Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon.

Thank you for joining us for our first-half 2026 results. Particular welcome to those joining from Australia.

Speaking today are Gary Nagle, CEO; Steven Kalmin, CFO; and also joining us is 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, we'll take you through that. If we move into the presentation and start on slide 4, which 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 operational teams delivering production within the market guidance range.

We continue to perform operationally two full years in a row within the guidance range, and now through this first-half year within our guidance range. We've 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 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, a $3.3 billion adjusted marketing EBIT.

It's a near-record first-half result. I think we've only had one other half which has been higher than that, and that's largely 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, in 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, a very pleasing result on metals and minerals, but obviously not competing this year with a very strong oil and gas business.

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 yeah $10.1 billion adjusted EBITDA, and that 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 debt.

A very cash-generative first half, funds from operations up 158% at $8.1 billion, and as a result, we're able to declare 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 2035, and of course that could be higher should we accelerate any of the projects beyond what we currently planned. 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 a front cover of our presentation is the first blast at Alumbrera.

The guys of the business have done a good job color-coding that and color scheming the blast in the colors of the Argentinian flag, 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, 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 Gécamines to secure.

We've done that in a very good manner with Gécamines. As we explained earlier, that extends the life of mine of KCC.

It 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 Mutanda, we've gated the feasibility study for the sulfides. That was gated in April 2026, to be followed by an investment committee review, and that feasibility and project remains on track and on schedule.

In Peru, Antapaccay, we've got two boxes on Antapaccay. Maybe we can talk about them together.

We did announce the acquisition of the Quechua land. That's completed and fully integrated within our business.

The drilling program on Quechua 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, where we can develop Coroccohuayco first, or we may pivot and develop Quechua first and leave Coroccohuayco till 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's 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.

El Pachón, which is the big greenfield project 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 glaciers and our ability to now take that project into feasibility.

A number of tradeoff 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 NewRange copper-nickel project, NorthMet.

The NorthMet land acquisition package was secured towards the end of July. The federal wetland permit application's 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.

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 a October 2026 listing, and our ambition is to achieve minimum ASX 200 inclusion within 12 months.

Now the ASX 200 requires $1.5 billion or 1.5 Australian billion dollars of stock held on the ASX line. We believe that is fully achievable, and our ambition goes well beyond the ASX 200.

We believe soon thereafter we can in fact get ASX 100 inclusion, which requires approximately 5.5 billion Australian dollars 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 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 10 billion Australian dollars.

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 ASX 100 inclusion in a short period of time. Why are we doing this?

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 interest in investing in our company, investing in our copper story and our copper play.

As the Australian Stock Exchange lacks material copper exposure, particularly with OZ Minerals and Metals Acquisition Corp no longer being listed there. There are some copper exposure plays, but they are limited now.

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.

They've said to us that if there was an ASX line, they'd be able to invest a lot more in Glencore. We see the ability to access these pools of capital.

They 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 these funds. 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.

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. As I spoke through it earlier on the slide, our ability to get into the ASX 200 and ASX 100 over a period of time.

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.

We contribute materially to the Australian economy. We produce coal, we produce copper, we produce zinc, we produce nickel.

We're well known in Australia, and it makes a lot of sense for our company. With that, I'll turn 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's actually covered on, and there'll be further detail at least on marketing and industrial and debt outcomes as we have later on. Maybe calling out a couple numbers that won't be covered later on that tend to be less relevant in terms of cash and valuations, 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.

There was around 0.3. We're also continued to look at accretive opportunities around the parts of the portfolio, maybe end-of-life assets.

We sold the Kidd mining operations in Canada also in Q2, and with that structure, they also released some large rehab provisions that we otherwise had, and that reported a gain of also about 250-$300 million. The other points 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 positions, price was a major factor and the major factor. Brent prices from the start of the year to June went up 20% into the $73 a barrel.

Zinc prices from start to finish up 6 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, but quite diversified, and a 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 prices, 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 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 to over $1 billion of EBITDA during this particular. 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 Kazzinc operation. It's transitioning ultimately to an underground operation, and it's also expanding deeper in the open pit.

There is some investment. It's going through a lower 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 periods.

We'll look at some of the offset from the landed prices for diesel, 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 we 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, $3.8 billion to 6.5.

As often the case on 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, 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% period on period, zinc 22, gold 52, 100%, and the various coal complexes as well contributed.

Pleasingly, and we would 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, large contributions from Antamina. The zinc business itself was down 0.3 there, primarily the gold exposure that we have within the Kazzinc, which is a byproduct out of our Kazakhstan business, and EVR dropped 0.1 a 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 would 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 DRC 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 calmer markets and supply chains normalize 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 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 there was a scramble to secure both feedstock as well as the demand that came from inventories and the like. Within Australia, where we're a big consumer of diesel, there was record Australian diesel premiums, which is the premium both for refining capacity and physical delivery that was on top of the Brent crude that we see on our screens all the time.

Within DRC, acid prices compared to budget, which is where we would have thought around price points at the beginning of the year or cost points, DRC acid prices are 40% for us against budget, and sulfur price at Mutanda, which is a big user of sulfur as part of its HPAL process, against budget, it was up 67% sulfur prices. 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 negatives in costs, 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, that 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, 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 refined products, to freight and the likes.

Just mathematically, we thought it useful, I think the graph on the bottom right is very useful around a very long-term history, 19 years track record within this businesses, where we've been within that range. You can see a strongly and consistently cash generator over the cycle.

It's allowed material distributions back to shareholders, reinvestment within growth in the business as well. The big spike out there, the 6.4, 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. Our range, 2.3 to 3.5, the midpoint is 2.9, we've picked the midpoint of that and the top end, which is 3.2, and that's where you get at the 4.9.

