Thank you Darcy. Welcome all and a happy Friday from Perth.

I'm joined by Dino Otranto, CEO Metals and Operations; Gus Pichot, CEO Growth and Energy; and Apple Paget, the Group CFO. I'll share a summary of the operational performance and some key developments in the quarter for context, and there is plenty of highlights to discuss before there'll be opportunity for those that have dialed in to ask questions of the executive and some of the senior leadership here in the office with me.

As you've hopefully read by now, Fortescue teams delivered another cracking result in the quarter with strong supply chain performance resulting in record volumes achieved over the nine-month period for total ore mined, ore processed, and ore shipped. Most importantly, this was achieved safely, recording a leading safety index, or LSI, of 173 and a TRIFR of 1.4 for the 12 months to 31 March.

In terms of some of the operating details, total iron ore shipments of 48.4 million tonnes in the quarter was 5% higher than Q3 last year and a record for a third quarter. This contributed to total shipments of 148.7 million tonnes in the nine months to 31 March and that's 4% higher than the same period last year.

Shipments from Iron Bridge were 2 million tonnes in Q3. Now, that was up 31% year on year, but it was down 10% Q on Q, with both production and outload impacted by tropical cyclones Mitchell and Narelle in February and March, respectively.

Importantly, our guidance for FY26 total shipments is unchanged at 195 to 205 million tonnes. This is inclusive of Iron Bridge shipments of 9 to 10 million tonnes, that's from 10 to 12 million tonnes previously.

That Iron Bridge guidance has been revised due to significant weather events in the March quarter. Portfolio optimization of our Pilbara operations, that's inclusive of Hematite and Iron Bridge, is underway with consideration of port outload capacity and maximizing portfolio value.

We anticipate being in a position to provide an update in three months. On to costs in the quarter, an outstanding performance with the Hematite C1 unit cost down 4% Q on Q to $18.29 a tonne despite inflationary conditions.

This meant the C1 unit cost was $18.52 in the financial year to date, and we've maintained our full-year cost guidance at the guided exchange rate of AUD 65 cents. To assist with modeling, we have included the C1 unit cost sensitivities to both exchange rate and crude oil prices in the release.

On to the market, iron ore prices have again been resilient, and we continue to see strong demand for Fortescue suite of products. This is clear from today's results with the Hematite realized price $92 a tonne, achieving a realization of 89% of the Platts 61 index.

Iron Bridge concentrate realized price was $122 a tonne, which was 101% of the average Platts 65 index and 117% of the P61. The strong operating performance, robust demand was reflected in cash flows with a closing cash balance of $4.2 billion and net debt of just $1.6 billion.

This compares with net debt of $1 billion at 31 December and is after payment of the interim dividend of $1.3 billion and CapEx and investments of $915 million in the quarter. Now, at the same time, we're getting on with decarbonizing our operations, and we're already seeing the benefits.

With global energy markets in sharp focus, this work is critical to strengthening energy security and lowering our costs. As you see from the release, the build-out of our green grid is well underway with the 130-megawatt Nullagine wind project and 440-megawatt Solomon Airport solar farm commencing construction during the quarter.

As this green grid comes online, we're fundamentally reshaping how we power our operations, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. We've also provided an update on our green metal project at Christmas Creek.

We anticipate producing first hot metal this current quarter, a key milestone that demonstrates the electric smelter and allows us to begin product testing. We've continued to make disciplined progress across our global growth portfolio, comprising of metals, energy, and technology opportunities.

We completed the acquisition of Alta Copper. This brings new exploration assets into the business, including the Cañariaco copper project in Northern Peru, and strengthens our position in copper.

This is a really exciting project, and Gus can provide some further detail. Today, we announced board approval to expand our green energy capacity in the Pilbara with a $680 million investment to develop 200 megawatts of firmed green energy to meet growing demand for green power from industry, including data centers.

Now, before we go to Q&A team, I'll hand over to Graham Howard, Director of Mining Operations, to make some brief comments on our fuel supply chain. Over to you, Graham.

Thank you Andy and good morning everybody. Look, we're keeping a close watch on global developments and planning for a range of scenarios.

From an operational perspective, our operations continue to run as normal, which is fantastic. We have diesel fuel that we need in place to support the business within our current planning horizons and we're actively monitoring the situation on a day-to-day basis with contingency plans in place.

