I would now like to hand the conference over to a speaker today, Mr. Martin Fewings, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for our 2020 financial results. Today on the call, we'll have Ivan Glasenberg, CEO, Steven Kalmin, CFO, and joining from Australia, we'll have Gary Nagle, our CEO designate. Without any further ado, I'll hand it over to Ivan. Okay, thanks, Martin. Good morning. Turning to the slides, in the first slide four, we talk about the investment proposition of Glencore. As you're aware, with our commodities, we enable the transition to a low carbon economy, and our business model has been responsive to take this into account. We are a leading producer, marketer, and recycler of these transition commodities, and we'll talk about those actual commodities later on. We're sector leading in our climate strategy, and as we announced in December, we're targeting a 40% reduction in our total CO2 emissions by 2035, and by 2050, net zero emission for Scope I, II, and III to emphasize including Scope III emissions. We believe we're responsible stewardship of the declining coal business over time. As the industry decarbonizes, we'll be running these assets whilst we deplete them towards the end of their life in 2050. We'll talk about that in more detail later. We believe we got the right business model. The transition to a low carbon future is overall positive for Glencore in view of our commodity mix. We got the right commodities for this decarbonization transition which is taking place. A high portfolio of these commodities they good high margin commodities, large-scale mining, and long life assets. We'll talk about the life of these assets, which Steve will give details later on in respect of these low carbon commodities. The business is extremely highly cash generative today. If you have a look at the EBITDA based on the spot prices, January prices, in fact, you'll see we talk about $16 billion of EBITDA with around about $7.2 billion of free cash. If you had to use today's spot prices, that is more like $17 billion EBITDA and close to $8 billion of free cash. The business model and the strategy and the asset mix creates a sustainable growing returns in its transition to the low carbon energy. If you look at the 2020 scorecard, if we have a look at the next slide five, it's been a healthy cash generation of the business, even with the difficult environment with COVID-19 existing and affecting some of our assets during the H1 of the year. We generated EBITDA of $11.6 billion, which is flat similar to 2019. The marketing and industrial metals offset the weaker coal prices that existed during the year. Net income, pre significant items, was $2.5 billion, which is plus 2% on 2019. The equity free cash flow was extremely strong in view of this environment, $4.3 billion free cash flow, that's up 65% from the previous year. On the back of that free cash flow, we will be paying out a dividend of $0.12, which is around about $1.6 billion. That's in view of our existing dividend policy. Steve will talk about that later on, how that is calculated and how that will be paid out during this year and the potential to increase it when we review it at the half year results. The industrial assets, as I said, were resilient even under the difficult environment during the H1 of the year. The industrial assets generated $7.8 billion of EBITDA, which is slightly lower than the previous year. This is mainly due to the strong metals performance of commodity prices during the year, outweighed by the weaker coal prices, as we all know, that existed during 2020. The metals business generated $7.3 billion and the energy, $1 billion, which is 73% lower, and as I said, mainly due to the lower coal prices. The cost margin performance was strong, and as you'll see, we've decreased our cost of production across the range of our assets. Our copper assets today produce copper at $0.94 during 2020, sorry, which is $0.15 lower than the year before. Zinc, -$0.07 post gold and silver credits, which is $0.35 lower than the year before. Nickel, $3.76, which is $0.22 lower than the year before. Coal, we're producing at $45 a ton during 2020, and even with those low coal prices, still generating a margin of $11. As expected, the marketing performance was extremely strong during last year, and we generated $3.3 billion of EBIT, which is up $1 billion of the previous year, 41% up. That's been a strong performance from our major commodity trading unit. Energy generated $1.8 billion of EBIT, which is $437 million higher than the year before, and metals $1.7 billion, which is $578 million higher than the year before. That was supported by market conditions and the difference in 2019, where we had the challenges on the cobalt, which we spoke about previously. The agricultural division performed well, and Viterra, where we equity account the 49% ownership which we have in Viterra, equity accounted $211 million there, $58 million the year before. That is a good, strong performance from our agricultural business. The company has an extremely strong balance sheet now. The net debt has been reduced to $15.8 billion, that is successfully repositioned within the $10 billion-$16 billion target range, which we set for the company, we're targeting to get down towards the middle of that range and hopefully lower by the end of 2021. We have available committed liquidity of $10.3 billion, we have the bonds maturing at maximum $3 billion every year. As I said earlier, the spot illustrative cash flow at today's spot prices would be right about $17 billion, close to $8 billion free cash. The company's looking extremely strong going into this year. As I said, hopefully by the end of the year, we should generate that type of cash. Turning towards the sustainable performance of the company, unfortunately, we had eight fatalities during the year. Pete and his team still working extremely strong on that, noting that we do employ 145,000 employees and contractors through our business, but we're definitely aiming to be fatality-free throughout our business. You'll see the total recordable injury frequency rate is decreasing. Lost time injury frequency rate is also decreasing. This is an area where Pete and his team are focusing on to ensure we become fatality-free in this company. If you look at our Scope I and II CO2 emissions, we talk about 24.3 million tons, and if you look at our Scope III CO2 emissions, 264 million tons. We'll talk about that later, what Glencore is doing in this area to ensure we are reducing both our Scope I, II, and III emissions. With that, I hand over to Steve to talk about the financial performance for the year. Thank you, Ivan. We commence on page eight in terms of financial scorecard. We'll get to most of these main headline numbers later on in the presentation as well. Don't intend to dwell any. Just in terms of just from a statutory perspective, if you're trying to sort of tie it up, we obviously took some impairments in H1, was taken primarily there. There was a strong profit performance in H2 given the headline numbers. Net income, pre- significant items was up year-on-year by 2%. All the other debt and cash flow metrics we'll look at in the coming slides. If we go to page nine, just looking at the industrial part of the business that Ivan mentioned, there was a 13% decline from $9 billion to $7.8 during the year. Very much a tale of 2/2 in terms of industrial business, with significant tailwinds for this business going forward into 2021 as well. Metals and minerals side was actually up by 31%. Particularly, there was a pleasing turnaround at the African copper business, essentially Katanga, with a successful ramp-up. Higher metal prices also in H2 contributing to the 2.5x performance, half on half, H1 via H2. Very healthy mining margins in that business at 36%. The energy business was the drag on earnings, industrial side during 2020, reflecting both, I mean, coal prices, to a lesser extent, the oil prices. We did respond to market dynamics by reducing supply out of all three of our jurisdictions in Australia, Colombia, as well as South Africa, seeking to rebalance markets. We did see some recovery in prices as reflected in the spot cash flow analysis, which I'll go through later on. It wasn't quick enough to materially change 2020's trajectory, so we finished the year at $1 billion. Already annualizing now just the coal business itself at $85 Newcastle or so is now slightly above $2.5 billion as well. I think the table on the bottom right is quite telling, showing the overall $7.8 billion industrial EBITDA for the year is made up $2.6 billion in H1 and $5.2 billion. You can see that recovery in H2 on prices and volume, some of it COVID-19 related, particularly in the metal side. As we move forward in 2021, we're now annualizing $13 billion just on the industrial side with the end of January prices. That's already comfortably ahead of the run rate in H2, which itself was a strong recovery period on period. If we look at page 10, just showing the waterfall and the industrial bridge from 8.9 to 7.8. The pricing variance was the main factor but had been narrowing progressively during the year. If