Good morning, everyone, and a very warm welcome to Woodside's 2025 Annual General Meeting. I am informed that a quorum is present and formally declare the meeting open. I also open the poll for voting on all items of business. Can I begin by acknowledging the Whadjuk people of the Noongar Nation as the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today and pay my respects to elders past, present, and emerging? For those of you in the room today, please familiarize yourself with the evacuation procedures that hopefully will be on the screen shortly, which will apply in the event of an emergency. Today's event is a valuable opportunity for Woodside's board and management to hear directly from our shareholders and respond to your questions.
I'm joined on stage this morning by our Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Meg O'Neill, and Group Company Secretary, Damien Gare. Every member of Woodside's Board of Directors is also here in the room. Nick Henry and Anthony Hodge, representing our auditors, PwC, are also present today. After the meeting, shareholders are invited to join directors and our executive leadership team for light refreshments. This year, we'll take shareholder questions on all items of business in one Q&A session. We want to give as many shareholders as possible an opportunity to be heard. So please keep your questions brief, ask no more than two questions at a time, and avoid repeating issues or raising matters that have already been covered. Only shareholders, their attorneys, proxies, and authorized company representatives are entitled to speak and vote at this meeting.
Shareholders or proxy holders in the meeting room that would like to ask questions can do so by going to the question registration desk at the back of the meeting room. The question registration desk will remain open during the meeting, and you may register your questions at any time. You'll then be called the appropriate time to ask your question at one of the microphone stands. If you have any mobility issues, please raise your hand for assistance with your question registration. If you're a shareholder or proxy holder joining online, please start submitting any questions now. You can do this through the same platform you're watching the webcast on. Instructions for submitting written questions online are shown on the screen now, and instructions for submitting verbal questions online will be shown shortly.
Just to be clear, this morning is a great opportunity for shareholders, particularly those who have taken the time to attend in person, to ask questions of the board, management, and vote on resolutions. Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. You are free to make a speech, but not at this Woodside AGM. On behalf of the board, I'd like to update you on Woodside's strategies and our progress against those strategies. Against the backdrop of geopolitical and market uncertainty and a complex energy transition, investors are looking for Woodside to provide strategic clarity and resilience. Our shareholders want confidence that when Woodside sets financial, project, and sustainability targets, we have the plan and capability to deliver on them. Our performance over the past year has demonstrated once again that this is the case.
Strong returns from our base business, disciplined cost management, and the sell-downs of equity in our Scarborough Energy Project delivered full-year net profit after tax of $3.6 billion and underlying net profit after tax of $2.9 billion. This allowed us once again to return dividends to shareholders at the top end of our target payout range, with a 2024 full-year dividend of $1.22 per share. Indeed, since Woodside's merger with the BHP's petroleum business in 2022, we've returned more than $9.7 billion to our shareholders as dividends. Our strong balance sheet enables us to continue rewarding shareholders during a period of high capital expenditure as we take forward the major projects that we are confident will deliver Woodside's next wave of value creation.
Major projects under construction at Beaumont New Ammonia, Scarborough, Trion, and Louisiana LNG will move into production over the next few years, transitioning Woodside from a capital-intensive phase to an extended period of substantial free cash flows. As Meg noted last week when announcing our decision to take forward Louisiana LNG, we forecast Woodside's annual portfolio sales volumes to be almost 50% higher in the 2030s than they are today, and annual net operating cash increasing to over $8 billion in this period. This would represent a step change in value creation and provide us with additional options to reward shareholders. As these figures demonstrate, we reward investors today through strong dividends while investing in high-quality, diverse portfolio to create future value and position us to successfully navigate the energy transition. Our shareholders will benefit from Woodside's proven track record of operational excellence, world-class project delivery, and financial discipline.
It is a combination that distinguishes Woodside among our peers and takes on increasing importance in the current global environment. The larger, more diverse, and resilient Woodside that emerges by the end of this decade will be well positioned to deliver enduring shareholder value as the energy transition unfolds. We are determined for Woodside to play a constructive role in the global response to climate change and are taking meaningful steps to achieve this. At the same time, our climate strategy is well suited for current political and market realities, which indicates the energy transition is likely to unfold in a way that is not linear or uniform across the globe. We are operating a complex business and making significant decisions at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, with the energy transition central to that.
While the importance of decarbonizing the world to mitigate the impacts of climate change is not debated, the how is. It is not a simple task to provide reliable, affordable, and zero-emissions energy to consumers and businesses within a short time. It is made all the harder when opportunities to achieve real emissions reduction from coal to gas switching or carbon capture and storage are taken off the table. Right now, in Australia, approximately 60% of power generation comes from coal and gas. In the past couple of weeks, the Australian Energy Market Operator and large energy users in Australia have all made the case that gas will continue to be an important part of the energy mix for many years to come. The chart that I've just put up shows why.
This was the energy generation mix on the South West Interconnected Grid in Western Australia at 6:30 P.M. on the 20th of January this year, and it was peak energy demand. It was 6:30 P.M. on a hot summer's day in Western Australia with little wind, and the sun was setting, and peak energy demand kicked in. Gas has been dispatched to meet demand, providing more than half of the power needed to keep lights on, air conditioners running, and charge those EVs that people want to drive the next day. So it's not easy. Renewables are growing, but there are real costs to integrate these into systems, and of course, there are reliability issues, which, again, we've seen in recent days. Investors, manufacturers, and consumers need an open and honest approach to the energy transition, including what the trade-offs will be and how it will impact them.
Australia needs an energy policy which is clear in its commitment to net zero by 2050, but also achieves affordability and reliability, maintaining our domestic energy advantage and significant export income. Full implementation of the Albanese government's Future Gas Strategy can play a key role in this approach by supporting energy security and decarbonization in Australia and our region. Woodside's approach balances ambition with discipline and achievability. Importantly, we only set targets where we have identified a pathway to meet them. We have not walked back our climate targets and commitments. As outlined in our 2024 climate update, we are making good progress towards the targets we have set. We will, of course, continue listening to our shareholders who have diverse views and take your feedback into account as we evolve our approach.
Woodside's board and management held more than 250 climate-related meetings with investors in 2024, and you have my undertaking that we will continue our meaningful engagement on this important topic. As we set the strategic framework for Woodside to deliver enduring value through the energy transition, we are ensuring the board has the right balance of expertise, experience, and tenure to keep pace with our growing footprint and broader range of activities. Woodside has been actively reviewing the membership of the board, appointing six directors since 2020, with significant professional experience in our industry and other related fields. We are balancing this with the continuity and corporate memory provided by our longest-serving directors. The three directors offering themselves for re-election or election today, Ann Pickard, Ben Wyatt, and Tony O'Neill, bring complementary skills and experience that collectively strengthen our board, and I commend Ann Pickard, Ben Wyatt, and Tony O'Neill to you.
We are fortunate to have a skilled and dedicated executive team that is led superbly by our Chief Executive Officer, Meg O'Neill. I'd like to thank Meg O'Neill and everyone at Woodside for another outstanding year. I'd also like to thank you, our shareholders, for continuing to put your trust in Woodside. I'm confident the decisions we are making today will reap significant long-term benefits for our shareholders as we build a resilient, cash-generative business that is well positioned to deliver enduring value through the energy transition. As I hand over to Meg O'Neill for her address, please take a moment to watch this video highlighting our achievements over the past year. Thank you very much.
We are Woodside Energy. Supplying gas to the world, that's my job. We are all very proud of the success of Sangomar. We set a great standard in a new industry for this country. The Scarborough Energy Project is a major gas field that can supply energy to W.A. for decades to come. There's a massive opportunity to build an LNG footprint in the United States, mirroring what we've done here in Australia. With this investment, Woodside has an early-mover advantage in the growing lower-carbon ammonia market. We are Woodside Energy.
Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us in person and online. Watching that video is a great reminder of our many achievements since we met in this room a year ago. It also signals the transformative period underway as we lay the foundations for Woodside's next chapter of growth and value. As Richard Goyder noted, our shareholders can have confidence in Woodside's considered, disciplined strategy to thrive through the energy transition. You can be equally assured that we are delivering against all elements of this strategy. You can be equally assured that we are delivering against all elements of this strategy by providing energy to meet growing demand, creating and returning shareholder value, and conducting our business sustainably. We are doing what we say we will do, meeting our commitments to customers, investors, and the broader community. Woodside's operational excellence has been on full display over the past year.
Why don't we play that video again, please?
Gas, like the natural gas produced by Australia's Woodside, helps meet one of the great challenges facing the transition to a lower-carbon world by providing the world's growing population a secure source of everyday energy as new energy products and lower-carbon technologies are developed. Reliable energy for today, investing in new energy for tomorrow. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
Those of you in front.
Footy. It's part of our culture. It ignites our passion and brings us together. As a proud major sponsor of the Fremantle Football Club, Woodside supports local footy at all levels, from community clubrooms to floodlit stadiums, so it can thrive throughout W.A. Support local footy from grassroots to greatness. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
Look, as Richard Goyder said, we are not inclined to tolerate disruptions. We're happy to field your questions, but we've got plenty of those videos. Woodside's operational excellence has been on full display over the past year, with record annual production driven by strong reliability at our Australian LNG assets and outstanding early performance from our Sangomar project.
Gas, like the natural gas produced by Australia's Woodside, helps meet one of the great challenges facing the transition to more renewable energy, like wind and solar, because gas can provide a reliable source of energy for when renewables can't meet demand. Supporting renewables by backing them with gas. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company. Gas, like the natural gas produced by Australia's Woodside, helps meet one of the great challenges facing the transition to a lower-carbon world by providing the world's growing population a secure source of everyday energy as new energy products and lower-carbon technologies are developed. Reliable energy for today, investing in new energy for tomorrow. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
Let me again say that if you want to have a conversation about climate change, we welcome those questions, but there are a lot of people who have taken time out of their busy schedules to be here at this AGM. I would encourage you to be respectful of those. Just as pleasing has been our ability to match increased production with reduced unit operating costs, a great achievement given inflationary pressures in Australia and globally. While delivering this strong performance across our base business, we are also executing all of our major growth projects to budget and schedule. These include our Scarborough Energy project offshore Western Australia, which is now more than 80% complete and on track for first LNG cargo in the second half of 2026. Scarborough is one of the most cost-competitive LNG projects under construction.