Look, in relation to aviation fuel, we have close coordination with our airline partners and importantly, we're not seeing any impact from flight schedules nor availability. What we're seeing across the supply chain is that visibility remains relatively short, which is consistent with what the others are experiencing as well.

Importantly, there is no change to our guidance and we have the fuel we need in the near term. Thanks Andy.

Thank you Graham. I'm sure there'll be some questions so on that note Darcy, we're ready to move to the Q&A part of the call.

Thank you.

G'day team. Thanks for the call and congrats on a good cost performance in the Hematite business.

Look, two from me. Firstly, on the Hematite cost side, I just wanted to check, yeah, in terms of the strip ratio at 1.54 times, you've called that out as being in line with plan, but obviously, life-of-mine plan is around 1.6 and my understanding was that the near-term strips were due to be higher and then lower to 1.6, but obviously, last quarter and this quarter have done quite well.

Is there a bit of an update you can provide in terms of how that trajectory looks and how we should think about that strip ratio as it sort of goes to the life-of-mine average? Then I'll come back with the second.

Thanks.

Thanks Rahul. I think we spoke last time around.

Now that we've included Blacksmith in the mid-term, we're pretty confident about maintaining that now near and mid-term around 1.5, pretty flat.

That's great. That's very clear.

Thanks for that, mate. Then look, the second one, I guess is more around Iron Bridge.

You've obviously had weather impacts there, if we put this quarter to the side and just purely look at factual run rates and where we sit at the moment, there is a bit of an uphill task still at our hands if you look at the second half of next year guidance of 16 to 20 million tonnes. How are the plans towards that?

Given this weather disruption, does that kind of push you a bit behind in terms of where you needed to be in terms of the things you need to test and sort of stress test I guess in terms of the plant?

Look, the cyclone, particularly Narelle in the last couple months wasn't ideal, absolutely for ramp-up. What's been good though is although a magnetite circuit was challenged in the last quarter, the hematite circuit more than made up for it.

Hence, we talked today about a portfolio optimization exercise going on, which will release details of in three months, which will factor in the ramp-up, will factor in the excess capacity we've now created on the hematite circuit, which has got a higher margin. Also the 200 to 205 constraint we have around shipping.

All of that needs to come together in terms of our projected forecast for '27 and onwards.

Good day all team. Costs, very interested to see how they went down.

Notionally, the strip ratio didn't change that much. Yet, you're impacted by higher FX and higher diesel, at least partway through the quarter.

Can you give us a feeling for how we can expect the business to be performing in the fourth quarter, noting that those cost pressures are hitting you squarely, firmly now? Are you adjusting as part of your portfolio review sequencing of different areas associated with high fuel costs today, noting that in two or three years' time, you won't have those higher fuel costs?

I've got a follow-up.

Thanks Rob. I'll take that.

In terms of C1 and strip ratio, yes, 1.54, but as we have released and announced, the lower strip ratio has been through the continued strong operational performance, and it was driven by the reduced shutdown intensity of that strip ratio. As we mentioned, diesel price for that quarter, but also offset by FX, right?

In terms of just FYI, a 1-cent movement in FX is about 16 cents. With respect to your comments around items that are coming up, we're not seeing a lot of that in the March quarter in terms of diesel prices anyway, and that largely reflects inventory that we have across the supply chain, both diesel and product stocks, and other mechanisms which creates this lag in how the spot prices flow through our cost base.

We're not going to see much in the March quarter, but we will see the impact of that around the middle of this current quarter.

Thank you. Sorry, just the second part of that was around optimization of, I guess, near-term or one or two-year term mine planning with the higher fuel costs, noting that energy costs will drop away for your business in a couple of years.

Do you move past high strip areas now and leave them for later? You might not have been a decision you would have taken a year ago, but you might be compelled or want to do it now given just the change in unit cost drivers in your business?

It's something we look at, Rob, but the reality is it's largely immaterial from pit to pit, we're not forecasting any change. Rob, like I said, the big game changer for us is the inclusion of Blacksmith in the mid-term, sets us up well.

Then over that same time period, over the next two years, we'll dramatically see our exposure to diesel drop away.

Morning Dino, Apple, Gus, and Graham, thanks for that update on the diesel situation. Just starting there, actually, just noting sensitivities provided for, I think, a $10 a barrel move.

Just to clarify, are you referring to the diesel price move and not oil there? Because I know diesel is up over two times versus oil price when you factor in the higher diesel spread.