you look back to the H1 presentation, just on price variance, we were $2.1 billion period on period. Now it's down to $780. Actually a positive period-on-period variance during H2. Within that pricing variance, energy was down $1.6. Of that coal, $1.4, and oil was $0.2 of that. Metals was actually a positive $0.9 billion within the price. You can see some of the percentage average percentages. The precious metals space where we have exposure mostly as by-product, but we also have the primary gold producer in Kazakhstan. You've seen prices up about 30% on the pressure side. The PGM side, we also have by-product exposure in nickel and the alloys business as well. You also have the pricing. We had a better H2, although the average was broadly similar in many of the base metals. The fact we had higher volumes in H2, we were more exposed to higher prices, and you had some positive provisional price movements, particularly in copper. Strong pricing performance within H2. The volume all these variances had narrowed during the year. Both volume and cost was higher at the H1. Particularly both volume and cost impacts was felt in the coal business, reflecting both voluntary and involuntary adjustments to market conditions and COVID-related suspensions within coal, and the averaging effect on the cost efficiencies that that has as well. Within both those categories, the metal side of the business was actually positive offsetting the weaker performance from particularly the coal business. There was a bit of FX relief, primarily on the South African rand. Period on period was $165 million of that $243 million. That's very much rear view going into 2021. All those bars, at least from a net perspective, is expected to turn materially green on a price and volume perspective as we go forward. We look at from page 11, some of the individual scorecards for the various businesses. We're starting with copper on page 11. Copper industrial, $4.5 billion of EBITDA in 2020, representing 39% of group EBITDA. Starting to sort of lead in terms of overall mix, given current macros and the scale and strength of that particular business. Pleasingly, its cost structure. Back in August, I think we guided to 106 all-in cost on the copper business. They came in at 94 as a function of both efficiencies, production, scale, with also help from by-product pricing in silver, gold. Also zinc. There's some by-product comes through the Antamina operation within these results. Cobalt started showing some improvements towards the end of the year, particularly affecting Katanga. That in particular has been the major increase in 2021. I think cobalt's up close to 50% already year to date, and we'll see that in some of the pricing benefits as well. Good performance on the copper side, particularly the turnaround in the African copper business out of $1 billion, turnaround 2019 to 2020, from a 0.3 negative, in fact, in 2019 to 0.7, with significant additional improvement expected in 2021. Later on, we'll look at the 2021 or illustrative spot scenario guidance. We haven't changed any production guidance for 2021 and beyond from where we were at 4th of December when we gave the update. What we have rolled forward or reflected in each of the businesses is a roll forward of the cash costs within each business, reflecting macro development from 4th of December out to the end of January. That would reflect by-product pricing, FX and fuel prices where you've seen, obviously, energy prices generally through crude and diesel has also increased. We were showing $0.87 a pound in copper for 2021 guidance back in December, and that's down to $0.80 a pound at the end of January. With cobalt improvements since then, that would have even moved down from then. $6.7 billion we'll show later on, up to 42% of group EBITDA as well. Page 12, if we look at zinc side of the business, that delivered a little over $2 billion EBITDA 2020, representing 18%. We also saw big cost improvements over the year on a post by-product basis. Through middle of last year, we were at sort of $0.05 positive. It came in at - $0.07 a pound. Again, that was a strong production performance in H2 and an increase in the by-product credit that gets allocated across that business. For this business, gold and silver in particular, also significant lead producer, which comes in at quite a sizable negative H2 cost performance. For full year 2021, we're looking at - $0.11 a pound, no change since December. We're seeing increased tonnage this year. We spoke about that also back in December. The main contributor being the commissioning expansion of the Zhairem complex in Kazzinc as we move forward as well. Just looking at nickel, came in at $600 million EBITDA, page 13, 5% of EBITDA. The key focus for this business is getting the ramp-up of Koniambo over the next few years, both to drive scale around exposure to the nickel pricing, which is relatively strong at the moment, and to also manage average costs as we go through the next period and deliver some expansion within this business as well. Pricing, we've guided to 117,000 tons of production this year, no change since 4th of December. That's seeing some year-on-year improvements, which we hope and expect out of Koniambo as we move forward as well. On a spot basis, that business is doing a little over $1 billion of EBITDA. As I said earlier on, this does have some of the exposure to the high PGM prices, particularly out of Canada, as well as cobalt prices out of Australia and Canada as well. Looking at coal on page 14, this was the lag on earnings contributions in 2014, we're starting to see the recovery and performance in this business as well, EBITDA at $1.2 billion, down to just 10% of group EBITDA. Costs and the likes came in as we would have expected. You can see through the table at the bottom of the top table, just showing a Newcastle average pricing. You can see, if you like, that's where the damage was done through the periods. 2019, average 2019 was $78 down to a little over $60, we're only about $85 at the moment, generating a 2021 illustrative of $2.5 billion as well. We have seen some tick up in cost in this business. We were guiding to about $47. In December, we're now a little over $50. That's essentially the currency effect of producing in Australia, but producing in rand and the diesel intensity of this business as well, with crude above $60 at the moment as well. You don't, of course, get any by-product relief within this business as well. On an illustrative pro forma spot basis, coal moves up to about 15%. Thermal of that would be about 12%. We do have a met business, which would be about $500 of that $2.5 billion as well. Moving to page 15 and the marketing performance. This cushioned the overall performance of 2020 to deliver the stable year-on-year EBIT performance of the $11.6. We saw a extra billion dollars on marketing, up $2.4 billion - $3.3 billion, up 40%. That's across the board, very healthy and strong performances. Metals and minerals up $578, somewhat flattered by the challenging cobalt market conditions, which we described and experienced in 2019. Net, a very solid and consistent performance across all the metals and minerals units. Energy was $437, benefiting from the, as we said, exceptional price movements, dislocations and carry trade and volatility within that particular business as well, particularly through H1. Although H2 was also a very solid performance. Pleasingly, Viterra, which is the former Glencore Agri, in which we own 49%, that had a very strong performance in equity pick up for us of a little over $200 million. That's at obviously the 49%. Grossing that all up to sort of 100%, you've got a business at sort of around $1 billion worth of EBITDA. In terms of guidance, 2.2, 3.2, sticking to that range. We plotted some of the data points from 2020, going back all the way to 2008. You can see quite consistent sort of around that range. Occasionally it dips a bit below, a bit above. It's a consistent range, validates the range itself. Nice to have a data point now at sort of at the top end of that range as well, which is, you got to go back to 2008 as well in that particular. Top right, you can see some of the normally metals would be about sort of twice the energy in a sort of a average cycle cruising speed sort of period. Energy was sort of very much obviously an exceptional performance. If it's repeatable, we'll sort of wait and see. That was very much part of getting to the $3.3 billion as we did in 2020. If we just go into the balance sheet generally. What was a very important marker for us as we approached the end of the year was to get the debt back within the 10-16 range. That's been successfully done and repositioned at 15.8x or 15.2x marketing leases, which is the number that we primarily focus on for the purpose of that range. Particularly the current strong levels of cash flow, as Ivan said, $7.2 billion on the $16 billion of free cash flow. It's probably ticked up close to $8 billion. That clearly provides the fast track pathway towards our short and medium-term targets around this year, getting back below the mid-range, so below 13, and towards the low end, around