Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Whitehaven Coal Q2 FY 23 quarterly production call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session, at which time I will instruct guests on how to ask a question. I'd like to now introduce you to Mr. Paul Flynn, Managing Director and CEO of Whitehaven Coal. Please go ahead, Paul. Thank you, Operator, and thank you, everybody, for joining us. Happy New Year to everyone. I suppose I should say that. We're halfway through the month already, or a little bit more, but we probably should say that. So welcome, and thanks for taking the time this morning. As usual, I'll just go quickly through our quarterly report, which you've all seen issued this morning, and then move on to the Q&A session. So with that, the highlights, if I could, just quickly. The average coal price for us during the quarter at AUD 527 was a decent result. It's lower than the September quarter, of course, at AUD 581, but still very, very positive territory. And that delivered an average half, or a record average H1 coal price across that six months of AUD 552, which is very good. Subject to audit, of course, we estimate that our EBITDA for the first half is going to be in the order of AUD 2.6 billion, which is pretty positive, and managed run-of-mine coal production for the December quarter was at 4.8 million tons, 21% up on the September quarter, which is positive. The managed sales of produced coal at 4.3, and our total equity sales of produced coal at 3.4, both up on the previous quarter, which I'm sure everyone realizes was heavily weather-affected, and I'm sure we'll get to the discussion on that. Cash generation during the course of the quarter was very good, as is the AUD 1 billion, as is the balance of cash at the end of the six months at AUD 2.5 billion. As far as the buyback goes, we've managed to pick up 40 million shares during the course of the period at a cost of AUD 367 million. And since the inception of the buyback program, we've now picked up just over 140 million shares for a total cost of around AUD 955 million. On the safety front, look, we're doing incrementally better than we've been doing in the past, but that still requires plenty of work. So it's nice to see the improvement trend continuing, although it's off a little bit from where we had been earlier in the year, and we've seen a few more incidents in more recent times, which requires more focus from us to ensure that that continuous improvement pathway is something that we're delivering on for the safety of our people. If I can go to the overview just over the page quickly, look, the quarter itself is typified by continued weather interruptions, as we spoke about to you with the releases of the September quarter. Narrabri, of course, the underground mine was the least affected by weather and has been doing very well, which has been very, very much appreciated. But that weather certainly affected the open-cut operations, and you saw that come through in the results that we've released this morning. As you may recall, when we spoke to you about the revised guidance, we did take into account prudently an adjustment, a prospective adjustment for what we thought would be continuing weather that we thought was necessary to take into account for the balance of the year. That has proven to be the right call because not only in October, but certainly into November, we're experiencing still access-related issues for our open-cuts in particular, and so that's certainly played out in two of the three months of this quarter. As a result, as a result, you can see, and we'll get to the realizations in a minute, but as a result, you can see we obviously had a shortage of our highest quality coal for blending purposes across our business. And so we have been selling more coal into the mid-CV market than we would have otherwise wanted, and that's really just because the balance of the revision to guidance really was borne by our open-cut operations. And without that blend stock, then we weren't able to maximize the benefit of that blending opportunity during the course of this quarter. And I'll speak to that in a minute in further detail. The total for managed coal production there, as you can see, 4.8 versus 4 in the September quarter, saleable coal production at 4 versus 4.2, managed sales of our own coal at 4.2 versus 3.7, and then the equity tons thereafter. We finished pretty much line ball stocks one period to the next, so no major change there. We had purchased some coal during the course of this period, as you would expect that we would have, given that we've revised our guidance for our open-cuts based on the weather interruptions that we've been experiencing. So we had purchased some coal. That's obviously up relative to the previous quarter in September when we were carrying stocks into that period. I'll come down to Maules. Despite the weather, Maules Creek did have a better December, and we saw, as I mentioned earlier, October and November certainly experienced access and weather interruptions, but we managed to produce 2.1 million tons for the quarter, so another 300,000 tons up on a weather-affected September quarter. So that's better, but still, as you can see from the data we've given you there just on the rainfall during the period, it was pretty significant. And certainly, that hampered our ability to operate in an orderly fashion, and the use of helicopters and the restrictions that that places on you, or that places on you, caused us to produce less than we would have otherwise liked to during this period. But the month of December actually cleaned up quite nicely, so