And he knows who's related to whom, more broadly. Not everybody, of course, but so that has allowed us to understand the heritage, if you like. Not that that's a pre-qualification for joining the company, but it is actually good that we know we have people on the ground and Uncle Bob's team who actually said, "No, no, I know this person, I know their family, and I know they moved away, but they've come back and they would like to work with us." So we're replicating that model in Queensland as well. Obviously the Barada Barna people we've known since we bought Winchester South and have a very good relationship. And the Gaangalu people, of course, we're only just building on that relationship now with the Blackwater Mine acquisition.
We've employed a similar resource up there in Queensland as well, but the New South Wales resources will be available, will be used in Queensland as well. Look, we're very proud of the progress we've made here. We're very pleased to see this flourishing. With the Queensland acquisition, we want to see it grow in the same way as the New South Wales has.
Sorry.
Oh yeah, still there. The second part of the question is more related to a specific incident. Does Whitehaven still employ the plant mechanic who made racist comments on Facebook about an Aboriginal elder in Gunnedah? How is the company addressing internal issues of racism beyond just isolated incidents like this?
I'm not aware of the particulars of that particular matter, but if you could provide that to us, I'm happy to follow that up. I mean, we don't tolerate that at all. Racism is a terrible scourge. As I say, I'd like to think our organization is not perfect, but it's an organization which is well supported for people coming to work, being valued for the contribution they make on a daily basis, regardless of where they come from. But if you provide us those details, I'm happy to follow it up. Yep. Thank you.
Thank you. Lady, who was next?
Hi everyone. My name's Sally Hunter. I've traveled down from Narrabri today. Tomorrow the sentencing for the Maules Creek blasting case will be handed down. Whitehaven has been convicted of four offenses of a bad blast causing injury to workers in the neighboring mine, two kilometers away. I've traveled down here today, because I live near Maules Creek Mine and my neighbor was affected by this blast, as well as the Boggabri mine workers. Whitehaven has been found guilty of this offense. I've had a quick read of the annual report, couldn't see it mentioned here, so I'm a little bit concerned that shareholders aren't aware of this case, and when this is handed down tomorrow for the sentencing, it will add to the list of about a hundred other convictions and breaches and fines, that are listed.
Yet we repeatedly hear the CEO talk about its improved environmental performance, and this is based solely on the criteria of the number of enforceable undertakings that the company has had in that year. This is a poor excuse for a criteria for legal compliance and out of step with industry practice. My understanding is that there are still a number of fume cases on foot, along with other cases against Whitehaven that will be heard in the coming months. Will the CEO openly and in full report to shareholders here today on its current environmental and worker breaches and convictions and cases that are currently on foot?
Thank you. Before I get Paul to comment, I mean, the incident that you referred to happened in 2020, and it has been a matter that's been before the courts and fundamentally still is until that is finally resolved. In defense of the company, we are very proud of the improvement in our environmental controls, particularly at Maules Creek since 2020. You know, the record stands and to where we are today. I know that you don't accept, if you like, the KPI of enforceable actions or undertakings, but that's the ultimate measure we use. Our reporting system does report all the way through in different levels in terms of incidents that have happened. But, you know, we've put enormous resource and effort towards improving the operation there, particularly since that incident in 2020. Paul?
Yep. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of clarifications if I could. The case that you mentioned, of course, is still an active matter. And so we are looking at that and to review what our position will be with that. There's a number of interesting aspects to that that may result in us appealing that matter. So that's. I won't comment on the specifics of that because that is the position. In terms of how we are measured as a management team, it's not enforceable undertakings, just to be clear. That is a subset of the whole. It's enforceable actions. So any action that gives right to enforcement activity is penalized or the management team are penalized in the year in which it occurs. So it doesn't. That happens in 2020.
So as a result of that occurring in 2020, we take a conservative position in that regard and take the penalty in the year that it occurs. And so that changes people's remuneration outcomes as a result. The reason for doing that, we take you know, perhaps the regulator doesn't follow something up or deems that based on the circumstances and the better information that's been provided in their subsequent investigation, they don't follow it through. And that does happen from time to time. But the reason why we take the penalty in the year in which it occurs is because the board has taken the view, I think that's the right view, that we shouldn't be incentivizing management to fight regulators. And 'cause the alternative view is penalize them when the outcome is declared. And we don't want that.
In 2020, the environmental performance KPIs were that incidents was registered as a deduction in that year. That's right. It happens in the year of the event, not the year of the outcome, as I say, because I don't see any merit in incentivizing our team to fight the regulators. If we think we have a case that we should defend, then sure, fine. But I don't think we should be putting financial motivations behind fighting regulators. That's why we do it that way. The penalty for that was taken in that year, and that's our preferred methodology for dealing with that.
But as the chairman says, substantial effort has gone into this and, not just this, but our operations more generally, our safety performance has been excellent and it bears very good comparison with our peers. Our environmental compliance over the last two years, as you've seen, have been zero enforceable actions, which is fantastic.
Thanks, Paul. Gentlemen here.
Thank you. Good morning. My name's Nick Clyde. I'm appearing for a proxy. Thanks for the opportunity to ask a question. So my question's actually about the tightening of New South Wales government climate policy and the reliance, your reliance at the moment on offsets. The sustainability report that I read yesterday said that you'll align decarbonization ambition and business practices with the emissions reduction obligation set by the Australian government, which is great and appropriate, of course. But I did notice in that document there is no such commitment to align business ambition and practices with emissions reduction obligations set by the New South Wales government, which are substantial and growing. For example, New South Wales government's policy at the moment is that all sectors, including your sector, the coal industry, need to ratchet down emissions to meet legislated targets. Mr.
Flynn, in your CEO message in the sustainability report, you did make the point that site-based initiatives to decarbonize Scope 1 emissions yet to progress to a stage where they're commercially viable and technically viable, and that the plan for the moment is to quote, "Rely on carbon credits to meet our Safeguard Mechanism obligations for the foreseeable future," and I guess what's happening at Narrabri Underground kind of underscores that, you know, you're projecting about 1.2 million tons per annum of Scope 1 emissions, which, you know, if that was the emissions profile today, would make Narrabri the second most polluting mine in the state of New South Wales in terms of Scope 1 emissions. So it's a substantial issue.
As Penny Sharpe, the minister here in New South Wales, has said that we are not on track to meet our 2030 or 2035 targets. I just wanted to put that on the record as well. In terms of your liabilities as directors of this company, I noticed that Noel Hutley SC, in his climate change and directors' duties advice updated in 2021, he says, quote, "It may be imprudent to rely on carbon offsets as the key pillar of a company's net zero strategy." And the New South Wales EPA kind of is also singing from the same song sheet at the moment in their draft policy, which they're gonna finalize next month, I believe. They say that offsetting emissions must only be done for emissions that cannot be avoided or reduced. Sorry for the long setup to this question.