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 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. 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, 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 non-traditional CapEx, which I'll talk to. There were certain payments that we made to effect the securing of land at KCC, which we announced back in February, that after many, many years had reached its resolution, and that liberates and allows that business to reach its full potential as we go forward.

We've starting to also spend more money than historically around, as Gary went through those slides, on the copper pipeline, something like in Antapaccay, Coroccohuayco, we're starting to secure some land, and various other early works that's happening towards progressing those particular projects. We split out CapEx later on between what's the more traditional CapEx, and then we've got our copper growth projects.

We're starting to spend a bit more money in copper growth, which I think is evidence 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, clearly during a period of high commodity prices, increased volatility, 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 the LNG story where you had movements around TTF that was many multiples of what we've seen in this particular environment. At 0.9, 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 markets.

$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 and 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 sit on the balance sheet, but sits in working capital on 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 or $0.7 billion.

0.4 billion of that did relate to disposals of subsidiaries. We had Kidd, we had Lady Loretta, we had a Colombia port, all of which had some rehab obligations that we've discharged that over to the buyer.

I think all very accretive transactions, notwithstanding that they may not have generated upfront cash, to bring down the rehab liability by 0.7 during the period, and 0.4 just basis disposals, and we'll continue to look for opportunities that may present themselves there. Our debt was down to 10.2.

We just jump onto page 13, how we've 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.

As we've done over three 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 messy.

We're looking for a 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 and 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. 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 shareholder perspective to be dispersing already or to be advancing some of that eventual monetization of that towards shareholders.

That's where the $1.5 billion, we've chosen a billion of cash, a half a billion of buyback. 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%.

That 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 was $6.5 billion, we've pushed that up 5% on average over 3 years to reflect inflationary environment that we've been in, somewhat higher than I would say general CPI. You've had factors across weaker US dollar, high energy cost, general industrial capital goods, if you go out there secure Caterpillar machinery, your dozers, your excavators, you want to put a construction project out there, civil engineering, you would generally find that you'd be looking at 5% so over a blend of projects that there are some are more expensive, some are less expensive, some are in different currencies, some have efficiencies, but 5% 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 is what's been capitalized onto industrial CapEx compared to 3.4. Something to call out, which is what I referred to earlier on, is that most of that increase was in respect of the copper portfolio investments, particularly to secure land access to support that copper growth and operational flexibility.

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 raring 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.

Antapaccay, Coroccohuayco, also one of those projects as well, 0.3. Some ongoing spend across MARA, El Pachón, and NewRange and the like.

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% probably tracking similar annualized at the first half to where we are at the second half in terms of the run rate.

Of the $6.8 billion average, we 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 EVR, they finish up their water treatment projects, that then tapers off in a year or two, and finishing up a few projects which we're wrapping up now around Onaping 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 first half. We'll then roll into cost evolutions and that and then give you a 2026 full-year illustrative EBITDA guidance.

It's good at dissecting that the $10.1 billion. Page 26 has all the details and the numbers within the appendix, but the copper business on the left, you can see where period on period went from $1.1 billion to the $3 billion, and volume also helped there particularly.

It wasn't only prices and costs that came down, but we're up 15% in volume within the copper business. As I said, Africa was plus 55, Antamina plus 28, and we lost Macarthur, the Mount Isa 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 down at $2.08.

We were down from $2.25 in the first half of last year, 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's part of the Isa 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, was up 24%.

Energy coal was up 19% on $93.9, and EVR, well steelmaking coal, tracking a little bit lighter in terms of volume, you'll see a pickup in H2 when we look at the full-year '26 outturn as well. All the details are back on page 26 if you want to look at that.

I think important to just focus on costs, and then we'll wrap up with a '26 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 lead as well within that business as well. Compared to the beginning of the year, earlier guidance was for a bigger negative.

The main difference as 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 sitting here in February. Gold prices were $4,854, they're now a little over $4,000.

Silver was 82, now $58.7 as well. 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 1st 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 a lower full-year cost for zinc compared to the first half.

You can see we've gone from pre-byproduct $2.83 to $2.54, 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'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 as well as energy, there is some uplift in volumes from H2 to H1. 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, the actual outturn for the second half will even be lower to deliver that mathematical blend between the two.

We'll look at the outturn on that also later on. The copper unit cost, page 17, 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 now increasingly not taking the cobalt production to its final salable hydroxide form. There's multiple benefits in that.

There is some variable costs in doing that, but it's also more energy-intensive, it's reagent-intensive, it's space-intensive, there's security concerns around bagged cobalt. We'd say we're releasing it more into solution, which is quite far into the process.

When we do come back and liberate that and produce a final hydroxide for future sale, that's quite easy to do down the track. That's also why you're seeing reported cobalt production much lower in the levels that we're going through, and you can expect that.

Why 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 on the balance sheet at least is capitalized as a much lower value than what hydroxide would be.

This has led to a temporary non-cash increase in the derived costs of 11 cents per pound compared to the February guidance. This is clearly going to reverse as the material ultimately gets processed and sold, and then when it does do, it's going to artificially reduce the cost that we then report at that point because we've already expensed the cost at this point and not capitalizing at a very low level.

There was 11 cents 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 reduced EBITDA and a higher unit calculated cost on a full-year basis of 810,000 1,000 tonnes of sales.

The other key area which we've tracked the February guidance on a pre-byproduct from $2.30 to $2.77 is very much these transitory effects around fuel, sulfur, and sulfuric acid. DRC assets for us are incredibly exposed to these costs both in its location, landlocked, freight advantages, clearing borders, taxes, imposts, everything that's logistically involved in securing and keeping critical levels of supply there.

The other thing, we're producing 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.

Location processing methods are very relevant over there. We've shown in the graph at the bottom 30 cents per pound of fuel, sulfur, and 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. The focus very much in Q2 was on security of supply.