From a security of supply standpoint, have you actually had to source from any traders or do your existing suppliers still supply 100%?

Thanks Paul. I can talk about the sensitivity.

It is the $10 per barrel of crude, which is that 20 cents per tonne that you're referring to, but that of course looks at other items remaining constant, which includes the refining margin that comes through to the diesel price. I'll let Graham talk about the rest.

Thanks Apple. Thanks Paul.

Look, just to your question in terms of where we're getting our diesel from, mate, it's absolutely coming from our current diesel suppliers.

Right. Thanks for that.

That's useful. Then maybe a question on iron ore marketing strategy and just around what we've seen recently, maybe a question for you, Dino, around some of your peers changing where they're placing their tonnes from an index perspective and onshore versus offshore, RMB sales versus US dollar sales, and moving away from the Platts index.

I know you've been using Mysteel for a little bit, you also have been selling and continue to sell to traders, some of your peers don't. Just wondering around how you see your book changing going forward.

Do you anticipate that you will be selling more through the China index and in RMB going forward? Any sort of high-level views on that?

Thank you for the question. As we're analyzing and having always the strategy in place to place our product on the best way possible.

I will hand it to Ben. Ben is on the call that can give you a little bit more of our insight on how we are thinking.

Thanks Gus. Hi Robert, it's Ben Kuchel here, Director of Sales and Marketing.

I'm actually in China at the moment and just picking up on Gus's comments here, obviously our sales strategy and marketing strategy evolves as the market evolves. Over time, we've increased and changed flows to portside markets.

We also adjust flows to traders and to steel mills through long-term contracts, but also through spot channels as well, it's a dynamic thing and it'll continue to evolve as the market changes. In terms of index choice and index selection, what I would note is that there's been a range of indices used in commercial contracts for a long period of time, well over a decade.

In terms of changes in our own book, I would suggest that they're consistent with these sorts of changes that occur over time in any case.

Thanks Ben, thanks Paul.

Hi, good morning. Just the additional $680 million CapEx that we had announced today, can you just talk me through how we think about the cadence of that spend, what time periods, etc.?

Thanks for the question. First point is it's incremental to the 6.2 decarbonization spend, but we look to fast-track that expense.

The market for behind-the-meter green electrons is hot at the moment. We've made the announcement today and we'll give further guidance around the breakdown, but it'll take us a year or two to build out that infrastructure now.

Got it. The second part of that is you called out data centers in the Pilbara.

Can I have some more color on what you're thinking about in monetization terms of that or will you come to the market with some more info?

Look, we're not going to disclose the specifics of our commercial conversations today, but really targeting two sectors. As you've mentioned, data centers, who are really driven by time right now.

They need to get this infrastructure built ASAP. In the Pilbara where we operate, there is already a lot of consumption of gray power, who are also interested in green power solutions.

Morning Dino, Apple, and team. Thanks very much for taking questions, two from me.

Just to come back to I suppose the Pilbara green energy piece, you're committing the capital, I'm assuming you're in negotiations with customers. To be clear, this is not related to the broader decarbonization of the mainline business.

This is an additional opportunity you've identified?

Thanks for the question, Lachlan. Absolutely, it's an additional opportunity.

However, the fact that we've got the large baseload concept of our grid already built and operating, and will conclude that in the next year or so, allows us to then have flexibility of any incremental additional capacity. That's really the message we're getting out there today.

When you look at the bang for the buck of what we've announced today, it's very attractive. However, it will be using the broader network and we see this is really the first external customer amongst many.

Great. That's great color.

Thank you. Thanks Dino.

Second question, just to come back to diesel. Look, really appreciate the color and the comments on how you're positioned and the scenarios, but I suppose I just wanted to ask if you can help understand.

I know that parts of some of your peers are now helping federal government task force in terms of the how of potentially securing more supply. What do some of the scenarios look like for you?

Is this something where you're thinking potentially, maybe some growth gets deferred, maybe ramp-up at Iron Bridge goes a little slower, to go to a question earlier, maybe you sort of target lower strip ratio in the mainline operations? What are some of the scenarios that perhaps are in the mix right now?

Look, the best information, like many at the moment, we believe this is largely a pricing exposure. We're not concerned yet about the delivery of supply, albeit clearly at a higher risk profile.

We take it, as you all do, the best information that we get. We're working as well to secure global supply.

It's critical to keep industry going and that's the message that we've all received. On the other side, in terms of the consumption levers, yeah, again, all of those levers are on the table.