Thank you for being patient, Mr. Paul. So my suggestion to you is that your reliance on offsets is setting the company up for a hard fall because you're putting off coming to terms with what decarbonization of your sector actually requires and what it means. So the question is, would you agree that delayed investment in mitigation and reliance instead on offset credits is gonna wind up creating a very steep trajectory for your company at the end of this decade when regulations, carbon budgets, the new New South Wales government Net Zero Future Act require much steeper trajectory of emissions reduction than is currently flagged in your sustainability report?
I'll hand to Paul in a second. A couple of things, you know, we comply with all existing government regulations, whether they be federal or state. But obviously our focus in the reporting is on, you know, the focus has been on the Safeguard Mechanism that's a federal commitment because it's the federal government that makes the commitments internationally in the international treaties forums where the current standing commitment is Paris Agreement, and I'm sure Paul will comment on this. I mean, you know, the offsets arrangements that we buy green electrons from AGL is available to us now, and that is an accepted practice. You know, you're asserting from different commentators that may change in the future, but will it?
I mean, you know, that's the basis of a trading system of being able to buy the offsets. Paul?
Yep. Thank you. That did go on for a bit, so I didn't write them down, but you've raised a number of different points there. No, I don't think that will be necessary. I think we understand your perspective. Look, as the chairman said, our business is, we're in the business of complying with the laws of the land, be that state or federal. And to the extent that there's inconsistencies between the state and federal, then they need to work that out. But our obligation is to do that. So at the federal level, clearly the Safeguard Mechanism in particular is the one we've called out. And the initiatives I mentioned earlier, to the other gentleman's comments about efforts to decarbonize our business, I don't think I'd probably need to repeat those again.
State-based emissions reduction efforts generally are housed within your project approval. And so the conditions associated with your approval, generally that's where your emissions reduction activities and obligations are encapsulated. And we have some at Narrabri, say for instance, as the same that motivates us to do the things I mentioned earlier. So look, there's no notion of us not complying or the country needs to do what the legislative framework says you need to do. And so we are putting our shoulder to the wheel in that regard. Now, in the case of, as the chairman mentions, offsets, well, obviously both state and federal recognize the utility of offsets as a means by which emissions reductions are achieved. This is a net zero 2050 objective rather than just no emissions by 2050.
And so offsetting is a valid form of doing that. And obviously with the state level that's recognized and certainly at the federal level with the ACCUs, it's recognized as well. Otherwise you wouldn't have ACCUs if that notion wasn't valid. But I generally I think that's the ACCUs will be useful for us in the short to medium term. I agree with that. And the reason for that is, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of these technological changes that can manage these emissions reductions at the operational level will take some more time. And as we look at the Safeguard Mechanism, it's only essentially two and a half years in its program. So as we know, technology doesn't change as quickly as we would like in this regard.
So I think it's a nice bridge to those technologies coming to fruition, allowing us to more directly address the emissions from our business and relying less on offsets over time. But I don't see that questioning the validity of the use of offsets, where necessary.
Gentlemen, just here.
Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Paul. Congratulations on a good year. Well done. My question's about cost, cost management. If I interpreted the numbers you put up there, Mr. Chairman, for FY25 correctly, cost of coal, I'm not quite sure exactly what that referred to, but in my quick vision of it, it was showing about a 20% increase year on year. Do you feel that that's entrenched, that sort of increase is entrenched? Where is it likely to go after FY25? Are there investments that might over a period of time reduce the impact of cost increases of that description? And do those costs actually include any reference to state royalties?
I think the figures you're alluding to are on the screen during Paul's address.
It's the cost base of run of mine coal produced, and over the gunwale of the ship at the port. Okay. And so those figures with the addition of the two new assets in Queensland across the group have increased 'cause the cost, I think Paul alluded this to, the cost base in Queensland was higher than the cost base in New South Wales because of a lot more fly-in fly-out workers, different structure in terms of the operations of those businesses. I mean, they're operated by BHP for the BMA partnership. And so we've only just begun the process of, you know, transitioning those operations to the way we do things in Whitehaven. And that's a fairly significant sort of a structural change in the operations and management of those businesses.
And so, you know, we're hoping to see improvements there. The cost base in New South Wales has been refined over time. And it's, you know, where they're increasing, as Paul alluded to, you know, you got significantly increasing diesel costs because it's a large diesel fleet in the open cuts. You've got the impact of labor costs at the moment. And Paul alluded to a number of changes that have been made in that space that are going to impact on us. And so, you know, what we're hoping to see is that, you know, we're trying to keep our downward pressure on those costs in New South Wales and try and bring Queensland down from where they were.
We believe we can in a productivity sense by implementing a lot of the, you know, standard operating procedures that we've established across our New South Wales business that, Ian and his team will want to, you know, deeply integrate those into, into Queensland. Paul?
Yep. Thanks, Chair. I think the numbers that are highlighted there was $114 is where we ended up for New South Wales for FY 24. That's substantially up there. No doubt about that. If you add in the quarter that we of our ownership for Queensland, it went to 120 in total. Now, our guidance this year is $140-$155, quite a big range. So we've taken a conservative position in terms of how we've formulated that principally because, or we think that's prudent. We'd rather underpromise and overdeliver, as a general posture. But really the bigger driver of that is the lack of time, if you like, that we had, from the transfer of ownership of the assets to us on the 2nd of April through to when a budget gets finalized, so call it 30 June, more or less.
There's very little time there to get your head around exactly what the current run rate of costs would be. So we did stagger that a little wider, for that purpose. So, acknowledging that's not necessarily where some shareholders would like to see it. And quite frankly, we don't think it'll be at the upper end of that. As we said in the quarter just gone by, our costs are actually trending towards the bottom of that range, which is really good to see already. The cost out initiatives we've got in place are working. And, as the chairman said, our operational team are doing a good job in doing that. There's productivity lifting that we can see already from these Queensland assets that will bring unit costs down. So I'm encouraged by that.
We've also committed publicly to a AUD 100 million reduction in the cost run rate by 30 June of this year. So that's not insubstantial. That's in the Queensland operations in particular. So if you divided that by saleable tons, you can see that's a material reduction in cost per ton for the Queensland business. We're encouraged by the plans that we've got in place already to deliver that. So it's hard work getting your cost down as a business, as many of you will know. But it is important work to make sure that the business, you know, maximizes its margins. We are in a cyclical industry and we need to make sure we maximize the margins through the cycle. That's what that's all about.
Paul.
Sorry?
So ladies.
Royalties. Sorry. Yeah. Royalties, look, royalties a tale of two halves, isn't it, in terms of New South Wales and Queensland? Queensland rates are terrible. New South Wales have been revised, but in a sensible manner, I have to say. So the dollars per ton just, we've published there for you in the quarter. We paid an aggregate on a consolidated basis of AUD 30 per ton in royalty. So that's quite significant. And so, that can be much higher with greater coal prices and in Queensland in particular, because they have a progressive royalty system going up to a top rate of 40%. So it's tax, you know, not like generally historically royalties. Those are the highest royalty rates in the world. So yeah, just look, be ready for that because when price spikes come, you'll see royalties per ton go up.