With near-zero reservoir CO2 and efficient facilities, Scarborough LNG will also be one of the lowest carbon intensity LNGs delivered to customers in North Asia. It has already attracted quality customers and joint venture partners that will underpin its value to Woodside shareholders for years to come. The decision by major Japanese energy companies JERA and LNG Japan to take equity in Scarborough demonstrates they share Woodside's confidence in long-term demand from this world-class project. We are making equally good progress on our Trion project offshore Mexico. Let's play the doctors' video again, please.
Gas, like the natural gas produced by Australia's Woodside, helps meet one of the great challenges facing the transition to a lower-carbon world by providing the world's growing population a secure source of everyday energy as new energy products and lower-carbon technologies are developed. Reliable energy for today, investing in new energy for tomorrow. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
We are making equally good progress on our Trion project offshore Mexico, which is now more than 25% complete and on track for first oil in 2026.
Footy. It's part of our culture. It ignites our passion and brings us together. As a proud major sponsor of the Fremantle Football Club, Woodside supports local footy at all levels, from community clubrooms to floodlit stadiums, so it can thrive throughout W.A. Support local footy from grassroots to greatness. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
Anyone else? As I said, we've got lots of videos. And again, I'd ask you to please be respectful of the other actual shareholders in the room who have a keen interest in understanding what we're doing to generate value for them. By the time Trion starts production, we will be well progressed towards the first cargo from our Louisiana LNG project on the U.S. Gulf Coast, on which we took a final investment decision last week. Louisiana LNG is a game changer for Woodside, positioning our company as a global LNG powerhouse capable of delivering enduring shareholder returns.
Gas, like the natural gas produced by Australia's Woodside, helps meet one of the great challenges facing the transition to more renewable energy, like wind and solar, because gas can provide a reliable source of energy for when renewables can't meet demand. Supporting renewables by backing them with gas. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
By adding Louisiana LNG to our established Australian LNG business, Woodside expects to be delivering approximately 24 million tons of LNG each year in the 2030s and operating more than 5% of global supply. We will be able to serve a growing global base of customers across the Pacific and Atlantic basins. Oh, really? We will be able to serve a growing global base of customers across the Pacific and Atlantic basins as demand for energy from secure, reliable suppliers like Woodside continues to increase. Since early 2024, we have signed long-term agreements with major energy customers in Asia and Europe for supply of more than 45 million tons of LNG from Woodside's global portfolio. Let's watch that doctors' video again.
Footy. It's part of our culture. It ignites our passion and brings us together. As a proud major sponsor of the Fremantle Football Club, Woodside supports local footy at all levels, from community clubrooms to floodlit stadiums, so it can thrive throughout W.A. Support local footy from grassroots to greatness. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
All right, just to remind everybody where we were, 45 million tons of LNG contracted for long-term supply. Contracts signed during the past two months with China Resources and Uniper will see Woodside's LNG delivered into China and Europe into the 2040s. This demonstrates robust long-term demand for our core product as countries around the world seek to meet both their energy security.
Gas, like the natural gas produced by Australia's Woodside, helps meet one of the great challenges facing the transition to more renewable energy, like wind and solar, because gas can provide a reliable source of energy for when renewables can't meet demand. Supporting renewables by backing them with gas. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
I wish folks would have watched that video because it really illustrates the point we're trying to make, that gas is a natural partner for renewables through the transition. Nevertheless, the ability, and it gets to the next point in my speech, the ability of gas to provide reliable base load power at half the life cycle emissions of coal makes it ideally suited for the dual purpose of energy security and decarbonization. Our strong balance sheet allows us to invest in new value-creating growth projects while also returning value to shareholders today. As Richard Goyder noted, in 2024, we once again delivered a full-year, fully-franked dividend at a payout ratio of 80%. This continues our decade-long track record of paying shareholder dividends at the top end of our range.
In recent months, we have streamlined our portfolio through an agreed Australian asset swap with Chevron and divestment of our producing assets in Trinidad and Tobago. We have also reduced our 2025 spend across exploration and new energy by more than $150 million. This demonstrates our consistent, disciplined approach to capital allocation. Now, strong sustainability performance is at the core of how Woodside builds and operates our business. We are delivering on our climate strategy, remaining firmly on track to meet our 2025 and 2030 net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions reduction targets. Our acquisition of the Beaumont New Ammonia project, on which construction is now more than 90% complete, represents a step-change achievement of our Scope 3 investment and abatement targets. Beaumont is one of the world's first ammonia plants paired with Autothermal Reforming, delivering 95% carbon dioxide capture.
We are targeting first ammonia production from Beaumont later this year, with lower carbon ammonia targeted for the second- half of 2026. This provides Woodside with first-mover advantage in a growing global market, and we expect the project to be cash flow accretive from next year. On safety, we are seeing positive results against key metrics. Our growing business saw a large increase in total hours worked in 2024 without experiencing any permanent injuries or Tier 1 process safety events. Finally, we continue to demonstrate that when Woodside does well, the communities where we operate benefit significantly through jobs, revenue, and business opportunities. In Australia, we remain a key supplier of reliable and affordable energies to homes and businesses. During 2024, we made extra supplies of domestic gas available, supporting energy security and meeting ongoing customer demand.
This included executed sales of 77 petajoules in East Coast Australia for local manufacturing, agribusiness, and energy retailers. In Western Australia, we executed domestic gas sales of 73 petajoules for delivery to mining, industrial, and retail energy customers. We injected $7.9 billion into local economies through purchase of goods and services in 2024, with $5.1 billion of this spent in Australia. We are also one of the largest taxpayers in Australia, contributing $4.1 billion in taxes, royalties, and levies in 2024. I would like to thank everyone at Woodside for their efforts over the past year and their ongoing focus through this transformative period for our company. I am very proud to lead such a capable, skilled, and dedicated team. I would also like to echo Richard Goyder thank you to our shareholders. We value your ongoing investment and appreciate your constructive engagement.
As we continue building a successful, sustainable Woodside, I have never been more confident in our ability to provide energy to a world that needs it now and into the future. Thank you.
Thank you, Meg O'Neill. For those of you who were not able to hear parts of, particularly, Meg O'Neill speech, both Meg O'Neill speech and mine will be on our website for those who would like to see it. Frankly, I find that type of behavior unnecessary, unworthy of the people who are advocating a position. And I trust that those who disrupted the meeting had their lights and air conditioning and pool filters and everything else off at 6:30 P.M. on the 20th of January this year. But anyway, we'll see. No doubt they'll all be walking home, so you might want to give them a lift on the way home. We now move to the formal business of the meeting, and thank you for your forbearance. There are five items on the agenda today.
Item one is to receive and consider the company's financial report and the reports of the directors and the auditor for the year ended 31st December 2024. Items 2A, 2B, and 2C relate to the reelections of Ms. Ann Pickard, Mr. Ben Wyatt as directors, and the election of Mr. Tony O'Neill as a director. Item three is an advisory vote relating to the company's Remuneration Report for 2024. Item four is to consider the proposed grant of restricted shares and performance rights to the CEO and managing director. Item five is a special resolution proposing the renewal of the proportional takeover provisions contained in Schedule One of Woodside's constitution. I'll first discuss the voting procedures for today's meeting. Then we will move to questions to the auditor before inviting the director standing for election and reelection to address the meeting.
Then I'll invite shareholders to ask questions on all items of business. Voting today will be conducted by poll. At the time of registration, shareholders attending in person who are eligible to vote would have been given a handset. Proxy holders would also have been given a handset and a summary of their voting instructions. Instructions for how to submit your votes using the handsets are now on the screen. If you require assistance now or during voting, please raise your hand and someone will assist you. Instructions for submitting votes online are now also on the screen. For shareholders requiring assistance online, please follow the instructions on the online platform to access this assistance. I'll let you know when the poll is about to close. The final results of the poll will be announced after the meeting to the ASX and will also be available on Woodside's website.
The proxy and direct votes received before the meeting on each item are displayed on the screen. I hold open proxies in my capacity as chair of the meeting. We'll vote all available proxies in favor of each resolution. We'll start today with questions for the auditor, and then we'll do the director's speeches. Shareholders were invited to submit questions to the auditor in advance of the meeting, and a copy of the questions to the auditor is available at the registration desk and in the meeting documents accessible on the online platform. Nick Henry and Anthony Hodge from PwC can answer questions during the meeting relating to the conduct of the audit, the company's accounting policies, the preparation and content of the auditor's report, or the independence of the auditors. We received two questions for PwC ahead of the meeting. Operator, can you please read out the first question?
The first question is from Marie Carvolth. What specific audit procedures were conducted to ensure any retained liabilities are accurately reflected in the restoration provision amounts and their disclosure in the notes to the financial statements in accordance with AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities, and Contingent Assets?
Nick Henry.
Thank you, Chair. The first part of that question will be answered by the company in the general Q&A session. I'll answer the second part of the question that dealt with the audit in relation to that matter. Before addressing the specific questions, perhaps if I can first explain our role as auditor of the company's financial report. Management are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and presentation of the report and for preparing those in accordance with the Corporations Act and Australian Accounting Standards. The board obviously approves those financial statements. As auditors, we are required to give an independent opinion on the financial report taken as a whole. As auditor, we provide reasonable assurance over the financial report taken as a whole that it's free from material misstatement.
In relation to the specific question and audit procedures that have been performed in relation to the restoration obligations, we assess the key estimates and judgments that have been undertaken by management, and we consider that under Australian Accounting Standards. Details of those estimates and judgments are contained in the annual report on page 188 and specifically in note D5. As part of our audit procedures over these estimates, we considered the methodology, assumptions, and data which were used by management in the measurement of the restoration obligation estimates for the year ended 31st December 2024. We concluded the financial statements as a whole give a true and fair view, and our audit report on those was unqualified.
Thanks, Nick Henry. Can we have the second question, please?
A further question from Marie Carvolth. In relation to restoration obligations for operations, where Woodside is a non-operational joint venture partner, such as the Bass Strait operations, what audit procedures have you conducted to ensure the financial report accurately reflects the restoration requirements for these operations? For example, what due diligence has been undertaken in relation to the operational partner's assumptions for in-situ abandonment versus full removal?