The instructions here from the teams, from copper, 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. Clearly 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 key is to get tonnes out the ground there, and if it costs you a little bit more because you need to focus on just making sure that you secure these products and materials, then that is what it is to some extent. Of course, we're not going to be wasteful, we're going to be thoughtful, we're going to be sensible, we're going to create competition in that 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 2 or 3 cents per pound on mine costs, 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 and in this environment, $14,000 copper, we want tonnes. In terms of how that translates then into the illustrative 2026 EBITDA, if we focus just on the copper business off to the left, 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 one we'll see later on it does, where second half, first half is 44 and 56 if you look back at our production report which we showed as well. 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 was the price, if we ran this at a true spot number today, you'd find some higher numbers within the copper business. Overall 6.5 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, that's much higher than what we were in first half, which was 1.1, you've got 1.6 in second half, and that is very much an H1 H2 split.

We've had 13.5 million tonnes in first half, 17.5 million tonnes in the second half to give the 31 full year. 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 ferroalloys, the nickel, and some corporate overhead. That's where I spoke about the $4.9 billion EBIT number on marketing, which was first half plus half of the top end, and that gives $5.6 billion of EBITDA.

We were 3.6 for the first half, you've got $2 billion modeled for the second half, all of which this shows extrapolating out pretty much 1 + 1 = 2, around $20 billion off our 10.1 where you do have a pickup within the industrial business, some in copper and some in steelmaking coal. With that, I'll hand back to Gary.

A lot of good momentum and cash generation in the business.

Thanks, Steve. Very comprehensive review.

We'll finish off just where we where we sit for two for 2026, our priorities and how we uniquely positioned. Sadly, we have had a regression in some of our safety measures and and and metrics.

We've lost four of our colleagues through two incidents. This has been a real wake-up call for us in this business.

Safety is our number one priority every single day of the week in everything that we do. We've made tremendous progress over the years, and having these two incidents is and losing four of our colleagues is has been a, as I say, a wake-up, very jarring for us as management, very difficult for our operations.

There is significant work being done to redouble our efforts, to strive for zero 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 number one 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 promise to the market.

Our first-half production guidance or or or outlook or output is 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 some of the very higher diesel, sulfur, and and the likes, but operationally, we're very comfortable with how the business is performing across the board, both on the bulks and the metal side.

Organic growth is a key priority for us. I took you through slide I think it was slide 5 on on our copper portfolio, our leading copper portfolio, which we continue to derisk and successfully grow.

We're well-positioned to achieve our 1 million tonnes of baseline copper production by 2028 and our 1.6 million tonne ambition by 2035. As I've 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.

As as mentioned earlier, and very pleasing, that even the Alumbrera restart ahead of schedule, and we're hoping to see tonnes in the back end of '27 as the as opposed to the first half of '28, so that's ahead of schedule. We maintain a very strong balance sheet and a commitment to a minimum investment-grade credit rating, very strong balance sheet, very cash-generative business, and that all ultimately leads to what we here for at the end of the day, which is value creation for 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 our listing in October on the ASX exchange.

With that, we'll turn it back over to the operator for Q&A.

Yep. Good morning, guys.

Thanks a lot for the presentation. Two quick ones from me.

First would be just on your new BFFs in the DRC, Orion Critical Minerals and the DFC. I'm just wondering if we could get a bit of an update.

Has anything happened since the non-binding MOU back in Feb?

Thanks, Jason. Morning.

Thanks for your question. On Orion, yes, we're making we're making very good progress with the with Orion CMC.

They've got a a very good team working on the due diligence. We have had some a slightly slower process than both of us would have 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, it doesn't impact our operations, but as there's some travel restrictions into the DRC for for US or people who who need to travel to the US. If you go to the DRC, you cannot travel to the US for 3 weeks afterwards.

The ability to get to site and and and complete due diligence and and meet with management and things has been slightly slower than expected, but we are making good progress with them. We do 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 this time.

I'm just wondering, 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?

If you took at pure metrics of VAR, you haven't seen the extreme swings that you saw in 2022. We've kept our board fully briefed on where we are.

There have been some waivers, but at a much lower end and much less extent than we saw in 2022. The volatility hasn't been as extreme.

If you remember in 2022, you saw thermal coal prices hitting $400 a tonne. 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 were something that became more of a 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 in '22.

Thanks a lot, Gary.

Thanks, Jason.

Good morning, Gary and 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?

Then the second one, just also on disposals, any commentary on Kazzinc and what's going on behind the scenes there? Thank you.

Not much we can say on Kazzinc, Liam. On the ASX, look, as I said earlier, we've had a lot of reverse inquiry 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.

Very pleasing that we can put this listing down in Australia and see that demand eventuate into holdings in our stock. With that extra demand, we would naturally see a potential multiple rerating or multiple uplift.

In terms of the volume or percentage holding of our stock in Australia, there's no hard-and-fast rule here or hard-and-fast goal. We do have an ambition to at least be ASX 200 within 12 months.

That's a billion and a half Aussie on the ASX line. We do certainly believe we can get to the ASX 100, which is 5.5 billion, give or take 5.5 billion Aussie on the ASX line.

What gives us comfort on that is as I said earlier on the South African line where we have 8% of our register in South Africa, which is close to 10 billion Aussie. There's no reason to believe the Australian market, which also has 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.

There's no reason to believe we can't get any 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.

Got it. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, gents.

Congratulations on the results. Steve, if I can just ask you on the billion-dollar 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. How much of this has been external, and perhaps you could just touch on the controllable costs 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 sort of had the target, and we said that half of that we'd expect to be delivered in 2026 already, 2025, they were pretty well advanced. That was locked in.

