Morning, everyone. I'm Stuart Chambers, Chair of Anglo American, and it's my pleasure, as usual, to welcome you all to our results presentation for 2023. Now, before handing over to Duncan and John, I'd just like to do two things: I'd like to update you on last year's board changes, and then also give you a very short board perspective on today and tomorrow. Firstly, on board changes, I'm delighted that Magali Anderson joined us in April last year, a senior industrialist in the world of cement, but actually, much more importantly for us at any rate, a passionate expert in sustainability. As you all know, sustainability is at the heart of all we do and actually how we do it at Anglo American. Then in December, perhaps very well known to you, is Stephen Pearce, stepped down and retired in December after seven years as our Finance Director. We welcomed John Heasley, who we see here, who joined on the first of December, a little more than a couple of months ago. I must say, John, it feels like it's a lot longer than that. But I'm very pleased to say, at risk of embarrassing John, that he's already made and he's already having a big impact. Moving now to a brief perspective on today and on the future. I'd like to start with a short few words on our long-term future at Anglo American. We are in a very, very strong position, indeed. We have an extraordinary set of resources in copper, in high-quality iron ore, and now in polyhalite. Collectively, these are all supported by three global megatrends. We've got multiple decades of resource in all three of these, and in several cases, we actually have endowments potentially exceeding a century of mine life. So great potential for organic, long-term, sustainable growth. However, to exploit these assets and to invest in them, we need the right balance sheet, and we need sustainable financial performance. So what do we mean by that? Well, last year's financial performance was poor. Now, sure, we had some very serious headwinds, very seriously in PGM prices, but also in diamond both prices and volumes. But Duncan and his team, of course, have not been and are not sitting around waiting around and hoping for those cycles to bounce back. We have to instead be pulling every lever available to significantly improve our cash conversion, which, as you all have seen last year, was at an unsustainable level. So what are those levers? Well, I'll mention a few: reestablishing operational excellence as a way of life for us, continuing the significant cost reductions started last year and continuing through into operations this year. You all have seen, I'm sure, the announcements from South Africa, for example, in PGMs and in iron ore there, examples of important cost reductions. I'm sure you will appreciate that those announcements follow a significant amount, a number of months, of both planning and engagement. These are not knee-jerk reactions to a second-half set of results. So Duncan is also very clear about the need to simplify our portfolio in order to be able to allocate any extra cash we have to the most deserving long-term growth prospects that we have. And of course, finally, he has already communicated that we will pursue the syndication of Woodsmith in order for that to be a more manageable and major live project, just as we did with Quellaveco. So Duncan and John will now talk about this and more, as well as presenting the numbers. But the reason I was keen to make this short introduction was to leave you in no doubt about the fact that the board is fully behind all these short and medium-term imperatives which are required so that we will be able to secure a strong long-term future, which we all know is achievable at Anglo American. So thank you very much. I will now hand over. Duncan, over to you. Thank you, Stuart. Good morning to you all. Welcome, as always. Thanks a lot for joining us today. There's quite a lot that we'd like to cover this morning, and I'd like to also highlight that there's a more extensive amount of detail in the appendix this time around and obviously encourage you to work through that as well in your own time. I'm going to unpack our 2023 results. Before I do that in any detail, I'd like to set the scene in terms of where we stand today and our strategic priorities moving forward. In short, 2023 was not the performance that I wanted. Much of that downturn was indeed driven by factors beyond our control. That we can substantially step up our performance without relying on price recovery is an imperative. We are now well progressed in that action to achieve that plan. The fundamental driver of performance is the mine planning process for us. Without a mine plan that works, it's very difficult to get the economic performance out of a business. We have now set or reset the vast majority of those mine plans across the businesses to position them for pricing, operating, and geotechnical realities that we face. This is an ongoing and a dynamic process. There is often a settling-in period of around 12-18 months when you transition from one plan to another. I am confident that we now have that operating base in which we will be much more fit for the circumstances that are likely to face the business in the near term. We've also made some material changes to the organization with a very much bottom-up focus to refresh that cut in the costs of our senior roles by 25%, but more importantly, set up a more effective governance program with less duplication and more focused accountability across the whole of the business. Now, this process has already involved some really tough decisions, such as those that were announced earlier this week in South Africa to reset both Kumba and Anglo American Platinum. I am very mindful that these impacts or the impacts of these decisions come across as very difficult for our teams, but they are absolutely essential for us to create a business that is more competitive and can thrive over time to support all of our stakeholders. There's no point in a business that can only perform at the top of a cycle but always struggles at the bottom of a cycle. So underlying these changes is a portfolio, I think, with some world-class assets and leading market positions. And that is all very, very well aligned with those three megatrends that you've heard me speak about so often, or the issues associated with the energy transition, the improving living standards of a growing population, and food security for a growing global population. Now, although the near-term environment, I think, will remain relatively challenging for us in parts, the long-term demand is really very bright, as far as I can see, based on those three trends. Therefore, I do remain very excited about the future of this industry and particularly about the future of this company. I am confident that we have the strategy and the capabilities to make that happen. Now, in terms of our strategy, we have three very, very clear priorities. Firstly, and most importantly, is operational excellence, as you heard Stuart speaking about. So irrespective of what asset you have in the portfolio, what business you have in the portfolio at any one time while it is in the portfolio, the obligation of it is to, in the first instance, play its role in the portfolio and be operated in a way that it is deemed to be inside out and outside in operationally excellent. I have already said that the mine plans, which are at the very core of these businesses, are what we need to deliver on and improve the competitiveness of our assets through the efficiency of the management of those assets, as well as the cost management within those assets. This is the foundation of absolutely everything else. If we don't get that right, it's very difficult to get on to priority two and priority three within the strategy. Secondly, we will work to improve our portfolio. Practically speaking, we will work towards having a simpler or a less complex portfolio where every asset has a role to play, and that asset needs to be in the portfolio on its merit. Thirdly, and it is third in this context, over the longer term, we are focused on delivering the attractive and highly value-creative growth options that exist and are embedded already within the portfolio. We do have a clear pathway with well-sequenced plans from a capital allocation perspective to be able to do that. But I do want to assure you that we will not compromise our balance sheet nor our shareholder returns for growth investment. The execution of our strategy is underpinned by the application of our differential capabilities built over many, many, many decades of establishing operating businesses in both developing and developed markets. I'm going to go into each of these three key strategic priorities in the next few slides. Then later, I'll come back and give a little bit more detail on operational matters and growth. Now, by far and away, our biggest focus is on our operations. Operational stability and effective cost management do represent our biggest margin levers. This is supported by sustainable production plans that prioritize value and thereby enhance margins and returns. We are intensely focused on the operating model to achieve safer, repeatable, and more consistent outcomes. The operating model itself absolutely leans into a competent mining plan. That's very important. We are also starting to see the benefits come through from the work that we have done during 2023 to reset our organizational design. In removing the duplication, it has moved much of the decision-making closer to the operations. Not only now is there better accountability, but it is also easier to make the right decisions more quickly throughout the business. We expect that these actions are going to come together and deliver a $1 billion saving in annual OPEX through the business. They are now well progressed. So much of that is already on track. Some of it has already been delivered. We expect to hit that full $1 billion OPEX saving at a run rate of $1 billion by the end of 2024. We are also taking $1.6 billion of capital out of the business over the next three years. That capital removal is a function of efficiency in terms of the way that we look at capital, so no change in scope, but better and effective deployment of that capital. More importantly, with a clear focus on every asset has a role to play in the portfolio at the right time in the cycle. Therefore, we choose to allocate our growth capital to those elements of the portfolio that deserve to be growing at this particular point in time. I believe that we have, therefore, already made some very significant progress. But we are far, far from done here. We still have and we still are in the process of systematically