Thank you, JS. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. As JS has already told you, we have today disclosed a set of strong financials. When you look at the profit and loss and cash flow statement from top to bottom, you'll see that all underlying comparisons from the first half of this year to the first half of last year have improved. Our top line has improved by 3%. However, if you exclude the coal businesses that we divested last year, the underlying growth is 7%. We saw a double-digit improvement in EBITDA, and we saw an even stronger improvement in cash from operations and free cash flow due to our high cash conversion in the first half. Following our project update on Oyu Tolgoi announced on the July 16, we've impaired the asset value with a net income impact of $0.8 billion. We've taken a cautious approach which captures the average of a range of potential outcomes. This Oyu Tolgoi impairment represents the main variance between IFRS net earnings of $4.1 billion and underlying earnings of $4.9 billion. JS will provide a further update on Oyu Tolgoi later. Because of strong earnings and a strong cash conversion, the Board was able to both increase the interim dividend to $3.5 billion, while we continued to strengthen our balance sheet as demonstrated by the reduction in pro forma net debt. Now let me step back before diving into the details of our results. The value creation, expressed in terms of profitability and growth, is strong for Rio Tinto. Our profitability continues to improve and reached the highest level on recent record in the first half. We saw our return on capital employed reach 23%, and this is based on underlying net earnings after tax. Despite being in a very capital-intensive business, our…

Thanks very much. Paul Gait from Bernstein. I just wondered if you could sort of elaborate a bit more on OT. And in particular, I mean if you had the benefit of hindsight, what sort of... Jean-Sébastien Jacques: That’s a good question.

I wonder what technical work could you have undertaken ahead of time that would have identified the issues that you’re know sort of dealing with and the sort of learnings for that when we then sort of think about something like Resolution and potentially other block caves? And then sort of carrying on from theme, I’m just also thinking about the impairment that you’ve made sort of on the asset. Using the 8.3% sort of cost of capital, given the discussions that have been going on in sort of Mongolia with the government, how should one sort of think about that? Is that – and I suppose what I'm thinking about is, if that's 8.3%, how should – what's the discount rate for the Pilbara, right? And then finally, TRQ have already stated that they're going to run out of cash by the end of 2020. So clearly, some kind of recapitalization needs to take place there. And again, how does – how are you thinking about recapitalization of your sort of participation in OT from the state you've got now? Thanks very much. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Yes. So thank you, Paul. I think the idea with the last one is an easy one. The funding of Turquoise Hill is a question for the Board of Turquoise Hill, so let them do the work and then we'll – we're a shareholder of Turquoise Hill and we'll discuss with them when the time is right. So I think this one was an easy one to deal with. The first one, I'll let Jakob to deal with the discount rate and the impairment. But I think the first one is very important issue, what is drilling we have done and we could have done? So as you want technical answer, I know, I'm going to ask Steve who's going to tell us what drilling we have done. I know – don't try to make it too complicated, Steve. If we can go back to the slide as well if – the slide where you have the footprint and so on. Go find it. Explain the level of drilling we've gone from the surface and then what we could see, what we couldn't see and then the drilling that we're doing now on some of the resource would be great.

All right. Thank you, J-S, and thanks for the question. So of course, in terms of defining the resource at OT, that drilling was done from the surface. A lot of drill holes 2 to 2.5 kilometers deep and vertical to subvertical drilling. So obviously, what we do there has been a very good definition of the ore, so the resource grade. But what happens is that, that in essence disproportionately will identify more the horizontal structures because you're drilling vertically downstream. It wasn't until we got underground that we can really start to see the vertical structures in more detail. We can see some of them but not in detail. As soon as we got underground, as soon as we had access to Shaft 1, we started drilling out horizontal holes. They're really the key ones in terms of understanding the infrastructure that you need to put in ahead of you. That drilling was done from the south to the north. And it wasn't therefore until we were able to drift up or develop up to the side of Panel 0, as we can see here, and start drilling across it that we actually see the more north-south running fault systems. So in essence, you have to be underground, you have to get to – off to the side to the ore body and you have to be able to drill across pretty much at right angles to be able to illuminate all of the structures in 3D. And it was, at that point, that – what we could see where faults on the Southwest corner and Panel 0. That's where we are planning, as J-S said, to build critical infrastructure, things that we call mid-access drives, ore handling systems, ore passes. And obviously, in those pieces of more…

