With a single discovery. I am actually heading to the Broken Hill soon, and I cannot wait to see it for myself. Today's AGM is an important opportunity to hear from you, answer your questions, and talk openly about the business. We will discuss our performance, the opportunities we see ahead, and our plans to make the most of them. Welcome also to shareholders joining us online and from around Australia and around the world. Thank you for your continued support. It has been a big year for BHP. We have had a smooth leadership transition, another strong year of operational and financial performance, and we have advanced growth projects that will shape the future of this company. All of that gives the board confidence in the road ahead. Before I talk about the performance or growth, I want to start with what actually matters, and that is safety.
Everyone who works for BHP or alongside BHP should return home safely at the end of every shift. In the last few months, two of our colleagues have lost their lives on site. One at BMA's Peak Downs mine in Queensland and one at Escondida in Chile. These are tragedies. These are tragedies for their family and friends, their workmates, and for the wider community. It affects all of us at BHP, including the board, and so it should. We are asking the hard questions of ourselves and of the business. We owe that to the people affected and to every person who comes to work across our operations each and every day. Mining has made tremendous progress on safety over many decades. Terrible events like this remind us that our work is not done. Our focus remains on eliminating fatalities and serious injuries at BHP altogether.
Let me be quite clear, there is nothing more important. This year marked an important transition for BHP. Mike Henry retired as our Chief Executive Officer after more than six years in the role and a long career with the company. Mike left BHP in excellent shape. During his tenure as CEO, the company became simpler and it performed better, and it is much better positioned for the future. On behalf of the board, I want to thank Mike for his outstanding leadership and contribution. We now have Brandon in the driver's seat. The board appointed Brandon Craig following a thorough succession process. He is the right person to lead BHP into this next chapter. Since taking on the role on July the 1st, Brandon has brought his own energy, clear thinking, and deep operational experience.
After 27 years with BHP, working at each of our major operations in Australia and the Americas, he knows this company as well as anyone. He has a strong understanding of our people, our assets, and our opportunities. The board has great confidence in his leadership. I would also like to welcome Mark Vassella, who joined the board on the 1st of June. Many of you will know Mark from his leadership of BlueScope Steel. You might not know, though, his first-ever job was working for BHP in Newcastle. Mark brings valuable experience, sound judgment, and a deep understanding of Australian industry, and we look forward to benefiting from his insights in the years to come. It was another good year for BHP, but what does that mean for shareholders? For 2026, the board approved total dividends equivalent to about AUD 2.40 per share.
That's in U.S. dollars, $8.7 billion returned to shareholders and represents our highest dividend in four years. The record highs in our share price over the last few months show how the market is valuing us. Our dividend and share price directly benefit over more than 600,000 shareholders, as well as millions more Australians whose superannuation funds invest in BHP. I hope the shareholders in the room were pleased with these results. For the longer term, our 2026 dividend also says something important about the company in the eyes of the board. It means that the business is strong and performing well. It means we can fund our future plans and reward shareholders at the same time, and it shows our confidence in the future of your company. One of the reasons we're confident is because of the way our business is positioned for the future. Mining is cyclical.
There are peaks and there are troughs. What we have is a portfolio that is designed to perform through the cycle. The world needs growth. It needs new infrastructure, reliable energy, modern technology, and food security. All of these things depend on the resources that BHP produces. China remains a major center of industrial activity and commodity demand. They remain a huge customer market for us. India is entering what we expect will be a multi-decade period of infrastructure investment, manufacturing growth, and economic development. On top of that, all of the infrastructure and wiring for renewable energy and for artificial intelligence. Taken together, these trends give us confidence that demand for copper, for iron ore, and steel-making coal will remain strong for many years to come. Jansen, our Canadian potash business, is on track to deliver its first production mid-next year.
A growing population needs more food from the same amount of farmland. Fertilizers like potash will be key to improving agricultural productivity. We have a range of options to grow across our commodities. It's a good problem to have, but it also means we pay a lot of attention to competitiveness. We must always strive to be better than our competition. That's why we remain focused on improving productivity, adopting new technologies, developing our people, and making our operations safer and more efficient. Countries around the world are doing exactly the same. We are global allocators of capital, and as many of you will know, capital will always flow to the projects, companies, and the countries that can deliver the best returns. It is why we continue to support policy settings that encourage investment, productivity, and economic growth.
These things matter for us at BHP, but they matter just as much for Australia's long-term prosperity and competitiveness. Make no mistake, Australia must compete for capital if it wants to win, nationally and in every state. We are seeing other countries move very quickly. Canada is a very good example. It has recently announced a productivity mega deduction, which allows businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of eligible capital investments. For mining, Canada also makes mine development costs fully deductible in the year they are incurred, and that matters. It lowers the tax burden on new investment. It improves returns, and it gives companies greater confidence to commit capital. That, in turn, creates jobs, it creates incomes, and taxes for the nation.
This is just a particular example of government policy being used to encourage productivity and attract investment, and we've seen similar examples in other countries where we are investing, like Argentina and Chile. Australia should pay close attention to that. Another area of competition is action on climate change. There is a view by some that resources companies are moving too slowly. That is not the BHP I see. We've been taking practical action for years. We are cutting greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations, using more renewable power, and backing developing technologies that can lower emissions from mining. Working with industry partners and equipment producers, we're trialing two 220-ton class battery electric haul trucks in the Pilbara with our trial of battery electric locomotives set to expand in the coming months.
We have an operational decarbonization target in place for 2030, and we're on track to meet it, and we'll do it without putting BHP's competitiveness at risk. BHP does more than work to reduce its own emissions. We produce materials the world needs to decarbonize. Copper and steel are in the wind turbines, electric vehicles, transmission lines, solar panels that will power the future. Government has a critical role to play. The wrong policy settings carry real risks. Too prescriptive, too rigid, or backing one form of abatement when another may prove better tomorrow. Let's avoid tinkering with policy settings that are actually starting to work. The world wants lower emissions, and so do we. The task is to cut emissions in a way that works, one that delivers real results, protects competitiveness, supports jobs, and keeps creating value for shareholders and nations into the future.
I was speaking to a group of our partner and stakeholders about the future last night and about BHP's history here in New South Wales. It reinforced to me how important our partnerships are. Over many decades, we have built strong relationship with communities, with customers, suppliers, traditional owners, and governments. These relationships are not separate from business performance. They're essential to business performance. They help create the conditions for long-term success and allow us to build stronger businesses, support stronger communities, and contribute to better futures for the countries where we operate. This year, we increased our spend with indigenous suppliers to more than $1 billion U.S. dollars, three times what it was just three years ago. More broadly, BHP's total economic contribution was more than $50 billion U.S. dollars, and more than $12 billion U.S. that was paid in taxes, royalties, and other payments to governments.
Successful companies should create value for shareholders, but they should also make a positive contribution to the communities and economies that support their operations. That has been part of the BHP story for generations, and it remains an important part of how we create value today. Ladies and gentlemen, BHP enters 2027 in a good position with exciting growth opportunities. We have world-class assets, a strong balance sheet, and a highly capable leadership team. Perhaps most importantly, we operate in a world that will need more of what BHP produces. BHP is in a strong health with exciting growth plans ahead. This is good news for the millions of Australians with a stake in the company, direct shareholders, super fund holders, employees, suppliers, and the communities in which we operate. To all of our shareholders, whether you're here in Sydney or joining us online, thank you for your continued support.
Thank you for your trust and thank you for your investment in BHP. It is now my pleasure to hand over to your CEO, Brandon Craig. Thank you.
Thank you, Ross, and thank you to all our shareholders joining us here in Sydney and online around the world. This is my first AGM as Chief Executive Officer, and it is a privilege to stand before you in that capacity. I have spent more than 25 years with BHP. I have worked across many parts of our business in different commodities, different countries, and different stages of the cycle. Throughout that time, one thing has remained constant. BHP has always been at its best when we combine great assets with great people and clear priorities. I take on this role with deep respect for the history of this company and with great optimism for its future. Before I go any further, I want to add to Ross's acknowledgment of Mike Henry. Mike left us a company in excellent shape.
Beyond that, I also want to thank Mike for his generosity and time as I moved into the CEO role. His support has ensured a smooth transition, and I have benefited greatly from his advice and experience. I am honored to serve as your CEO, and I look forward to creating value for you in the years ahead. My first priority is safety. As Ross noted, we have lost two colleagues on site in the past few months, one working for a contractor partner at Peak Downs in the Bowen Basin, and the other a maintenance worker at Escondida. Both losses are simply unacceptable. As leaders, these moments stay with us. They remind us that behind every job, every roster, and every shift is a person who expects to return home safely to the people who matter most.
At BHP, we have made progress in improving safety over many years, but progress alone is not the measure. The only acceptable number is zero. I believe mining can be fatality-free, and I want BHP to help prove that. That means acting with urgency, learning everything we can from incidents when they occur, and applying those lessons across the whole company and sharing them across the industry. It means continuously improving our standard systems and critical controls, and it means moving faster to adopt the technologies that help make work safer. Importantly, we must achieve the same level of safety performance for every contractor and partner working alongside us as we do for our employees. When it comes to safety, there can be no distinction. Nothing we achieve as a company matters more than that. Turning now to our performance.
In financial year 2026, BHP delivered strong operational and financial results. We demonstrated the quality of our assets, the strength of our portfolio, and the growing maturity of the BHP operating system. Across our business, our teams delivered safely, reliably, and with discipline. We achieved record production at Western Australia Iron Ore, which remained the world's lowest cost major iron ore producer for the seventh year running. Operational performance in our steel making coal business continued to improve. Olympic Dam recorded its highest production in more than 20 years. At Escondida, record material moved and record concentrator throughput helped support another outstanding year. As a result, copper contributed more than half of BHP's earnings for the first time. Today, BHP is the world's largest copper producer. That matters because copper is becoming increasingly important to the modern economy.
It is critical for electrification, digital infrastructure, manufacturing, and economic development around the world. Our strong operational performance translated into strong financial performance. Underlying EBITDA increased to $33 billion, and underlying attributable profit rose 30% to $13 billion. These results are not simply the product of favorable markets. Every one of our major assets achieved its unit cost guidance despite inflation, higher diesel prices, and global supply disruption. Results which reflect deliberate choices we have made. We have simplified our portfolio, focused on commodities with attractive long-term demand fundamentals, and invested in world-class assets, and we have maintained the discipline to perform through the cycle. I am very confident in the future of this company, and I have high ambitions for what we can achieve from here. While I am pleased with where BHP stands today, I am even more excited about what comes next.
