Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kalidas Madhavpeddi, I'm the Chairman of your board. It's almost 11:30 now, I'm very pleased to open the annual meeting. Let me first start with a safety issue. In case of emergency, please exit through the main doors behind you, follow the exits to leave the building the same way you came. We have provided headsets for everyone, the instructions are on the package. Please set it to one for German and two for English. Please turn your mobile devices off, no photography is allowed. I'll provide the exact details and procedure for the conduct and order of this meeting at the appropriate stages. First, my great pleasure to introduce my distinguished colleagues on the board, starting with Liz Hewitt, Martin Gilbert, Cynthia Carroll. Next to me, John Burton, the Company Secretary.
At the end, on my far right and your left, David Wormsley, Patrice Merrin, Peter Coates, Gill Marcus, who is our senior independent director, and Gary Nagle, our CEO. Patrice Merrin will retire today. On behalf of the board, I'd like to express our gratitude to Patrice for nine years of committed service, and she's been working all day, even today. Thank you, Patrice. Our CEO will give a short presentation, but before that, I wanted to make a few comments. First of all, 2022 was a significant year for Glencore, both in terms of governance and results. First, on financial performance, I'm pleased to report this is the best financial year for the company since its IPO. As a result, we've strengthened our balance sheet. We'll be paying out dividends of $0.44 per share and buying back a further $1.5 billion of shares.
The board remains committed to our climate strategy. Alongside the annual report, we've published our climate report, which provides an update on our progress and our transition plan, which we published in 2020. Our targets for reductions, as you all know, for Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3, are a 15% reduction by 2026, and 50% reduction by 2035, and our aspiration is to achieve zero emissions by 2050. Health and safety remains one of our top priorities. Last year, we carried out extensive work in this area, including overseeing the implementation and performance of our SafeWork 2.0 program. We've seen improvements in many of the metrics, but sadly, we are humbled in having to report that we had four fatalities across our businesses last year.
As our training and our processes continue to improve and become embedded across all our businesses and operations, we believe we'll move closer to our ambition to prevent all fatalities, occupational diseases, and injuries at work. Tailings storage facilities remain an important area of focus, as you all know. We've already spent $130 million on upgrade programs around the world, with a further spend of about $500 million for the next three years. On compliance, last year, we reached resolutions with the U.S., the U.K., and Brazilian authorities concerning our investigations, but the investigations with the Swiss and Dutch continue. Over the last number of years, we have invested heavily to improve our ethics and compliance programs, and we are committed to learning from our past failures.
As chairman, I'm proud that your company is a significant investor and partner in the developing world. Wherever we operate, we make a commitment to create value in ethical and a sustainable manner. We employ tens of thousands of people, support local businesses and service providers, and invest in local education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Around 2.5 million people living near our industrial assets have benefited from our community investment activities, including environmental initiatives, healthcare facilities, education programs, and enterprise development. Last year, we paid approximately $12 billion in taxes and royalties to our host governments. We welcome fiscal transparency through our support of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and through the annual publication of our payments to governments report. Our community development programs are also an integral part of our community and stakeholder engagement strategies.
The board would also like to thank all our employees at Glencore for their hard work, efforts to drive the success of our business, which in turn delivers meaningful benefits to all our stakeholders. With that slightly long introduction, I'll now hand over to our CEO, Gary Nagle, to say a few words about our outlook.
Good morning. Great to meet you now. Thank you for joining us here today. I won't take a lot of your time. I know there's a long order of business to get to, so I'll just spend a few minutes. Last year, I talked a lot about our financial performance, and Kalidas has mentioned the record year that we had during 2022 for your company. We achieved so much during the year of 2022, and it set us up for a terrific future. I thought today I would spend just a few minutes talking about what our company looks like and what the future looks like for our company, and the great future we have for all our stakeholders in Glencore.
Up on the screen, you'll see a slide which effectively puts it all together in one page. What is our business made up of? It is made up of a world-class industrial business. This is a business that supplies the energy needs of today through the coal reserves and resources that we have, but it provides the metals for a decarbonized future to provide for the energy of tomorrow. We're a very well-established company with world-class assets across the entire world, providing what the world needs as we decarbonize to the net zero 2050 that Kalidas mentioned. Associated with that, we have the best-in-class marketing business.
This is a marketing business that, once again, covers the key commodities that we need, providing the materials that the world and our customers need to decarbonize and to grow the world and provide the services that they do. That's the complementary nature of having the industrial asset business with a marketing business is what really provides the returns, both to you as shareholders and to our customers, the service that they need to ensure the quality and reliability of the commodities that we provide. We don't stop just there. There's a lot more to our business. Over the last couple years, we've invested heavily in a recycling business because circularity is a key part of the future. It's a key part of decarbonization, and most importantly, it's a key part of our responsibility to the world.
Over the years, as we continue to grow that recycling business and provide those recycled materials and minerals into the world, our customers will look more and more to us for those minerals, knowing that these are responsibly sourced, responsibly cycled, recycled in a circular economy. That is a growing business for us, something that we are paying a lot of attention to, spending a lot of capital on, and we're seeing the dividends already in this early stage. Associated with that, we've also set up a carbon business, and a carbon business is something that our customers need, too. Customers are asking for carbon-free freight.
They're asking for green aluminum. We can provide that service through our industrial business, through our marketing business, through our recycling business, and we overlay it with a carbon solution for our customers, with a one-stop go-to shop to provide those decarbonization metals and minerals needed for the future, and at the same time, providing the energy needs of today. Now, if you look where the world sits, the world is underinvested in those key commodities. As the commodities that we have in Glencore, we are uniquely positioned to be able to maximize value for you as shareholders while providing those services to our and those products to our customers. These are products that are absolutely vital. The world cannot decarbonize without the materials that Glencore provides today.
The supply, demand balance looks very challenged, and we are here to invest our capital to help meet those demand challenges. We have a long program of capital development around our copper projects, around our nickel projects, around our cobalt projects, that will allow the world to decarbonize through us spending that capital and allowing the world to get hold of those materials and build the energy needs of tomorrow. Our business is absolutely unique. No other business has those four elements that I mentioned: a world-class industrial business with the right commodities, a world-class marketing business, a recycling business, and a carbon solutions business that provides the world what they need.
We have a leading carbon emissions and climate strategy, a reduction in our Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions, 15% down by 2026, 50% down by 2035, and a net zero ambition by 2050. This is sector-leading. No other mining company in the world can match our climate strategy. In front of you have a very flexible business, a very robust business, an incredibly strong management team, ready and to deliver on a terrific strategy for you as shareholders. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Gary. I will now proceed to the formal part of today's meeting. Copies of the notice of this meeting, English, German, French, and Italian, are available in the auditorium. If anyone does not have a copy, please raise your hand, and an attendant will get you a copy. Does anyone not have a copy? Okay. Before proceeding to take a vote on the resolutions, I would like to invite questions from shareholders. Questions should be asked in English or German, unless you have provided your question in advance. We do not have translation facilities for any other languages. When seeking to ask a question, please raise your hand and a poll card to show that you are a shareholder. Before you begin asking a question, please may I ask you to get a microphone and somebody will hand you one.