that was a good return to form in the month of December, but obviously, the impacts for October and November are there to see. The sales for the December quarter at 1.7 million tons, 11% down, and that's really just reflecting that shortage of coal that obviously we're going to try and make up a good portion of that in the second half of the year. Narrabri, as I said, has done really well, so it's close to 2 million tons there versus 1.6 from the previous quarter. So that continues very good form there at 23% up period on period. The next longwall move starts shortly, and we're hoping that we can finish that up actually in the beginning of Q4 of this year. So that's very positive. Saleable coal production 1.8, up 23%, as you would imagine, consistent with the ROM production change as well. The Gunnedah and our open-cuts, again, weather-affected, certainly have borne the brunt with Maules of that weather. So if I look at Tarrawonga, it's line ball in terms of ROM production for the period, but Tarrawonga did suffer, I suppose, if you like, if I can say, two dimensions to the weather interruptions, not just the impact of weather and not being able to get into the site, but then there's also the limitations placed on our haulage route in being able to get coal down to the Gunnedah Prep Plant because for those who've been to the site will have traversed Blue Vale Road and also the private section of the haul road and realize that that's relatively low-lying transportation route, and so we have suffered there as a result. Saleable coal production there, you can see the numbers there, 254 versus 400 September, sales of coal at 289 versus 353, and stocks at 619 versus 655. Werris paradoxically, which is normally the one who suffers from weather the most, has actually done reasonably well despite the weather, so that's been a good result. ROM tons there at 416 for the quarter versus 214. The saleable coal there at 336-382. We've ended similar stocks from what we started within the quarter at Werris, but it has actually done a little better than Tarra. Tarra has been the one which has suffered more. Werris obviously doesn't have the haulage exposure because they've obviously got a rail loop straight there at the pit, and no washing means, of course, that the ROM production does line up pretty quickly with the saleable numbers as well. If I move over to the realizations, the big change for there, as I highlighted a little bit earlier, we've got less high CV sales than what we would have expected to have during this quarter. This is a temporary thing. Maules Creek is back up and running in drier conditions, which is nice. It is surprising how quickly that turns, and it's a very dusty environment up there at the moment, which is strange given all the weather we've had. So we temporarily, as I say, moved more sales into the mid-CV part of the market, and our met sales were very low at 7% of the total. So the realizations there, as you can see, an AUD 527 I mentioned before. The thermal coal price realized during that period at $351, and our met coal price there, these are US dollar numbers at $312 during the quarter as well. Overall, the market remains pretty tight. It would appear that we're going through a period in the north at least where there's a relatively subdued winter, but we're seeing a lot of tightness in the 6,000 market, and that's obviously borne out by the types of coal prices we're referring to here, so no one should be surprised about any of that. The met coal market is still subdued, and even though we've seen an improvement there, it is subdued, but the JSM quarterly there is 230 versus 237 for the previous quarter was pretty flat. But we do think once the COVID restrictions in China and then China opening up more generally will put a bit more momentum into the market, so we do expect to see the market firm up. And of course, in our primary markets such as Japan, the end of the financial year is looming for the Japanese financial year when the use of Russian coal will cease at 31st of March. So we are seeing quite firm interest in coal in March and also April, and so I think that just reflects that concern that the Japanese players have around continuity of supply after the end of this financial or Japanese financial year. The logistics and the corporate aspects, I won't speak to those. Nothing particular there of note. The development projects themselves, Narrabri Stage Three is continuing with secondary approvals and so on, but there are obviously two elements there which is not news to anybody, having mentioned these in the previous quarter. There's obviously the EDO with their, unfortunately, with their taxpayer funding is causing us a little bit of annoyance just on their challenge of our IPC approval, and of course, the EPBC issues at the federal level continue to work their way through. I mean, that one has wrapped up, I think, 19 projects in total for reconsideration at the federal level. Narrabri Stage Three is one of those, and we understand that we'll be in the first tranche of projects to be considered, which is good, but we'd like to see that come to a conclusion as quickly as we can. Vickery, no material change for things there. We did previously mention that we would come back to the market with a view on the staged development, the potential for a staged development at Vickery going through a smaller version of Vickery, then through to the larger at the half-year release of the half-year results. Our viewers will probably need a few more weeks post that, so I think it'll be more like March by the time we actually come to the market with a view on the likelihood of a staged introduction of the Vickery project. Winchester South, the only notable thing that's changed during the course of that period is that the public exhibition came and went during the quarter, and we're just working through the submissions that we've received as a result of that further exhibition period. We remained unchanged from a guidance perspective, so I think generally the quarter, despite the weather, it was nice to see a good recovery in December, and certainly drier weather leading into this second half of the year was very, very welcome. So we're not making any changes to our guidance, and we look forward to some dry weather for good mining. So with that, I might just finish up the formal part of the presentation and hand back to our operator for the Q&A session to open up. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. If anybody would like to ask a question, please press star one on your phone now to raise your hand. Thank you. We do have a third question already, and it's from Rahul Anand from Morgan Stanley. Go ahead, please. Hi, good morning all. Thanks, Paul, for the call and team. Look, first question is around your cost performance. Seems quite good given the production and the impacts you've had from the media and obviously the Labour disruptions tracking to the bottom end of that updated guidance. I wanted to understand going into the second half, you're obviously going to see run rates pick up in terms of production and hopefully see some improvement on the Labour side. I mean, you can comment on that. Is it fair to then assume that your cost performance continues like it is currently or even gets better? Yeah, thanks, Rahul. And I should have said that I am joined here by Kevin and Ian and Kylie, so there's plenty of capacity here to answer questions, so I should have said. So maybe we might spread that around a little bit, but look, I won't be nasty to anybody. In the first instance, I can manage that without too many problems. I mean, the guidance remains constant. It's calibrated relatively widely there, as you can see, and it's just really, obviously, the better cost performance will be reflective if we get to the top end of our guidance and vice versa. Labour is not. I've seen comments from various participants in the industry saying that Labour is perhaps moderating somewhat. We're not seeing the benefit of that, I must say. In fact, everything we're doing in order to secure more Labour does come at a cost, and so we see continuing inflation there in that area, which we're trying to manage as best we can. So the good cost performance that we've had to date, and I say good in inverted commas because none of us like being at the type of cost levels that we're operating at the moment, but that is the market we're playing in. Despite the wet weather and, of course, the lack of productivity that stemmed from that in our open-cuts in particular, Narrabri has been doing very well, and being able to produce coal, that's kept at least a little bit of a cap on the cost moving further north. So to the extent that we continue to produce very well at Narrabri, then that's going to be a benefit to us. And as you say, in the second half, we are expecting good things out of our open-cuts in hopefully a less weather-affected second half, which certainly looks like the forecast is going to deliver to us. Then there should be potentially further positive momentum on our cost base as well, but that would lead us down to the bottom end of our guidance rather than sort of wouldn't commit to anything better than that at this point in time. But yeah, the cost pressures, we're not seeing any moderation on the Labour side, despite I've seen a few comments made by other players that in their jurisdictions at least it may be easing somewhat. Okay. And then the next one was around the NSW energy regulation that's been talked about. Obviously, nothing's finalized, and I'm unsure how much detail or color you can provide, but how are you seeing the situation develop? I mean, we've seen something similar for gas in WA. Have you sort of done some work around what that might be in terms of, I guess, the proportion of volumes, the type of prices you can expect? Is Is that around marginal costs? What are some of the conversations that you're having currently? It It would be interesting to hear. Yeah. Yeah, thanks, Rahul. Look, yeah, it's a strange world that we're living in. There's no doubt about it. You think you know the jurisdiction you're operating in, and it's very strange waking up one morning thinking that a portion of production is about to be expropriated by the government, and so that's very odd. There's not a lot of detail here, unfortunately, and we've only just had an initial briefing as our announcement outlined with the government on this before you're actually seeing media reporting statements from the government themselves front-running the whole initiative. So there's not a lot of detail yet. We've had information requests. We're providing information. There's a lot of concerns here from on various levels, of course. I mean, the most obvious one is whether or not this policy hastily cobbled together as it seems to be will actually deliver a benefit for the average person on their electricity bill. I mean, there's plenty of moving pieces of the puzzle, and obviously, the sacrifice if tons are being devoted at a capped price is large and immediate, and the flow-on NPAT into a customer's electricity bill would be somewhat down the track. How the government intends to actually police that is beyond me. So until we find out more detail, we don't know