My focus as Chief Executive is centered on three priorities. First, strengthening our foundations. Everything else we do depends on them. That starts with safety. It also means building the talent we need to advance our plans, particularly in project delivery, digital, and AI. It means delivering on our social value and sustainability commitments, and it means deepening our core relationships. Over the past few months, I have spent considerable time listening to and meeting with our people, customers, governments, communities, investors, and industry partners. Last month, I visited China and met with a number of our steel-making customers. The conversations reinforced something I have long believed; the strongest partnerships are built over decades. Our customers depend on us to provide reliable supply and high-quality products. We depend on them to help us understand how markets are evolving and where future opportunities will emerge.
The same principle applies to governments, communities, and traditional owners. Strong relationships build trust creates resilience, and together they create opportunities for growth and development. That is why strengthening these foundations is not separate from business performance, it is an essential part of it. Second, accelerating performance. The BHP operating system has already transformed the way we work. Over the past several years, it has improved operational stability, productivity, and cost performance across our assets. But I see more opportunity ahead. The next step is combining the BHP operating system with technology more deeply. As we combine world-class operating discipline with world-class technology, I believe we can reach new horizons in safety and productivity and increase the velocity of the business. Third, delivering disciplined programmatic growth. We are fortunate to have one of the strongest growth pipelines in our industry.
Jansen is progressing towards first production mid-next year and will create a significant new earnings stream for BHP. Importantly, it also diversifies us by commodity and geography, which helps us to perform more consistently in a cyclical industry. Jansen has taken longer and cost more than we originally planned. That being said, we have tightened our controls, and our immediate priority is the safe, disciplined delivery of its first production. In copper, we continue to advance an outstanding portfolio of growth options, including projects at Escondida, Copper South Australia, and Vicuna. Company-wide, our current plans are expected to support compound annual production growth of approximately 3%-4% through to 2035, including around 5% annual growth for copper. It is essential that this growth is delivered to plan. That is why we are investing significantly in our project execution capability.
Our commitment is to execute projects safely, on time, on budget, and with a clear focus on shareholder value. That is our capital discipline at work. Our ambition is simple, to win the next decade for BHP. Let me close with why I believe BHP is uniquely positioned for the future. We operate in commodities the world needs. We have a portfolio of world-class assets. Our existing iron ore business is large, strong, and resilient. Our copper position is world-leading and growing, and we have a culture that combines operational excellence with disciplined capital allocation. Our advantage is not any single asset or single commodity. It is the combination of our people, our portfolio, and our operating system. The world will need more copper, it will need more iron ore, it will need steel-making coal, and it will need potash to help feed a growing population.
As much as this company has achieved over more than 140 years, I believe our best chapters are still ahead of us. I am excited about the future, I am excited about what our people can achieve, and I am excited about the value we can create together for shareholders and the communities and countries where we operate. Thank you for your continued support and trust in BHP. Thank you.
Thank you, Brandon. I would now like to ask our Group General Counsel and Group Company Secretary, Stefanie Wilkinson, to outline the procedures for voting and questions at today's AGM.
Thank you, Ross, and hello, everyone. I will now run through the procedural aspects of today's meeting. Voting on all items today will occur by a poll. On a poll, each shareholder attending or present by proxy, attorney, or corporate representative has one vote for every share held. If you are eligible to vote, you can use your own device to vote by scanning the QR code on your voting card. The resolutions will be displayed on your screen. To cast your vote, simply select For, Against, or Abstain underneath each resolution. A tick will appear to confirm receipt of your vote. To change your vote, select Click here to change your vote and select a different option. You may change your vote at any stage until the poll closes.
If you experience any difficulties, Computershare representatives are on hand at the back of the room and will be able to provide assistance. Alternatively, please complete the voting instructions on the back of your voting card and place it into one of the available voting boxes. If you have voted electronically using your device, there is no need to complete your voting card or place it in the voting boxes, as your vote has already been recorded. The chair has opened the poll, and you can vote at any time. You do not need to wait for the resolution to be discussed before casting your vote. Results of the voting will be announced to the stock exchanges shortly after the conclusion of today's meeting and will also be published on our website. Eva Wilcox from Computershare has been appointed returning officer for the meeting and will scrutineer the vote.
Turning to the items of business in the notice of meeting. The board recommends that you vote in favor of items 2 to 11, item 13, and item 14 in the notice of meeting, subject to the voting exclusions noted in the notice. Item 12 relates to the election of an external candidate, Mr. Stephen Mayne, as a director of BHP Group Limited. Item 12 is not endorsed by the board, and the board recommends that you vote against this item. The board makes no recommendation for item 15, as the directors have a personal interest in the subject of this item. We will ensure that there's a reasonable opportunity for shareholders as a whole to ask questions or make comments at this meeting. However, we may not be able to answer every question or address every comment received.
If you would like to ask a question today, please register at the registration point outside the main room. Please provide your name and the name of any organization that you may be representing today, together with the nature of your question to the attendant. When it's your turn to ask a question, an attendant will let you know to come to the microphone. To ensure that shareholders as a whole have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at today's meeting, we ask that you respect the rights of others in the room and limit yourself to two questions or comments of no more than one or two minutes. The question registration point will remain open throughout the meeting if you wish to register to ask a question. Thank you, Ross.
Thank you, Stefanie. Item one of today's business is to consider the financial report, sustainability report, and reports from the Directors and auditor for the year ended 30 June 2026. Shareholders are not required to vote on this item, but you may ask questions or make comments, and I'd love you to do so. I was in London a few weeks ago and met with a large group of our retail shareholders, and we had a great discussion about BHP strategy, commodity focus, operational performance, and growth plans. It was incredibly engaging. I hope we can have a similar shareholder discussion today, and I encourage you as shareholders to ask the questions on these topics or any other matters arising from the reports we have provided to you. We also received questions in advance of today's meetings, and Brandon and I will cover some of these key topics.
We've covered them in our opening remarks, and we'll cover them through as questions come up. In the past, we've asked you to hold questions on Director elections and reelections and remuneration until later in the meeting. Look, we're happy to take those questions now. We have a new CEO sitting here beside me who has 27 years experience at this great company, and I can't wait for you to hear more from him about our business. So I may well throw more questions to him today. We'll also have an opportunity after the meeting to meet you in person, and I know the Board and members of our leadership team are looking forward to talking to you after the meeting over some refreshments in the foyer. We will do our best to get to as many of your questions and comments as possible.
As Stefanie said earlier, to ensure that shareholders as a whole have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at today's meeting, please limit yourself to two questions and/or comments and no more than one or two minutes, please. I ask that shareholders and guests are courteous and respectful to each other. I will now take questions and comments from the floor. We'll move to the microphones to take the first question. We'll go to microphone one.
Chair, may I introduce Nathan Hood from the Australian Shareholders Association.
Thank you.
Good morning. Yes, I'm Nathan from the Australian Shareholders Association. We're a not-for-profit representing shareholders across Australia. My questions are the total investment estimate for Jansen Stage 2 has jumped from $4.9 billion to $6.9 billion and first production pushed out 2 years to late FY 2031.
In addition, the project has taken a write-down of $2.3 billion. Our quick estimates reveal that Jansen will have a marginal return even with no further write-downs. What went wrong with the due diligence, and how can you reassure shareholders that the root causes have been addressed in the new estimates? My other question is, BHP has had 2 fatalities this year, one at Peak Downs coal mine and the other at Escondida copper mine, both joint ventures. How can BHP target zero fatalities in joint ventures where it doesn't have full control? What specific actions arise from these 2, including docking of executive pay? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Nathan. I'll take the first question, which was to do with Jansen, and Brandon did speak a little bit about Jansen in his opening remarks. It was very disappointing to have to push out the cost of that project, and by quite an amount, and the board had many questions relating to that. I'll pass to Brandon to give you some of the areas that he had to look at, because he'd been in the job about six months and found that it was looking like costing a lot more in stage 1. As we got to stage 2 and the cost of stage 2, we could see, given one was pushed out, when we redid the work on stage 2, it was very clear that that was going to cost more.
Therefore, we had to actually look at the carrying value of the asset, which created the write-down. They were all semi-related to the same thing. I just want to make a couple of comments on Jansen and Potash. First off, we are developing one of the world's largest potash mines, not just in Canada, but right across the world. We believe it actually will diversify our production and give us new revenue streams, and it is certainly a tier 1 asset that's being developed, which is on stream with what we want for our shareholders, tier 1 assets. It will increase our operational footprint across. There's a lot to like about this business, but it was very disappointing to have the costs of stage 1 push out as they did. We believe there's a great future for this business.
It has the opportunity of having margins very similar to iron ore and copper, and has certainly got a projection over the next 20 to 30 years of growth in this. Because of the trends, we've got a greater population on the same amount of land that's going to need more production. The trends are absolutely right for this product. Brandon and his team have strengthened project management, and we've looked across not just this project, but into all of our other projects to have a look at how could this happen again and how do we stop it. There's been a program of work going on to strengthen our project management. We had actually a conversation on that very topic yesterday at our board meeting yesterday.
I'll pass to Brandon if there's any other comments, but we remain very committed to the potash business as a business that will serve the time for our shareholders. We see this as a business that has a very long life to it, 60 plus years, and it's on stream for us. Brandon.
Thank you, Chair. Nathan, thank you for the question. I think there'll be an opportunity in the break. The President of Jansen is actually in the audience with us, and I'll connect you when we finish the session. First, I just want to start by just echoing a comment from Ross, which is the quality of the asset we're building. We have an unbelievable resource position in Canada in potash. We have a business that's going to run 70 years and beyond. We're projecting operating costs for Jansen of around $120 a ton in a market today that prices at $300 per ton. We're expecting a business that will make 60% margins for 70 years plus. That gave us the conviction to really continue to invest in Jansen because we can see the huge long-term benefit of being in this commodity and in this asset.
Having said that, we fully acknowledge our performance on the Jansen project, that the costs have increased, and there's a number of reasons for it. I'll cover two. The first is with any major project, when you invest major capital, you have to assume a number of escalation factors for inflation and materials and similar. We used historical trends for that when we did the Jansen project, and what eventuated was inflation post-COVID of 12% or 13% per annum for just over two years, and that had quite a big impact on the project. The second key driver was the productivity of delivery in the field. We underestimated the effort it would take us to get the productivity to the benchmarks we set out when we originally estimated the cost for the project.