We'd like to see that moderated. We would like to see that a more sensible level because as investors in this space, you know that when you get those coal price spikes, you pocket quite a bit of capital to deal with the troughs when they inevitably come in a cyclical business. But if 40% of the revenue is taken at that time of the peak, then obviously you haven't filled the tank as much as you'd like during the good times, to weather the more subdued times. And so that is a real challenge, that we've addressed with the previous government. Obviously there's a new government in Queensland now. They're well aware of the impost of this. They want to see more investment in the sector.
It's sort of been very quiet from a new mine investment perspective, given the royalty changes that have occurred. You know, changing ownership of mines doesn't evidence new investment. It just, the previous owner took the hit on the royalty change, right? And we just factored it into our calculation in terms of what we paid, but it does lower the returns overall and does make it more volatile and, in terms of your earnings profile over time in a cyclical business, but our, the best thing we can do is get those costs down and make sure that those margins are sufficient because the royalty bite is what it is, and we'll just have to make sure that we've got a resilient business through the cycle by getting that cost and productivity work done.
Hello. My name is Winnie and I'm a shareholder. My question is, Whitehaven states on page 24 of its new sustainability report, among other places, that Whitehaven's high quality, high CV thermal coal is expected to be the last to leave the market. However, in our primary market of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, their imports are already in decline and most of the plants currently under construction in Southeast Asia are not calibrated to run off the high CV coals Whitehaven processes and may never be. The only nations that have significant capacity of coal-fired power in advanced stages of development are China, India, and Indonesia, all major coal producers themselves, and they plan to use their own domestic supply.
Given these somewhat dismal prospects for thermal coal, why are we pushing ahead with three thermal coal projects that limit our company's access to finance, insurance, and present serious reputational risks? Thank you.
I can't comment on China and India in terms of their thermal coal markets because we don't sell any thermal coal at this stage to China, but we certainly do to Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Paul and I were only in Japan last week. We spent a considerable amount of time with METI, which is the government department that sets their energy plans for the future. They're in the final stages of drafting their seventh energy plan. They're currently working under the sixth. The seventh energy plan is focusing on decarbonization and energy security. Now, the Japanese take a unique view to decarbonization. A former colleague of ours was the chairman of J-Power, Kitamura-san, and he put it very neatly. He said, we don't have a coal problem, we have a carbon problem.
We need to deal with the carbon. That's what the Japanese do in terms of their Scope 3 emissions. You know, they are still building ultra-supercritical coal-fired power stations. The biggest political issue in Japan is still around the reintroduction of the contribution by nuclear in Japan. It's quite some time since the Fukushima disaster. Their forecasts in the sixth energy plan are still not meeting the targets of contribution from nuclear or renewables in the sixth energy plan. Well, that void has been taken up by, you know, ultra-supercritical, very clean, coal-fired power stations that they have. And some gas, and some cogen and some with the cogen with biomass.
I mean, we visited a relatively new coal-fired power plant in Hitachinaka City, which is just south of Fukushima. It burns coal, but it also burns biomass wood. The indications that the market is going to, you know, remain strong. Of course it remains strong for the high-quality coal because they can't burn lower-quality Indonesian-type coal in these ultra-supercritical power stations. This is where we make the assertion that our high-quality product is assisting many countries achieve their commitments under the Paris Agreement. Of course, a classic example of that is Japan. Paul, do you wanna add anything to that?
I think the market at $145 feels pretty robust, I have to say, 'cause we are in our shoulder season. You would see generally lower demand at this time.
The countries you mentioned are relevant for sure. Ultra-supercritical power stations being used there, which is ideal for the coal that we produce. As the chairman mentioned, that recent trip in Japan, the government and also lots of the end consumers were asking us about where's Vickery and when are you gonna bring that on? And the reason for that is because as we are talking, you know, mines obviously mine coal and that is a finite resource in the particular deposit you might have. So mines roll off. And so they're worried about when the new mines are coming on to sustain what is generally a pretty young fleet of coal-fired power stations. Asia has the youngest fleet by far. And so Japan, as the chairman mentioned, has built new coal-fired power stations. Korea has done the same.
Malaysia, which you didn't mention, is an interesting entrant into this market, and they are using now the Japanese spec coal that we sell. And so we have seen them enter the market and tighten that up even further. So another source of demand for our product, so we feel pretty good about the outlook for our ability to sell the coal at a good price. So I think $145. I think you should be reasonably comfortable that in a shoulder season, that's pretty robust. Sorry, Taiwan. Yeah, Taiwan's interesting. Taiwan's a very good market. They actually, we like that market a lot. They also use Japan, not in all their contracts, but very close to Japan spec and have been moving up the quality curve for many, many years, so Taiwan, we like that market.
It's been very good, very good people to deal with and, and very high quality power stations there. So they have ultra-supercritical plants as well. Their emissions from those plants, the same as Japan, Malaysia, their gas equivalent in terms of their emissions. And so, I'm using the word emissions, of course, because unlike the previous reference, it's not a pollutant, it's actually emissions, emissions issue that CO2 represents. And so it's not an air quality concern in that regard. Those power stations have very, very good air quality ratings, gas equivalent in, in that sense. But yeah, Taiwan, very good market for us as well.
Gentlemen over the side over there.
Thank you very much. My name's Hugh Vaughan, shareholder proxy today. The proposed greenfield Blackwater South mine would see Whitehaven mining coal past 2120, completely out of line with even business as usual energy demand scenarios and will clear thousands of hectares of koala habitat. Why is Whitehaven pursuing this project in spite of its unacceptable environmental impacts and its obvious transition risks? And wouldn't we as shareholders be better off scrapping this project to avoid the reputational and financial risks that may harm shareholder capital?
I'm gonna take that, Paul. I mean, no current.
Lots of challenges in Queensland, the south. I'll let you answer that.
Yeah, look, I mean, I think what you're referring to is obviously the extra coal resources that came as part of the acquisition of Blackwater in particular. Now that there's another hundred years for sure in terms of coal there, but whether or not that's something that the company's going to do, I think that's a question which will be dealt with in time. So, the implication that we are committed to doing that now, I don't think that's right. So I'd correct you on that one. That would require a full approval process to go through that. And so that takes many years as everyone will understand. So no current plans in that regard. But it is, it's obviously very valuable. It's a, you mentioned energy demands. It's not actually energy, it's actually metallurgical coal for steel making.
So the steel making market would be the greater determinant of whether or not that's prospective in the future. But in the meantime, the existing approved areas have got plenty of life in there and that would be a question for later.