In answering that question, the answer is actually fairly similar to the one I've just given. In terms of, again, page 188 of the annual report, note D5 outlines the accounting policies and the approach to the measurement of restoration provisions. In relation to assets which are not operated by Woodside, similarly, management and we look at the underlying methodology, the data, and the assumptions that go into the measurement of those provisions. Again, our audit opinion on the financial report was unqualified.
Thanks, Nick Henry. Are there any questions for the auditor from online attendees or from the floor? Number two?
A question for the auditor. This is Mr. Peter de Vos.
Good morning. I'm concerned the disclosures in relation to the restoration provisions are not adequate for shareholders to understand Woodside's financial position without disclosure of key assumptions, including timing of restoration activities, assumed inflation rates, and undiscounted restoration cost estimates, particularly given that these assumptions also impact the value of productive assets, depreciation, and profitability. If you've determined these assumptions aren't required to be disclosed, can you please outline why you consider this to be the case?
Nick Henry?
Thank you for your question. We consider the adequacy of the disclosures that are contained in the financial statements with respect to restoration obligations with regard to the requirements of Australian Accounting Standards and what is required to be disclosed. We are comfortable that the disclosures meet those requirements. Our opinion, as noted earlier, with respect to the financial statements is unqualified.
Thanks, Nick Henry. Is that all the questions to the auditor? Thanks, Nick and Anthony. For items 2A, 2B, and 2C, I'll invite Ann Pickard, Ben Wyatt, and Tony O'Neill to address shareholders. Firstly, Ann Pickard, if you can make your way up to the stage, please. Ann Pickard was most recently elected at the 2022 AGM and retired by rotation at this meeting, being eligible and offers herself for reelection.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here representing you, our shareholders on the board. I'm Ann Pickard, as Richard Goyder said. I've been in the energy sector for 37 years. You can tell by the gray hair. I started my career with Mobil, then moved on to Shell, and I see a few friends here from my days when I ran Shell's operations here in Australia. And then I was privileged to join the Woodside board. I have a big, long background in liquefied natural gas, LNG, which is close to my heart. I've overseen everything from the exploration, development, construction, operations, shipping, and the market over the times of my career.
But I've also spent a lot of time in other areas, things like risk management, health and safety, protecting our environment, all things which are absolutely to the heart of our business and to the heart of Woodside's values. Because of that, I have the privilege to be the chair of the Sustainability Committee, which isn't the most popular job sometimes, either inside the company or outside the company. It's our job to keep people safe, to keep our assets resilient, to keep them, make sure they're operating in the way we want them to operate. It's our job to protect the climate. And this is really important to me. Beginning in 1995, I became involved with climate change at the COP1 in Berlin, Conference of Parties in Berlin. And throughout my career, I've been involved in climate change impact assessments.
That's one of the reasons I've been a big supporter of liquefied natural gas, as I see gas as a superb fuel to help transition us to a non-carbon world in the future. And in this committee, we spend a lot of time not only looking at protecting our people and our assets, but in how we can protect the environment. I will give you a quick ad. Yesterday, I went to the Western Australian Museum. Woodside has been way out in front in biodiversity. I'm on a couple of other boards, and Woodside is way out in front on biodiversity, as it should be here in Australia. And if you haven't been to those exhibits, some of which are sponsored by Woodside, do so, because the biodiversity work is really impressive. So it's important for me going forward that we continue on this journey.
Since Meg O'Neill took over, you've seen some of the videos, whether it's been Senegal with our first oil. We were in Senegal in October. Important for the Sustainability Committee. We were involved, obviously, in the final investment decision in Scarborough. That's a very exciting project coming on that'll bring more gas to Western Australia. The BHP acquisition under Meg O'Neill also since brought us a whole bunch of new great people, both here and in other places with Trinidad and Houston, and also the Trion project in Mexico, which we've been very involved in looking at. Most recently, Louisiana LNG is one of the most exciting projects in the world. We got in there at the right time, and we're busy with working to begin the construction and looking to sell the gas. There's a great marketing team here at Woodside to sell the gas.
I'm on another board that's very involved in ammonia technology around the world. And so I was very excited when the opportunity for Beaumont New Ammonia came forward to us, because that is our true first transition project to the future. There'll be more things happening, and you can be promised that the Sustainability Committee will be involved to make sure that they're safe, reliable, and looking after the assets on your behalf. So with your support, this will be my last term on the board. I look forward to working more with Woodside. Thank you.
Thanks, Ann Pickard. Ben Wyatt, would you please come to the microphone? Ben Wyatt was elected at the 2022 AGM and retires by rotation at this meeting. Being eligible, Ben offers himself for reelection.
Thank you, Richard Goyder . Hopefully, we have finished communicating by way of whistle, and I will indeed endeavor to convince those who remain in the room to support me as a director. Those who were here three years ago when I was first elected to the board of Woodside can reflect on an extraordinary period of time for this incredible Australian company. Whether it be, as Ann Pickard has outlined, the merger, BHP Petroleum, our capital allocation framework around oil, gas, and new energy, Trion FID, Sangomar First Production, Beaumont New Ammonia acquisition, and of course, Louisiana LNG FID announced recently, and you would have seen as a result of that the changes in the company board in particular as the company globalizes, the board itself, as Richard Goyder outlined, has globalized, and the skill sets have changed quite remarkably over the last three or four years.
Moving forward as an organization, not just as a director, but of course as chair of the Audit and Risk Committee, I was pleased to see a number of questions to our auditors, because ultimately, as chair of Audit and Risk, you are responsible not just for the presentation of our financial documents to you, our shareholders, but also the risk profile and the risk appetite within the company, and as we are moving forward now in a period of heavy capital investment, that more than ever is particularly important around how we manage liquidity and other financial metrics over the next few years. I will conclude, I think, by reflecting back on some comments I made when I was first elected by shareholders three years ago. I have spent a large majority of my working career in the public debate.
I was a former state politician, for those who don't know. I am fascinated and motivated by the conversations we have on the Woodside board. How can we, as a gas and LNG company, contribute more, not just to Australians' energy requirements, but the globe's energy requirements, particularly since we saw a tragically warring Europe increase our focus and the world's focus on energy security requirements and what that means for some of Australia's most important and long-term trading partners? Woodside has a fundamental role to play, and Woodside, as a skill for Australians and a strategic skill for Australians, provides not just our own energy requirements, but the fact that we can explore, find, and exploit gas in particular is a fundamental requirement, strategic requirement for Australia.
And I'm delighted to continue working with my team on the board, but also the extraordinary executive team and employees who work with Woodside throughout this world. So thank you for those who supported my re-election. I look forward to continuing to work with you, my board colleagues, and the team at Woodside.
Thank you, Ben Wyatt. Tony O'Neill, would you please come to the microphone? Tony O'Neill was appointed after the last annual general meeting in June 2024. Tony, being eligible, offers himself for election.
Thanks, Richard Goyder. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a mining engineer by profession and have had a career working around the world in a diverse range of commodities, governments, culturals, and social constructs. I've lived in the U.K. for the last 15 years and was a board member of Anglo American PLC, De Beers, Kumba Iron Ore, and Amplats, to name a few. At Anglo American, it was an organization of 160,000 people, had 65 assets. I looked after the technical and sustainability for the business. It included oversight of a program called FutureSmart Mining. It was a program designed to change the footprint of mining, the energy, the water, the way it looked, the way that we paid our economic rent back into society, all to be part of a normal-facing, viable business. It led us to designing and building an ultra-class hydrogen trucks. We were working in 18 months.
We were working on how to put that into the rail industry. We designed and have started to develop a two and a half GW carbon-neutral electrical network with firming for Southern Africa, and we'd begun working on carbon sequestration onto minerals. On the way through, learned a lot about innovation, developing innovation and implementing it, the pace, the optionality, lots of pluses and minuses, the endurance that companies need, and the flexibility that you have to do in the approach. Not everyone can do it, but it's important that those companies that are genuinely having a go at trying to implement change are encouraged and embraced. Stepping back, I've been a long-term shareholder of Woodside. I think some 20 years. So I've watched them as a shareholder.
I've particularly impressed with the values of the company, the capability, both with the people and the track record of designing, building, and operating complex infrastructure, and the fact that they have such a strong purpose, and including in that to be part of a genuine part of the energy transition. So when approached, I really couldn't say no to joining Woodside and playing my role as part of the energy transition. So I thank you for your support.
Thank you, Tony O'Neill. As I noted earlier, we now hold a single Q&A session during which you can ask questions on any of the five items of business. General questions and comments about the accounts and management of the company can also be asked during this session. Please direct all questions to me as chair. A reminder again to please keep your questions brief. Ask no more than two questions at a time and avoid repeating issues or raising matters that have already been covered. This will give as many shareholders as possible the opportunity to be heard. For shareholders present today and who wish to ask questions from the floor of the meeting, please register your question at the registration desk at the back of the room. Arrangements for submitting written and verbal questions online will again be shown on the screen.
Questions submitted online may be grouped together if there are multiple questions on the same topics. We received a number of questions from shareholders prior to the meeting, so we'll start today with those questions. Operator, can you please read the first question out?
Woodside is a parasite. This company has a lot to answer for. Grouse is going to kill people. Is your answer to that roll another bullshit video? You've introduced less to this economy than driver's registration.
Can we have the first question, please, Operator?
Mr. Chair, the first question is from Natasha Michelle Lee. The company has stated that Woodside Solar will generate 50 MW to supply Pluto LNG. Could you provide advice on the timeframe to achieve this?
Thank you for the question. Meg O'Neill, can you talk about the Woodside Solar project, please?
Sure. Well, I would love to have been able to say that Woodside Solar is online. We've been working on this opportunity since 2018. We've done great work with the design of the facility, negotiating with a solar power provider, negotiating an indigenous land use agreement with the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation. A critical path for us to develop the asset, the solar project, and be able to do the world first of bringing solar power directly into an existing LNG plant is transmission. We're working very closely with the state government, who last year awarded APA a contract to develop the transmission infrastructure. I wish I could give you a timeline, but we continue to work closely with the state and look forward to bringing that, the solar power, those low carbon electrons into the plant so we can reduce our emissions.