There was about a billion 500 came through the business by the end of '25, pretty much at target around sort of where we are at the moment, 80-90% of the way there. That would have been somewhat unfortunately sort of overshadowed and outflanked by some of these other sort of external factors.

Those at least when these transient effects on costs and fuel and diesel reverse, those others have been permanently delivered and permanently embedded in the business as well. That teams have done a good job and they have delivered.

That's great. Gary, perhaps one 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/RCs is pretty wide. There seems to be a bit of momentum here to move away from benchmark.

I just wanted to ask, what's Glencore's view on where this market could evolve into next year, and on a net basis, what could it mean for your company?

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—it's a small thing, but the chrome benchmark has fallen away, the Newcastle coal benchmark is virtually nonexistent anymore. Having these long-term benchmarks within a market which trades more and more on the spot market and is more volatile, it makes sense to actually trade these things more on the spot market than have these long-term benchmarks.

Not surprising. For us, we have no problem with it given that we're, A, a producer, but importantly, a trader marketer as well, where we can take advantage of the continued volatility and movement in these differentials and the TC/RCs.

For us, we think quite beneficial.

That's great. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Maybe a few quick questions.

The sale to Orion, if we annualized first half, it's 4.5 times EBITDA. 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 your ownership at such a low valuation? First question.

Good question, Myles. What we've agreed in the non-binding MOU is to enter into a process with them where they would buy 40% of our operations, and there was a range of values, and it was an indicative range in that non-binding MOU.

The midpoint of the MOU. Yeah.

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 their due diligence on the comfort they get on our operations around having access to the land. As I said, we've got the Mutanda sulfides feasibility through the process.

That was just an indication of value, that's not a locked-in value that we are going to sell at. To the first question from Jason, which is a right question, update on it, it is progressing, but what 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.

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.

It's their due diligence, the market, the outlook, the multiples, as you rightly say, Myles. There's also the strategic element of having the US effectively as a shareholder of this operations with Glencore, a joint shareholder and building out that business together.

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.

We could see more than 40% of $9 billion. Maybe the other kind of surprise in the first half is thermal coal prices, they really have not responded to the energy shortage.

What was happening there? Do you kind of see potential for thermal coal to lift, or should we live with a $120-$130 type price for the foreseeable?

I think we have seen them lift. They are, sort of $130-$135, they were lower pre the pre the conflict.

You're probably up let's give or say 15 or 20 bucks since the since since pre the conflict. Yes, what what's very different this time round to what we saw in 2022, your question's is a good question and I did mention earlier with to, to Jason's point, we saw coal at 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 in '22, they imported 82 million tonnes of coal, and that drove the coal demand because they didn't have the gas online that they could bring in US LNG and regasify for use to replace Nord Stream Nord Stream. In in this in this instance, it hasn't been a European story.

This has been a story about Asia and their ability to 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 their utilities using coal.

There is a we have seen an uptick in some demand, and that's why you would expect prices to increase like they have, but it's not to the same extent that we saw in 2022 where effectively if Europe didn't buy coal at any price, the lights were going off. That's why I think you haven't seen such a massive rise in coal prices, but you have seen a rise in coal prices.

What I think we have seen, and this is very interesting for the long term because everybody's of course we're all fixated on the short term, and if the coal price is down 5 bucks or 10 bucks and then the share price goes down, or if it's up 5 bucks or 10 bucks, the share price goes up, we know that. 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.

Two energy crisises in 4 years has really sharpened their minds. They and their resolve.

There's a view and it's becoming a much stronger view that putting all your eggs in one basket, as Europe did in 2022 with Russian gas, that putting all your eggs in one basket is a folly, not it's not something one should do. We are seeing that many generators are looking to extend the life of their coal of their coal fleet, keep them running.

It may be very nice to burn LNG, whether from a from a cost perspective or a 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 the next energy crisis comes from. Longer term for energy coal, there seems to be a step-up in base demand, which would obviously play into a higher longer-term coal price.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for taking my question, and good morning, everyone. A couple of them.

I think the first question is for Steve on Bunge. You still have $2 billion in surplus capital.

What does it take for you to move that into a different bucket that feeds into your pro forma net debt and find its way back to shareholders? Also 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 net debt calculation. That's the first question.

Thanks.

What was the second part of that question, Alain? Which mineral Are you talking about Orion?

Orion, yes. Yes.

Oh, if we get the funds from that sale. Okay.

Yes.

Yes. In terms of Bunge, like everything in life, our policy around our sort of distributions is that that's largely going to be sort of money in the bank in terms of sort of distribution and not in anticipation of.

Bunge was the one that we had put in a separate category if you like as being 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.

Of that sort of $2 billion, well all of it ultimately, if we were to let's say in 12 months' time, we were to have monetized half of that, well then sort of 60% of that because we're only paying out 40%, there's still 60% clearly up for grabs. As sort of 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 haircut, we've been conservative.

The haircut will then sort of translate as 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 sort of over time as that gets monetized in the most value-accretive way for us.

Thank you. For Orion Minerals?

Orion Minerals is the same, like any sort of 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. With that sort of 10 $10 billion cap from our perspective, at least with Orion, would still be appropriate to be able to fully consider that for distributions to shareholders.

The $10 billion cap, as I've said on previous calls, that cannot be locked in stone forever. If our business significantly shrinks in size or it significantly expands in size, then that 10 then that 10 billion can toggle up or down basis an assessment of sort of financial strength relative to a strong BBB credit that we have.

If we were to have spun out our coal business, that was obviously something that was socialized a couple years ago, for the Glencore ex-coal, it couldn't have been $10 billion. Now maybe once the copper growth comes through and we're 1 and a half, then maybe 15 is the right number.

For a minority share in Orion, that doesn't affect the $10 billion, at least in our sort of consideration, all of that would come back. One needs to consider around 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.

