Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our half- year results. As some of you know by now, over the years, my tradition is to kick off the full- year results. I don't normally come at half- year, but there are a couple of reasons why I wanted to introduce today. I'll come back to those. As ever, let's start with safety. I must say how delighted I am, and all of the board are for the excellent progress that we're making and the safety improvements which have been coming through in the last couple of years quite strongly. I know this will continue to be at the top of mind of Duncan and his team as he moves on and as he takes over, indeed the helm at Anglo Teck in due course. I'm also very pleased, as I hope you are, with the solid performance of the current business and the benefits of our major portfolio restructuring, which is starting to come through in the numbers. Returning now, why do I want to introduce this session, albeit briefly? Two reasons, really. Firstly, if things go to plan, which I'm pretty confident they will, the close of Anglo American's merger with Teck to form Anglo Teck will happen. This could mean, therefore, if the timing is as we expect, that it will indeed be my last chance to introduce. That's one reason. The second reason is I did want to say just a couple of things about Anglo Teck. An enormously exciting endeavor, which is going to bring really strong benefits to all of our respective shareholders and eventually collective ones and all of our wider stakeholder groups. I have spent nine years as Chair at Anglo, and I will be handing over that baton to my oppo at Teck, Sheila Murray, on the closure of the merger, of course, not before. I'd like to say just a couple of things about Duncan, our CEO, who will become CEO of Anglo Teck. In him, we have a CEO who I can tell you is utterly determined to deliver all that he has laid out for us and will set out to deliver over the next several years, and indeed, delivering on all of the cost and the industrial synergies which we have already announced to you. Post-closure, I'll be watching from the sidelines as he does that, and of course, he'll be ably supported by John as the CFO and Jonathan Price, who will join, as previously announced, Duncan's executive team. That's all from me. Thank you very much for your continued interest in all that Anglo American is doing. Let me now hand over to Duncan and then John to take us through the results today. Duncan. Thank you, Stuart. I am indeed very determined I'm glad you got that. To deliver this. All right. Good morning, everybody, for those that I haven't seen outside. It does, of course, continue to be a very busy time here at Anglo American. I think the overall headline is that we have made yet more progress on our operational, our financial and our strategic plans over the last six months. We delivered another period of solid operational stability. That translated into operating results being on plan across the business despite a number of external challenges, particularly related to weather. Market conditions were pretty tough in diamonds. De Beers delivered a very robust operational performance. Our steelmaking coal business continues to make great progress with higher production rates now bedding in at Moranbah. We also made progress on two of the lowest capital intensity copper opportunities of scale in the industry. We received final approvals for the Los Bronces Andina joint mine plan and have now advanced early-stage preparatory work for the integration of Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca. In terms of our strategic plans, we took a big step forward on the outstanding portfolio work with the announcement of the sale of our steelmaking coal business to Dhilmar for up to $3.9 billion. We continue to pursue the sale of De Beers. I'll come back to that a little bit later on in the presentation. The planning for our merger with Teck has been moving ahead well in parallel, and once we receive our final approvals, the two companies will come together to become a strong global mining champion with a compelling set of lower- cost, long- life copper assets alongside high- quality iron ore and zinc. This will be a company with a track record and the resources to grow the supply of the metals and the minerals that the world is counting on for decades ahead, led, of course, by copper. Safety remains the foundation of absolutely everything that we do at Anglo American. While our injury frequency rates have stayed at record lows, I believe that there is still room to bring them down further by focusing our activities on planning, raising our standards, and above all, getting the critical actions right. This comes down to leaders being visibly present and engaged on the ground, we're working to embed our safety culture even more deeply with more active control checks out in the field. On safety, we can absolutely never be complacent. No matter how good the results, there is always room for further improvement. Turning to sustainability, we launched our updated sustainability strategy and targets for the simplified portfolio in February of this year, we are now embedding that strategy, and the businesses are making good progress to delivery against their plans. We are beginning to start to see now the benefits of a model that balances group-level ambition and direction with locally relevant targets tailored to the priorities of each of our underlying businesses. This approach allows us to deliver consistent outcomes at scale while creating value and driving tangible impact and value on the ground in our countries of operation. We are now three years on from moving the accountability of our asset performance closer to the site. The evolution of that operating model is an important driver in consistently achieving our production targets. We also kept costs under control despite inflationary pressures stemming from the knock-on impacts of events in the Middle East, John's going to unpack those costs for us just a little bit later on today. The copper business produced 344,000 tonnes in the first half, we're bang on track for our full- year guidance of 700,000 tonnes -760,000 tonnes, with higher volumes half- on- half to come from both Collahuasi and Quellaveco. Los Bronces was a real highlight for us. The restart of that second plant has added profitable tonnes, the mine is gaining more flexibility with each quarter. In May, the permit for the desalination plant at Collahuasi was set aside by an environmental tribunal five years after it had been granted. Production, however, from Collahuasi has not been affected because we do currently have access to alternative water sources. We are hopeful that a review of the environmental assessment services or the SEA's decision will allow us to restart the ramp-up of that plant later on this year. We do continue to work very hard with the Chilean authorities to make that happen. Still at Collahuasi, the team is managing the variability as we transition through the lower grade and oxidized stockpiles. Indeed, the recoveries have improved in the second quarter of the year. The mine is on course to access the fresh ore from the fourth quarter, which will be an inflection point after two years of limited flexibility. Next year, the mine plan is characterized by much higher grade benches, but also some more complex faulting that we will need to navigate. The mine has worked through this many times before, and we remain confident in our 2027 and our 2028 copper guidance. Beyond that, this ore body has so much potential, and I'm going to come back to that a little bit later on in the presentation. Quellaveco remains the leading contributor of cash flow to the group, and it is great news to be able to report that we have now paid back the initial investment that we made in building that mine. They had another very strong quarter. Recoveries have picked up well, and we've also benefited from very healthy byproduct revenues there. Our iron ore business posted another period of steady performance despite some big challenges with higher costs from both diesel and freight. Performance at Kumba was notable insofar as it had to manage through some of the highest rainfalls that both the mines, Sishen and Kolomela, have seen in decades, and they suffered that over April and May. Over in Brazil, Minas Rio continues to have some of the highest productivity rates that we have in the group. One of the management team's main priorities since the start of this year has been working with Teck on planning the integration for our merger. We are cracking on at pace here with all of that integration work, and there is a lot of work to do, as you can imagine. We're particularly focused on getting the business positioned to stand up on its own on day one post-closing, and getting ready for the two new listings in New York and Toronto, and all of those associated regulatory processes. We set up an integration management office very early on, essentially a team of senior leaders from both companies that can work closely with me to drive the planning and the state of the readiness forward. They have done an excellent job so far, and we still have plenty to do, of course, but I'm very confident now that we will hit the ground running on day one. As the combined portfolio comes together, we will be ready to realize the material value and the synergies that we have identified, and I'm clear that all of the assets can play a meaningful