It's probably worth also just emphasizing that solar to the plant is one of our most substantial emissions reduction opportunities.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Can we have any other questions that were pre-submitted, please?
Further question from Natasha Michelle Lee. Woodside is a joint participant in various ventures and has entered into three MOUs for potential carbon capture and storage schemes. I would be interested to know what commitments the MOUs entail, particularly financial contributions, amounts, and timeframes. I am not personally convinced that CCS is viable and would like to see the company diverting too much time and effort in these ventures. Would not like to see the company.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful question. And it's a difficult area, carbon capture and storage, technically and commercially as well. But again, I'll ask Meg O'Neill to respond directly to that question.
Sure. So first off, perhaps to tackle the latter part of your question, CCS works. CCS has been used successfully in the United States for more than 50 years. It's been used offshore Norway for more than 20 years. It's been used in Australia at the Gorgon project for more than five years and has sequestered, I believe, 10 million tons already. So CCS works. The opportunities that we're pursuing are to potentially offer carbon sequestration as a service to third parties to help with emissions reduction, not just at our own facilities, but also for other companies. The MOUs we've entered are to study the feasibility of that type of service and to provide more cost analysis so that those potential customers have a better understanding of the potential cost. In terms of effective use of resources, look, I think we've resourced it effectively.
We've got technical and commercial teams doing scoping-level work, and we need to make sure we've got a pathway to profitability before we start investing material Woodside shareholder dollars.
Thank you. Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Can we have the next pre-submitted question, please?
A further question from Natasha Michelle Lee. While there is a degree of female and ethnic diversity on the board, it isn't quite at 40% female representation. I would like the board to confirm that it is committed to working towards greater diversity on the board in spite of DEI pushback overseas and the like. Could the board also confirm that the level of diversity disclosure will be maintained in future reporting? For skeptics, it has been shown that greater diversity of skilled people on the board leads to better decision-making and higher returns.
So again, thanks for that question. Firstly, I'd say a couple of things. Diversity is incredibly important, and diversity of views around the board table, I think, adds a lot of value to the deliberations of the board and a company. So we rate real diversity highly, and I can absolutely commit that we will continue to maintain reporting on diversity as we have. Our inclusion diversity policy includes a board commitment to improve diversity of the board with a key focus on gender equality and a minimum one director coming from a minority background. So we're not quite there yet, as you indicated, but I do think having a woman as CEO, which is still not the norm in Australia, is a significant thing for Woodside.
And we're blessed to have, as I said earlier, Meg O'Neill as our CEO, and we've got some outstanding directors from all sorts of backgrounds on the board, and we'll continue to ensure that that diversity is a key part of how we look at the makeup of the board, notwithstanding any pushback, because we think it's the right thing to do. Can we have the next pre-submitted question, please?
A question from Marie Carvolth. Within the oil and gas sector, many operators that have acquired assets have agreed some level of retention of decommissioning liability with the seller. Does Woodside have any retention of decommissioning liability with any assets it has divested over the years?
Meg O'Neill?
Thanks for the question. All of our decommissioning liabilities are disclosed in the annual report and the financial statements, as the auditor commented on earlier. We did inherit some trailing liabilities in the merger with BHP Petroleum for assets that BHP Petroleum had sold prior to our acquisition of that part of the business. In those cases, those exposures are not material, and BHP remains responsible for the cost. For all of the recent asset transactions, so the swap with Chevron in Australia and the divestment of the producing assets in Trinidad and Tobago, all responsibility for decommissioning goes to the purchaser.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Can we now move to questions from the floor and those submitted online?
Mr. Chair, I have a question from Mr. Geoff Read .
Mr. Geoff Read?
Good morning, Chairman. Thank you. My name's Geoff Read . I'm a representative of the Australian Shareholders' Association. I'm here today representing 900 of our members, who between them hold 2.2 million Woodside shares. Congratulations on the annual results, Mr. Chairman, and to all the team at Woodside. A good year. It's a pity the oil price wasn't higher. I've been following Woodside for about 40 years now, and I can't recall a time at which you've had so many large projects underway at the same time. Three large projects in North America and Scarborough Pluto here in W.A. Mr. Chairman, what assurances can you give shareholders that you are not overcommitted in project management and that you're confident of achieving all four projects on time, budget, and at design capacity? Would you like the second question, Mr. Chairman?
Yeah, thanks, Geoff Read. Thank you.
Second question. Louisiana LNG. You've just made the FID decision on Louisiana. On reported figures, it's about $18 billion or AUD 28 billion of our tiny little Aussie dollars. Given the state of world affairs and geopolitical uncertainty and tariffs in particular, how can you be sure that the costs of this project and the impact of those costs on future shareholder returns? Point two, can you rule out using an equity raising for this project? Point three, how many new LNG ships will you require for this project, and what's the total cost, and how will you fund them? Thanks, Chairman.
Thanks, Geoff Read. Can I firstly say that I and the company appreciate the engagement with the Australian Shareholders' Association. It's an important group that you represent, and your retail shareholders are incredibly important shareholders to Woodside, are now and have been over many years. And so the engagement, which is forthright but direct with each other, is highly regarded by me and the board. So thank you for that. I'm going to respond on a couple of things, and then we'll let Meg O'Neill also answer around projects in Louisiana. Just on Louisiana, one of the very significant things that we announced when we announced Louisiana last week was that both ratings agencies have maintained our credit rating through this project. S&P has put Woodside on a negative watch because they want to see some sell down of the equity in the project.
But the fact that both ratings agencies have maintained our investment-grade credit rating is incredibly important. And so I can emphatically say that we are not looking at an equity raise or anything like that. Always, we, as you know, ensure that our balance sheet is robust. The other thing I'd say is we can be confident in our abilities, I think demonstrated by where we are at on Scarborough and what we achieved with Senegal, particularly through that COVID period and the like. We're very confident on our abilities to achieve projects within the timeframe and budget and to ensure that operating capacity meets design capacity, if you like. You can never give an assurance, but one of the things Meg O'Neill will talk about is the arrangements we've entered into Louisiana with Bechtel, which fixes a lot of the pricing on that project.
So I'll let Meg O'Neill talk about those things. Geoff Read. Unfortunately, I can't give an absolute guarantee that pricing will be as plAnnd, but we'll do our very, very best to ensure that happens. But Meg O'Neill, I'll hand over to you on both those two questions. Thank you.
Yep. Thank you, Richard Goyder. And Geoff Read, thank you. And thanks to all of your retail members. We really do value the retail shareholders. And when I bump into them at the supermarket, they tell me they value the fully franked dividend. So love that feedback from your members. Look, we've been on a journey for a number of years to ensure we have the project delivery capability that we need to be successful taking on the quantum of work that we've taken on. Even before Sangomar, we were building the team. We were delivering smaller scale projects, Greater Western Flank phases II and III, Greater Enfield project, to make sure that we were match fit to take on the big projects like Sangomar, Scarborough.
Of course, with the BHP Petroleum merger, that brought us capability and a team that had already been established and was building its muscle for Trion delivery. So again, not a lot of competition for capability between Trion and Scarborough. We watch the projects very closely and are very closely connected with the leadership team to ensure that we're maintaining our focus on cost and schedule particularly. Beaumont New Ammonia is a little bit different. So our agreement with OCI sees them responsible for completing the construction and delivering an operating ammonia plant to us. So from a cost and schedule risk perspective, that's mitigated. Louisiana LNG, we've got a contractor lined up in Bechtel to build the plant, who is the world's best in LNG project delivery. We have a lump sum turnkey contract. We have issued the purchase orders for all of the high-value equipment.
When you look at the cost stack, about 75% of the cost of the project actually is associated with labor and construction. Only 25% is equipment and materials. Of that, only half, so about 12%, is imported from outside the U.S. We have a foreign trade zone that gives us protection from tariffs upon import of the equipment. We feel like we've got a contractual design with Bechtel that gives us a very high level of confidence in delivering on the cost and schedule commitments that we've made to our shareholders and being able to deliver the cash flow and returns that we've signaled in the future.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Thanks.
Oh, ships. Sorry.
Ships.
Ships. So for ships, our approach with LNG carriers is we don't purchase those ourselves. We have historically entered into long-term charters. We will be maturing our shipping strategy, but I would envision we would enter into further long-term shipping charters. So again, it's not capital upfront to purchase the ships. It's ongoing operating cost as the fleet gets built out and delivered.
Thanks very much, Geoff Read. Can we have the next question, please?
We have a number of online questions from Ms. Ainsley Hunter relating primarily to Louisiana LNG. Can Woodside provide further detail on the assumptions behind the investment decision? Is the $1.2 billion of CapEx spend on the acquisition construction costs included in the IRR? If not, what is the IRR? Are the marketing returns included in the Louisiana LNG business case? Does the project meet Woodside's hurdle rate if marketing returns are excluded? Can Woodside achieve these returns with LNG offtake contracts instead of taking on balance sheet CapEx risk? And can you confirm the project meets Woodside's hurdle rate under any of the IEA scenarios? And what IRR the project would deliver under the pricing seen in any of these IEA scenarios?
Thanks for the question. I think I'd point you to the release from last week. Meg O'Neill might want to provide some additional detail, but we had a very detailed release last week on the Louisiana LNG. It's a significant amount of money. In that release, we talk about it exceeding our hurdle rate. The board obviously looks at a range of scenarios when we make these decisions, and the board is confident that this will be a good investment for us. There's some additional information we gave in the release last week, which I think provides a heck of a lot of detailed background to the investment. Anything else, Meg O'Neill?
Look, I would echo Richard Goyder comments that the market release is very comprehensive.
It provides information not just how we calculate the IRR, but provides information that would allow anyone in the investment community to understand the pricing required to deliver a 12% rate of return, which is our capital allocation framework target for LNG investments. There's also a page in that deck that talks about our climate assessment and the climate assessment that we've applied to Louisiana LNG, similar to what we've done for Trion, and it talks through the six different dimensions that we consider around the robustness of the investment and its resilience to different climate change scenarios, so take a look at the deck. It's very thorough.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Can we have the next question, please?