the $10 billion in a sustainable fashion, which is where we want to do. Clearly getting a net debt EBITDA close to the 1x, which would ensure that through the cycle, a less than 2x is never breached. Even through this cycle, as you can see in terms of net debt EBITDA, we peaked at 1.8 in June, having started the year at 1.5. We're down to 1.37 at the end of December. On a pro forma sense now, we'd be in fact below one already with net debt $15.8 and EBITDA at $16 +. We'd be below that level, which is a good position to be in. Net funding was broadly flat, in line with a pickup in the RMI around $2.7 billion. That was reflecting primarily the higher prices from period to period start to the end of the year. Copper up 26%, zinc up 20%, alloy up 11%. There is some counter cyclical still carry trades on the books that will work their way through the system in the next sort of year or so, both in the oil side and on the metal side. You might ask, if prices keep going, does your RMI sort of materially go above the $20 billion? You will have some positive factors on pricing. As we go through a more pro-cyclical period of the economy, tightening markets, backwardation curves, our units that we're actually carrying will also come down. You'll see that positive impact as we go through on the RMI. On page 17, just on capital structure. As I said, we're now looking to get below the middle of the range this year. That looks fairly straightforward on current metrics and business performance. Bottom right is just an update on where we did finish up for the year and effectively, sort of the actual from where we were, page 17, I think, the slide of the H1 presentation where we said, here's the pathway from 19 credibly to below 16. What did it need to do in terms of both the cash flow generation at the time, which was still strong, and also the fact that there'd been a temporary buildup in working capital at the time, not our MI, of around $3 billion. It finished the year at -$1.5 billion. There was still an impact on a full year basis, but H2 delivered a part reversal of that $1.5 billion. Ultimately, ex marketing leases getting to about $15.2 billion, with equity free cash flow now above $7 billion as we've started 2021. We've already locked in, I guess, a month and a half of that, which is shown through the start of 2021 as well. Page 18, just on the distribution analysis. The policy, as you all know, is $1 billion fixed out of the marketing, reflecting the more sort of stable, highly cash conversion aspects of that business from EBITDA through to very little CapEx, lower effective tax rates in that business as well. Plus 25% of industrial free cash flows, setting the base distribution. Then on top of that, of course, the company and the board would consider additional top-ups at any time, frankly, during the year, reflecting the state of its balance sheet, reflecting the cash flows, reflecting the outlook and the macro environment generally. We've plotted on the bottom right, the marketing, industrial, and total equity free cash flows of the business as well, from which to calculate that $1.6 billion, to the line of $1.6 corresponding back to $0.12 a share. That's what's being proposed at the moment, but I would highlight that we will certainly, as a minimum, get through the interim results in August, but frankly, at any time, if we felt it was appropriate to do some top-ups and some capital structure management, that would always be an option for the group as we go through. A very strong position and balance sheet in check. Net debt deleveraging target's clearly a priority still as well, as well as paying healthy distributions as we go through. On page 19, just an update on the CapEx, where that finished up. The outlook is no change from the December update from 4th of December, with $5 billion of CapEx industrial expected for 2021, reflecting a little bit of catch up in the sustaining area. You can see up to $3.8 billion. There were some project deferrals, some COVID-related impacts on some projects, and generally a more cash preservation mode early in the year. That was probably $200 million of that movement. We do have a few fleet replacements that timing-wise just happen to be in 2021 impactful. They also are there to derive strong operational efficiencies as well as high internal rates of returns in NPV, particularly at Lomas Bayas and Antamina, our South American copper business. We have some meaningful fleet replacements that are quite lumpy when they do happen. They don't happen very often. They're looking good in terms of what cost structures we expect from those businesses going forward. Other than that, nothing to speak of. 21 guidance quickly, just to put the building blocks. We've got some of the production profile from 2021 on page 21. Nothing's changed from here to December. Copper just reflects the removal of Mopani tons from 2021 onwards. Zinc goes through a high zinc phase through the, particularly, Zhairem and Antamina zones. Cobalt, that's the progressive ramp-up of Katanga. Nickel, some Koniambo tons. Ferrochrome back from some of the mandatory suspensions in South Africa. Coal, a little bit up as well from some of the market-related reductions that were taking proactive measures in 2020. Some COVID impact as well, and that's also with Prodeco out. Also in the copper cobalt business, none of these numbers reflect any Mutanda restart, which there was a point earlier on that says we're obviously working on firming up the appropriate plans, both technically and financially, and we'll be able to report back during the course of this year on the plans going forward there. On 2021, page 22, you can see the cost structures. Copper down to $0.80, and improving that position. Byproducts, that generates EBITDA $6.7. Zinc continues to decline as well with higher production and the byproduct benefits that come with that business. EBITDA is up to $2.8 billion. Nickel up to $1 billion as, again, you have a little bit of expansion and some higher byproduct credits, PGMs and cobalt as well. Coal, still a first quartile cash margin position, but a tick up in costs, which would be consistent with anyone producing in non-U.S. function at the moment, be it Australian dollars or any other currencies that's going. That running at $2.5 billion-plus at the moment. Just to finish up on page 23, there's the illustrative group EBITDA of $16 billion, generating $7.2 billion of free cash flow. All the details for this you can find on page 36 later on, including the macro assumptions that we used on page 40 at the end of January on that. Strong tailwinds going into 2021. With that, I'll hand back to Ivan. Thanks, Steve. As you can see, if you look at the next slide 25, how Glencore is uniquely positioned with the goal of the 2050 net-zero emissions, which we believe will shape our future. If you have a look at the slide, to meet the 1.5% pathway transition to net zero, the world has to utilize a lot less oil. There's the graph showing how much less oil equivalent, billion tons of oil equivalent on oil, coal, and gas as the world reduces consumption of these different commodities. However, what that will mean is an increase in the amount of metals required for the different types of electricity generation, electric vehicles, et cetera. By our assumptions, if you look at it for copper, where the world is today consuming around about 30 million tons of copper, it's going to increase to around 60 million tons per annum, per year. By the year 2050, that's two times today's consumption. To give you an idea, therefore, we'll have to produce an extra one million tons of copper per annum going forward from 2021 - 2050. If you look historically between 2010, 2019, we only increased half a million tons per annum. We really got to double that to meet the demand for copper going forward with this transition to the different forms of energy. If you have a look at nickel, similar applies to nickel, especially within respect of the battery nickel, which is in the batteries for electric vehicle. Today, the world consumes right about 2.5 million tons of nickel, will have to go up to 9.2 million tons by the year 2050, 3.7 times the amount consumed today. To give you an example, we'll have to have nickel growth, production growth of around 225,000 tons as opposed 2010 to 2019, we've only been growing at about 100,000 tons production increase per year. We really got to double production every year going forward. Cobalt is a similar type story. Today, the world consumes around about 130,000 tons of cobalt per annum. By 2050, we'll be consuming around about 507,000 tons per annum. A large amount of that is the amount of cobalt which is put in the batteries for the electric vehicles and the growth of electric vehicle growing forward will demand a lot more cobalt. To give you an idea there, also that tells you that we'll have to produce an extra 13,000 tons of cobalt per annum to meet that target. Between 2018-2019, where there's been a lot of growth with more production in the DRC, we've only grown 7,000 tons per annum. We really got to double that. Similar numbers talk about zinc, where 13.9 million tons going to 