role in doing that. As far as the future growth path is concerned, we will get into that once we have full visibility of all of the information of both companies post-completion. Clearly, that's not possible to do currently, given the antitrust and gun-jumping rules. In terms of what that means for market disclosure going forward, we'll start out with the details of the essential architecture that we need to manage the business from day one, and then get through the more detailed planning that is enabled by full integration. The initial disclosure will likely cover organizational structure, the group's key financial policies and accounting, as well as the disclosure frameworks. We will update the market in the ordinary course thereafter and continue to evolve as we have more information. On the timing of completion, the final regulatory approval we need is, of course, as everybody knows, from the State Administration for Market Regulation, or SAMR. We've been continuously engaging with them and cooperating with them over the last six months. We are of the view that the formation of Anglo Teck can only be positive for increasing global copper supply. It is therefore also a positive for our customers. We believe that we will be on track to complete later this year or early next, as we announced at the outset of the merger. I am conscious that many of you are going to have loads of questions related to the detail of these interactions and what that might mean. As I'm sure you can appreciate, this is a confidential process and a really important one. We don't want to misstep anything in the way to getting these final approvals. I'm afraid I'm really not going to be commenting any more on that at this stage. As I mentioned, we have moved forward on the portfolio transformation. The sale of our steelmaking coal business to Dhilmar for up to $3.9 billion was an excellent outcome from a highly competitive process that gives us both cash up front and the ability to participate in price upside over the coming years. We are working towards satisfying all of the closing conditions and targeting close by Q1 of next year. On Nickel, we are continuing to work through the EU antitrust process on the proposed sale to MMG for up to $500 million. This has taken a lot longer than we had anticipated. We now have some positive momentum following that protracted delay. We believe that there are no market supply issues that arise from this transaction. Supply has increased and diversified, in fact, further since we agreed this deal. We are optimistic now that we will receive this final regulatory approval and complete in the coming months. That takes me on to the last leg of our portfolio transformation, which is the sale of De Beers. The team there has been working incredibly hard in a terribly complex environment over the last few years to achieve a responsible separation of that business. I am pleased to say that things are advancing. That said, we are now in the final phases of our process. That is also the most challenging phase of our process, given the number of parties that we need to take along to the final point and get the signing of the final agreements. Our focus remains on bringing this process to a conclusion within an acceptable terms during the second half of this year. With that, I'll now hand over to John, who will take us through the financial results. Thank you, Duncan, and good morning, everyone. I'm once again pleased with the financial performance for the first half of the year. We remain on track to deliver our annual production guidance. We've managed costs well in what's been an inflationary environment, and we've further strengthened the balance sheet. As we continue to progress through our portfolio transformation, the financial reportin,g of course, remains complex. As we've done at our recent results, on this first slide, I've set out as simply as possible the basis on which our numbers are presented. As a reminder, our continuing operations include both the simplified Anglo American portfolio and De Beers. Our discontinued operations include steelmaking coal and nickel. Our simplified portfolio focused on copper and premium iron ore delivered EBITDA of $4.1 billion, an EBITDA margin of 46% and underlying earnings of $1 billion, all showing significant improvement on prior year, driven by favorable commodity prices and good cost control. De Beers incurred a marginal EBITDA loss of $0.1 billion, reflecting the continued challenging market conditions mitigated by our restructuring actions. Discontinued operations reported a loss during the period, mainly due to lower volumes at SMC as a result of poor weather and the ramp-up of Moranbah North, which is now again operating at normal levels. Combining continuing and discontinued operations, the group delivered total earnings per share of $0.58 and a dividend of $0.23 per share, in line with our 40% payout policy. Net debt has continued to decrease, ending the period at $8.2 billion, down from $8.6 billion at the end of December last year. That does reflect some favorable timing, which I'll come back to later. I'll take you through each of these items now in a little bit more detail. Starting with the simplified portfolio. Our basket price was up 22%, reflecting significant increases in copper, partly offset by small reductions in iron ore. Iron ore price realizations were impacted by the diversion of Middle East-bound product to other markets due to the Iran conflict and rising freight costs on an FOB basis. Production increased 1%, as Duncan mentioned, with slightly higher copper offset by lower iron ore. The higher prices supported a 22% increase in revenue and a 31% increase in EBITDA to $4.1 billion, with around 70% of this EBITDA being driven by copper. The tax rate in the simplified portfolio was 40%, slightly lower than last year due to the relative mix of profits and reduced impact from loss-making businesses following our restructuring program. This all resulted in a 60% increase in underlying earnings to $1 billion, and return on capital employed improved by 4 percentage points to 19%. It's pleasing to see these higher margins and higher return on capital materialize, as that was exactly the basis of our portfolio restructuring. Turning now to costs, where we've got quite a lot to unpack. With actual costs increased due to macro factors and volume. While copper unit costs reduced significantly due to by-product credits. Starting with total operating costs for the simplified portfolio. You can see here total costs increased by $0.6 billion to $4.8 billion, with the most significant factors being FX, CPI, and fuel. There were then a number of smaller impacts, including freight, as well as movements in Peru related to the rehabilitation provision and employee profit share provision. Finally, the restart of the Los Bronces plant and the return to higher activity at Manganese had an associated impact on costs. Of course, both of those were EBITDA- positive. Moving on to unit costs, we saw a gross 13% increase. However, that is before the impact of by-product credits and TC/RCs. The combined effect of which was a credit of $0.6 billion compared to $0.3 billion last year, with all of that benefit in copper. The $0.6 billion credit is roughly evenly split between Chile and Peru and is driven by molybdenum and silver. Given the scale of the relative cost bases, with Peru's gross unit cost being about half that of Chile, this meant that the credits had a much more material impact on Peru than Chile. Copper unit costs with the credit benefit therefore reduced by 12% from $1.55 to $1.36, with copper Peru at $0.45 and Chile at $2.06. Iron ore unit costs increased by 17% to $41 per ton, reflecting the underlying cost position that I've just described, with most of the FX impact being related to iron ore. This left total net unit costs up 4% versus last year. Bringing everything together now in the EBITDA reconciliation for the simplified portfolio. As you can see, the vast majority of the increase from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion is due to macro factors. Our favorable basket price, driven by copper and by-product credits, resulted in a $1.2 billion price benefit, partly offset by FX on the South African rand and Brazilian real, as well as CPI, to take EBITDA before controllables to $4 billion. Moving on to the controllables, sales volumes were slightly lower, mainly reflecting timing of shipments in copper. The Los Bronces and Manganese cost impacts from the plant restart and increased Manganese activity respectively, totaled $0.2 billion and are spread across each of volume, cost, and the other category. These and the other incremental costs I described previously are offset by the final corporate cost savings, lower TC/RCs, and Manganese volume to leave this controllable side of the chart a small net positive in the first half of the year, taking EBITDA to $4.1 billion. Moving now to our exiting businesses and starting with an update on the actions we're taking at De Beers. The diamond market continues to face both cyclical and structural challenges. We have taken and continue to take proactive action to preserve value and reduce the net impact to the group. This is evident in the results, which show an EBITDA loss of $0.1 billion compared to $0.2 billion last year, even as prices have moved lower. This reflects the impact of cost savings. More materially, a lower- cost inventory base as recent purchases