Please give your name, and if you're not a shareholder, who you're representing. Also, if you're a German speaker and wish to ask a question in German, please do so, and we'll, at least I'll put on a headphone, and we'll have translation on the headsets. I would also like to remind everyone this is a shareholders' meeting, and therefore, that I would ask that any question which does not relate to today's agenda is kept short. Otherwise, I will cut off the questions, especially if they're repetitive and go over the same points as before. So I would start with who has the first question?
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gröli Wa lter Gröli from Bern. I feel very uncomfortable when I come into this building, and I see these people demonstrating. Could you please explain me, what is this all about? What are you doing that makes these people protesting against the company? Why are the news and the medias talking very badly about Glencore, and what do you do about it? Thank you.
I think your question is what are people doing outside, and why are they there? First of all, anybody's welcome to come and say what they may or may not say. As I've mentioned in my introductory comments, Glencore is a company that's very focused on its global assets, its people, helping communities and the countries that it operates in. We don't always perhaps see to eye to eye with certain people, but I'm not aware who they are and what they're doing outside. Gentleman in the blue shirt.
Monsieur le Président, bonjour. Mon nom est Willie Gagnon. Je suis actionnaire de la société. Je vais m'adresser à l'assemblée en français. Le français étant une langue officielle de Suisse, étant une langue officielle-[Foreign language]
I don't have any translation.
Étant une langue officielle, également du Canada, où la société a des activités, en plus d'être la langue officielle de l'État- [Foreighn language]
No, in Rwanda.
de l'État où Glencore a des activités à Rwanda. Je ne vous entends plus. Le micro fonctionne? Est-ce que vous m'entendez? Oui. Bon, vous avez dit d'entrée de jeu qu'il était possible d'intervenir dans une autre langue que l'allemand ou l'anglais si nous avions soumis notre question à l'avance. J'ai soumis ma question à l'avance. Nous aimerions savoir, étant donné le fait que cette usine-là pollue beaucoup. Vous avez déjà reçu notre question, donc je me ferai bref. Étant donné que cette usine-là pollue beaucoup, nous sommes d'avis que les administrateurs et la direction de la société doivent mettre rapidement fin à cette situation très nuisible à l'entreprise. [Foreighn language]
Yes.
Pardon?
En français. [Foreighn language]
Qu'est-ce que se passe-t-il? [Foreighn language] Pardon.
I think you're asking about the Horne Smelter. Is that correct?
Horne Smelter, yes, I'm speaking in French because our people over there are French speaking.
Merci. [Foreighn language]
Yeah.
Why don't you ask your question in English then, if you don't mind?
Je suis navré, de cette situation. [Foreighn language]
English.
You did the French part. If you could help us out and speak in English, please.
You received the questions beforehand.
Oh, in that case.
It showed in introduction, we could speak some other language if you received the question beforehand. You received it beforehand.
In that case.
Mr. Matteo is saying.
Please sit down, and I will be happy to answer the question.
I didn't ask them already.
Okay. You said you sent the questions ahead of time, so I'm just trying to make it easy.
Are you going to see the question?
I will answer the question that you sent ahead of time.
I don't have to ask them?
Hopefully not.
Okay, I'm gonna try to say it in English.
Merci. [Foreighn language]
That's not because I don't speak English, that I did not want to speak it. Okay?
Tout suite?
Yes. When are you gonna respect the? There are two norms in Quebec, 15 nanograms and 3 nanograms. Quebec told you could use the later one, the first one, 15 nanograms, and you should submit a plan to attain the 3 nanograms by 2027. Why don't you do it now? Will you give money to people impacted by the activities of the plan? When will Glencore stop telling it's gonna close the plan if it doesn't get what it wants? I would have.
Okay. Let me go ahead and answer your question, and then we'll go from there. Thank you very much. Regarding the Horne Smelter, as you know, and for the benefit of everyone else who's listening to the question, the Horne Smelter is over 100 years old. It's a facility that's been operated by many companies, including Noranda of Canada. First priority for us, as the owners and operators, is the health and safety of our people and the community around. In the last 20 years, we have decreased the emissions by over 90%, and we are working on a very aggressive program to spend quite a lot of money, roughly CAD 500 million, to bring the emissions down further. We think that's the right step to do.
We've asked the Canadian government to work together with us to create a baseline study, from the people around the community, and we're waiting for their response. In addition, we're trying to create a buffer zone around the Horne Smelter so that if there is any such issues, it doesn't translate into health issues for our employees and the people that live around the smelter. Hopefully that answers your question. Can I go to the next question, please?
We'll be asking our questions in German. Speaking on behalf of Ilda, she's representative of the Women's Network of El Paso in Colombia, representative of the Afro-Colombian community there, and she is also a human rights activist with us, who is concerned. There are three questions she has: How will you be repairing the damages that you have inflicted on women, mothers, their children, and young people without any future prospects, where mining activities in our Afro-Colombian territories have infringed on our lives, the ways of life, and our rights? Secondly, have you abided by environmental restrictions imposed on you by the Colombian state? Third question: How will you compensate the community for the health damage that they suffered from the coal mining?
I think this was a question from Prodeco, is that correct? Perfecto. As you know, Prodeco currently employs about 1,000 people in terms of indirect employees, contractors. When we retrenched people, we paid them a much higher rate than the government required for the retrenchment, we continue to work with the government with regard to the facility and how we move forward at Prodeco. Gary, did you want to comment any more on that? Thank you.
Hello. Hello, Mr. President. I'm Richard Murphy. I'm a shareholder and co-filer of Resolution 19. I'm here today now to ask a specific short question on behalf of the First Nations representatives from Australia. That reads: Our names are Jack Green, Garawa elder and longtime activist against damage caused by Glencore's Macarthur River Mine, and Josie Davey Mingurrinyi, or traditional owner for Macarthur River Mine. The River Mine is a lead and zinc mine, as you know, it is the most toxic mine in Australia. We've seen our sacred river diverted to make way for the mine, and acid mine drainage seep into the groundwater of our country, and our sacred sites and cultural heritage destroyed. The question, Glencore has acknowledged that the mine will need monitoring until at least 30, 37, so over 1,000 years.
Can Glencore commit publicly to the people of Borroloola, where the mine is located, to disclose how the mine will be closed, rehabilitated, and monitored for 1,000 years, and how will this be funded by Glencore? Thank you.