Thank you, very clear. The second question is probably for Gary.

Gary, some of your peers are increasingly active on managing their portfolios, more aggressively looking for non-core assets to sell 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?

Thank you.

Alain, we look at these things. You will remember in sort of 20 what was it, 21, 22, 23, we went through a quite an extensive period of sale of non-core tail assets, we called it the time, things that were not fit for purpose for our business and didn't really move the needle much, whether they were short-life or for various other reasons didn't make sense.

You'll remember that, and we had that whole list of assets that we moved through. It's not like we have a long tail of non-core assets.

There are assets that we do then ultimately do sell, and, Steve mentioned earlier, we sold the port in Colombia, we sold the Kidd mine, and we transferred with that quite a big rehab liability that goes with it. Lady Loretta we sold, which was more of a business development asset.

The life had come to an end, but by selling it to the next-door neighbor, they could extend their life. We have some marketing arrangements over it, there is a small transfer of some rehab obligation.

Those things do happen in an ordinary course, but we don't have this sort of long list of non-core assets to sell because we went through that process 3 or 4 years ago where we've tidied up the portfolio very nicely. With regards to infrastructure-style assets, yes, we are looking at that, and there may be some opportunities in our business.

Steve's over that and he's looking at a couple of options and ideas. Obviously, that's an issue around cost of capital, cost of funding, and does it make sense for the business.

We have spent a lot of capital at places like Collahuasi on the desal plant, in EVR on the water treatment plants. We do have the types of infrastructure that 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. There are a couple we're looking at, and if they do come up that makes sense for us, then we would execute on them.

Thank you, very clear.

Thank you. Morning, gents.

Just a couple of questions. Firstly, just on the copper growth projects, you mentioned firstly on Collahuasi on the leaching potential to get to cathodes in Q4 this year.

This seems to be a lot faster than the '28 timeline, I just wanted to get a sense of how has the scope of the project changed, what production should look like over the next few years? Then Coroccohuayco, again, seems like the Quechua 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?

Then just on the second question on the ASX listing, you mentioned sort of the opportunity for a valuation multiple, just wanted to check, I guess some of your assets in Australia paying Aussie tax, would you be able to pay a portion of your dividends as franked? How does that work for CDIs?

Maybe just does this impact some of the reverse inquiries you've had from some of the listed Aussie mining companies you've spoken to recently? On the franking,

no, we don't get franking dividend. This is just a pure secondary listing, it's not a dual listing that some of the other competitors have, there's no franking on that one.

Just to go back to copper growth and the leaching, yes, that leaching project is slightly ahead of schedule and we hope to see tonnes soon. In terms of modeling, the number of tonnes that'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. 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.

As I say, it's not material, we'll need to invest some money in that plant to be able to bring it up over time to be able to actually make that a material contributor towards the volume within Collahuasi. On Antapaccay, Coroccohuayco, Quechua, 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 Quechua versus going to Coroccohuayco and that it delays things 6 or 12 months, well why wouldn't we? 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 extent of the mineralization of the region.

This is not a race to bring on the tonnes, it's a race to bring on value for shareholders. If a delay of 6 or 12 months means you get better value for bringing on a deposit that maybe a lower capital intensity or higher volume or lower operating costs, that's fine.

As we sit today, we're not looking to change the timetable, we believe that we can keep to that timetable. As I've said, within that portfolio of leading projects that we have, we have a number of levers we can pull.

Even if we did decide to delay one, we can accelerate others. Alumbrera by itself is already going to produce tonnes in the first half second half of '27 as opposed to the first half of '28, maybe we accelerate the Mutanda sulfides.

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, well we can always compensate for that if we want to somewhere else in the portfolio.

Okay. Thank you.

Hey, guys, thanks for taking my questions. I just wanted to ask on the trend over the years in RMIs, which have been trending higher.

I get it, you're gaining market share, prices are higher, EBIT has been rising, it's all good, but we also have a changing kind of geopolitical backdrop where you have deglobalization and distorted supply chains and moving stuff around the world is becoming more difficult. My question is whether there's anything kind of fundamentally different in marketing that requires you to sit on higher RMIs going forward than you have in the past because of effectively deglobalization.

I understand, again, that that gives you a better opportunity to drive higher EBIT in that business, but should we assume RMIs are going to be higher going forward on average? Thanks.

Chris, it's hard to be definitive one way or another. Our RMI is clearly working in terms of supporting a business that has and I like that chart on that sort of slide, where you can see recent performance and how that's structurally been moving north, and maybe got to revisit our range again.

In terms of RMI, the departments, it's not a free lunch. Every minute of every day, they're paying for this stuff and it's there to recover sort of hurdle rates within the marketing business that is covering all costs and that's generating incremental return for the business.

If it didn't make sense to have that tonne of copper sitting somewhere, or a tonne of aluminum, or that oil in storage, it would disappear in a New York second. It's also working pretty well, it's all quality, it's all you can kick the tires on all the material, it's delivering the sort of results.

I'm all kind of happy around the sort of fundamentals. Now to what extent is that foreshadows a structural world where supply chains are going to be creaking more, and the friction, and days on hand, and shipping routes, and Section 232 has obviously been a big factor in what's happened around anticipation thereof, US copper stocks are kind of where they are, we're obviously participating in that as sort of everyone else does, that's sort of there for opportunity set and generating commercial outcomes.

It's at I would think it's bullish levels at the moment, care for what you wish for, but it could come down if things normalize a little bit, but that's not how things have presented over the last 3 or 4 years.

Do you still get the same credit from the rating agencies, I think it was 80% of the value of the RMIs, a cash equivalent? Is that still the case?

Yep. Yep, it's the same.

Thank you.