have been at lower prices. Although the losses have been stemmed, we're not resting and restructuring action continues while ensuring that we retain upside optionality as markets recover. The most significant action is at Venetia, where production will be paused for around two years, and capital expenditure on the underground project will be rephased. This protects near-term cash flow and will allow us to reduce CapEx in 2026 by $300 million while preserving the long-term value and future production potential of the asset. Venetia was also contributing loss-making carats in the first half, so pausing this production will also assist forward profitability. Alongside this, De Beers is reshaping its corporate structure, simplifying the organization, and reducing the central cost base. This builds on the progress already made to remove overhead costs and improve efficiency across the business. Overall, these actions demonstrate a clear emphasis on cash preservation, cost reduction, and value protection, while also setting the business up for a successful divestment. Briefly now on discontinued operations. EBITDA was a loss of $0.2 billion, principally driven by steelmaking coal, while nickel was broadly breakeven. I'm pleased with the operational progress at steelmaking coal, with Moranbah, as I said, having a successful ramp- up and now effectively back at normal operating levels. The equity shareholders' loss of $1.2 billion reflects the underlying earnings, plus a $0.9 billion impairment of SMC to reflect the terms of the Dhilmar transaction. Applying a consensus-based annual pricing to a DCF calculation doesn't attribute any value to the price- link consideration, when in reality, of course, we would expect there to be option value from price volatility, with payments being calculated on a quarterly basis for five years. Meanwhile, we've initiated arbitration proceedings against Peabody in respect to the previous transaction, which is ongoing. Capital expenditure reduced to $0.1 billion, primarily reflecting the removal of PGMs from the portfolio. The net debt impact was a $0.2 billion outflow, including the cash received from the steelmaking coal deposit from Dhilmar. Looking at capital expenditure, we've maintained a disciplined approach with CapEx and continuing operations decreasing by 6% to $1.5 billion. This reduction was driven primarily by lower sustaining capital expenditure as the Minas Rio filtration plant completed and the Collahuasi desalination plant approached completion. We do expect higher capital expenditure in the second half, but we've made some cost efficiency gains, which I'll touch on in the guidance section shortly. Growth CapEx increased modestly year on year, reflecting investment in a small number of projects, including the first phase of the Collahuasi debottlenecking initiative and Kumba's UHDMS project along with Woodsmith. Moving now to cash generation, which as always remained a priority during the period. EBITDA of $4 billion translated into $3.5 billion of cash flow from operations. Working capital remained flat, with the adverse impact of rising prices largely offset by a number of timing benefits across multiple categories, including receivables, payables, and marketing activities. I wouldn't expect all of these timing benefits to endure and therefore anticipate an increase in working capital through the second half. The $0.3 billion outflow from other operating cash flows is primarily due to the timing of market derivative settlements, which offset in EBITDA and working capital. Cash tax and interest payments, distributions to minorities, and sustaining CapEx totaling $2.3 billion resulted in a $1.2 billion of sustaining attributable free cash flow, up around 90% compared to last year. Similar to working capital, where we will see some increase in the second half, both cash tax payments and distributions to minorities were lower than the income statement charges, and this will reverse to an extent in the coming periods. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to see the business continue to generate increased cash flows. Looking at net debt, we've seen a further reduction to $8.2 billion. The $1.2 billion of sustaining attributable free cash flow during the half was more than sufficient to fund growth CapEx of $0.4, the dividends paid to Anglo American shareholders, and the outflows from discontinued operations. I'm pleased that our net debt- to- EBITDA ratio is now at 1x while the group continues to maintain a strong liquidity position. Looking ahead now for the balance of the year, the business remains in a strong position with all operations and controllable costs trending as planned. The only change to unit cost guidance relates to a reduction in copper unit costs, which is a reflection of the byproduct credits which I described earlier. As I noted in February, our original guidance was conservative on byproduct pricing and foreign exchange, given we were in the very early stages of the Middle East conflict and the associated macro uncertainty. In Peru, with updated full- year gains of $0.65 compared with the first half of $0.45, we continue to be somewhat conservative on pricing of moly and silver relative to current spots, reflecting the sensitivity of unit costs to the size of the credits in Peru as I described earlier. In Chile, where the size of the cost base means their unit costs are less sensitive to those credits, we've guided full- year at $0.210 compared to $0.206 in the first half. In iron ore, we've kept cost gains the same for the second half. However, we would note that these businesses are more susceptible to oil price movements and do not benefit from the byproduct credits in the same way as copper. As you will see in our usual sensitivity analysis, which is in the appendix, for every 10% move in oil prices, we would expect a $43 million impact to six-month group EBITDA. Moving on to CapEx, our projects team is continuing to deliver optimized outcomes, and the work on both the filtration plant at Minas Rio and the plant debottlenecking at Quellaveco have come in under budget. Which allows us to reduce our CapEx guidance for the simplified portfolio by $0.1 billion. As I mentioned before, now with the temporary suspension of Venetia, we've reduced our expected spending at De Beers in the second half by $0.3 billion. Therefore, collectively, for the continuing portfolio, this amounts to CapEx savings of $0.4 billion, bringing our total 2026 CapEx guidance now to $3.2 billion for the year. Finally, as I've mentioned previously, for 2026, we will incur $0.2 billion of special costs for the restructuring and merger, and we will have $0.5 billion of non-cash increase in our net debt arising from a lease for the infrastructure related to the Los Bronces desalination plant, which we'll complete in the second half of the year. To finish, let me briefly recap on those key financial messages. We delivered strong profit growth with EBITDA from our continuing operations up by 35% to $4 billion, aligned with our portfolio restructuring and a higher exposure to copper. We managed the controllable costs well, and stronger byproduct pricing enabled us to reduce copper unit cost gains by 12% to $0.136 per pound. Our focus on capital management and project execution has allowed us to reduce planned 2026 capital expenditure by $0.4 billion, which should further underpin higher return on capital employed, which is now at 19% for the simplified portfolio. The balance sheet also continues to strengthen, with net debt reducing to $8.2 billion and leverage reducing to 1x EBITDA, while of course retaining significant liquidity. Overall, the simplified portfolio continues to provide resilient earnings with attractive exposure to copper-led growth and delivering higher margins and returns. Thank you very much. I'll now hand back to Duncan. Thank you, John. One of the biggest differentiators in our portfolio is the potential for us to deliver meaningful copper growth with higher returns and lower complexity relative to peers, with the benefit of building from some of the best copper assets in the world. As this slide shows, bringing new copper production online is becoming ever more expensive. The rate of inflation for capital intensity is running at almost double the increase in CPI. Capital is therefore now a bigger part of the project's economics than ever before. Returns need to be higher just to justify those elevated costs. As capital inflation continues, the economics of many growth projects are at risk without higher prices. This is why we believe the copper price has to be structurally higher. It's also taking a lot longer to actually build and deliver these projects. Back in the 1990s, it took about seven years from the time that you discovered an ore body to bring it into production. Over the last decade or so, that has stretched out to almost 18 years. If that carries on, the cycles will take longer to move from trough to peak. We'll see much bigger swings in price. This is especially true when so much of the demand for copper is coming from strategic buyers who really aren't all that price- sensitive. In that kind of world, projects that you can deliver in the short to medium term without spending a fortune to build them become hugely valuable. You'll have seen this slide before. It makes this point well. Our key copper growth options really stand out where it matters the most, on complexity and on capital intensity. Over the