the number of tons that we're exposed to. You've seen a reference to 10% reported as a result of the media that I've seen written up by the Oz in relation to it. It must have been an interview with Treasurer Kean. It must have been. So 10% potentially, but we need to get our heads around what the shortfall is here that they're talking about. This market obviously was in balance, if I can say that. That's not to say necessarily the generators liked the price that they were paying for the coal, but we all know that from time to time, operations have glitches, and if those operations which were previously supplying them had some glitches, then hopefully their temporary nature and balance would resume again. So I'd like to know more information. So as I say, we've received an information request. We're providing information to the government. This is only over uncommitted tons. So for anyone who has committed tons, those will not be part of any reservation directive, as I understand. I would imagine most of the players are relatively heavily committed with tons, given that the market is very tight anyway, and as indicated by the price. Understood. Okay. Thanks for that, color. Look, I'll take one last one if that's okay. It's in relation to the met coal ban and obviously the met coal market coming back as we speak. Met coal prices are starting to move. Firstly, have you had any sort of inquiries from the Chinese side in terms of potential offtakes? Now, I know you don't really sell into the Chinese market that much, but has there been any sort of inquiry on the semi-soft side or any of your premium products at all? And then if you did have that opening in the Chinese market and you did see the met coal prices rally in turn impacting positively on semi-soft, how much met coal can you do under the current setup? I mean, is that around that 20% still at a group level, or can you go beyond that? Thanks, Rahul. Look, inbound inquiries are muted, so nothing there to report given the recent nature of that change. I'm sure that will come in the fullness of time. In terms of what we could do, I mean, the key considerations there, I mean, Maules Creek, Tarrawonga, they can obviously both produce a decent proportion of semi. We could revert to that relatively quickly, subject to existing sales commitments. So where we've locked ourselves into a thermal arrangement with tons that could otherwise be moved into the semi market, then you'll have to wait until that unwinds. And at current prices today, you'd have to move a hell of a lot before that starts to look appealing. So at the moment, you can see the split at 7% for the quarter. It's going to be around there for the full year, basically, on the way we're going, unless some material change occurs and semi-soft pricing starts to outstrip the thermal. How much have you locked in, just before I go, in terms of thermal? I mean, how long for? No change from what we normally do. Okay. All right. Look, that's all from me. Thank you very much, team. Have a nice day. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Our next question is from Paul Young at Goldman Sachs. Go ahead, please. Thanks. Hi, Paul. Hi, Kevin and team. I hope you're well. Happy New Year. Paul, I guess the first comment is just on your production. I mean, you did really well, so congratulations. You outperformed the Hunter Valley operators despite all the wet weather but questions actually on the market to begin with, and just on those inquiries from Japan, Paul, when those utilities are looking to move away from the Russian 6,000 kcal product, just at a very high level from industry perspective, have you heard of any total sort of volume that the Japanese need to move away from that Russian 6,000 kcal? Just to understand if you've heard a big number, like an overall number and then secondly, on that, how do you think this plays out? Do you think just simply those Russian tons go elsewhere and the Koreans take that, and we just see simply just a reshuffling of cargoes? Yeah, thanks, Paul. Yeah, look, the production was pretty good. Thank you very much for that. Ian can take credit for that, doing a good job. I think December was great for us to have some dry weather to be able to move forward. We did have some limited production, as you know, while we're helicoptering people in and out, but that was very, very limited, but at least kept things ticking along. The overall tons that we believe that Japan needs to find a substitute for is in the early 20 million tons, is my understanding of that. We know that they've been scouring around looking at other jurisdictions to try and find some other coal, but those other coals do have different quality dimensions associated with them. So I don't think, say, for instance, if you found some spare tons, and that is if you found some spare tons out of South Africa, say, for instance, you can't just replace the 6,000 that they're used to here with all the qualitative attributes that they value and then just switch that over to South African supply. So we think there's a limited upside for them in doing that. But as a result, you can see the market starting to tighten, the forward curve starting to tighten in that March and, sorry, April and May period. So our customers are looking for more volume. They're looking for longer tenure, and both of those things, which we welcome. So we think that number is about the 20 million tons. The Korean market's harder to read because there seems to be a mixed response in terms of the ongoing consumption of Russian coal. Their market was about the same size, we believe, in terms of the Russian tons that