Glencore plc (GLEN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Glencore 2026 Half Year Results Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Martin Fewings, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us for our first half 2026 results. A particular welcome to those joining from Australia. Speaking today are Gary Nagle, CEO; Steven Kalmin, CFO; and also joining us as our Chief Operating Officer, Xavier Wagner. I'll hand over to Gary.

Thanks, Martin. Good morning from Switzerland and for those in other parts of the world, good afternoon, good evening and maybe a very early morning for those in North America and South America. We've put out our results presentation, so we'll take you through that. If we move into the presentation and start on Slide 4, which is a familiar slide -- it should be a familiar slide to all of you is our financial scorecard -- our half year financial scorecard, starting on the industrial side. Operationally, a very solid first half of the year. Our teams, our operational teams delivering production within the market guidance range. We continue to perform operationally 2 full years in a row within the guidance range and now through the first half year within our guidance range, we've we restated our -- or kept our guidance for the remainder of this year. On the industrial side, a $6.5 billion adjusted industrial EBITDA. That's driven materially by a very strong metals and minerals contribution up year-on-year, primarily driven by higher prices. There have been higher input costs, and Steve will talk a lot -- a bit about that later as we get into the costs, but a very strong metals and minerals contribution. The energy and steelmaking coal contribution also very strong. We've seen higher prices through Newcastle energy coal, driven up by higher LNG prices and we've seen strong demand for steelmaking coal through the first half of the year. Again, some offsets through increased, particularly diesel costs, and we'll go through those a little bit later. We've also seen some higher refining margins and given our refining exposure in both Singapore and particularly Cape Town, that's landed up allowing us to have a $6.5 billion adjusted industrial EBITDA for the first half of the year. On the marketing side, of $3.3 billion adjusted marketing EBIT, let's say, near record first half result. I think we've only had one other half, which has been higher than that. And that's larger as a result of disrupted energy markets, disrupted freight markets, and it's created significant arbitrage opportunities, dislocations and trading opportunities. Clearly, we all know what's driven that and therefore, an exceptionally strong performance from our energy business, and particularly oil and gas, but coal also contributing nicely towards that result. On the Metals and Minerals side, also a very strong result, lower than last year, but you will remember that last year was a record year. So a very pleasing result on Metals and Minerals, but obviously not competing this year with a very strong oil and gas business. So the two together have allowed us to publish a financial result and adjusted EBITDA for the first half of the year of $10.1 billion adjusted EBITDA, and that's leading to a net debt of $10.2 billion. Steve will talk you through how that's made up and the contribution or how much of that is marketing leases and how we look at it. A very cash-generative first half month from operations, up 158% to $8.1 billion. And as a result, we're able to declare a top-up shareholder return this year of $1.5 billion that's going to be $1 billion of cash, and the positiveness and confidence we have in our business, we're also declaring a $0.5 billion buyback of our own stock over the coming 6 months. Moving on to Slide 5. It's a bit of a scorecard update of what we presented in December of last year at our Capital Markets Day, on our copper portfolio and our leading portfolio that will take production back up to a circa 1 million tonnes of annualized production by 2028. And then our growth portfolio, which will take us to somewhere around 1.6 million tonnes target by 2025. And of course, that could be higher, should we accelerate any of the project beyond what we currently planned. So if we go through each of these in a little bit more detail. Starting on the top left with Alumbrera restart, and you would have noticed the photo or maybe on the front cover of our presentation, is the first blast in Alumbrera. The guys of the business have done a good job color coding that and color scheming blast in the colors of the Argentinian flag. So very proud of that. And so we are ahead of schedule, in fact, at Alumbrera, we originally were expecting to see first production in the first half of '28. We now believe we'll see first production in the back end of '27. So therefore, an improvement on the schedule at Alumbrera. Moving on to the DRC, and we did announce this earlier in the year, but at KCC, we've secured the land package that was long-standing and something that we have been working for many, many years with [ Jakamine's ] to secure. We've done that in a very good manner with [ Jakamine's ]. As we explained earlier, that extends the life of mine of KCC improves productivity. There's certainly cost improvements as a result that comes out of that. And that gives us our pathway back to 300,000 tonnes of copper a year out of KCC, which underpins that 1 million tonnes a year by 2028. At MUMI, we've gated the feasibility study for the sulfides at that was gated in April 2026. It will be followed by an investment committee review and that feasibility and project remains on track and on schedule. In Peru, Antapaccay, we have 2 boxes in Antapaccay. Maybe we can talk about them together. We did announce the acquisition of the Katcheland that's completed and fully integrated within our business. The drilling program on Kacha will start soon. And at the same time, on Coroccohuayco, permitting and land access is advancing. Having both of those within the Antapaccay district gives us maximum flexibility we can develop Coroccohuayco first or we may pivot and develop Catchers and leave Coroccohuayco later. It's just a hugely mineralized deposit and having more optionality within the resource base gives us material flexibility and upside. Back to Argentina. The bigger project there, which is MARA. Feasibility engineering is underway. We will be submitting our environmental permit application in the coming weeks as soon as that's submitted, and that takes approximately 1 year to get approval. But once submission is done, there are no more restrictions or limitations in terms of being awarded the RIGI. Our RIGI application is in, and we expect a RIGI award soon after the submission of the environmental application. Alpachan, which is the big greenfield projects on the border of Chile and Argentina. You would have seen that the Glacier Protection Act was amended and passed into law by the Argentinian government that removes any of the existing restrictions around the glaciers and our ability to now take that project into feasibility. A number of trade-off studies are being done, the drilling campaign has been substantially completed. We still do drill in certain areas to make sure we're not going to build infrastructure on areas where we may want to mine later. And we're targeting environmental permit submission sometime in the first half of next year. Moving up north to the United States. The new range Copper Nickel project, NorthMet land -- or the NorthMet land acquisition package was secured towards the end of July. The federal Wetland Permit application has been submitted also in July, and we're targeting to gate this to feasibility in the back end of this year. On Collahuasi, and I know Duncan spoke quite a lot about it on his call. The leaching restart is underway, and we do expect first cathode out of that leaching facility by the end of this year as well. In terms of the fourth line, the feasibility study is also underway. We proved it -- the Board approved it in February 2026. That work is underway, and we continue to keep that on schedule. Moving on to Slide 6. We did announce this morning that we are going to establish a secondary listing on the Australian Stock Exchange. We're targeting an October 2026 listing. And our ambition is to achieve a minimum ASX200 inclusion within 12 months. Now the ASX200 requires $1.5 billion or AUD 1.5 billion of stock held in the ASX line, we believe that is fully achievable. And ambition goes well beyond the ASX200. We believe soon thereafter, we can, in fact, get ASX100 inclusion, which requires approximately AUD 5.5 billion on the Australian line. Why do we believe we can get there? If you look at the green wagon wheel below, you can see what we've done in South Africa. In South Africa, a little bit like Australia, we have a secondary listing there. And organically, and over time, we've built up a big shareholding in Australia -- in South Africa, we have approximately 8% of our register in South Africa right now held on the JSE line. That's equivalent to just under AUD 10 billion. So as a proxy for what we've done in South Africa, we can certainly see that as a read across to Australia, and there's no reason to believe why we cannot have ASX100 inclusion in a short period of time. So why are we doing this? Well, the main reason we're doing this is actually a lot of reverse inquiry. Steve and I were down in Australia in the early half of this year, meeting with a number of investors, and there was a lot of interest in our company. Very much interested in investing in our company, investing in our copper story and our copper play. As you know, the Australian Stock Exchange material copper exposure, particularly with the -- with OZ Minerals and Metals Acquisition Corp no longer being listed there. There are some copper exposure plays. But they are limited now. So there's an interest in our copper pipeline, our copper projects, our base copper business, but more generally in Glencore as a whole and the value creation that we're after in Glencore. We have a number of super funds who are invested already in Glencore, and we've had a number of them say to us that they are restricted in terms of how much they can invest in Glencore because of internal rules around how much needs to be invested on the ASX and how much they can invest in the offshore line. And they have said to us that if there was an ASX line, they'd be able to invest a lot more in Glencore. So we see the ability to access these pools of capital. There are very deep pools of capital there. The way the structure is set up around pension funds and the super funds in Australia, where there's a mandatory contribution to the fund. These funds keep growing every year. And Australians are smart investors. They understand the mining industry, given the nature of the economy. They understand it very well, and therefore, they understand our business very well, and there seems to be a growing demand for our stock. So the other benefit of the ASX versus perhaps some other exchanges around the world, is the ability to get index inclusion on quite a mathematical and simplified basis. And as I spoke through it earlier on the slide, our ability to get into ASX200 and ASX100 over a period of time. So that provides us enhanced financial flexibility, having ASX securities as well and it's really underpinned by the fact that we have a very large Australian business. We have over 17,000 direct employees contribute materially to the Australian economy. We produce coal, we produce copper. We produce zinc, we produce nickel, well known in Australia, and it makes a lot of sense for our company. And with that, I'll turn it over to Steve to take you through the financial performance.