Online question from Consultancy Associates Pty Ltd. What is the percentage split between long-term contracted and spot market sales for LNG in the last financial year? Do you anticipate any changes to this mix in the future?
Meg O'Neill, can you talk a bit about the way we sell between long-term contracts and spot market sales?
Sure. So in 2024, our produced LNG, we sold about 34% on gas hub indices, and the rest was sold on oil-linked contracts. As we think about the business going forward, and we talked about this at our investor briefing day in 2023, one of the things we highlighted is that as the LNG market becomes more liquid, we are seeing a divergence between LNG pricing and oil pricing. So we want to make sure that we've got the ability to be able to take advantage of the volatility that we see in LNG pricing, which actually is more than the volatility we're seeing in oil index pricing. So for this year, we've indicated to the market that our spot gas market sales will be, I want to say, 28%-34%. I'm looking at my head of marketing. Correct? Correct. So 28%-34% for this calendar year.
As we go forward, particularly as we build out our strategy for marketing and sales from Louisiana LNG, we will update the market as our targets evolve.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Can we have the next question, please? Microphone two.
Mr. Chair, this is Professor Fiona Stanley.
Thank you very much. Hello, Richard Goyder and Ms. Meg O'Neill. As you would expect, my question relates to the impact on health and well-being of expanding the development and burning of fossil fuels. I'm going to read my question so I don't go over time. I'd like to explain how Woodside has assessed and mitigated the financial risk to investors from litigation seeking damage for climate harm and what measures it is taking to mitigate its litigation risk.
My explanation for this is that our intensive lobbying of governments has not been as successful as we had hoped to protect our children from the climate catastrophe. As a result of this failure, litigation against fossil fuel companies has been increasing significantly over recent years to reduce the risk of burning fossil fuels. Litigation of major tobacco companies was a very effective public health measure to reduce the risks of smoking.
The challenge for those suing the fossil fuel companies has been the difficulty of holding specific company emitters liable to the damage caused by warming and other climate impacts, which inevitably affect health, environment, and the economy. To explain, the science has been clear for years that global warming impacting health, well-being, and the economy is caused by burning fossil fuels. However, individual companies were able to avoid being held responsible because the data on their specific emissions causing damage was not available. Companies like Woodside could avoid being held responsible. A paper published in Nature last month, which I sent to you last night or yesterday afternoon, clearly overcomes this problem. It uses the best scientific methods to enable the quantification of the huge economic losses attributable to the extreme heat caused by emissions from individual fossil fuel companies.
It makes for scary reading as the impact on GDP, quoting page 896 from the Nature paper, the global economy would be $28 trillion richer were it not for the extreme heat caused by emissions from the 111 carbon major emitters considered here. Australian companies, including Woodside, are assessed in this paper as responsible for over AUD 929 billion in climate-related heat impacts. Question two is related to question one. Given that Woodside can no longer rely on the assumption that gas displaces coal production, how will Woodside manage this additional challenge to justify the benefits of their expansion? Woodside has historically asserted, and today too, that its emissions can't be considered harmful because its fossil gas pollutes less than coal. You've recently publicly acknowledged that Woodside cannot prove that its gas displaces coal use.
This is supported by a CSIRO study commissioned by Woodside, which found Woodside gas displaces renewables, not coal, and recent analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy, which found gas production decreases renewable production by 28%, far more than it decreases coal production, which is 11%. So it may be the health and well-being of your stakeholders, which is also important here. Thank you.
Thanks, Fiona Stanley, and thank you. It's great to have you in the room, and thank you for those detailed questions. I think I'll let Meg O'Neill respond in detail. I wouldn't agree with your last assertion on gas to coal.
In fact, clearly, if you look at the energy generation mix in this country at the moment, and particularly in places like Victoria, there are states that have moved away from coal power generation to more gas, Western Australia and South Australia, for example, and that does significantly reduce emissions. Meg O'Neill can talk to that. Meg O'Neill can also talk to how we consider the health issues that you raise and make sure that we answer your query about liabilities as well. So, Meg O'Neill.
All right. Well, thanks, Richard Goyder. And thanks for the question, Dr. Fiona Stanley. I think it's perhaps an example of the complexity of addressing climate change is also the complexity of addressing a range of health issues. And we note, of course, that the IPCC has identified human health impacts associated with climate change, but we are also equally aware of health impacts of the tragedy of many people in the world having limited access to cleaner forms of energy. For example, 2.3 billion people in the world rely on cooking fuels like wood, dung, and agricultural waste. And look, if you want to hear about climate harm, why don't you stay and listen to this next statistic? Because 3.7 million premature deaths happen each year because people are unable to cook with clean fuels.
This is a very solvable problem by providing people, those people largely in the developing world, with cleaner cooking fuels like LPG. So thank you. So as we think about how the world tackles the global challenge of climate change, we can't divorce it from how the world tackles the global challenge of a wide range of other health-related challenges. And energy poverty leads directly to other health-related challenges. Now, I think you're taking a quote that I made a bit out of context. Can I definitively prove that a certain ship of LNG is burned in Japan in lieu of a different ship of coal? Obviously not. That's a very kind of far-fetched story to make. The story I can give you very clearly, though, is around North West Shelf life extension . So North West Shelf has existing environmental approvals to operate to 2030.
That's right around the time that the Western Australian government has indicated they want to take the Collie coal-fired power station offline. If North West Shelf is not able to provide domestic gas into the market in 2030, Collie will stay online longer. It is a very clear proof that if we do not get approval to continue producing gas into the market, we will burn coal longer right here in Western Australia. That is not a good outcome. Now, Dr. Fiona Stanley, I appreciate you sending that paper along. I did have the chance to review it yesterday. I think it's a very long bow that the authors are drawing. And the authors themselves have acknowledged that the causality is thin.
In fact, one of the authors acknowledged that, and I'll quote, in the approach that they applied, if an individual is driving a car, buys gasoline, burns that gasoline that was produced by ExxonMobil, they allocate those back to ExxonMobil without acknowledging all of the benefits that the individual received from being able to get themselves from home to work, to the kids' sporting fields, wherever they might have been going. So I think we need to recognize that modern energy has enabled the prosperity that we all enjoy here in a place like Perth. And we need to recognize that tackling climate change is a journey that has a tremendous amount of complexity.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Can we have the next question, please?
The next question is online from Consultancy Associates Pty Ltd. Is the profitability of hydrogen and renewable energy much less than LNG? What does this mean for shareholder dividends in the future?
They're probably separate questions. There's no doubt, and we're seeing this beyond Woodside at the moment, that the hype of hydrogen a few years ago is difficult to sustain and maintain, given the complexity and costs. And our own experience has been that while customers may want hydrogen as a fuel, they're not prepared to pay a premium for it. And there are technical complexities with it as well. So right now, it is a difficult investment to make a decent return out of. And I think we've publicly said we are reviewing our investment in a possible investment in Oklahoma in the U.S. because of that at the moment. The board will be disciplined about capital allocation, as we've indicated today and in our annual reports and in engagement with shareholders.
And part of that is so that where we allocate capital, we've got a strong chance of making a decent return on that shareholder investment so that either through dividends, capital appreciation, share buybacks, and the like, shareholders can benefit from that. And we think the portfolio that we've currently got and our building will enable us to be a strong cash generator as we move forward. Do you want to add anything? Okay. Thank you. The next question, please.
Mr. Chair, this is Mr. David Ritter.
Microphone one.
Goyder Richard. Hi, Damien Gare. I have two questions. The first relates to Woodside's environmental record. Now, Woodside has a demonstrated public record of threatening W.A. magnificent natural environment. I've made a few notes because there are a few things to recount. So just to reiterate.
David Ritter, I don't.
No, no, no. It's a wonderful question. If you'll appreciate it, there are some particulars to the question.
I'm going to give you a minute, but I'm not going to be any longer than that. This is not a Greenpeace function. This is a Woodside AGM. Ask a question or sit down.
You'll just appreciate that fitting in the sequence of Woodside's.
You're 10 seconds in.
You'll just appreciate that fitting in the sequence of Woodside's environmental failures into a minute is a challenge for anyone. But let's try. An explosion at the Pluto LNG plant. Oil spills, chemical spills, gas leaks from subsea infrastructure, significant corrosion of high-pressure equipment, years of failing to remove and decommission a more than 2,000-ton riser tower that reportedly contained toxic fire retardant. You did nothing about that one, by the way, until we dropped a bAnnr off it saying, "Please pick up your mess." Handballing responsibility for the decrepit Northern Endeavour. That one's a bit notorious. Oh, and a reported collision with a whale by one of your contractors near Dampier. Now, we're close enough of the same generation to remember faulty towers. And this is a bit of a faulty tower's environmental record, isn't it?
Now, given all of this, how do you expect the people of Western Australia to believe your assurances that she'll be right on the environment? Would you like me to ask my second question now?
Yes, please.
So my second question is that we understand Woodside is being investigated by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water for potentially breaching the EPBC Act. Specifically, that you've started processing third-party gas at the Karratha Gas Plant, apparently before receiving federal environmental approval to do so. Despite the ongoing investigation, Woodside has continued to process the third-party gas unabated. Why does Woodside believe that it is above our nation's environmental laws?
In answer to the second part of your question, we don't believe we're above Australia's environmental laws. In fact, we probably comply more. I'd actually ask you, why do you think Greenpeace is above the laws in Australia as you trespass into our particular areas and have people climbing on unsafe cranes adjacent to Woodside's head office? That's maybe something we can take offline. On our environmental record, Meg O'Neill, do you want to respond on the riser turret? I don't think we'd have anything to say on the Gorgon investigation. Anything you want to say on that?
No, I'd just like to reaffirm that before we started processing third-party gas, we received appropriate approvals from the W.A. state government. On other environmental matters, we have been working through a very long process, as you very well know, David Ritter, related to the Northern Endeavour riser turret mooring system, which has now been removed, decommissioned, and 90-plus% of the steel involved was recycled. Yeah, David, we had been working on environmental approvals for several years beforehand. And in fact, we had great support from the community in Exmouth for repurposing the riser turret mooring as a fishing reef. And I would assume you've got great footage from your illegal voyage to see the RTM of all of the fish and marine habitat that congregate around the RTM. Thank you.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Next question, please. [Greg], please have the next question.