they would be seeking to consume. But as I say, it's not like Taiwan or Japan, where there seems to be more of a blanket approach to the exclusion of Russian coal. Korea seems to be a more nuanced market in that regard. So we're watching this closely just to see how it plays out. Yeah. Thanks, Paul. And then just on that, does this provide you an opportunity to maybe lock in higher price contracts under JFY or more tons into that higher price annual contract? Are you looking into that? Yeah. Yeah, we're certainly looking at that. I mean, the Japanese market, say, for instance, still wants to maintain both pricing arrangements, be it the fixed annual thermal contract and also the globalCOAL basis of pricing. So our focus has generally been locking in the premiums because most of our contracts we have very little exposure to the annual JFY thermal contract, and it's only about 5% of our business. So our focus has definitely been to lock in premiums, and where people want longer tenure, then higher premiums for that certainty. Yeah. Okay. That's great, Paul. Lastly, just on pricing and mix, just on met coal, you got a huge premium. Was that just the timing on cargoes? Are you just having some PCI, etc., into those months where prices are really high? Yeah, that's all. That's all it was, Paul. It's all small volume, as you can see, but it was just, yeah, just timing. Yep. Got it. Thanks, Paul. Last one from me, just on the high CV thermal coal. I know you said it's dry out there, and you can now get access to your wash plants and wash more coal. Where will that trend to, do you think, in this half? Not a specific number, but I mean, are you going to be back trending towards a September quarter number of 90%? Of washing? Yeah. So just your high CV thermal coal's percentage of production? The overall split. Look, I do think there's a little bit more of a tail, obviously. It's nice to have more coal on the ground, but we did have a backlog of commitments that we need to make. So that coal that's coming out of the ground now is largely spoken for to make sure that we honor all our contractual arrangements so this quarter, I think there'll still be a tail of submitted CV sales, but the fourth quarter should revert back to where we were. Yeah. Great. Okay. Thank you very much. That's it from me, Paul. Cheers. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from Paul McTaggart from Citigroup. Go ahead, please, Paul. Hi, Paul. So look, I was just trying to understand. So when I look at the Maules Creek data, the ROM coal production was pretty good in December, but then saleable coal production was down quite a bit because of access to washeries. But how do you manage at a site to do your ROM mining but not have access to the washeries? That sort of doesn't quite fit. What was the problem with access to the washeries at Maules, given that you could mine at that time? Let me just work my way through that, Paul. No, I think the issue there is really just its timing. I mean, of course, you can see stocks period on period. If you look at the bottom there, stocks period on period are largely flat. And then you've had two months there, you've had two months there where we've had pretty muted production. And so our total stocks, our ROM is obviously before you've washed anything, and we sell bypass, and we also sell washed coal. And so the movement through into saleable is really just about whether or not you've washed or processed that coal, if I can call it that, processed by one form or another, be it bypass. It's gone through the system bypass, or it's gone through the washery. Our sales, as you can see, at 1.7 versus 1.9 period on period, the movements are really just differences between whether it sits there unprocessed, if I can call it that, on a ROM basis, versus whether or not it's actually gone through our infrastructure and therefore been processed. That's where the nuances come from, the saleable versus the ROM ratios, if you like. The same thing extends across if you go and have a look at the other open cuts. The same thing extends there. You can see variations there. Werris Creek used to say, "Well, why have we got a differential there?" When it's a bypass mine, but we treat ROM coal as being what's out of the ground, but we can also, before it's been crushed, it's not saleable. Once it's crushed, even though it's largely 100% recovery, that's when we treat it as saleable. Our total ROM production is obviously inclusive of everything. Okay. Maybe I'll take it offline because the numbers still don't quite add up to me. But I'll touch base offline. Cool. Give us a call after, Paul. Yep. Thank you. Our next question is from Chen Jiang from Bank of America. Go ahead, please. Good morning, Paul. Happy New Year. Thanks for taking my questions. Just a few from me, please. For Maules Creek, by using your lower end of Maules guidance, which is 10.3 million tons, which implied the second half of FY 23 needs 6.4 million tons ROM coal for Maules, which annualized at around 12.76 million tons. I know Maules has previously done half-year ROM coal higher than that, but the Labour and weather situation, I mean, this half is different to previous years. I'm just wondering, from the current operational condition at Maules Creek, I guess the weather probably improved and better, and Labour, etc., how confident you are to achieve the second half, that 6.5 million tons and the downside risk from here? Thank you. I'm more up to date. Yeah. Thanks, Chen. Yeah. Look, there's no doubt the second half is going to be lumpy. I think that's a fair statement. You can see that we've done it before. If you