We respect the rights, interests, and aspirations of Indigenous people, and acknowledge their right to maintain their culture, identity, and traditions. Some of our industrial assets, as you pointed out, are located on traditional territories. Our approach when dealing with them aligns with the ICMM position statement on Indigenous people and mining, which requires mining projects located in lands traditionally owned by or under customary use of Indigenous people, with respect to rights and special connections to the land and water. We also, as ICMM member, must adopt and apply engagement and consultation processes, which we're doing, and we seek through good faith negotiation to reach agreements with Indigenous people who maintain an interest or connection to the land which we operate, and we continue to do that at all our locations. Yeah.
Maybe I can add something to that answer. We are currently negotiating the ILUA Agreement, and the latest independent monitor report shows excellent environmental management. The 1,000 years was in fact a government request assessment, and we have a number of working groups engaging on the ground with First Nations, with the government, with interested parties and stakeholders, to work out a comprehensive environmental management plan to deal with all environmental impacts, and with the utmost respect to the First Nations and native title.
Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Luis Fernando Ramírez. Vengo de parte de Sintramienergética. [Foreighn language]
My name is Maurice van Beers from CNV Internationaal. I will speak the words in English.
Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Alex Tinoco Román. Vengo de Peru, de la empresa Volcan, que es también de Glencore en Peru. Gracias. [Foreighn language]
I will translate or speak the words in English for both gentlemen. Thank you. Glencore is the current owner of Grupo Prodeco in Cesar, Colombia. It became as well the sole owner of the Empresa Carbones del Cerrejón in La Guajira, also in Colombia. This happened after acquiring 100% of Cerrejón's shares only a few months after Grupo Prodeco renounced its mining titles. The latter happened in an abrupt manner, and without consulting with the unions and communities. In the meantime, Grupo Prodeco continues to operate in Colombian territory, selling coal to Europe and making millions in profit, whilst using the figure relinquishment of mineral titles to exterminate the unions through a judicial request to lift the union protection, and arresting sick workers seeking to ultimately dismiss them.
The Colombian justice hasn't allowed the union's protections to be lifted, arguing that Prodeco Group is still active in Colombia. Which means that both unionized and sick workers should receive training and be reintegrated to other activities developed by the company in the territory, which would be entirely possible, considering how vast Glencore's operation is. In light of Convention 87 of the ILO and Principle 4 of Bettercoal Code, Prodeco is still in debt with the unions and communities in the area, as it has failed to establish an honest, horizontal dialogue in good faith to reach agreements for labor reconversion, social protection, and economic diversification for the more than 7,000 direct and indirect workers that have been affected by Grupo Prodeco's decision. Nevertheless, Glencore has filed a demand against Colombia through the ICSID mechanism.
Based on the issues above mentioned, I have some questions for the board. Can you tell us, what are the numbers of coal, of commercialization of coal in the last year until now? How do you guarantee that the ILO conventions, such as 87 and 98, relevant to take in account in the case of relinquishment of mining titles, are taken in account? The same is true for the Bettercoal Code, number 4 . In the case of, how do you think to include social protection for ex-workers, besides all the intended social protective projects that you have planned?
Okay. As you well know, Prodeco, we relinquished the mining contracts. Prior to that, I think in the last 30 years, Prodeco has invested about $3 billion and paid almost $3 billion in royalties and taxes to the government. When the asset was relinquished, and the workforce was reduced to the care and maintenance, we paid wages to the people that were terminated, which was over and above what the government requirements were. From the company perspective, we did more than what the government was asking. We continue, or Prodeco continues to employ about 1,000 employees, as far as we know, and those employees are paid at the wage rate they were before. Prodeco remains committed to complying with its obligations.
In fact, in terms of the unions, as you point out, they continue to engage with assembly, et cetera. Some of the points you made are incorrect. I just want to make that clear.
The Peruvian, yeah?
Please, can you keep it short, just so that. I want to give a chance to other shareholders who may have business and other questions, with items on the agenda.
I will keep it short. We recognize that it bothers us, that we are here, but as union leaders, we have the right and obligation to defend the right, to freedom of association, and the right to health, and the right of equality of the workers in the territories from which the value of your shares are coming from. To begin the intervention, we want to let you know that the leader from Peru, he has been fired twice for defending his rights of outsourced workers in the Antamina mine in Peru, and twice he has been reintegrated, reinstated, thanks to court decisions against Glencore. I want to call to your attention then, that.
Not Glencore. You're talking about Prodeco, just to make it clear. Peru, right? Okay.
I want to call your attention as Glencore's shareholders, to ask for your support to Glencore, to guarantee the right for collective bargaining for the union he represents. This to guarantee decent work for all workers in the Volcan mine, including outsourced workers. For every direct worker, there are seven outsourced workers. It is important for you to understand that Glencore does not comply with the law in Peru. That is why it was necessary we had to go to file and demand to ensure compliance with national standards. Nevertheless, even today, the court rulings, which indicate that Glencore should sit down and negotiate, they are neglected by the company, and this only because the union that he represents affiliates direct and outsourced workers. Volcan is implementing a strategy of union busting.
Yeah.
For this reason, we have filed today a case with a national contact point in Switzerland and in Peru, together with CNV Internationaal, Solifonds, the Swiss Trade Union Confederation, SGB, and the Union of Metallurgical Mining Workers of Antamina Volcan mining company and specialized companies, contractors, and intermediaries. With a principal goal, we filed this complaint to achieve that Glencore takes action together with its subsidiary, Volcan, and that it sits down with us as soon as possible and start negotiations in good faith with the trade union that he represents.
Let me respond to some of your points, just to make it clear. First, Volcan does not restrict the right to collective bargaining, as you know, or freedom of association for Andaychagua Union. We kind of, right off the bat, I think the allegation is untrue. It is important to note that those workers that were dismissed for participating in the strike had resigned from the union months prior. They left the workplace without any justification, which, according to Peruvian law, qualifies for dismissal. Volcan has already called on the union to enter negotiations, but the union has requested additional demands, as we understand it. Therefore, I think further questions should be directed to Volcan, as you know, rather than to Glencore. Thank you.
Good morning. We come together from La Serranía del Perijá in Colombia. We are from the Yukpa indigenous people, and we left our lands to come and meet you, to talk about the serious situation we are facing locally in our lands due to coal mining. We are here to talk to you about what those numbers mean in reality, the ones you are discussing here in our social reality as indigenous peoples in Colombia. Today, we are here to inform you all, that according to the Colombian Constitutional Court, we are at imminent risk of extinction due to the loss of our ancestral lands and all the consequences it has caused because of the open coal mining. It's not an invention of us, it's a reality. The paradise where we lived became a real hell with those coal mines.