We've got escalation processes when we need to kick them in. Right now, it's business as usual.

Good morning Dino, Apple, Andy, and team. Just the first one on Iron Bridge.

How much of that 3Q shortfall was purely on weather and what's the underlying run rate that we should expect, I suppose, going forward?

Nice try. We'll give that guidance in the next three months, but look, the majority if not all of the shortfall was around cyclone impact, and more specifically the amount of water that we received in that part of the area has impacted a bit longer than what we thought, without the direct type of impact to equipment that you'd associate with the typical cyclone movement.

It was really just a large deluge of water that's impacted at total moisture limits, for instance, and some other parts of the operation.

Thank you. Then maybe on the new product, just maybe some feedback from the market, sort of initial indications around realization, is it essentially just grade adjusted that we should be considering?

Thanks.

Look, we'll throw to Ben straight up on that one. Ben, you hear the question?

I certainly did. Thanks for the question.

Look, what I would probably suggest in response is that from an overall portfolio perspective, the new products somewhere between 5% and 6% of volume. That the pricing for the product itself will reflect the market, but from an overall portfolio perspective, the average realization will still largely be influenced by the big volume products, which are Fortescue Blend and Super Special.

Based on that sort of customer engagement we've been having in the recent weeks and months, there's clearly very healthy demand for the new product that we're going to bring to the market in July. From a placement perspective, I'm very, very confident actually, and given that level of interest, I think prices will surprise some and certainly trade at least at parity, if not better, than comparable products in the market.

Good morning, everyone. Dino, wondering if you can talk to the outload circuit.

It looks as though the last published outload capacity is a little bit over 200, and we're short when it comes to sort of trying to fit in Iron Bridge at 22 and Hematite at 190. I guess there's a medium-term earnings downgrade sitting in the market unless that is addressed.

I'm just wondering if you can talk to the scope of works required to sort of eliminate that problem, and obviously there's a review happening, but what sort of timeline maybe that could be executed on as well?

Good pickup, as usual. Our license limit is 210.

We've got a physical constraint that we've been very transparent on, 200 to 205. We've got clearly capital plans to debottleneck that.

You go to 210, you then need to look at your mining supply, which Blacksmith has helped on. The capital requirements will be part of this review that we're doing, which will guide in the next three months.

Again, I would suggest that those numbers are a pretty good sweet spot for the value of our business with the hematite margins, Iron Bridge, and then the capital intensity of debottlenecking port infrastructure, which is historically quite expensive.

I guess, how did we get to this problem? Iron Bridge has been on the go for many years.

There would have been some line of sight to needing more outload capacity, I'm actually surprised we're here with a constraint.

Look, I think the big bit you missed there is how well the hematite circuit's been going to give us this amazing problem to have, right? It's quite unique to have many different options.

I remind everyone when we commissioned and planned for Iron Bridge at those volumes, we didn't have the ability to get hematite to compensate. Now we more than have that at a higher margin with no capital investments, I think it's a good problem to have.

morning, everyone. Just a couple of clarifications.

Just on the diesel part, going back to Paul's question. So $10 a barrel is 20 cents, but it doesn't include the refining margin impact.

Could we assume, similar to what Rio said earlier this week, that if you add another $10 of refining margin, that too is another 20 cents? If you look at refining margin and Brent, they're up about $60 a barrel in aggregate.

Is that the way to think about it? Thanks.

Glyn, maybe I'll jump in. Obviously we don't consume crude oil, we consume diesel, you need to factor the refining margin in the cost impacts for us.

Perhaps I can guide you to the Singapore gasoil 10 ppm benchmark is a good indicator of diesel prices for us.

It's just that you called out Brent, that's all, or oil, but that's fine. Then just the other clarification...

Sorry Glyn, we called out crude oil, but all else being equal.

Yes, refining margin...

Correct. You need to include the variance in refining margin as well.

If that's similar, $10 a barrel is 20 cents as well?

Correct.

Thanks. Then Dino, just on the portfolio optimization, I know you're still working through it all, but does it contemplate a sixth berth and an application to go above your 210 or is the capital just not come to consideration?

We are always contemplating hell of a lot more volumes coming out of our supply chain, Glyn, and the sixth berth is in there, but you look at any benchmarks, it comes with a pretty big ticket. Then you'll be criticizing me for capital management.