28.8, and we will have to grow by 500,000 tons per annum as opposed to right about 260,000 tons. That clearly displays these are the metals which are required in the future for this energy transition, and therefore, the world mining industry is going to have to find ways to increase production. If you turn to the next slide, it's clear if you look at the amount of to meet this global demand for metals, we will have to increase supply. You can see there isn't a large pipeline of new mines coming into the system. If you have a look at the slide on the left, there's been limited investment and no new sources of discoveries. The investment, if you look between 2001, when you had the big demand for commodities from China, and there's a lot more capital expenditure in the mining sector, where it ramped up during 2005, 2007. It has come down considerably now 2017 and 2019. Therefore, there are not many shovel-ready projects. As you can imagine, we're gonna need a lot of shovel-ready projects to feed this demand that is coming into this part of the commodity sector. Therefore it's gonna be more challenging. Hopefully, some of the mines will extend their lives with the higher commodity prices. You will need higher commodity prices to therefore extend the life of these mines. The new mines are in challenging locations, lacking infrastructure, having governments there where it's easy to operate in those areas. That's getting harder. These are the areas where we're gonna have to go, and that's where the new mines would have to come in these more difficult regions, so it's gonna be a lot harder. Also, we're gonna have to get more technically advanced to therefore mine these lower grade materials, and that's where Glencore is a leading in that area because we got Glencore Technology, which works on this all the time. We've got XPS, so we're leaders in those areas where we can get more efficiencies and utilize the better technologies at these mines where there is lower grades. That's where the mining companies are gonna have to get smarter in order to mine these lower grades profitably in order to meet the supplies demand. It's clear to meet this demand that we believe is coming with this energy transition is gonna be difficult, and the mining industry is gonna have to increase their production in various different forms and manners. As indicated in this slide, it's going to be extremely difficult. We are a leading supplier in these particular metals, and if you look at our portfolio, as I said, spoke about earlier, we are uniquely positioned. We're one of the world's largest copper producers in the world, producing 1.26 million tons per annum. If you have a look at our reserve life, it's very large. We've got around about 23 years left on reserves, but if you include the resources, it's somewhat higher, and some of our mines can continue growing, producing 50, 60 years. If you look at cobalt, we're the world's largest cobalt producer today, producing 27,000 tons per annum. That will grow, as you've seen with the slides that Steve's given you earlier. We grow up to 40,000 tons per annum. We have a massive reserve life of about 50 years and even larger resources there. As you can see, we're a large producer of that commodity. The world's only 125,000 tons. We produce 27,000 tons and as I said, growing to 40. If you look at nickel, we produce 110,000 tons growing to 125,000 tons. We have a 26-year life on our reserve over there. We've got a bigger resource base, so we can continue looking to expand in that area. The same goes for zinc and vanadium and these commodities that are very much required in this new energy transition. We're uniquely positioned with great assets in those areas, the lowest cost producer in most of those commodities, as Steve indicated earlier. If you look at copper, where we're producing at $0.80 per pound, and as the by-product credits get higher, hopefully that will even come lower in that area. Really one of the lowest cost producers of these leading metals, which are required going forward. Turning to the next slide, just an idea what Glencore has a strong pipeline of brownfield and greenfield options. As you are aware, and I've always stated, I'm not excited about greenfield projects, but Glencore does have a lot of easy brownfield projects where we can increase production with expansions. As I said, with Glencore, we'll always be extremely cautious. It's more about value over volume, and we'll not be expanding just for the sake of expansion. We'll monitor to see demand, what is required in the world, and then decide how we increase and when we increase. What you'll see, and we've spoken about our depleting coal assets, you will have a look as we move more into these other commodities. We'll be growing our metals in those commodities whilst we deplete our coal production down to the year 2050, which I'll talk about in the next slide as we support our decarbonization footprint going forward. That bodes well for the demand of the various commodities. If you have a look at the next slide where we talk about the transition of decarbonization and our emissions footprint, as we said during our December presentation, we look at all three of our Scope I, II, and III emissions, and we add that up. As you can see, in 2019, we had 376 million tons of CO2 emissions at Scope I, II, and III. We said we will decrease that both with our Scope I and II as our assets deplete. We'll also, on Scope III, as we deplete our primary, we run down our coal reserves, and therefore we reach 40% decrease of our CO2 emission Scope I, II, and III by the year 2035. We're one of the few mining companies who have put a clear pathway how we get to 40% by the year 2035 of our Scope I, II, and III emissions. As you can see, a large part of that is our coal depletion. We've also said that we will achieve by 2050. We have set ourselves the ambition of achieving net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. How do we get there? A large part, as you can see, is our primary coal depletion. That is where we run down our coal reserves. We get to a minimal amount by the year 2050. Colombia will basically be shut by then, South Africa, and depleted a large amount of our Australian higher quality coals over there. We'll also reduce our Scope I and II by energy efficiency and fuel switching at our operations. The other mines besides our primary coal depletion will also get there with offsets and efficiencies primarily from Carbon Capture and Storage. We'll be doing a lot of work in that area. We believe the world will have progress in Carbon Capture and Storage, whereby we'll get the benefit of that. Therefore, the consumption of our commodities and the CO2 emissions with the consumption of those commodities will decrease considerably. We've got a clear pathway how we get there. Our medium term, 40% by the year 2035 and net zero by 2050. Here, if you have a look at the next slide, it shows what we try to emphasize there. Our approach is unique in our sector. Our competitors are not have the same Scope III reduction as we have said. If you have a look, we all talk about Scope I and II, but the slide there gives you an indication that Scope I and II is very small in the total amount of our CO2 emissions from our products. Scope I and II in the case of Glencore only represents 8% of our total CO2 emissions. If you have a look at our peers, it's also similar small amount Scope I and II. It's insignificant in amount of the CO2 emissions, and a large part of the CO2 emissions come from Scope III when the consumers are utilizing our products. As I said before, by 2035, and I gave an indication how we will reduce our Scope I, II, and III emissions, where we get down to 40% by the year 2035. That gives you an idea how our peers are also doing that. They mainly being Paris-aligned by Scope I and II, and no one is getting Paris-aligned in respect of Scope III, and that gives you an idea how we are reducing in that area. If you move towards 2050 and our total CO2 emission ambition to be -100% by the year 2050, I explained earlier how we get there. If you have a look at our peers, a lot of them are getting net zero Scope I and II, but to get Scope III, none of them are getting to net zero. We believe we're unique in our sector, whereby we are reducing and an ambition to be zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050. Turning to the next slide, the last slide, page 32, given we're uniquely positioned for the future. We believe we've got the right strategy. We are achieving net zero, as I said, global emissions by the year 2050. We recognize our responsibility to support the achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement by decarbonizing our own emissions footprint, and as I said, all three including Scope III. We will put a plan to our shareholders for an advisory vote at our AGM in April on this strategy, and therefore, we will take it to them for the vote. As I said, and as you can see through this presentation, we have the right business model going forward. We're responsible and a flexible business model that adapts for these new commodities that is required in this energy transition. We