reviewing all of our assets in conjunction with the detailed mining plan work that I mentioned earlier. We will then take the further actions that are absolutely going to be needed to ensure that every asset is competitive. We're working towards positioning most of our key assets solidly in the bottom half of their respective cost curves. Now, portfolio improvement, which is our second strategic priority after operational excellence. As we continue to go through these assets systematically, we also have to assess the role of every asset in the portfolio. As we go through that process, I want to assure you that nothing is off the table. There has to be a very clear value rationale for it to either be in the portfolio or not in the portfolio. There are a number of important components to value. When we look at this through the asset review, we have to look at the actual plan for that asset. We have to look at the markets in which that asset operates. We have to look at the time in the cycle that we'll be looking to make any of these decisions. We have to look at the role in the portfolio for this particular asset over what period of time. We certainly have to be cognizant of any of the frictional costs of change to either adding or removing assets to the whole of the portfolio. Now, as everybody knows, share prices and commodity prices can bounce around quite materially every single day. But when you're dealing with a capital cycle that extends over many, many years, as we do in mining, with a very limited number of Tier 1 assets, then these decisions have to be very thoughtful and based in deep-seated logical value. And that is how we're thinking about it. I can definitely see portfolio improvement as a value lever. And I am working to remove the complexity from this business. But any changes that we make must be done with shareholder value in mind first. Finally, growth. At this time, this is the third on the list of priorities. And I mean in that order. But it doesn't mean that the growth potential in our portfolio is not genuinely exciting. We do have some very, very highly attractive project options that we already own and that do offer considerable growth potential in value. We are progressing a well-sequenced pipeline of copper projects with Woodsmith at the moment. And we have now created really valuable longer-dated optionality in high-quality iron ore with a Serpentina deal that we announced this morning, which we will be able to develop when the time is right. We have more of these adjacencies in the portfolio. We really like adjacencies. There are very few places in the world you can go in mining where you can extract actual industrial synergies from ore bodies or infrastructure. And there are a few more of these in the portfolio. So like Serpentina was an adjacency, I'm very keen to see if we can unlock others, such as Los Bronces and at Collahuasi, as we continue to progress discussions there with our partners. We will look to syndicate the risk, as Stuart said, and the capital on large greenfields projects for value. And that includes Woodsmith, just as we did at Quellaveco at the right time and with the right partner. Our differentiated capabilities, spanning sustainability and social impact, technology, and the belief in the importance of customer-centric marketing are absolutely critical enablers for all three of our strategic priorities as they position us as the partner of choice. These capabilities are critical to our day-in and day-out operations, as well as our ability to achieve our portfolio improvement and our growth ambitions. We have a compelling competitive advantage in how we bring these development projects to book. Quellaveco is a blueprint for the success in partnering for long-term mutual benefit. There is a deep expertise that runs through the organization to be enabled to do these sorts of things. We are applying these capabilities and taking them further at Woodsmith here in the UK and also at Sakatti in Finland. These will be mines of the future in terms of their minimal footprint and the sustainable impact that they have on society and on the environment and reinforce our credentials as a credible partner of choice. We have a more focused and a prioritized approach to technology now, meaning that we can better realize the benefits from our investment in Future Smart Mining of recent years. We have learned a lot with some wins, such as Coarse Particle Recovery and dry stack solutions, among others. We've learned that at this stage, we have to focus on the technologies that we believe can bring about the greatest change to our own assets in our own portfolio first. Our Southern Africa renewables strategy through Envusa, I think, is a great example of developing big picture solutions to very difficult problems and solutions that in themselves are NPV positive. We do continue to make great progress there with a financial close expected imminently on three of our projects, which will bring about 520 MW of energy in our drive for 3-5 GW over time. Moving on then just to a quick summary of the 2023 operating performance. As always, safety is first. We do continue to make some very, very solid progress in our safety journey and on our journey towards zero harm. We achieved our lowest-ever injury frequency rate in 2023. On top of that, we ended the year with the lowest frequency rate ever. That was 0.91. So we beat our own target quite significantly in terms of this. So on behalf of the whole organization, though, despite that progress, I do want to offer our deepest condolences to the family members, the friends, and the colleagues of those who did lose their lives during the course of the year. As you know, we had three fatalities during the course of 2023. With those fatalities and the other accidents that we've had during the year, we know that we have more work to do. I am very, very enthusiastically positive about the journey and the progress that we are making. But it is never going to be enough. And it's never going to be OK until there are zero injuries and certainly zero fatalities. This improvement in safety, though, I think, is an important indicator for us. It really does give me much deeper confidence in how we are improving our underlying operational capabilities. I have said to you before, if you've got safe, stable production, if the production is stable, the safety is likely to be improved. And I think the indicators in terms of our safety performance are now starting to give us a clue that production is starting to become a little bit more stable. So these are good foundations, but more work to do to improve it there. In December, I spoke at some length about the operational performance of this business through 2023. And you had the production update numbers just a couple of weeks ago. So I'm just going to keep this section quite brief before I hand over to John. Production was up 2%. That reflects really the ramp-up of Quellaveco, which produced 319,000 tons in the year, and all of that at a very, very competitive unit cost of $0.111 a pound. Minas-Rio itself, great performer during the year, set a number of performance records, while Kumba at the same time performed extremely well, but as we know, was materially hampered in terms of its ultimate performance by some of the Transnet constraints that we saw in South Africa. At Los Bronces, we are in a temporary phase now of lower grades and harder ores. The mine development has to catch up with the productive capacity in the whole of the operation. And on that basis, we have taken the decision to temporarily shutter one of the plants there for the next few years to allow that to catch up and allow us to get into the softer, higher-grade ores from the next phase of the mine. At steelmaking coal, we do continue to focus here on safety. These protocols are absolutely extremely important given the ground that we're working in and given the interface of that ground to gas. And we are making good progress there, just not as good as we would have liked to have made, but absolutely progress indeed. The PGMs and De Beers businesses both performed well operationally. But as we have been speaking about for quite some time now, we're really hampered by market lows, which we believe to be cyclical lows generally. These numbers could have and should have been a little bit better. And that is where our focus is now on operational excellence. It is absolutely paramount to restoring the positive momentum within each and every asset in the business. The opportunities there remain significant. So with that, I'm going to hand over to John now, who can take us through the numbers. And then I'll come back and talk to you about our thoughts and intentions and plans going forward. John. Thank you, Duncan. And good morning, everyone. It's great to be here at my first Anglo American results presentation. As you know, it's been just over two months since I joined. And as well as getting to know the team here in London, I've had the opportunity to visit a number of our operations across South Africa, Peru, and Brazil. And that's enabled me to reaffirm my view that Anglo American has great people and great assets. But it is clear that we have some opportunity to do some things differently to drive stronger and more consistent financial outcomes, especially with regards to cash generation. Well, that will take some time. It has my full attention and, of course, that of my executive colleagues. Turning now to the results for 2023. Those results were dominated by the impact of lower commodity prices, especially in PGMs, diamonds, and steelmaking coal. Overall, our basket price was down 13%. PGMs and diamonds alone resulted in a $5.5 billion reduction in revenues, with the operating leverage impact of that being significant, with the group's EBITDA reducing by $4.5 billion. Of course, action was taken to manage costs, with unit costs up only 4% against a backdrop of double-digit mining inflation. There is, however, more to do on both unit costs and total costs, which I'll come back to later. With EPS at $2.42, we've proposed a final dividend of $0.41 in line with our 40% payout ratio, taking the full-year payout to $0.96. Cash generation was impacted by profit flow-through and a working capital build, mainly in diamonds and PGMs. This resulted in an increase in net debt of $3.7 billion after funding growth CapEx and dividends. Leverage remains within our target range at 1.1 times. While such years are to be expected in a cyclical business and we run our balance sheet to absorb these periods, we are taking appropriate action to ensure robust ongoing cash generation and balance sheet strength. Looking now at the YoY $4.5 billion reduction in