Morning team, thanks so much for the opportunity. Just a couple questions.

First one, just on your renewable construction and rollout. How much of diesel supply has that displaced so far?

We won't talk specific volumes, but the displacement mitigated impact is about $100 million...

...next year,

yeah. ...which will come through next year.

Then it really ramps up. The big consumers of diesel are our trucks.

We'll have them starting to hit the operations late this year and early into next, and then you have a huge ramp-up. We're talking over 300 piece 300 240-tonne trucks arriving, and that's where the huge diesel consumers are.

Excellent, thank you. Second question, Dino, your comment was it's a great bang-for-buck proposition.

We've got the buck, just wondering what the bang is on the other side of that.

Look, again, the reason why we've gone out today and it's very coincidental that you've seen two significant announcements this week announcing very similar items, I'd point you to a Microsoft announcement overnight, right? There is an insatiable demand for behind-the-meter green grids at the moment, and we look to take advantage of that.

Thank you very much. With regard to portfolio optimization, could you talk about whether this means anything in the big picture like Belinga, copper project, hydrogen project, that affects the business mix versus whether you're talking about an exploration project in the Pilbara for iron ore or Blacksmith displacing one of your aging pits that's due for replacement?

Thanks John. I'll kick it off, then hand over to Gus to talk about copper and Belinga.

Look, in the short term, our optimization announcement today will focus specifically in the Pilbara. We've already mentioned the inclusion of Blacksmith in the mid-term.

That's already now baked into our plans. This is more a near-term opportunity around the great performance of the Hematite business, but Gus, on Alta and Belinga, mate?

Thank you Dino. Again, we're not moving from the robust plan that we have into copper.

We're working very hard in Peru. I think getting into Alta Copper and the Cañariaco project, it's amazing.

We're working there. We're working with the community.

The last couple of weeks have been a very good progress, I think we have a very interesting project there. As also in Gabon, we're working very hard.

A lot of people are there trying to bring forward the project, again, iron ore, copper, global, I think we're doing an amazing ramp-up there.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Just a clarification really on the 680 million that you've added here.

Is that just for 200 megawatts of new energy or is there other assets that we would include in that 680? Then I guess just wondering how that then connects to a comparable installed price per megawatt for your rest of your investment into green energy and whether that's how you think the run rate's tracking?

It's for the whole kit and caboodle: batteries, 24/7 firm, the whole lot, utilizing the broader grid for firming capacity, and it is absolutely aligned with the current installation that we have, which is a much bigger application as part of decarbonization.

Got it. Has spend started already, is there any spend included in FY26 CapEx guidance for it?

Thanks Baden, I can answer that. No, that is not in our current spend profile and it does not impact the 6.2 billion envelope that we have previously discussed.

This will be in addition and we will provide that in our FY27 guidance soon.

Thanks team for taking my follow-up. I just wanted to round out quickly.

Obviously, one of your peers has concluded negotiations with CMRG recently in respect of terms on some of their products. I just wanted to ask what's your expectation for how these sorts of negotiations might play out on a go-forward basis?

Is this something that you revisit every 12 months, every couple of years, is it revisited on the basis of how the mine plan and the product portfolio changes? Any color there and just what sort of process we might look to would be appreciated.

Thanks again.

Thank you Lachlan. A good timing, I just came back from China yesterday, I think.

I don't know because of the jet lag, but I think it was yesterday. I met with CMRG.

Again, we time our meetings depending on how the negotiations are going, but Ben, do you want to add something rather than our meetings have gone quite well?

Sure. What I'd probably add is that obviously we have regular, ongoing engagement with CMRG.

In terms of frequency of major negotiations, look, I expect there will ultimately be a routine that evolves, but at this stage, I'd still say that we're evolving this process, it's hard to be specific about a future routine or future frequency level.

Hi again. Dino, just on the decarb program and the $6.5 billion program, probably the big discussion over the last couple of years has been how's that budget stayed at 6.5 considering inflation?

You gave a quite detailed release a couple of weeks back around the change of scope on this project with respect to installing less renewables and more solar versus wind and again down the battery energy storage route. Is this effectively just in a very high level how you've maintained and kept within that budget?

Look, it's very dynamic, right, this situation, and we didn't know everything when we set out. We've faced some learnings and some really good upsides in what we've done, but I think it's testament to the team that they've just kept driving to a number.

I'd call out just the release a couple weeks ago, it was really immaterial around the mix. There wasn't any major reductions of scope or anything like that.