are a leading producer and marketer and recycler of transition commodities. We have a large amount of smelters around the world, where we can recycle a large amount of these commodities, which is also helping for the energy transition. As I said, and Steve's pointed out, our quality portfolio is well-populated with large scale, low cost, long-term, high margin assets. That's how the company looks for the future. We talk about coal and how we're going to be a responsible stewardship of coal and our policies going forward and how these policies have been set out. I think the best person who can talk about the future, he's the guy who's going to be running this company and positioning the company for the future, and he can lay out his strategy, how he wishes to handle the company going forward. Gary, you're on the line. Your chance to tell the investors how you're taking this great company forward. Thanks, Ivan. Thanks very much. Good morning to everybody on the line. Terrific set of results as you can see we presented today. Just to put in a bit of context of where our climate change strategy that was announced on the 4th of December last year at our investor day, I was deeply involved in the development of that climate change strategy and the business strategy around it. I firmly believe it's the right strategy for our company. Our plan is to, as you've seen, to decarbonize our total emissions footprints. That's all Scope I, II and III, which is unique in the industry. How we get there, as you heard from Ivan, is a depletion of our coal business, and that really gets us to a ambition of net zero by 2050. It's the right pathway for Glencore, it's the right pathway for the world, and that's the way we're heading. Of course, we'll listen to shareholders. We want to hear what the shareholders have to say. They believe in our strategy. So far the feedback has been very positive, but we want to hear more. If there's a demand to do something different by the shareholders, we'll listen to this and we'll focus on what the shareholders want us to do. I strongly believe in the approach outlined in this presentation. It's the way forward for our company. It sets us up for the future, and I look forward to driving the strategy as we go forward. Okay. Thanks, Gary. Well, I hope you'll consult with me as a shareholder when I'm sitting on the outside on the strategy, and we will discuss this over time, together with the other shareholders. Please make sure you keep paying me a good dividend. Okay, Steve. Absolutely. I think that captures everything for today. I think, Martin, we're open to hand over to questions. Thank you. Thanks very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad and wait for your name to be announced. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A queue. This will only take few moments. If you wish to cancel your request, please press the hash key. Once again, it's star one if you wish to ask a question. Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question. Yes. Good morning, gentlemen. Two questions from my side. Firstly, on the capital returns policy, you have hinted at a top-up in the H1. Have your priorities changed? In other words, where would you spend the incremental dollar? Would it be towards reaching the lower end of your net debt guidance or increasing shareholder returns? That's my first question. Steve. I think this year we've said we want to get below the middle of the range, so that's a priority. I think just the extent of the cash flows at sort of $7 billion and even on a monthly basis, it doesn't take much to certainly get through 13 and get towards 10 as well. If we're carrying on with the sort of cash flow that we're obviously generating and the macro picture holds up as we expect it to do, then I think the probability or likelihood of some top-up, come August, I would say is obviously very high at the moment. First priority, get below 13, and then see how to navigate still additional top-ups and the medium-term journey to get sort of 10. I think they're not fully inconsistent. I think we can find the right balance in August. Okay. Thank you. The second question is, you seem to be actively managing the tail assets via the Mopani exit and then Prodeco. Where is your focus next? Which assets are you targeting next to exit? There's smaller assets. We just look at them all as we move on. We've said we want to reduce the amount of tail assets, the one that takes a large amount of management time and doesn't contribute a lot to the profits. We're just moving one by one through that process. I think most of you know what that tail looks like. Those are the areas that we're obviously focused on those that don't necessarily add much to the terms of materiality. Exactly as Ivan said, they do have a huge footprint in terms of day-to-day management from operational and safety and the likes as well in environment. The ones where maybe the prize or the optionality long term is not the core part of the portfolio. Thank you. Thank you. Our next request comes from the line of Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Morning, guys. Just to follow up on Alain's question on the tail assets. Do you have a size of an asset base in mind or, and maybe just in terms of timelines and, I guess quantum or sort of proceeds, if you can provide a bit of color on that would be great. Thank you. Yeah, look, we're working one by one through them. You'd only be a genius, just look at those assets, the tail ones there, they don't generate much cash. We're getting a bit of interest from various parties, and as we get that interest and some of them would go through a formal process, others we just wait for reverse inquiry. We're progressing well through that. How much cash generation, Steve, you can talk there. Yeah. Ian, these are not the ones that are going to inject multiple billions of dollars. Those are clearly the assets that we're happy to keep ourselves. Those are the core assets. We'd obviously want to sell for value and do things that make sense, both in structure or ongoing commercial ties. It can be a range of things, that's part of the sell process. I wouldn't start necessarily penciling in or multi-billions here nor carving out assets that make sense for us to keep. You can see how quickly the sort of positive exposure is to cycles and the good assets and the good commodities that you have at the moment. The last thing we want to be doing is two, three years down the track is kicking ourselves on a few of these things. Certainly some things that obviously make sense. Those are the things like Mopani, like you've seen Prodeco. There's a few things maybe in the oil side, a few things in the zinc side. These are things we're looking at. They're very much in progress at the moment, and there will be announcements over time. As Steve said, they're not going to generate big amounts of cash that we're going to stand up about it, but they do make it easier to run the company. As Steve says, for safety standards, et cetera, it's less work for Peter and his team. For assets that don't generate much, it just makes it a lot simpler. That will happen pretty swiftly. Thanks. Just to follow up on Prodeco. You're rescinding the mining licenses there. Are you also giving the liabilities back to the government or do you still sit with the liabilities? Gary, I think you can answer that. Yeah. Well, we're not rescinding the licenses. We're handing it back under Colombian law, which is a process called reversion. We will be up to date with all our obligations to the government when we hand it back. That covers the full suite of responsibilities, any outstanding royalty payments, any backlog in environmental work that needs to be done, we will do that to make sure we are up to date with that. Any work that we have to do in terms of rehabilitation compensation outside of the mine, any of our social commitments, with respect to our communities, all of those we will be keeping to and doing, and we'll be handing back the mine to the government in working phase. If the government decide to award the leases to somebody else, they can, but we will be handing it back, and taking on all our responsibility and making sure we're up to date with all our liabilities. Okay. Thanks, Gary. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Good morning, everyone. Firstly, just on the DRC, you've mentioned you're looking again at Mutanda. Can you give us a potential timeline there in terms of project approval and the construction period? Linked to that on the mining tax code, has it now been effectively accepted by the industry? If not, what are the next steps in the timeline from here? Lastly, a question for Gary, just on the business structure. Do you think the business is too complicated? Glencore's got two to three times more assets than major peers. In this ESG focus world, do you think simpler is better? Are you overall happy with the organizational structure as it stands today? Okay. I'll talk about Mutanda. As I said, Peter and his team are working on it. They're still working through the process. There's no exact timeline. I think hopefully Peter will give us an answer soon when he's ready to pull the button on that. We're still doing the work on it, so I cannot give you an exact time on that. The new mining code in the DRC, no, we have not accepted it. We are still in discussions with the government, and we'll continue to have discussions with the government, and we have not accepted the change of the old code to the new code. Gary, hand over to you on the structure if you think it's too hard a job or not. Certainly don't think it's too hard a job. It is a hard job, but not too hard a job. I wouldn't take it if I thought so. The company is clearly quite complicated but we have a terrific team of management at all levels, managing the business. Sometimes some of the complexity is what gives us advantage. We're able to operate in jurisdictions where many people don't. We're able to marketing business, which is resilient through the cycle. That complexity brings with it returns for us and it's managed by a terrific set of management. Obviously, we've heard from Steve and Ivan, there is a drive to reduce some of the tail assets, which you know what those are. That will, by its very nature, take out some of the complications and simplify the business generally. Overall, the organization structure is good, it's robust and there's no major changes that I believe are necessary. Thank you, Gary. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sylvain Brunet from Exane. Good morning, gentlemen, and congratulations on cost performance. Just had one question on nickel and Koniambo. If you could just walk us through the steps toward a ramp-up to nameplates, what's left to do on the technology side, and so on. As we talk New Caledonia and in the context of a fairly tight ore market for nickel, are you considering any potential export of ore straight from New Caledonia, so DSO? Thanks. Okay. Peter's here. I can hand it over to Peter so he can give an exact update what's going on Koniambo. Peter? All right. Thanks, Ivan. Just quickly looking back at last year, which was a disappointing year with only just under 17,000 tons really driven to a large extent by COVID, and we obviously had to shut down the furnaces roughly on an annual basis, and COVID caught us in the middle of one of the shutdowns, and it had to be extended for several months because we couldn't get resources onto the island because of travel restrictions. That meant that we operated the other furnace longer than we would normally. We're now moving from essentially a one furnace operation that we had last year, and we'll be stepping back to the two furnace operation by April this year. The key is that over the last 18 months, we've had some management changes and brought in some additional skills onto the island. We've looked at all of the bottlenecks, we're re-engineering all of the issues that we think will hold us up. We're expecting a materially higher output this year, stepping up over the next three years towards the high 30,000 and early 40,000 tons per annum. Okay. Nickel ore? Oh, nickel ore export. Nickel ore, we're not doing it. There's no plan for that. There's no plan for that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line from Myles from UBS. Hi, I think it's Myles Allsop at UBS. Just maybe a few questions. First of all, on the coal market, obviously, we're seeing this very strong rally on the back of a cold winter in China. Do you think coal prices can hold at this level, or do you think as we move into the spring, we'll see prices rebase back down to $50-$60? How are you looking at the market, and can you take advantage by lifting volumes from some of the mothballed or assets in Australia? Was the first question. The coal market dropped during March, as you're well aware, with COVID-19. A lot of industrial consumption, especially in India, Malaysia, different areas, got affected. Therefore, demand decreased even in China. That's why we dropped to $50. As you're aware, it's not just the cold winter. Industrialization has picked up in India and these different areas, and the world sort of got back to a better position, and that pushed up demand. Naturally, the cold winter has helped. You also got to remember, there is no new supply of seaborne coal in the market, okay? Indonesia picked up a bit slightly, not that much in Russia. You saw us in Colombia. Colombia decreased. You had problems at Cerrejón, and you had Prodeco shut. You also had us cut back in Australia. We'll bring back some of those Australian tons, which we cut back, but nothing of a major amount. We are decreasing in other areas. Yeah, I think it should stay strong, and it's a matter of as the world industry picks up again, there are new coal-fired stations being built around in Asia and demand continues there, even though Europe's a lot less. As you're aware, Europe demand is only seaborne coal about 35 million tons. The main thing, if you look at supply is reducing all over the world on the seaborne side. No new tons coming into the market. We should expect a higher price. One thing with your responsible ownership strategy of coal, when you look at the total emissions reduction in 2020 versus 2019, you've cut emissions by over 20%. Almost that 2035 target's starting to look quite conservative. Obviously, there's a cyclical element to it. Are you gonna set out any interim targets over the next sort of five-year sort of timeframe, as opposed to looking out over a 15-year timeframe to add credibility and convince people it's not greenwashing? No. You can see it's not greenwashing. We don't need to give a scorecard year by year. We said we're aiming to get to 40% by 2035. We are on that trajectory. As you can see, we've reduced quite a bit already. We'll just continue going on that trajectory. You can see it's not greenwashing. It's actual depletion of production of the actual tons, and that continues to go. We're not talking about massive carbon credits or other type greenwashing stories. This is real. As I said, it's not wishy-washy that we've heard some of our competitors talk about. This is real depletion of production and reducing our Scope III CO2 emissions with less production coming out from our coal mines. One very last question on Glencore Agri. Obviously, good performance. What's the strategy with Agri going forward? Is it a core part of the business? You obviously rebranded it back to Viterra, which created some questions as to where it sits medium-term, but how are you thinking about Agri as part of the portfolio? I think it's still an important part of our portfolio, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. It trades. It has the same trading methodology of the rest of Glencore on the trading side. They also own a vast array of assets. We've always said, we've got very strong partners in the business, the two Canadian pension funds, and that's a business we'd like to see growing going forward. I'm sure Gary and the team, and Dave Mattiske running the business will want to grow it, and I don't believe, as you can see, it's contributing well to the company and will start paying out dividends. I think it's something that should grow, and they're always looking for new opportunities to grow that business. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jason Fairclough from Bank of America. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for the call today. Just a couple questions. The first one's for Ivan or maybe for Gary. It looks like BHP is looking at selling some thermal coal assets. Could Glencore be a buyer of those assets? Or more generally, is the purchase of coal assets consistent with your emissions framework? That'd be the first question. Second question, just on your bubble chart on slide 28, the brownfield projects, do you have any thoughts on the aggregate amount of capital that could be put to work here and the potential returns that we'd be looking at? Is this $5 billion or $10 billion of total CapEx that could go into these projects? Sorry, Jason. Gary, you can comment a bit, but I don't think we have intention of buying BHP's coal assets. As I said, we're depleting our coal assets, so nothing really to do on that front. On the other side, Gary, I don't know if you want to add anything else on coal, but I think that covers it. No, that covers it. We're not going to comment just on individual transactions. Okay. On the other thing, if you look at slide 28, that just gives you an idea. You can look at each asset there, you can see some are brownfield, easy expansions, not massive CapEx. Others would be large CapEx. As you say, the $3 billion-$4 billion-type greenfield operations. As I said, I'm not excited to do those, but it's going to be up to the new management to decide, but hopefully they'll follow my policy and avoid greenfields for as long as possible. Some of these brownfields, you know Collahuasi is well-known. You can expand that. The exact amount of billions, I don't know. Peter and his team always look at that. That is an easy expansion. Lomas Bayas extension is also pretty easy. We've spoken about Mutanda, the copper-cobalt restart. We're looking at that. Yeah, most of the brownfields are not massive projects. Greenfields, yes, all those