Thank you. Most of the questions have been answered, but couple of follow-ups.

Firstly, on the non-RMI working capital increase of 1.9 billion this half, it was much lower than the 7.8 billion or so I think you had in first half of '22. You did touch upon a more focus on shorter end of the curve this time.

I guess the question is, this obviously it was better managed, but were the market conditions on margin requirement in exchanges or counterparties in general much lower this time around compared to 2022? Did you as Glencore get better advantages or terms on that front from exchanges or counterparties in terms of margin requirements because you were proactive about it this time compared to '22, because it's a big delta in terms of non-RMI working capital increase?

Thank you.

Thanks, Ephrem. It's well observed.

I wouldn't say we were more focused on it this year, we were pretty focused on it in '22 as well. It's just that the main factors frankly back in '22 was on LNG and nat gas.

TTF at that point has gone nowhere near the Now it's obviously a bit higher during the year, but it went up seven times, standard deviation was sort of off the charts, and there was many billions of dollars that was tied up in hedging, exchanges, forward value. Our entire sort of physical forward book on LNG, nat gas today's is maybe around $500 million.

That equivalent number was sort of 5 to 6 billion back then, just given the standard deviations and you were in a hedge situation, you tied up more variation margin. The exchanges were there was more systemic risk, of course the exchanges were increasing the sort of initial margining that has come off a bit, but not where it was 2 or 3 years ago.

At the same time, you had the nickel chaos back then, which was also happening at the same time where they actually stopped trading and revoked sort of 2 days of trading. It was a very different systemic exchange issue and concerns around overall sort of system counterparty risk that's somewhat subdued, there was a lot more money that was tied up just to bolster up that.

We were sort of hostage to that, you just had to pay up, it was the ticket to play. Gas was a big factor, that hasn't been as much of a factor this time around.

Does gas come again and go crazy? That's the one part of our book and the overall industry's book that does tend to have longer-term positions around management of risk and hedging, both at the producer level, the merchant level, and the consumer level potentially, but we haven't seen as much impact there.

That is a risk. If gas explodes in the next 6 months, we'll be sitting here in 6 months' time with an increase in working capital above in second half as well, which is okay.

Another question on the coal profitability. The benchmark, or the reference prices have gone up, for example, in thermal coal by about 20-odd bucks from your first-half spot illustrated, but your implied margin a combination of higher costs and portfolio mix adjustment has gone up only by about $11.

The drop-through of that increased price is just about 50%, which is slightly disappointing. Would you say that if coal prices go much higher from here, that drop-through could be bigger because you are not going to get the same amount of cost hit and probably a better portfolio mix adjustment benefit?

Part of the portfolio adjustment, there's so many qualities, there's different time horizons, there's premiums and discounts across the market, we try and three, four times a year give you the building blocks that you need. Now of course if headline Newcastle price goes up, we do a lot of domestic business as well, particularly in South Africa.

Some of that's fixed price at very crappy prices until the '30s. That automatically inflates the portfolio adjustments because of course you're not getting in sort of another dollar.

You're just having to spread your margin over a different sort of denominator if you like. We always got higher portfolio adjustments as that headline goes up.

That I think we'll be out of some of those domestic tonnes at some point, some of the Australian domestic, you still get export parity, but not often, it's fixed price some of it. It's the whole mix around qualities, low quality in markets within markets, I think as Gary's mentioned, China market, what Indonesia's doing, whether sort of Japan and others are paying premiums, JPU tonnes to the extent that any of them even sort of exist these days.

The markets are almost changing sort of week by week, Ephrem, and we need to give you the tools to be able to do it because we find it difficult to model sort of even here and it's impossible to model on your end, we need to three or four times give you the tools. Either disappointment or enthusiasm for these numbers, it just reflects the market as it's evolving.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for the call.

Couple of quick questions for me. Firstly, just given that you wouldn't get franking credit benefits with a secondary listing, I was just wondering how the value proposition of spinning out the coal, how that stacks up against the secondary listing, and whether you've had any feedback from investors on that potential coal spin-out following the last set of results?

No, that's not being contemplated, Ben. We're not contemplating the coal spin-out.

We've had no suggestion from shareholders. Shareholders are very comfortable with our strategy built on a world-class steam coal business, a leading steelmaking coal business, a leading marketing business, and a copper portfolio and pipeline that is terrific.

Shareholders are very comfortable with the portfolio, they like the portfolio, we're rewarding them through returns, and there's no view or intention to spin out coal. Now no one's ever said that that's got to stay like that forever.

If shareholders change their mind in 2, 3, 4, 5 years and they want us to investigate it again, of course, the shareholders own this company and we'll do that, but that is not the intention.

Got you.

Also in terms of the secondary listing, I guess now compared to maybe 2, 3, 4 years ago where if you look at some of the Whitehavens and New Hopes, their registers have also matured and have sort of changed over a little bit in the last 3 or 4 years. In terms of then sort of both sort of investability, appetite for, interest in coal exposure, either even more concentrated or as part of a diversified portfolio, is certainly improved and has increased over the years.

Got you. That's very helpful.

Just quickly, you probably can't say much on it, but obviously there's been headlines on Radiant World over the past couple weeks. Just in terms of how can we think about materiality, if it was a liability, what level would require separate disclosure?

Is that a couple hundred million dollars, or anything like that? Anything you can share color-wise?

Look, Ben, I mean we're not going to go in the details of it. All we can say, the exposure in our books is not material.

You can do your own materially materiality calcs basis our earnings, basis our balance sheet, basis basis the company that we are, and it's as I say, on the books, this is not a material issue, not a material exposure for us.

Got you. Thank you.

Thanks. Morning, guys.

Just a couple of questions. Firstly, congrats on marketing, but I was just curious the EBITDA margin of metals and minerals at 1.8%, that was pretty low compared to history.