Yes. Thank you. So look, with the project update on the 16th of July, we also wrote that, that was kind of a trigger for a full impairment assessment. And then what you do there, you have to kind of separate it out. We have a very systematic approach to discount rate, because actually all project-specific risks you build in with contingencies in your projections. We gave some updates on ranges to cost and schedule, and we have basically weighted a number of multiple development options together. And then, overall, the cash flow has been discounted, and you quoted them. Just first thing because – just so that people won’t misunderstand that, that number is in real terms, so you have to add the inflation to it. That’s important. So it is, of course, a higher number. Our – and actually, you can read it in the accounts because we have a smaller impairment in Mesa as well. Our WACC is to the tune of 6.9%. When it comes to gold business, we have a lower WACC. And therefore, the weighted WACC would be for Oyu Tolgoi is 6.3% and we add to it 2% country risk on it. We have carefully reviewed that, looked at a number of external measures for that and I think it’s an entirely appropriate risking in. So that’s how we have done it, and that’s consistent with how we are doing impairment system any assets across the world. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: So maybe before I go and get on this one, I’ll ask Arnaud, he was in charge of copper, in charge of Oyu Tolgoi. I mean he’s been involved now for a few years and dealing with the government and so on and so forth. So Arnaud, do you want to give us an update on the discussion with the government and how you see the sovereign risk from that just quickly. Because we’ve been in this project since a long time and discussion with the government has been a feature from day one and will be a feature for a long time. Arnaud, do you want to give us an update on this one?

Thanks, J-S. It is good to be in London actually for a change. So we are in ongoing discussions with the government as you know. We’ve agreed 1.5 years ago on working to get out on some four critical opportunities that are addressing the needs of the government and that are looking at how together – we can work together within our existing agreements to create more value for all shareholders in Mongolia. So the first working group is dedicated to power. And as you know, last year, we made an announcement where we agreed with the government’s framework, legal framework to be able to build a power station at Tavan Tolgoi on the core deposit, and so we’re working with the government to progress that project. And to know commitments that we made in the investment agreement about sourcing and one of our president of our power within Mongolia from gold. The second working group is on the tax. We had a tax audit 1.5 years ago that found that the government thinks that we should have paid more tax, and so we’re working with the government to resolve this issue and we’re working in a very collaborative way. The third working group is on interest rates. Within our investment agreement, there is a provision to review the interest rate every seven years and so we are in discussion with them on this. And the fourth working group is dedicated to increasing our support for the development of the economy. If you look at – and particularly the local economy, if you look at the big picture, Oyu Tolgoi is a major contributor to the Mongolian economy, if – already now with the open cut mine. In the future, what we are working with Steve’s team in building the…

And sorry, a second question... Jean-Sébastien Jacques: I thought that was two questions...

No, well that was two questions within 1 question. And just understanding the sort of capital framework. So pro forma reported net debt $6 billion. And I think back in May, you indicated that $6 billion was the level of net debt that you were comfortable with. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: We have said $5 billion to $7 billion, but okay.

So as we look forward, is that the type of net debt number we should be thinking about Rio is comfortable with in terms of capital headroom and implications for the future shareholder returns?