Today, we are here to bring you this information because perhaps the most of you were unaware of this horrible situation. From now, with the information we are bringing to you will start being complicit of the genocide we are facing, if you decide to not doing anything in the name of this progress. In reality, to stop Glencore's damages is a matter of life or death for indigenous peoples in Colombia. Moreover, in this context of the climate crisis we are living, is a matter of life or death for all the human family. My questions, our questions are: Are you going to stop this process of extinction of indigenous peoples? The last one, are you going to stop the process of extinction of the entire humanity, or are you going to keep extracting coal in a context of climate crisis?
Thank you very much.
First of all, I made an earlier statement about how the company treats and is aligned with indigenous people. I understand and appreciate that you've come a long way, and thank you for that. I understand that you have already appealed to the courts, and it was rejected at the fourth level of the court and is now being reviewed by a commission. We await that decision to see what happens next. Thank you. Anyone have a business or strategy question, you know, just to warm up the place a little bit? I think the gentleman with the yellow lapel.
Hello, Mr. Kalidas. My name is Ignacio Requena. I am a worker of Asturiana de Zinc, a wholly owned company of Glencore in Spain, a member of the European Union. At Asturiana de Zinc, the local manager participates in union's activity through a union that only sits in the company. Its name is SITAG. There are serious problems with health and safety, with a highly elevated ascertain sins and with dangerous work areas. For example, where the roasting process takes place. There are graves, insufficiencies related to health and environment, that very poor management of carcinogenic products. When with a impact on workers who are exposed and the environment. The sustainability of the operation is compromised due to injustification, the extractions of jobs, and the lack of investing in maintenance.
My question to you is, what will management and the board do to end these practices, as possible, immediately, that violate, in my opinion, the company's code of conduct, when? Thank you.
First of all, the health and safety of our workers, as I said before, is our first priority. Asturiana, as you know, complies with all legal requirements governing the operations, both Spanish and EU legislation, as well as Glencore policies. Let me make that clear right off the top. The operation continues to focus on improving the roasting facilities, which I think is one of the things you expressed concern about. This includes investment in a new maintenance facility, and we've recently started installing it in a test phase, so that should continue the improvements that we promised at Asturiana. Thank you. Somebody tell me they have a business question.
Thank you. Dear board of directors, my name is Robin Williams. As representative of the Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy Union in Australia, we are inquiring about Glencore's stance on the Australian Government, Same Job, Same Pay legislation. Specifically, we would like to know if the board of directors supports aligning the pay and condition of contractor workers with those of permanents.
Thanks, Robin. I think, first of all, your union agreement has already been negotiated, correct?
I haven't quite finished.
Sorry.
Will the company oppose the proposed legislation and continue the practice of paying contractors significantly less than permanent employees? Over the past decade, Glencore has utilized contractor workers from labor hire providers at your mining operations, which has undermined collective bargaining efforts. Despite performing the same work and adhering to the same shift structures as permanent employees, these contractors receive $30,000-$40,000 per year less. We seek clarification on Glencore's position regarding this issue. Thank you.
As I understand it, your union contract at that location was negotiated and is already in practice. That's an agreement reached between the parties. If there are any further issues that you have, that should be brought up at the local level. As you know, we're a diversified company with assets around the world. These are delegated to each of the business units around it. Since you have an existing contract, if you have further questions, comments on your contracts, you should bring it up at that level.
I mean, maybe if I can just add one extra comment to that. As you know, Robin, our coal business in Australia, and particularly in New South Wales, has a far... Well, let's say much less contractors than some of our competitors, particularly those in Queensland. Of course, we're very aware of the legislation that's coming, that the bill has not been fully released by government, and we're waiting for the details of that. Once we see the details of it, we'll be able to engage constructively.
It's very exciting for us that there are so many questions, so thank you.
Buenas tardes para todos. Soy Diana Alvarez, directora del Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social, Tierra Digna en Colombia, donde acompañamos a las comunidades cuyos derechos humanos han sido vulnerados en Cesar y Magdalena por las minas del carbón. [Foreighn language]
I will be speaking German. Stephan Suhner from the working group, Swiss Colombia. Tierra Digna has the following message that I would like to pass on to you. A year ago, communities started when it came to giving back mining titles to demand transparency and to have a say. Since December 2022, there's been a court decision that asked Prodeco to open up a table to work with the communities, Hilda, to discuss with them the plans on the closure. Those communities see great dangers. There are five specific death threats. There were attacks on indigenous leaders. Our questions are the following: What does Prodeco do to save the lives of those activists? There are five people that stand up for the rights of their communities, and they're standing up for a fair transition in the energy business.
Secondly, when will Prodeco start the dialogue, the process of dialogue with local communities? Third, is Prodeco and Glencore in agreement with us that the transition from coal to a coal-free society would also have to include damages paid to these local, communities that were impacted by the mining? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Suhner. Many thanks for your question and, of course, your ongoing interest in Colombia. Prodeco is engaged with local communities on a number of occasions to present the details of the environmental transition plan. At this point, we're awaiting decision on the plan, as you know, from the relevant authorities. At this time, we don't have any updates from them. Once the authorities issue, the decision will resume engagement. Prodeco, as you know, maintains engagement with civil society. We actually receive support from the Swiss government to do so. Prodeco is also separately undertaking a third human rights impact assessment. We will share those findings with you, once sufficient progress has been made.
Finally, I think you asked last time perhaps about Tierra Digna, and we'd be open to joining a meeting between Prodeco and Tierra Digna virtually, recognizing that the Prodeco team is the one that makes the decisions and is coordinating all the relevant activities on the ground. Thank you.
If I could add one more comment. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. On the first point, Mr. Suhner, that you raised, the company condemns in the strongest terms, any threats against any community leaders whatsoever. We encourage anyone who is threatened, their life or their physical harm, to report that to the relevant authorities. As a company, of course, we would assist to the extent that is required, but we absolutely condemn any threats against any community leaders or other stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, in your opening remarks, you talked Philipp von Holzbrinck. In your opening remarks, you talked about the outstanding financial performance over the last year. How does that go together with the decline in the stock price of 13% over a year? What is your assessment of the financial performance year to date for 2023?
As you know, since last year, many of the commodity markets, prices have come down, partly because of Chinese economy, and the growth there. Potentially, there is a U.S. recession, perhaps in the second half of this year, and Europe looks quite a bit slower, mainly because everybody's in the process of raising interest rates to bring down inflation globally, which is also slowing down the world economies. It's a natural reflection of lower commodity prices, that's reflected in the stock price. Our longer term assessment of our business remains unchanged. We think the decarbonization metals are the critical path for decarbonization for the entire globe, and Glencore will be providing all the key metals that go into the decarbonization. Gary, you want to add something?