last 15 years, the industry's CapEx estimates have mostly come in far worse than what was promised at the study stage. In that world, low complexity and low capital intensity is exactly where you want to be. Starting from lower capital intensity protects our returns. It leaves us really well-placed to benefit from price upside that these supply dynamics should drive. That's on top of a demand outlook that is structurally strong. With all of that in mind, the integration of Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca is a really exciting prospect. Arguably, it is one of the industry's best options for capital-efficient copper growth at scale. That is actionable in the near term. As a reminder, there is a potential to add an incremental 175,000 tons of annual copper production at around $2 billion of CapEx. That's about $11,000 of CapEx per ton of copper growth. Importantly, the integration would still allow for further growth from both assets, and this also provides increased flexibility for future options, including leaching and other plant expansions. We are busy putting the building blocks in place to make this integration a success. We are focused right now on the technical groundwork and on engaging with shareholders across both assets. Just like any other adjacency that we've bought over the last few years, it is important that we take our time and we do this properly. Much of what drives the extended schedules for copper projects is the time needed for permitting, planning, and stakeholder alignment. We want to get that right from the outset. We continue to believe that this is, by far, the best way forward for both Collahuasi and Quebrada Blanca. It sits right in that sweet spot: low capital intensity, relatively low execution risk, high confidence, and near-term copper growth at real scale. I'm genuinely confident about the potential here. We can build something pretty special. One of the largest and most competitive mining complexes in the world with decades of accretive growth ahead of it. Last month, we announced the final regulatory approval for the agreement to form a joint mine plan between Los Bronces and Codelco's Andina mine right next door. If you'll forgive the pun, it's really groundbreaking work there. A very thoughtful and innovative structure that meets the objectives of both sides without compromise to value creation, and it allows the respective shareholders to participate in the upside on a pro rata basis. As we've said before, this joint mine plan will add another 120,000 tons of annual average copper production, which will be shared equally between the parties. When we announced this deal, we identified around $5 billion of pre-tax value uplift to share with Codelco, and that was at a copper price of around $5 a pound. This is probably the clearest example of us benefiting from exactly the copper dynamics that I've just been speaking about. Now that we're through completion, the teams are moving into the joint mine plan integration design work. We've got a governance framework in place, and we're now working towards the environmental permits, where we're aiming to have them done by 2030. Just like Quellaveco and Quebrada Blanca, there could be more growth to come down the line. For example, here at Los Bronces, we've kept the right to develop the underground if the markets can support it. We're really excited about our future as Anglo Teck and the upside that we can unlock from this in terms of the synergies and the growth. As I've said just now, it is going to take some time before we can talk to the deal aspects of project sequencing. However, that should in no way detract from the core of the value proposition because it will continue to be primarily driven by Anglo American and Teck's current portfolio of assets. The key value driver for us going forward, therefore, remains operational excellence. Now that we've built a more stable operating platform, we've got a solid place to plan from, and we're continuously working on systematically optimizing productivity, costs, and stability. We're also looking further out to see how we can best manage the natural variation that occurs over the lives of mines, as well as the inevitable pressures on grades over time. At Quellaveco, we've just completed a debottlenecking program at the plant. Recoveries are up, and the mine is operating very well. This stability gives us the ability to focus on maximizing the future value. In this context, we're continuing to shape the production profile over the next decade. As you know, over the next few years, we're going to be moving from the Supergene into the Hypogene ore body, and the Hypogene ore body is characterized by lower grades. The work that we're doing there is looking to smooth out the production profile during that transition period. As a consequence, we may take an earlier step down in annual production volumes towards the end of the decade in order to sustain that rate over a longer period of time to maximize value, rather than taking a much bigger step down a little bit further out. To be clear, these changes should not impact our current production guidance, and we are continuing to pursue new ore sources that could come into the mine plan over time as we look to optimize Quellaveco's value. It is a highly profitable business, highly cash- generative, and is well set to be a cornerstone of the Anglo Teck portfolio through the next decade and more, and we will continue to push for further options to enhance its value. At Kumba, what we're doing there with the UHDMS technology is already setting us up to get more out of Sishen. It's going to treble the share of the high-grade product, that is exactly the quality of product that plays into the key demand trends over the medium term. We're getting more optimistic about what we can deliver from Sishen over time. However, there is scope for other upsides from Kumba's performance in the near term, Mpumi is spearheading a full- potential program there to improve productivity, costs, and return on capital. Minas Rio is another mine that is operating well. As we look forward, we remain excited about the full potential of Serpentina, which is an excellent ore body. Our focus at Minas Rio is therefore now working through the most capital- efficient and value- accretive pathway to the Serpentina resource, with a particular focus on confidence in execution in the context of what we now see as a very much increased challenging and permitting landscape. We have the time to do this work, and to be clear, it does not impact our guidance, the operating stability that's now in place creates a solid platform for us to unlock the full potential of that Serpentina adjacency. We are continuing to work hard on how we optimize the long-term potential across the portfolio. Th rough the merger, we will continue to challenge ourselves as to how we can strengthen sustainable performance even more over time and allow us to make the most of what I see is shaping up to be a fantastic company. To close, operational excellence is right at the heart of how we're driving better performance across the business, and there's definitely more to come as we set ourselves up to understand and then to deliver that potential from the merged business. After two years of hard yards, the portfolio work at Anglo American is nearly done, and we're in great shape to start life as Anglo Teck with a focused set of assets. In addition to that, we've got near-term growth, we've got medium-term growth, and a whole suite of assets and project options to keep us delivering well into the long term. On a personal note, I am properly energized by how Anglo American is performing right now and by everything that lies ahead. I am really looking forward to seeing this merger through and to leading Anglo Teck over the coming years to deliver its huge potential. I am determined, Stuart. With that, John and I are happy to take your questions now. Tyler, you're going to moderate. You bet. All right. Thanks very much. I think what we'll do is we'll start with Matt because I promised last night, and then we'll do the traditional analyst conga line of questions. Thanks, Tyler. Good morning, Duncan. Hi, Matt. It's Matt Greene at Goldman Sachs. Just want to touch on your copper, probably the near term. Congratulations on the Los Bronces and Andina Agreement there. When we think about this preparation period between now and when this JV kicks in 2030, what needs to be done to get this asset ready? You've touched on the tailings, the desal ramping up, but anything else that we need to be considerate of here? Anything else? The critical path now at Los Bronces Andina runs absolutely through the permitting process. We've got a very good view of what the shape of the mine should be from the agreement work that we did. We've got to keep doing what we're doing in terms of the removal of Pérez Caldera. That's pretty important because as soon as Pérez Caldera is moved, we can bring back the second plant because, you know, the Los Bronces plant comes down again to move Pérez Caldera. We need that plant when we start the joint operations with Andina. That's part of the critical path, but all on track and making good progress there. As far as the permitting process goes, look, it's a complex permitting environment. Generally, in South America, it's complex. In Chile, it's quite complex, particularly in and around where Los Bronces is because it's so closely located to the city