It was actually trying to fast-track based on the current fuel security issue, which from an economic perspective, only makes it even more necessary for us.

Okay. Thanks Dino.

Then a question on Belinga and maybe one really for Gus and just reflecting and looking back at this project and having a look at other operators within Gabon and their sort of history there, and a couple of companies have been operating there for multi-decades and operating rail, etc. It's pretty challenging environment and I know you've got the 2030 target, which you're sort of somewhat committed to the government.

If I look back, work backwards on probably will be a 3-year sort of construction on a rail and a major rail, I'm just sort of trying to square away when actually FID could occur for Belinga to sort of hit that 2030 target. Understanding obviously using Chinese EPC firms fast-tracks it and we've seen all that experience with Simandou and others, but just curious around that 2030 target, the rail, and when you actually do need to FID this project?

Yes, Paul, thank you for the question. Yes, you nailed it.

I think Gabon is challenging, of course, but again, we're working very hard. As I told you, we have a very good team there.

Corey can specify more of the updates on specifically with the rail and what are the plans there, but again, challenging, as we said, we have committed to have the first ore on ship on 2030, a strict target and we're committing to it. Corey, anything you want to add on the studies and what we're doing there?

Thanks Gus. Corey Dennis here, Director of Projects.

Look, we're obviously in the middle of pushing hard on the mining convention. That report will be delivered to the Gabonese government at the end of this year.

Now, we're also exploring the infrastructure required, as you spoke about, with rail and port, and maturing that design as we move forward. The expectation is over the next 12 months, that will be to a position where we'll be able to have some more mature discussions around FID.

Thanks Corey.

Hi team. I know you're sensitive around providing commercial details for the new energy project, but perhaps maybe coming at it from a different angle.

Can you sort of describe theoretically how you might extract value from this type of investment? Is this a Fortescue equity investment that you'll 100% own and you'll generate revenue at arguably a lower cost of capital?

Will you look to sell it down to potentially private equity or others who would place a significant multiple on the earnings and the security if you do have those tier-1 customers? How should we think about this flowing back to shareholders in terms of a value component?

Thanks for the question. All of these options you articulate come to realization for us.

I'd say at this stage, it's a bit early in terms of how we financially treat the asset, but this is a very different class of investment for us. These are investments that have a much, much longer, future-dated, perpetuity-type infrastructure investments.

Data centers and energy consumers in that area are largely much longer in time frames than the mining projects. We certainly are looking to gain the value in both segments now of the organization, but as you guys have consulted us many times on is let's just get it built, let's get the economics where they need to be, let's get it working, get customer to going, and then some of this upside can be realized.

Sorry, just as a follow-up, I'm looking at a picture of the CEO of Microsoft and the Prime Minister with this AI announcement and obviously there's potentially linkages there, but how do you think about the total addressable market here and how you penetrate into that with the capabilities that you built over the last couple of years and that you plan to build going further?

Look, great question. This is exactly why we're doing it.

We feel we're in a very unique position where we've invested four years into arguably the largest behind-the-meter grid really arguably anywhere in the planet now. We have all of that IP in-house and it's coincided perfectly with folks like Microsoft and others who now require that in a time frame that really matches our own time frame, which by many seems a bit crazy.

We've got all the project acumen, we've got all the software acumen, we've got everybody there that understands the network. I'd invite anybody on the call to come and have a look at the network live in operation here in Perth.

Now to the point where we have the landmass, we have the sun, the wind, the battery, all the supply chains all done, and we're ready to go.

Thanks for the follow-up, Dino. Just in regards to the $680 million announcement, I imagine this is the first of more to come, and I'm just wondering from a high level, is this a strategic pivot, as we've been talking about, into just more and more power investment?

I'm guessing it is, I'm just wondering, do you see this as accretive to your existing EBITDA margin or dilutive in terms of the potential earnings generation that can come from this?

Look, this is not a new pivot. We have been working very, very diligently in this space for four years all around the world, and we're now seeing a massive opportunity open up based on the infrastructure we built in the Pilbara.

It's probably a bit too early to talk about the relative revenue and margins, but we see this business as a significant value driver for our stock.

How should we model that value in terms of, we've got CapEx going into the model, there's obviously no detail at this stage on the economics, we've got more announcements like this coming, I'm guessing. Have you got any kind of guide for us to sort of think about the value here, and on the other side, are we then just deleting any sort of thoughts around green hydrogen and offshore investment that relates to that?