Okay. So it's a proposed project. That's what I was referring to, the proposed Blackwater South project. But we as shareholder, I mean, your proposed, the costing for that is likely to be in the region of AUD 1 billion or more. We as shareholders would surely be better off just scrapping this project and seeking returns on existing.
Yeah, I can see you're worried about that. Like it's, you shouldn't be worried because as I said, there are no current plans for that. So your estimates, wherever they come from, I'm not sure what they refer to, what's included, excluded, I'm not sure. It's yeah, it's jumping at shadows, I think is probably the way I would describe that.
Okay. Thank you.
Up the back and then the lady down the front.
Jim Cook, thank you, board. I'd like to congratulate the board on a very good year in difficult circumstances. And I've got a couple of questions. The first one is the company's new Queensland mines, Blackwater and Daunia, have got enormous attention over the last 12 months, but the New South Wales mines are still performing very well. How do they fit into the company's future and particularly Vickery and Narrabri underground extension? And the second question is the company's now exposed to a number of new markets, including the Queensland acquisitions. How important, moving forward and for five, 10 years, is the Indian market? Thank you.
Thanks, Jim. On the first question, with regard to what about New South Wales? I mean, there has been a lot of focus on Queensland in the last 12 months for very obvious reasons. I mean, you know, there were varying reports on the end figure that we paid for those assets, but it's been alluded to today what they actually are, and you know, the deal that was negotiated with the deferred payments and then the contingent payments was very much suited to us, and the company. In the meantime, our assets in New South Wales have continued to produce and improve their productivity. We've alluded to the cost pressures that are generic across the industry. We've been trying to deal with those.
I think that, in the last 12 months, importantly for the company, we've moved into a mode of operation at Maules Creek where now I think I'm right in saying we're, you know, fully blown in pit dumping. So we've finished mining in the southwest corner and we're in pit dumping. We're not going out to outside dumps and that's making it much more efficient, and the forecasts are very good in terms of coal production from Maules Creek. Probably most importantly, there's been a few changes or tweakings at the Narrabri Underground that in recent months and the lead-up to the end of the fiscal year delivered some significant improvements in terms of ROM production.
You know, shareholders would know that over the last few years, we've had mixed results out of Narrabri, mostly for geological reasons. Underground, it's underground mining is not easy. We've addressed a number of those, and we've got a change in management at the mine and that's taken place in the last little while and that's delivered very, very well. So those assets have been core to the company's success and provided the platform for us to be able to go ahead and invest in those assets in Queensland and execute on the long-held company strategy of developing much more exposure to the metallurgical coal markets of the world.
And you know, when you look at the now six months of operations of the two Queensland assets, you know, what we believe we were doing when we purchased these in the best interests of shareholders has been completely validated. And then on top of that, the level of capital that we will return to the balance sheet with the JV sell down, out of Queensland, out of Blackwater, as validated again that India, I think you alluded to is and will be a very, very important market, in the metallurgical coal space going forward. They're, I think, second only to China in terms of the level of steel production. We all know that there is enormous potential to be unleashed in the Indian economy with the massive population they have.
Whether that replicates the last, you know, 15 or 20 years in China remains to be seen. You know, some commentators are skeptical about that, but just the same, the level of population in India, with Prime Minister Modi's focus on modernizing the economy, you know, extending the just the availability of fundamentals like clean water and electricity to hundreds of millions of people, is going to mean it's going to be a continuing growing market and a very important one to us. And to that extent, post the acquisition of the two metallurgical coal mines in Queensland, we have a, as we have an established small office in Tokyo in marketing our thermal product and now metallurgical product into North Asia.
We've established a small office in India to do exactly the same thing because it is going to be a very, very important market in the future. I don't know whether there's anything else you want to add.
That's fine. Yes, the lady down the front. Sorry.
Thank you. Jennifer Cuthbertson, I hold a proxy. Following on from discussion about steel, why, why Whitehaven asserts that metallurgical coal is a critical component of steel making. However, electric arc furnaces, EAF don't require metallurgical coal, and 93% of new steel making capacity announced in 2023 is EAF based. So while our company expects India to be the new growth market for metallurgical coal, several analysts predict that this growth market is not as promising as predicted due to the combination of carbon border adjustment mechanisms in Europe, India's plans to diversify its met coal imports and also produce steel using domestically produced green hydrogen.
With all these technological changes, it comes as no surprise that a recent survey found over two thirds of investors foresee a transition away from metallurgical coal in steel making, and 80% believe metallurgical coal's risk profile will increase in the next decade. So what does our company plan to do to make our business more resilient to these risks?
As we've continued to repeat over a number of years that our core focus, given Australia's prime position as a producer of metallurgical coal, and I hear all the critical data points that you've outlined, but there's a few other critical data points also that counter some of those. And the you know the majority of the I suppose the steel producing fleet across the world still uses metallurgical coal. New technologies are still being developed. The feedback we get, they are still far from proven to require the enormous investment that is required into those plants. And the last point I'd make on metallurgical coal is recognized by the European Union as a critical mineral. Paul, do you wanna add?
Yeah, I'll try and be short, but you did cover quite a bit of ground there. But well, look, 70% of the world's current steelmaking capacity is blast furnace operated. As you point out, there is a movement towards more EAF. I think that's fair to say 93%. I'm not sure where that number comes from. That's not consistent with the numbers we have, far from it. The problem with EAF is obviously you need scrap metal and you need an industry to collect, sort, transport, get scrap metal to the point of consumption or production of new steel. Well, it's not new steel, it's recycled steel. There are qualitative aspects of that which are different also. Depending on what it is you're trying to use the steel for.
So the notion that metallurgical coal's gonna be needed for a long time, I think that's a pretty safe position to take. As witnessed by, you know, Nippon Steel and JFE, two leading steel makers, tier one steel makers at the forefront of new technology advances from an emissions reduction perspective in steel making, obviously placing a large footprint on the Blackwater Mine in particular and end up paying nearly, well, over 50% more than what we paid for the Blackwater Mine in order to secure their offtake of that important product. So I think you should all be able to draw a lot of comfort from that that these are sensible, sophisticated organizations who understand the technological challenges for lowering emissions in the steel making process.
I think they've endorsed our investment in the Queensland assets strongly by paying a handsome premium over what we paid in order to secure that offtake arrangement for themselves. The other aspects I won't really go into too much. I mean, hydrogen, that's a long way off from a steel making perspective economically and otherwise. Again, all these industries will change over time. I think that's fair to say. The question is over what time? It's like the scrap business. The scrap business is you have to have an industry to actually get the scrap from where it is and sort it and move it to where the point of consumption is. That doesn't exist in mature markets. In the mature markets, it has 'cause they've been at it for some time.