of Santiago. Normally, these sorts of permitting processes can take three or four years. We have a very front-footed, forward-looking government there who's very excited about the prospects of good and responsible copper growth in the country. Look, I'm expecting that, look, we've got a number of legal processes that we need to go through. This is a good outcome environmentally. It's a good outcome in terms of utilization of resources like water and land. The environmental impacts are much better than two standalone growth options in the same place. I'm expecting that we'll have a reasonable ride through that permitting process, but it'll probably still be around about three years to get it done. That's great. Just longer term, Quellaveco, outstanding first half of the year, congratulations on the performance there. When you scoped this, the concentrator, you were limited by water. You've been able to manage that. You're pushing to 142,000 tons a day by the end of this year. I think there's scope to move to 150,000 tons beyond that. Where do you see this, well, the concentrator tapping out, and then how do you think about the next leg here for Quellaveco? Look, I think this is a great example of continuous improvement and innovation all at the same time. The ore body is the ore body; it has the grades that it has. Of course, we were limited by water in terms of what we could produce at the time. I think when we permitted the project originally, we could only process 127,500 tons a day. As you say, we sort of managed to iterate ourselves to around about 140,000, and now probably have liberated the possibility of processing almost 150,000 tons a day. How did we do that? Well, first of all, it's a complete optimization of the internal water balance within the plant. Making sure that we're recycling as much of that water, not allowing it to evaporate, et cetera. There's a whole bunch of processes that go in around that. We implemented our first full-scale coarse particle flotation unit there, that made a very big difference in terms of the application and use of water. There's been a little bit of debottlenecking. In every plant that you have, you rarely want your primary constraint to be your SAG mill. To the extent that you can debottleneck anything around that, it sort of gives you the benefit. The primary constraint here will continue to be water. We're not using any more water than we were going to use for 175,000 tons a day. I think, given the combination of where the primary constraint is in the SAG mill now probably correlates with the primary constraint of water. Around about 150,000 tons is where it's going to be. That really just helps us smooth out the production variable, particularly during that transition period to the Hypogenes. Maxime. Hi, Maxime Kogge from ODDO BHF. First question is on Collahuasi. Because it's a bit difficult to understand the situation there with regards to the desal plant. A lot of money has been invested, more than $3 billion over the last few years. It has required three years of investing, and yet we had this 11th- hour stoppage. What are your views on assembling books there in your discussions with the administration, and can you give us some of the timeline for restart there? Yeah. Look, as I say, this is a permit that was granted by the SEA more than five years ago and was granted off the back of a fully fledged consultation process with all the stakeholders that were involved in it. What has subsequently happened is that a stakeholder group has taken the permit on review. It then escalated through a number of steps to get to the environmental tribunal, who suggested that the SEA, who granted the permit, will need to review it. It's just the component associated with the desalination plant. This is the whole of the EIA for Collahuasi. It's just the component of the desalination plant that was taken under review. This is a process that now the government has to reset, including the consultation process. We are hopeful that within the next six months or so, we should be able to get back on track and be able to restart that plant. As I said earlier, it's had no impact in terms of production so far because we have a number of alternative water sources. In terms of the long term, we will need the desalination plant to come back on, which we're expecting it will do. All right. Just a second question on copper. Just about the big spike we've had in sulfuric acid prices. I was wondering what was the net balance is for you, because on the one hand, you have this smelter in Chagres, on the other hand, you have some consumption in leaching ops. Is it a net positive balance? Do you see opportunities in terms of smelting going forward and conversely, some hindrances in terms of leaching production? As far as smelting is concerned, we have the Chagres smelter. It's one of the best-operated smelters in that region, continues to perform very well. It's an integrated smelter for us, right? We don't take custom material through it. It's really our own material that we put through it. Of course, there are very interesting views today on the role of smelting in the system. As we see it at this particular point in time, we're really not looking to expand our smelting capacity within the group. It is quite capital intensive. We're very happy with the capacity that exists in the market today. If that environment changes, we would re-look at it. Right now, so long as Chagres continues to perform in the way that it does, it's a very viable component of our portfolio. In terms of leaching per se, another technology that's getting a lot of favor it's one of these things that the mining industry has been poking at for a very long time in terms of a technology breakthrough. Many mining companies have got various different views of which technologies are good and which technologies are not. I am very clearly of the view there isn't a silver bullet in terms of leaching technology that applies to all mining. Leaching works in varying degrees on different types of ore bodies, and there are many different types of leaching that you would pick appropriate to a specific ore body. Generally, leaching technology has been at the point where it works very well on oxidized ores, but not as well in terms of recovery basis on sulfuric ores. The technology does seem to be changing and moving; much higher recoveries on some of these technologies are coming through on the sulfuric ores. That would be a very big positive if you had an ore body that was amenable to that sort of leaching, because the capital intensity of leaching plants is just so much lower than the capital intensity of concentrators. It does come with other environmental permitting issues and so on. I think, to the extent that you have operations like Quellaveco, who has a leaching operation already, and it's a shuttered operation, but we can bring it back on. It gives you a lot more opportunity to make use of a technology that does work for you in that space. Yeah. I think leaching technology is an interesting space to watch, but it's not a silver bullet for the whole of the industry. It's not something that I see at this point in time that is a mass implementation that completely drops the cost curve of copper mining. Thanks. Yeah. Morning, it's Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Hey, Ian. Just to follow up on that copper side, obviously, with the restart of the Los Bronces plant earlier this year, you've been able to add additional volumes. You mentioned the Quellaveco leaching plant. Is there an opportunity to do more of that, I guess, into next year? Maybe run that Los Bronces plant a bit longer before you move the Pérez Caldera Dam, or plans to bring back that leaching at Quellaveco? A second question, just on the steelmaking coal business. Obviously, the unit costs were pretty high. Obviously, a large fixed cost component within that as Moranbah ramps up. How should we think about profitability in the second half? I know you don't give guidance on unit cost and volumes, but just how we should think about that. Thanks. Los Bronces plant. Remember when we shut the plant down, it wasn't making any money at all. There were two key drivers of that. One, it was just the fundamental underlying base of Los Bronces per se, but that plant specifically. Secondly, the quality of the ore that we were able to feed to it. The mine was very constrained in those days. You'll remember we were monofasic, stuck in Infiernillo 5, really struggling at the bottom of that phase to get the volumes at a quality that could support both of the plants, Confluencia and Los Bronces. The decision was an economic one, right? Value over volume was a very important drive for me. It still is today. Hence the decision to shut that plant down. What has changed subsequently is that the mine has progressed extremely well on their cost management focus, right? They have really focused on where the real numbers need to be, and they've implemented a number of programs that have sustainably delivered better cost performance across the whole of Los Bronces. Secondly, and probably far more importantly, is that the progress that they've made on the development of Donoso 2, which is the phase that will ultimately replace Infiernillo 5, is ahead of schedule. The consequence of it being ahead of schedule means that, one, we have access to more ore. Two, that ore is softer and processes better through the plants than the harder ore that comes out