EBITDA, you can see that this was mainly driven by price, with a $4.8 billion impact, while volume and cost impacts were a net $0.1 billion. Looking firstly at the price impact, you can see this was driven by PGMs, steelmaking coal, and diamonds. PGM basket price was down 35%, steelmaking coal down 14%, while realized prices on diamonds were down 25%, mostly due to mix rather than the index price. Looking then at cost and volume, we were delighted with the successful ramp-up of Quellaveco, which contributed an incremental $1.5 billion of EBITDA in the period, together with the record performance at Minas-Rio, which contributed another $0.3 billion YoY. These gains were largely offset by three factors. Firstly, a $0.7 billion impact at De Beers, reflecting the margin impact of lower sales volumes in light of weak market demand. Secondly, a $0.7 billion reduction at Copper Chile, driven by the operational phase at Los Bronces and associated lower grades and therefore higher costs. Thirdly, a $0.5 billion impact at PGMs, reflecting cost inflation and lower volumes, with production down 5%. So in summary, overall EBITDA was down $4.5 billion, with a $4.6 billion impact from PGMs and De Beers, while copper overall was up $0.8 billion. Turning now to costs, which are going to be a big focus of mine. Unit costs across the group are up 4% in the year, with weaker producer currencies benefiting PGMs and iron ore, while copper Chile suffered in part from the impact of the low-grade phase at Los Bronces. SMC was impacted by higher costs of production and challenging conditions, as well as inflation. The overall position obviously benefited from the 18% reduction in Quellaveco unit costs as volumes ramped up. While unit costs are clearly an important measure for the industry and for us, total around $10 billion, to truly tackle costs and cash generation, I will be very much focused on total costs, which, as you can see on this slide, are closer to $22.5 billion and include certain overheads, third-party commodity purchases, royalties, logistics, and exploration. As we announced in December, and if you've seen with our recently announced restructuring in South Africa, we're well advanced with plans to continue to drive a cost culture through the operating businesses. And I'll say a little bit more about that shortly. Just wrapping up EBITDA, it's worth standing back on how our businesses have contributed to the total in the year. We saw a smaller contribution from De Beers, which was loss-making in the second half of the year, as pricing took a further step down, while nickel remained a marginal contributor. Copper and iron ore together contribute $7.2 billion, or 72% of EBITDA, with steelmaking coal and PGMs broadly making up the balance at $2.5 billion, or 25%. Now moving on to other earnings matters below EBITDA. Firstly, the underlying effective tax rate was 38.5%. That is higher than last year, reflecting profit and associated country tax rate mix, with higher profit contributions from Peru and lower contributions from South Africa. Also, the overall lower profit at the group level meant there was a proportionally higher impact of those countries, which are loss-making from a tax perspective, including the U.K. In addition, there was a 1.2 percentage point increase from the deferred tax impact of the new Chile royalty regime, as deferred tax balances were revalued. Guidance for 2024 remains, as I said in December, at between 40% and 42%. Moving on to special items outside of underlying earnings. As mentioned in our production report, we've been reviewing the carrying value of our assets as part of our year-end audit process. That work has now concluded, with non-cash impairments being recognized at both De Beers and nickel. At De Beers, we've taken a $1.6 billion impairment to take the carrying value to $7.6 billion. And this is largely driven by macroeconomic sentiment impacting our view on the near-term consumer demand for luxury goods, particularly in the U.S., while China demand has also been slow to recover post-COVID. There was no material impact on the value from the revised Botswana agreements. Moving on to nickel, you will recall we booked an impairment of $0.4 billion at the half-year and have now booked an additional $0.4 billion, reflecting the sharply lower short- to medium-term price outlook that emerged through the second half of the year. This takes the carrying value of assets, excluding inventory, to zero. We're in the process of assessing the appropriate operating strategy for the near term. Looking now to capital expenditure and cash. CapEx was broadly in line with last year at $5.7 billion, with higher sustaining spend being offset by lower growth, with Quellaveco having ramped up in the year. Our sustaining spend in the short term is slightly higher than I would expect on an ongoing basis, as we work through a number of investments in plant and tailings solutions, including our filtration plant at Minas-Rio, tailings solutions at Los Bronces, and the desalination plants at Collahuasi. Growth CapEx continues to be focused on Woodsmith and copper, including both Collahuasi and Quellaveco. More broadly, the industry is facing significant pressure from rising capital and operating costs, which in time will undoubtedly read through into prices as cost curves structurally shift. In the meantime, we have to have absolute focus on cash generation, as I will address on the following two slides. You can see here that our sustaining attributable free cash flow, that is cash flow before growth CapEx and dividends, was $0.1 billion. Starting with EBITDA of $10 billion, we saw a $1.2 billion outflow from working capital, driven by three main factors. Firstly, $0.5 billion of inventory build at De Beers, as sales dropped off sharply in the second half of the year. We took significant action to limit the purchase of diamonds from Botswana in the back end of the year to minimize the increase, and will continue to focus on managing the inventory balance, which now stands at more than $2 billion. Secondly, Kumba saw a $0.4 billion increase, largely due to higher inventory, as Transnet rail challenges continued. And thirdly, we saw PGMs' working capital increase, as lower prices resulted in a reduction in the customer prepayment and other creditors, partly offset by the lower inventory valuations. This left cash flow from operations of $8.1 billion, just sufficient to fund tax, interest, distributions to non-controlling interest, and sustaining CapEx. I will be looking at opportunities within all of these cash items to ensure we have a more sustainable cash generation profile going forward, even absent price recovery in diamonds and PGMs. In the short term, this will include laser focus on working capital, optimizing cash tax, and strict control of sustaining CapEx, without, of course, compromising the safe operation of our assets. This will be with the ultimate objective of increasing the rate at which our earnings convert to cash, allowing us to sustain our investment in our attractive growth options. With only marginal sustaining attributable free cash flow, net debt increased in the year by $3.7 billion, mainly as a result of $1.6 billion of dividends paid and our continued growth CapEx. Our balance sheet is designed to be able to ride through such challenging years, as shown by our net debt to EBITDA being 1.1 times, well within our bottom-of-the-cycle target of 1.5. That said, I'm clear that this level of cash generation is not sustainable over the long term. And that is why operational focus, cost and CapEx management, and cash conversion have all of the executives' absolute focus. Some examples of initial areas of focus are detailed here. Our $1 billion operating cost savings are progressing well. The $0.5 billion from corporate streamlining is largely completed, with around 25% cost reduction from the consolidation of senior head office roles and a more streamlined approach to governance and decision-making. These savings will come through in the costs outside of unit costs and will be realized in full this year. The business-focused $500 million reflects the value over-volume strategy at Los Bronces and in PGMs, as well as reflecting the significant cost-out programs announced this week in South Africa. Similar programs are ongoing in Chile, Australia, and De Beers. These savings, compared to 2023, will be achieved on a run-rate basis by the end of this year and then realized in full in 2025. We've also identified and committed to $1.6 billion of capital savings between 2024 and 2026. As part of the corporate streamlining, we now have a single group-wide project organization led by Ali Atkinson, who's transforming the way we look at our capital projects, while ensuring safety standards, asset integrity, and reliability are maintained. This is focused on what we spend and how we most effectively execute that spend. Working together with my team, this ensures that we focus our capital in line with our strategic priorities, namely into copper, crop nutrients, and high-quality iron ore. Projects such as the third concentrator at Mogalakwena have been deferred. It's also resulting in a much more appropriately focused technology program, with our experience over the last few years allowing us to target those investments with the greatest opportunity for our assets in terms of production and water and energy efficiency. This means areas like Coarse Particle Recovery and our renewable energy projects in South Africa. On top of these measures, and as I said before, we also have great focus on ensuring that our working capital is managed efficiently, especially in the case of inventory. To recap, 2023 was a challenging year, with market conditions significantly impacting profitability and cash generation. Our balance sheet strength has absorbed that, but we are clear that we will not rely on a recovery in PGMs or diamond markets to improve our financial performance. We're taking clear and decisive action, as noted here, to reduce cost and capital spend to ensure that our cash generation is sufficient to maintain our strong balance sheet, while funding our exciting growth options and returns to shareholders. Thank you, and I now hand back to Duncan. Cheers, John. Thanks. Thanks, John. All right, so now to give a little bit more detail on the first of those strategic priorities, which was operational excellence and the levers that we're pulling, as John just described. Now, as we look forward, we have taken some decisive actions already to improve cost performance and cash generation by reconfiguring our production plans to ensure that they are, in the first instance, at least realistic, by recognizing a number