So say for instance, some steel mills in Europe use 30% scrap. And so that's very good. So that's nice. But if you're going to, if you, you can't do that in China or in any of the emerging countries 'cause they don't actually have, first of all, they want steel to start off with, let alone scrap steel, which is obviously the backend of steel consumption. And, and they don't have an industry to actually transport it, sort it, and so on. And then they have to build the EAF furnaces, as you say, in order to be able to do that. So, I think shareholders should feel relatively comfortable that, that, metallurgical coal is going to be integral. It's not an assertion we make, it's factual, going to be critical to, steel making for many decades to come.
Okay. Thanks.
Any questions?
Good morning. Abigail Shepherd, I'm here as a proxy for a shareholder, and I want to ask you probably a little bit out of turn, questions about the remuneration report. In previous years, long-term incentive grants have had an absolute positive total shareholder returns, or TSR for short, gateway as part of the long-term growth project's measures. Can I ask why this was removed this year? And can I, can we assume that it's not because the company expects TSR to be negative in the coming years?
Our challenge over the years with the TSR metric has been finding an appropriate peer group to use to apply relative TSR to. And because of the unique circumstance of this company in the market in Australia where our peers are not structured in a similar way, for example, Yancoal is predominantly Chinese owned, we decided back in 2022 to look at alternatives. And there are a number of other major companies in Australia that operate a single incentive plan, a SIP, as we have introduced. And we've designed that so that there is a component of that that is like an STI and a component of that that's like an LTI.
And we have structured the KPIs within the SIP, particularly to suit what we're trying to achieve with the business and incentivize and, you know, reward management for good results in terms of good outcome for shareholders, as well as provide the, you know, the retention qualities of, as you put it in the LTI, as a part of the vesting process over four years after the grant. Now, on the issue of TSR, the best way that I can put that is that you've heard the statistics that we've quoted today in terms of what we achieved in FY 24, what we have over the last three years, what we have over the last four years. But it's the TSR is about alignment.
And the best alignment can be achieved through making sure that our senior management team is well invested in the business along with shareholders. And if you have a look at the shareholding of our KMP, that is the case. And so there is significant alignment there. And so we, we believe that what we've put in place is the best fit for purpose model for where the direction we wanna take the company. Just because, and we have this, sorry, and we've had this debate with, and discussion with many institutional shareholders, and proxy advisors, and there's still an element of it's like an old boot that's comfortable having that metric of the TSR. The world's changing and, and that's why we've, we've changed what we're doing. We're, we've got a unique structure that we think is the best structure for our business.
Going back to the issue of whether you've been able to identify peers to pursue this, the remuneration report says, as you are saying now, that the use of relative TSR is not widespread and it's ineffective because of the difficulty identifying a suitable peer group. But isn't it the case that some other coal miners have managed to implement relative TSR in their remuneration incentive plans? And I'm thinking of examples such as Stanmore Resources, the New Hope Group, and Coronado, and that in fact your report says half of coal peers use TSR. So if you already have a strong TSR performance and you are hearing from your shareholders, they want TSR formalized in remuneration to ensure the companies.
Some, some not all.
Some, yes. To ensure the company is considering transition risks, shouldn't you be listening to those shareholders?
Oh, we listen to all shareholders and we engage very deeply with them in the last 12 months. And there's been extensive consultation given the events of the last AGM when we took a strike on the Rem report. There's basically been a full 12 months of consultation at all levels with shareholders as well as other stakeholders in this. And we still arrive at the point that we believe that we've designed a very good structure as far as our remuneration is concerned, the SIP structure for remunerating our senior leadership team is well focused on what we're trying to do with the business. We've looked at the alternatives and even after the debate that took place around the AGM last year, we have consulted extensively and still come back to the same position. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Mikey over here. Yeah.
Good morning. My name's Mary Flood and I hold a shareholder proxy. Whitehaven's talked a lot this year about wanting to increase its percentage of revenues coming from metallurgical coal. However, the Vickery, Narrabri, and Maules Creek expansion projects will all increase thermal production. The proposed Winchester South Project is about 40% thermal. So that too will lead to a big increase in thermal coal production. Don't these expansion projects risk undermining the perception that Whitehaven is transforming into a metallurgical coal miner?
My simple answer to that is no. Paul wants to make a comment.
Yeah, we've got just for the record, just so that we're not misleading other people in the room. Narrabri Stage 3 is not, that's just a life extension of an existing mine under its existing throughput. So not, as you say, increasing the volumes of thermal production as a percentage of the total. Maules Creek continuation is exactly the same. The only incremental tons there obviously are Vickery. And of course, as you've heard us reference a number of times today, we've closed three mines in the last six or seven years that have now seen a reduction in our volumes over time. So really that's basically holding steady.
As you rightly point out, there is a thermal component of Winchester South that can be produced and that's up to the company to work out what it wants to do with that as to whether or not it wants to or otherwise. But it is a useful product and there is a very strong demand profile for that byproduct of the metallurgical coal production process. Our drive has been strategically to move more into the met coal business. The reason for that is generally they are higher margin assets. And so that's in our view in the interest of shareholders. Now, of course, emissions reduction concerns overlay across the top of that. We certainly understand that and moving more into met is useful in that regard.
But as a result of doing that, and now 60%-70% of our revenues in the metallurgical coal space, the business is a much lower risk proposition for you as shareholders as a result. So you're spread across different markets, different products, different geographies, different infrastructure. You know, you've got cycles that move differently in terms of met coal and thermal coal pricing, different customer base. So as a general proposition, that's actually a lower risk proposition than what it was previously.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, sorry, I think we've sort of have spent a lot of time on general questions in this part of the meeting and we have still got quite a bit of the agenda to go. So I propose to move on to the set resolutions that have been set out in the notice of meeting, and as we go through these resolutions, obviously, there will be an opportunity to ask any questions on those specific resolutions, as we move through them. So the first resolution is the adoption of the FY 24 remuneration report. This is a non-binding advisory resolution. Before opening this item for questions and discussions, I'd like to briefly comment to help shareholders understand the company's approach to remuneration. Last year, the company's remuneration report received a strike.
In response, the board conducted a review of our remuneration framework, which was supported by KPMG as our external remuneration advisor. The board also undertook significant engagement with shareholders and proxy advisors to understand stakeholder points of view and respond to feedback. This engagement was extensive during FY 24. The company held 345 investor meetings and events with shareholders and other stakeholders. Members of the board conducted 36 of these meetings and have held more than 20 additional meetings covering remuneration and governance matters, as we moved into FY 25. When discussing the FY 23 remuneration report, investors' focus areas were in the use of board discretion, the quantum of fixed remuneration increases, and the performance rights measures and disclosures under the company's single incentive plan. This feedback has been valuable and has been incorporated into the review of our remuneration arrangements as well as the disclosure of outcomes.