No, I think you've covered that. I mean, just generally, one thing to add, of course, it was a record year last year, you're quite right. Our share price reached a record high of GBP 5.80 on the London Stock Exchange. Associated with that, we returned significant cash to shareholders by way of dividend and buyback, and that is the part of the return. It's not only reflected in the share price of the day, but it's reflected in the fact that we returned significant cash to shareholders by way of buybacks and dividends. The share price is also reflective, of course, of future outlook, which our chairman has outlined in his response.
Who else has any business or economics questions? No, I'm just joking. Go ahead.
Good afternoon, chairman and members of the board. I have four specific questions. First of all, due to the existing geopolitical situation, what are the existing opportunities in LNG trading, existing and future? My second question is, I understand there's an electricity trading desk. With the world moving towards renewables, of course, electricity will have to be stored. What opportunities are there existing or possibly in the future in terms of trading? My third question is, can you make any comments about the Teck Resources situation?
Perfect question for our CEO.
Fourth question. The fourth question is, there's a significant discussion about the world approaching a time where we will not have enough copper. Can you make any comments about the existing copper price and what the general position is of Glencore? Thank you.
Maybe I'll take number four first, and then you can do the rest. What do you think?
Oh, yeah! Sure, go for it.
Well, I, you know, I spent 30 years in the copper industry. You're right about the question. If you look at the worldwide production of copper, the grades of all the major mines in the last 30 years have come down. 25 years ago, a mine like Escondida in Chile was producing 1.5% copper. Today, it's about 0.7%. In fact, the world average copper grade is about 0.55%. The rate at which new mines are being discovered and produced is getting longer and longer, because, one, discoveries are much harder. Large ore bodies are very hard to find, and if you find one, the process of trying to permit and get into production is significantly longer. There will be quite a bit of stress on decarbonization metals.
We're obviously well-positioned for that because internally, we have a lot of growth, and we think that Glencore will play a pretty major part in it. Gary, over to you.
Thanks very much for your questions. LNG is a very exciting commodity for Glencore. It's something that we have started trading in and marketing. We have long-term offtake arrangements. We have regasification facilities in Gate in Europe. Certainly, when you look at the outlook for decarbonization, certainly, you know, everybody's driving for a zero-carbon solution as quickly as possible, but that practically is not possible, and the use of fossil fuels is required. We provide that through our coal business, but we also provide that through LNG, which is seen very traditionally as a transition fuel. We continue to grow that business. We believe there's opportunities, given the structural changes in the market and the elimination of Russian pipe gas out of the market.
A large portion of the value that we provided to our shareholders and to our customers, in fact, during 2022, was to be able to provide them LNG in times of need, when they were unable to access those that gas coming from Russia. In a very turbulent geopolitical world, but a world that must decarbonize, but requires short-term transition fuels like coal and LNG does continue to play a integral part of our marketing business in our energy department. With respect to power again, is a key part. You know, we are very active in the coal marketing business, in the LNG marketing business, as we discussed. As I presented in our presentation, we are active in the carbon business.
Effectively, we are active in all sides of the energy mix, but the one area we haven't been fully active in to date has been the power, the power industry. Excuse me. Recently, we've now started to trade power. It is something that it would be. It's a natural derivative that comes from trading all the feedstock into the power, or into the energy mix. It is something we trade. We trade it generally out of Europe, a little bit around the rest of the world, but generally out of Europe, and it is very complementary to our existing business. Your question around energy storage, you know, that is something for the future. Industrial energy storage, that technology hasn't been unlocked.
It's a key part of what the world needs to unlock technology-wise. We're a key contributor towards that within the critical minerals that we supply, and as we do that, and as that technology gets unlocked, I would imagine that our power trading desk would be involved in any developments in that industry around power storage. Lastly, to address your question.
... it's an ongoing discussion we are having with Teck. We believe that this is a transaction that is value accretive for our shareholders and for Teck shareholders. The idea is to create two bigger, better companies by merging Teck with Glencore and then demerging a bigger, better coal business into its own standalone business, and keeping the metals business of Glencore together with the Teck metals business, which have a number of synergies with Glencore's existing assets. We believe we create two bigger, better businesses with significant synergies and significant rerate potential that will benefit all shareholders and other stakeholders.
Hi, Mr. President. My name is Dominic Lemieux. I'm from Canada. I'm also the Industrial Co-chair for the mining industries. We represent more than 50 million workers all around the world in exactly 141 countries. We are also shareholders of the company. My question will be, from my opinion, really important for the business, and it's an economic question. In my opinion, all the question that were asked before me were important for the business. I'm here to denounce the behavior of Glencore with their employee and trade union around the world and also in Canada. I have three different question. The first one year ago, Glencore have been condemned by an independent tribunal in Canada for violating the labor code in Canada.
This judgment says that you illegally fired employees because they vote against a Glencore agreement proposal. The second thing, they rule out Glencore to try to dominate, hampered union activity in Canada. Finally, they condemn the company because you refuse to negotiate in good faith. Second thing, I would like to raise the point of how Glencore is using subcontractors all around the world. We are really happy that you create a lot of profit, and it's good for the company, it's good for the shareholders, and it's also good for the employees. You create a lot of precarious jobs with using subcontractors. With IndustriALL, we deal with a lot of big multinational companies, mining companies, I think that we will need to create dialogue with the high management of the company.
My three question: Were you aware about this decision in Canada? The second one, how many employees you have in the world, and how many subcontractors? Will you be willing to create, like, a steering committee that we can talk together with a higher level of management all around the world?
First of all, don't completely agree with any of your premises, but over 70% of the company's employees are unionized, and we completely support the right of any employee to join a union, wherever they may be. We negotiate at the local level between the company and unions, and we follow best practices, both in the country and globally, as we negotiate these agreements. I think fundamentally from the premises that you've tried to raise, we think because of the importance of local negotiations and the fact that each business is so different, we don't think there's much that cannot be resolved at the local level. Periodically, we have taken the view and virtually attended discussions within some region, just to see how things are going.
Other than that, we believe that a centralized is unproductive, and it's best dealt with the businesses and in the countries they operate in.