When we first notified the market that we identified some issues with our performance, we've subsequently done significant work to lift the productivity. I'm happy to report to shareholders that our productivity and performance today is very strong. We're on track for our first production mid next calendar year. We think that's going to be a huge milestone for us because we've been investing in this project for well over a decade. We're finally going to have an operating business in Canada, which we believe we're going to be very proud of.
Thank you, Brandon. Nathan, your second question was around the fatalities. This has hurt the organization, but these are tragedies for families. As I said, we want every worker who comes to work on a shift to go home at night safely, just as they came to work. You raised the issue about these being not operating vehicles. Both of these are JVs, but we are the operator of both of these operations. The fact that we have other shareholders involved, we actually operate these. So we take absolute responsibility for these operations. One of the tragedies happened to a contractor. Let's be quite clear, anyone who comes onto site for us is effectively seen as one of our people. So even though they were a contractor, it was exactly the same arrangements. We are having to look at how we operate with contractors, though.
We've got very stringent arrangements. But we're doing a review to make sure that they fit with absolutely everything we'd expect from an employee of our business. So some work to be done there. Brandon was on site within two days of each of those fatalities. I think that's really important to make sure that our senior leadership are there knowing what's going on. There's no point in being there on day one or day two, because effectively, the police, the regulators, and the review is being done immediately. But I think to make sure that our senior team are all over what's happening here so we can, once the reviews are done, which take months to get the real facts of what happens, we can then read across into all of our operations. That's certainly what we have been doing just on the information we've received.
Yet to get the formal reports, which will also come through our Sustainability Committee up to our board, and these conversations happen at the board meeting. Just so shareholders are aware, the first topic of conversation with our CEO on any board discussion is safety. We start there, and that's the right place to start when you're in this sort of business. We take it absolutely seriously. Still some work to be done on how do we see that this never happens again. But that work is done. The other piece for our shareholders, when we do a review, we don't allow the leader of the business that is involved to actually do the review. We bring in another senior executive to actually head up the review.
There's a formal process we go through to make sure that we're looking at the real issues and getting the real truth out of these things. But both of these were tragedies, and they've obviously been hugely impactful for families, but also for the business. Thank you for raising that topic.
Thank you for taking my questions.
Okay. Next question, please.
Chair, may I introduce Peter Starr?
Thank you. Morning, Peter
Good morning, Ross. How are you? Good morning, fellow shareholders. Hello to Geraldine. I think she's up there in the front. On behalf of the shareholders I represent, we'd like to thank Mike for all the work he did in putting the company in such a good shape. We'd also like to let the other shareholders in the room know that we're very grateful that you're there, Ross, as chairman. We think that while you sit there as chairman, we think the company's in very good shape and know that you have our full support. I look forward to meeting Brandon later on. Just one question we have about what happened with the two contractors. What follow-up and support did BHP give to those people's families and things? If I could get some clarification on that'd be great.
Yeah. Thank you, Peter, and thank you for your comments. It was great that you mentioned Mike because he did an outstanding job for this organization. I think when the chapter of the next BHP book's written, I think that'll be a pretty good chapter to read. Grateful of your support, too. I will do my best to maintain this as a great company and continue to push it on. You'll be able to catch Brandon at the drinks afterwards, and that's a great part of having an in-person AGM as opposed to it online. I know that people say we love the online piece, but actually, we like the interaction with our shareholders, which is real. There was one contractor and one of our employees, but we take those as exactly the same.
I will ask Brandon to take you through what happens with the families afterwards because this is just a tragedy, and we do want to look after the people, but also their staff on board as well who were involved in the shifts and work with these people. Brandon, maybe if you just take the-
Thank you.
shareholders through the family contact.
Thank you, Peter, and thank you for the question. I think my starting comments would be just to acknowledge how significant these impacts are on families and colleagues and friends when they happen. It is clearly very traumatic for the family, and it is traumatic for everybody involved when these events do happen. We are very focused on making sure that anybody connected, in particular family groups, to people who are fatally impacted on our sites are really well cared for. In some instances like these events, we have contract partners that are the direct employer of these individuals. That does not change, in our view, the responsibility we ultimately have for putting the family at the center of our response.
So the way we normally handle it is we will put in place what I would simply describe as a family liaison officer to work directly with the family to make sure we can best support them. Everything from psychological support all the way through to making sure that there is no accidental or adverse effects to the family financially as a result of these types of events. Because whenever people pass away, then obviously the authorities get involved. You can have things like bank accounts being frozen accidentally. You can have all of these unintended impacts happening. So we make sure we have a team that monitors that to make sure those types of adverse things never happen. But the whole concept is really the welfare of the family, putting that first, and then making sure we do that with discipline.
Thank you, Brandon.
Thanks, Peter.
I think that is a really good thing that BHP does and follows up.
Thanks, Peter. Thank you. Okay, next question, please. I think we're at mic 2. Thank you.
Chair, may I introduce Michael Strakosch?
Good morning, Michael.
Yes. This is a question about the auditor. Has the auditor ever worked for PWC or KPMG in the recent past or ever, as the ethics and the profession seem to have diverged significantly in the past little while?
We've had EY for 20 years as our auditor. I think if they did work for one of those firms, it was pretty much a long, long time ago that they would've been working. I can ask our auditor to actually make a comment on this one, but I'm pretty sure we have an absolutely clean auditor with Ernst & Young, given the time that we've been operating.
In other words-
But I will ask Rodney to maybe just take a question on that one, given the topic.
Yeah, thank you. Rodney Piltz is my name. I'm the audit partner from Ernst & Young. This is my fifth year on the engagement. We've actually been the auditors for seven years. There was a transition. I can confirm through my whole career, I've worked for Ernst & Young the whole time. We don't have anyone on the team, in my knowledge, in recent times that's worked for anyone other than Ernst & Young. All of our rules and regulations have been complied with, and we've been through significant internal reviews at all times.
Thank you.
Does that answer your question?
Thank you.
Not really.
Sorry, what was the follow-on?
What do you need?
It comes down to the ethics of the profession.
Do you want me to comment on the profession?
The ethics of it, not the profession, just the ethics.
Of the particular instances with the other firms?
Yes.
Yeah, I would be happy to have a chat to you afterwards. I do not think that is a question that I should be answering in the conduct of this audit, because the requirements are for me to answer in the conduct of our audit. Yeah, happy to have a chat to you afterwards around the profession.
So none of your workers have worked for those companies either?
Could I just intervene on this one? I think we should stay with BHP.
Yeah.
We have had Ernst & Young for 20 years. As Rodney said, he has worked for nobody else. I think we are also in very big danger if we are not careful not having auditors, if we are not careful, and we desperately need them for your security to have a great auditor. We believe we have got a very independent or a totally independent audit firm. I will probably leave it at that. Thank you, Rodney, for that. Thank you. Next question, please. Mic one.
Chair, may I introduce Victor Hyde?
Good morning.
Thank you very much for having the meeting in Sydney that I could attend. What I am about to raise, I realize, I apologize, you may have dealt with at a previous AGM, but this was the first time I could say something. In a previous year, you distributed the Woodside shares, and declared it a dividend. Now, this for me, because I have got a major holding, quadrupled my tax, and unbelievably, I then got a fine from the taxation department for not advising them that BHP was going to do this. That had to be expensed and overcome. I am curious, why did you do that in that year, and explain why you did it, and I do hope you will never do it again.
Look, thank you for that. I am pretty sure all those considerations were done in the best interests of shareholders to get the maximum value for you and taking those assets out and trading them into Woodside at the time. I am not aware of the tax implications of those. But I am sure if you have a chat to someone like Vandita Pant, who is our CFO, she might take you through it, but I think you will find that BHP did what was in the best interest of shareholders at the time.
You cannot explain it? That is what I was hoping.
Well, I think probably best if you get But Vandita, if you would stand up, and we will get you to meet Mr. Hyde at the end of the meeting. Thank you very much. Okay, next question, please.
Chair, may I introduce Nigel Sandico?
Thank you.
Good morning. My question started to be addressed in your opening address. It arises from the media coverage about BHP's move for electrification. We now have a situation where the pressure to remove the current fuel excise rebate on diesel is not likely to dissipate.
Plus we have the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine that show no realistic sign of ending anytime soon. Should BHP's decision to defer electrification of the current diesel haul trucks be reviewed, reversed, and possibly accelerated? Especially for Australia.
Mr. Sandico, great question. Wouldn't it be magnificent right now to have electric trucks operating in our mines? The problem that we have is that they just do not operate in a way that is safe and secure and worth funding at this point in time. By crikey, we would love to have them operating now with the price of diesel at the price it is today. There's a couple of issues that'd be worth touching on. First off, we are starting to trial now. As we said, we run the very big trucks. These are the biggest mining trucks, 220 tonners. They run at the moment. They'll run for three hours, then they need recharging for half an hour. Then they run for three and need half an hour recharging. So you've got that pattern going through.
Today, the economics on the diesel are still much better because they run for 23 hours, 45 minutes. You are absolutely right. If we could have electric trucks running efficiently and safely, because I'll come back to that point, on our mines, we would love to have them there right today. They are just not available. There's some media piece around this. People are saying that these trucks work. Unfortunately, they don't, otherwise we would have them, and it's an environment that they operate in that's really important. These are not running on a road. These are running out in our environment and moving pits and operating environments, so you have to have the environment set up for them. But a great question. Can I take you to the fuel rebate? Because that's been out there in the marketplace as well.
When you go to the pump with your motor car, you do pay a fuel tax. We don't go to a pump. We don't drive on the roads. We're like the farmers who don't drive on a road. We've got them on our property. We maintain our own roads, and I'm pretty sure you would not want us driving 220 tonners down the main streets of any city or town. So we don't believe we should be paying a fuel excise tax on this because we don't use the roads that that tax goes to. There will be pressure. There has been pressure, but I think the government has seen fit to say that mining, agriculture, fishing, which don't use the roads, shouldn't be paying the tax.
By crikey, we'd love to have an environment that's a lot more advanced and electric right now, given the price of diesel. I think last year, Brandon, probably cost us another $1 billion in diesel costs. So if we could, we'd be there, and I think we've still got a fair way to go before we get an environment where we can run these big trucks in the environment that you're talking about. It's also trains. That's probably our next big use is the trains, which we're trialing two electric trains to see if they will operate and get them into an environment. But it's certainly something that we're working with all of the big truck and train manufacturers to get us in a position where they'll operate safely, securely, and productively in a mine environment. Thank you for the question.