of current operational constraints and aligning more closely with the near-term demand, without compromising in any way the long-term viability or optionality embedded in any of these resources. Our organizational streamlining assigns very clear accountabilities for delivery, coupled with a relentless focus on our operating model to drive safe and stable production. We are strengthening our business to deliver consistent, repeatable performance that allows us to confidently execute on our operating plans. I want to just cover a few of the assets in a little bit more detail following the discussions we had with you in December. Quellaveco first. Quellaveco, for us, absolutely remains a 330,000-ton per annum operation, on average, over the first five years of its life, and a 300,000-ton per annum operation, on average, over the first ten years of its life. That was the plan at approval, and it remains the plan for that business to this day. There will be, inevitably, some in-year variability, depending on where we are in the pit at any one particular point in time. But we are very confident in the medium term, and we see extraordinary further upside potential in that resource in the longer run. Last year, we had to revise the mine plan in response to a geotechnical fault in one of the phases previously scheduled for mining this year, in 2024. Now, putting safety first, as you would expect us to do, we did take the decision to shallow out the interramp angle of that phase. And while that stripping processes or progresses, other lower-grade phases of that ore body are going to be mined before we come back to these higher-grade phases early in 2027. Now, as a result of our guidance in December, we did lower the production from this mine by 65,000 tons in 2024. But that copper is still there, and we are going to get it. In fact, the revised mine plan for this resource has an additional 25,000 tons of copper in it in total over the next few years, compared to the previous plan. So, given the current copper market, if you were looking at this with a little bit of a tongue-in-cheek, you'd say higher real-term price for these volumes are probably going to be achieved by the fact that they've been delayed by a year or two. That wasn't the reason we did it, of course. Staying with copper and talking a little bit about Los Bronces. Los Bronces is currently mining that single phase, as we've discussed before, which is now really impacted by some very, very hard ores and some relatively lower grades. Additionally, mining phases and intermediate stockpiles that would typically provide operational flexibility for a mine like this have not been developed for a number of reasons, including permitting delays that we saw at the beginning of last year and the year before. Now, while the operation works through these low-grade phases, the low-grade phase currently I'm referring to is called Infiernillo 5, and until the economics improve, the older and the slightly more costly Los Bronces processing plant, and that's a plant that handles around about 40% of the volumes, is going to be placed on Care and Maintenance from the middle of this year. Confluencia, which is our newer, bigger plant, it's larger, it's less expensive to operate, is going to continue to operate until such time as we've got the production phases to catch up with the productive capacity of both of the plants. Now, this is a value-based decision. It will enable this business to significantly reduce its operating costs and improve its competitive position at both the mine and at the plants. It will reduce its overheads, it will reduce its capital spend, as well as reducing reliance on external water sources. The average expected annualized cost saving from this action is somewhere between $0.30 and $0.40 a pound over the next five years. The next phase of this mine—so this is Donoso 2, which will come in and overlap with Infiernillo 5 at some particular point, but then become the primary source of production for Los Bronces—is characterized by higher grades, as well as softer ore, and is expected to benefit both production and unit costs from early 2027. So, placing that plant on care and maintenance has given us the opportunity and the option to restart it in the future, offer much stronger and a sustainable base. So, at our PGM business and at Kumba, we have this week, as I mentioned earlier, set out the very difficult but very necessary reconfiguration of both of those operations to set them up to be on a much more sustainable footing going forwards. Now, that builds on around a 25% cost reduction from our consolidation of senior corporate office roles in both London and South Africa. And at PGMs, there is a very intentional strategy here at the concentrators to produce higher-grade concentrate, and that's going to result with the same amount of PGMs as the outturn, but from lower concentrate volumes. That, therefore, enables us to provide some optionality in terms of reducing our overall furnace capacity and, therefore, placing Mortimer smelter on care and maintenance. That reduces then both our operating and our capital cost footprint. That builds more on the extensive measures that the team have already developed to improve the positioning of these assets for the long term. As we outlined in December, as we focus on enhancing these returns through lower capex and asset optimization work, we will not be progressing work on the option for the third concentrator at Mogalakwena at this time, nor the expansion opportunities that we still have at Amandelbult and Mototolo. We are committed to delivering an all-in sustaining cost of around $1,050 per ounce in 2024. Now, as I think you know, we do remain optimistic, certainly about the quality of our assets with significant long-term potential, but we must take, we just have to take the necessary steps to ensure that the longer-term viability of those businesses is put in place today. Similarly, at Kumba, a well-trodden story now, the prolonged underperformance of Transnet has constrained that business quite significantly. Mpumi cannot rent another field, a football field, a felt, a piece of felt, anywhere to put down the stock that she's really producing at the moment. And so we've had to take actions to right-size the mining footprint and then to match the prevailing logistics capacity that we see is going to be there in this shape and form for the next several years. That does not mean that we don't believe that we will come out of this. There are absolutely commercial and technical solutions that will see this happen, but we need to make sure that the business is able to perform well while it is constrained, and that's what's happening. We would easily be able to start back Kolomela up again when the time is right. So it is, therefore, with a really, really heavy heart that we take these decisions to reduce the size of our workforce in both of these businesses. They're big deal decisions, and they take a lot of time to get right. We recognize the widespread effects that this is going to have on our people, on their families, and our communities, and we are putting things in place in terms of a number of appropriate plans and programs to help ease some of this pain. Now, moving to steelmaking coal. The gas, depth, and the strata issues that prevail at Moranbah Grosvenor and our underground longwalls represent for us a really complex set of geotechnical challenges. Ground conditions at Moranbah are particularly difficult at the moment, so we're not out of the woods there just yet. It is difficult for that team to predict exactly how the strata is going to behave in the coming days and the coming weeks. This improvement journey is going to take some time, but getting it right is just a non-negotiable for us. If you've ever seen a commitment to putting safety over production, this would be it. At this point, the team is focused really on making sure that they can produce as stably as possible and, therefore, ensure the safety of the personnel that are operating down there. At the same time, we believe that we have made significant progress now already in reducing our methane venting, which, along with an increased capacity to transfer methane to third parties, has now already reduced our emissions in that business by 15%. We are also undertaking a fundamental optimization of the cost base to right-size that footprint for what we see as lower, nearer, and medium-term expected capacity from that business, with a target of $100 a tonne by 2026. Turning now to De Beers. Operationally, very, very strong, no doubt about it. But the current market weakness has resulted in sharply, sharply lower revenues. So there are some green shoots, as Al will tell us, of recovery in the first Sight that we saw earlier this year, but we think it's going to take a little bit more time to return to the demand levels that were previously forecasted, given the macro headwinds in some of our key markets. The team have refreshed their strategy now to drive a much more streamlined, cost-effective, and simpler business that mirrors a little bit the redesign that we have done in other parts of the company. This is expected to unlock some sustainable cost savings on an annual basis of around $100 million a tonne, $100 million a year. We are also pursuing other opportunities, as John mentioned earlier, to improve cash generation from this business. Turning now to the final area that I really wanted to focus on in a little bit more detail, and that is portfolio replenishment and growth. In a depleting industry such as mining, these topics often become blurred with one another, but they are absolutely critical for long-term cash generation. In copper, we really do here have a very, very attractive set of growth options that sequence very well over the next 10 years from a cash generation and a capital allocation perspective. I often get asked, "Why don't you accelerate your copper program because you've got all these options?" Well, if we could, we would, because copper development is not constrained by capital availability, but absolutely by the rate at which permitting can be achieved. So just to be clear, copper is sequenced like this quite naturally because this is the rate that we can progress at in terms of the way that we think and the timing we can achieve permits in. The timeline already, in our view, has been massively expedited, and it would probably have been far, far longer if you have a look at other examples in the industry of how this is progressing, were it not for the people that we have on the ground and the decades of experience that we have in the relationships that we have created and developed with the communities, with the