Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Glencore 2024 Half-Year Results Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be the question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you need to press star one one on your telephone keypad. You will then hear an automatic message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to our first speaker today, Martin Fewings, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us from wherever you are. Welcome to our first half 2024 results presentation. Joining us today, Gary Nagle, CEO, and Steven Kalmin, CFO. I'll hand over to Gary to commence the call. Thanks, Martin. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are, wherever you're dialing in from. In addition to Steve, we've got David Wagner here as well, our CRO, so anything operational or operational results, we can revert to him. But I think we'll just kick off immediately in the presentation. Those following it on the screen, or if you have a printout or a copy in front of you, we'll start on page 4. The very pleasing financial results. This is the normal scorecard that we put out, so it should be familiar to most of you. And an Adjusted EBITDA for the first half of a little under $6.5 billion, $6.3 billion. If we break that down a little bit into the components, on an industrial side, adjusted industrial EBITDA of $4.5 billion. That's obviously down off last year and predominantly driven by two main factors. One being the lower earnings in coal. We've seen coal prices come down quite significantly from the extreme high benchmark pricing as that we saw in 2022 and into 2023. That's now seems to more have normalized into 2024. Still very strong coal prices, particularly out in Newcastle, and in fact, prices have picked up since the half year, as you would have seen on your screens. So coal's come down to a more normalized pricing, and that's contributed to a lower industrial adjusted industrial EBITDA, but still a very good result. The other area that's contributed to the lower industrial side has been the lower realizations on cobalt and nickel. We all know those markets in oversupply and netbacks and pricing back on those metals have been significantly impacted, along with TCs and RCs on our metallurgical asset business. On the marketing side, a very pleasing result. A $1.5 billion adjusted marketing EBIT that annualizes to $3 billion for the year. As you all know, our guidance on marketing EBIT is $2.2 billion-$3.2 billion, so coming up at the top end of the range. We did guide earlier in the year three to three and a half, and we're on target to meet somewhere in that range. So a very pleasing result. And what we're very happy with about, again, and it does point to our diversified model, the fact that as we've seen energy prices normalize and volatility come out of that market, in previous years, we've seen a big portion of that Adjusted marketing EBIT coming out of the energy side. In this year, the vast majority coming out of the metal side, so had a very strong first half of the year. And we're very happy with the diversified model that that marketing business provides us, in our operations. Moving on to slide 5, and onto our ESG scorecard. Earlier in the year, during our 2023 AGM, a very pleasing support for our Climate Action Transition Plan, which covers the years 2024 to 2026. We had over 90% support from our shareholders. A real recognition of the strong stewardship that we provide over our climate ambitions and our climate strategy. So very happy with that, and that's obviously a big increase in terms of support from previous years. The other announcement that we've made this morning as a result of a thorough analysis by the board and by management, and after an extensive consultation with shareholders, is that we will be retaining the coal and carbon steel materials business within Glencore. That has certainly been an area of a lot of debate and discussion over the many months that have preceded this and since we acquired EVR. But we've seen a significant change in shareholders' appetite for holding onto these Tier one best-in-class assets. And that's been also associated with the fact that we've committed to our responsible rundown, and shareholders have recognized that holding these assets, in Glencore, in responsible operators' hands is, is probably ESG, is more ESG positive, and favorable than spinning these out into its own standalone vehicle. So we put out that announcement this morning, and you would have noticed that on the wires. The other area that on the environmental side, that we continue to de-risk and progress is our world-class pipeline of copper projects. As you know, these are mainly brownfield, very low capital intensity in many cases, and, money being spent on those projects, over the coming years to de-risk them and ready to bring those to market as we need, which can bring on up to another 1 million tons of copper into our portfolio of an existing 1 million tons of copper. On the social side, very sad to report, further loss of lives within Glencore. This is something that we do not take lightly. This is something that concerns us immensely. We've lost three of our colleagues in the first half of this year, and we are doubling down on our efforts, our commitments, to send everybody home safe every single day of the week. On the governance side, late on Monday, an announcement was put out that we finally resolved the last of the previously disclosed government investigations. That's now behind us, and we move on with none of these investigations any further. We also have completed one year with our independent compliance monitors. It's been a very constructive engagement with these monitors. As I've said previously, I believe we have a best-in-class, gold standard compliance program in the company, and I'm very pleased to report that the monitors are helping us improve it even further. That has always been the positive of having these monitors in our, in our company. We work constructively with them, and we look forward to further engagement, as we go forward. Moving on to Slide six, a quick recap of where we are on EVR. The transaction to acquire EVR closed, a few weeks ago, on the eleventh of July, and we're very pleased with what we bought. We bought a best-in-class, Tier one, low-cost, high-quality, long-life asset in a terrific geography. The amount of times in this industry that one has an opportunity to buy a Tier one asset of this quality, I mean, Steve and I, debate this all the time, it's a once in a generation that we get to buy such a good asset, and at such an attractive price. So very happy with that. And, you know, it's still early days, but we see potential upside for the business through synergies. But very happy with the, with the assets that we bought. And also, not only the assets, but a very strong, dedicated and world-class, management team, and employee base there, and very, very, happy to welcome them into the Glencore family. It's a business, and I'll talk a little bit more later on about our growth in copper equivalents, but this is something that certainly contributes to growth in Glencore, as we go forward. And with that, I'll turn over to Steve on the financials. Thank you, Gary, and good morning or evening to those that are listening in to today's call. We'll run through the H1 performance, 2024. Many of the slides, as Gary said, will look relatively familiar. But it is worth spending also time as we look to bring in, the EVR business that Gary mentioned, and pro forma for that in terms of its cash flow contribution, how we're accounting for that business. Also some segregation between, the energy coal and steelmaking coal later on. Also, we'll give in terms of, margins and how to think about the modeling and the buildup of those assets. We'll look at balance sheet and capital management, and how that's been reset to the $10 billion, excluding marketing lease liabilities for the purposes of surplus capital generation and shareholder returns, and top-ups, and we'll run through some of the spot-free cash flow generation that we update from time to time, which we did as of a few days ago as well. On page, there's a few financial highlights. We'll get into many of the main numbers we'll cover later on and provide some more details. Gary mentioned the headline, $6.3 billion of EBITDA. That does include still some remnants of sort of Koniambo expenses this year, as it's been transitioned to care and maintenance. Those should also reduce over time. Then we're also spending money at our copper development projects in Argentina and North America, that there's also some expenses going through that EBITDA line, notwithstanding that those are valuable growth projects going to the future. $6.3 billion is also useful to contextualize that, which I'll do later on, around the business generating about $17.2 billion annualized of EBITDA and spot illustrative free cash flow, having acquired EVR, particularly just a few weeks ago as well. In terms of funding, balance sheet, still very much conservative and in check. We brought down net funding by $1.7 billion - $29.4 billion. Net debt down to $3.6 billion, at $1.3 billion. That was also aided by a $0.4 billion reduction in our readily marketable inventories. From a gearing or a net debt adjusted EBITDA, we're right down at 0.26 or around 0.75 pro forma for EVR, as if that had happened 30 June. Notwithstanding, we'll bring in the EBITDA and the cash flow going forward. That should continue to preserve very conservative metrics. If we look at page nine, that's the industrial high level points, where we saw a contraction in those earnings period-on-period, almost exclusively down to the lower coal earnings on the back