We actually had quite a few of the written questions on that very one. I am delighted you asked it, so that we could actually have a chat about it as well. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
May I introduce Andrew Somerville. Thank you, Mr. Somerville.
Good morning. Just on that last question, you got a federal tax credit of AUD 622 million in 2024, 2025 for diesel. You have bought two electric haulers, as you said. You did buy 62 new diesel trucks. That seems an incredible number of new diesel trucks compared with the two electric that you bought. I am of the opinion that you bought diesel trucks because you are getting this huge fuel subsidy from the government because you are not going on the roads.
That is my comment. My first question is, why not have a hybrid meeting where other people can ask questions online? This is the 21st century. You are a company that is going very well. You can surely afford to have a 21st century meeting where people can ask questions online, and will there be a website or a webcast of this meeting on your website this year?
Thank you.
The other comment I have is, why can't we have a meeting in the city? I have had to drive for an hour. I pay AUD 24 to park, which is unbelievable.
Public transport.
If we have it in the city, we can have it in public. I tried using public transport. It would take me 2 hours to get here. I did look at that, and it would've cost me $2.50. But the situation is, you didn't get a lot of people here. I think it's high time that you looked at seriously having a meeting in the city where people can get to it and have it in a reasonable location.
My other comment is, you've had EY for 20 years. Surely we should adopt the British system where you have a new auditor every 10 years. 20 years is too long to have one auditor. I know there's a shortage of auditors in the marketplace, but I think it's high time that we ran a tender and had another look at our auditor. As good as EY may be, there might be somebody out there that's even better. Thank you.
Just to correct something. It was my mistake in interpretation. Rodney's been with EY for over 20 years. We've had EY since 2019 as our auditor. Just a correction on that one. At this stage, we feel comfortable that EY is doing an outstanding job for you as shareholders, but we do review the timeframes that we hold onto our auditor and look to put that out to tender at the appropriate time. Can I take you through some of the points? City, look, we'll take that on notice. The only reason we do these is because if we do get swamped with a lot of people, there are few venues in the city that will take the numbers that we anticipate. But we'll take that absolutely on notice.
I get your point about it'd be easier in the city, and certainly last year the Melbourne one was in the city, and we'll see what we can do next time we turn up in Sydney. But thank you for that commentary. The second one on the hybrid meetings. Look, these meetings, you can email into us every day of the week, 365 days. You don't have to wait to an AGM to actually ask questions. You go onto our portal and look at the investor website. You can actually ask the questions you want to ask about your business 365 days. We actually like the feel of having a meeting where we can talk to you like this and have the conversation afterwards over a coffee. It's pretty much an old habit, I know. But I think it's still one that actually gives shareholders a very good opportunity.
We move them around the countryside. I get the point about everything online, but the question is do you run just an online meeting? Then you don't run these meetings where you can physically see and have a chat with your shareholders. It also just adds to the complexity of what you do as a part of a business, and we're all great for adding to it. I know that there'll be some that it's best practice. I love that term, best practice. But these meetings seem to work. We have the opportunity for you to write to us 365 days of the year. It's all webcast. It's out there. People are watching it. They can write to us beforehand. We had about 25 questions prior. I think there's plenty of opportunity at this point in time. But I take your point.
We'll keep an eye on it. But at this stage, comfortable with having a physical meeting where people can turn up, and we'll have a good look at the venues as well. But thank you. Just on the trucking, you say we get a subsidy. We don't get a subsidy. We don't drive on the roads. These trucks are on our premises on our roads that we maintain. So there's no subsidy. It's actually a rebate against not using the service. The same is with agriculture, and the same it is for the farming community as well. So that's what it's about. It's not about a subsidy. It's about we don't use the facilities that actually you pay your taxes for. Just as if you've driven here today, you will have paid at the pump something for the fuel tax. So that's what it's all about.
If you want to take away the rebate, well, come and pay for our roads. You'll find the expense that you run through. I think we've just got to get the terminology on that one right, and that's why the industry has pushed very hard, as has the farming community and the fishing community as well. Okay, but thank you for your questions. Great questions. Appreciate them. Next, please.
Chair, may I introduce Bruce Bennett?
Morning, Mr. Bennett.
Good morning, Chair. Once again, welcome to Sydney. We appreciate you coming here, and I'm sorry that we haven't got a better turnout. As the previous question made the point that this is probably very difficult with the Sydney traffic. It's not the easiest place to get to in the morning. Anyway, the first question relates to BHP's history of research and development. It's been one of the companies that's obviously done very great R&D. Sometimes it hasn't paid off, like the briquettes plant in the Pilbara. Other times it's been very successful. I noticed yesterday that Fortescue mentioned that they've made a breakthrough on treating copper ores that contain arsenic. I'm just wondering whether you could explain to us some of the R&D that BHP is currently working on in order to improve its productivity and look to the future.
A bit about the R&D program for BHP would be great. The second one is the commodities that BHP is looking at to grow the business post-Jansen. When Jansen's finally coming to fruition, what's the next look at? You've got the wonderful copper business. In particular, the two things, one is uranium on your radar? Secondly, what's the process and the thinking? How does the board go about deciding where we want to go next and why we don't go there and what we're going to do next? We've looked at some of the other mining companies, and they've done some pretty silly things in hydrogen production. They're not sticking to their knitting, and they're getting really hit hard for that. One of the great things about the strength about BHP is you stay with your knitting.
You're a mining company, and you do a great job. I just want to know how you go about looking at the next opportunity. Thank you.
Mr. Bennett, sensational questions, and thank you. It is great to get those ones in front of an audience about the real business, so thank you very much. It is good to be back in Sydney. I think the last time I said we were here, 2019, so it is Sydney's turn. Again, we will have a look at the city, where we can find a spot that is a bit more convenient for you. I am going to hand the piece around research and development to Brandon, but these come to the board on an annual basis. Your question about what commodities, the board does a review with the executive team on an annual basis against a number of criteria and using our capital allocation process as well about what are the commodities that fit with BHP.
Because one of the really good questions that many shareholders say, "Why don't you get interested in these new resources?" But if you have a think about what is so attractive about BHP, we have big assets, tier 1 assets that are world-class, that have long life to them. Potash will be 60 plus years. The Pilbara has still decades and decades of iron ore. So we think about the assets that we can put big amounts of capital into that give you long-term returns with great margins. So we have a formula that seems to be working, rather than, as you say, quite rightly, pushing off into areas that might be attractive today but might be very small. Now, we are a producer of uranium as a by-product, and it comes out of our copper business in South Australia.
I think we are about 5% of the world's uranium as a by-product. There will be a time when we will have a look at that and say, is that going to be big enough for us to be involved in it as an asset that we are focusing on? At this stage, the answer to that is still no. It is just not the market is not big enough. We talked about Jansen, and we have had that here today, so that is first production will come out of Canada midway through next year. We have also got a mining operation yet to be fully invested in with board approval that is in Argentina in conjunction with the Lundin Mining company, and that is a 50/50. That is one of probably one of the world's largest copper operations that we have got an investment in, 50%.
We have also got a joint venture with Rio Tinto in America called Resolution, which we are 45%, they are 55%. That is, again, another very exciting copper operation. So we have a number of big projects. The other one, of course, is the expansion of Copper South Australia, which is a very exciting project here in Australia. Not to put aside the fantastic iron ore business that you have invested in W.A., which still gets our investment as well. So plenty of opportunities. But I will hand to Brandon, so he can give you a little bit on the research and development process that we go through and maybe concentrate that not just on Australia but globally as well, because that is probably where the-
Sure
Australia's exciting, but there are other parts as well.
Thank you, Mr. Bennett, for the question. There's still quite a large amount of research and development that happens inside BHP. We have a number of avenues by which we do it. I think the most interesting one is our innovation and ventures team. We have a team that is based in North America that connects into the venture capital ecosystem of North America, and supplies seed funding for novel and new research. Everything for new hydrometallurgical processes all the way through to exploration technology and similar. What we find in BHP is the health of that ecosystem is actually the strongest in North America. Those ventures push all the way through into more recent technology like artificial intelligence and similar, and how that can be applied to mining
We also do a lot of direct research ourselves, for example, in terms of how we can improve leaching performance in copper. We have some pretty substantial test facilities in Chile, for example, where we test novel and new techniques for how we can improve leaching copper recovery performance and similar, which is very important. A large number of joint venture interests with customers and partners across a range of areas. For example, one of the bigger investments we're making is a joint venture between Hatch, BlueScope and others around new steel-making technology. We're investing in an electric smelting furnace that we expect will be built in Western Australia to prove our new technology for how we can use Pilbara ores to produce iron ore at 70% less carbon intensity.
These are very important investments we're making to try and understand how we can move towards a lower carbon future, still using Australian ore, BHP ore, and similar. Of course, there's substantial investments going into partnerships on decarbonization with steel mills, carbon capture, and a range of similar areas. I think that ecosystem in BHP is still quite strong. We still invest into it every year. We have strong plans and budgets, and it's actually performing quite well. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your question. Next question, mic one.
Chair, may I introduce Lyric Thomas- Pera.
Good morning.
Good morning. My name is Lyric, and I am here with the Pacific Climate Warriors. My question today is that BHP spends millions of dollars on marketing to position itself as a future-facing company. Yet it is planning to pursue multiple mine expansions, including Peak Downs, Saraji, and Caval Ridge mine expansions, which would extend the life of the mines for 90 plus years. My understanding is the environmental approval decision for Saraji is due today. Is the board concerned about the reputational risk to the company by pursuing these projects, especially given that green steel is a viable alternative? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. The reputational risks are absolutely part of the risk assessment that the executive team do and the board do for any of our projects, and also the impact on the environments that we will operate in and what are the mitigating factors about that. We take those through before we invest the money into any of these projects. We also have a guiding view and a very clear plan that is based around reducing our carbon footprint by 30% by 2030, which guides the board too on all of its actions. The executive team have plans to actually reduce our carbon footprint from a baseline of 2020 to 2030 by 30%. That is the other piece that guides us as well when we look at climate activity.