Thanks, Gary, and welcome all to today's half year results release call. I'll run through some slides, some of which should look very familiar to you as we've been through reporting cycles over the many years. The first slide on Page 8 is really some high-level numbers, many of which Gary is actually covered on and there will be further detail at least on marketing and industrial and debt outcomes as we have later on. Maybe calling out a couple of numbers that won't be covered later on that tend to be less relevant in terms of cash and valuation, but net income, $4.4 billion. for the half was a very strong addition to the equity base within our books. We did have $700 million of significant positive items, and there was $600 million or so of gains on disposal of assets. We sold a small parcel of our century shares during the year to bring us down to 30% comfortable being at that level. It was around 0.3%. We're also continuing to look at accretive opportunities around the parts of the portfolio, maybe end of life assets. We sold the kid mining operations in Canada, also in Q2. And with that structure, that also released some large rehab provisions that we otherwise had and that reported a gain of also about $250 million, $300 million. The other point just to call out on this first slide is increase in the readily marketable inventories as that doesn't sort of work its way down into net debt, but you would expect an increase in this environment. Number one, prices is going to correlate with that particular we've got certain volumes. There were price increases across many of our key commodities in which we do hold reasonable inventory position. So price was a major factor and the major factor. Brent prices from the start of the year to June went up 20%. And into the $73 a barrel zinc prices from start to finish up 16%. Copper was also up 7%. There was also some higher volumes in some commodities. Some of the disruption across Middle East conflict has created longer journeys, different freight routes, global trade friction. So that days on hand generally, in inventories has ticked up a little bit, as you would expect in this particular environment. The shape of the wagon wheel -- at the bottom is a good shape around the diversification contribution of the business. Copper on the industrial side was the strongest business, particularly now that we split steelmaking and energy coal into its own separate components. Marketing was obviously a large contribution as well. We're quite diversified and very solid copper existing and growing business, particularly as Gary said, with the expansions back to 1 million tonnes and ultimately 1.6 million tonnes. On Page 9, if we just focus on the industrial performance. I'll look at the waterfall bridge on the next slide. which is most telling around the materiality of the various movements. But overall, this business was up 72% to $6.5 billion, high commodity price is the key feature offset by some input cost increases, not some quite material Middle East conflict, both direct and indirect secondary effects. We'll look at that later on, stronger producer currencies as well, we had across particularly Australian dollar and the South African rand. The Metals business was the largest increase and is the largest aggregate industrial business, up from $2.4 billion to $4.5 billion. The higher metal prices, we'll see the impact of that on the next slide. Positively, we also had quite a strong volume performance, contributing a positive variance across the metals business, particularly higher copper and cobalt sales now that we are able to sell some cobalt given the quotas that are now working in the DRC and we're delivering into our quotas. The copper business itself -- overall copper went up from $1.1 billion. We'll look at a slide later on to over $3 billion of EBITDA contribution this year. And pleasingly, the African business, which just 12 months ago, posted very little EBITDA of only $0.1 billion was up to over $1 billion -- it went from $0.1 billion to over $1 billion of EBITDA during this particular. And that was very much volume. You need the tonnes given the size and scale of those operations. We did increase production by 55,000 tonnes during the period out of Africa from 83,000 tonnes to 138, which was up 66% as well. We are going through a period of lower gold production out of our zinc operation. It's transitioning to ultimately to an underground operation, it's also expanding deeper in the open pit. There is some investment. It's going through a low period. And at some point, that will snap back to quite material gold production, not dissimilar from where it's been in sort of historical period. We'll look at some of the offset from the landed prices for these sulfur and sulfuric acid in some of the next slides. The energy business made up of coal, but also our industrial oil footprint that we have as well. somewhat gets lost within the overall Glencore. But if you look at the bottom there, we did post a $300 million increase out of the oil industrial. There's a small upstream oil and gas portfolio, but we have the refining business, particularly down in South Africa around 100,000 barrels a day of processing capacity. And overall, the oil business went from $164 million to $432 million. And coal benefited largely from increases in both energy coal as well as steelmaking coal, energy coal getting a bit also from the LNG availability that we had during this particular period. The industrial bridge, as I mentioned, before us at $3.8 billion to $6.5 billion. As often the case in the slides, price tends to out feature many of the other variances given exposure generally within this industry. So $3.8 billion positive price movements. Within that, our overall copper business was 1.8%. The zinc business was 0.5. Nickel, 0.2. And the other 0.3 million and the coal business added $1 billion of positive price variance. You can see on the bottom left, we've noted some of the major contributors in terms of average price increases of copper up 39% year-period zinc 22 gold, 52% 100% and the various coal complexes as well contributed pleasingly, and we would hope to -- hope and expect to report increasingly positive volume variances, particularly as the copper growth moves through to the '28, '29 period and then into the 30s as well. period-on-period, there was a net $200 million positive volume contribution that was primarily out of the copper business, which was 0.6, the biggest contributors there being Africa, which I mentioned before as well as Antamina, which increased its copper production during the period, 50% at the expense of lower zinc, it's going through a higher copper, lower zinc period, so a large contribution from Antamina. The zinc business was down 0.3% there, primarily the gold exposure that we have within the casing, which is a byproduct out of our Kazakhstan business and [ EDR ] dropped 0.1 of volume variance in that period with being lower on recoveries and yields. We expect that H2 recoveries we'll talk later on. The cost variance, as you expect in this environment, just given the nature and scale of our business was a negative 1.1%. Two major impacts to call out was the direct energy inputs, which is diesel. Mainly affecting our copper and coal businesses where you have some large scale, big fleet utilization, high open pit operations that we have as well. And you had also secondary Middle East impacts, particularly at our DLC assets in relation to sulfur and sulfuric acid. We do expect much of what's in that cost variance to be relatively transient once there's resolution and came markets and supply chains normalize out of the -- out of what's happening within the Middle East, you would expect those prices across all those categories to return to some sensible level compared to where they're traded within Q2. To give you some sense on some of those price variances within Q2 Brent price, for example, that averaged $91.3 a barrel compared to 61 at the beginning of the year. So that's up 50%. That's just on the crude side. The products were actually significantly higher as it was a scramble to secure both feedstock as well as the demand that came from inventories and the like. Within Australia, where we're big consumer of diesel. There was a record Australian diesel premiums, which is the premium both for refining capacity and physical delivery that was on top of the rent crude that we see on our screens all the time. within DRC asset prices compared to budget, which is when we would have thought around price points at the beginning of the year of cost points. DRC asset price is up 40% for us against budget. And sulfur price at Marin, which is a big user of sulfur as part of its HPL process against budget, we were -- it was up 67% sulfur prices. So there has been a big cost impact, as I said, largely transient, how long this lasts for is anyone's guess at this particular point. I suspect for as long as it lasts, we'll see negative in cost, but we're going to be compensated more out of the price impacts as that supply is generally constrained within those businesses. Currencies were Australian dollar a bit stronger. It was 0.3% of that 0.4% and South African rand was 0.1%. They were both up around 10%. Positive variance within the other I mentioned before was the stronger refining contribution coming out of the oil business. If we look at marketing on Page 11, very strong contribution, $3.3 billion, as Gary mentioned, up 142%. Largely the increased delta was out of our oil and gas business through its various products from crude to gas to refine products to freight and the likes. Just mathematically, we thought it's useful. I think the graph on the bottom right is very useful around the very long-term history, 19 years track record within this business is where we've been within that range. You can see strongly and consistently cash generator over the cycle. It's allowed material distributions back to shareholders, reinvestment within growth in the business as well. A big