I think we've been quite public around our position on green hydrogen. We're still very much in the hydrogen camp.

Hydrogen is just a factor of green electrons, and the bigger your network is of green electrons, the more you depreciate your assets, the cheaper it gets, which makes hydrogen economic. The first step is getting economic green electrons out there, and that's what we're doing.

I think the way that you think about it is, with respect to all the equity analysts on the call is you may want to tap on your energy analysts in the room next door and look at perpetuity cash flows in multipliers and the like and our expansion potential. I think that's the uniqueness about our grid in the Pilbara for those who've been there.

It's a large, large landmass, huge energy potential, very low population densities, very flat country, and Fortescue is in a box position now because we have a high-voltage corridor that runs throughout that network. What we've really been stunned on really is that the fact that the assumptions we had around data and latencies is now no longer an issue with the training data centers that don't need that high-speed connections.

All of a sudden, our landmass, the acumen we've built, the corridors that we've got, the supply chains, turn into a very, very exciting value proposition for us.

Dino, just to push you a bit further. I assume when the board signed off on $680 million, the application that was put in front of the board to sign off would have come with some sort of return envisaged.

Can you share that? Is it mid-teens?

Is it higher than 20%? I'm sure the submission came with some sort of return expectation.

Thanks.

Absolutely it did. We've been on the record in these calls in the past where mining investments will have a very different proper return expectation than our energy investments.

However, those numbers that you mentioned I think are probably on the conservative side of what we're expecting in this. Like I said, the market for behind-the-meter green electrons for data centers and hyperscalers is hot at the moment, and they're really incentivized by time to market.

That's what we have here. We build our networks faster, to a lot of criticism from you lot, faster and cheaper than anyone else.

I think now the value potential is pretty eye-watering for us.

Yep. Could I squeeze in one more?

Just on CMRG, the trade journals report that your peer BHP on top of value in use has to agree to a additional discounts overall on top of value in use adjustments. Is that where the industry is going?

Is that similar discussions you're faced with as well that, given they're a big buyer, as anyone would try and exploit that, they're just looking for a overall additional discount on top of the traditional value in use adjustments? Thanks.

Hello Glyn. We won't comment into that and how the negotiations go or don't go, the trends and what's happening.

I think that comes into exactly that, a negotiation and what we think is better for Fortescue. Ben, I don't think you want to add anything else, but that's what I think I'm saying.

Ben, anything to add?

No, nothing else from me on that point, Gus.

Thanks.

I'll add a comment, Glyn, to that one. I think I'd just remind everyone that our strategy is not new here.

We're not responding to some of our other competitors in what they or aren't doing. We were there when the CMRG was initiated and it was very clear from day one that they wanted to assert more value in the overall supply chain of China and Australia.

I think we have done extremely good job of that. We've announced financing partnerships, equipment partnerships, energy transition partnerships now, and that's really been our strategy.

When we're at the negotiating table, that's what we talk about.

Morning again, thanks for the follow-up. First one is just on the portfolio optimization exercise you referred to in Iron Bridge and Hematite.

Can you give us a sense of the range of outcomes that you guys are contemplating for this at the moment?

Look, I think again we've got a bunch of bookends that now is creating an opportunity for us to create the highest value. We've got the shiploader bookend, we've got capital, we've got Hematite, we've got Iron Bridge.

Like I was trying to get clear today is it's not just about Iron Bridge ramp-up anymore, it's about a multifaceted piece of work that we need to do, which we always do, right? This one has a slight nuance now that the Hematite circuit is producing more than we thought.

All right, thanks. Just circling back to the secure fuel supply and so on, and Andy, you did touch on this as well, can you give us a sense of some of the levers that you guys have to pull when it comes to contingency plans and what you might implement should they be required?

Levers aren't any different from any of the other big miners in the Pilbara, right? There are production-critical tasks, there are longer-term supporting tasks that consume a lot of diesel.

That's our backup plan should we need to, but as I said before, this for us is a price exposure, not a supply exposure at the moment.

Thanks Darcy. Apologies all, we went a bit over time there.

I think it must have been 40-plus questions, but it's really important that you have opportunity and we seek to address all your questions. As you've heard, we've achieved record shipments financial year to date, reflecting that robust performance across the supply chain, and we're really well placed to meet our market guidance, and look forward to providing our next update.

Thank you.