're purchasing. But as you can see from the chart on slide nine, we will be able to buy hydrogen and nitrogen from a network of multiple suppliers while we're in that period ahead of the Linde plants being up and running. T hen there's contracts. We have a contract with Linde. Linde has a contract with ExxonMobil. Again, there's certain provisions in those contracts to ensure that the counterparties are doing what they need to do on the schedule that they've promised. So more detail than that I can't give you because that's all commercial in confidence. But again, one of the things we like about this project is we can get up and running, get our plants, the ammonia plants, smoothly operating using supply feedstock from other players ahead of the Linde supply kicking in. Thanks, Meg. And then my other question just relates to the location. I think one of the slides showed it's relatively close to Driftwood. Is there potential synergies with Driftwood LNG? And I'm thinking like sourcing gas for both projects or even overlap between customers. Can you comment on that, please? Yeah, great question. W hen we look at the gas demand for the two plants, they're quite a bit different actually. As we showed on slide 7, the gas demand for this ammonia project is about 95 million BTUs per day. The Driftwood demand is orders of magnitude more than that. So there's probably not a ton of synergies, but that's something that we will want to explore as we progress both of these opportunities to see perhaps there are some value uplifts that we can capture by having multiple projects in the same neighborhood. In terms of customers, absolutely. I think that's one of the things that we really bring to the table and why OCI thought we were an interesting player to include in the process is we've got very strong relationships with energy buyers, companies like Uniper, a number of different Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese buyers. I think we're able to open a different buyer universe. With now the ability to point to low carbon ammonia being available, we'll be able to, I think, get our product into some different markets than might have been possible just as a conventional ammonia project. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Gordon. Thank you. Your next question comes from Nik Burns from Jarden Australia. Please go ahead. Oh, yeah, thanks, Meg. Look, I understand you have the liquidity in place to fund this acquisition, but as we look ahead, surely the combination of the investment announced today along with the proposed Driftwood LNG investment, assuming it reaches FID as expected, must make it increasingly challenging for Woodside to retain a dividend payout ratio at the recent level of 80% and remain below the upper end of your target gearing range. Can you just comment on that, please? Yeah, thanks, Nick. As I noted, Graham's on the call, so let me ask Graham to comment on that. Hi, Nick. Yeah, look, I think the first thing I would say is that we understand the importance of returns to our shareholders. As part of that, we're not proposing a change to our dividend policy. Our capital management framework remains unchanged as well. What we have is an attractive project. You combine that with a strong balance sheet. We have cash and undrawn facilities today. We also have a business that is generating strong cash flows. We have options, right? We've got strong investment-grade credit rating. We have good support from our banks. We have access to bond markets, etc. We feel where the balance sheet is today and through our scenario modelling, we're able to balance our shareholder returns as per our current dividend policy and continue to invest in long-term shareholder growth through these projects. It is fair to say in the context of the gearing, we will be moving up to the top end of the range and potentially beyond the range for a short period of time. But like we've always said, that range of 10%-20% is through the cycle. So I'll leave it there, Nick. No, that's clear. Thanks for that, Graham. Yeah, sorry. My second question, maybe just on the supply of hydrogen and nitrogen here. I know there's no pricing talked about. Just wondering whether these supplies, can you talk about whether they're fixed price or linked to the price of ammonia or Henry Hub? Is there anything you can give us here? Look, Nick, first and foremost, that detail is commercial in confidence. W hat is probably worth highlighting on the chart that shows the molecule flows, natural gas is a feedstock. A s natural gas prices would move, you could expect the feedstock prices to move as well. O therwise, the content inside the box, we've got high cost confidence in all of those elements. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Fiona Manning from the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation also. I'm just trying to get my head around the impact on Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with and without the CCS. The presentation has the Scope 1 and 2 increase with CCS. I'm just wondering what the increase in Scope 3 would be. Let me throw that to Shaun. Shaun, do you have that at your fingertips? So yeah, thanks for the question. The Scope 1 is less than 0.1 kilos per unit. It's very low through phases 1 and 2. And we can probably get that lower again, subject to us concluding a renewable power purchase agreement. The Scope 1 and 2 is very, very low. The Scope 3, of course, changes when the CCS comes online. The real benefit of this project is when the CCS comes online and the Scope 3 gets to a number like 0.6 million tons of CO2 versus the unabated is at 2.3 million tons. Okay. Thank you very much. That's at phase one. Understood. Cheers. Thank you. Thanks, Fiona. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Byrne from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. I guess my main question is why now? Y ou talk about jumping to the front of the queue with this low carbon ammonia. The $5 billion in new energy spend is always described as being backdated towards the end of the decade. The paint's barely dry on Driftwood, which was done just 14 days ago. And yet the macro is moving very quickly against you, I think. So I'm very interested to understand. You've explained the strategic rationale, but what about the timing of the deal? Why now? There are very few opportunities of this quality available, James. In fact, there's none. And the fact that the current owner, OCI, was looking to step away from the ammonia business. They've conducted a strategic review. I'm sure you've seen that they've sold a couple of other ammonia plants. They were looking to step away, and we saw the opportunity and said, "Gosh, we can't pass this up." Again, it's absolutely in the right neighborhood. It is a capital-light project. Again, it saves us from having to build the whole front end of the plant by being able to contract that from a third party. Meets our rate of return. And again, it positions us extremely well to be able to compete in the new energy marketplace. It was really too good an opportunity to pass up. We did have a lot of conversations around the timing of this versus the timing of Tellurian. That also was an opportunity that had been in the works for a while, but timing just got to be the perfect point. W e've stress-tested ourselves. We've really challenged ourselves. Do we have the organizational capacity, the financial capacity to take on both? We think we do. We're going to need really strong management and leadership engagement. And we've got confidence that we have that. E ven with both Driftwood and with OCI, we'll be bringing across people in those two businesses, welcoming them to the Woodside team to be able to continue the great momentum that the current owners have built up. Great. I might pick up on what Graham was saying earlier to Nick just about the gearing. Can I just confirm that remark, Graham, about gearing above the top end? Is that in a $70 oil, or is that your stress test scenario? I'd be very interested to understand when you do stress test the balance sheet against the capital that you are locking in, that CapEx, what does that actually look like? I think part of the attraction to the Woodside investment case over the last few years has been around balance sheet and being in that teens level or even lower more recently as opposed to one of your large listed competitors, which has been in the high teens to low twenties. Yeah, thanks, James I think. Meg mentioned it in the presentation, the low end today at 13%. But yeah, based on our forecast, under the stress case, we would move above the 20%, but that is through the cycle. W e're talking low to mid 20s. We're not talking well beyond that. T hat is through the cycle. We can see a pathway to get that down fairly quickly. James, it's worth reminding everyone on the call that part of why our CapEx is high right now is because of the Scarborough Energy Project investments. When we head towards 2026, we'll be ramping down capital on that project. We've already passed peak annual CapEx, actually, for the Scarborough development. In 2026, we start generating revenue. We've done extensive modeling to understand the strength of the balance sheet, how we can position ourselves for these two acquisitions. As I said on the Driftwood call, we'll be probably doing a little bit of belt tightening for the next couple of years. When Scarborough comes online, again, we will start to generate significant cash flow. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Henry Meyer from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks for the update. Interested to break down some of the assumptions driving the 10% returns some more, please. Can you share what ammonia price is assumed initially and what that blue premium ramp-up is over time? And perhaps how that would compare to forecasts on slide 13? Potentially even what IR would be achieved at current spot pricing, please. All right. Well, thanks, Henry. I t's worth noting that on slide 13, we presented a third-party price for unabated, so conventional ammonia, and then three curves for lower carbon ammonia. The curve that we used actually is more conservative than any of those third-party forecasts. And as I think we talked through in the call, what we've simply done is take the unabated price and then account for the uplift associated with the carbon border adjustment mechanism as it kicks into play. So the curve that's shown on slide 12, you'll note that the CBAM mechanism really doesn't start kicking in until about 2029. A gain, our modeling shows a modest price increase until that point in time, and then shows it phasing in stepwise to the