Bueno, muy buenos días. Simplemente quiero hacer varias preguntas. Soy mujer Yukpa, de la Serranía del Perijá. Soy indígena. ¿Qué va a hacer Glencore frente la contaminación y la contaminación del medio ambiente, la muerte de más de niños, más de 40 niños anualmente en nuestro territorio como pueblo Yukpa? ¿Qué esto ha hecho la minería a cielo abierto, la contaminación, y yo vivo en el seno, vengo de allá, y ha sido la muerte de más de 40 niños anualmente por la contaminación y la destrucción del medio ambiente? ¿Cuál va a ser la reparación frente a la situación del pueblo Yukpa, del pueblo de Becerril y también las familias de La Jagua de Ibirico? [Foreighn language]
I'm an indigenous woman from the Yukpa people. I'm coming from the place where the open mining pits are working. The contamination and the pollution has caused that 40 children died annually because of the pollution. What are your plans for reparation and for compensation of the environment and of the people, that it is close by the mine and that it is hugely affected by the pollution, to the point that 40 kids died annually? First of all, I completely disagree with your premise that the ambient air is causing fatalities around the communities. Right off the bat, I think that's a place that. From our perspective, we are doing everything we can in terms of our operations and the facilities, and we are not aware that any fatalities have been ascribed to ambient air in that region.
Morning. My name is Pierre Tuiteala, and I am, General Secretary of the Trade Union, SOENC-Nickel SLN. SOENC-Nickel SLN, the main union, KNS, Glencore subsidiary in New Caledonia. I would like to state that since Glencore arrival in New Caledonia in 2012, you have never taken the troop to meet with yours. When Xstrata was in New Caledonia, there was exchange with the trade union organization. With you, there are none. There are none. This show that you don't want trade union where you operate. I would like to respectfully ask you for a meeting date. You should consider changing your behavior, the workers, where are you not tools. When you invest in a country, you are not on conquering territory. You must respect the communities, the workers, but also the trade union, because we are partner, no adversary.
You cannot continue to simply dictate thing to order. We are in the 21st century. We have right, just as you do, and we, just as you, have responsibility. Today, we say it is enough now. Let's be responsible and sit down at the table to find solution.
Thank you.
That's work in everyone interest. We hope that our voice has been heard and understood today. I thank you. To restate my question on what date can we expect to meet you in solidarity?
First, to answer your question, Glencore respects the human rights everywhere in the world, and that's part of our philosophy and how we operate. Second, we completely endorse every employee's right to belong to a union, and as I mentioned earlier, over 70% of our employees belong to unions around the world. I'm not aware of what your specific situation in 2012 in New Caledonia was, or if you're still an employee there, but I think that's a very good discussion to have with the New Caledonia management team, and the business unit there. I can assure you from Glencore corporate perspective, we completely endorse human rights. That's how we operate, and we respect your rights if you belong to the union of the operating units in New Caledonia.
Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Juan Carlos Solano. Vengo en representación de Sintracarbón de la Mina de Cerrejón, Colombia. [Foreighn language]
Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Umlas. I'm a senior advisor to IndustriALL Global Union, and I'm going to read in English my colleague's question. Dear board members, my name is Juan Carlos Solano of Sintracarbón Union, and I am a worker at Cerrejón Mine in Colombia, which is wholly owned by Glencore. The workers at Cerrejón face many problems, including excessive outsourcing, poor treatment of ill workers, and non-inclusion of workers in the discussion of the energy transition. These could be resolved through a good faith dialogue with the trade union, which we hope the company's directors will support. However, the shift of death or the death shift, has generated an enormous financial debt to workers in the past two years.
Based on supposed, quote, unquote, "economic sustainability," 226 Cerrejón workers were fired, and the company, unilaterally and against the will of the trade union, imposed a shift change from four to seven days, but with no increase in salary. In other words, seven days of work, but only four days paid. This has created a salary debt that is still in dispute with the company. My question to you is, when will this debt to workers be paid? Thank you.
Thank you. As I understand it, earlier this year, the company communicated to Sintracarbón the decision to move to this new roster, which includes four work groups. Since then, the company and the unions are working together to ensure the new roster, amongst other things, further enhances the health and safety of the workforce. My understanding is negotiations have been very constructive to date, and we expect them to conclude sooner or later, but sooner this year. From, I think, the perspective we're hearing, that things are going well and the negotiations are continuing with the unions. Someone from this side?
My name is Richard Solly. I'm a shareholder. I have short questions about Cerrejón Coal in Colombia and about Antapaccay in Peru. Before I ask them, I have an observation. I've been attending mining company AGMs in London for 30 years. I have never attended a meeting where community representatives from around the world have been given such utterly inadequate replies to their questions, politely delivered. The shortness and inadequacy is a form of deep disrespect towards people who are suffering gravely because of this company's operations. Cynthia Carroll will remember me from Anglo American AGMs. Anglo American goes out of its way to give lengthy answers, albeit inadequate in our view, to the questions that are posed. I am horrified by the utter inadequacy of the answers that you have given. I trust that next year, when I come, it will be different.
I shall now ask my ludicrously short questions. About Cerrejón Coal. Under what conditions would Glencore consider withdrawing its claim against the Colombian government for the court ruling in favor of the rights of the Wayuu indigenous people in the Bruno Creek case? What new remedial measures or actions has Glencore taken following the call by the Swiss National Contact Point to perform due diligence duties? If a sale of coal assets by Glencore takes place, what measures are contemplated to ensure a responsible departure and fulfillment of its obligations under the mine closure plan? After the coal marketing buyout, is Glencore directly marketing Colombian coal from Switzerland, and what policy does Glencore have to address impacts on the health of the populations near its mining operations? Once you've given an adequate answer to those, I will ask about Peru.
I think you've already dismissed my answers before I even-
You have not given the answer. Give it, and then we'll see whether it's adequate.
I understand, you basically rejected all the answers I gave prior to your question.
They are too short and utterly inadequate. Yes, you need to give lengthier answers.
Which.
Perhaps Cynthia Carroll can advise you on that.
I'm sure. What we're trying to do is succinctly answer the questions that people are arising and also make sure that we're answering as many questions as we can.
Are you going to answer the questions I've just asked?
Let me start on the broader question, and your question is: If we sell the coal business, will the business continue to honor its obligations? The answer is yes. Keep it as brief as that. Does that answer that question?
Press on.
Okay. You raised the question about Arroyo Bruno. Both our CEO and I were in Arroyo Bruno creek last year. We walked the entire length of the creek, and we saw the remediation and the work that was done to restore that creek, which flows more, I think, than it ever did. We understand that there are now jaguars there. There is a tremendous amount of flora and fauna, and it's been pretty much restored to the way it was, if not even better.
Well, it hasn't, because it hasn't been restored to its original course.
If I can answer on Arroyo Bruno. Arroyo Bruno was moved in accordance with a authorization by the government. It was then challenged through the courts, and it currently is going through the courts. Of course, like any law-abiding citizen, we keep with the order of the courts, and we'll wait for the final orders of the courts when the process finally runs its course to determine the way forward. At the moment, we are not mining in the area, as instructed by the courts, until the final determination is made, and I think it's in everybody's interest that we wait, and we let the courts make the final determination.