There are many projects that we are already involved in that have to work to actually get us to the reduction that we need, because this is a growing business. We actually have to grow against a growing emission to bring the actual end result down by 30%. Those issues are taken into consideration, as are local community issues taken into consideration as well. Very much at the forefront of decisions that our executive and our board make on a daily basis.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next question, please. Microphone two.
Chair, may I introduce Sioni Taisi?
Good morning, Sioni.
Good morning, board. My name is Sioni Taisi, and I am a Pacific Climate Warrior. BHP, as part of the BHP Mitsubishi Alliance, is planning to expand Peak Downs. This will dig up 1.3 billion tons of coal and create 2.5 billion tons of climate pollution. Climate change is already having a devastating impact on the Pacific, altering the physical, economic, and social landscape of my home country. It is an existential threat to our communities. BHP's Peak Downs mine expansion will significantly increase that threat, putting my family and my culture at risk. Brandon Craig, are you comfortable about the impact that BHP's mine expansions will have on climate-impacted communities?
Thank you, Sioni, and thank you for the question because we all live in the Pacific, and it's vitally important that the Pacific is looked after. I will hand to Brandon on that one, specifically about Peak Downs. I go back to the point that the board, your board, and the executive are very focused on is how do we get the total emissions down by 30% for this organization. So whilst we're expanding parts of the business, how do we actually at the same time bring our emissions down and keep the business going in a way that the community supports us as well? I'll ask Brandon to talk about Peak Downs and the expansion there.
Just remember in the environment we're working on, how do we take our total emissions from 2020 to 2030 down by 30%, even though we're growing our business, so that we actually do a lot less damage in the environment. Brandon.
Thank you, Sioni, for your question. Listen, I think first we acknowledge that we have a role to play in decarbonizing our operations, and we have plans in place to achieve that. As the Chair shared, we are at 33% low absolute emissions than where we were in FY 2020. So we are making progress, and we do have a goal for net zero by 2050. Both your question and the previous question spoke about expansions at Peak Downs and some of the other BMA coal mines. There are currently no planned expansions at those mines. In fact, we actually are in a situation where we are not putting further investment capital into those mines currently because of certain policy conditions that exist in Queensland today.
Having said that, I just wanted to reinforce, we will continue to work on our climate plans to manage a responsible transition to net zero as BHP. I just wanted to clear up this point on BMA expansions. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next question from microphone one. Thank you.
Chair, may I introduce Gemma Yeates?
Good morning, Gemma.
Good morning, Chair. Gemma Yeates representing ACCR today. BHP has acknowledged the challenging economics of its Queensland coal business, and media reports have indicated that BMA is reviewing the financial viability of its existing operations. Yet we're still seeing major expansion proposals being sent through environmental approvals, et cetera. Can the board confirm the status of this review and commit to disclosing its key findings, including any implications for the future proposed expansions?
Thank you for the question. I will go back to Brandon on this one because I'm not aware of any expansion that we're doing in our Queensland coal business. For our shareholders, I think last year it produced a 2% return on your capital. We've been very careful about how much capital we actually put into that business. It's a very good resource though, of some of the finest coal for steel making. It's not energy coal. The only energy coal business that we have left is actually in New South Wales, and that is programmed for closure in 2030. That's about the resources running out in that area. We'll be closing that business and we're working through all the optionality of that. There's not a big expansion program up in Queensland at this point in time, even though we do have some fantastic resources.
We are looking though at how do we, on behalf of our shareholders, get that business to produce a cost of capital return, and that's something that Brandon and his team are working on. Because we've got such a good resource, but it's just not giving our shareholders return. But there's no, that I'm aware of, major plans for expansion there at all.
Gemma,
Brandon, if you could
Gemma, thank you for your question. I think what happens in a mine is we're not expanding BMA, but we're also not shutting BMA down. In the ordinary course of business, you need to renew environmental permits and similar things to be able to continue operations. So what you may be seeing is applications in the ordinary course of business, and those should not be confused with plans to expand the operations.
It's a great question.
Yeah, I guess they give you the option to expand in the future should the timing be right. And I guess-
Potentially in future, but at the moment there's nothing.
Yeah. So the follow-up question, I guess, is given the current challenging economics, and given the long-term transition risk facing Met Coal, how does the board justify pushing these proposals through at the moment?
On Met Coal. Well, as I said, Brandon has talked about keeping the operations going and the approvals we need to do that as opposed to expanding it. That is certainly the position we have taken on our assets up in Queensland. They are great assets, but at this stage, we are not putting major investment other than operationally keeping the business in good shape and making sure it operates safely.
Thank you. Maybe just if I can ask one follow-up question on the fuel tax credit.
Yep.
Obviously, I guess your position on whether it is right or wrong is what it is. But I guess the public discussion and the drumbeat at the moment means there is a public debate.
BHP remains a significant beneficiary of the credit scheme, and ACCR's analysis suggests that removing these credits could actually make BHP's fleet electrification projects financially attractive. How is the board assessing BHP's exposure to both diesel prices and potential changes to the fuel tax credits? How are these risks influencing capital allocation decisions and the timing of fleet electrification?
A super question. Here's our problem. We would love to be running electric trucks in our mines right now. This would be the ideal time, you see it at the bowsers, well, we feel it as well, even though we get the rebate on the fuel. The price of fuel and diesel has gone up dramatically. Even if it was economically attractive to do so today, we couldn't do it because the equipment is not ready and will be years away from being fit for purpose in the mines that we operate. I liken this to, these are not Toyota Hiluxes that we run around in a mine. These are 220 tonners.
If you look at the size of them and how we operate them autonomously and that have to be in a safe environment, you have got an entire ecosystem that we're working on to actually get them ready. The trucks themselves have to be ready, and they're not. Despite the noise of the now is the time, we would love them to be there. So we're totally aligned with you on this one. It looks like this will probably be late 2029, early 2030s before we get an environment or any mining company gets the environment. We had an interesting discussion at the board. One of our directors who's been in mining a long time said about 40 years ago, there used to be electric haul trucks in the environment. We had that conversation at board about what's happened since.
Well, that was a very specific environment they were operating in. Can I tell you today, even if the economics are right, the application of it isn't ready, and we have to spend a lot of time getting them safe for our environment. We'd love to be there.
Understood. I guess you're absolutely right. The ecosystem needs to be invested in as well, and I think there's definitely things that can be done today to actually start preparing that ecosystem. I think we would like to see more activity in that space especially.
We're certainly getting the-
Thank you very much.
We're certainly getting our environment so that we're actually ready for them when they're ready. We're working with one of the other big mining companies on the development. To show the support to the OEMs, which are the big truck companies, to actually put the effort into so that they put the effort in getting them right as well. Great topic. We have these topics. We've shown people what's going on with these, but the environment needs to be right. As I say, it's not a Toyota Hilux we're running around these places where you can plug and play them. These are massive trucks that need the energy 23 and a half, 24 hours a day. Thank you for the question.
Understood. Thank you-
Thank you.
for your response.
Next question, please, again from mic 1.
Chair, may I introduce Anao Malaafu.
My name is Anao, and I am a Pacific Climate Warrior. The ICJ opinion stated that nations have an international obligation to assess and mitigate downstream global impacts of fossil fuel projects approved within their territories. Recently, the High Court of Australia handed down a decision in the Mount Pleasant case. The High Court aligned itself with the ICJ advisory opinion, ruling that authorities cannot turn a blind eye to emissions. Given these rulings, is BHP considering shelving its coal expansion projects, which would attract legal risks and therefore risks to its shareholders and investors?
Anao, thank you. Again, I am not too sure if I can add too much more to what we have said. As Brandon said, we have planning approvals to keep our mines going. We do not have major expansion plans in Queensland for our mining operation. We have closure procedures in place for our energy coal business in New South Wales. That is on cards, and that will take place midway through 2030. We have operational decarbonization programs in place to reduce our carbon by 30%, and that is what we are working heavily on. About 80% of all of the power that we use in all of our mines on a global basis is through renewable sources now. We have a few left to go, but we are working very heavily to get the renewable sources in so that we actually work to actually reduce our carbon footprint.
Our results to date have been very good, but we have to keep working hard at them for the very reason you are passionate about them. It is about reducing emissions for the environment. Thank you. A question from microphone 2, please.
Chair, may I introduce Barbara Ashworth?
Hi, Barbara. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. I am from interstate, and I did get here on public transport. It was good. My question's about gender. There are lots of images of women in your publicity, women employees. I wonder what is the gender breakdown for non-administrative positions at BHP, and what strategies are being taken to maintain a safe and supportive environment for women and diverse communities in the current climate of misogyny and xenophobia?
A super question, and thank you for asking that. I think you'll find the board incredibly proud of the work that's happened over the last decade on bringing equality into the workforce in the mining industry, and I think you'll find BHP is leading it from the front. To date, we have about 41.5% of female representation across the organization. Your point too is admin versus administration roles as opposed to real mining roles. We do look at those, and I'll get Jad to give you the exact figures afterwards. But the mining. If you stand up, Jad. The head of HR for the group. You'll find that there is gender balance right across all of our mining operations. There may be a couple that it's not there yet at all roles.
If you have a look at that, it's probably 40-plus percent of female roles across the real mining jobs as well as the operational admin jobs. So worthwhile touching base with Jad on that. Also very proud of the fact of our like for like pay parity, because that's the other piece is are we paying the same? I think we're within about 1% of pay parity as well, which is outstanding in any industry, let alone the mining industry. My last recollection in the mining industry, I think, was at about 25% female participation, and we're at 41 and a half. It's across all areas. So outstanding. But as I say, that was started actually before Mike Henry's time, and Mike picked it up and ran it as something that was vital for our business. We're delighted with the results.
Brandon, I think those are the right stats, aren't they?
Yes. Yes.
But any comments from you?
Thank you. Just on your question about how we manage conduct, we have a Respect at Work framework as well to make sure that the standards of conduct from all employees is very clear. We take a very hard line approach on that because the culture in the workplace is a function of exactly how this behavior manifests, and we run multiple systems to enable people to report any conduct of poor behavior. All of that is investigated very thoroughly by dedicated teams to make sure the conduct in the workplace is at the right standard.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next question, please.
Chair, may I introduce Brynn O'Brien.
Good morning.