full phase in 2034. In aggregate, we think it's a more conservative outlook than the third parties that are presented on that graph. Okay. Thanks, Meg. When we think about free cash flow accretion from 2026, I would step through some of the other project assumptions to think through operating costs, sustaining CapEx, expected life of the project, operating capacity. Look, Henry, it's probably best to follow up with our IR team on some of those more detailed questions. A gain, if you think about big picture, ammonia plants tend to be quite long, have very long lives. A gain, it's a factory, and as long as it's well maintained, it should continue running quite reliably. But let me suggest you follow up with the IR team on some of those detailed questions. No worries. Thanks, Meg. Thanks, Henry. Thank you. Your next question comes from Rob Coe from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Good evening. Congrats on the announcement. I guess my first question relates to the charts on slide 15. So this project, phase one, and then if you go ahead with phase two, that's about 70-ish% of your $5 billion target. And then you've also got the two H2 projects and things like that. Should we be thinking that you'll be looking to increase ambition over time if you get all of these away, or does this get you to that 2030 ambition? Excellent question, Rob. And it's probably too early for us to precisely answer that. I'll probably hold off on raising the bar off the $5 billion and 5 million tons per annum at this point in time. But that is one of the reasons why this opportunity is really attractive to us. Great returns, again, capital-light structure in a neighborhood where we've got lots of flexibility on feedstock, in a jurisdiction where there's an investment framework around CCS. So all of those fundamentals are very strong. But again, the potential to achieve 60% of our Scope 3 abatement target with the second phase of the project is really quite powerful. So I'll hold off on any adjustment to our targets until we digest this a bit further. I think I've said previously, if we can find attractive opportunities before and we go over, that would be a good problem for us to have. Yeah. Yeah. Sounds good. Okay. T hen just, I guess, a question on project economics. Looking at page 12, you're assuming a $100 a ton EU ETS price there with the CBAM ramp-up. This may be something you want me to refer to your IR team later on, but can you talk about the scenario where under a low carbon price, does that push out the payback but leave the return levels roughly the same? Or can you give us a sense? Look, part of why we presented that at $100 a ton is to give you guys the tools to model that and make your own adjustments. I think everybody's aware that in-house, we use $80 a ton. A gain, for our internal modeling, it's even a little bit more conservative than what's presented there. L et me suggest you follow up with the IR team on more detailed questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rob. Thank you. Your next question comes from Dale Koenders from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hi, Meg. I was just wondering, can you tell us what the short-run marginal cost is for this project once you've got up and running the CCS and renewable PPAs? Let me suggest you follow up with the IR team on that one, Dale. Okay. I mean, that's a pretty critical bit of information to make a material acquisition and not know what that is, but I will. My second question is then. Yeah, Dale, just to be clear, we have very detailed modeling of all of the operating costs. W e have great clarity. A s I said, a significant cost component is the feedstocks, and the details of those contracts are commercially sensitive. T here will be constraints as to how much we can share with the market on that. We need to model this as well, Meg. You've dropped a material acquisition on us on a late Monday night and provided very little information about the operating costs of the structure. We're just trying to figure out if it's good or not. It's very hard to tell. I guess I'll chase this with the IR team. In terms of a 10% return, can you tell us why that's compelling for shareholders? It sounds like there's no obvious synergies. Chemicals is a different beast. It's all around being lean and mean, not gold plating. It increases the volatility typically versus oil. There doesn't seem to be any contracting in place for sales price. It's all based on a carbon tax that we don't know if it works or not because there's been a lot of government political changes here in Australia on regulation. I'm just wondering why it's 10% compelling. Well, look, I would dispute some of your assertions, actually. So the oil price hasn't exactly been the bastion of stability over the last decade. When we look at the ammonia market, it is a very deep and liquid market. It's 200 million tons per annum at this point in time. And again, we've included a demand forecast, but you're welcome to look at other forecasts for how this market is expected to grow as populations grow and as the world adjusts how it uses energy and the forms of energy that it uses. I'm sure you're well aware of the work that companies in places like Japan and Korea are doing to understand how to blend ammonia into coal-fired power stations to reduce emissions for the