Yes, look, I’m very happy. I’m going to disappoint you a little bit because we’re really not setting a target debt. I was describing the capital framework last I presented here in March and we are very happy with the strong balance sheet. But ideally, we want to be able to act a little bit countercyclical, and that means that net debt can go up and down right now where we have very strong results. We are comfortable we’re seeing very low levels of debt. So I don’t think you should take that as the premise. So the key parameters is that we are – have a disciplined approach to capital investments independent of the cash flow we are generating and focusing on providing a superior return to the shareholders. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Thank you, Jakob. I think, Dominic, is – there is no absolute formulaic solution to your question. I think what we’ll do is – to be on the point of Jakob is we will look at it on a regular basis on the back of two or three items. One is how we see the outlook in terms of commodities. That’s very – one important. What is the capital program that we have ahead of us? And therefore, what is the risk profile and what is the level we want to have on the net debt? But you know that if you step back, the equity story of Rio is pretty simple. It’s about the resilience of a business case. The resilience of value proposition under any kind of market environment, okay? And it’s a combination of a few things. I’m sure you heard the 4 Ps before. The quality of the portfolio with world-class assets like [indiscernible] which delivered 72% EBITDA margin in the first half. It’s about the strength of our balance sheet. And we fully accept that we are conservative or some people would accuse us of being conservative, but maybe we could return more cash or return to the shareholders on the back of the strength of our balance sheet. But we look at it through the cycle. And at the end of the day, it’s a cyclical business, it’s a capital-intensive business. And therefore, we believe – it’s a belief, people may have the strategy from that perspective, there is a belief that having a strong balance sheet at the end of the day is the best insurance policy you can have. And if you go back to your models in the last 10, 15 years, I think the proof point is there. Why don’t we take a question from the call, David? Come back to the room.

And your first question comes from the line of Lyndon Fagan. Your line is open.

Thanks very much. Look, the first question was just to try and break down some of the iron ore performance. Just wondering if you could perhaps share the root causes of some of these issues. Just look – listening to your commentary, you’ve linked the waste stripping to deferrals of Silvergrass in Koodaideri. And I guess I just wanted to try and understand, it’s a bit more – are you saying that those assets would have provided better access to higher grade ore? And therefore, that got the third and that’s what’s causing some of the issues? Or I just don’t quite understand how we got into this position. And then the next question is just to share – perhaps if you could share some of your views on Chinese steel production next year. So we’re still annualizing 9% growth in China in June. Just wondering, looking into 2020, whether you expect further growth in China’s steel production on an annual basis. Thanks. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: All right. Thank you – Chris, do you want to have a crack at the first question?

Yes. Thanks, Lyndon. Chris Salisbury. Thanks for your question. Just firstly, I think what J-S was describing about the deferral of Koodaideri, that was a good decision, still is a good decision. But what it meant was we do have to kind of run our existing mines, our brownfield mines harder. If I then dive into more specifically the issue that arose at Brockman hub. Brockman is a very large part of our system. It’s about 100 million tons coming out of the Brockman hub. And more specifically, if I get to the root cause of the downgrade that we made, that was associated with Brockman 4, which is 40 million tons of the 100 million tons. And to be very specific, it was simply around conversion of IHS. It was a convergence of events. We had some poor fleet performance. We bought in a backup fleet while we’re converting some trucks. That backup fleet didn’t perform to expectations. And secondly, at the time, there was a lot of labor turnover. The market is tight – the labor market is tight in Western Australia. So we actually had literally some trucks standing because we didn’t have the people. So none of that is acceptable and we’re going to fix it, already started fixing it. And as J-S said, we brought in extra equipment to do it. And then secondly, looking further ahead, we’ll continue to invest to ensure that we’ve got a robust and reliable system right across the Pilbara. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Thank you, Chris. I mean let’s be clear, is we knew the plan will stretch. We knew that because of all the reason mentioned by Chris that we had to run the mine hard. And if you look at the slide here, it’s a blend. Okay? And we…