Good morning. I'm Brynn. I'm one of the Co-CEOs of ACCR. We're long-term shareholders in the company, and I'm a long-term shareholder in the company. I'd like to welcome Mr. Craig in his first AGM as CEO and congratulate him on the appointment. I've been engaging with BHP and its investors for around a decade, which gives me an unusual perspective on the company. Over that time, as you say, Mr. Chair, I have seen its reinvention. Yes, BHP deserves recognition for effectively achieving its 2030 operational emissions target. But it does leave us in a rather striking position. The world's largest mining company, whose investors well understand the global decarbonization imperative, has no further decarbonization target. The next company-wide operational emissions goal, as distinct from a target, is 2050.
Over the course of this year, ACCR has engaged with more than 50 of BHP's major institutional shareholders, and we know, and you know, that there is real concern about what happens beyond 2030. 20 years is a long time, even by mining industry standards. We all know that the decisions that will determine BHP's emissions in the 2030s and 2040s are being made now, but particularly in the 2030s, through choices around capital allocation, fleet replacement, and infrastructure. You've spoken a lot about the 2030 target today. BHP has already shown that targets can help drive progress. Your shareholders are paying attention to this, increasingly so. A 2040 target would give your shareholders confidence that the board is actively governing the next phase of BHP's transition of its reinvention rather than asking them to make a generational leap.
Not just a capital cycle leap, but a generational leap from 2030 to 2050. The 2030 target was set under Mr. Craig's predecessor. A new CEO is the natural moment to set the next one, and a 2040 target should be set on his watch. Many of the investors we've spoken to would appreciate this commitment. After 10 years of these conversations with the company, with its board over various cycles, today I have a very simple, reasonable request, which I know will enjoy wide shareholder support. Will you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. CEO, commit today to BHP setting a company-wide 2040 operational emissions reduction target within the next 12 months? Not today, just the commitment today. Take 12 months, work out what the target should be. Will you commit today to setting that target?
Thank you very much. The answer is no, but I want to tell you why. You are quite right, we do have a target for 2030, and we are working very hard to get there. We are sitting at 33% on that target at the moment, and people will say, "Well, that is easy. You are going to get there." We have very big growth aspirations coming through, which mean we actually have to increase the amount of emissions coming out dramatically over that next few years. We are very focused on that next four years of operation. As you also said, we have set ourselves a goal for 2050, so that is our guiding light of where the organization is focused on.
I would like you to think about, just leave us for the next couple of years to get to where we need to be in 2030 with our eyes on 2050. We have not taken our eyes off 2050. That is why we gave you the focus out there of 2050. We do need to actually make sure that the actions we have promised you, we will get to, and that is the commitment in our climate action plan. Then we are going to assess over the next couple of years, where do we take the organization next? There are some big things that need to happen, and we have talked about one of those this morning, and that is diesel. That is our next big one.
Unless we can get that in the environment with the OEMs, so the big truck manufacturers and the battery manufacturers, unless we can get those things really working well, we will have a difficulty, because we are doing so well with the power sources in our mining operations. 80% now renewable. Yes, some way to go, and we will get there. Those are looking very good. The big piece for us is diesel, and that is the one that we need to find the solutions for, and we do not have that solution in the next 12 months. For me, your plea is show us the next 10, 12 years until we actually start really getting those sorted out. It is going to be more difficult. There is another piece that has happened since we put out our climate action plan.
Every large organization needs to, by legislation put in its plans, its risks, and the environment that it is operating in, which you have got in your annual report now. I hope you have read it. We spent a long time putting those 27 pages together for you. That also is actually going to dictate how the environment operates. There are a few moving pieces. Our ambition is yours. Let me be quite clear. Our ambition is there. Please do not take the fact that I am not going to give you a commitment for 12 months.
We are actually committed to the 2030, and we are looking at how do we actually keep our sights very much on the 2050. To give you a commitment of having another target, I do not think it would be of value today given what is going on. I appreciate the sentiment, truly do.
Yeah. Did Mr. Craig want to make any comment on that?
Sure. Thank you. When we set the 2030 goal, it was very important for us to make sure we had a credible pathway and plan for how we could achieve it. During the course of this morning, we've mentioned a number of times of the technology maturity and there's a view that the technology exists, and we do continue to repeat that the technology genuinely is not ready. That is why we're conducting trials on locomotives, haul trucks, and the systems we need to build together with our OEMs to be able to make these transitions. Until we understand that, we can't build a credible pathway to a 2040 target.
What the Chair has set out where within the next 12 months can we commit to that, we have to actually invest in the technology development to be able to build out the credible pathway to make this real and that is not a small undertaking. It's a very substantial undertaking. It's going to be multiple billion-dollar investments on the back of that, and I wouldn't want to diminish that work by just arbitrarily setting a target without having done the work.
Well, that's what I encourage you to do over the next 12 months, to do that work. I'm not asking for a target today, of course. But what I will say is that investor sentiment towards the company goes up and down, and there are good reasons for investors to be less trusting of the company's ambition. The Four Corners reporting, for example, over the last year. This issue is not going away. I put you on notice that you should expect some robust engagement from ACCR and other shareholders over the next 12 months. I frankly came here to try to avoid us all the work and the effort, but that engagement will be coming and we look forward to really pushing the company, the world's largest mining company, Australia's largest company, into the leadership position that it should occupy, that it is not currently occupying.
Thank you.
Thank you. My only add to that is if you have a look at the results on an independent basis, we are the leading mining company on these areas of decarbonization as well. Our ambitions are the same. I am just very reluctant to put things out there just so that I can satisfy you today. We've got a lot of work to do, and we're doing that work with great earnest. Thank you for your questions. Okay. Next one, please. Mike, again, number one.
Chair, may I reintroduce Andrew Somerville?
Thank you, Mr. Somerville.
Thank you. I asked, you didn't answer my question about having a webcast of this year's AGM when I asked it earlier.
Yes.
I notice Stephen Mayne's running on the board this year because he couldn't get you to agree to have a webcast and an online meeting.
We do have a webcast. It's operating now.
Okay, but.
Yeah
asking questions online. Maybe I might consider running next year and give you even more of a headache if you have two people running next year on that type of basis.
One of the beautiful things about shareholders, you can run.
I know. I'm aware of that, yeah.
Yeah.
AI. How many staff have we got engaged in AI, and what future do you see for AI in the company?
Mr. Somerville. On the fuel tax credits, you have done this marvelous book on economic contribution of the money you pay to governments, but you do not put anything in there, as far as I can see, about the money that you get from governments in the fuel tax credits. Going back to my earlier question about you bought two trucks, you made a big deal about that, but you have also bought 50 diesel trucks. I do not think you are very serious overall when you have Fortescue buying more electric trucks and you are buying a measly 2, and you made a big song and dance about it, which your PR department is to be congratulated when you bought those trucks. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Somerville. I think we covered off on the fuel excise. On the trucks, we actually have to keep replacing diesel trucks because you get to the point where you have to have trucks to run the mining operation when the electric trucks are not yet fit for purpose. That is why we are buying diesel trucks. We would love to be buying electric trucks if they could be fit for purpose in the environment we operate with. Let us see how these other businesses get on. We are thinking about your shareholder money as well and making sure it is used properly for the right investments.
At the moment, unfortunately, we are having to buy more diesel trucks because they are not fit for purpose, the electric, at this point. On AI, we do use artificial intelligence in our organization. We think there is some opportunity. It is very closed loop.
AI stays right inside our organization. We see it in a number of areas that will benefit our business by using the enormous amounts of data that we do have on areas like safety. On areas like maintenance, using artificial intelligence across the areas of maintenance of our business. On all of the mining data that we have, 140 years of mining data, we are able to use artificial intelligence across that to actually improve the business and make better decisions quicker. That is where we see the advantage of artificial intelligence in our business. We do have a team of people within our technology area that actually are working across the organization on artificial intelligence to make just better decisions for the business. We see some opportunities. There are certainly some threats there, though.
That is something that your board takes into consideration when we do meet and have conversations about artificial intelligence, just as it is very linked to cyber attacks on organizations as well. There are some absolute benefits, and there are also some real threats to it that we, as a board, are having to keep our eye on. Thank you very much for that question. We will move to the next one.
Chair, may I introduce Silvana Bien.
Good morning, Silvana.
Good morning, everyone. Look, after what has been asked and commented on, mine's just a bit of a lolly for all you people sitting there. Yes, city AGM would be good. I did get here on public transport and made it, but I had to get up an hour earlier. I agree with Mr.
Somerville
Somerville, yes. I do like the live AGMs. I love the coffee and cake and the refreshments. Thank you. I'd like, yes, to thank you because, Mr. McEwan, I think you said that you'll be meeting us and mingling with us.
That is really very good because I have been going to other AGMs. This is the AGM season. It is almost like the duck shooting season, I think. Telstra and CBA, as soon as the meeting was over, all of you people, imagine you are there, and they took off faster. Yes, because I suppose we are a ferocious lot, the shareholders. It must be, well, we have all got to keep our cool, but we like to ask questions. I think making it live is, well, look at this. You would not get the giggles if this was online. Thank you very much and good morning.
Thank you. Love your comments. Here is a commitment. We will all be out to have a cup of tea and a sausage roll if there is one out there later on. Usually we have, just for people who are with, for myself and the CEO, we have about 10 to 15 minutes with the media immediately after this, but then we will be out. Okay? That is what I enjoy about it. Cup of tea, sausage roll, and you can tell us what you really think at that point in time. Okay. We have got another question now from, I think Andrew Chen, number 2.
Chair, may I introduce Andrew Chen.
Thank you very much.
Can I-
Just a bit closer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chen.
Good morning. Can you hear me now?
Yes, thank you.
I've got two questions I want to ask. The first one is Samarco dam failure, which you have already allocated billions of dollars for the compensation.
Yep.
The most recent news, talking about London, more class actions against you. Have you got enough funds to allocate for that, or it's already been allocated for in your fines?
Thank you. Just to remind the audience that Samarco was a dam failure. It was an absolute tragedy. It was, I think, about 11 years ago now. We did do a settlement with the Brazilian government to actually put right what had gone wrong there. Very large amounts of that settlement have already been paid out. People rehoused, the watering system and the river, put back into great shape and tested on an ongoing basis. We do have a case up against us in the U.K., in the London courts, that we lost. That will have to wander its way through the next stage of proceedings. To date, we have still a provision of about $5.2 billion set aside to put right.