governments, and with the NGOs over those years. I sincerely believe that no one, no one is better placed than us, and we have the examples of that right across the portfolio to develop these types of projects. At Collahuasi, this is a tremendous ore body, as we know. The potential there is quite staggering. We have pathways now to near on doubling the production to around one million tons per annum on a 100% basis in the early 2030s. We have already delivered the first step on that pathway with the startup of the fifth ball mill, and we are now progressing the approvals of a number of relatively low capital intensity, high-return debottlenecking projects. The big bang at Quellaveco, of course, is another line, another concentrator line from milling to flotation and tailings. Call that the big bang, if you like, which we hope to couple with our CPR technology, and that is now in the process of commencing its permitting runs. If we were to progress this route, then permitting is expected by 2028, at which point in time construction could start just thereafter, which is why the production from Quellaveco, any Quellaveco expansion, is early 2030s. Quellaveco has just delivered one of the fastest ramp-ups to full capacity in the industry. Our autonomous technologies there are performing very well, and the plant is running extremely well. To put a few specifics around that, it is operating now as one of the top three performing, as it has at Quellaveco, the top three performing shovels in the group. Last week, plant performance was nearly 10% above its design capacity. I think these are great examples of the results that Matt and his team are helping to deliver, and they are bringing that to bear across the business in a really powerful way. At Quellaveco, these provide a solid foundation for us for operational improvements in the future at a mine that is only now just at the very start of its life. Opportunity abounds there, I think. We are progressing the studies now for a staged expansion pathway targeting an initial step up in throughput rates in the next few years, and that would see an additional 20,000 tonnes per annum being added to their productive output. The permit for that process is due to be submitted a little bit later on in this year. Los Bronces remains an incredible ore body, and it is important to recognize the merits of having a permitted operation in an established copper jurisdiction. To that end, we will continue to progress the engineering studies of the underground, as well as pursuing industrial synergies with our neighbor, another one of those corporate actions that we think could bring great value if we were able to get it right. The underground construction expansion will be worth the wait, I believe. There we have grades of over 1.5%. In conjunction with the open pit, the underground and the return of the Los Bronces plant, Los Bronces as an operation could get back to 350,000-400,000 tonnes of copper produced per annum for a very long period of time. There are not many ore bodies that lend themselves to that level of production for that duration. Finally, Sakatti, a very high-grade polymetallic greenfield option in Finland. What do I mean by high-grade? Well, just copper there itself is 1.9%, and overall that ore body has a copper equivalent grade of 5.2%. It could deliver 100,000 tonnes per annum of copper equivalent over a mine life that could extend to just beyond a couple of decades. That would be at a very highly capital-intensive cost position. We would expect the byproducts that we get from that business to put us into a very attractive negative cost curve position. The EIA for that project is extremely well advanced. The first step of that was the approval by the Finnish authorities in August late last year, and now we are working with those authorities to take the permitting to the next stage, which is in Brussels, given that this is a resource that sits in an EU-classified Natura 2000 area. We are hoping to bring this online also in the early 2030s, and the project has received a significant amount of recognition during its permitting process for its innovative and state-of-the-art mine design that incorporates learnings from both Quellaveco and from Woodsmith. And on that note, turning to Woodsmith, really great progress is being made here from the team during the year, and delighted that so many of you were able to be there and see that back in October of last year. The work on the market development side is going very well and at pace, and we have now sold some seeding tonnes well above the current market price. I hope that you got a good sense of that when you were out there and the time that you spent speaking with Tom and the team. 2024, of course, is a really important year for us, right? Because this is the year where we intersect these sandstones, and I think in many respects, this is the year that we define the economic viability of this project. By the middle of the year, we will be in them for sure. At this particular point in time, having just scratched the surface of some of them, we believe that we are making good progress in terms of what the original plan thought about 40% improvement in our progress through the area that we're in now relative to the same area in the service shaft during the course of last year. I think that's in a very large part thanks to Al, who is, through his Element Six business, providing the lab-grown diamond drill bits, and I just genuinely can't think of a better use of lab-grown diamonds than digging up the earth. Look, the remaining studies are on track, and we do expect to take this project to our board for full notice to proceed approval during half one of 2025. This would put us in a very strong position, I think, then to maximize the value of syndication, and we are working very hard to identify the right partner and the right opportunity. True industrial synergies are very, very rare and can only ever really be realized from actions such as pooling endowments and sharing of infrastructure. Now, the value opportunities that we can unlock from integrating Vale's neighbouring Serpentina ore body into our Minas-Rio Mining and Processing infrastructure into one single optimized operation, combined with the option to access Vale's rail and port logistics, I believe, are quite extensive. The sheer scale and quality of that Serpentina ore body offers a very significant value uplift to us, including through the scope to expand production to a premium-grade pellet feed product that we could sell to our steelmaking customers as they, too, have the urgent need to focus on decarbonizing their own processes for decades to come. Serpentina contains a resource of 4.3 billion tonnes of iron ore, with a significantly larger total endowment upside that reflects the total strike length of that ore body, which is more than twice that of Minas-Rio today. It is an even higher ore grade than Minas-Rio's already high-grade feed, and it contains predominantly softer, friable ore that is expected to translate into lower unit costs and capital requirements. Now, this enables a very significant reduction in the future capital investment into mining on a standalone basis and the processing kit on a standalone basis that would otherwise have been needed at Minas-Rio as it moved from the predominantly as it moves into the predominantly harder itabirite ore in the middle of the next decade. Now, the combination of these two resources also offers very considerable expansion opportunities, and that includes the potential to possibly double towards 60 million tonnes per annum of very high-grade pellet feed product, as well as increasing the life of that asset. Under the terms of this deal, which we expect to close in the fourth quarter of this year, Vale will contribute Serpentina and $157 million in cash to acquire 15% shareholding in the enlarged Minas-Rio, subject to normal completion adjustments. They will also have an option to acquire an additional 15% shareholding in an enlarged Minas-Rio for cash if and when the environmental licence is received for the expansion of Minas-Rio following the completion of a feasibility study, which we will run at fair value calculated at the time of that exercise. To conclude, I am determined to convert Anglo American once and for all into a compelling investment proposition through the cycle. It can't be good just at the top and really struggle at the bottom. We will shape the business into a more investable and sustainable investment. We have short, medium, and long-term plans in place, being safe and stable production as the critical enabler of both our portfolio improvement and our long-term growth plans. These plans will create significant value for our shareholders through higher margins and cash generation, with attractive growth and improving returns potentials. I have my team in place. We are all working really hard with a clear focus and a clear understanding of what all of our roles are in getting everything done that I've just described to you. And now, with that, we're very happy to take your questions. So as well as John and I in the room here, we have Tom, Al, and Matt Daley for all your hard questions around the fault at Quellaveco. And unfortunately, Ruben is travelling at the moment, so he's not with us. Jason. So Jason Fairclough, Bank of America. We talked a little bit about the one adjacency, the one that you've announced today. We had dinner last night with Glencore. That's another adjacency. It is. What are the thoughts there? Why are you and Glencore and Teck not talking more about that? It seems like there's a lot of value on offer there. There is, Jason. I mean, so I think the logic of that is very similar to that of Serpentina, right? So one of those very rare opportunities where you get to either share a resource or share infrastructure. And the construct there is that there's a lot of infrastructure now in terms of water and plant. There's some fantastic high-grade ore body at Collahuasi. So the industrial logic on the face of it seems to be pretty obvious in terms of how we could extract value out of that. We are talking, right? But it is, as with all of these sorts of things, it's a negotiation, and every party needs to win in a negotiation like that. But I assure you that there are discussions that are going on between the three partners and the other partners, because there are a number of partners on that particular joint venture, to see if we can extract value outside of a potential expansion. I guess that's my question. So you're talking about the expansion of Collahuasi. Shouldn't Plan A be the adjacencies? Yeah, you know me. I'm a Plan A, Plan B kind of guy. I want to be absolutely certain that we've got the right irons in the fire. As I say, these types of synergies can take many years. I mean, the Serpentina deal was three years in the making. That's when we started it. And I think yesterday, when we approved it, it had been actually three years almost to the day that those debates and conversations had been going on. And maybe not here. The prize is pretty big, but I think both need to progress, because you don't want to take one and then it takes two or three years longer, and you've missed another opportunity. But the key there will be at the point that you have to start allocating capital to the actual construction of plant. OK, thank you. Hi, Ian. Morning. Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Just as we were discussing Serpentina, it seems like you're giving up a lot of the upfront value in the business and Minas-Rio. And I understand, obviously, it's a much better ore body, and you will obviously then not have to spend all this capital beyond 2030. But could you give us a bit more details to understand that sort of value proposition? Sure. I mean, I guess the logic of it makes an enormous amount of sense, right, insofar as that if you understand the Minas-Rio ore body, it is comprised of this sort of friable ore. And then as we get deeper into the ore body, you go through a transition zone, and then you get into the very hard itabirites. With the combination of these two ore bodies, and so the optimization of the higher-grade ore from Serpentina going through the processing facilities in Minas-Rio, we kind of offset the need to compensate for that hardness with a lot of really expensive upfront comminution kit being milling and crushing that we would otherwise have to spend at Minas-Rio. So we can, from now, as soon as we get permits, we can start moving some of that higher-grade ore into this plant. You know for sure that you optimize any operation with high-grade ore. So that's the upside opportunity. So I don't really see it as giving up in the short term for the long run. But the long-run value is extortionate there in the context of the quality and the size of that ore body and the possibility to then actually, if the iron ore markets go in the direction we believe that they are going to go in for high-quality pellet feed, to be able to expand really rather rapidly off that ore body. OK, thanks. And then secondly, just on Woodsmith, last year, at the time of the impairment, you mentioned the opportunity, if shaft sinking goes well, that there's a potential to save up to $1 billion a year ahead of schedule. Is that still possible? Yeah, so those are roughly the metrics. So based on the base plan of doing one meter a day through the sandstones, if you could do two meters a day, it's almost a year that you save. And as you know, the cost, the capital costs there are almost like an operating cost. So the longer you're there, the more the costs are. So it makes sense. Is that progress? How is that progress going on? Yeah, very well. So we're not in the sandstones yet. So Tom's not here, so I'm just looking around. I don't think he's here. But we're not in the sandstone yet, but we've run through a couple of sandstone lenses. If I'm perfectly honest with you, when we hit that sandstone lens just before your visit last year, we were doing like a meter every two weeks. And so we were learning a lot about it. The team have adopted quite a lot of those learnings into changing the design of the cutting drum, the picks that we're using. And right now, they're doing a little bit better than the meter a day in a similar sort of lens. But we're not into that solid rock yet. They'll get there sort of middle of this year. But very positive indicators. Myles. Thanks. A couple of questions, maybe on Woodsmith, first of all. Could you confirm whether there are any active conversations going on now with potential partners? It always takes a long time, but it seems that there's a very strong intent to try and bring in the right partner. Have those discussions started? And what's the response like? Is there lots of interest, or is there not much interest? I can confirm that we are having conversations. We haven't set up a formal process as it stands at this particular point in time. As I said to you in December, the most important thing for us is to be sure that we have the right partner at the right time. But there has been inbound interest, and we are also having conversations on a bilateral basis with a few people. Thank you. And then maybe just going back to the restructuring, because I guess over the years, we've heard you say, like anything's for sale at the right price. But this seems very different in terms of the way you're looking at the business and the potential kind of assets that could come out of it. I mean, if we take what Stuart said at the beginning, it's basically everything except for iron ore, sort of copper, and Woodsmith on the plate. So we could exit PGMs. We could exit diamonds. We could exit nickel. We could exit met coal. Is that the way we should interpret what you and Stuart were saying? Well, I think what we are saying is that there are three key demand drivers for the business as we see them today. But at the same time, you also heard Stuart say, and you heard me say, that every asset in the portfolio has to play its role. And if you have a really good cash-generating asset that just doesn't happen to be one of those at that particular point in time, but has a reasonable life, then it could be very synergistic with the whole of the portfolio and being able to develop and support growth in those areas. So that's the way I'd like you to think about it in the context of the reviews that we're doing, the asset reviews that we're doing this year. We have a very specific role in our organization. He's here in the room today, which is somebody who has a very specific job of understanding, in a strategic context, the role of every single asset in the portfolio, both short and long term. Maybe just as a quick follow-up, and then I'll pass it over. Is there a timeline around these strategic reviews? It sounds like they're happening right now, and it's for this year. But is that? Yeah, well, look, I mean, I think there's an urgency that's required on this thing, and we need to move really quickly. There are some constraints to it, of course, that I want to be sure that we are cognizant of. When you look at something like this in a review, a number of factors play to what value looks like and feels like. So the plan of the particular asset, the time in the cycle that you're looking to make these decisions in, the frictional cost, potentially, of making any of these decisions at the wrong time of the cycle, these are all very, very important and have to play into the decisions that you're making. I'm not going to tell you that there's a very specific date at which there's going to be a magic answer, and we're going to execute at that particular point in time, because that indeed could be very dilutive from a shareholder value point of view. But what you should take away from this thing is that there is an urgency to this. We are absolutely focused on it, and we are looking at it through every single asset. Nothing is off the table. Liam. Morning. Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Two questions just on Woodsmith. I think all of the clarity on the portfolio is really good to hear. But should we read it as it's a prerequisite for board approval to bring in a partner? And should we assume that this process will be timed along with the final approval expected in H1 in 2025? Yeah, when my chairman stands up and says, "We're working on the syndication of Woodsmith," I think it's probably going to be very difficult not to take the project to approval for the board that doesn't have a syndication solution either done or very, very close to being done at that particular point in time. OK, and then one follow-up. Just on the copper bridge that you showed, I think I'm right in saying that it didn't include the concentrator restart at Los Bronces. So is that an option, and what's the thinking there? I mean, certainly the restart of the concentrator at Los Bronces is absolutely an option. It's very much in our thinking. Matt, who's facilitating the running of the mine plans there, is looking at the restart of that concentrator, probably closer to the end of this decade. What the constraint will be there is that when we shut it down, what we really want to do is optimize that whole resource, which is getting the geometry of the mine into the right shape so it can sustain a sink rate that basically can feed 150 million tonnes of capacity every day. And therefore, in the intervening period of time, we also, taking care of our sustainability obligations, want to move that Pérez Caldera tailings dam. So it is one of those GISTM-classified dams that is potentially high risk because of its location. It's not high risk technically in terms of the way that it's managed and operated today. But the safest solution is to move it out, and we have a commitment to do that. So we're going to combine that. The combination of those two things and our view of when those two will coalesce will be closer to the end of the decade, which is when you would expect us to start that back up again. So I think you need to sit closer to the front, because I can only see at that level. Thanks, Duncan. This is Alain Gabriel at Morgan Stanley. Going back to Serpentina, your release this morning focused on the growth of this combined asset. What are you thinking of in terms of time frames, capex, et cetera? And would the production and cost profile change in the next three years? I mean, so naturally, the cost production and cost profile is going to be impacted because this transition is in play today. We are already moving in. But I think in terms of what we've guided you, there's no change from that perspective. It's going to take, in speaking to Ruben, probably the best part of four or five years to kind of get to a point where we're in the permitting process. And then the permitting process can take about that equivalent amount of time, too. At that particular point, we then have a decision to make as to whether we're going to actually run that expansion or not. So is it or isn't it not economic? So I think that's going to be sort of 10-12 years from now. Thank you. The second question is a press article attributed comments to you on your openness to separating South Africa versus ex-South Africa assets. This proposal was absent from today's presentation. What would the rationale be of such a transaction? Is it something that you are contemplating? I can't remember that article in