I think the 5-year trailing average is more like 2.8%. I'm sort of curious as to why it's so materially below, I wonder if you might just be able to help us out there.

Then secondly, just on EVR, we went out to site a couple of years ago, you talked good story, but the mine seems to be underperforming. I think H1 annualized, you're running at about 20 million tonnes, and the presentation you gave us when we went to Canada was 26 to 28.5.

I appreciate H1 had some sort of one-off issues, but I just wonder if you can give us and the market some comfort that you are going to hit those medium-term targets of at least 26 million tonnes from the EVR assets? Thanks.

Thanks, Richard. I think we'll take them in reverse order.

Martin mentioned earlier in the call, Xavier is here, he'll take that question first and then Steve can take the EBITDA margin on trading.

Thanks. As far as the EVR production goes, I think we continue to see and make improvements to the underlying performance in that business.

We're still very much committed to our medium- and long-term trajectory for EVR. We're doing a lot of work to derisk that.

One of which probably the most important is delivering the Fording project. That permitting is going well.

Particularly at the north end of the valley there at Fording operation. I think as we explained at the time between Fording and Greenhills, business is significantly challenged from a permit perspective.

As we have some of these short-term issues around both geotech, water, seasonality, and so on, it means that we don't have the working room available to kind of absorb those. We will see some short-term hiccups, but really the underlying trajectory is very good.

The business, from an efficiency perspective continues to improve. Yes, certainly committed to performing against the presentations that we gave to you guys when you were on-site, and yes, other than these short-term interactions, the fundamentals are very good and continue to improve for EVR.

Thanks.

In terms of the margins, actually, it's not a number that we tend to focus on because the revenue line is somewhat irrelevant also within the marketing business. Of course in higher price environment, you would expect that your derived margin percentage is going to shrink a bit because it's more about the absolute dollars of gross income and dollar per tonne that you're able to generate on those flows.

I'd rather have certainly a bigger increase in absolute dollars if that comes sort of just mathematically, you have a lower margin, that's just an outcome. Actually, I don't even know what our revenue number is for the 6 months, so that's not something that we necessarily focus on, which I've obviously important on the mining side, that's your EBITDA margin, that's your cash buffer, your 40-50% that we have.

Within the marketing, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the EBITDA margin percentage, it's more on gross income, return on capital.

Okay. Just perhaps push you slightly, it's just more like when you have a high energy price environment, history shows that you've outperformed on a margin standpoint, and I would imagine the same, albeit slightly, for a metal standpoint.

If you don't look at the margin, then fair enough. I just thought it was an interesting point to call out, and I was curious as to why it was the worst it's been in 5 years.

It's just the function of the higher prices. The actual earnings in the metals in absolute terms is close to our sort of upper-quartile earnings.

Last year was a record, we're off a little bit from that record around the post sort of tariff and premiums and copper opportunities, the tightness TC/RCs, it's all good conditions. It's business at usual at a strong level, I would say.

If your copper price is up 40% and your zinc price is doing what it's doing, then that doesn't always translate into It would be nice if it was a margin Well, I guess you'd have the reverse is true as well. It's an interesting statistic, Rob, and one I would ascribe too much weight on.

Yeah. Helpful, thank you.

Morning, guys. Just two questions.

Firstly, on copper costs. At the full-year results, you presented some kind of indicative guidance for 2028 and 2029 copper costs, C1 costs of $1.18 for '28 and $1.08 for '29.

Just given your raised guidance this year, are you still fairly kind of confident in those numbers or could we see that drifting up? I appreciate the comments around a lot of the cost increase in this first half or the increased guidances transient in nature, but just if you could give some color on your thinking on costs into next year and further out.

Thanks, Alon. Let's get through to the end of the year where we have a better sense on the transitory nature of some of these costs, where they've settled down once there's more clarity and resolution around some of those supply chain disruptions that we've seen, particularly these ingredients around the fuel and reagents.

That is a factor that's impacted us short-term. Longer-term direction of travel, denominator is very important in those derivation of costs, as well as byproduct credits, which has seen since that period of time, we've seen sort of metallic byproducts have actually increased.

In copper business, we've got zinc, we've got various others. Precious metals, which is also we have a large exposure, is actually contracted since then.

We'll need to sort of recut there. It's going to be a function of sort of byproduct evolution, including cobalt, very important within our copper business.

We'd made some assumptions within those numbers as to what period of time we'd be able to increase sales and at what price that product was going to clear out in those outer years, which is sort of our own S&D and as much sort of trying to get into the heads of DRC a little bit as to how they were going to manage sort of quotas and prices sort of around floors and caps, or the likes, of them being able to sort of influence that market in sort of a certain way. We'll recalibrate all those factors, which are the most material in those assumptions around sort of '28, '29.

Got it. Thanks.

Then just final question on thermal coal. I guess notwithstanding the comments you've made around the conflict in the Middle East and the tightness in energy markets kind of reinforcing thermal coal as fallback fuel in the energy system, it does appear that the two biggest buyers in the seaborne market, China and especially India, seem to be slowly withdrawing from the market.

There could be a scenario where the seaborne market actually shrinks over the coming years simply because they're boosting their domestic production. At the same time, what are you seeing on the supply side, because that's not growing either.

In terms of your kind of medium-term outlook, could you see the market still remaining pretty tight because, while demand for seaborne coal might be coming off a bit, supplies and isn't growing either? Kind of how do you see yourselves positioned in that market in terms of growing share?

It's always an interesting market and difficult market to predict, Alon. Yes, Chinese domestic coal is growing, but it's been growing for the last 15 years or 20 years.

They now every year's a new record, 4.8 billion tonnes of coal. That domestic coal doesn't always necessarily replace the imports.