spike out there, the $6.4 billion was back in Russia, Ukraine period 2022. What we've done just to plot a number, we've taken the half year of the $3.3 billion. And we've looked at the midpoint of the middle and top end of our current range. So our range $2.3b illion to $3.5 billion the midpoint is $2.9 billion. So we picked the midpoint of that in the top end, which is $3.2 billion, and that's where you get the $4.9 billion. Just to put a mathematical placeholder, I think, as Gary mentioned, basis conditions, that's sort of a good sensible number that we think is neither conservative nor not necessarily aggressive. We'll need to see how the world plays out over the next sort of 6 months, July started off reasonably well as well. So you can see a very strong performance, more recently, consistently achieving above the particular range. If we look at the net debt capital allocation, again, the graph that we show from opening net debt to closing net debt of $10.2 billion, a reduction of $1 billion. Strong cash flow generation, $8.1 billion. that we have there. We'll look at a slide on CapEx later on, but there was cash flow $4 billion expense during this particular period. There was some either one-off and nontraditional CapEx, which I'll talk to. There were certain payments that we made to affect the security of land at which we announced back in February that talked for many, many years has reached its resolution and that liberates and allows that business to reach its full potential as we go forward. And we're starting to also spend more money than historically around, as Gary went through those slides on the copper pipeline, something like an Antapaccay, we're starting to secure some land. And various other early works that's happening towards progressing those particular projects. So we split out CapEx later on between what's the more traditional CapEx and then we got our copper growth projects, we're starting to spend a bit more money in copper growth, which I think is evident that there is both movement and momentum within that particular area. We generated $0.2 billion of net investment disposals. Primarily, there was $300 million small parcel of the century shares, which we sold in Q1. Increase in non-RMI working capital, this had to be very tightly managed and watched and controlled and monitored it clearly during a period of high commodity prices, increased volatility and very large margin call environment that we had as well. This was fairly modest compared to the big outturn that we had back in 2022. And the big difference here is that it's been volatility more at the shorter end of positions and shorter end of delivery of oil and gas and metals and the like. Back in 2022 was very much on story where we had movements around TTF that was many multiples of what we've seen in this particular environment. But at $0.9 billion, I think it's been quite well managed and quite controlled within that. $0.4 billion is non-RMI inventories. We've got some cobalt in Africa. I'll talk a little bit about that later on until we're able to ultimately export that and sell it into the market. $1.2 billion the net margin calls and physical forward transactions. We went to town across sort of how that all works in terms of the working capital cycle. That was quite well managed quite well contained. We'll see subject to prices and variations that may unwind, it may stay there. It's subject to obviously the trading book and the likes and volatility in prices as we move through. But I think you'll all agree, given the marketing earnings of 3.3% and the volatility and how much has been put on the balance sheet that's been well managed and is relatively modest with good paybacks in terms of working capital. There's also a little bit goes through this category that doesn't necessarily still on the balance sheet, but it just sits in working capital in the cash flow statements where we spend rehab to deliver on our rehab obligations and bring down that provision, there was $0.3 billion that was spent there. That's not coming back. That's obviously more akin to an operating cash flow. Pleasingly, it's worth noting. I know some of you track that. Our rehab provision, if you look at the balance sheet, actually came down $700 million, $0.7 billion. $4 billion of that did relate to disposals or subsidiaries. We had Kidd, we had Lady Loretta. With a Columbia port, all of which had some rehab obligations that we've discharged it over to the buyer. So I think all very accretive transactions, notwithstanding that they may not have generated upfront cash to bring down the rehab liability by $0.7 billion during the period and $0.4 billion just basis disposals and we'll continue to look for opportunities that may present themselves there. Our debt was down to [ $10.2 billion ]. We just jump on to Page 13, we thought about capital returns is fairly consistent with how we've approached over the last 12 months, starting at the -- taking out the marketing leases and the second shareholder distribution from the one that was declared at the beginning of the year that would get our pro forma net debt, if you like, back to the $10 billion. But as we've done over 3 periods now, we do have the value of the Bunge stock. It's worth currently about $3.5 billion. It's out of lockup at the period do not expect us to be doing anything necessarily tomorrow or soon or anything that's disorganized or best we're looking for longer term or not necessarily longer term, but maximum value creation for Glencore over how that asset is ultimately monetized. Working in coordination with the Bunge team. We're very supportive of Greg and John and the team in what they're doing. They posted good results the other day. The business looks like it's got momentum. There's good synergies. We like the thematics of everything going on. We're happy to sit on that stock for a while as we navigate the best pathway towards eventual monetization. But it's now -- it's liquid, it's a strong valuation. It's surplus capital in our view. And we think it's both conservative and appropriate from a shareholder perspective to be dispersing already or to be advancing some of the eventual monetization of that towards shareholders. That's where the $1.5 billion, we've chosen $1 billion of cash, $0.5 billion buy back if you look at that in relation to $3.5 billion of value, 1.5, that's only around 40%. So that's quite conservative. That's roughly a thinking that I think is sensible. We'll continue to think around in advance of eventual monetization that 40%. So it still retains $2 billion of surplus capital beyond the $1.5 billion that we have announced today, split between cash and buybacks. We look at the capital within the business as well. The main thing to call out relative to guidance at the beginning of the year, which is $6.5 billion. We've pushed that up 5% on average over 3 years to reflect the inflationary environment that we've been in. somewhat higher than, I would say, general CPI. You've had factors across weaker U.S. dollar, high energy cost, general industrial capital goods, if you go out there, secure Caterpillar machinery or your dose as your excavators, you want to put a construction project out there, civil engineering, you would generally find that you'd be looking at over a blended projects that we are some are more expensive, some are less expensive, some in different currencies, some have efficiencies. But 5% is what is what we've applied across having done some thinking and some work and looking at some tangible tenders that have gone out for some of these projects. The first half of the year, the $3.9 billion has been capitalized on to industrial CapEx compared to $3.4 billion. something to call out, which is what I referred to earlier on, is that most of that increase was in respect to the copper portfolio investments, particularly to secured land access to support that copper growth and operational flexibility. So if you look at the bottom down there, $0.3 billion was spent to secure the land access at KCC. That's all be done. It's all registered. We're wearing to go, and that's all part of the future sort of planning and we'll be delivering quite soon on that particular package that was secured Coroccohuayco also 1 of those projects as well. So it some ongoing spend across Mara Bishan and new range and the like. And you can see on the top right, copper is where the big increase period-on-period. It's a lot of it's to do with those copper growth projects but generally 5%. A probably tracking similar annualized at the first half to where we are at the second half in terms of that -- in terms of the run rate of the $6.8 billion average, were always expected to be a little bit higher in the year 2026 over '27, '28 there is a heavier CapEx investment period, particularly at EBR, they finish up their water treatment projects that then tapers off in a year or 2 and finishing up a few projects, which we're wrapping up now around Onoping depth. And some of the Collahuasi growth projects that they've had in the past. If we look across to Slide 15, I think it's important to just take stock of the results where we were for the first half. We'll then roll into cost evolutions and that may give you a 2026 full year illustrative EBITDA guidance. It's good at dissecting the $10.1 billion. Page 26 has all the details and the numbers within the appendix. With the copper business on the left, you can see we peer on-period went from $1.1 billion to the $3 billion. And volume also helped there, particularly wasn't only prices and costs that came down, but we're up 15% in volume within the copper business. As I said, Africa is plus 55% and to mine plus 28%, and we lost Mico, the Manesar copper operation, which shut around July last year. Realized prices was up about 40%. costs actually both volume, and primarily on a volume basis, were actually were down at 208. We were down from 225 in the first half of last year. So strong margin and strong contribution on the copper side for the first half with good