terms of my openness to separate South Africa from non-South African assets, to be perfectly honest with you. But I refer you back to what I said in terms of that whole portfolio review and the role of every asset in the portfolio. I'd just like to say that we have a capability of running assets extremely well in South Africa. The single largest cash contributor to Anglo American's portfolio today is Kumba, and it is in South Africa. And just two years ago this is how quickly things change, of course, as people forget sometimes two years ago, PGMs delivered a $7 billion contribution to the group's EBITDA, all out of South Africa. So this isn't a decision on South Africa versus the rest of the world. This is a decision on the commodity, on the asset itself, our ability to derive value out of those assets in terms of the complexity or the simplification, et cetera, of that, and the role that that particular asset has in the portfolio in supporting a very clear strategic objective to support the business under those three key, three trends that we speak about. Thank you. I'm going back. Sorry, Richard. I'm coming to you next. Thanks for that, Duncan. It's Chris LaFemina from Jefferies. So the billion-dollar OPEX reduction plan, it's an impressive number. It would be a 10% increase in your EBITDA from last year. To deliver that over 12 months is very impressive. So the question I have about that first is, how much of those cost reductions are a function of weak markets and some capacity you've taken offline, and their costs that would come back in a recovery? And the second question, kind of related to that, is there an associated revenue impact or other kind of negative consequences as a result of these cost cuttings, if that makes sense? Thanks. I'm going to ask John to make a comment on this, too. But fundamentally, other than the restructuring of Los Bronces, which we really fully expect to bring back into production closer to the end of the decade, none of the costs that we're taking out today should come back into the business at the current production profiles. To the extent that we were to start to expand the business in any of these asset things, then I think you would expect some of these costs to come back. Bear in mind, some of these are going out because we had big expansion plans almost everywhere, and we were set up to kind of do that. Now we've deliberately decided not to do that. Those costs must come back out of the business. There's nothing that is directly related to market that, immediately the market swings, you would say is coming back unless there was an expansion associated with that particular asset, which you would be clearly aware of long before that happened. Right, so even higher prices would not drive reversal of some of those cost savings? No, I mean, this has got to be the ultimate trick in mining, right? Even when you're in higher price zones, you want to be sure that you are appropriately structured for the bottom of the cycle unless you are expanding. And then that expansion needs to be robust at the bottom of a cycle, too. Thank you. John, did you want to add anything on cost? Just on the point on ambition, then, this has not been a blunt instrument that's been applied. It's been very, very thoughtful. The $1 billion is split in two. So the first is the corporate-type costs. That was a very detailed process through the course of 2023. That's done. So that cost is already gone and will be realized, as I said, in full this year. So you can have real high confidence in that. The other $500 million is we quantified that in December. But it's very complex, as you've seen with the South Africa announcements this week. That's more than 4,000 jobs, consultation, et cetera, et cetera. So it's a thought-through, very detailed bottom-up process. So confidence in delivery is high. And then we will see the benefit of that next year. Richard. Thanks. Good morning, Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Two questions. The first one, if I look at the portfolio, there's three assets that kind of jump out as being challenging at the moment: Amandelbult in PGMs, rhodium price kind of holding it up. The second is nickel, which the current price looks like it's cash neutral after capex. And then De Beers, negative return on capital employed. Is there a consideration here that you need to start tempering volumes, putting these assets on some form of care and maintenance for a period of time? I appreciate it's difficult. De Beers is obviously challenging given the Botswana relationship. Amandelbult, difficult because 13,000 people work there. And it's a challenging one as well. So how do you sort of stop these assets from kind of bleeding cash in a period when you need to conserve cash? Yeah, that's the first one. Yeah, it's a very good question and exactly the right one. I'm going to ask Al to talk to De Beers and what he's doing to stop bleeding cash. And I'll talk to Amandelbult and nickel. So Amandelbult currently is cash positive. OK, very important to understand that. In our portfolio, in the event that PGM prices continued to fall and stayed down for longer, Amandelbult is probably and Dishaba, particularly, is probably the place that we would have to go to to deal with cash negative ounces. So in the same way we dealt with that at Los Bronces, cash negative tonnes, which we saw persisting over a reasonable period of time, that's also important. So the cycle question is very important when you make these decisions, because they have major consequences to people, to communities, to governments, and then to the structure of the business. Because bearing in mind, every time you take people out of a business like that to temporarily shut down production, you change the mine plan. If you change the mine plan, the transition from one plan to another plan is 12-18 months. So you've got to be really sure that is the right thing to do. But just waiting isn't good either, right? So what you're seeing us doing is acting early, but without cutting the throat of the viability of that business. But absolutely, Richard, if the PGM markets persist and continue to decline, we would have to take more action. And that action would then go directly to removing ounces out of the business. But when you remove them out, you remove everything that goes with those ounces. And they don't come back very quickly once you've done that. So very important to make that clarification. Amandelbult is cash positive at this point in time. Nickel is in a difficult space, certainly in terms of what we're seeing coming out of Indonesia at this point in time. There is quite a lot of pressure in nickel. So nickel is actually quite cruelly one of our best-run businesses. If you have a look at every single operating metric for that business, it sort of shoots the lights out. One of the most stable businesses that we've got and one of the most optimized in terms of cost management and capital management. But with nickel prices sort of languishing around $14,000-$15,000 a tonne, it's hard yards for Barro Alto. I'm not giving up on that team to see if they can reconfigure themselves just in the meantime. So they will also be part of the asset review to see where it comes. But they can't end up with a -$5,000 per tonne cost impact for a significant period of time. OK, Al. Sure. Thanks. So it's a good question and one that exercises us a lot. I think the first thing to say is we work with our partners, particularly the government of Botswana and the government of Namibia. But we're aligned with them in producing into demand and not prioritizing volume over price. So there isn't a big disconnect there. Maybe the best way to answer your question is to look at 2023, what did we do? And 2024, what can we do? So 2023, we had two levers to produce into demand. And as the market fell off in the second half of the year, we pulled both those two levers. So production in 2023 was 8% down on 2022. We could have maintained production flat on 2022 if we'd wanted to. We chose not to do that, which is why you see the production 8% down. But beyond that, behind those production figures, we also reduced our purchases. And the total purchase reduction in 2023 to De Beers was about $300 million, more or less. So when John quoted earlier that inventory figure of $2 billion, that would have been $300 million higher if it wasn't for the purchases that we reduced. If we go into 2024, we'll take the same approach. So production reduction possibilities and purchase reduction possibilities. So we've got production levers that we can pull at Debswana in Botswana, at Debmarine Namibia in Namibia, and at Venetia in South Africa. And we'll work with our partners over the course of the year to see if the market continues being U-shaped, what should we do in terms of reducing production? The second thing that we're doing is working with our partners on purchase reductions as well. Even so far this year, we've pulled some levers around purchase reductions to make sure that we maintain our inventory and have a negative trend as over time we bring the inventory down. There are things we can do, and there are things we will do. But that principle of producing into demand rather than seeking to maximize volumes will be a fundamental tenet of how we work. Thank you. That kind of feeds into my second point, which was just on for John for working capital. If you look at the business over the last sort of five years, it's ground a lot higher. And I appreciate part of that's De Beers, Venetia handover, Kumba, Transnet issues as well, right? But the business's working cap has just gone crazy, right, in terms of how much cash is in there. So how are you thinking about trying to work that out? And how should we think about that over the next couple of years? Thanks. Yeah, no, you're right. There has been a big growth in working capital. And of course, I do and we do think of that as cash. We know that that is tying up our cash and therefore our shareholders' cash, which has to be a big focus. So if we look at working capital and the component parts, then I think receivables and payables are broadly net-net. They come to a slight negative number, actually. So that feels is probably not the root of the challenge. The root of the challenge is in inventory, which sits today approximately $7 billion. And you sort of break out what's in that inventory, then there's about $1 billion of raw material and consumables. So that could be the consumables on the mine, the tires, the mill liners, the pump parts, et cetera. Then there's about $3 billion of work in progress, which is into processed stockpiles. Then there's about $3 billion of finished goods. Where do we go for