Mr. Chair, I have a question from Mr. Martin Dickie.
Mr. Martin Dickie.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Martin Dickie. I am a shareholder, and clearly, I'm not alone in my concern that the company appears to have adopted a profit-before-planet attitude and is failing to respond to shareholders' concerns. I have two specific questions which express this concern. Woodside refers to MSCI's ESG ratings in its disclosures, but MSCI's analysis of Woodside's business plans amounts to an implied temperature rise of 3.4 degrees of warming, which is a catastrophic level of warming that conflicts with the company's stated support for the Paris Agreement. Has Woodside assessed and quantified the financial risks to its operations and assets under this extreme warming scenario?
The second question?
The second question relates to the Beaumont New Ammonia project. The CEO continues to chalk up its Beaumont New Ammonia project as its key investment and target for addressing Scope 3 emissions. However, even if both phases of the project are operational, it would be abating the equivalent of just 3.5% of the company's estimated Scope 3 emissions in 2030. Does Woodside seriously expect its investors to be content with this frankly pitiful level of Scope 3 emissions abatement when many investors have now been calling for more ambition on Scope 3 for years?
Thank you for those questions, Mr. Martin Dickie. Meg O'Neill, respond on the MSCI rating. On Beaumont New Ammonia, Scope 3 emissions targets are difficult targets to set, and for those in the room who don't understand, Scope 3s are our customers' Scope 1 emissions. We think the best thing we can do to help our customers reduce their emissions over time is to provide new sources of lower carbon energies to those customers, but all our customers are in countries with net zero ambition. China is a bit later than the rest of the world, so our customers have their own obligations in terms of their Scope 1 and 2. We think the most practical thing we can be doing at the moment is to provide new sources of energy, and low carbon ammonia will be a significant source of energy for customers with a lower emissions profile.
We don't have a limit on how much we're prepared to spend on new energy, on that low carbon energy. And over the years, we would hope and anticipate that will continue. But we'll do it in a way that is sensible for shareholders, i.e., meets our capital allocation framework and provides a reasonable return for the invested capital that shareholders make. So it's a significant start in that, and we think will make a difference to our customers. Meg O'Neill on the MSCI?
Sure. Look, I think it's probably a bit of flawed analysis to attribute Woodside's business plan to a 3.4 degrees Celsius global temperature rise. But your question was about physical risk. We do very robust assessments of physical risk. We operate off the coast of Western Australia, which is a cyclone-exposed zone, and in the Gulf of Mexico. It's hurricane-exposed. So we do a tremendous amount of technical work ensuring that all of our physical assets are robust to extreme weather conditions.
Thank you. Can we have the next question, please?
Question from Noel Kenneth Gibson, who is a shareholder. It relates to the impact of U.S. policy. Question is, how are we positioned now that Donald Trump is in power?
So thank you, Mr. Noel Kenneth Gibson, for the question. I think clearly we've made an announcement last week of a significant investment in the U.S. We think the conditions are favorable for that investment now. We've sought advice from people who are close to the new administration on how we best deal with the administration. A lot of the advice we get is, "Look at what is done, not what is said." And so we'll continue to work with all our stakeholders and do what we do in the U.S. as best we can. Louisiana is a significant investment. It's in a Foreign Trade Zone. So it is not immediately impacted by any of the tariff implications of the Donald Trump administration. And we're looking to ensure that any impact is mitigated as best we can.
And I think, as Warren Buffett famously said in the past, "Bet against the U.S. at your peril." So we continue to believe it's obviously a very significant economy. We'll adjust our plans based on what the administration does. But we're very confident in the investments we're making. Meg O'Neill, do you want to add anything to that?
Maybe a comment that it's very clear that the Donald Trump administration understands the role that affordable energy plays in national prosperity, and it's very encouraging to see the work they're doing to tackle permitting reform. While we've been able to secure all the permits we need for Louisiana LNG and all of the other assets we have in the U.S., the urgency to try to build out energy infrastructure is really laudable. Now, the trade policies and tariffs that create volatility, so that's something we're watching very closely to ensure that we can, again, continue to be a resilient business through the cycles, but in the crux of it, the role that energy plays in a prosperous economy, I think, is an important lesson for us to take here in Australia.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. [Greg], next question, please.
Mr. Chair, this is [Mr. Chang].
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Can I pay a compliment to you and all the security men and women, seven on the left, seven on the right, for doing a great job this morning? So my first question relates to what happened last year at the AGM. We had two young brats that were not only incoherent, they stormed out and threatened to sue the premier. I reckon it's got something to do with the education indoctrination. We have a group called Cool.org . 200,000 teachers have signed up. Two and 1/2 million students are being brainwashed and programmed every day to walk to school, to ride a bicycle while the donor, Mr. Mike Cannon-Brookes, goes to his meetings in a private jet. So my first question is, is the indoctrination of kids getting to hate oil and gas, or is it Mr. Mike Cannon-Brookes a hypocrite?
My second question relates to the election of Donald Trump for his second term. His "Drill, baby, drill, make oil great again" has caused oil price to come down. Hence, the gentleman asking why the price has come down. If you increase supply, the price will drop. Can you comment on the regulatory regime under Trump in terms of getting approvals versus Australia? Because your North West Shelf project has taken six years to expansion, and nothing's happened. So can you make that comparison, please? Thank you.
Yeah, thanks for your questions. I'm not going to respond specifically to the question on teaching. I actually think it's terrific that kids are educated on environmental issues at school. I do sometimes wish there was a reasonable balance. But it is important that they are educated and that they're going to be. Often I say to young people, you know, you are our leaders today and in the future, and you need to step up to the plate on some of these things. On the second one on Donald Trump and on approvals, Meg O'Neill?
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. North West Shelf life extension, I think, is a great test case, and that's why it was so frequently mentioned in the recent election. We've got an existing LNG facility. All we're asking for is approval to continue operating. We're not expanding the fence line. We're not doing anything new. To bring other gas fields online, those are separate approvals. This gas is going to businesses and households in Western Australia today, and we'll go to those households in the 2030s if we secure the approvals. The fact it's taken six and a half years is a real head-scratcher. In the U.S., the regulatory regime is rigorous. It's comprehensive, but at least it's clear for applicants and companies like ourselves what exactly do we need to do and what is the timeline in which we can expect a response.
And that's the message we've given to the Australian government is we don't want lowering of standards. We fully support rigorous standards. We just want pathway and clarity on timelines.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Microphone wasn't.
Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Alex Hillman.
Hello again. Meg O'Neill, Richard Goyder, Damien Gare. I've got three questions. I understand I can ask two at the moment. Is that right?
Go quick, Alex Hillman.
Okay. So question one. Woodside's persistently delivered less total shareholder return than peers. Over one, five, 10, and 15 years, it's delivered lower total shareholder return than Shell, Total, Eni, Equinor, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon. In 2024, Woodside made major CapEx-heavy acquisitions and also delivered particularly poor total shareholder returns, eroding 21% of shareholder value. Is your high CapEx strategy eroding value? If not, why have you consistently underperformed so many of your peers?
Keep going.
Do you want all three questions now? Is that right?
Yeah.
With Louisiana LNG now post-FID, does Woodside have a sufficient balance sheet to execute BRAS without breaching its gearing targets? That's a short one.
Yeah.
The third one on climate governance. If Woodside's financial statements received a qualified audit result, the audit chair committee sorry, the chair of the audit committee would come under serious and justified scrutiny. If it happened twice, it's hard to imagine that they would keep the role as chair of such an important committee. Woodside has seen the world's two worst votes globally on a climate change plan. A prominent proxy advisor went so far as to say that, "Given the ongoing pattern of significant shareholder opposition to the company's climate strategy, we would expect a more robust response from both management and the board," as well as, "When a company chooses to place its strategy up for shareholder approvals, we would expect that this not be a hollow gesture." Considering the rejection of the climate plan by a majority of votes last year, how could Ms.
Ann Pickard continue as the chair of the sustainability committee?
Thanks, Alex Hillman. Let me take those in no particular order. On the CTAP, the one thing I'd want other people to realize is that most companies actually don't put their climate transition action plan up to a shareholder vote. You're comparing us to a very small group of people. I would say we take the feedback from shareholders seriously. We were disappointed with last year's vote and hence the 250 engagements with shareholders on environmental issues in the last 12 months. We continue to work with shareholders on our CTAP. We get a range of views from shareholders, from those who actually voted against it because they don't think we should be putting one up to a vote with shareholders, to those who don't like our climate strategy and everything in between.
On total shareholder return, I acknowledge that our share price performance hasn't been as we would like, and there are a range of factors around that. There are external factors, and then there are the questions that, to a degree, you've asked around, does the balance sheet have the capacity, et cetera, to deal with these investments?
I think the announcement we made last week and the weeks prior to that with the Stonepeak significant capital contribution to Louisiana and the rating agency's endorsement of our credit rating is a significant step forward, and we know we've got more work to do on the ownership makeup of Louisiana, but our business is going well, and my advice to Meg O'Neill and the team is operate our business safely, efficiently, and well, and then the rest will take care of itself and Louisiana, the balance sheet and brass, I don't, Meg O'Neill?
Yeah, look, probably the more holistic question. I assume you're interested in Browse. First and foremost, we need to get approval for North West Shelf life extension. Then we've got a series of Browse environmental approvals that we want to obtain before we enter into the significant engineering phases of pre-FEED and then FEED. So I can't predict a timeline to it. But if you sketch it out, well, Browse is going to be subsequent to Scarborough, likely subsequent to Trion. So by the time we get to a point where we can make that sort of decision, we're not going to be really facing the balance sheet pressures that we're carrying today.
Thank you. Committee, next question, please.
Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Paul Fanning.
Thank you, Richard Goyder. And thank you, Meg O'Neill. I have the benefit of having heard the addresses. I came in from Melbourne this morning, especially for the Woodside AGM. And I was here last year. Now, I have a couple of questions to put to you. One refers to your first quarter report from the 23rd of April. And one will be pages eight and nine of your annual report. I guess the question about investment in projects such as Louisiana LNG and probably Browse and others is there seems to be a tendency to go into big debt to secure the deal. And then down the track, there seems to be a realization that there has to be a sell down. For instance, with Louisiana LNG, there's been a 40% sell off of some of the holding to Stonepeak.