volume momentum coming through. The zinc business compared to 12 months ago is 0.9 to 0.9, notwithstanding that we had some volume reductions as well. Lady Loretta, another mine that part of the eye is a complex shut towards the end of last year through end of life. There was volume reductions down there, but higher realized prices costs sort of as you were, and that's with the lower gold prices as well. The steelmaking coal and the energy coal, we've seen margin expansion across both realized prices, portfolio realized prices, 206.9 for steelmaking coal is up 24%. Energy coal was up 19% on 93.9. And EBR, we're still making coal tracking a little bit lighter in terms of volume. So you'll see a pickup in H2 when we look at the full year '26 outcrop as well. So all the details are back on Page 26, if you want to look at that. I think your part to just focus on costs, and then we'll wrap up with a illustrative number across the zinc business very strong byproduct business, of course. Yes, it produces zinc, but we produce a lot of gold. We produce silver, we produce led as well within that business as well. Compared to the beginning of the year, earlier guidance was for a bigger negative. The main difference is to why it's still negative but slightly lower negative is to reflect the fact that the precious metals byproduct value has decreased in mark-to-market terms since where we're sitting here in February. Gold prices were $4,854. They're now a little over 4,000, so was $82, now $58.7 as well. So that reflects in lower byproduct credits. And a slightly less negative cost per tonne of zinc produced within that particular business. What we have done is reflect in the full year number, the sale of Kidd on the first of June 2026 which actually implied a production upgrade because we didn't change our overall zinc guidance for the year, which was 20,000 tonnes of zinc. Both those extra zinc volumes as well as the fact that there is higher sales expected H2 over H1 all of that contributes towards actually lower full year cost for zinc compared to the first half. You can see we've gone from pre-byproduct $283 million to $254 million. somewhat counterintuitive given cost evolutions, but strong volume benefits and the upgrade also the volume that we have over there. Within the various coal businesses, relatively modest increases from cost guidance from February, notwithstanding some of the higher prices, particularly on diesel. We haven't assumed -- we've assumed going forward that there is some moderation. Brent crude in the '70s. Q2 was obviously much higher than that. But that correlates with prices to some extent as well. We've had some favorable FX, particularly in Canada. And in both businesses, steelmakers well as energy, there is some uplift in volumes from H2 to H1. So in both those commodities, you've got the full year cost performance coming below where H1 '26 is as calculated which 2026 forecast is an average for the year. So the actual outturn for the second half will even be lower to deliver that mathematical blend between the two. We'll look at the our turn on that also later on. The copper unit cost, Page 17, a slightly busier slide, but worth just spending a few minutes on this, given where we've seen some of the biggest impact, particularly in costs having to be absorbed, bigger byproduct impacts, streaming impacts and a little change in what we're doing also around operational efficiency and value-add initiatives that we're doing within the Africa business. The first area just to call out, and we highlighted that both in the production report in Q1 and Q2 last week was that we increasingly not taking the cobalt production to its final saleable hydroxide form. There's multiple benefits in that. There is some variable costs in doing that, but there's also more energy intensive. It's reagent intensive. It's space intensive, the security concerns around bagged cobalt. So we're leasing it more into a solution, which is quite far into the process. When we do come back and liberate that and produce a final hydroxide future call. That's quite easy to do down the track. That's also why we're seeing reported cobalt production much lower in the levels that we're going through. And you can expect that and why cobalt production, final cobalt production guidance was withdrawn a while ago because this is a month-to-month, quarter-by-quarter proposition as to what's the most value-accretive way of doing that. The implications of that is that the cobalt in solution, the balance sheet at least is capitalized as a much lower value than what hydroxide would be. This has led to a temporary noncash increase in the derived costs of $0.11 per pound compared to the February guidance. This is clearly going to reverse as the material ultimately gets processed and sold. And when it does do, it's going to artificially reduce the cost that we then report at that point because we've really expensed the cost at this point and we're capitalizing at a very low level. So there was $0.11 impact there relative to guidance that we were at the beginning of the year. mathematically, that would have translated. That's about $200 million of increased of reduced EBITDA and a higher unit calculated cost on a full year basis of 810,000 tons of sales. The other key area which we've tracked the February guidance on a prebuy product from 230 to 277 is very much these transitory effects around fuel sulfur and sulfuric acid. TLC assets for us incredibly exposed to these costs, both in its location, landlocked freight advantages, clearing borders, taxes, impasse, everything that's logistically involved in. securing and keeping critical levels of supply there. The other thing we produce in cathode and not selling concentrate. We haven't got the benefits of the low TC/RCs that comes through the Latin American portion as well that we have. So location processing methods are very relevant over there. We've shown in the graph at the bottom, $0.30 per pound of fuel sulfin-sulfuric acid. And the graph on the right shows how the evolution of those prices landed costs across what is fuel in Latin America, fuel in DRC, sulfuric acid and sulfur in those prices. You get the triple whammy of the landed cost, not only product price, you've got to deal with freight, you've got to taxes and duties. There's all these elements that ultimately manifest. We think these are transitory. They are part of the cost base and the focus very much in Q2 was on security of supply. The instructions here from the teams, from copper and from the procurement teams was do what we need to do to make sure that this asset continues to focus on production, deliver production. There's no controllable losses, pay what you have to do, work out what you do, switch swap, whatever sort of was necessary at the time. And clearly, the -- that was important to get through what was a very sort of unpredictable and sort of crazy period around raw materials and the likes. All of this, if you look at the copper growth we've delivered on tonnes, you look at the EBITDA performance in Africa, for example, first half 2025, $45 million. H1 '26 over $1 billion. the keys to get tonnes out the ground there. If it costs you a little bit more because you need to focus on the on just making sure that you secure these products and materials than that is what it is to some extent. Of course, we're not going to waste be wasteful, we're going to be thoughtful. We're going to be sensible. We're going to create competition in the market as much as possible, but it's had a large impact in where we are today, at least for a full year outturn of $0.02 or $0.03 a pound on mine cost and then you add a little bit of -- and then the byproducts and some of the streaming effect that does work its way up through the system. We think that's given those costs, and the key thing out of this business in this environment, 14,000 copper, we want tonnes. In terms of how that how that translates then into the illustrative $226 million EBITDA. We focus just on the copper business off to the left. So this is baking in 6 months of actuals and 6 months of indicative results for '26 basis, the curve that prevailed around the end of June and the cost environment that we see for the rest of the 6 months as well. Production mix doesn't have as much of an impact around copper, zinc and energy coal. The 1 we'll see later on a task where second half, first half is 44 and 56, if you look back at our production report, which we showed as well. So copper at 840 production, slight upgrade given there was previously some Kidd tonnes of around 10,000 that was in there at a realized price conservative now against 14,000. I think that was using 13,500 or so with price. So if we ran this at a true spot number today, you'd find some high numbers within the copper business. And overall [ 65 ] with a bit of development project coming through. On the zinc side, you're at $1.9 billion. On steelmaking coal, you're at $2.7 billion. That's much higher than what we were in the first half, which is $1.1 billion. So you got [ 1 6 ] in the second half, and that is very much a in H1, H2 split, where we had 13.5 million tonnes in first half, 17.5 million tonnes in the second half to give the 31 million full year. and energy coal is 1.1, again, a slight tick up in terms of volumes as well. Annualized pretty much the other, which is the oil, the aluminum, the far alloys, the nickel and some corporate overhead. And that's where I spoke about the $4.9 billion EBIT number on marketing, which was first half plus half of the half of the top end, and that gives $5.6 billion of EBITDA. We were $3.6 billion for the first half, so you got $2 billion model for the second half, all of which this shows a sort of extrapolating out pretty much 1 plus nice to around $20 billion of that $10.1 billion. We do have a pickup within the industrial business, some in copper and some in steelmaking coal. So with that, I'll hand back to for Gary, a lot of good momentum and cash generation in the business.