At this stage, the last time we reviewed that, which was only in the last month or so, we felt that was still the right amount of money. We are conscious that that case may cost us more than what we have, but we don't think so. We think the provision is about right. That case will continue on for quite some time yet. Let's see where that goes. Our objective is to look after the people where we did wrong and make sure that people are resettled and that we look after them. The aim of that was through the Brazilian case. I think we're in okay shape, but some uncertainty still with the U.K. class action case.
It means no more financial impact for the company?
We don't think so, but until that's resolved, we won't know. It might be some time away.
Right.
But we think at this stage our provision is right.
Yeah. Second question is regard to Jansen project. I'm a chemical engineer working for BHP 25 years ago, where I was directly involved in the direct reduced iron project, your iron ore project in Port Hedland.
That's the secondary processing for the iron ore fines. At that time, that project is quite a complex chemical engineering project, BHP at that time got no really expertise in that area and got project managers looking after the project. I'm just asking about the Jansen project. Is that a chemically sort of a complex project like the direct reduction project in Port Hedland?
If so, I'm not sure whether the reason for the over budget and the cost of the production as well, because at that time, the project was for $1.2 billion to build the direct reduced iron project.
It took It was supposed to be two years project, but it went over to 4 to 5 years.
On top of that, the budget went the project costs went from $1.4 billion to more than $2.6 billion.
The project was never sort of viable or operating well.
It was eventually, as you probably know, it just got shut down completely.
As a result of the accident, some people got killed as well in that plant. Jansen project is going to be similar like that or is it going to be Because you already said it's over the budget, it's over time.
If it's a fairly chemical complex project, but I'm not sure whether you have the right people, the right set of minds to make the project work and work well.
Mm. A very good question, Mr. Chen, and thank you for raising that. It's the questions that the board has been asking. Have we got the right expertise? Have we got the right project management? Have we got the numbers right on it? With all of that, we still believe this is a great product for us and commodity for us to be involved in, as we've spoken before. I'll get Brandon to give you the Because you're a miner, so I'll get Brandon, a miner up here to give you the how level of complexity, how complex is this piece of mining in comparison, because he has done both of these.
Thank you. And thank you for the question. I'm familiar with the hot briquetted iron plant in Port Hedland and the history. And there were tragic events arising from that development which related to iron ore fines and hydrogen coming together to process briquette. I can assure you that potash is nowhere near a project of that nature. Potash is a wet processing facility. Its analogy would probably be similar to how we wash coal in BMA in the Bowen Basin. Now, slightly more complex chemically than that, but no risk of major safety events in the form that happened at HBI, which is the reason we shut it down. We didn't think it was safe enough for us to be able to operate. Post those fatalities, we made the decision that we shouldn't. This is a wet chemical process. It exists in multiple other mines.
It's a known technology, so we're very confident we can commission and operate this technology. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Great question. Okay, next question, please
Chair, may I reintroduce Brynn O'Brien?
Mr. O.
Hello again.
Great, thank you.
One of the longstanding interest areas for ACCR is corporate political influence, and in particular, the activities of trade associations. Are you aware that in the 2024, 2025 year, the financial year, the Minerals Council of Australia, one of your chief bodies, made a donation to Pauline Hanson's One Nation party?
No, I wasn't personally aware of that.
Will you commit to engaging robustly with the Minerals Council to rule out them making further donations to Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, given their positions on, for example, scrapping the 2050 net zero target for Australia and their open questioning of climate science?
Look, I get very involved in the BHP political donations, which we don't make any. I've got to be very careful I don't start telling all the associations we're involved in how to operate we can have an influence on. I think we also have to be careful that we don't start picking and choosing which political parties as well, because that takes away democracy out of Australia. I think we've got to be a wee bit careful with that as well. No commitments here, but I'm not trying to push the agenda one way or t'other. I think we just need to let our political parties play their part.
Well, look, I am asking, this is an impromptu question for me, and I am asking because of your remarks and Mr. Craig's remarks about the importance of policy certainty and policy targets for achieving net zero. You are aware both Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the Federal Liberal Party plan on scrapping the 2050 target for Australia if they are in government. Were you aware of that, and how do you propose to deal with that?
Well, look, I am going to leave it to the Australian population to actually place their votes where they think is probably right for the economy and for the not being.
Yes, of course. I am merely questioning the spending of shareholders' money to industry associations that fund organizations that wish to scrap policy targets which are in this company's interest and in shareholder interest.
Yeah. We do a review of our associations every year.
Yeah.
We take a lot of factors into consideration, and that is what we will do when we do our next review. It is done through one of our committees up into the board. We will have a look at those, but, as I say, I do not want to get involved in political pushing one way or the other, thank you from a BHP. That is the rights of every individual in Australia to actually make their decisions on. We will have a look at the policies of the parties, and Brandon and his team will make their views known, for each of those associations.
I understand, and look, I am simply asking because it is in the company's interest and it is in shareholders' interest that that national target is maintained. Threats to that target are very concerning for shareholders. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Next question, please.
Chair, may I introduce Peter Graham?
Mr. Graham.
Mr. Chairman, I haven't given notice of my-
Up to the mic. Sorry, otherwise-
Desire to speak, but I have no desire to ask a question.
Oh.
What I want to do is make a comment about the notice of annual general meeting. You said at the beginning of the meeting we will take it as read.
Yes.
In my view, it is inadequate and it needs to be addressed, and the company needs to go back to the way that it formerly, provided notice of meeting before it decided that it would have points, without resolutions. May I remind Stefanie Wilkinson that she and I have been engaged in conversation about this a couple of years ago, and the company hasn't fully amended its ways and it needs to do something about it. Her parting words to me on the 22nd of November in 2024 were, "I fear we may have exhausted the discussion." Well, I'm raising it again. May I take you to a couple of documents? Firstly, the constitution.
Clause 85 of the constitution reads, subparagraph one, "At the meeting at which a director retires under any provision of this constitution, the company may, by ordinary resolution, fill the office being vacated by electing to that office the retiring director or some other person eligible for election." You notice that I gave some emphasis to the words ordinary resolution. May I take you to three provisions of the Corporations Act, which also focus on the word resolution. Not quite all of them. 250A, talks about the business of an annual general meeting, as you would know. And it provides Pardon me. Sorry, I'm losing papers. Please leave them there. Pardon me. 250A, of course, provides-
Mr. Graham
in relation to the business, I'll keep going. Sorry. My apologies. Can I go to Section 251A, which deals with the minutes of the meeting. As you would know, the requirement is that the company keeps minutes of the meeting and records resolutions that are passed.
I'm struggling to get to what's it got to do with where we are today, but I'll give you another minute with my-
Okay. Well, let me jump forwards.
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Graham.
Firstly, what should be in the notice of meeting is to consider, and if thought fit, pass the following ordinary resolutions as ordinary resolutions of the company. Number one, to elect Brandon Craig. Number two, to elect Ross McEwan, et cetera. That is the way it should appear. If you have a consideration of a resolution, you allow people to speak for and against it so that people can speak why it is that they would wish to vote for a candidate, why against. It is not a question of simply lumping them all together, as I think happened last year's annual meeting, where we were invited to vote on everybody without any debate about any individual resolution. Unfortunately, companies nowadays think that the function of a meeting is to allow questions.
That is far from the truth. In olden days, some officious chairman would deny people the opportunity to ask a question because they were not speaking in support of or against the resolution before the chair, the motion before the chair, and one had full and proper debate. Nowadays, most companies seem to think the function is to ask questions. That happened when Section 250S was inserted into the Corporations Act.
It was to allow people to ask questions who would otherwise be silenced by officious chairman because they failed to speak to the motion. I have to say, BHP's come some way this year in the right direction by having on the voting paper, it introduces the word motion, and it starts off with, "If you wish to cast all your votes for or against a motion, place a mark in the appropriate for box or against box," et cetera.
The idea of there being motions actually has returned, and the word motion appears on the ballot paper to elect and so on. But the notice of meeting is deficient because the notice of meeting should announce that they will be the motions so that people can be invited by the chair to debate them as they would in Parliament and speak for or against them. All I want is please, next year, get it right.
Mr. Graham, thank you. Lots to take in there. Can I say, first off, any individual is given the opportunity to talk on any of the Directors. You get two actually opportunities because I have allowed you to actually do those in the body of the discussion in the Q&A, and you also get an opportunity very shortly when we go through those items. First point. It is nice to be known not as an officious chairman because I have tried to keep this meeting as open so we get a great conversation.
Thank you for that, and people can ask any of these questions. I think probably after the meeting, if you spend some time with Stefanie Wilkinson, who is our Company Secretary and General Counsel, might be helpful. Because I think beyond me, we have probably exhausted the discussion, as you said. But thank you very much for raising them.
Now, are there any more questions that we have here? I do not think there are. As there are no further questions, we will actually now move on to the point that Mr. Graham was on, which is the election and re-election of your directors. Brandon Craig and Mark Vassella are seeking election by shareholders for the first time and having each been appointed as directors after the 2025 AGM. Brandon was appointed Chief Executive Officer and Director of BHP effective July 1, 2026. Mark was appointed Non-executive Director of BHP effective June 1, 2026. You have already heard from Brandon, so I am not going to ask him to say anymore. I think you have probably heard well from him from the speech as well as on stage here. I will now ask Mark to say a few words to shareholders.
Mark, can I invite you to make a few comments, please?
Thank you, Ross, and good afternoon, everyone. It is a privilege to seek shareholder election to the BHP board. For me, it does feel like a bit of a full circle moment. As Ross mentioned earlier, I started my career at the then BHP-owned Newcastle Steel Works more than 40 years ago. After a long career across the global steel industry, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to once again serve the company where my journey began. Most recently, I was the Chief Executive Officer of BlueScope Steel with operations in Australia, New Zealand, North America, and Asia. My experience has given me a deep understanding of the material values chain, what it takes to operate safe and reliable assets, and the discipline required to make capital allocation decisions that create long-term value.
It has also shaped the way I think about complex strategic challenges, including geopolitical shifts, international trade, industry policy, and decarbonization. Since joining the board in June, I have had the opportunity to learn more about BHP and the people that are driving this business forward. What stood out is the quality of BHP's portfolio, the significant opportunities we have in the commodities that we produce, and the clear focus on safe operations, operating excellence, and creating social value with those around us. If elected, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the board, my fellow members of the People and Remuneration Committee and the Sustainability Committee, and BHP's leadership team to continue creating long-term value and returns for you as shareholders and delivering on BHP's purpose. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mark. At BHP, we undertake annual Director elections for all of our Non-executive Directors each year. Accordingly, all the remaining Non-executive Directors submit themselves for re-election. Are there any questions on the board-endorsed Directors elections and re-elections in items 2 through to 11? There are no further questions on these items. Shown on the screen are the proxy results for items 2 to 11. The next item relates to the election of a non-board endorsed candidate, Mr. Stephen Mayne. For the reasons set out in the notice of meeting, the board does not believe that the election of Mr. Mayne is in the best interests of BHP. Accordingly, the board recommends shareholders vote against this item. Mr. Mayne has advised that he is not able to join us in person today, but has recorded the following message for shareholders.