of Infiernillo 5. Thirdly, is slightly higher grade, just given where it is in the mine. It's higher up in the mine than where Infiernillo 5 is. The combination of those things then made the restart, of course, in the back of some very robust copper prices, a materially viable value solution. We started up. Now, the constraint is absolutely the removal of that Pérez Caldera tailings dam. This is a commitment that we have, as you know, that this all sort of emanated from actually a very long-standing commitment, almost back to the Exxon days, to remove that tailings dam. Even more important in terms of what we understand about tailings dams under the GISTM process, we are going to move that tailings dam. It needs the water because we're so water-constrained in that region that we're currently using in that plant. That is what we're going to do next. The rate at which we can move that dam, of course, is the big prize here to have everything back up and running when we've combined Andina and Los Bronces so we can optimize the copper production from the combined asset at that point in time. The real critical path now runs through the removal of Pérez Caldera. That, as I said earlier, is on track. It's running very well. I'm not sure whether we can accelerate it yet. It's a little bit early days, but to the extent that we can and optimize the way that we extract it, there is a small probability that we can either delay, but I'm talking about months, not years, the shuttering of the Los Bronces plant or starting it up a little bit earlier if we get the permits back. Collahuasi leaching and [Metcalf]? What was the Collahuasi leaching question? How we should think about the timelines for potentially bringing that- Oh, yeah. Look, the team is working very hard on that right now. I think there is a view that we might be able to bring some of that in during the course of next year. Don't know quite exactly where they've got to at this particular point in time. We have a plant there, so it's going to have to be refurbished a little bit. It's a specific process. I think what we're also looking at is what the full leaching potential of Collahuasi is. Leaching at Collahuasi, you might think about in two phases. One is the restart of the current plant because the current copper price environment probably substantiates and supports the restart of that plant. The guys are busy doing the feasibility study now as to when that might come on. The second phase is actually an application of one of these new technologies that is amenable to the Collahuasi ore body. We have two options here, which is an absolute pleasure. One is we've got this massive mineralized waste pile, which is a stockpile that the mine's actually been running off for the last 18 months, which is probably more amenable to leaching than it is to concentration. If some of these sulfuric technologies work in leaching, we have the Ujina pits, and we have a portion of the Rosario pit that would probably be amenable to that. That's probably a little bit further out, but that's the technological dream and the optionality that we have embedded in Collahuasi. You asked on steelmaking coal and the unit cost. Look, the guys had a pretty rough start to the year with weather. We had three mega weather events across the group, where one is in Australia at the beginning of the year, where the open pits were completely inundated with water. Honestly, Ian, I've never seen anything like this in my life. We had conveyors that are already 10 m above the ground that were submerged. All the resilience things that had been put in place were beaten by Mother Nature this year around. Probably a one- in- a- 400-year flood that they had there. It took them some time, some of that is embedded in the cost base. We had to be very cautious in how we were ramping up Moranbah. A bit slower to get it right. I'm thrilled to say that over the last two months or so, the guys are absolutely consistently hitting their straps, kind of getting around about 150,000 tons a week of production out of Moranbah. On that basis, we should see some adjustment to the unit costs because the production is increasing, and so long as we don't have another weather event in this year, the open pits are well on their way to recovery there too. Thanks. This is Alain Gabriel at Morgan Stanley. Duncan, a couple of questions. One is on the integration with Teck. Your teams are clearly doing lots of integration planning. What have you learned so far that has surprised you, either positively or negatively, given the limitations of what you can and cannot say? The second question is on the B is probably for John. What are the standalone provisions and pensions and long-term liabilities for taxes as well that you can share with us at this stage? Thank you. On the integration, I'm thrilled to say no big surprises. The challenging work is the volume of work at this point in time because, of course, we're prevented from seeing commercial data on either side. The companies are actually competitors until the day that we close, and that's the really cool stuff that I really want to get my teeth into big time. I can't do that until we've completed. On the other hand, We've got a very clear view of where the synergies are that we've announced, and we need to set the organization up now to be able to hit the ground running hard in terms of the rapid delivery of those synergies. Secondly, you've just got to have an operating model for the company that everybody knows, and everybody understands from day one, and that's a lot of work. Just understanding what the asset bases are. We rely very heavily on how Teck thinks about certain things, and they have to rely very heavily on how we think about certain things. Then we've got to put the right operating model in place. That's all been very good progress. Then, of course, the company has to actually operate. It's got to have a management system on that day. We've got two new listings, in New York and Toronto. What you're required to do in terms of the statutory information, the financial reporting, the Sarbanes-Oxley stuff, and so on. That's an enormous amount of work to, one, understand and then plumb systemically through the businesses, both in Teck and Anglo. That's the volume of work. Not the most exciting work. Well, unless you're Siobhan. She loves this sort of stuff. Very important work to get right if we're going to have a chance of driving those synergies out in the time that we said. Thank you. John, you want to do De Beers? Yeah. Alain, just to clarify the question. I picked up tax, but I didn't get your specifics on it. What are the long-term provisions and pension liabilities that are sitting in the De Beers entity? In De Beers. The pensions in De Beers are in great shape. Like they are across all of Anglo American. Very well-funded. We're in the process of moving the majority of those long-term defined benefit plans to buy-in or buy-out, which effectively means we transfer those liabilities to insurance providers. On taxes, nothing of concern on De Beers on long-term tax liabilities. All pretty in the ordinary course, no unusual long-term liabilities. Of course, the big long-term liabilities in De Beers, as they are with any mining company, is the closure provisions and rehabilitation provisions, et cetera. All in the ordinary course. Are you able to quantify these long-term provisions? No, not at this time. Okay. Thank you. Great. Let's give it to Myles. Myles Allsop, UBS. A few quick questions, maybe for John to start with. Could you give us a sense of how much you are looking to get from Peabody? Is it $500 million? Is it $1 billion? Is it $1.5 billion? Obviously, you've got a better sense now of what you're going to realize and the losses that have been incurred and so on. It'd be helpful just to get a sense of what that potential could be. Maybe, I know it's early days, and it'll be the new board decision, but how you're thinking around the dividend policy for Anglo Teck. Is it more likely to be aligned with the current Anglo American policy or a more North American structure? Maybe, for Duncan, just on Manganese. Obviously, you've done most of the heavy lifting on the restructuring and is that now on the list of things to tidy up? Okay. Good morning, Myles. On your first question on Peabody, obviously the arbitration, as I said, has been initiated. That's a confidential matter, therefore, I won't comment any further in terms of quantum or amounts. As we've said consistently, we are very confident in our legal position on that case. Your second question on the dividend for Anglo Teck, you quite rightly say that will be a decision for the Anglo Teck board, which of course is not yet formed. So that would be one of the things when Duncan talked about the phasing of communication that we'd hope to be able to clarify that very early post completion of the merger. On Manganese, Myles, you probably wouldn't expect me to say much different from we look at all the assets in the portfolio all of the time, and to the extent that we can see more value for them in a different way or in a different format, we would deal with that, and Manganese would just be one of those. Nothing specific planned on it, but absolutely in line with how we think about asset management and planning for the whole of the business at a portfolio level. It will be looked at in the same way. Tony. Thank you. Tony Robson, Global Mining Research. Possibly a question to John. Sorry, to