look at the table at the back there, you can see where the quarters, so it's certainly not our preference to have a big second half the way we have it, but we certainly think the numbers are achievable. And if I reflect back on last year, we did actually have the same Labour shortages, if not more COVID impacts at that time, actually, and still managed to draw out those numbers. So we feel confident enough to leave our guidance where it is, but it's just going to make sure that we, well, it's going to take all of our focus, and we're assuming that we're not going to have too many more weather delays because we used up a little bit of our allowance, obviously, with the October and November interruptions that we experienced. Great. Thank you very much, Paul. I have another one, please, just to follow up on your announcement for the energy regulations. I know probably you don't have much negotiating power with the government, but I'm wondering, do you think you have, let's say, over the coal quality, if the government asks you to divert your coal sales into the domestic market? My understanding is the domestic market doesn't need the 6,000 kcal high CV coal. Do you think if the government asks you to divert 10% of your sales, do you think you can divert those low CV and lower quality coal and keep your higher CV coal, which have much higher price realization? Yeah. Yeah. Look, unfortunately, Chen, as you know, we don't have much coal that looks like the sort of stuff that the domestic power generators consume, unfortunately. So we're not a natural supplier of that stuff. That's why we don't play in that segment of the market. I mean, none of our mines are geared to do that. And so that's a point we're making very clearly to the government that that wouldn't be the highest and best use of our coal. Now, they're obviously trying to solve a problem with a shortfall from some of the mines that traditionally have supplied those power stations. So they know that 6,000 or 6,000 plus, in our instance, is not the right answer in terms of the highest best use, but they do have a practical challenge that they're trying to meet. Now, the other thing I think which is just worthwhile acknowledging also, which we've been at pains to highlight in that initial meeting we had with the government, is that there's the logistical challenges of even delivering our coal to a number of these power stations. The logistics are practically impossible for some of them. So we're not the natural supplier here for a lot of those power stations. And so we're helping the government understand the nuances of that. And I suspect they're learning a lot about the functioning of the coal supply chain after they've announced the policy. Yeah. Exactly. Thanks, Paul. I guess my follow-up question for that is they put a price cap of AUD 125 per ton, which is well below the saleable market high CV coal. Do you think you have negotiating power because your coal is much higher quality to increase that price cap? Well, I think the notion of negotiating power is an interesting concept when the government's telling you that they want to do something, and so I'm not quite sure there is a lot of negotiating power. I think, as I say, the best thing that we can do is obviously highlight to them the quality differentials. It's very obvious, and everybody knows in the industry what the quality is that these power stations have consumed in the past, the logistical issues, as I mentioned, obviously the practicality of moving coal from one to another, and so we're helping them understand all those nuances so they actually work out what is the practical solution or what is the practical answer or contribution that Whitehaven can make to an industry issue. We're not being problematic in any way. We're just trying to understand exactly what the needs are, and we're helping them understand what's the best way in which we could contribute to that without being disruptive to the whole supply chain, to our customers, investors. There's a whole range of stakeholders here who are obviously impacted potentially by whatever directions come out from the government. Sure. Sure. I understand. Paul, may I ask a last question, please? Are you still looking for met coal assets to add into your portfolio, and what kind of met coal quality are you looking for? Thank you very much. I think, Chen, directionally, no change from a strategic perspective for us. I mean, we would like more met coal in our mix. We've got fantastic thermal. We'd like to complement that with more met coal in our mix. And so there's nothing new or different in that from a strategic perspective. No change in that regard. Yeah. Sure. Are you more looking for a premium hard coking coal, or you are looking for probably semi-soft what you are having from the Winchester South? I think the quality of the projects, as and when they turn up, will be the ones that we look at. Our aspirations, quality-wise, would always be to be at the best end of the quality curve that we can. Again, the practical realities of that may be somewhat different. Winchester South is a very exciting project for us, and so there's nothing that concerns us quality-wise there. If there were to be further assets which had similar qualities in them that would be interesting, then that may be interesting to look at in the future. We're very much focused on making sure we get Winchester South approved and build the case for the board to consider the eventual sanctioning of that project. Great. Thank you very much, Paul. I'll pass it off. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Our next question is from Glyn Lawcock from Barrenjoey. Go ahead, please. Good morning, Paul. Just on this New South Wales debate with the government, they obviously mentioned if you've contracted, obviously, they don't want you to break contracts. So I assume, is it fair to say that as a company, you're fully contracted sort of three months out, and then as you go further out, it just drops off a little bit? And so is that sort of the best way to think about your business in response to the? Yeah. Glyn, that's a really good point. It is only under over uncommitted tons. The government's been very clear that they don't want to be engaged in compensating people for breaking. So yes, that's right. In the shorter term that you look at the time horizon, the more committed we are. So yes, in three months, there's no coal available, basically. But that does open up a little bit as you extend out. Now, from what we know, the intention of this is it's only out to 30 June 2024, based on what they've told us already. But as you do extend out, we do have tons which would be potentially uncommitted. Met coal sales are excluded, we understand. So you'd hive that out. Committed tons or contracts you've got, you'd hive all that off, and then you'd look at the balance of what you think you have there. And then, as we said in the announcement the other day, we understand there's numbers being thrown around anywhere between three to five million tons in total that they perceive this shortfall to be. Now, we've asked the government to provide us with some clarity as to how that shortfall has been determined because there's too many stakeholders involved in this thing that it demands transparency in terms of that assessed shortfall. Because if I'm on the generation side of things, say, for instance, it would be very easy for me to say, "I'd love to buy lots of coal at the moment at $125 a ton." And so we can see the various competing interests here. So we think the solution to all of that is just to make sure that there's the highest degree of transparency that could be provided to give everyone comfort that we're all working in the same direction to solve the same problem. Yeah. And I guess if you say it's three to five million tons shortfall out of exports of 150 for the state, it's 2-3%, not the 7-10% the Aussie newspaper reported as well. So it's a little bit of a rounding error, particularly given the context that it becomes even less. Yeah. That's right. So that's why we think we just need to get behind the numbers here from these estimates that have been thrown around already so that everybody's clear about what the real underlying shortfall might be. All right. And look, just another question. I mean, I appreciate this is the quarterly call, but one of the things we're all going to be talking about is the cash you've generated in the last three months and six months. You've bought back about AUD 600 million in the last six months, and you've said on prior calls that you'd try and split returns 50/50 between dividend and buyback. So is that still a fair way to think about how you're thinking about the returns policy? 50/50 of the 50% of NPAT is what you're referring to there, I think, Glynn. Is that right? No. I know you've got 20%-50% policy, but clearly, if you only do 50%, you're going to build a massive cash war chest, which I assume you don't want to do. So you're going to have to pay back more than 50% of NPAT to avoid that. So should I think about what I do get back in total from the company as being 50% of whatever you give me back in a buyback and 50% in dividends? So if you've just done AUD 600 million in buyback in the last six months, should I think that's what I should get as a dividend as well? I think the 20%-50% remains the same. That's the proportion of NPAT that we would return, and that was to be and that in the past had been split 25%/25% in order to get to that 50%. I think we're 51%. So it obviously is, as you say, it's just a quarter, and this is only the first half. We have been buying back. I think we spent what, AUD 367 in the last? We spent 349. We bought 367. There you go. And so I think it's a little early to be talking too much, but I have mentioned in the past to the extent that we are accumulating capital in excess of our needs. I have highlighted in the past that it would be for the board then to consider whether or not that 50% in total returns to shareholders is something that needs to be reviewed. And that's a sensible thing, I think, for the board to reconsider at the appropriate time. Yeah. I mean, it's probably not a bad policy. It's just right now you're over-earning, so it doesn't work. That's all. I'm going to record that, what you just said there, Glyn, and replay that to you at a later date. We'll see what happens to pricing as well. All right. Thanks, Paul. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. We have no further questions in the queue. Thank you. Well, thank you, everybody, for your time. Very much appreciated. To the extent that there's a question or two, I think, Paul, I've tagged your question there just about movements between saleable and ROM. We can solve that for you, no problem at all. I think generally that relates to timing of production, actually, where we've had modest production the first two months and, I think, a flurry in December. I think that's actually the biggest influence in that difference between those two line items. But we can cover that off for you. But thanks, everyone, for your time. Any further questions, just, you know, where to find us, and we look forward to catching you all up in due course. Thank you. Thanks, operator. Thank you.