Greetings, shareholders. Firstly, apologies I was not able to be there in person today, and thanks to the board for offering this opportunity to speak to the resolution. I was really hoping it would not come to this. All BHP had to do was agree to offer the ability for shareholders to ask live written questions at today's AGM and I would have withdrawn the nomination. More than 25 other ASX listed companies which previously ran physical-only AGMs have agreed to that bargain during the current AGM season.
But not BHP, for reasons I still do not really understand. If every other top 10 company offers some form of online participation at their AGM, why will not BHP offer online voting or online questions, or preferably both? When I last ran for the BHP board in 2008, it was a surprise to receive 12.4% voting support. Today will be a fraction of that number.
The platform back in 2008 was far more important, opposing what was an overpriced takeover proposal of Rio Tinto. BHP shareholders took the opportunity to vote for me and send the board a message opposing that deal, and it was called off on the day of BHP's 2008 Melbourne AGM. The platform of online questions at AGMs is trivial by way of contrast, but I hope just going through with the nomination has the effect of persuading the board to next year embrace a more modern and inclusive AGM, where former Billiton shareholders in South Africa and the U.K., and BHP shareholders all over Australia can watch and participate live. In terms of AGM best practice, it would be good if BHP disclosed how many of our 630,000 shareholders have participated by voting in these board elections, and how they voted.
I will do a lot better than 12.4% on the head count metric today. However, corporate elections are determined by the 20 largest shareholders. These big shareholders do not attend or ask questions at AGMs and will not be voting for me. But that does not mean holding inaccessible physical AGMs in 2026 is acceptable, and I hope you will be able to impress upon the board at today's meeting that they should embrace AGM best practice and hold hybrid meetings from next year on. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Mayne. In terms of the format of our AGM, we have a preference for in-person meetings and have a longstanding tradition of rotating our AGMs each year across major Australian capital cities to provide our shareholders with an opportunity to attend. The live webcast is available for those online, and all shareholders can vote and submit questions in advance of the AGM, which we've actually had today. More importantly, we encourage shareholders to ask questions at any time throughout the year, 365 days of the year, through our investor portal. Are there any questions on the non-board endorsed director election in item number 12? I think we have one. Thank you very much.
Chair.
Mr. Starr reintroduce.
May I reintroduce Peter Starr?
Thank you. Thank you, Peter.
Thank you, Ross. Just for the benefit of the shareholders in the room, I wanted to say something just on Mark. We're happy that you're going to be on the board, Mark. You've got our support. I'd just like maybe, Ross, if you could explain to everybody what the board's position was in opposing this. We're certainly supportive of what the board's saying and that, so maybe if you could just explain a little bit, that would be great. Thank you.
Yeah. Thanks, Peter. Look, I'll cover that again because look, people can watch this live. They're more than welcome. They can ask questions any time. We did give some thought to should we have these operations so that they can ask questions on the live screen and whatever, and that was a consideration that was given on this, and believed, look, let's keep this very simple and have these available for people to turn up and ask the questions in real life, and actually get the real conversation. That's what it was. We have also had some feedback from companies that have gone down both with just live streaming with questions can become somewhat disruptive as well. Where this way it's real shareholders asking real questions rather than somebody who was sitting with one share having a go on a live streaming that takes a long time.
That's where we got to, and we accept that Mr. Mayne put himself forward on that basis. To be quite honest, I think having a director that has only one cause in life, I don't think sits particularly well for you having a BHP shareholder with that intent. That's why we certainly voted against it. We did do the review, as we do for all directors, whether that was the appropriate person to be on your board, and we found the answer was no. But thank you very much.
Thank you, Ross.
Thanks, Peter. Any other first questions on this item? If not, shown on the screen are the proxy results for item 12. We will now move to items 13 and 14. We are nearing the end of the meeting, so your opportunity for questions is ending shortly. This is a reminder to register your questions outside the main office should you wish to ask another one. During the 2026 financial year, our People and Remuneration Committee continued its focus on remuneration approach that supports the Group's global strategy and enables us to attract, retain, and motivate our global executive team. This is critical to ensure the best outcomes for all BHP shareholders. Since its introduction in 2019, our remuneration framework has received strong support from our shareholders over that time. Item 13 requests adoption of the remuneration report for the year ending 30 June 2026.
Item 14 seeks approval for equity awards to the CEO. This year, these awards are being made under the Cash and Deferred Plan and Long Term Incentive Plan. Are there any questions on items 13 and 14? If there are no further questions on these items, shown on the screen are the proxy results for items 13 and items 14. Item 15 seeks approval of potential leaving entitlements. Australian law restricts the benefits that can be given without shareholder approval to individuals who hold or have held in the last three years a managerial or executive office on cessation of their employment or retirement from the office with BHP Group Limited or another group entity. Shareholder approval was last obtained at the 2023 AGM for three years and till the conclusion of this year's AGM.
Item 15 seeks to refresh the approval for a further three years on the same basis until the conclusion of BHP's 2029 AGM. The details of this are set out in the notice of the meeting. Are there any questions on item 15?
Chair, may I reintroduce Bruce Bennett?
Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Chair, actually it is not a question on item 15, but it is something that has come up in the media this morning, and that relates to the difficulty that Fortescue is having in its discussions with China in selling its iron ore, and I just wonder how BHP is managing the change in attitude to China in terms of the way they want to buy the iron ore. Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Look, our biggest customer are in China. We have had a relationship with these parties for over, what, nearly 40 years. So we have got very strong relationships. But we do enter into now what seems to be an annual negotiation with the buying group in China called CMRG. You are seeing all of the companies at some stage having to go through that negotiation. I will not make any comment on any other firm, but we went through that about five months ago. We will position ourselves to be ready for the next negotiation. But I say that our relationships, I think, are very positive with China, but they are a very, very big and powerful purchasing organization. These commercial negotiations happen every year. That is what you see emerging in the paper. Be the facts right or wrong, those negotiations do happen.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you for your question. Just taking us back to item number 15. On the screen are the proxy results for this item. Stefanie, are there any other registered questions?
Yes, we've got one more.
We have one more question. Thank you.
Chair, may I introduce Margaret Gilchrist?
Thank you very much, Margaret.
Sorry. My plane was canceled, so I've just sort of rushed in at the last moment. Margaret Gilchrist. My question's about water. Professor Irene Watson, in her submission to the Roxby Downs Amendment Act in June 2026, stated, "Water is sacred. It flows and connects country, and we all have a responsibility to ensure its ongoing health for all life that depends on water to survive." The sacred and unique mound springs near Wiptoonbulka, also known as Hermit Hill in the Lake Eyre Basin area, are of world heritage value. Once flowing freely, providing much needed water to this desert environment, are now barely existing. Each year we see more and more springs become extinct. Already the water table has dropped 10 meters over a vast area.
Submissions from Arabana and Ngarrindjeri traditional owners who host special water licenses for the extraction of artesian water from Borefield A and Borefield B areas have clearly stated a request to close Borefield A immediately, as have many other submissions from knowledgeable parties. My question today to BHP management and the shareholders is Borefield A currently extracts about 4 million liters per day of water. Borefield B extracts 36 million liters per day. The cap limit for both A and B is 42 million liters per day. BHP on its website has publicly and repeatedly committed over many years to cease extraction from Borefield A by 2030, not 2036, which is 10 years away. So why not cease the 4 million liters extraction from Borefield A now, temporarily add it to Borefield B if needs be, and close Borefield A immediately?
Some of these springs will be lost to the world forever, but we must try to reverse further damage while we can. To transfer, the cost would be minimum. It's a win-win situation, a win to the shareholders and a win for the environment. That's my question.
Thank you very much.
My pleasure.
A very relevant question for what is going on in our environment, so I thank you for asking it.
Thank you.
Water is an integral part of what we do absolutely every day, and we depend on water access and cannot operate without it. Our Water Stewardship Position Statement outlines our vision for water sources worldwide by 2030. I am going to ask our CEO to actually pick up on your specific item, but we are looking to find other sources of water that are much lower grade sources. For example, seawater through desalination plants, which we run a number of, rather than using high quality water, which is what you are talking about. Thank you very much. But Brandon,
Thank you.
have you got anything you would like to say?
Thank you, and thank you for the question. I think first, we want to acknowledge the point you are referencing, in terms of the significance of the Mound Springs, the value, the heritage value, and the environmental significance of them. In addition, I think just when you look at our operations in South Australia, we extract water from the Great Artesian Basin. The plans we have currently is to work to put in place the Northern Water Project. We are working together with the South Australian government to actually put in place infrastructure that would provide desalinated water through to these operations. That is an active piece of work that is underway. In doing that, we will be able to completely replace drawing any terrestrial water from the Artesian Basin, and in doing that, then provide the ultimate protection through to the Mound Springs you are referencing.
That is something that is an active piece of work, and we look forward to keeping you up to date on that over the coming years.
Is it possible to take an extra four from BHP in the meantime?
That is something I'd have to reference with our technical team to be able to answer it. If I step back from that level of detail, I wanted to provide you some assurance that as BHP, we're working on a plan to limit altogether terrestrial use from the basin. Because in doing that, then we have zero impact on those entities.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for the question. If there are no other questions, this brings us to the end of our items of business. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for attending today and also asking questions in a good spirit, and I think they were very business-focused. I think it has been a very good meeting. We value your comments and your feedback. The poll will close in five minutes after the conclusion of this meeting, so if you have not already done so, please complete your voting now. Results of the meeting will be announced to the stock exchanges shortly after the conclusion of today's meeting and will be published on our website. One of the questions was about coming and having a cup of tea with you.
We now invite you to join the board and management team for refreshments and a great opportunity to ask any other questions and meet the executive team and the board. Ladies and gentlemen, I now declare the meeting closed subject to finalization of the poll, and thank you very much for joining us today. Thank you.