same power intensity. We have run a range of economic cases just to get ourselves confident that even if there was a slower ramp-up of the premium pricing, that it would still be a good investment for our shareholders. Now, in a world that moves aggressively to tackle climate change, there's pricing upside, but I think we've been quite conservative in our modeling. As I said, the pricing that we've assumed is somewhere between the unabated price and the three third-party forecasts for lower carbon pricing. We've been conservative in the carbon price that we use versus ETS today. Just to be clear to everyone, the CBAM is law. So while there have been some policy changes in some jurisdictions around the world, the E.U. probably has quite a bit of form for staying the course when it comes to tackling climate change. The CBAM is a method that's a structure that's been in place to ensure the competitiveness of European manufacturers. So I don't see a whole lot of risk of that being phased out. Thank you. Your next question comes from Mark Wiseman from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Oh, good day, Meg. Thanks for the update. I just had a question just on the accretion. Could you just explain why the EPS accretion doesn't occur in 2026 but only starts in 2027, please? Yeah. Thanks, Mark. I'll hand that over to Graham. Yeah, Mark, this is predominantly related to the ramp-up. It's not material in the scheme of things in that first period you're talking, and then it starts to kick in once it's fully ramped up and operational. Okay. J ust a second question. I guess the key with this deal is going to be what the green premium is for low carbon ammonia. Do you think Europe is going to be the premium market because of this CBAM, or your channel checks in Asia are indicating that you may even get higher pricing in Asia? And in addition, could you talk about will this be a long-term contract market for low carbon ammonia or spot? Thanks. Yeah. Thanks, Mark. Look, the reason we focused on the CBAM in the presentation is because that is legislated, and there's clarity, and it's a mechanism that applies to all imports coming into Europe. A s I said to Dale's question, the point of the CBAM actually is to level the playing field for European manufacturers, which is why we've got confidence that it's enduring. What we're seeing in Asia so Japan has put in place some legislation around contract for difference, where they will assist their utilities who have to pay more for lower carbon products. T hings like ammonia going into coal-fired power stations or e-methane, for example, going into gas-fired power stations. Those contracts, though, are being competitively tendered. And so those are ones that will be awarded on a contract-by-contract basis. I think there's potential for premia in both markets. Again, with Europe, we've got more confidence in our ability to attract it, whereas in Asia, it's going to be on that project-by-project basis. Great. Thank you. Oh, and you asked a question about marketing structure. We're probably open-minded. You'll have noted in the pack that there's not long-term contracts in place today. The current ammonia market is often traded on a combination of short, medium, and longer-term contracts. We do have quite a bit of flexibility, and we'll be working with our new colleagues coming across from OCI on what the best approach is for our product. Thank you. Your next question comes from James Byrne from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for letting me do a follow-up question. I wanted to just expand on some of the themes that Dale was asking about earlier. Now, the hurdle rate for new energy is 10%, the minimum of, and for LNG, 12%. The former is described as being lower risk. I wanted to ask how you thought the risks compared in this OCI acquisition relative to, say, more investments in LNG. Now, it seems that if I compare it to, say, a Driftwood, where you seem quite confident you'll get a 12% IRR, both of these acquisitions seem like you're buying an infrastructure position and selling into a floating market. I'm just very interested to understand how the risks compare because, obviously, returns are commensurate with risk. Sure. Well, one of the things we laid out, James, when we put out our capital allocation framework, was the difference between upstream oil and gas versus new energy. A key difference between the two is resource risk. I know you've got a technical background. You would well understand that you don't really know how much oil or gas you have in the ground. O nce you start producing a field, so you get some signals. A t the end of the day, that's an irreducible risk. Whereas new energy, it's more like building a factory, so a manufacturing facility. Yes, there might be a bit of price variability on the feedstocks you use, but you don't have that same inherent risk that you have with reservoirs. That's part of why we said oil and gas is going to have to return a higher number than new energy. It was also with acknowledgment that new energy markets are evolving. And we do recognize that those markets are growing over time. W e've done quite a bit of modeling to understand the value of diversification. T hat's probably the the heart of the matter, James. I f we think about a world that is decarbonizing more rapidly, or even nations