big projects, and we're going to think twice about that. Okay. Thank you, Ivan. Could I just come back to the first question? I just want to make sure that I understand the answer. You're saying that you will not be buying any coal assets as part of your ongoing strategy around coal and the rundown? Look, we can't talk about particular transactions, but we are running down our assets. That's our intention. I don't know what else is coming there. We can't talk about any particular transaction. We'll wait and see. Jason, nothing that one does would jeopardize those medium and long-term goals. It's not going to be a straight line journey. Even within our existing portfolio, there's going to be periods of declines. It might go up a little bit. There's an extension here, it goes down. That line and the end goal is absolutely locked in. The exact path and trajectory which it take will be determined with obviously emissions, economics, social responsibility, all those sort of things in mind. That's not going to be compromised in any way, shape, or form. Yeah. How you get that linear line and how that line is going down within different mines will be different. Some mines may be expand, other mines may be depleting, other reserves may be developed, other reserves depleting. We've got a lot of mines. It could be a swap of assets. Swap and swing. We may swap, as you say. If something comes available, we may look at it and get rid of something else. We will work within our portfolio of coal assets following that trajectory, the 40% and the 0% by 2050. Following that trajectory, we'll get there working with the various assets within our group, plus could look at other people's assets and doing swap-type arrangements. Okay. Very clear. Thank you very much, guys. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sergey Donskoy from Societe Generale. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Yes. Hi, everyone. Thank you very much. First question is actually maybe a follow-up to Jason's. Could you remind us, please, what would be the volume of coal output by 2035 consistent with this aim of reduction of your Scope III emissions by 40% in tonnage? I don't know the exact number. You're not going to be far. Take out 2019 and chop 40% off that. Yeah. That's a pretty good number. Close enough. You can see if you look at that page 29, it shows you most of it is primary coal depletion. The rest is small stuff. That's the minimum. Yeah. It doesn't mean you won't exceed it. There's a bit of oil in the mix, which also disappears over that sort of profile, but that would be a pretty good base assumption. Understood. Thank you. A second question. On your copper revenue, it seems that the average realized price was pretty strong, especially in the H2 of the year. On my numbers, by as much as maybe 9% versus average spot. The question is, was it because of inventory release, or was it effect of provisional pricing or timing of shipments or something else? Provisional pricing would be the biggest component. Timing of shipments would be the second in that. Obviously you saw that increase accelerate towards Q4. There was more sales. We were stronger in production also Q4, so you get the benefit of obviously higher prices rather than linear, but PP was important in November and December. Yeah. Would it be possible to quantify the effect of provisional pricing, or is it something that can be worked out from the numbers? I think without provisional pricing, you would've been close to an average realization. If you look at our quarterly production, it was obviously stronger H2 on H1, particularly an operation like Antamina was down for about six or so weeks. You saw a continued ramp-up at sort of Mutanda. Just timing of production would've been a smaller component. PP would've been the majority. I see. Lastly, the Dolinnoe-Obukhovskoye zinc project in Kazakhstan. What is the expected capacity, and when do you think the mine will become production accretive? Peter? Well, as you know, we're running those operations at the moment through the Ridder concentrator. As those ramp up, we're replacing tonnage there. There are decisions going forward as to whether or not we expand concentrated capacity. As they come in at the moment, I would say same level that we are at the moment. Oh, I see. Thank you. When this CapEx is going to be spent? The mines start running down in three or four years' time, so the expense will be over the next few years. Okay. That's in our numbers, Sergey, in those CapEx guidance. That's part of those decisions. Understood. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Chris LaFemina from Jefferies. Please ask your question, your line is open. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Just two questions, actually. One on the outlook for your key markets, and secondly on strategy or capital allocation. First on the outlook, you make a pretty compelling case about major supply constraints. There's structural demand drivers due to decarbonization. Markets are tight already. Looks like commodity markets are only going to get tighter, which means prices, I would assume, go materially higher. The first question on the outlook is how would you compare the outlook today to the early 2000s, like the beginning of the China super cycle? That's the first question. Yeah. Look, the China super cycle came and at the time people did have potential projects or reserves they could develop. They weren't ready for the boom and that's why we got the boom, because it took them time to develop them. By the time 2008, 2009 came, they had developed them. That is the difference. The demand was there. The demand was very strong. The supply was also there, just a little bit delayed. You remember that time you couldn't even get Caterpillar equipment, you couldn't get tires, so you were a bit delayed, but there was the mines, the potential mines to increase and new mines to open up. The difference today, now how is demand outlook? Okay, a lot depends, as I said earlier during the presentation. It depends what's going to happen on infrastructure development in the U.S. China, we know is strong. 50% of the world's commodities are consumed in China, as you're aware, demand is strong there and looks like it will remain robust. How the rest of the world develops and when does the fiscal spending occur in the U.S. and infrastructure spending? If that does kick in, then demand is very strong. As you can see, besides the actual infrastructure spending, the new generation of commodities that are gonna be required for the new energy mix, and these are all these commodities which I've spoken about, demand will, I believe, also be strong there and the outlook does look good. The difference this time to 2002, and as I clearly set out in the one slide, I think it's slide 26, we're not ready for it and even though they weren't ready for it in 2002, the projects were there. Today, I don't believe we have those projects and it's gonna get more difficult. I think the supply response this time is gonna be harder than before in a lot of these more difficult commodities, especially if you talk cobalt, copper. Those are the main two ones where the world's gonna struggle. Nickel, yes, they can pick up supply because NPI in Indonesia can continue growing and the ore and the reserves are there. It's more difficult in copper. It's more difficult in cobalt. Zinc, there aren't major big projects that are also occurring, that can be difficult. Coal, it looks good on the supply side because no one's gonna finance new projects and there are no new projects with the negativity around coal and therefore, new supply seaborne coal is gonna be more difficult even though demand is picking up, because there are new coal-fired stations being built. I know a lot of others are closed, but even if coal demand stays flat, supply seaborne coal is gonna be difficult. Thanks for that. Basically, you're currently within your net debt target range. You're doing $8 billion of mark-to-market free cash flow. The outlook for commodities appears to be pretty compelling. You're going to generate lots of cash in the years ahead. I guess the question then is why would paying net debt down further be a priority? It seems like if anything, a big buyback or even acquisitions would be a pretty compelling strategic use of capital at this point in the cycle. Your shares are obviously materially lower than where they were when you IPO-ed, but the outlook is probably better now than it was then. Again, the balance sheet being at less than one times net debt to EBITDA, it seems like you're in a pretty good position now to go out and actually put capital to work, to actually create longer term value by making investments now. Just what's the overall philosophy around that? Okay. Steve can talk about the debt, why he wants to bring the debt closer towards the lower end of the range, towards the $10 billion. I think I can answer part of that question. I'll leave him to answer. I think we've been through enough cycles to have the balance sheet in a lot stabler place. $10 billion net debt is a nice place to have it there. The other idea that you say, go buy