Thanks, Steve. Very comprehensive review. We'll finish off just where we sit for 2026, our priorities and how we're uniquely positioned. Sadly, we have had a regression in some of our safety measures and metrics. We've lost 4 of our colleagues through 2 incidents. This has been a real wake-up call for us in this business. Safety is our #1 priority every single day of the week in everything that we do. We've made tremendous progress over the years. And having these 2 incidents and losing 4 of our colleagues has been, as I say, a wake-up very daring for us as management, very difficult for our operations. There is significant work being done to redouble our efforts to strive for 0 harm and 100% safe environment for our business. We're learning from these. We're working hard. We're doubling down, and this is not something we can accept. It is our #1 priority. In terms of our business and our operational excellence. We continue to deliver operationally in a disciplined cost manner to make sure we get the tonnes out as we promised to the market, our first half production guidance or outlook output has been delivered within the guidance and on track for the full year guidance to meet our full year guidance. Costs have been impacted, as Steve took you through by some of the very higher diesel sulfur and the likes. But operationally, we're very comfortable with how the business is performing across the board, both on the box and the metal side. Organic growth is a key priority for us took you through slide, I think, on Slide 5, on our copper portfolio, our leading copper portfolio, which we continue to derisk and successfully grow. We're well positioned to achieve 1 million tonnes of baseline copper production by 2028. And our 1.6 million tonne ambition by 2025. As I said, that 1.6 million can be higher if we decide to accelerate and do multiple projects at the same time, depending on market conditions. And as mentioned earlier, and very pleasing that even the Alumbrera restart ahead of schedule, and we're hoping to see times in the back end of 27 as opposed to the first half of '28,so that's ahead of schedule. We maintained a very strong balance sheet and a commitment to a minimum investment grade credit rating. So a very strong balance sheet, very cash-generative business. And that will ultimately leads to what we have for at the end of the day, which is value creation for our shareholders. We want to deliver predictable base shareholder returns, and we top up when our framework allows that. During the course of 2026, we've announced $3.5 billion of returns to shareholders. and to enhance our share registry. We've also announced today a listing in October on the ASX Exchange. And with that, we'll turn it back over to the operator for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] We will now take our first question from the line of Jason Fairclough from Bank of America.