Can I plant an idea, perhaps to go straight back to the board and probably Meg O'Neill, you would be a part of it? Why wouldn't it be better to incur less debt? If I look at the amount of net debt on the books at the moment, AUD 7.697 billion. And then I look at the abysmal TSR, and I look at the dividend payout is not very good. Could it be that it might be better to rather incur very high debt levels on Louisiana and other projects to perhaps get other partners on board at the time of the deal rather than go many months into the deal and having put out subordinate notes or gone to debt markets to actually get funding? Are they reasonable questions?
Yeah, so thank you. Are they your questions? Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Meg O'Neill did quite a detailed presentation on Louisiana last week, including on how we are thinking about this thing ultimately being structured and sort of some of the time constraints. So Meg O'Neill, I'll let you answer that question. Thank you.
Sure. And thanks for attending again, Paul Fanning. I do remember you from last year. So welcome back. Great to have a shareholder like yourself spend the time to come over here. Look, as we think about how we finance the business, we always want to have a mix of debt and shareholder equity. Our CFO spends quite a bit of time supporting us and making sure that we've got the mix right and that we do forward forecast of the money that's coming in, the revenue that's coming in, the money that's going out to make sure that we're resilient, that we protect our strong investment-grade credit rating, to make sure that we've got the ability to reward shareholders through the cycle.
And then the third question is, can we take on these capital investments? So we did extensive modeling of that nature before we took FID on Louisiana LNG.
Fully agree. It would have been lovely to have partners on board from the get-go. But the reality is, with these large, complex projects, they are accompanied by large, complex transactions. And we want to make sure that we're very disciplined in getting high-quality partners who will fairly value the investment that we've made and give us good returns for the investment that we've made into those projects. So we're going to be patient in securing partners because I think that's the better outcome to getting the quality of partner that we want and getting value for shareholders in the sell down process.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Next question, please. Oh, sorry.
Pardon me. Just I'll go back to Richard Goyder. You may have overseen the net debt, AUD 7.697 billion. I think it is very high when I look at a five-year graph metric. As a shareholder and being in the market for a very long time, some say debt is king. But really, I think it worries me that the organization taking on very big projects, maybe the funding can be refined at the offset rather than down the track.
Yeah, I think it's a good observation. Again, thank you for that. Obviously, as a board and management team, ensuring the balance sheet is resilient and we have capacity to deal with unplAnnd or unexpected events and we have the capacity to deal with any liquidity issues that come up is incredibly important to us. So you should be assured that we look at those things. Importantly, the ratings agencies do as well. So both Moody's and Standard & Poor's reaffirmed Woodside's credit rating on the announcement, on the back of the announcement on Louisiana LNG, which is a more than $17 billion U.S. announcement. And that's without any additional sell down of any of the equity in that project. So we keep a close eye on it. We have a preferred position. And in due course, I think you'll see that unfold. Thank you.
Can we have the next question, please?
Mr. Chair, this is Judith Hugo.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Morning.
I am speaking on behalf of Friends of Australian Rock Art. Given that peer-reviewed published evidence from Professor Ben Smith's research team shows conclusively that Woodside's operations are causing substantial and irreversible damage to the Murujuga Rock Art through massive acid gas emissions, how can Woodside justify the extension of the Burrup Hub activities knowing that this will directly contribute to the further destruction of what is arguably the most important rock art site on the planet? I have another question.
Yeah.
As previous Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Architect of the very dysfunctional WA Aboriginal Heritage Act, Ben Wyatt is well placed to advise the Woodside board. Has he therefore warned you of the significant legal dangers of deliberately damaging the national heritage and possibly world heritage values of the endangered rock art of Murujuga? And if you'll allow me a third, it's connected.
Yeah.
Excuse my voice.
You're right.
The cultural significance of the Burrup rock art has been recognized since the late '70s. It was national heritage listed in 2007 and is currently nominated for World Heritage Listing. Woodside strongly supported this nomination. So why are you continuing with your plans for the destructive Burrup Gas Hub? Thank you.
Yeah, thank you very much. Meg O'Neill, I'll get you to respond to all this. Let me just sorry, just on the Ben Wyatt, you heard from Ben earlier. Ben Wyatt an exceptional director. He now chairs Audit and Risk. Ben is a strong advocate for the growth and empowerment of Indigenous communities that we work with, that Woodside engage with the appropriate people, and is a very sensible voice around the table on all issues, including this one. Meg O'Neill.
All right. Thanks, Richard Goyder. And thanks for the question, Ms. Judith Hugo. So Woodside, we are committed to positively coexisting with cultural heritage within Murujuga. We do, as you note, support the World Heritage Listing. We take our responsibility seriously, recognizing we operate next to such a precious location. And we work extremely closely with the traditional custodians, as represented by Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, to inform decisions related to the coexistence of industry and heritage. The Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program, which is led by the state of W.A. and partnered with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, is the leading authority on the technical work associated with understanding the impact between emissions and rock art. We're very committed to continuing the work with the state and MAC to understand what's happening on the ground there to make sure that we have high-quality, peer-reviewed, independent scientific work.
But again, we're taking action even ahead of that data coming in. For example, with the state approval of North West Shelf life extension, there were a number of conditions around reduction of nitrous oxides. We have signed up for those conditions. In fact, we pushed the state to raise the conditions to ensure that we could tackle NOx, which is theorized as potentially being harmful. So we're doing our parts. We're taking action. And we're working closely with the relevant authorities on continuing the monitoring program.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Next question, please.
Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Geoff Bice.
Mr. Geoff Bice.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Geoff Bice from Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Woodside wants to start carbon dumping, a potentially dangerous and unreliable activity, unproven at scale.
I reckon we've answered the question on carbon capture and storage already. Thank you. So I'll take the next question. Thank you. We've done CCS. We don't need a Greenpeace advocacy on CCS. Meg O'Neill talked about it plenty of times today. Thank you. Can we have the next question? You might, but you started off with a statement on CCS, which we don't need from Greenpeace. We know your views. We'll have the next question, please.
We have two online written questions from.
Thank you.
[Stephen] Mayne on the AGM process. The first question, it is disappointing that you once again have failed to disclose the proxy position to the ASX along with the formal voting addresses, something which many ASX 200 companies now do. Did any of the proxy advisors recommend against any of the three directors up for election today? And did this lead to any material protest votes, something that media reports have suggested will occur? If this has happened, what is the chair's understanding of the reasoning? And the second question, I couldn't find any copy of the webcast of last year's AGM on your website, so will you at least commit to making the full webcast available, given that hundreds of thousands of shareholders did not get the opportunity to watch it live?
Finally, when disclosing the poll results, will you include the headcount data, like with a scheme meeting, so we can see what the retail turnout and sentiment was at this meeting? Other companies like Qantas ASX and Suncorp do this.
Thank you, Stephen Mayne. You should come to the meeting, and then you'd get a sense of what it's like to be here. But I thought it was all put on our website, the meeting. Company secretary.
It's only broadcast on there.
Yeah.
I will check that for those.
We'll check, [Stephen] Mayne, in terms of a copy of the webcast being on our website. In terms of proxies, as you say, there's been plenty of media reporting on it as well. CGI Glass Lewis recommended, which one proxy advisor recommended against Ann Pickard's reelection on the basis that we hadn't done enough in their views after the CTAP last year. It's an interesting recommendation and one that I will continue to take up with them because they actually voted for all Santos AGM matters. Yet, in their own reckoning of Woodside's environmental performance versus Santos, Woodside was ahead of Santos on every single ESG score that they measured. So it's, I think, an extraordinary recommendation. You will have heard from Ann earlier and shareholders in the room will have heard. Ann is an extraordinarily good and valuable director of Woodside.
I don't fully understand that. Ownership Matters. [Stephen] Mayne recommended a vote against the remuneration report, principally on shareholder return matters. I've had numerous engagements with shareholders on director elections, on remuneration report, and other AGM matters. They've all been very constructive, robust, but constructive, and you'll have seen earlier that the votes that have been submitted today are strongly supportive on all resolutions.
I can confirm that the 2024 AGM is online.
Okay. Thank you. Can we have our next question, please?
Question from Jack Wood. How will shareholder returns be impacted in a low oil and LNG price environment? Thank you. And question two, considering the scale of Louisiana LNG and its asset life of over 40 years, what demand assumptions and thus global warming temperature outcome is the project aligned with? Is it higher than 2.4 degrees?
I'll get Meg O'Neill to talk a bit about forward demand and what we're seeing on that front. In answer to the questions on impact of low oil and LNG price environment, clearly there's an impact to Woodside in that environment, although we have hedged forward some of our sales of gas, so we're not, and I think Meg O'Neill talked earlier about spot versus term sales and the like, so it's not as immediate as you might think, and we'll manage the business accordingly to the environment we're operating in. Meg O'Neill, do you want to talk a bit about demand?
Sure. And it's worth noting, Jack Wood, that the way we've designed our shareholder, our capital management framework, we focus on strong investment-grade credit rating. Second priority is our ability to reward shareholders with a dividend, which is 50%-80% of net profit after tax. Obviously, in a lower price environment, profits go down. But one of the things that makes Woodside different from many other companies in our sector is our very strong cash margins. So we've maintained 80-plus% cash margins for the last five years, which does allow us to continue to reward shareholders with dividends even while we're undertaking the capital-intensive phase that we're in right now. So for Louisiana LNG, we test all of our major investment decisions against a range of scenarios.
I think we would be naive to think that we could cherry-pick any one scenario and say that that is how the world is going to play out. The IPCC, for example, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the thousands of scientists that look at the question of climate change have around 200 different scenarios that are Paris-compliant. So it would be very naive of me to try to say that our Louisiana LNG investment case matches any particular scenario. But what I can say to our investors and our shareholders is that we stress-test against a range of different scenarios to give ourselves confidence that we are making good decisions for our shareholders over the long- run.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. Next question, please.
Mr. Chair, this is Jane Hammond.