within the world that are decarbonizing rapidly, they're going to offer a premium price for those lower carbon products. If we're in a world that's going more slowly, well, perhaps you don't get that premium pricing, but you get stronger pricing in the conventional products. A gain, diversification in oil, gas, and new energy, we think, will yield a better overall outcome for Woodside shareholders. If we thought about diversification into hydrogen, you've had the H2OK idea that's been paused. Maybe this is a bit of a cheeky question. In any ways, today's announcement acquisition in ammonia further downstream of the hydrogen, is that an indictment at all on the hydrogen sector, at least for now? No, because they're really targeting quite different markets. T he H2OK project is targeting a domestic U.S. market really focused on ground transportation. While ammonia has got potential for marine fuel, I would be really well, I don't think anybody's working on ammonia as a ground transportation fuel because it's too hazardous. I n a maritime setting where you've got the strong controls you have, you've got few point sources, ammonia as a marine fuel has some possibility. A gain, for ground transportation, you've got to have something with a different chemical profile. And that's why we think hydrogen is still attractive. Y ou're absolutely right. We've taken not exactly a pause, but we've focused our H2OK work on securing customers because that is a critical path. We need to give ourselves confidence that we can get the product away. Now, you're going to ask, "Well, I don't have my product away for OCI Clean Ammonia." T he clean ammonia or the ammonia market today is 200 million tons. A lot more flexibility and a lot more opportunity to sell the product than in something like Oklahoma, which very much is a new market. Thanks again for indulging me in those extra questions. Appreciate it. No worries. Thanks, James. Thank you. Your final question, it comes from Mark Busuttil from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi, everyone. Just a question, and apologies if this might be a dumb question, but you refer to the plant as a low carbon ammonia plant, but it seems like the low carbon part of it's coming from the processing of gas with CCS. So is there anything particularly special about the plant, or is it just that it is actually processing gas with CCS? Good question. What is special is the commercial arrangement that brings together the low carbon hydrogen that's coming from a third party and all of the contractual arrangements that frame that. A gain, if we were looking at developing an ammonia project ourselves, which we have evaluated, likely our scope would include all of that front-end equipment, and we would be needing to come up with a CCS solution. W hat really is novel is the whole commercial arrangement and the fact that we've got contract certainty for hydrogen with CCS. Y ou're absolutely right. If you put a box around the ammonia plant itself, it's a box that's a plant design that's been done times before and would look quite conventional. Okay. So if that's the case, and you're talking about the big price uplift coming from the fact it's low carbon ammonia, I understand you've touched on this being commercial and confidence in terms of some of these contractual arrangements. D oes Linde or Exxon actually benefit from the sales price of ammonia, or is it a fixed rate you're providing? Can you help us understand that contractual arrangement with the CCS side of it, given that's so crucial? Sure. T here's no pass-through of ammonia price to the suppliers. So they've made their business decisions on the scope that they deliver. So for Linde, that would be the industrial gas facilities, the air separation unit, the autothermal reformer. They've got a contract with ExxonMobil for CCS. ExxonMobil would have made their own business decision around the cost of the CCS project and the payment mechanism they're getting from Linde. So three independent business decisions that all come together to produce a product that we think will attract additional price uplift. But we are not pushing that price uplift back to our suppliers. Okay. Just to clarify finally, it is a dedicated CCS that's only for you? Look, ExxonMobil is progressing with the permits required that are mapped to this project, but I'd say it's perhaps similar to the agreement we have with Linde, which is they need to supply us with the feed gases. A gain, if ExxonMobil chooses to expand the wells, I'm sure you're across the fact that they've recently bought some CO2 pipelines that run through this part of Texas. So again, if ExxonMobil chooses to offer CCS as a service to other customers, that's really their business. T hat's, yeah, their decision to make. Okay. Fabulous. Thanks. Thanks, Nate. All right. 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. Well, thank you, everyone, for taking the time to participate in the call. For those of you over East, I do appreciate it's after normal business hours. T hank you for making time in your evening. In terms of upcoming corporate events, Woodside's half-year report 2024 will be released on the 27th of August. I look forward to speaking with you all again in a couple of weeks. Thank you once more for joining us today. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.