Duncan. The $4.5 billion special dividend being paid out just prior. So we're talking days, weeks, prior to the formal unification issuing of shares to Teck and so on. Was there any thought about doing that as a buyback rather than a special? Surely that's in terms of the weighting of the assets, the ratio you require as a merger of equals would have the same impact and reduction in shareholders' equity, I would assume. It's why a special rather than a buyback. Thank you. Yes. John can comment on the detail of this, but I can assure you, when we were looking at the merger ratios of the company and what we needed to do to put it together, we considered all of the options. The best option for us was the return of some capital to the Anglo American shareholders. That was the decision we took. It's not going to change now. It is a return of $4.5 billion just prior to completion. John, do you want to add anything to that? No. No. That's it. Thank you. Felicity. Felicity Robson, Bank of America. The steelmaking coal disposal is valued at up to $3.9 billion, with $2.3 billion upfront. How can we think about the likelihood and the timing around any of the contingent payments? Yeah. John may have to help me with the timing. The key contingency is just all price- related. I think it's probably over a five-year period or something. It's five years. It's five years. Yeah. Over the next five years, depending on where the steelmaking coal price is, I can't remember the term that we look at it. It moves around a little bit, but on average, it's in the high 250s. Yeah, high 250s, but it's quarterly or. Quarterly. Tested quarterly Quarterly review tested. We'll get any participation in the upside of that. Thank you. Richard. Thanks. Morning. Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Just a few quick ones. Firstly, it's been a while since byproducts were this attractive. Yes. Got this much time in the limelight. Can you just remind us how much silver you're producing, how much moly you're producing, so we can try and get our models sharper for that sneaky little beat you gave us this morning. Second, John, you teased us on working capital, how much do you think comes back in H2? Thirdly, good old non-controlling interest. You're making a lot of money from Quellaveco, I saw there was a zero dividend to your JV partner or your minority partner, so in cash. I just question when we're going to start to see some cash flowing out of Anglo PLC back to Mitsubishi. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. First of all, on the byproducts, there's a number of things in there. A bit of silver, a bit of gold, a bit of moly, a bit of acid. Of course, it moves around depending on where you're at in the ore body. We're not giving volumes on that just now. We, I think, for the first time, given the quantum, felt it was appropriate to give the number, which was, as I said, $0.6575 to be precise, in terms of the revenue. No more detail to give on that given the variability, and of course, it changes by mine. In terms of working capital, it was nice to see that working capital remained flat in the first half of the year. Ordinarily, you would have expected an increase given commodity prices. A number of things causing that to be offset. One, the actual sales volumes themselves in December last year were very high in the December month, therefore that caused the receivables to be a bit higher. The June month this year in terms of volumes, was actually a little bit lower, that was an offset. As I said, there was a number of timing benefits, we got some receipts from customers a little bit quicker. There was a number of capital creditors that were delayed out a little bit, et cetera. To answer your question, in the round, what would you have expected working capital to go up by in the first half of the year if we didn't have these offsets? The price impact, as you saw in my waterfall, was $1.2 billion. If you took your receivable somewhere between 30 and 60 days, it's probably somewhere between $200 million and $400 million of a sort of timing benefit that we had in the first half of the year. In terms of the non-controlling interest, of course, yeah, there will be, and again, I mentioned this in my speech, that there is a difference in timing between the earnings coming through and when those dividends are actually paid out. Yeah, I would expect to see, over the course of the second half of the year in respect of not only Quellaveco, but also Anglo American Sur, some dividends paid out to those minorities. Cool. Thanks. Maybe to Liam, the far end of the same thing. There's a pattern to how Tyler's doing this. You've broken the pattern. Good morning. It's Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Just one question on the Collahuasi Quellaveco JV. Have discussions advanced much in recent months with Glencore and the other partners at both sets of assets? In order to meet that 2028 construction start timetable, when would you need to reach an agreement and make the relevant permit applications? Thank you. Hey, Liam. Yeah. Look, discussions are ongoing, right? It's not only with Glencore, it's with all the other stakeholders too, in terms of how we can shape this up. Fundamentally, this is going to rely on the standalone options that exist in both of the assets and getting those to a level that people can value effectively. Clearly, because that sets the base, one, in terms of the combination ratio of the partners going forward, but also how the synergies will be shared. That work is ongoing. Those conversations have started, definitely not concluded at this particular point in time. I think we do need to get that technical work done properly. That is the bit that actually takes the time to get done. We should absolutely have that done at a point in time where we are able to go into permitting to get us up and running by the end of the decade, which is where we said that we would do it, because don't forget that here, the permitting is materially less complex than would be the case on either of the standalone options, given that this is by and large, a conveyor belt that just connects two operations as opposed to the construction of a brand-new plant, which is, on a standalone basis, a massive plant. It would be kind of the size of Quellaveco on a standalone basis. Yeah, I think there is time to do this and get it right. Discussions have started, and will continue over the next year or so. Go to Chris. Hey, Duncan. It's Chris LaFemina from Jefferies. Hey, Chris. Just some questions on Collahuasi. Back in 2020, 2021, coming out of COVID, you had two fantastic years. Grades were up, production was up materially when workers weren't showing up to work, which was impressive performance, but it was also somewhat surprising. Here we are five, six years later, and you're having these geotechnical issues. There was a transitional ore this year, these complex faulting issues that you need to deal with next year. I'm wondering first, if some of these problems that you're having today or some of these challenges today are a consequence of changes to the mine plan coming out of COVID. Secondly, the complex faulting issues that you said you need to work through again next year- I think you said you've dealt with these in the past, but just wondering what sort of risks there are to your 2027 production. Are you going to have to slow down mining rates, et cetera, as a result of that? Thank you. Great questions, Chris. Of course, my adage is, once you stop mining to the plan, you pay the piper at some particular point in time. Certainly, there's no doubt that Collahuasi is not immune from this. They have a little bit more insulation around it, given the high quality of that ore body, but they are absolutely not immune. It does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to know that during COVID, they prioritized the resources that they had into the production benches, so the development benches fell behind. The consequence of that is, it played out about two years ago, when they had to catch up the stripping for the next phase of the mine. This is phase 15, I think it is, at the mine. In the back of their mind, in their defense, they do have the stonking stockpile here. It is a 0.6% grading waste pile. There are many fresh ore mines that would love to have that as their primary grade. What they miscalculated here was the rate at which this material was going to recover. The grade is actually very consistent. It is there. The trials that they did and the tests that they did during that period of time gave them some confidence that when they processed the stockpile, they would get the recoveries that were consistent with the plan that they had put forward. This was not like they completely screwed this up. They had a plan. What they miscalculated was the homogeneity of the refractionness of that ore source. They have to crack on and get that done. That's been the focus for that management team over the last two years, which is, okay, we know what we've got to live with now. When does it get sorted out? Back end of this year is when we should have opened up those phases. We're already starting to switch into a higher proportion of fresh ore compared to the stockpiled ore. That's all good. As far as the fault is concerned, the complex fault is concerned, all mines have faults. If it was not for the fault, there'd be no mine at all because that's how copper porphyries are formed is through the fault. The