For example, no upward discretion was applied to the FY 24 single incentive plan and long-term incentive outcomes. Total fixed remuneration increases for executive key management personnel aligned with the market rates of 4%, which were substantially below broader increases given to our enterprise agreement covered employees. There was no base fee increase for non-executive directors in FY 24, and we significantly enhanced the disclosure around the evaluation of the long-term growth projects measure in our incentive plan, detailing internal rate of return thresholds, achievement of concrete milestones, and performance against budget. These enhancements provide greater clarity on how this measure is linked to long-term shareholder value creation. Moving on to the FY 24 remuneration, key executive management personnel outcomes reflect strong financial and non-financial performance for our single incentive plan, key scorecard achievements.
These included the following: a 30% improvement in safety performance, zero environmental enforcement actions during the year, and an EBITDA of AUD 1.1 billion, excluding significant items and the Queensland operations. The company's achievement of an FY 2024 total shareholder return of 23%, despite a decrease in coal prices through the year, underscores management's outperformance during an intensive and transformational period for Whitehaven. Long-term performance has been exceptional, resulting in strong long-term incentive vesting outcomes. Total shareholder return was 555% for the four-year period to the end of June 2024 and 412% for the three-year period to the end of June 2024, positioning Whitehaven as the top TSR performer in the ASX over both periods.
Our cost hurdle achievement was at the 12th percentile of peers, such that our costs are among the lowest in the industry, and management delivered strong performance against the long-term growth projects measure, with the Vickery Extension Project's progression to production being a highlight. In summary, the board is confident we have addressed stakeholder feedback from last year's strike and responded appropriately. Furthermore, the board believes that our FY 24 outcomes reflect management's strong performance and are appropriately aligned to shareholder experience. It is critical that we maintain a remuneration framework that is enduring, supports our business strategy, and drives long-term sustainable shareholder value. Therefore, we will continue to engage with shareholders on opportunities to enhance our remuneration practices and seek feedback on how we can better meet stakeholder expectations on these matters.
With that, the board recommends that shareholders vote in favor of resolution one, which is the remuneration report for FY 24. I think the screen, are we gonna put that up, Tim? The screen shows details of the proxy votes received on this resolution. I now open the floor for any questions. And as has been the case right through the meeting, anybody that's voting in the meeting, the voting is open now, obviously. So, is there any questions on the remuneration report? Yes, the lady over here. Where's the girl? Kez, over.
Thank you, Chair. I'm Siqi Lin. I'm a shareholder proxy. So in Whitehaven's sustainability report, several International Energy Agency scenarios are used to assess the company's climate resilience. However, the report states that development projects have not been included in our analysis as these are still subject to regulatory approvals, and/or final investment decisions by the Whitehaven board. Now, considering Whitehaven's remuneration policy overwhelmingly incentivizes progressing these growth projects over Total Shareholder Return metrics, does Whitehaven not think it would be beneficial for shareholders to understand how viable these development projects would be under these scenarios? When will the company disclose how viable these development projects are so that shareholders can make informed decisions about our investment in the company?
Paul?
Yep. Yep. Thank you. Look, both the important projects that you should think about there is, obviously Vickery and Winchester South being the two key components of it, as I mentioned in the previous question. Narrabri, Stage 3 and, Maules Creek Continuation Project are life extensions of the existing, existing assets. In the case of Maules Creek, it's even less significant than that, I suppose, because it's just the renewal of the mining lease. The mine life of mine actually will go slightly beyond 2050. But, but the mining lease life that they give you is only, is a maximum life of 21 years, so it requires renewal. So that's what Maules Creek continuation process is about. So it's just existing mine going through the renewal of its lease.
Back to the two projects, when we take those to the board and the chairman mentioned earlier that the approvals process, obviously for Vickery in particular—we were speaking to that earlier in the meeting—that obviously is yet to go before the board, and the board will look at that in the context of the questions you've just raised. I think they're valid questions. Winchester South itself is still yet to go through the federal process. It now has an approval at the state level and will go through the Land and Environment Court process that usually accompanies any objections through the exhibition period. Then we'll address that once we get to the end of the approvals process, which we estimate probably to be in about two years' time.
As I say, the outlook for both projects. We've got market participants on the thermal side looking for the coal from Vickery. And that was certainly reminded to us in that trip to Japan last week. Then we've talked amply, I think, about the prospects for metallurgical coal in the future and particularly the growth in India will sustain that. In terms of the risks associated with deploying more capital, I think that's a good question, and you'll hear more about that when the board narrows in on a decision to move ahead with that or not, as the case may be.
I think there was a question next door there.
My name is Keela. I have a follow-on question. My questions are regarding the internal rate of return hurdle for the long-term growth project measure in Whitehaven's remuneration plan. What underlying supply demand scenario and what long-term price forecasts are used to determine the internal rate of return? And will the company disclose the results of this evaluation to shareholders? Thank you.
We're constantly assessing the market based on, obviously the forward curve as far as coal prices in the different indices. We also, as I think Paul alluded to in his address, the advisory firms we use in terms of forecasting coal prices. As far as demand is concerned, we actively review and assess that ourselves as not just a company that's involved in the Australian market looking at those export markets, but globally involved in with the IEA and its affiliated bodies in forecasting energy demand globally. These factors are all taken into consideration. Paul?
As a general rule, we're not in the business of taking risks where we're not experts, and so from a pricing perspective, we generally use broker consensus as the basis of those, the formulation of those types of assessments. We do look at them in the context of what we observe in the shorter term because we do actually have expertise in terms of supply demand in the shorter term, but as we use long-term numbers for important decisions such as deployment of significant capital, it's broker consensus that we usually use in that regard, so rather than attempt to form a bespoke view to service a particular purpose, I don't think that'd be appropriate governance over deployment of capital to suit your own ends. Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions on the one question here?
Thank you. My name's Michelle. I'm here as a proxy holder, and I'm here on behalf of Market Forces. I, it's our last question, Mr. Vaile, so just bear with me. In the board's response to our member's statement regarding adoption of the 2024 remuneration report, you note that Whitehaven's development projects are continually assessed on these key factors: coal price forecasts, scenarios, customer plans and demand, life of mine, et cetera.
While this sounds very reasonable, the forecasts and scenarios you've used are based on, according to your reporting, Commodity Insights, a company that only seems to publish analysis that appears to benefit the Australian coal industry and also appears to be owned or led by the former head of coal marketing from Rio Tinto, and all while ignoring much more objective and globally accredited forecasts that predict a clear decline in coal demand, including the World Energy Outlook, which you referenced earlier, which does see demand still peak after all in all scenarios by 2030. So if the board is truly considering these factors, why do you insist on maintaining this huge development pipeline and then heavily weighting executive pay to their delivery?
Would it not be better to prioritize rich shareholder returns to allow company executives the flexibility to ensure long-term returns if these optimal, more optimal market dynamics that you predict do not actually materialize?
Finished?
Yep.