You've seen how imports they used to have that old cap of 200 million tonnes of imports, and they blew through that, and they're still well over 300 million tonnes of imports these days. The fact that Chinese domestic is growing is not necessarily an indication of less imports.

They are still building coal-fired power stations, there's probably just under 100 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations being built in China today. They're still growing coal-fired power stations.

Not only it's not only for coal fire, we've seen an increasing growth in demand for coal to fuels and coal to liquids. Nearly half a billion tonnes of Chinese domestic production is used exclusively for that, and not even in power generation.

A lot of the growth is, in fact, going into other forms of use of coal, and therefore the import of steam coal is still very important for the Chinese market. India as well, yes, Coal India is growing, but they're also building coal-fired power stations and are still very energy-hungry.

You look at the growth of that economy and the trajectory of growth and how energy-hungry they are, and even now moving into the construction of data centers and the like, they need all forms of energy that they can get, that's not only renewables and coal, but it's not only coal domestically, but coal imports. On the import side for China and India, we're not uncomfortable.

You will see seasonal variations, whether it be weather, whether it be domestic, whether it be accidents, It's just economics will drive what makes the most sense. We're not concerned with the demand profiles coming out of China and India.

The supply side, and you raise a very good point on the supply side, there are in Australia certainly no new mines being built and mines are shutting. We're shutting some of our mines as they come to the end of the economic lives or resource endowment.

You've seen how we've taken tonnes off the market in places like Cerrejón, and we'd only bring those back on if the market actually needed those tonnes. Otherwise, we're very happy to run Cerrejón at a lower rate, Drummond run at their rate, and they're not increasing any further.

South Africa mainly constrained by the rail up and down a little bit, 5, 10 million tonnes, but there's no big change in South Africa. The interesting one is Indonesia, which has been the big supplier to the export market, and you've seen all the noise around restrictions on exports there.

That's driven around resource preservation for their own use. Like China, Indonesia continues to build coal-fired power stations, it's a very strong economy that needs power, they're building a lot of aluminum smelters, they've got a lot of nickel smelters, they want to build data centers.

The industry, general industry is very strong and growing, and they need to preserve the resource to provide power domestically. From a supply growth perspective, although Indonesia has abundant coal, it's low-quality coal, but they have abundant, they are now starting to intervene in terms of how much can be exported.

Now, we never know sort of what that limit will be, and sometimes the limits change and the restrictions change and the like. There certainly is a move towards restricting some sort of exports for domestic use.

That does also bode well into the supply side of the supply-demand dynamic for seaborne export coal.

Great, very clear. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Thanks very much for the opportunity.

I just wanted to ask on marketing. On slide 11, you said the indicative full-year adjusted EBIT, if you purely mathematically take the second half as the mid to the top end of your long-term range, then you'd see 4.7 to $5 billion for the year, which obviously implies quite a big slowdown from the first half.

I understand the mathematics of it. My question is, have you already seen a slowdown in the opportunities and the profits available in marketing, or if the current situation persists, is there still upside risk to that number?

That's the first question, please.

Patrick, I think we're only 1 month in. July, I would say, would be an above-average month, but certainly not to the same extent that we saw the sort of February, March, April period where things were very extreme in terms of supply disruptions, dislocations, and changes.

Yes, July, and that feeds into where Steve was saying. Steve's not even taking the middle of the range, he's taking the top end of the range for the second half.

That feeds into that narrative that we are looking to say, well, middle to the top end of the range. July was a good month, and it feeds into that mathematical calc.

We sort of made some qualitative commentary around the fact that we expect, given geopolitics and the likes sort of H2, sort of some above-normal levels of disruption and volatility to still prevail, but nothing like what we've seen in sort of H1, and particularly the initial reactions to an event where you see the most sort of opportunities, as ultimately you find some sort of new sort of equilibrium in trade flows. First 2 or 3 months, very very disruptive, then it settles down, and then you're more dealing with the smaller sort of ripples.

Does it de-escalate, escalate? These are obviously the sort of important questions, we just sort of qualitatively, without specifically putting a sort of a projection or an estimate out there, we're sort of giving some direction of travel.

Of course, it could be higher or lower depending on multiple factors. Right,

great. Thank you, that's very clear.

The second question is just on the copper price. I don't know if you guys are prepared to maybe just give a view on US tariff potential and risks to copper price both on the upside and the downside from here.

Everybody's waiting for the tariffs, and I think you've seen the run-up above $14,000 copper. That's twofold.

One, there has been strong demand out of China, but most of it is drawn by COMEX and the demand to front-run any tariffs. When do the tariffs come, we don't know.

Or when the announcement comes, we don't know. There are some stories that may come this week, okay.

That is having a disproportionate impact on spot pricing, no question. The arb has been open for some time, and that's why you've had the stock build in the US.

Once those are announced, whatever they are, whatever those tariffs are, whether they're 0, 15, 30, whatever it may be, it's likely to have some sort of pullback in pricing because the market then will have better knowledge of the situation. The arb will close, and you'll have these high stockpiles in the US, which over time will be drawn down for use in the US, not to be exported again because the friction costs of exporting again make it very unlikely that they come out the US.

The US no longer becomes a buyer once you know what it is and you've got the stock sitting in the US.

Great. Thank you very much.

Very strong half for us, both on the production side and the financial side. Some nice announcements this morning around the ASX and update on our copper portfolio, which is looking very good, our leading copper portfolio.

Very exciting time for our business, and therefore we've also announced an additional return to shareholders of $1.5 billion. Our confidence in our company underpinned by the fact that $500 million of that is in the form of a buyback and $1 billion in cash.

We look forward to another very strong half in the second half of the year. As always, we're available for our stakeholders post this call.

Thanks very much.