complexity of this particular one is just the facets that exist within it. As we get into this phase 15, we are going against the grain, if you like. Instead of mining straight into the fault, we've got a number of cross faults. That creates a bit of wedging. You get a bit of fallout. The geotects are trying to work out whether we need to slack the angle on that slope. Do not know whether that's going to be needed at this particular point in time, but it is something that we have to consider. I'm pretty confident in our copper guidance. What it means is maybe we just get a bit of lumpy production out of Collahuasi for a period. But there are other alternative sources of ore in Collahuasi, including the leach plant and so on and so on. Just nothing untoward here, but just to know that we are moving into that phase of the mine now. Sorry, Grant, did I skip you? Hi, it's Grant Sporre from Bloomberg Intelligence. Question probably for John. You called out the net debt being $6.6 billion, excluding shareholder loans. I'm guessing you're referring to the Mitsubishi Vale shareholder loans of $1.6 billion, if memory serves correctly. Is there any specific terms for those loans when you have to pay them back? I'm just curious as to why you called it out in the presentation specifically. Thanks, Grant. The reason for calling it out is that there is some judgment in whether you consider that to be true debt or whether it's more of an equity. In reality, it's just how those shareholders chose to fund their share in the those partners chose to fund their share in the project, which is more efficient from a tax perspective, et cetera. Whether it's a loan, whether it's an equity injection. Some companies would present excluding shareholder loans, some would present including, so we're just putting it there so as people can make their own views as to which they consider to be the most appropriate measure. I think the important thing is that when you're comparing the debt number with an EBITDA number in terms of the leverage in the business that you're comparing like for like, i.e., it's either 100% of one or 100% in the other, or if you're taking attributable EBITDA, then it would be fair to take the shareholder loans out. That's the reason for showing it. Is there any sort of specific terms? Are you expecting to have to pay that back, or are you sort of seeing it more as an equity injection? They do get paid back over time. They have been paid back, so those balances on the most significant one is in Quellaveco with Mitsubishi, and that balance is coming down quite quickly over time given the strong performance of the business. Perhaps just a follow-up one. Just in terms of your copper cost guidance, is it a case that you've obviously lowered it? Is it a combination, I'm guessing so, of better by-product realizations in the first half and then also higher assumptions in the second half that has allowed you to drop that guidance? When you say higher assumptions, higher assumptions in the second half on? Well, higher assumptions versus your initial Yes. Setting at the beginning of the year. Yeah. When you look at the makeup, effectively, take Peru as an example, $0.45 in the first half moving up to $0.65 for the full year gains, that would imply you can see the second half's not quite at the original guidance level of $1.00, therefore our assumption on pricing, as I said, is not quite at current spots, but it's probably somewhere between our previous conservative assumptions, which was based on last year's pricing and what we achieved in the first half. It's still a little bit of opportunity there through the second half. Thank you. Alan. Good morning. Alan Spence from BNP. Just actually following up on the unit costs. Is there anything on a gross basis, and just talking about Quellaveco here, that you see inflationary or a headwind to costs into the second half? Into the second half, the main one would be what's happening with oil/diesel, and we saw that through the first half of the year that the oil price on average was about 20% higher than the first half of the prior year, given the sensitivity for what would come through there. I think difficult to say, nothing dramatic in the sort of gross cost beyond diesel in terms of uncertainty. As I said in the presentation, I'm really delighted with how we've managed to manage those controllable costs through the first half. Nothing surprising to come through in the second half on that. Okay, thanks. Back to Peabody, without asking you any kind of dollar amount, what are the pockets of compensation you'll be looking to go to? Is it what care and maintenance you had to do? Is it what a typical break fee would've been if there had been one? What are the little pockets you'd be going for? Yeah. Listen, it's a complex legal process to go through, again, I wouldn't want to comment on any live legal dispute. I think take us at our word that we're very confident, we're initiating, we're pursuing, and when we have something to say, we will say it. Nothing more I can really say at this point. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Thanks. It's Patrick Mann from Investec. I've just got one quick question left that hasn't been asked already. Just on the De Beers sale, are you still considering the capital market options that you were talking about before, or are you progressed far enough with the sale that you're confident this is going to be the exit mechanism? Yeah, no, Patrick, one, we don't think that the market has capacity for a listing of De Beers at this particular point in time. We probably got there a good few months ago, to be honest with you. That was also helpfully supported by the fact that we had some real traction in the divestment process with a number of parties that were all deeply strategic- type of partners. We drew some confidence from that. There is no work going on the listing at this particular point in time. To the extent that we ever did need it, we'd have to revisit it at that point. No, so right now it's a trade sale that we're looking at. Great. Thanks. Alex, are you good? Move down to Ben maybe. You already asked one. Ben Davis, RBC. Just two quick questions. One on possible Canadian indexation proposed changes with the S&P. Does Anglo Teck qualify with a Canadian nexus? Also, just quickly on De Beers, assuming Botswana does give its blessing, any regulatory hoopla after that? Okay. We have a in the business for indexation, and that is Mr. Broda. I'm going to ask him to answer that question for you directly. Great. Thank you very much, Ben. Thank you, Duncan, for bestowing the TSX status on me. Yeah. For that. Let's all pray for me, especially it doesn't go wrong. What's happened is that the S&P/TSX has come out, back in April. They came out with a market consultation, so they were asking the market for feedback on the potential for adding companies that have material business in Canada but are not domiciled in Canada to the TSX index. Which is obviously very relevant for Anglo Teck, and I think there's a very widespread base of support within the financial markets in Canada across the country for wanting it to be in the index. This is what the consultation was for. They finished that consultation a few weeks ago. I think it was last week. They've now come out with an official rule change consultation, so it's the same thing, but this one is based on a specific rule. It would mean that it would be 50% attribution to Anglo Teck within the index. I think from a binary perspective, just being part of that index means we'll be part of the Canadian capital markets infrastructure, which we're very excited by, with some great investors and obviously the whole analyst cohort there. It is expected that that will finish at some point over the course of the summer. There will be a determination on a rule change at the start of September. From that point, I'm not sure exactly how the mechanics would work with the timing of close and whether we go right in, but we would be, in theory, eligible if that rule change was to go through. We should get an update there in early September. Back to you, Duncan. Very good answer, Tyler. Good job. On the statutory approvals for De Beers on a sale, of course they will be. To some extent it does actually depend on the final makeup of the consortium that we put together. I think we can probably expect the likes of the U.S., China, Europe, and so on to be involved, at very least, in this thing. The estimate is about a year. We'll confirm that when we do the transaction. All right. With that, Myles, I have the mic now, and therefore, that is the end of the Q&A session. Duncan has to go off to do some more interviews, so we'll have to close it there. I don't know if you have any last words, Duncan, or should we just close there? No, Tyler. Look, thanks, everybody. I'd say a good half, I think, building off some tough work that we had to do in terms of resetting the portfolio and changing the accountability model within the business. It's mining. There are always going to be ups and downs in it, but I am confident that we've got the right people in the right place to deal with that. I'm very pleased with where we are, both from an operations point of view and from a transformation point of view, and very excited by ultimately getting the merger complete so we can build on the strengths of both of these companies. Thanks. Any other further questions, obviously, we're around. Thank you. Thank you.