things, there's not much to buy. I don't see anything to buy right now. I'm sure Gary and the team will be opportunistic. If opportunities come or there, they will look at it. Right now, I don't see anything that they can go look at to buy. There are some brownfield expansions. They can look at that. I'm sure that way capital could potentially be deployed. As you know, Glencore is very cautious on that, and we don't want to be the one who adds new tonnages into the market that pushes down prices. We'd rather, as you say, let's generate the cash. Let's get this $8 billion free cash, and hopefully it grows more as commodity prices go higher, and then just kick out dividends to shareholders. Steve's got a note there, whether we do buybacks or not. I think, rather leave that with the commodity price and the way commodity prices change. Rather leave that to shareholders and kick out dividends. I think I'll leave it to you to comment on that, Steve. Yeah. Chris, we were sitting here 12 months ago, before the world sort of fell apart for three to six months. These things can turn around pretty quickly positive. They can turn around pretty quickly negative. We've seen, most companies, including ourselves, have the scars of having too much debt in the sector without precipitous. You can go from an EBITDA of 16 or 17 to eight, nine or 10. We were in that same position sort of 12 months ago. We were here, we were talking about a dividend last year that we paused for 2020. We never want to be in that position again. I don't think anyone enjoyed that necessarily. What's the right number? We think 10's the number. If you've got better ideas, feel free to contribute in. We feel that's sort of a good number around where we are at the moment. A little bit of debt's fine. It's perfectly good. In fact, it's probably helpful. Sort of put this balance sheet beyond any sort of doubt. There are some people probably sitting on this call that at 16 would not be comfortable investing, and at 10 would jump in with two feet and two arms. We think that that's the right thing. The business obviously generates the cash. Ivan said, obviously not averse to other forms of investment provided they reach the return. It's a competitive environment out there for good assets. I don't think anything is going to come cheap. Maybe equities is a bit cheaper. That's not our business, is buying equity. That's your job out there. Going out and buying assets in copper or nickel or whatever the case may be, maybe coal's the one area, but you've just heard our discussions obviously in that. I think it's the right sort of balance in terms of both balance sheets and debt levels and cap allocation. Thank you for that. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Dominic O'Kane from JP Morgan. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Morning, guys. Just a few quick questions. On cobalt, you've given us your production guidance. I wonder if you could give us your sales guidance for 2021. Will it closely mirror the production, or should we be expecting a greater volume of cobalt sales this year? Second question, just whether a question for Ivan or Gary, if you could maybe just give us some insights how you're thinking about country risk with respect to future projects. Does your experience in Zambia and some of the other sort of frontier jurisdictions lead you to pursue a slightly more conservative attitude to country risk exposure longer term? Final question, just on marketing. It's relatively early in the year, but is there any insight you can give us into how current market dynamics are shaping your expectation for commodity trading through 2021? Okay. In the cobalt, I think production and sales should be similar. Gary can talk about other jurisdictions, what he feels about it. On the marketing, it's only been two months, and as Steve said earlier, I think he mentioned earlier on the call, the marketing looks good. Is the market well set up? Yes. I think it's not bad. Will we get the volatility and the opportunities that we had in 2020? We'll wait and see. It's early in the year, but so far the marketing has performed well. Gary, you want to comment on other jurisdictions? Yeah, sure. Look, we're a company with experience operating in, let's call it more difficult jurisdictions. As Ivan pointed out earlier in the presentation, the world's going to need a lot of commodities, and the commodities we're in. They're no longer in the tier one first class jurisdictions. They're in the slightly tougher ones. If the world needs it, that's where not only us, but everybody's going to have to go. Of course, we're not going to be cowboys and go into jurisdictions that we don't believe our assets are safe or go into jurisdictions where there's a good regulatory environment, where there's a good judicial environment, where we can operate effectively and efficiently, bring our safety systems and our way of working efficiently. If you want to be in the resources. Y ou want to develop and grow in the commodities that we're in, then unfortunately, one can't stay in these first world jurisdictions because that's not where the growth and supply from these commodities is going to come from. We'll be careful how we operate and choose carefully which jurisdictions, but we certainly will need to be in those sorts of countries. I think the rest of the mining industry is going to have to look to those jurisdictions. They have no option if the world's going to meet the supply, the demand which we believe is going to occur, and the supply in the easy countries is getting more difficult and the material is not there, and we're running out of material there. You've seen. Look at our competitors. They are starting to go into these more difficult regions, exploration projects, et cetera, teaming up with the smaller operators, going into these areas. I think we have no alternative, and that's going to happen if the world's going to have to get these commodities for the future. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Myles Allsop from UBS. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Just a couple of quick follow-up questions. On Prodeco, are you retaining ownership of the port? Is it feasible for Prodeco to restart under new ownership? Do they have a route to market? Secondly, on working capital, we had the $3 billion build in H1 on the back of net payables lifting. Half of that's reversed. Should we expect the other half to reverse during the course of 2021, we should be looking at a kind of flat or even slightly lower sort of net working capital balance, sort of in 2021? Gary, you can take the Prodeco. Yep. On the port, yes, we are retaining ownership of the port in Colombia. Any new buyer or operator of Cerrejón La Jagua will have access through that port. It is a public port for public use. There are access arrangements in place. It is a regulated tariff, so they will have access to market. Okay. Steve? Yeah, Myles, on working capital, obviously net outflow $1.5 for the year, part reversal of H2. I think going forward, I would tend to sort of be more on the conservative side, assume that that's not necessarily going to further sort of unwind, that we just manage it around the new levels of working capital in terms of payables and receivables and sort of days. Clearly compared to where we were sort of last year, it is more sustainable. It's more sort of conservative in terms of trade. I certainly wouldn't assume any further sort of release or unwind. I think it's not a bad thing that it happened in terms of overall sort of balance sheet levels and the like. It's delivered the 15.8, and we sort of go forward and it'll correlate with commodity prices and some other sort of opportunities or volumes that happen, and we'll obviously comment on that as and when it happens, but I wouldn't assume a further unwind. Okay, thank you. Our final question comes from the line of Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Please ask your question. Your line is open. Hi, guys. Maybe just to follow up on Jason's question on the sort of coal assets. In terms of your comment around asset swapping, would you be willing to increase your exposure on the Atlantic coal market, or is your idea of swapping more focused on Pacific and the Australian assets? I don't know. With prices in the Atlantic, I don't think we'd be too excited. Not much. The market's not looking great in the Atlantic. Gary, do you want to add something there? Well, there's not really much in the Atlantic to swap for here. South Africa now supplies into Asia. There's not much left there. Well, he's trying to get to Colombia, I'm sure. Cerrejón. Cerrejón. Yeah. That's where he's going, Gary. I know. If BHP and Anglo. Exactly. the asset for free. Yes, yes. Go on Whether you'll be willing to take it. A managed decline. I think the first question you got to do is go ask Anglo and BHP what they're gonna do. As Steve says, a managed decline. Okay. All right, I'll leave it there. Thanks. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I think that's everything. Thank you very much. Thanks for the call. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference for today.