Oh, good afternoon. In November last year, I was privileged to travel to Scott Reef, 270 km off the Kimberley Coast, and what I witnessed there was incredible: an environment teeming with marine life, stunning corals in all sorts of colors, endangered green turtles, sharks, and rays.
Can you ask your question, please?
It's getting there. It's a bit of context. I've come from the Margaret River, so I'm going to spend a minute or two, if you don't mind.
Welcome from Margaret River. But no, I've been to Scott Reef as well. Scott Reef, it's beautiful. Can you ask your question, please?
Okay. So I'm going to ask two questions. The first, we'll skip then. We'll skip the stuff.
Yeah.
I'm particularly concerned about a subpopulation of green turtles that use Sandy Cay, which is part of Scott Reef, for nesting. Now, this cay is only, depending on what you look at, between nine and 16 hectares. We know that subsidence is an issue when there's gas drilling. Now, the BALS project wants to sink 50 oil and gas wells around Scott Reef. My question to the board is, how will you ensure that these turtles have somewhere to go? If this Sandy Cay goes under, and that's quite likely, it's very close, as you would have seen. It's not a high little island. And these turtles return to the same nesting spots which they were born. So this subpopulation, if this Sandy Cay goes under, will literally die out. They'll be forced to lay their eggs in the water.
So I'd like to know what plan Woodside has for protecting that sub-population and for protecting that Sandy Cay. I'd also like to ask another BALS-related question. This $36 billion project seems highly questionable economically. The sums around justifying this megaproject assume growing markets for gas when the reverse is actually happening. Take, for example, Japan, where demand for gas has fallen 25% over the last decade and is forecast to fall further. How will shareholders be protected from this massive project going belly up?
Thanks, Jane Hammond, and thanks for coming up from Margaret River. So there's, I think, a specific question about the turtles then. There's Browse. There's some other questions shareholders are asking about Browse. So we'll deal with Browse now in terms of the environmental approvals and the economics of Browse. And Meg O'Neill, while we're doing that, let's talk about Sunrise as well, because there's a number of questions on Sunrise. So we'll deal with all those questions on Scott Reef, on Browse, and on Sunrise now, if you can touch on the environmental approvals processes for those and how we think about the economics as well. Because, Jane, you're right, it would be a significant investment and certainly has to meet our hurdle rates to even get past all those other processes. So, Meg O'Neill?
Sure. Thank you, Richard Goyder. So thanks for the question, Jane Hammond. Browse, obviously, is a gas field. It's actually three different gas fields discovered in the early 1970s. So the possibility of Browse has been around for a very long time period. I think it's important to get some facts out there. So Browse is not actually on Scott Reef. It is some distance away from Scott Reef, about 8 kilometers from the reef, about 30 kilometers from Sandy Cay, where the turtles that you were referencing live. There will be no physical contact between the Browse development and Scott Reef. And, for example, all proposed drilling activities will occur in waters that are 300 meters deep or more. So again, we're a long way away from the reef and from the turtles.
Now, that said, we are working through the environmental approvals at both the state's EPA and the Commonwealth Department of Environment. Some of the matters of environmental significance that we're focused on are pygmy blue whales and the very precious turtles that you mentioned, and we've been doing an extensive amount of scientific research. In Ann's speech, she talked about the visit to the W.A. Museum. We've been doing scientific research on and around Scott Reef for 20-plus years to make sure that we start off with the baseline data to understand what are the creatures there, what do they do, and to ensure that we take appropriate steps in our development plan to avoid harm as best as possible and with any interactions we might have with the species to be able to mitigate those, so we've done a huge amount of scientific work.
We've done a huge amount of modeling to try to understand subsidence risk. All of that data is with the regulators as we speak. Again, we won't be able to progress BRAOS development until we get those environmental approvals. So that is a critical path for progressing BRAOS. Now, Richard Goyder asked me to speak as well about Sunrise. So the Sunrise gas fields straddle the border between Australia and Timor-Leste. Last year, we went through a process with the joint venture and the two involved governments to do a concept study to really understand the alternatives for developing the Sunrise gas fields, alternatives being taking the gas to Australia for processing into LNG or taking it to Timor. We continue to work with the joint venture and the two governments on what the ideal development pathway will be.
But we're a long way away from any significant investment on that asset.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill.
The nearest oil and mineral concentrations is just 2.4 km from the reef. And my understanding is that you will be drilling under the reef as well. So 8 km doesn't seem to be too far out there.
We'll see how that all plays out. Thank you very much for your questions.
Yeah, I don't believe Jane Hammond. I don't believe that's correct. I believe we've made some.
I don't believe that's correct. We've made some changes to the development plan.
I reckon we've given environmental issues a really good go today. So I'm not proposing to take any more questions on that. Are there any questions from general retail shareholders in the room? If not, we'll wrap up, I think.
A question around the Seismic .
Seismic. Do you want to talk about seismic?
Sure.
Go on.
What's the question?
Mr. Chair, I have a general question from [Mr. Patterson].
[Mr. Patterson], thank you, and then we'll deal.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having heard such a long time on environmental questions, I thought I'd like to come back more to the basic operation of the business.
Thank you.
Last year, I asked a question at the same meeting regarding what proportion of the 15% of the gas, which is meant to be reserved for domestic production, was actually being supplied at the moment, and particularly on the basis that the gas belongs to the people of Western Australia, and therefore, it's important for community support that we are able to supply our local needs. The second question is, having listened so long today, how on earth do we get the information through to the general public that the importance of gas goes way beyond its use in the energy transition for electricity generation, but it's also an incredibly important feedstock for so many of the important things for our lives, including fertilizers, production of critical minerals, plastics, and the whole petrochemical area.
How on earth can we get that through to the normal public better so that they understand just the significance of what we contribute to the state and the national economy and international, and the third thing is, as part of the energy transition, in terms of our relationships in the region and important countries, including Japan, Korea and stuff, they're not only customers for us, they're also capital providers that have allowed our projects to exist. Without that supply to those regions and their reliance on coal, how on earth will that lead to a better energy transition? Thank you.
Thanks for your question. Meg O'Neill, do you want to?
Sure. So we fully support Western Australia's domestic gas reservation policy. I think it's served the state, its people, and the industry very well over time. As AEMO has signaled, though, we are looking forward, approaching the same sort of challenge we have already experienced on the East Coast of Australia, where the lack of investment in new supply and the growth in demand and critical minerals, I think, is a great example. As we try to build out critical mineral processing here in Western Australia, we're going to need more gas, not less. As I said, the state government's been very clear as well. When they shut off their coal-fired power stations, they're going to need more gas, not less, for power gen. The outcome will be good for the environment. It will be reliable power with lower emissions intensity.
But we take very seriously the role that we play in providing gas to the market here. Second question, the communications, I think that's a fantastic point. Hopefully, you've seen some of our Challenge Accepted ads that we've been playing and not just in the room today. Hopefully, you've seen them on your social media feeds and around town. I do think communicating the role of gas is incredibly important. Gas is a feedstock to fertilizer. So the food that we enjoy is only possible with the fertilizer that depends on natural gas as a feedstock. Natural gas is essential in manufacturing, so glass manufacturing, brick manufacturing. You need it in many high-temperature industrial processes. So really appreciate your knowledge of the industry and fully concur that we need to be really active in communicating all of the great things that gas does.
Thanks, Meg O'Neill. I'm going to take one more question, then we're going to wrap up. Last question, please.
Mr. Chair, this is Mr. Paul Fanning.
Mr. Paul Fanning.
Thank you, Richard Goyder, and thank you, Meg O'Neill. I pick up a little bit more on probably not so much the debt, but I look at TSR, and I also am a member of the Australian Shareholders Association. But TSR is probably very important. I don't see it's really while the company is in great expansion mode, and I commend Meg and the board. I don't really see the dividend profile being very consistent. I would have thought there if you were selling down some of the equity interests in, like, Louisiana, for example, and perhaps other projects, that you could declare a special dividend to try to even out the up-and-down dividend flow in the last five years. Now, a special dividend, I think that would appeal very well to many shareholders.
And if you're going to be selling down assets, immediately want to reduce the debt load, but could not shareholders be actually given a little bit of recompense when we look at the dividends declared in 2024 compared to 2023, compared to 2022, 2021, and also 2020? Now, this might be a question right back to the board. I don't know.
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks very much. And again, appreciate you coming over for the meeting. We have a dividend policy we've been paying at the high end of the range in dividends. This last year, we paid at about 80% of our underlying net profit after tax, which was a significant return to shareholders at a high period of capital spend for Woodside. As I said earlier, Mr. Paul Fanning, also, the board at all times will ensure the balance sheet is robust and able to sustain external shocks and the like in a world that is generally unsettled. But we are very conscious of the support you and other shareholders give and have given Woodside. And we want to ensure that that is rewarded in the right way. That is through dividends, and we hope and entrust over time through total shareholder return increases.
And that can be done through, obviously, increase in share price, dividends, through buybacks and the like. So we look at all those appropriate ways to reward shareholders. But underlying that is maintaining a very, very strong balance sheet to deal with what is a period of significant capital expenditure for us, which will fund the growth in the future, and also a world that is reasonably uncertain at the moment. We just want to make sure we've got the right settings. But again, appreciate the comments. Thanks very much. I think we've had a lot of discussion on a range of topics. So I'm now going to draw the Q&A session to a close, which covers the formal business of the meeting. And the voting system will close shortly. So please ensure that you've cast all your votes on all items.
Footy. It's part of our culture. It ignites our passion and brings us together. As a proud major sponsor of the Fremantle Football Club, Woodside supports local footy at all levels, from community clubrooms to floodlit stadiums, so it can thrive throughout W.A. Support local footy from grassroots to greatness. Challenge accepted. Woodside, Australia's leading energy company.
I now formally close the poll. I think we're going to have provisional votes that have been tallied on screen. Just give us a few moments for that. I can't see that, but oh, there we go. I think you'll see that each resolution has passed. Thank you for your support. The final results of voting on all resolutions will be available and released to the ASX after the meeting. On behalf of the board, can I thank you for your participation today? Please now join us and our executive leadership team for some light refreshments. I now declare the meeting closed. Thanks very much.