Thank you. Well, I'll let Paul respond in a minute, but the statement that Market Forces have put forward and it is in the notice of meeting has been comprehensively responded to by the company. You know, we strongly disagree with the member's statement, and we are confident that our remuneration structure supports the delivery of Whitehaven's strategy and aligns with shareholders' interests. Whitehaven's remuneration structure is designed to drive shareholder value creation, and I presume that's why people invest in the company and deliver outcomes aligned with the company's strategy. It incentivizes safe, responsible, and efficient operations, optimized sustainable financial performance, including a competitive cost position and delivery of long-term strategic development projects, which is a key competitive advantage for the company. But at the end of the day, people invest in this company to get a return.
And we do that in a balanced way within the laws of the land. We look to the future in terms of what regulations might change, what circumstances might change in evaluating, you know, you just heard Paul say that, in evaluating markets, we use broker consensus. I would expect that a well-recognized and respected consultancy firm, like Commodity Insights, would have someone with some experience in the industry leading it. Otherwise we probably would not engage them. Paul, did you want to give us some? I there's a bunch of stuff in there.
Only to add, Chairman, that we use more than just Commodity Insights just to make sure we're cross-referencing so that you don't get, you know, any particular over-reliance on one view. And I referenced that earlier, with Wood Mackenzie's obviously someone who we use and CRU as well, who does a lot of work for the IEA, and is integral to the process of the preparation of the World Energy Outlook, which we also participate in as well. Whitehaven is on the board of the Coal Industry Advisory Board of the IEA. And so, we participate in the formulation of that work. And as you rightly point out, the forecasts for the peak of coal that IEA has been suggesting in recent times has again proven to be wrong.
They have now suggested that needs to be lifted significantly, as I mentioned in my speech earlier. Now look, all of that's interesting and good. It's just that we will play our role in emissions reductions as we've talked about amply during the course of today. But we're taking responsible decisions around the deployment of capital in the interests of shareholders. I think the returns in more recent times bear that out. Again, coming back to the price question, these prices today are very robust prices for markets that are seeing significant demand on both sides of our business, thermal and metallurgical coal, and a very tight supply side dynamic, which is keeping these prices high.
And so that is the company is uniquely positioned to be able to capitalize on that because we're one of the few who actually have the capacity to bring on more projects if appropriate at the right time, whereas many of our peers do not have that capacity.
Now the votes on the board for this resolution and voting's been open on this. So just make sure everybody has now voted on resolution one. And at the end of the meeting, we'll put up the final votes on each one of the resolutions as they're collated by Computershare. So I propose to move on to resolution two, the grant of Single Incentive Plan awards to the managing director. The second resolution concerns the grant of deferred rights and performance rights to a managing director, Mr. Paul Flynn, under the company's FY24 Single Incentive Plan. Details of these grants are set out in the notice of meeting. The purpose of this resolution is to ensure that Paul's incentives are aligned with shareholder interests.
This is achieved by having a large portion of his incentives provided as equity-based awards and through the implementation of challenging performance hurdles for performance rights designed to drive long-term company performance. It is important to note that all awards under the single incentive plan are subject to upfront performance measures to ensure alignment with shareholder interests. In addition, performance rights are subject to a second rigorous performance assessment at the time of vesting, ensuring that long-term value creation remains central to these incentives. Approval is sought for the grant of 236,612 deferred rights, and 223,467 performance rights to Paul as earned under the FY24 single incentive plan scorecard. The deferred rights will vest in three equal tranches over three years.
The performance rights will vest on release of the company's FY28 financial results subject to further performance hurdles in relation to relative unit costs and achievements against key long-term growth projects. The board, with Paul abstaining, considers the grant of the single incentive plan awards to the Managing Director to be appropriate and recommends that shareholders vote in favor of resolution two. The screen shows the proxy votes received on this resolution. They're up there. We're just now open for discussion. Are there any questions on resolution two? Okay. So everybody make sure that you've voted on resolution two on your mobile devices. And we'll move on to resolution three, which is the grant of share appreciation rights awards to the Managing Director. The third resolution concerns the one-time grant of share appreciation rights to Paul Flynn.
The company's transition to the single incentive plan in FY23 created a vesting gap resulting in a reduced amount of performance rights vesting in FY25 and no performance rights vesting in FY26. This share appreciation rights award bridges the vesting gap and aligns Paul's remuneration with shareholder interests. The board has decided to make this award in share appreciation rights as they are strongly aligned with shareholder outcomes. Importantly, share appreciation rights only deliver value to the extent that the share price increases beyond the grant price. Additionally, shareholders will benefit from Whitehaven's dividend yield, whereas Paul will not, enhancing total shareholder returns before any value accrues under this plan.
Given this inherent requirement for share price appreciation, along with the exclusion of dividend payments and significant discounts to the grant value that would've applied under Whitehaven's prior long-term incentive plan for the vesting gap period, no additional performance hurdles are proposed. The share appreciation rights will vest following the release of the company's FY26 financial results. That time period has been chosen to explicitly target the FY26 vesting gap. Approval is sought for the grant of 597,740 share appreciation rights to Paul. The board, with Paul abstaining, considers the grant of the share appreciation rights awards to the Managing Director to be appropriate and recommends that shareholders vote in favor of resolution three. The screen now shows details of the proxy votes received on this resolution, and they're up there, and is there any questions or discussion on resolution three?
No, there's no questions or discussion. Please vote on your devices for resolution three if you haven't already done so. We now move to the reelection and election of three directors. And given that I am the first one to go up for reelection, I'm going to hand over the chair to Fiona, the chairman of our audit and risk committee. Thanks, Fiona.
Thank you, Mark.
Just take that off there. Sorry.
It's all right. No problem. So the next item of business is Mark Vaile's re-election as a director. Mark was appointed as an independent non-executive director of Whitehaven and chairman of the board in May 2012 as part of the merger with Aston Resources. Mark is also chairman of the Governance and Nomination Committee. Mark's qualifications and experience are set out in the notice of meeting. Mark is standing for re-election as an independent director. I'll hand over to Mark to briefly comment.
Thanks, Fiona, and thank you, shareholders. As Fiona outlined, I've been in this position and on the board since the merger of Aston Resources and Whitehaven back in 2012. It's certainly been an honor to be in this position to work along with shareholders in the development of what has become a significant business in the Australian marketplace and in this space. We have over that period of time managed to collect a fantastic executive team led by Paul Flynn. We have seen many changes on the board during that period of time, and we'll go to a few of those in a minute where we have some new director or a new director up for election. So I've certainly enjoyed working with Paul as we have built the business to where it is today. It was a humble beginning 12 years ago.
If you think of the size of the business as it was then compared to the size of the business is now as an ASX 100 company and a globally recognized corporation in this space. Over that period, I've had the experience on a number of other ASX listed company boards, on Virgin Australia, Stamford Land, which is a Singapore-based company, Hostplus, large superannuation fund based in Melbourne. I'm no longer on those boards, but they, that I brought the experience from those different sectors. I'm still on the board of Servcorp. I still am involved in the Australia-Korea Business Council, the Japan-Australia Business Council advisory board, obviously in those two specific areas of, you know, commercial involvement, critical to the wellbeing of our company being key markets that we sell into in both Japan and Korea.