opportunity? On that $1 billion of sort of consumable items and raw materials, then big focus on managing our suppliers accordingly, making sure we've got those stock levels appropriate, that we're not carrying more than we need. The interprocess stockpiles I'm slightly cautious on for all the reasons Duncan's been talking around the importance of the mine plans. And you sort of mess with those interprocess stockpiles at your peril. But we will get them right. So the bigger area of focus is in that finished goods. And it comes to the diamonds, which makes up the majority of that $3 billion. So we have a big focus. Then organizationally, we're ensuring that our general managers on the mine, our country managers, have the information and the data to understand the importance of those working capital numbers and how they convert into cash. We're incentivizing them appropriately to bring that down over time. In terms of phasing, we will do all we can to bring it down. I think it's probably not going to be immediate. The immediate priority is to make sure we don't have another increase in working capital in 2024. I'm confident that we'll avoid that. Thanks, John. Thank you. Thanks, Richard. Sorry, I can't see through the lights. I can just see hands waving. Good morning, Duncan. Julio Mondragon from BMO Capital Markets. So just two questions going back to the copper segment. The first one is you mentioned to get to the one million tonnes per year mid-2030s. One of the main restrictions is the permitting of this project. So considering that in the next two, three years, you will have a wave of central government and local government elections, what is your thoughts and your relationship with these stakeholders? And the second question is on Quellaveco. So what are the chances that you will face more impacts in your guidance, potentially in other faults, in other areas of the pit? OK, thank you. Matt, will you take the Quellaveco question when it comes to just relative to permits? I mean, a great question. I think that that's absolutely right. Absolutely, relationships with governments and approving authorities is extremely important. But by far and away, what is most important in terms of permit acquisitions is your relationship with the communities who have a voice in the consultation as to whether they are going to be advantaged or disadvantaged by any mining activities that happen around them. It is our experience, without a doubt, that to the extent that your communities are really confident and happy with what it is that you're saying and believe that the benefit is net positive to them, then the process of actually running through the bureaucracy with regard to permit approval and the many different agencies that you have to deal with is definitely a lot easier. I think it's a fallacy to believe that if you have an excellent relationship with a national government, that you would get permits any quicker if you didn't have an excellent relationship with the community. So our primary focus is on our relationship with our communities and what it is that we do in proper consultation with them to come up with win-win solutions for both of us. Having said that, where you have any change of administration and where there is any political input into the change of the leadership in the bureaucracies in terms of the diplomatic services, then you inevitably suffer a little bit of lag in the process. So the processes are generally well prescribed, relatively well understood, and relatively well followed. But then you just have the catch-up of new people at the top of authorities having to catch up with the background and the history. By and large, I would say that in terms of in a jurisdiction like Chile, it has a relatively mature permitting process and a good permitting process. So the fundamental requirements in terms of content of permitting, we think, is absolutely valid and good. It has also a very clear objective to reduce permitting complexity. Now, what they mean by that is not we're going to approve permits more easily. We're going to reduce the content requirements of these permits. But they're going to focus quite a lot more on the connection between the multiple different authorities that have to approve the permit, so get a coordinating body. And I see that as broadly positive and in many ways an offset to any change of personnel in that process. I mean, we have our permitting timeline horizon expectations have definitely extended over time, where it should take you a year to get a DIA. I think we would probably more budget to two years for that sort of thing now. I think what you're seeing in terms of our thinking and timing of permit acquisition in many of these projects has built in our experience and our view of what we can see coming forward at the moment. It is a very sensitive issue. Again, just come back to the fact that the most important thing to get right is the relationship that you have with the communities. Go on. Duncan, shall I? Oh, Matt, yes, please. Quellaveco fault. Thanks for the question. Really good question. So a little bit of context. So as you move from a feasibility study, where you're working off a data set of geological infield drilling, hydrogeological drilling, and geotech drilling, you've got a certain database of information into where we are today, actively mining through these phases. Obviously, your database of information increases dramatically. So what we've got now is geotech models with a very high level of confidence. So whilst we're having some short-term rescheduling of copper, as you see the slope angles move, confidence levels as we move through the pit now are extremely high compared to where we were during the Feasibility Study. So a very high level of confidence now that we understand what's happening in the mine design and will be set up for future phases. I guess the other positive we're seeing is the fault zones have got a combination of structures which are running both parallel and subparallel to the pit slope. So positive for us is we believe that as we mine back into the mountain, you're actually mining through some of these structures. And you'll have lesser impacts as you mine into further phases. So very positive outlook. And in fact, the more we learn about this ore body, the more we like it. And Duncan talked about some of the throughput rates we're currently getting. Some of the trade-offs in the structures and the rock mass strength is we're getting higher throughputs now through the concentrator. So looking very positive. Can I jump in? So Efrem, can we go to you for your question? Because you've made your hand up longest. Go on. Can we just take yours next door? And Bob, can you take yours next door? Matt, we'll take yours next door as well, please. Just two very quick questions. Firstly, on De Beers, you have a $7 billion carrying value still for a business which made no EBITDA. And even in good times, it was making about $1 billion of EBITDA. So what kind of a cyclical recovery are you building it on that sort of $7 billion still sort of carrying value? And secondly, the third adjacency that you talked about with Los Bronces, I mean, with every site visit for the last 20 years, that's always been an obvious one. What's changed for that to kind of come to the fore? John, do you want to deal with the carrying value? Yeah. So as you know, the impairment assessment is part of the annual process before the methodology, which is pretty standard. The key assumptions in terms of valuation, long-term price, is there, RPI assumptions, economic growth going forward. Clearly, the assumption around lab-grown diamonds and where that goes. And I think that we've explained that we see that sort of bifurcating through time. And of course, we're seeing the growth in demand certainly slow for lab-grown diamonds. And through time, they will become quite different products. So in terms of the $7 billion carrying value, it's a sort of discounted cash flow basis. And of course, in a discounted cash flow, it's always around long-term price is a big driver. So the impairment that we've taken is really reflective of that short to medium-term impact of lower RPI, lower sort of demand for luxury goods, as I said in my prepared remarks. Really, it's about, I think Al's referred to, more of a U-shaped recovery. That's the assumption that sits behind the remaining carrying value. Efrem, on the Los Bronces and Andina synergy. So yes, I mean, I've been looking at that for many, many years in two of my previous roles and this one. So you're right. It's been a long time coming. I'd like to say that we have made quite considerable progress there, actually. And so we are already leveraging some of those potential synergies in terms of the easement agreements that we've been able to put in place and the operating principles and protocols that we've been able to put in place with Andina. And certainly, the relationship between Anglo American and Teck and the mine management between Andina and Los Bronces is excellent and very, very cooperative. The really big prize for us is to take this to the next step. But it is complicated. And I don't want to sugarcoat this in any way. There are some real constraints that are imposed on this by the Chilean Constitution. Therefore, to effectively do this and get this right leads towards quite a complicated set of arrangements. Now, I'm trying to simplify the business as opposed to add more complexity to it. To the extent that there is complexity involved in this thing, then the headroom between the complexity of operations imposed by those sorts of agreements needs to be significantly offset by the value at stake that can be achieved. What I can assure you is that both of us, Teck Resources and Anglo American, are absolutely working. We have dedicated work teams and have had for just over a year now since we got the permit for the Los Bronces underground, trying to find a way to simplify some of this complexity and then get after these prizes. And it's important for both of us. And therefore, I'm a great believer that when you have an aligned objective, and it's equally important to both of you, we can find a solution to it. But it is complicated. And therefore, probably takes a little bit more time to work. But it's not like nothing has happened. I mean, it's a three-phase project. We're in phase three of that project at the moment. So the first two phases have been very beneficial for both parties so far. Well, I'm going to call it to close, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. Those of you joining us, we're going over in that corner. Go for a comfort break, grab a coffee. We'll kick off in seven minutes. Thank you. Thank you.