of lower pricing, particularly on the thermal coal, Newcastle and also Origins in our South American and South African assets as well. You can see that's all clearly earmarked at the bottom right. The yellow bars is a $2.6 billion reduction out of our energy and steelmaking coal business. $2.7 billion of that is from the coal business. The oil business that we do have, which is mostly the Astron Refinery in Cape Town, with some non-controlled upstream exposure as well, had a very pleasing performance with the rebuild of the refinery down in Cape Town. Refining margins have been quite healthy, so we've had a strong contribution from the oil business. Still healthy EBITDA margins during the period, which should continue to improve as the portfolio evolves, and we're adding in particularly EVR and some growth that we expect in volume of the business into the second half of the year. On the metals and minerals side, we have called out the lower contributions from our custom smelting business, both in copper and in zinc, $180 million and $107 million, respectively. We've seen TCRCs down to historically low levels in both; in some cases have even gone negative. That's a factor that's been helpful in the marketing business as well. We've seen some tight markets generally there. There's been some desperate buying and securing of what's been tight markets. So generally, all goes well for those markets going forward, but it has depressed earnings within our custom smelting operations as well. So there was a $0.3 billion reduction that has affected unit costs during this phase of our business as well. If we go into the waterfall bridge of the industrial movement, $7.4 billion- $4.5 billion, it's very much price driven and sensibly all in the old coal. So the $2.8 billion reduction, pricing period on period, $2.3 billion of that was in coal, with some modest reductions in the, in, in the copper business, not in copper. The prices were actually up period on period, but we continued to see low cyclical prices in realized cobalt prices. So net-net, there was a reduction in our copper business due to pricing through byproducts. Zinc was point one as well, slightly lower period on period, zinc, zinc prices. Nickel was 0.3 due to the continued challenges facing the nickel market in an oversupplied market and prices that have declined 28%. You can see the bottom left, we show some of the benchmarks, Newcastle down 36%, API 4 22%, nickel and cobalt. We've seen copper up, and gold and silver had obviously presented some positive impacts on pricing for us. Volume is relatively static during the period. In fact, it was positive within our zinc business. We've seen the continued ramp up of Zhairem progressing and going to plan within our Kazzinc business and is responsible for quite a continuous improvement in some zinc units that we expect in second half and once it reaches full production at some point. So there's about 0.1 positive volume metric on the zinc side. And as I mentioned earlier on, even on the oil business as well, we've had a positive volume contribution from Astron down in Cape Town, with the refinery having moved into its full production levels. There were some modest negatives on the volume side, period-on-period in coal. And we've called out some of the reasons, capacity longwall moves, particularly in Australia and South Africa, still sort of responding to challenging infrastructure networks. On the cost side, I always like to look at costs net of the cost line that's in local currencies, and then the FX movements as well, that from period to period will either sort of insulate or you'll see negative correlation around producer currencies against the US dollars. So our $0.3 billion, there's a net increase in costs overall across the business. That's only around 2.5% of our cost base. So quite, it's quite benign generally in a-- you've seen moderating inflation, but you've still got some lower impacts that happens from time to time as you have wage negotiations, as you have some CPI-linked price increases across various contractors and agreements and the like. It's all impacted for us in the $0.4 billion, $0.2 billion was in the copper business and $0.2 billion in the coal business. We've called out some of the impacts across copper and coal, across higher maintenance. That's sort of Caterpillar spares increases. It's some higher explosives and fuel costs generally across the business, but quite in check, and we'll see a page later on that shows the cost position of the business relatively flat. And Koniambo is actually a positive period-on-period contribution, having been a negative of around $250 million in 2023 period, down to $99 million for this period, and that continued to moderate as we move in through the care and maintenance phase of that operation. If you look at page eleven, it's a very, it's a very busy slide across our, our key and more material businesses at the moment in copper, zinc. The new addition to, to this chart is separating steelmaking coal out into its own category. So obviously very important, very material growing, very material going forward in terms of its volume, cost, and margin, margin structure. It'll also make it easier to model and more straightforward. It's got its own pricing benchmarks around the hard coking coal benchmark that we use out of Australia, and then apply our various, discounts either for Australian or our, or our Canadian coal. With space requirements, we've had to move nickel into the other category, which continues for us to be about a $400 million-$500 million EBITDA business out of Australia and Canada at the moment. Hopefully, with some growth out of Onaping Depth and some recovery in nickel price, we can give it its own sort of charts back here in the future. But in terms of font size, it's now in the other. I think it's worthwhile, before I just go into some of the numbers, and if you just jump to page 22, it's in the appendix. But it'll show the passage and the trajectory on some of our costs that drives both first half performance, it'll drive full year expectations, and it also feeds into our spot illustrative numbers. In terms of unit costs on the copper side, you can see the... Now, we show the gross costs, that's pre-byproduct, then we show the byproduct credits as well, which is the copper business. Significantly, we have cobalt, we have some copper and silver units, we have some zinc units, of course, out of Antamina, and our metallurgical custom met credit also goes against that. So we're gonna-- from 2023 to expected 2024, we're looking at a $220 in gross terms to a $228 increase in unit cost. That's up about 3.6%. The journey is taking us through $220-$230 for the half, will drop down to $228 for the full year. That does reflect in many of our businesses that you're seeing a H1, H2 production uplift. Both in copper, we've got a 47%-53% H1, H2 split on production. Cobalt, even more material, we've got a 42%-58% split. We're seeing some more units, particularly out of both Katanga as well as, as well as Mutanda. On a net basis for the first half, we're $1.68 per pound, moving to $1.63, and around $1.65 is our spot illustrative calculations, which we'll show later on. Zinc, we're actually decreasing unit cost for the full year from last year's 3.08, we'll go to 3.01. But the journey is via 3.50 for the half year. That reflects a period, again, of a volume equation denominator of 45%-55% split between the two. We've also had a build up in some inventory, particularly in Kazakhstan, on our zinc business. So we produced about 25,000 tons more than we sold. That does have a unitary impact on the cost of sales. But ultimately, in the zinc business, we'll actually see a 2%-3% reduction year-on-year on our unit cost in zinc. Quite a bit of that is to do with lower power prices, particularly in Europe, having been at extreme levels through 2022 and into early 2023, given scarcity and LNG prices back then. On the steelmaking coal, we've been around $140 in our business up to this point. That's primarily our Australian coking coal assets in Australia. For the full 2024, we brought six months of EVR. We're guiding 130, completely different business. So the Canadian business is gonna dwarf the Australian business in terms of weighted average and margin contributions. So we'll be 130 for the full year and 131 later on, we'll see on a spot illustrative for that particular business. On the thermal coal, we were 71, moving to 69 via 73. Again, you've got volume impact of our units in thermal coal being roughly split 46%- 54% between the two periods, where we see recovery, particularly from our Australian business. We have seen about a $2 increase in costs, excluding royalties across the coal business generally, as a function, as I said, of, some fuel costs, some freight costs, parts pricing, maintenance, and the like. So if we saw our previous variance, of the $400 million in cost, about half of that was in coal, half was- half was in copper. If we then jump back to the, to the page eleven, I think that provides all the useful building blocks. A lot of the commentary we gave, already last week via, via production, explaining the H1, the H1 last year, movements. In copper, we were down 2%, like for like, excluding the cobalt volumes, which we sold that business in June, last year. The expected second half recovery does see another 30,000 tons coming out of the African business. That's not just Katanga, it's also Mutanda, as we look to increase throughput rates on both copper and cobalt in the second period. Also, Antamina, we're expecting some additional units following a geotechnical event and recovery therefrom in Q2. And the met business, the custom smelting business, contributed a 20%- at a $0.20 per pound lower custom credits that we spoke to earlier on in terms of cost, but that business is still running at about little over 160 per pound in terms of cost and generating some pretty good EBITDA. $1.9 billion was the first half, and for a spot illustrative, we'll look later on, is gonna be a $4.5 billion business. Zinc reported $600 million for the half. Again, we're expecting an increase in units in the second half, predominantly coming from Kazzinc, with the expected ramp-up in Zhairem. That itself is going to bring down costs to about $0.18 a pound, and on a spot basis, that business will be $1.6 billion, which we'll show later on. Steelmaking coal, we've separated, as I said, from energy coal, even in Australian business, generated $400 million, but that's the big portfolio adjustment as we look going forward. We're pro forma to adding 12 million tons of guidance to the second half of the year. It's a completely different business. And for a full year, again, later on, or a spot illustrative, we're looking at $3.2 billion for that business, very much on the podium as we take that forward. When we report EVR, we will be consolidating that business. Everything you'll see, both at production and EBITDA level going forward, will be a consolidated 100% of that business. We will be providing a minority distribution when we look at our spot illustrative cash flow, so you'll see that also when we talk about that later on. The energy coal business, $1.4 billion of EBITDA, we've given all the building blocks. We are expecting quite a bit of recovery in units, particularly out of, out of Australia, due to some longwall changes and some reduced strip ratios in the second half. We are seeing starting to see some of those portfolio adjustments come through with our responsible rundown strategy. Gary spoke to that earlier on. We do have 12 mines, at least 12, that will be closing by 2035. The first of those, we saw Liddell last year on the steam coal side. Integra also was closing this year. On the coking side, Newlands was one of those operations, also closed last year. If we then look at the, if we jump to page 12, you can see the marketing performance, $1.5 billion. And again, shows the strength of our business portfolio. We've seen a nice pickup on the metals contribution from $0.8, first half last year, to $1.2. That pleasing results across copper, zinc, aluminum are areas that we've called out. So what you maybe lose on the left hand, you can pick up a little bit on the right hand through those low TC/RCs affecting our met business. They do create interesting trading markets and tight markets and dislocations and the like. In aluminum, we saw dislocation in alumina, for example. You've seen some force majeures out of Australia and the like as well. So again, opportunities in that business have performed pretty well. The energy business has come off its highs we saw in 2022, in particular, some of that continued into first half 2023. It probably underearned in the first half, but again, the strength of the business still delivered $1.5 billion annualized at $3 billion top half of the range. We're still keeping our $3 billion -$3.5 billion guidance range, you can see bottom right. Obviously, we've only, it's early into second half. We've had one month of July, which was pretty good, and annualizing, if we were to annualize or extrapolate just from that one month into six months, we would finish within that $3 billion -$3.5 billion range. Maybe path of least resistance, guidance-wise, stick to the maybe lower end of that for the full year, just given that's where we annualizing for the first half, but there's certainly scope to finish anywhere within that range as we move forward. In terms of net debt trajectory, page 13, some good cash flow generation in the business at $4 billion of the funds from operation. That's effectively the EBITDA of the business, less tax and interest payments. Our net CapEx cash flow at $2.9 billion. That's pretty much tracking to our $5.7 billion annualized guidance of the base business over the next three years, 2024 to 2026. We saw a $1.7 billion reduction in the non-RMI working capital, something that we'd flagged in our production report last week. To give you some examples of what's in there, of course, you would have seen we announced a few months ago, at around March period, I think, when we exited from our Mopani exposure business. When we did sell that business back to the government a few years ago, we had a sort of long-term vendor finance loan, essentially, that was linked to the performance and the copper prices over that business for many, many years. There was a new partner, a new strategic partner, that came into that business, and in settling our loan obligations, we got around $350 million upfront, and we still continue to have some exposure to future copper prices and some loans still to that business, but that did generate some working capital inflow. We've also had some continuous, sort of cash performance through, through the LNG portfolio, that a few years ago, we saw some big money tied up in margin calls, as well as, longer-term physical mark-to-market positions. We saw some unwind of that continuing to perform. We also saw some non-RMI inventories, also decline a few hundred million. So each of those categories was a few hundred million and would, and we wouldn't be expecting, any unwind of that $1.7, per se. I think we'd be, we'd be suggesting, and of course, in working capital can go up or down, but we would, we'd think, a flat working capital position from here is a reasonable position to take. We paid out the first half of our distribution in the first half of this year, and you can also see there's quite a big increase in the leases, the finance leases part of the business, that's added $0.6 billion to reach a $3.6 billion of net debt. I think it's important just to spend a minute or two on what these leases are. We have some marketing-related leases, and we have some what we call industrial leases. Now, industrial leases would be a decision as to whether to lease maybe a new fleet of trucks somewhere or just to pay it cash outright. That is a pure financing decision. It's quite correct that that should be on debt. The other side of the finance provider is generally a finance institution. The marketing-related leases, these are essentially chartering of vessels, maybe some storage. They're very short-term facilities. We're seeing two-thirds or short-term commitments, up to two-thirds of the marketing leases actually expire within two years. These historically, before changes in lease standards a few years ago, they were expenses, they were just a cost of business, and we continued to think of them as a cost of business. We're just procuring freight storage for general customer performance and movement of product, generally within our oil and gas businesses, where a substantial amount of those are. So they wouldn't. It's not something we would see in the traditional capital structure side of how we fund our business between equity and debt and what is a typical leverage in the business. They do amortize very quickly, and they have more of a OpEx nature than a finance nature, in our view. If we then roll that onto page 14, basis the decision to retain the coal and carbon steel business, we've confirmed and reset back to the $10 billion, which were before excluding marketing-related lease liabilities. That was always something that we called out when we established this framework 3, 4 years ago, that the $10 billion cap excluded marketing-related lease liabilities. These were never particularly material. It's been ramping up more recently to the billion-dollar level. If you go back to maybe two years ago, it was closer to $400 million-$500 million. So we do need to take that into account when we think about what the capital headroom is, what the surplus capital position is, and pro forma from that business as we roll forward. Having started the period at $3.6 billion on July 1, we, of course, very shortly thereafter, sent $6.9 billion to Vancouver. So that would have taken up our debt levels on a pro forma. We have the second distribution we need to pay of $0.8 billion. We've taken out the marketing lease liabilities of $1 billion at the end of June, to reach a pro forma debt level of $10.3 billion. So you really are in touching distance of our, of our sort of target, cap level, if you like. That does show that top-ups and distributions. Beyond the base distribution is always gonna be there, and that provides a, a reasonable yield, both from an income and just a, just a cash return, as the first part of our capital return framework. Any top-ups through buybacks and, and additional special distributions will then form. So we start the period pro forma at $10.3 billion. And then we're generating over $6 billion annualized of free cash flow. We've got other Teck proceeds to hopefully look forward to also in the next several months, once they get their final approvals done. That's $1 billion of cash up front, as you know, with some shares also in the enlarged Bunge business as well. So the sort of pathway and acceleration, and it was-- I'm not saying it was certainly not the only reason, but it was amongst a range of reasons as to decisions around retention of businesses, that it does accelerate and optimize and stronger together part of cash flows in the business. And we could sort of augur well for top-up returns in 5 or 6 months time. Just finishing up soon, we've got our CapEx, nothing much to see on page 15. No change to the base business guidance of 5.7 per annum. Over the next 3 years, we're tracking pretty much out. On top of that, we called out that internally we'd earmarked up to $400 million combined for the Mara and El Pachón development projects in Argentina. Two exciting projects. The country is also a lot of interest in the country. We're very excited about our prospects there. Doing a lot of work to move these two projects along, and we'd spent $61 million in CapEx in the first half of the year, in addition to some OpEx that we'd obviously spent in wrapping up, getting the teams and building capability in-house. The EVR CapEx is still quite preliminary and premature. We've just taken over the business. We, of course, have some models, and Teck had given some guidance as well, but we still need to get our own hands on the wheel now, and we'll sort of come back by the time full year results towards the end of the year, once we've got a firmer handle on that business and the plans and the CapEx and some synergies that we expect. But in H2 2024 guidance, preliminary estimate is could be circa $500 million for that business as well. And then the wagon wheel at the bottom is really just reconfirming what some of the big projects are, excluding EVR of the base business as well. Before I hand over to Gary, we'll just jump very quickly to page 21, because that's just the spot illustrative cash flow of the $17.4 billion business as well. I think we've covered copper, zinc, steelmaking coal at 100%. We've got energy coal as well. The other buckets, the $1.1 billion, that's across our ferroalloys business, around $500 million business. Nickel, as I mentioned earlier, around $400 million. Aluminum, that's through our stakes in Alunorte and Century, moving in the right direction. $0.1 billion, oil business with the refinery and some upstream at $0.5 billion, corporate and other at $0.4 billion. Marketing at 3.4, which is at $3 billion, $2.7 billion of EBIT, of middle of the range, or $3 billion, obviously, in a higher interest rate environment, which is where we are. Of course, if interest rates go lower, maybe that goes low, but so will our interest below the line also go lower. So there is a one-for-one adjustment there. There's a little bit, but 17.4, maybe you sort of adjusted EBITDA. We've got some projects, some KNS closure costs will obviously come off that. We've called out maybe $100 million between those two. The minority EVR distribution for the 23% we don't own is in that $4.6 billion, and we've included $850 million on top of our $5.7 billion for EVR CapEx. That's the midpoint of an 800-900 level, triangulating between our own models and what Teck had previously put out as guidance for that business. Of course, we'll do some work and come back. Healthy cash flow generation notwithstanding sort of uncertainties and macros, but the quality of the business and performance generally is good. And, I'll hand back to Gary. Thanks, Steve. Just a couple of slides before we turn over to Q&A. I think first is just to look at a little bit on, and I alluded to it earlier in the introduction to the presentation, is the addition of EVR to our portfolio. As I said, this is a tier one best-in-class asset. Very fortunate to have bought this at such a quality asset at such a quality price. And if you look at the graph that we have on the left on slide 17, there you can see with the base on a copper equivalent basis, you know, we're about a 3.8 million copper equivalent unit production. This certainly adds huge growth to our portfolio, for 2025, just under 20% growth in terms of copper equivalent units, as Steve said, just under $7 billion. A low cost, long life, high quality asset. So, as you can see on the graph, very pleasing, strong growth. And on top of that, just moving to the right, you know, what comes after that is significant growth in our copper portfolio. And as we've explained earlier on these calls, we will bring that portfolio and those assets into production when the market needs those tons. The portfolio is made up of predominantly brownfield, predominantly low capital-intensive projects. Those will be brought to market as the market needs those copper units in a value-accretive way for our company and for our shareholders. Already we're spending some money on those. We're calling out approximately $400 million between 2024 and 2026, particularly on our two Argentinian projects, Mara and El Pachón. Argentina is the next frontier for copper growth. No question. We've seen the BHP Lundin deal there. There's a number of projects there, and it sort of looks like a very exciting jurisdiction to invest in. Our projects there are world-class. El Pachón, although greenfield, is just enormous. We've mentioned before, we've had to stop our drilling program because the more we drill, the more we find. We don't need to find any more. And Mara being effectively an extension of the old, of the old operations that we have there, it's a low capital intensity brownfield project, and that's likely to be first to market when the market needs it. So in addition to the growth that EVR brings us, we, we have significant growth, another up to 1 million tons of copper, that we can bring on and we will bring on over time as the market needs it. And finally, on to the last slide of the presentation, on slide 18, just a summary of where we are. A leading copper producer, we know that. We produce 1 million tons of copper. As mentioned in the previous slide, we'll be able to grow up to another 1 million tons of copper as and when we need to-- we need to bring those projects on. And the key part, and I keep emphasizing this, is it's brow- mostly brownfield stuff. We will be looking to do that sensibly, in a capital efficient manner and in a market efficient manner when the time is right. Our energy and steelmaking coal business, the energy or steam coal business, under rundown, our responsible rundown strategy, still contains best-in-class Tier One assets with very high-quality steam coal that the world needs today. As you've seen, coal prices, particularly out of Newcastle, are looking very strong as the world continues to be hungry for energy, as it decarbonizes, but the world continues to grow. It needs that energy, it needs that high-quality coal, and we provide that. Steelmaking coal, now a key part of our business with EVR. It's always been important for us, but now much more important with EVR. Certainly a transition-enabling commodity, a critical mineral in many parts of the world, absolutely critical for decarbonization infrastructure, an S&D balance or an S&D scenario that looks very exciting, given the inability for major ramp up in supply and the fact that it is a commodity that is not easily substituted or removed from the requirements in terms of steelmaking. Very excited with that, and certainly a key part of our business now that we're a major producer of steelmaking coal. Also, a supplier of battery and other materials. As you know, we're big suppliers of zinc, nickel, lead, cobalt, manganese, ferrochrome, and vanadium in all parts of the world. These are key inputs into decarbonization, key inputs into industrialization, and for our customers, we've become a one-stop shop in terms of supplying all their needs with respect to these, these commodities. Our recycling business charges on doing very well. We continue to produce all the critical minerals out of our recycling business. And again, it's something that sets us, sets us apart from many of our competitors, because we're able to provide those recycled materials. And as we see the world continue to progress, and we see a ramp up in end-of-life batteries, particularly out of the EV industry, that business is set to continue to grow. Our marketing business, we've touched on that, and Steve mentioned the guidance of $3 billion-$3.5 billion for the year, which is certainly, you know, our normal range of $2.2 billion -$3.2 billion, doing very well. And the other thing that Steve mentioned, given that it's diversified across our commodities, where last year or the year before, you know, last year it was predominantly an energy-based marketing result. The first half of this year has been predominantly metals-based. So as the world evolves, as opportunities come up, as there are arbitrage opportunities into whichever markets those present themselves, we are able to maximize profits and capitalize on those opportunities. And then lastly, back to the numbers that Steve mentioned, a business that's very strong, very cash generative. Spot illustrative numbers, EBITDA of $17.3 billion and free cash flow of $6.1 billion. So looking forward to a very strong second half of the year. And with that, I'll turn it over to Q&A. Thank you, dear participants. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone keypad and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw a question, please press star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. This will take a few moments. And now we're going to take our first question. And the question comes from the line of Chris LaFemina from Jefferies. Your line is open. Please ask a question. Hey, good morning. Hopefully, you guys can hear me okay. I'm having some phone issues. I just wanted to ask about the marketing EBIT. So your guidance range of $2.2 billion-$3.2 billion through the cycle is unchanged, even though you've added EVR. And is it possible that as you fully integrate EVR into Glencore, in particular in the marketing side, that there is some upside to that, to that guidance? And how much additional marketing EBIT do you think you can get from that business? Thanks. Thanks, Chris. Good question. We do expect some EVR marketing synergies as well. Even on the initial sort of proposal to Teck last year, we did sort of put some synergy numbers generally of what the combined business, some of which is operating, some of it was sort of marketing at the time. I think we even had a number of 300 across marketing for both sort of metals and coal. So we would expect some synergies to come here. What we've told, and maybe with you guys, maybe the market in the past, once the Viterra transaction has closed, and that'll probably work quite well with when we've been able to sort of get our feet under the business for a bit longer at EVR, it's incumbent upon us to sort of reestablish, reconfirm, come out with a new range. Because sort of prima facie, take out Viterra, you would lose some earnings that would have underpinned that historical range. So once that's closed, and as a minimum, I would expect to be able to maintain $2.2-$3.2, excluding Viterra. So that is an implied upgrade relative to historically, helped by EVR and various other factors over the last number of years. But that's work that will be, that we're doing and thinking about, and we'll be ready to announce upon the close of Viterra or shortly thereafter, maybe when there's a financial reporting cycle, just to be able to come up with what's a sensible new range. Thanks for that. On the net debt target, which is at $10 billion, is that something that might be reconsidered as well? Because I think, you know, it was $10 billion before the EVR transaction, and there was some hope in the market that it might be increased as a result of the incremental EBITDA from EVR. So how should we think about that? Yeah, the thing about the, and again, it's a good, it's a good question, and we've had some incoming on it, also over the last, sort of year or so. I think the way to think about that net debt cap is reconfirming the $10 billion, excluding marketing, marketing lease liabilities, is that now is very solidly sort of floored and anchored. And the bias or trajectory, I would say, can be to step it up over time. I think we would need to also see some copper units and the size of that business expand. We've got Gary spoke about the sort of 1 million tons of sort of optionality. There is some dollars that's clearly gotta go into that to deliver those at the right time and the right and the right construct of those businesses. And also played against that sort of $10 billion ex EVR might have had, not immediately, but I think there might have been some downward pressure just due to portfolio construction. Now, of course, as we sold as we sold Viterra, and you monetize that business over time, that's taken a valuable cash generating asset out of the business. At some point, your operating base of your steam business steam coal business steps down. We've got these targets of 15%-20%, 50% down by 2035. That's obviously sort of an operating base. Now, does volumes get compensated with higher margins over time? Remains sort of to be seen. But the direction of travel portfolio-wise, at least across Viterra steam coal, was a reduction in portfolio. That the intention is that that could be fully or partially compensated with growth in copper and other M&A. But all things being equal, there was a sort of a potential having us to think about whether that was going to step down at some point over time. What EVR has done is that that's taken that off the table. It reconfirms it as a solid 10 and potential to upgrade that over time, also, as we bring some copper units and the cash flow capacity of the business increases. Thanks, Steve. Appreciate that. Thank you. Now, we're going to take our next question. And the next question comes the line of Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Good morning, Gary and Steve. First question is on just the balance between M&A and capital returns. You've given a fairly clear indication in the release that net debt will be some way below the $10 billion cap by year-end, and this should allow you to top up the base dividend. But there's also headlines that you're open to more coal deals. So is there a priority near term to put cash returns ahead of deals, or do you see near-term opportunities in coal, such as Anglos or other assets that may be out there? And then the second linked question is on the Viterra disposal. Once that completes, how will you treat the equity portion of around $3 billion? Will that be offsettable against potential acquisitions when thinking about the shareholder distributions and that $10 billion cap? Thank you. Good morning, Liam. Hi, thanks for the questions. I'll leave the Viterra one to Steve. On M&A, you know, we won't comment on particular processes, but, you know, and I think I've said this before, the company is always open to M&A. It's part of our DNA. But we will be very capital disciplined. And in terms of any M&A that we look at, we also have the benefit of buying back our own shares, which in itself is a form of M&A. So any sort of M&A that we look at, to the extent that we have capital available for distribution, whether it's to buy back our own shares or, or, or pay dividends, we should also be comparing any M&A opportunities versus buying back our own stock, and ensuring that we are not doing anything that's dilutive for our shareholders. The fortunate thing is our balance sheet is, is, is very strong. As you rightly mentioned, we, we will be below $10 billion by year-end, which allows us to, to, increase distributions to shareholders in the absence of M&A. But that M&A, if there is that opportunity to do M&A, has to then compete with that, with that alternative of either giving it back to shareholders or buying back our own stock. But we remain open to M&A opportunities if it's value accretive for our company. And Liam, just on the stock portion of the merger, once it closes, it's an interesting question. I mean, of course, the, it's not gonna be a classic net debt reduction. It's gonna be a listed security that's gonna be subject to sort of mark to market. But clearly, the direction of travel for that business, sort of non-core, ultimately, it will be monetized in some way, shape, or form. So we can possibly think about that a little bit differently to some other listed securities that we do have that are more sort of integrated and part of our long-term business, whether it's sort of the stock in Century or whether it's some other listed securities that we have as well. So I don't know yet, and it's sort of almost thinking aloud on this call. Does it deserve some ability to already think about that, maybe with some haircuts, maybe with some other—'cause you've gotta be conservative. We've obviously setting the whole thesis of the cap and the distribution was sort of earn your money, make sure the money's in the bank, and then it's there to be able to either pursue sort of capital deployment initiatives, buybacks, payment of distribution. So Obviously, it's not money in the bank then, but it is an investment that's gonna ultimately be sort of non-core, and we'd look to exit in the most sort of value conducive opportunity down track, working with all our stakeholders and the Bunge team themselves, of course, in terms of how we exit eventually. Of course, I don't think it's gonna come as any surprise to someone. So maybe there is some halfway house there that we can think about around whether it's potentially can be thought about in as a sort of a pro forma type of sort of reduction in headroom and capital headroom in the business. Not concluded upon, and maybe it's a wishy-washy answer, but it's, that's as good as I'll answer on giving them at the moment. Okay. I think that makes sense. Just a quick numbers follow-up one, if that's okay. Just on, a few people have picked up on marketing CapEx in H1, was about $600 million. Is that mainly the shift in re- in leases that [audio distortion] It's all leases. Higher. All leases. Yeah. All. Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question. The question comes from line of Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Yes, good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Steve, one question for you is on the building blocks for the year-end pro forma net debt, and by extension, the, the capital returns potential. Now that you have started to exclude the $1 billion of marketing leases, do you see any big risks to the $1 billion cash receipts from Viterra, saved during the second half to a point, that prompts you to exclude it from your pro forma calculation? That's one. And then two, if commodity prices remain on spot, how should we think about the net working capital relief in the second half, and any other considerations in these building blocks? Thank you. I mean, no risk that we can think of around Viterra. It's just not a done deal. The marketing leases are a done deal, and it's how we've treated these things in the past. And, I mean, you would recall the last example of that is when we had that Cobar sort of transaction. That obviously took a while to close. That was sort of a complex close, a SPAC sort of structure, and questions came in, says: "Well, why don't you put that?" And we said, "Well, when it's done, it's done." That you can never— There's never 100% guarantees on these things. Now, it's sort of following through its normal processes, and they got the EU approval the other day and so the handful to go, and Bunge announced that they expect to close in the next several months. Now, when that's closed, it'll move, it'll shift into the pro forma, and it's bankable, and we'll go from there. So I mean, of course, on the other side, if we've got a commitment to fund something, then we need, do need to include it. On the sales side, I think we need more than. It's gotta be pretty certain. So I wouldn't say there's any risk that we see. It's just passage of time on that business. Net working capital, I mean, at current commodity prices, you probably have a little bit of release, a little bit further release, frankly. But that's, I mean, we expect things to recover at some point, particularly in some of the metals markets. Obviously, July was a bit weaker in some markets, and we have seen some working capital release just in July. But around the general spot illustrative, I would think sort of neutral is what I would look towards. I think that should be base case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question. The question comes from the line of Jason Fairclough from Bank of America. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Yep. Good morning, guys. Thanks for the opportunity. Just a couple questions from me. First one, on Argentina and particularly MARA. So super low capital intensity project, fairly low technical risk. Could you just talk us through the path to approving this capital? Second one, I guess more generally is on the what we used to call the battery metal theme. So we used to be quite excited about nickel, about copper, about cobalt and lithium, and I guess today we've got three of those four metals under extreme pressure, as China's changed the rules. So just wondering, how are you thinking about the evolution of the energy transition theme? Morning, Jason. Thanks for your questions. Argentina, it's something you know quite a bit about. The path to capital approval revolves around, I mean, two sides of it. Obviously, getting comfortable with the political risk there, which has been de-risked significantly over the last couple of months. You've seen the new bill passed, and the work being done. Even the fact that BHP have invested in Argentina tells you that we're not the only ones seeing the very positive signs around the country and the changes happening. You've seen some of the just sort of some of the stats coming on in terms of inflation being under control, you know, the work that's being done with the IMF. So generally, from a political, economic, regulatory stability, comfort side, Argentina is de-risking very quickly. And that's giving us a lot of comfort. It's giving our peers a lot of comfort, and so we're very excited about that. That's the one side that's working and, you know, we don't have a lot of control over that, but we've certainly have input into it and watch very closely. On our side, it's more around work around the project. As you know, the Alumbrera plant is in very good condition. We've kept on care and maintenance. We have a working staff there that keeps the thing running. And it's around redesigning of the actual pits in the mine. The original feasibility study done was done more the gold feasibility study, and we're relooking at that to optimize for copper and optimized for value, but it's more of a copper mine now. There's some changes in dump designs and dump placements and a few other things like that. That work is being done, and we've called out the $400 million are being spent in Argentina on both El Pachón and MARA over the next two to three years. Those are going towards, you know, early works, early engineering, feasibility studies, all those sorts of things. So that's the path. The other critical path, of course, is going to be markets. $8,800 copper is not a kind of market that we wanna bring new copper into the market yet, but we do see a path to a stronger copper price, and we want to bring in this, this material into the market as it needs it. So there's a few paths, but each of them being worked on separately. On the, as you called it, the battery metals theme, and you mentioned—you mentioned copper, cobalt, nickel and lithium. Well, lithium, we're not in. We don't own any lithium operations, but we trade lithium. In fact, we're having, you know, just pulling out in terms of our marketing performance, although small compared to some of the other metals, a very good year so far in lithium. This is something we don't produce, but we get through our recycling business and some of our other joint ventures that we have and some of our structures that we've put in place. We get lithium off takes and lithium prepays and likes of some of our partners. Lithium marketing is in fact having a very good year relative to where it was last year. Nickel, we know the story of nickel. Certainly a weak commodity with oversupply out of Indonesia. But our two operations, the Sudbury base in Canada or INO in Canada, not just Sudbury, but INO in Canada and Murrin, are both cash positive at current nickel prices operationally. And you know, we produce Class 1 nickel at those businesses. They non-Chinese owned Western geographies. So even despite and you know, Steve, as you said in the presentation, nickel's been sort of relegated to the other category for them or other column for the moment, but that's mainly because steelmaking coal's taken a big position. But there's still there's certainly upside in nickel, and it's a key commodity. We've seen demand for stainless very strong this year. And, you know, everybody talks about nickel being battery, but it's a key part, and in fact, the biggest part of demand is, in fact, coming from stainless, and the stainless industry still remains strong. Cobalt, I think I spoke about cobalt. I'm not sure if I've spoken on this call about cobalt, but yes, cobalt is weak at the moment. Certainly structurally oversupplied, particularly out of the growth in supply from Tenke and Kisanfu in the DRC. But the demand side looks pleasing. All three buckets of demand, aerospace and defense, EV, and, you know, home user goods, all are looking very good. So as that demand grows and the growth in supply starts to steady out, and it will steady out because cobalt is not like nickel in Indonesia, where there's just new deposits being developed and ready to bring to market anytime. Cobalt does, you know, it is, you know very well, is a by-product and mainly out of DRC. There's not too much growth beyond what's coming on now. So we wait our time, we buy that time for demand and demand, supply to get back into balance. And whenever that happens, we see a structural upside to cobalt pricing. And copper, the third or the fourth one that you mentioned, I mean, everybody's bullish copper. Everybody wants to get into copper. We're really obviously very large in copper with 1 million tons of copper production and another up to 1 million tons of growth, as you rightly say, low capital intensity and mostly brownfield. So that is certainly very exciting, and in terms of demand for copper, we still see that as the backbone for decarbonization going forward. And particularly the new industry, you know, people worried about China, but one thing about China, copper demand remains strong because the spending on grid is very strong. Spending on AR, data centers, renewable infrastructure, and the like, is very copper hungry, very copper intensive, and that still has a long-term, very bright future. Okay, thanks a lot, Steve. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question. The question comes from the line of Marina Calero from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Good morning. Thanks for the call. I have a question about your South African thermal coal assets. You've booked an impairment today. Can you give us more color what part of that impairment is related to thermal coal prices, and what part is the ongoing export logistical challenges, and how do you see those evolving over time? Thank you. Sorry, there was a lot of noise in the background. Were you talking about the market and logistics, or what specifically were you asking? We couldn't get the question clearly inside. Sorry, can you hear me better now? Well, we can. There was just background noise when you asked the first time. So if you don't mind repeating your question, it would be great. Thank you. Yeah, sorry about that. I was asking about your South African thermal coal assets and the impairment that you've booked. Can you give us more color on when you expect improvement in the logistical constraints in the country? Thank you. Okay. So there's two sort of questions. I mean, on logistics, certainly we are seeing an improvement in Transnet performance. I mean, they still are not performing up where we would like and, and what the rail capacity in theory is, well over 70 million tons. It's still in the 50s. There are some weeks that it spikes up and increases. It's certainly off the lows. We're very encouraged with Transnet management in collaboration with private industry and the work being done by private industry with Transnet and management's initiatives to improve throughput. But, you know, certainly still constrained, but definitely green shoots and some upside. Okay, that's very clear. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question. The question comes from the line of Ephrem Ravi from Citigroup. Your line is open, please ask your question. Thank you. Just two questions. Firstly on MARA and El Pachón. Again, I know it's great to see the projects kind of progressing, but you had bought out Newmont and Pan American for about, what, $650 million on my calculations just two years ago. I know it's sort of probably a little bit too early, but would you be thinking of syndicating the project out again to kind of diversify the risk now that, you know, Argentina has kind of been effectively de-risked? And again, to bring in more expertise into the project, I suppose. And secondly, on the $16 per ton portfolio mix adjustment on the steelmaking coal, I suppose that's mainly the realization discounts rather than any term structure on the contracts. Is that 5%-6% discount versus the benchmark something we should extrapolate going forward, or is it possible to bring that down with your marketing system? Thank you. Ephrem, morning. In terms of syndicate, look, MARA is brownfield. It's a low, low capital intensity, as we've said, and on the discussion we had with Jason. It's unlikely we would syndicate that out. I mean, you know, we're always open to partners in or selling parts to all of our assets at the right price. But it's certainly not something that we're chasing. We have expertise in-house, and we're hiring additional expertise in-house, so we certainly don't need the expertise either. We have the capital, we have the expertise, we have a, you know, best-in-class project. So MARA certainly doesn't fall out for syndication, though, you know, from a risk mitigation perspective. But, you know, if a partner or a potential partner wants to throw a big number at us for a piece of that project, of course, it's something that we could never, you know, we always look at. Pachón is sort of sequenced a little bit later in our project pipeline, given the greenfield nature of it and the size of it. And certainly, a bit like Mara, we, you know, that's always open to syndication, but not yet. We would have a look at certainly firming up our understanding of value there, the extent of the deposit, the upside, the value, the de-risking it. And if it makes sense at the right time, at the right value, we certainly would consider syndicating or bringing a partner in. Ephrem, just on your second question, that 16 is a. It's, as you said, it's around a 6.5, 6.7%, I think, which is just a blend between sort of our legacy Australian business and incorporating EVR into the system. We've used what they've sort of achieved historically, which is around an 8% realization discount to the prime Australian benchmarks as being sensible, kind of illustrative for now. If there's any change to any of those assumptions or kind of modeling assumptions and the likes going forward, we'll obviously sort of come back at some point, but it's just a blend of sort of historical achievements there. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question, and it comes to the line of Myles Allsop from UBS. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Great, thanks. Just a few quick questions. First of all, on the EVR and consolidation of met coal. Do you think EVR prevents you from doing further meaningful deals, you know, another sort of 15 million ton type transaction? I presume it probably wouldn't have issues because of the fragmentation over the last few years, but it'd be interesting to get your views on that. Secondly, just on thermal coal, Newcastle, you know, price is holding up remarkably well, still, obviously underpinning your cash flow. Can you just, you know, kind of give us a sense as to what you believe is supporting that Newcastle benchmark? And then just the last one on the spin-out. Did you talk to any potential investors who are currently not shareholders? Because obviously that's what drives the re-rating. You know, and what proportion of that non sort of shareholder investor base, you know, doesn't own Glencore because of coal? Do you get a sense as to, you know, whether there was upside from that if you were to have decided to spin out coal? Thanks. Thanks, Myles. Morning. EVR and other deals, I mean, we're not gonna take a view on antitrust. Only to say, you know, we have 20 million tons of high-quality coking coal in addition to our Australian business. We certainly, you know, don't have a position in the business in the industry, which is enormous. And I think there's probably some space for growth. But we're not gonna take a view on antitrust in terms of what that growth is, or how much, or how we would do it. Newcastle price, yes, Newcastle is strong. That is a combination of two things. You've seen some strong buying in Korea recently, a little bit in Japan, very hot in Japan. A little bit in Japan, they've come back to the market. Korea is in the market and buying. But the other thing that's pushing Newcastle prices higher is Chinese demand. Now, of course, China doesn't buy Newcastle coal. It's traditionally not a market that wants. They don't want the 6,000 kcal material. However, because of the strong Chinese demand for imports, and you see imports will be up again this year, a lot of Newcastle coal that would normally go through the wash plant and be sold into Japan, Korea, Taiwan, that is in fact bypassing the wash plant as a 55 material and going into China. So therefore, you've seen a supply restriction on Newcastle, less Newcastle coal being produced because of the Chinese demand for 55, and that's helped the supply/demand balance of the Newcastle material. On the spin out question, yes, I mean, we spoke, obviously predominantly to our shareholders, but we did speak to people or parties who are not necessarily shareholders. And, you know, we've gone through the analysis of our shareholders and potential shareholders, and this is the decision that's come to based on that full analysis. It wasn't only restricted to existing shareholders. And, this is the, you know, there's not that many, or potential shareholders who would come onto the register if coal was gone. You know, there's one big Norwegian potential shareholder that we know of, but very few others that are not investing in Glencore because of coal. So on the basis of this full consultation and analysis by the board, beyond just our shareholders, we've seen that this is the correct decision. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question. The question comes from the line of Matt Greene from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Morning, Gary and Steve. A quick, got a couple of questions. Just, just on EVR, and I appreciate your, sort of getting your feet under the table there. But how confident are you that the EVR assets are sufficiently capitalized to achieve the medium-term production outlook as previously outlined by Tech? And I'm asking this more around waste stripping. You know, Tech has spent a lot in recent years, but we're seeing elevated deferred stripping across the industry. So do you believe they've spent enough, and are you comfortable with the mine plans that you reviewed as part of the, as part of your DD? And then my second question, Gary, you mentioned M&A as part of Glencore's DNA. But we all know acquiring people with expertise, particularly in project execution, is tough in the current market. So, you know, you made, you made a comment to Ephrem's question earlier that you're building this expertise, but how is that going? Thanks. I'll take the second question first, because I'll ask Xavier to just talk about the sort of sufficiency of EVR's sort of capitalized stripping and fleet. In terms of bringing people on, I mean, yes, of course, it's an industrial project, you know, is its own particular skill set. But the good thing about projects is you don't need to keep to the mining industry to find an excellent project person. We've set up a particular project office in the right geography. We've staffed it with excellent professionals, there's more to bring on. We certainly want to bring in best-in-class, and we have brought in best-in-class, and there's a few more positions to fill, which will be best-in-class. But given that, although it is a mining asset, projects execution is a separate skill set. One doesn't need to just keep to mining peers or mining industry to find these excellent project skills, and we're able to lever off other industries, whether it be oil and gas, whether it be other, sort of industrial engineering, where you can find excellent skills. So we're building up that expertise. We have hired, and we continue to hire, and very confident that we'll be able to bring in the right expertise. Thanks, Gary. Just, thanks for your question on EVR. There's, I'll probably answer this. When you look at the, sustaining capital run rate, historically in that business, certainly is elevated, compared to where we see our own operations. There's a couple of abnormalities in that. One, obviously related to the big investment that's gone into, water treatment capacity, which elevates that aggregate figure. Second, when you look at the equipment, replacement cycles, typically in line with, with our own, in fact, you know, reasonably, reasonably good performance there. They have made some investments in new maintenance facilities as the, as the pits have progressed, and that's, you know, currently a large project in execution. With regards to sort of, you know, waste stripping, in new mining areas, that's, that's been, you know, largely consistent. They've got big, you know, large pits, which have been sort of well capitalized, I think you've correctly pointed out. Having said that, you know, they have a big, new project which demands permitting and is currently going through the process of consultation and environmental permitting and studies. That pit, Fording River Extension, will require, you know, a significant investment when it comes up for approval. So that's probably, you know, somewhat lumpy within the next sort of five-year window to continue to sustain production levels at the current run rate. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to take our next question, and it comes to line of Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Morning, team, thanks. Just a couple of questions. Firstly, on the operational side, just the performance in the first half was probably a bit below expectations or what you had given at the beginning of the year in terms of the H1, H2 split. What do you mind just running through the sort of various assets in the DRC and Kazakhstan, I think in [audio distortion] you mentioned as well, just what gives you the ability to be confident in this catch-up to maintain guidance, and whether there's any risks into next year from any of these operational issues you've had this year? Thanks. And then just secondly, on the Koniambo care and maintenance, you've given us some guidance for the first half, I guess, in the spot illustrative numbers, you've given a similar number, but just wanted to get a sense of what we should expect into next year and what the plans are for the operation. Thanks. Yeah, I think, yeah, I'll let Xavier take the operational question. Thanks. If you look at the, you know, first, second half split, certainly H1 had a number of abnormal, you know, events and items in them, where the longwall moves at... the thermal coal business underground. We've also had obviously adverse weather, for example, Cyclone Megan in Queensland in the first half of the year. Those are obviously abnormal one-off items that obviously we don't expect to be repeated in the second half of the year. Africa Copper, you know, probably two big drivers there. One, we had a mill outage at the beginning of the year. We don't expect that obviously to be sustained. We're on top of that issue and expect both run rates and grade to improve significantly in the second half of the year there. That's a combination of runtime and recovery. And then at Mutanda, obviously, we've sort of increased throughput rates at the operation there, which gives us additional copper in the second half of the year, which we didn't have in the first half. I think we've spoken, you know, significantly about Kazakhstan, where we've got, you know, the continued ramp up of Zhairem. That'll give us additional units in the second half we didn't have in the first. And Latam, probably two different stories there. One is the JVs continued to perform well, both at Antamina and Collahuasi. Sort of very reasonable performance there. At Antamina, in particular, we had a large slope failure in the pit in the first half of the year, which we're in the process of recovering. Typically, that business performs quite well, you know, excluding those sort of abnormal events, and certainly their run rates have recovered to where we expect them to be. So again, you know, sort of exceptional items out the way, that business should perform and make its numbers in the second half. And on the sort of Koniambo, it continues to sort of step down, obviously. I mean, you would have seen some press and announcement around notifications having gone out recently to adjust workforce numbers and the like. So that'll sort of get into its true sort of care and maintenance cruising speed through the second half of this year. And the ongoing expenses, we expect to be sort of low double digits into the future. Okay, thank you. That's all from me. Thanks. Thank you. Now, we're going to take our next question, and it comes to line of Bob Brackett from Bernstein Research. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Good morning. In the commentary around marketing, you mentioned a tight physical market environment for commodities, including copper. Can you talk about? Is that true as we sit here today? And what are you seeing on the ground that informs the cadence for copper price and balances over the next 12 months? Morning, Bob. Thanks for the question. You know, copper is really more of a supply-side issue, and we've seen underperformance across multiple miners in the first half of the year in terms of supply of concentrated metal. And you see that in the shape of TCRCs as well. So supply has been severely constrained, whether it be issues, and you've just heard Xavier talk on some of the issues we've had on African Copper and Antamina. But all the peers across the industry are looking, or have, have also restated and had, or many of the peers have restated, had issues in the first half of the year. So supply remains a concern for the copper market, and I mean, a concern from a bullish perspective, because there isn't much supply coming on. Demand is not as bad as people seem to say. Yes, stocks in China haven't drawn, are drawing at the moment. They did start drawing late, but they are drawing at the moment. You've sort of seen a buyer strike from the Chinese as prices went above, you know, $9,500-$10,000. And Chinese are very smart buyers of material. They know when to stop buying. In many cases, the producers who get nervous when they see this buying stop, and then that's prices start dropping. But you've also seen, obviously, copper prices impacted by more of a macro theme. Many larger players play macro as a, or play copper as a proxy for macro, particularly China. With what's happened in the world in the last week or two, there's certainly been a risk-off tone around global growth, and as a result, part of that has been rotation out of copper. But if you look at just the fundamentals of it, and that's where we always go to, supply/demand fundamentals, where are units going? Supply I've spoken to is constrained. Demand in China is good, particularly grid spending, particularly renewables. The areas that are very copper hungry, stocks are drawing and the arb is open. So we do see potential upside. Certainly from current levels, we do see upside for copper going forward. Very clear. Thanks. Thank you. And now we're going to take our last question for today, and it comes to line of Alon Olsha from Bloomberg Intelligence. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Hi, morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Just two. Firstly, on your primary listing in London. So when you were considering spinning off coal, you indicated that CoalCo would be listed in New York, you know, partially because of less ESG pressure. Now that you're keeping coal, are you committed to your primary listing in London now, you know, notwithstanding the greater ESG bend here? Or would you still consider kind of jumping ship to the US or another jurisdiction, as some others have done? And then a second question, just on smelting. You pointed out really tough conditions in those markets, in the first half with the TCs plummeting, particularly in the spot market, but it's feeding into contract terms as well. Antofagasta reportedly struck a really low deal with Chinese smelters in June at around $23. So, if that kind of level persists, is it fair to say that you would struggle to break even in your customer smelting business in copper? Thanks. Good morning, Alon. Thanks for your questions. I'll deal with the second one first. Quickly, I'd say, I mean, yes, and one thing about us is we will shut smelters if they don't add value to our business. I think generally across the industry, and not only copper, I think zinc as well, you will see smelters, smelter shuts. Western smelters. You will see Western smelter shuts. I mean, you cannot survive at zero or negative TC/RCs, and we would be, we. You know, that's something that we would consider as well, shutting our custom smelter or parts of our custom smelter business. You've already seen, for example, in zinc, we shut Portovesme, and that's- it's not something that, we're afraid to do. You've seen other, other, producers or smelters do it as well, and we would do the same. So I think you will see Western cuts if these TC/RCs persist. On the exchange and the LSE, I think it's incumbent on every company and every management team to continually assess what the best exchange is for their securities to trade on. I mean, that should not just be because of there's a coal question or a, or an XYZ, or an ESG question, or a valuation question. Every management team of every company should always say: Are we being represented on the right exchange for what we have for our shareholders? So that's an ongoing question. It's got nothing to do with the fact that we're a owner of coal, we're spinning our coal, we're not spinning our coal. I think that's something that should be a watching brief, that one should always do. But at the same time, you know, let's look at what's just happened. We've consulted with our shareholders, many of our shareholders, if we just, you know, sort of, target down into our company, we've consulted with potential shareholders and existing shareholders on the coal spin and overwhelming support to keep coal. A lot of that, a big, big margin, a big, a portion of that coming from European investors. Very happy with us to keep coal, very happy with our rundown strategy. You'll have seen our 90% plus approval of our climate action transition plan at our AGM. So that is very... that, that's, of course, very promising. But we still continue to always assess that we're on the right exchange. The one thing you don't want to get caught up on is a flavor of the day decision. If today it's a very good idea to be on, let's say, your example, the New York Stock Exchange, we do all the work, we go through all the effort, we move to the New York Stock Exchange, and two years down the line, for some reason, not the New York Stock Exchange is no longer the best exchange. Then we're off shopping, and now we're in the TSX, and after that, we're off down to the ASX, and then we're back to the LSE. One can't be swapping and changing just on the flavor of the day. One has to be considerate, you know, and take a longer-term view on the best exchange for our business. At the moment, we're comfortable on the LSE, but does that mean that we're not open to looking at other options if we see a fundamental change and a reason to change? We would consider it. Got it. Thanks very much. Thank you. Okay. Well, thanks very much for all the questions. We appreciate all your, your feedback, your questions. As always, Martin, myself, Steven, and Xavier are available for any follow-up questions. Otherwise, thanks very much and have a good day. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now all disconnect. Please, speakers, please stand by.