Two quick ones for me. First would be just on your new BFF in the DRC, so Orion Critical Minerals and the DFC. I'm just wondering if we could get a bit of an update. Has anything happened since the nonbinding MOU back in Feb?

Thanks, Jason. Thanks for your question. On Orion, yes, we're making very good progress with Orion CMC. They've got a very good team working on the due diligence. We have had some a slightly slower process than both of us would have hoped for because of Ebola. Not that Ebola is impacting our operations. In fact, the Ebola area is nearly 2,000 kilometers away. So it doesn't impact our operations. But as you know, there's some travel restrictions into the DRC for U.S. or people who need to travel to the U.S. If you go into the DRC, you cannot travel to the U.S. for 3 weeks afterwards. So the ability to get to site and complete due diligence and met management and things has been slightly slower than expected. But we are making good progress with them. We do expect in the second half of this year, this half of the year to be able to finalize that process.

Okay. Second question, just on trading and if you like your self-imposed risk limits. If we go back to '22, we had that extreme volatility on the back of the Ukraine war. And I think you ended up having to go to the board to get exceptions for exceeding risk limits. Now we haven't seen similar announcements at this time. I'm just wondering, is it -- how different is it? Have you changed the way you manage risk in the trading business at all? Or is it just a different situation?

We -- I mean, if you took a pure metrics of VAR, you haven't seen the extreme swings that you saw in 2022. We have had -- we've kept our Board fully briefed on where we are. There have been waivers, but at a much lower end and much less extent than we saw in 2022. The volatility hasn't been extreme, as extreme. If you remember, in 2022, you saw thermal coal prices hitting $400 a tonne. So you had much more extreme volatility in '22, which meant that these breaches of any VAR limits and the waivers that we received from the Board was something that was -- became more recourse in '22. In '24 -- '26 yes, we've seen much higher VAR and implied volatility in the market. There have been certain areas where we've gone to the board for waivers, but it's been at a much lower limits and much lower breaches than we saw '22.

We will now take the next question from the line of Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank.

Steve. Two questions from me. First one on the ASX listing. Can you share any of your own analysis in terms of how you think this could improve your multiple over time? And how high do you think the ASX ownership could get over, say, the next 2 to 3 years? And then the second one, just also on disposals. Any commentary on Kazzinc and what's going on behind the scenes there?

Not much we can say in Kazzinc. Liam? On the ASX, look, we -- as I said earlier, we've had a lot of reverse inquiry of of investors who want to invest in our share. They see the implied value in our share. They see the underlying value. They see the growth story. They see our copper portfolio, they see the cash generation of this business, the quality of the business and they want to invest more in our stock for various reasons within their own funds, they are restricted in what they can invest. So very pleasing that we can put this listing down in Australia. And see that demand eventuate into holdings in our stock. And with that extra demand, we would naturally see a potential multiple rerate or multiple uplift. In terms of the volume or value, let's say, the volume or percentage holding of our stock in Australia, I mean it's not -- there's no hard and fast rule here or hard and fast goal. We do have an ambition to at least be ASX200 in 12 months, that's AUD 1.5 billion on the ASX line. We do certainly believe we can get to the ASX 100, which is AUD 5.5 billion, give or take, AUD 5.5 billion on the ASX line. And what gives us comfort on that is, as I said earlier, is on the South African line, where we have 8% of our register in South Africa, which has close to AUD 10 billion. So there's no reason Australian market, which also have that same level of understanding of the resource industry, interest in mining and also for different reasons, some capital, which is restricted in some shape or form from being able to invest in us in the London line. So there's no reason to believe we can't get anything close to the South African line or even beat the South African line in terms of the amount of value sitting on the Australian line.

We will now take the next question from the line of Matt Greene from Goldman Sachs.

Congratulations on the results. Steve, if I can just ask you on the $1 billion cost-out program. How is that tracking? You've touched a lot on the presentation today on some of the external cost pressures, but I think overall costs were reasonably well contained. So how much of this has been external. And perhaps you could just touch on the controllable cost increases that you've seen and how that sort of ties in with the cost-out program.