I certainly look forward, with your support, to continuing the work that we started this year with the acquisition of two major assets in Queensland in terms of bedding those down and getting those into the Whitehaven family and producing and operating the way we do and have done our assets in New South Wales. Of course, the final execution early in the new year of the JV sell down of Blackwater that is going to finish the transformation of the company, and particularly with regard to the health of our balance sheet going forward. As Paul alluded to, it will fast track our ability to move forward to review the benefits that can flow in the future to shareholders from these investments that we've made.
I'll conclude there and thank shareholders for their support over the years that I've been in this position and look forward to your ongoing support. Thank you.
Thank you, Mark. The board, with Mark abstaining, recommends Mark's election as a director. I would just like to comment that the board was very pleased that Mark indicated his willingness to continue as chairman through this period of significant expansion and bedding down of our business. So we're very pleased that he has indicated his willingness to continue. You have the results of the proxy on the screen, and the matter is now open for discussion. Are there any questions? Yes, lady.
Will this be your last term at the company? Is that what you're anticipating?
I'm putting forward for re-election for the next three years. Obviously, the rules that apply require a third of the board to be re-elected at each annual general meeting. So that'll probably see me with another three years on the board, and with shareholder support, that will be the case. In three years' time, that'll be a matter for shareholders. At the moment, we've got some very important work to finish on behalf of shareholders, and you know, I certainly look forward to being participating in the company going forward from here.
Are there any further questions? Nope. Okay. Thank you. So we've now finalized discussion on this item and move on to the next item of business. So I'll hand back to Mark as Chairman.
Thanks. Thanks, Fiona. Thank you, shareholders. So the next item on the agenda is resolution five, which is the reelection of Fiona Robertson. Fiona was appointed as an independent director of Whitehaven in February of 2018. Her qualifications and experience are set out in the notice of meeting. I'll hand over to Fiona to, briefly, comment on your reelection, Fiona.
Okay. Is the microphone on? Yes. Thank you. I joined the board six and a half years ago in 2018, when the company had clearly enunciated its strategy to diversify into its business into met coal. And at the time, Whitehaven was participating in Rio's sell down of its assets. And as a consequence of that, not long after I joined, it acquired its interest in Winchester South. So for me, it's been particularly pleasing to see the realization of that strategic objective of diversification into met coal, with the recent acquisition of Daunia and Blackwater. In the time that I've been on the board, there's been a significant strengthening of management, both in terms of personnel and processes, and particularly I think in the areas of operations, environmental management, and people and culture. And it's created a very strong platform for now the integration of these new operations.
It's nice to sort of see all of that playing out. I'm looking forward to the next three years and seeing how the business performs and how we manage to capitalize on this new dimension of the company's business. Look forward to continuing in this role with shareholder support. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Fiona. We'll put the results of the proxy voting up to you. There's the results of the proxy voting for Fiona's reelection. Any questions or comments on resolution? No. If there's been no questions or comments, I'll ask everybody who hasn't voted on resolution five to now vote. We'll move on to resolution six, which is the election of Mick McCormack. The next item of business is Mick McCormack's election as a director. Mick was appointed as an independent director of Whitehaven in February of 2024. His qualifications and experience are set out in the notice of meeting. I'll hand over to Mick to briefly address the meeting. Mick.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning to all participating in today's AGM. I've served as an independent director of your board since February this year, and I'm very pleased to put myself forward for election today. I currently serve as a member of the board's Health, Safety, Environment, and Community Committee. This committee plays an important part in ensuring Whitehaven's operations and processes are held to the highest standard to ensure the company delivers on our strategic priorities for you, the shareholders, and all our stakeholders. In addition to my responsibilities as a Whitehaven director, I am the chair of Central Petroleum Limited and a non-executive director of Origin Energy Limited. I'm also chair of the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra Foundation, a director of the Clontarf Foundation, and patron of the Australian Ice Hockey League.
I've spent almost four decades of experience in the energy and infrastructure sectors, where the most significant feature was my 20 years spent with the APA Group, where I was a founder of the company and was a CEO and managing director for 15 years. During my leadership at APA, its total assets grew from AUD 1 billion to over AUD 24 billion, taking it to an ASX top 30 company and along the way delivered returns to shareholders of 17% each year over that time. At one time, my colleagues claimed that I had either built, owned, or operated most of Australia's gas infrastructure. All up my non-executive director experience, together with my executive career, mean I offer significant operational, strategic, and governance experience as the company navigates its way through the challenges the future will no doubt throw up.
In conclusion, I am seeking your support for election today and very much hope to have the opportunity to continue to serve you as a member of your board. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Mick. Thank you. The matter is now open for discussion. Any questions or comments on resolution number six? No questions or comments. Please ensure that you've voted on resolution six on your devices and we'll move on. There, the proxy results are up there. We'll now move on to resolution seven, which is the reinsertion of part of the partial takeover provisions in the constitution. The next item of business is a special resolution to approve the partial takeover provisions in the company's constitution. Under the Corporations Act, these provisions must be renewed every three years or they cease to have effect.
These provisions in the company's constitution were last approved by shareholders in October of 2021 and have now ceased to have effect. If passed, resolution seven will reinsert these provisions in the constitution and they will have effect for three years from today. The partial takeover provisions in the constitution only apply to proportional takeover bids. A proportional takeover bid involves the bidder offering to buy only a portion of each shareholder's share rather than all of their shares. If this resolution is passed, it means that shareholders will have the opportunity to vote on a proportional takeover bid before it can proceed. The provisions are intended to safeguard against a party being able to acquire control of the company without payment of an adequate control premium for their shares. A detailed explanation of this item is set out in the notice of meeting.
The board recommends shareholders vote in favor of resolution number seven. The screen now shows the results of the proxy votes on this item. Is there any questions or comments on resolution seven? There being no questions or comments, please everybody make sure you've voted on your devices on resolution number seven. As there are no further questions, I'll shortly be closing voting on resolutions one to seven. I ask all shareholders who have not already submitted their votes to do so now, and I'll let you know when we're gonna close it, so we'll just have Computershare again give notice now when everything's in. That'll be enough. Okay. I think everybody's voted that's gotta vote on their devices, so I now declare the poll closed and the results for resolutions one to seven will be displayed on the screen shortly. Yeah. They'll be up there shortly. Presumably done manually.
I'm sure the technology will work. There you go. In smaller format. As you can see, resolutions one to seven have been passed. As a result, we will not be voting on resolution eight today. So ladies and gentlemen, that completes the formal business of this meeting. I now formally declare the meeting closed. Thank you all very much for your attendance and patience, and we invite you to join us for light refreshments, cup of tea, coffee outside in the foyer, and members of the board will be here if you want to ask any further questions of the board. Thank you very much for your time this morning and this afternoon. Thank you.