Thank you. I'll pass on to Peru. Concerning the Antapaccay operations in Peru, specifically the case of community leader, Sergio Huamaní. On the 11th of May this year, he was given a suspended sentence of one year in prison and ordered to pay PEN 10,000 or $2,700 to Glencore's Antapaccay subsidiary as a result of alleged defamation. Was Glencore management in Switzerland aware of this lawsuit? Was the order to sue Sergio Huamaní taken by the directors of Antapaccay or the directors of Glencore? Human rights organizations in Peru and elsewhere view this case as an attempt to silence social leaders who are critical of Antapaccay's operations. Sergio Huamaní has been repeatedly charged since 2012. What is Glencore's board's view on this?
Did the company ever consider talking to Sergio Huamaní or dropping the charges against him in exchange for a public apology?
... I think your first question is the board aware of this gentleman and his case? We are not.
There were several other questions in there. Are you going to answer them?
The rest of the questions emanated from the first question, so since I answered the first question.
It was the board in Switzerland who decided to press on with the judicial persecution of Sergio Ramon.
No, my answer was that we are not aware of it.
It amazes me that a multinational mining company is not aware of what's going on around its operations. As I say, in 30 years, I've never.
Well.
Across a mining multinational.
Yeah.
That appears so ignorant of what's going on on the ground.
Richard, I think that criticism is wholly unfair, firstly. Secondly, we're a business of represented in nearly 40 countries around the world with 135,000 employees and contractors. It's a very complex business, and of course, as a board of directors, we try to get across all the major issues. In this particular issue, the specific details we don't have at this moment, and of course, now that you've raised it's something that the board.
We'll look into.
quite willing to look into. From what I hear from you, if this gentleman was charged and found guilty by a independent court of law in the country, that is not us who are finding him guilty. He's found guilty for whatever causes under law, and he has recourse under law. I don't want to get into a debate now about what's right or wrong, if the court decision was right or wrong. As I mentioned in a previous answer, I think it's all our obligations to. Well, we do comply with the laws around the world and the directives of courts around the world, and that's what we all should do as law-abiding citizens in the countries where we operate. That said, of course, you've raised this issue here.
We will look at it. There are hundreds of issues around the world. It's impossible for the board to be involved in every single issue in every single country around the world. That's why we have empowered management to deal with that under the laws of the country and under the laws of the courts and the directions of the courts in the countries we operate.
Thank you. I never thought I would suggest that people might learn anything from Rio Tinto, BHP, or Anglo American, but I think you might learn from their ability to answer questions adequately at AGMs. Thank you.
Mr. President, my name is Gröli, Walter Gröli from Bern. I have very short questions. What do you buy from Russia, and what do you sell to Russia?
From our, from our asset base, the only thing we have to do with Russia is historical, shares that we own, which cannot be sold, and we have written down to zero.
Maybe if I can add to that. We have two, in terms of investments, we have no assets in Russia, no operating assets in Russia. We have two minority passive stakes in two listed companies, which we cannot sell. Your question revolves around, if I understand, what products we sell to Russia and what products we sell out of Russia. We sell no products into Russia. In terms of export products from Russia, we have a policy which is on our website, which says we, and we comply with it, we are entering into no new Russian business subsequent to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. zero new Russian business. There was some existing contracts in place before the war started. Some of those have been terminated, where they've been sanctioned.
The remaining contracts have either run out or there may be one or two left. These are preexisting contracts, which we are obligated under law to continue fulfilling, and they will run out over time. The energy contracts will be completed towards the end of last year and beginning of this year, and our aluminum contract is the final contract. Depending on the volume delivered, is expected schedule to complete by the end of next year.
Okay. I think we already had this gentleman. How about this young lady in the front?
Hello. Thank you very much. My name is Helena. My question is: How exactly are you going to pay for the reparations that have been caused by Glencore's operations in the Global South, that have resulted in the physical and cultural extermination of indigenous peoples? How will you ever repair the damages that you have done?
That's a statement that probably is completely contrary to what I said earlier on. Glencore respects the human rights of all people around the world. We're unsure really what you're specifically addressing, so I have no way to respond to that.
How do you respond to the diversion of the rivers in the territories that have caused the death of children and people that have lived in the ancestral lands for thousands of years?
In any country that we operate, if we have to divert waterways, we seek permission from the government in terms of water permits, diversion permits, go through a very formal process where the risk assessment, potential issues arising from it are all addressed, and that's when governments give us permits to make that happen. Otherwise, we do not do it. I think there's a false question in your question. I think we're getting.
Shareholders, CEO, Board, I've read carefully all your reports from the previous years, and I've noticed that when you close mines, you don't mention where those mines are closed, why are closed, reparations, nothing. If I'm a shareholder, I would be interested in those issues and why. Why is that information obscure today in those reports? It is not crystal clear at all why you close mines and what happened with the people in those mines. Why it is not even located in the map. There is no name of country, not name of mine. Why that information is so vague?
First of all, every mine that we develop, we build life of mine plans, and included in the life of mine plans are closure plans of how we address closure, including, let's say, there's water, disturbed land, et cetera. We have very specific plans how to deal with it. We're also working on a framework for a just transition for a lot of facilities. As you know, most of our mines are fairly long-lived, so this happens 20, 30 years out. With the framework that we're developing for our just transition, we hope to address some of those questions. I didn't answer your last question. Yeah. I didn't answer your last question, why do we close mines?
Typically, what happens is, a mine reaches the end of its economic life, and that's when we typically close mines down. Okay, let's make that one last question here so that we can finish the rest of the meeting.
Mr. President?
Thank you for the English.
I will tell my question in French and then translate it in English, if you permit. Will you take into account the great number of questions today? Will the board take into account the great number of questions today and the general nature of those questions? This is a matter concerning the business of the company.
Thank you for that question. Yes, we will take all the questions, and as you said, you know, some of them are very general questions, so it's very hard for us to come up with any kind of an answer to very general questions. On specific issues that were raised, we will look into it. For example, that gentleman there raised an issue of a specific individual. Management is going to review that. I think we've answered all the questions with regard to, I think, you know, Analyst 4 asking about centralized negotiations. We don't believe that's effective. It really stays with the business unit, which is closest to what's happening. In broad, general, that's the answer to your question. Okay, I think we've Sorry.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Board. Good afternoon, shareholders. My name is Naomi Hogan. I represent the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, and I would like to first speak to Resolution 19, and then I have some specific questions from Australia. Chair, as you know, this shareholder resolution has received a huge amount of support across your shareholders and the proxy advisors internationally. We are calling for enhanced disclosure in order to better understand how your thermal coal business going forward is aligned with your own climate commitments to the Paris Agreement and the objective of keeping temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.