Thanks, Matt. I'm actually pleased you raised that because it is a call out to the teams that have been focused also on that continued journey. It was 12 months ago, we were sort of had the target, and we said that half of that we'd expect to be delivered in 226 already. So they were relatively -- I mean, 225, they were pretty well advanced. So that was locked in. It was about $1.50 billion came through the business by the end of '25. pretty much at target around sort of where we are at the moment, 90% of the way there. So that would have been somewhat unfortunately sort of sort of outshadowed and outflank by some of these other sort of external factors. But those at least when the transit factors on cost and fuel and diesel reverse, those others have been permanently delivered and permanently embedded in the business as well. So that team has done a good job and now delivered.

That's great. And Gary, perhaps one for you, more for a hypothetical question. We're seeing, obviously, copper concentrate market has been incredibly tight and the spread between benchmark and spot TC/RC is pretty wide. Some of the miners seem to be -- there seems to be a bit of momentum here to move away from benchmarks. So I just wanted to ask what Glencore's view on where this market could evolve into next year? And on a net basis, what could it mean for your company?

I mean, yes, it makes sense given the dynamics that we're seeing in the market that these long-term benchmarks, and we've seen it in many other commodities, Matt, where you've seen, for example, the -- I mean it's a small thing, but the Chrome benchmark has fallen away. Newcastle Coal benchmark is virtually nonexistent anymore. Having these long-term benchmarks within a market that is -- which trades more and more in the spot market and is more volatile, it makes sense to come to actually trade these things more in the spot market than have these long-term benchmarks. So not surprising for us, it's very -- we have no problem with it, given that we're a producer, but important marketer as well, where we can take advantage of the continued volatility and movement in these differentials and the TCRCs. So for us, we think quite beneficial.

Thank you. We will now take our next question from the line of Myles Allsop from UBS.

Maybe a few quick questions. The sales to Orion, if we annualize first half, it's 4.5x EBITDA. And yes, that's before we're seeing the Mutanda expansion and KCC operating fully. Are you sure that that's the right move to kind of lower kind of your ownership at such a low valuation? So the first question.

Good question, Myles. What we've agreed in the nonbinding MOU change into a process with them where they would buy 40% of our operations. And we give a -- I mean it was actually a rate there was a range of values and it was an indicative range in subject to them doing due diligence. Now in that time, certain things have happened. The markets change, valuations change, you've seen cobalt prices move, copper prices move. They're obviously doing the due diligence on the comfort they get on our operations around having access to the land. As I said, we've got the tunasulfite feasibility through the process. So that was just an indication of value. It's not -- that's not a locked in value that we are going to see that. We're -- and to the first question from Jason, which is a right question, update on it, it is progressing, but happens in the second half of the year, they have to finish their due diligence. And then we have to sit down and have a commercial discussion with them and agree something that makes sense for both parties. So that number that was put in the announcement is not a locked in number. One has to look at all elements that feed into this is the due diligence, the market, the outlook, the multiples, as you right the say, Myles. But there's also the strategic element of having the U.S. effectively as a shareholder of this operations with Glencore, a joint shareholder and building out that business together. So all those will come into the mix when we sit down with Orion once they finish their due diligence to work out what the real commercial terms of this transaction look like.

Okay. So we could see more than 40% of $9 billion. And maybe the other kind of surprise in the first half is some coal prices, they really have not responded to the energy shortage. I mean what's happening there? Do you going to see potential for thermal coal to lift? Or should we live with 120, 130 type price for the foreseeable?

I think we have seen them lift. They are sort of 131, 135. They were lower pre the conflict. So you probably have, let's give us say, 15 or 20 back since the conflict. Yes, what's very different this time around to what we saw in 2022. So your question is a good question. I did mention earlier to Jason's point, we saw, call it 400 back in '22. In '22, Europe was the driver of additional coal demand. where Europe used to import sort of 30 million tonnes of coal in '22 than for 82 million tonnes of coal, and that drove coal the [indiscernible] because they didn't have the gas online that could bring in U.S. LNG and regasify for use to replace North Stream. In this instance, it hasn't been a European story. This has been a story about Asia and their ability to attract LNG. They have been paying higher prices for energy, but they have also been buying additional coal to be able to run their utilities using coal. So there is a -- we have seen an uptick in some demand, and that's why you would expect prices to increase like the half. But it's not to the same extent that we saw in 2022, we effectively if Europe didn't buy call any price, the lots are going off. So that's why I think you haven't seen such a massive bras in coal process, but you have seen a rising coal process. What I think we have seen, and this is very interesting for the long term because everybody is -- of course, we're all fixated on the short term and if the car price is down $5 or $10 back, and then the share price goes down or if it's up $5 or $10, the share price goes up, we know that. But what we have seen is there's a clear recognition from both countries and utilities around the world that energy reliability and the ability to continue to provide energy through crisis is critical. And 2 energy crisis in 4 years has really sharpened their minds. They -- and they're resolved. There's a view and it's becoming a much stronger view that putting all your eggs in 1 basket, as Europe did in 2022 with Russian gas they're putting all the eggs in one basket is a [ body ], it's not something 1 should do. So we are seeing that many generators are looking to extend the life of their coal fleet keep them running. It may be very nice to burn LNG, whether from a cost perspective or a climate perspective, but they want to keep their coal fleet going in the event that they don't know where the energy crisis is the next energy crisis comes from. So longer term for energy coal, there seems to be a step-up in base demand, which would obviously play into a higher long-term coal price.

We will now take the next question from the line of Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley.

A couple of them. I think the first question is Steve on Bunge. So you still have $2 billion in surplus capital. What does it take for you to move that into a different bucket that fits into your pro forma net debt and find its way back to shareholders? And as an extension to that, Orion Minerals, can you give us a bit more clarity on the structure that you're thinking about for the deal? Just to figure out if that also feeds into your pro forma in that calculation? That's the first question.

So what was the second part of that question, Alain, which -- are you talking about Orion?

Yes. Yes.

If we get the funds from that sale?

Yes.