This resolution has had a history over the recent years of responding to your climate plan and seeing your commitments, and also seeing the plans that you had in Australia to expand coal mines, extend coal mines, and also to open new coal mines in Australia. We sought to understand how that behavior fitted alongside your climate commitments. This resolution is incredibly clear and has been co-filed with institutional investors, including LGIM, HSBC, Vision Super, and Ethos Foundation on behalf of Swiss pension funds. We note that in your notice of meeting, you chose to discredit the resolution and encourage investors to vote against it.
I'm sure, while not knowing the vote yet, that there has been considerable interest in this resolution, and I would ask: will you consider taking on board the resolution for your climate plan next year and including this enhanced disclosure, so we can understand the thermal coal business in relation to your climate commitments going forward?
Thank you, Naomi. As I understand it, we have engaged with you, and had a discussion prior to your Resolution 19. We will most certainly look at the voting on it and then engage with our shareholders as we go through the process and then come up with a solution or an answer what the outcomes are.
Look forward to that feedback. It's been very difficult to get a meeting with you. We appreciate the one that we did have, and I'd certainly appreciate if the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility could also meet with you as a shareholder to discuss further. I have three questions on behalf now of various coal mines in Australia. The first, with regard to the Glendell expansion. This is a coal mine that in your climate plan, just released, you acknowledged that it was rejected in Australia. However, during the same month, we saw media comments from Glencore in Australia that you plan to fight the heritage listing, and push ahead with this coal mine, despite the fact that it will impact both colonial and indigenous cultural heritage.
Can I please ask the Board, is it your plan to respect the decision of our regulators to reject this mine and to respect the heritage nomination of this site to protect it?
Maybe you want me to take that, Kalidas.
Sure.
Hi, Naomi. Thank you for coming all the way from Australia. Must be a very long trip. Thank you for coming. Yeah, in fact, I may just take a little bit on your first question as well. Resolution 19, we did engage with you. Thank you for the constructive engagement. Of course, we don't yet know what the results of the vote is. We'll wait and see what that is. We felt, as we outlined to you in our engagement, that a pure disclosure resolution, we were comfortable with. We felt that the resolution that you tabled crossed the boundary in terms of governance and strategy setting.
We outlined that to you in our discussion, and we asked for whether you would consider various amendments to the resolution, which you did not want to take on board. As you know, strategy is the role of the board. It's for then shareholders to vote on the strategy we put to you. It's not the shareholders who set the strategy on behalf of the board. It's on that basis, generally, and we've outlined it in our response to you, it's on that basis, generally, that we recommended that shareholders vote against the resolution. Once we see the final outcome of the votes, of course, if the resolution passes, it passes. If the majority of the shareholders vote against the resolution, it doesn't pass, as you know.
If there's a big enough vote in favor of the resolution, in fact, not even that, there's going to be general consultation with our shareholders anyway on our climate policy. As you know, we are committed to reissuing a climate policy every three years, or climate strategy, I mean, every three years, and a refreshed strategy will be put out to shareholders for vote next year. Of course, we'll take into account all your feedback, your disclosure requirements and the requirements of all our other stakeholders and shareholders. With respect to Glendell, yes, the expansion or extension of Glendell was rejected under cultural heritage grounds.
As I think I mentioned in previous questions, of course, we respect the rights, we respect the decisions of courts and regulatory processes, but likewise, like the gentleman who has an issue in Peru and is has been found guilty, but is appealing his finding, we are appealing this finding too, because that is our right under law. We'll continue to appeal where we believe that perhaps decisions were made were incorrect. If, of course, the final court decision is taken in favor of not expanding the mine, we will abide by that. We have utmost and absolute respect for native title and heritage rights.
If I may respond just to two points that you made there. Firstly, to correct the record, and John Burton was at the meeting and did say that he would come back to us with suggestions for where the board would like to see changes to the resolution. That follow-up was never done. The co-filed resolution stands as written, and I know that other co-filers were disappointed in the lack of engagement from Glencore on this serious resolution. To your point around the Glendell expansion, I find it quite concerning, based on your commitments to Indigenous peoples and First Nations respect, that you would openly push back and reject this finding from our government and from the Heritage Council of New South Wales, that this is a significant cultural heritage site to First Nations people.
I would implore the board to take a different approach with this particular mine and to respect that rejection from our regulators in Australia. I have another question about a mine that you have with Yancoal, the Hunter Valley operations. We saw recently that this mine will create a huge amount of methane that the regulators are concerned will interfere with our climate commitments in New South Wales due to the sheer expanse of Scope 1 emissions. Glencore has not, in its application, made any attempt to prevent that methane. Can the board talk to that particular mine and any improvements you will make to your methane strategy?
You want to take that, because-
Thanks, Naomi. I mean, the HVO extension is something that was always considered in our climate strategy, and you'll recall that our climate strategy sees our coal production reducing by at least 50% by 2035. Within that is always being considered the extension of HVO. In HVO, it's a steam coal mine in New South Wales, in joint venture with Yancoal, as you rightly say, there are no major concerns with methane associated with that mine.
The regulator found differently. It was reported in the media last week, I would implore you to look more carefully at the methane that's expected from that extension.
We are aware of methane issues at certain of our mines. For example, we abate methane significantly at our underground Oaky Creek mine in Queensland. We do significant work on that abatement, and we spend millions of dollars every year. HVO is not something that's been raised as a major issue by regulators in terms of methane, thank you for raising it here today, and we will follow up.
Thank you. My final question is with regard to the Ulan coal mine. We've heard from residents there that Glencore is currently considering a major expansion of that mine. It's an underground mine set to run until 2033, and we've heard that Glencore is considering a major investment to extend, the long-wall mine in that area, which has also had significant issues with water, and could lead to local residents, not being able to access their water supply. I just wanted to ask whether there has been any board-level discussion on whether or not that mine expansion would be considered and invested in?
There's been no board-level discussion on that at this stage.
Okay, thank you.
The lady in front here. Yeah.
Esteemed chair, I'd like to congratulate you. Glencore is an excellent company. It creates a lot of good in the world. As shareholders, and I've been a longstanding shareholder, and I am well familiar with your mines, your operations. I've seen them firsthand, and I know what you do in the world, so I'd like to thank you for everything.
‹vielen Dank!› On that note, we will now proceed to the votes on the proposed resolutions. When you arrived today, you will have been given a white poll card and instructions on the voting procedure. Please, may I now ask you to complete your voting card on those meetings resolutions and turn in the card? We will announce the results following completion of the count. This concludes the business of the AGM, I now declare the meeting closed. Thank you very much for attending today's meetings. Refreshments will be served now in the area outside the auditorium, I look forward to meeting you there, regardless of what kind of questions you ask. Thank you.