Yes. I mean in terms of Bunge, it's -- I mean, like everything in life, you don't -- I mean our policy is around our sort of distribution is that it's largely going to be sort of money in the bank in terms of sort of distribution and not in anticipation of -- but Bunge was the one that we had put in a separate category, if you like, has been something that clearly long term is not going to be part of our business. It's something that has a day-to-day tradable, liquid benchmark that someone can look sort of towards and say sort of Glencore is paying out a percentage of that that's more sort of validatable and more sort of transparent. So that sort of $2 billion -- I mean, all of it, ultimately, I mean, if we were to in, let's say, I mean, 12 months' time, we were to monetize half of that. well then sort of 60% of that because we're only paying out 40%. So there's still 60% clearly upper grams. But as sort of as the value or as part of that gets monetized in whatever makes sense over time in whatever fashion makes sense, well, then whatever haircut because we're taking a hack, we've been conservative. That haircut will then sort of translate as has delivered and earned. It's not there at the moment. That's why we are being conservative. But the full $2 billion is clearly up for grabs. So over time, as that gets monetized in the most value accretive way for us.

And for Orion Minerals?

I mean run minerals is the same like gating sort of some M&A. I guess, for us, it needs to see how it ultimately gets realized. And that, again, goes towards sort of mechanically bringing down our debt and with the sort of $10 billion caps from our perspective, at least with Orion would still be appropriate. To be able to fully consider that for distributions to shareholders. I mean the $10 billion cap as I've said on previous calls, that cannot be locked in stone forever. There may be -- if our business significantly shrinks in size or at significant expand in size, then that $10 billion can toggle up or down base is an assessment of sort of financial strength relative to a strong credit that we have, we were to have spun out our coal business that was obviously something that was -- that was socialized a couple of years ago for the Glencore-ex coal, it couldn't have been $10 billion. Now maybe once the copper growth comes through and be 1.5, then maybe 15 is the right number. So for a minority share in Orion, it doesn't affect the $10 billion, at least in our sort of consideration. So all of that would come back. But what needs to consider around the -- either the addition or sale thereof as to what potentially changes that over time, hopefully, directionally up because we want to be a growing business, not a shrinking business.

Very clear. And the second question is probably for Gary. There is some of your peers are increasingly active on managing their portfolios, more aggressively looking for noncore assets or monetizing infrastructure, just to be a bit more capital efficient. Do you see similar opportunities across your portfolio? Or are you contemplating formalizing a program similar to what your peers are doing in that sense?

And then we look at these things. You would remember in sort of '20 or was it '21, '22, '23, we went through quite an extensive period of sale of noncore tail assets we called at the time, things that were not fit for purpose for our business and didn't really move the needle match, whether they were short life or for various other reasons that make sense. So remember that, and we had that whole list of assets that we move through. So it's not like we have a long tail of noncore assets. There are assets that do then ultimately do sell. And as Steve mentioned earlier, we sold the port in Colombia, we sold the Kidd mine and that we transferred with that quite a big rehab liability that goes with it. Lady Loretta rate we sold, which was more of a business development asset, the life that comes to an end, but by selling it to the next or neighbor, they could extend their life. We have some marketing arrangements over it. There is a small transfer of some rehab obligation. So those things do happen in an ordinary course, but we don't have the sort of long list of noncore assets to sell because we went through that process 3 or 4 years ago where we've tied up the portfolio very nicely. With regards to infrastructure side assets, yes, we are looking at that, and there may be some opportunities in our business. Steve is over there is looking at a couple of options and ideas. Obviously, that's an issue around cost of capital, cost of funding and doesn't make sense for the business. We have spent a lot of capital at places like Case on the desal plant in EVR, on the word treatment plants. So we do have the types of infrastructure does lend itself to these kind of structures and transactions. Obviously, we want to do it not just blindly, but something that makes value sense, economic sense and if and the one couple we're looking at, and if they do come up, it makes sense for us, then we would execute on them.

We will now take the next question from the line of Izak Rossouw from Barclays.

Just a couple of questions. Firstly, just on the copper growth projects. You mentioned firstly on Collahuasi on the leaching potential to get to in Q4 this year. There seems to be a lot faster than the '28 time line. So I just wanted to get a sense of how has the scope of the project change, what production should look like over the next few years? And then Coroccohuayco, again, it seems like the catch-up sort of opportunity and flexibility you were saying is exciting, but does that risk sort of delaying the FID decision, which I think you were still targeting for this year? And then just on the second question on the ASX listing. You mentioned sort of the opportunity for a valuation multiple. Just wanted to check, would you as a -- I guess, some of your assets in Australia paying ausitax, would you be able to pay a portion of your dividends as [ France ]? I mean, does that work for CDOs -- and maybe just does this impact your -- some of the reverse inquiries you've had from some of the listed Aussie mining companies you've spoken to recently?

On the franking not, we don't get a franking dividend. This is just a pure secondaries thing. It's not a dues thing like -- or some of the other competitors are. So they start ranking on that one. Just to go back to copper growth in the leaching. Yes, I mean that leasing project is slightly ahead of schedule, and we hope to see tonnes soon. I wouldn't in terms of modeling the number of tonnes, it's going to be very small at this stage. There's obviously the ability to increase that with the low grade and oxide stockpiles that we have that we can feed through that. So it's not something that we would say we're accelerating massive amounts of volume. But what's pleasing is that project is proceeding ahead and we will see some tonnes sooner than we thought. But as I say, it's not material. We need to invest our money in that band to have to bring it up over time to be able to actually make that a material contributor towards the volume within Collahuasi. On Antapaccay, Coroccohuayco. We're not looking necessarily to change timing or delay timing. It just gives us maximum optionality and flexibility. Now of course, maybe we do delay something 6 months. If we see something is a better value proposition by going to Petra versus going to Coroccohuayco and the delays in 6 or 12 months, well, I wouldn't. That's not the base case. We're not planning to do that at this stage, but we do have that maximum flexibility and optionality given the size of the or the extent of the mineralization of the region, this is not a -- it's not a race to bring on the tons. It's a race to bring on value for shareholders. And if a delay of 6 or 12 months means you get better value to beginning on a deposit that may be lower capital intensity or higher volume or operating cost, that's fine. But as we sit today, we're not looking to change the time table. We believe that we can keep to that timetable. As I said, within that portfolio of leading projects that we have. We have a number of levers we can pull. So even if we did decide to delay one, we can accelerate others. Alumbrera by itself is already going to produce tons in the first half -- the second half of '27 as opposed to the first half of '28. Maybe we accelerate them will turn to sell parts. So having that multiple project levers that we can pull across the board. If one is pushed out in timing through our own choice because it delivers us maximum value through optionality and changes, where we can always compensate for that if we want to somewhere else in the portfolio.