I’ll have to stand up here. I’m shorter than my colleague, I know, so people can see. Thanks for the question, and morning, all. Clearly, we have seen really strong numbers out of China during the first quarter, and in fact, the first half. The [indiscernible] meeting over the weekend and the notes released, I think what you have seen consistently is China taking very targeted measures to continue to support. And as we expect, China continues to slow and those target measures are having impacts. So you’re seeing a really strong construction numbers through the first half and that’s certainly underpinning steel demand. And as we go forward I think we’ll see fluctuations in those numbers, but the overall macro conditions continue to be sound, and those targeted measures will continue to flow through. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: So I mean – to add on what Simon is saying, there is no doubt that the Chinese economy will continue to slow down. Okay? So 6.3 in the first half will continue to slow. And they are managing very smartly, to be honest. I’ve got no doubt that they will put stimulus package in place. I have to say the stimulus package if put in place so far, I’ve been – how can I put it this way, heavy on steel, all right? So do I believe that the Chinese government will continue to implement stimulus package going forward? The answer is yes. Okay? And there are a couple of areas, which give us some confidence about the future. One is the work they have started to do on rebuilding cities or refurbishing cities or part of cities that were built 20 years, 30 years ago of not the right quality. And that is a great piece of news for us. Okay?…

Thank you. And your next question comes from the line of Paul Young from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open, please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning, J-S and team. J-S, first question is on the Pilbara rail maintenance. Maybe, a question for Chris actually. Can you add some context as to this, i.e., what percentage of the rail capacity is this impacting? And you also mentioned this is continuing into 2020. So how this will impact shipments in 2020? That’s the first question. The second question is on OT, I know it’s a really complex in the study phase of the mine but looking at the 13 – sorry, 16 to 30 months away on the project, it’s a very wide range. So considering your steady time frame, seems quite fixed, what are the one or two main items that’s driving that 14 months’ range? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: All right. Very good. So I’ll go over to Chris in one minute. But the rail maintenance is very simple. The macro level is, as I said in the speech, it’s one of the most heavily used rail work system in – on planet earth. So we will have to maintain it at a high level. And what we – what we did today is – because I thought we had done it in the past, but clearly people didn’t pick it up, is there will be a series of shuts on the regular basis to maintain and strengthen the health of the asset. So, we want to flag or to reflag the fact that we have a superior shut at the end of October for a couple of weeks and you will – sorry, end of September. My mistake. And then there will be a series of super shut next year. And there’ll be a series of super shut the year after and the year after and the year after. So we’re just flagging that there will be a heavy load of maintenance, I can say forever, in the Pilbara for that reason. So Chris, you want to say much more on that? And I think we had disclosed some level of costs as well. So...

Yes. Thanks. Thanks, Paul, for the question. Look, just be clear. This is already built into our guidance. But we chose to be transparent, it’s a fairly major shut, it’s two weeks. It’s going to take over two weeks. It’s 25 kilometers of rail. We’re going to shut the whole line for three days and then action the east line for five and the West line for five, so it’s a major piece of work. It’s already built into guidance, but because it was so significant, we decided to flag it. And of course, we will then, as part of the detailed planning for 2020, continue to plan these super shuts at the appropriate time and the appropriate scale. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: And Paul will give you, as I mentioned, a 2020 guidance for iron ore at the end of October. That’s right. It was confused between the Capital Market day – so we’ll give you more granularity around this piece. Study, Steve, what are the key element? I thought we had the slides showing the key decision point, but go for it.

So Paul, thanks for the question. So basically, what we have looked to do here is book in at the range of different options through the study phase. And to JS' point, with the view to making sure that we can safely construct, operate and protect on this, but looking out over 25 to 50 years ahead. So – and again to this image that we have here, we have some critical questions that are right ahead of us, as JS also noted. Are we able to hold things like what we'd call a mid-access drive? That drive, essentially, a horizontal tunnel that cuts transversely across the resource across the mine footprint actually is in three different levels. So in what's called the apex, the undercut and the extraction level. We get enormous construction efficiency by having that drive in because, as you can see with those areas, it means that we can develop north-south into those headings. If they are removed, we have to develop all the way from the south, all the way to the top of Panel 0. So there's a schedule impact. So we're looking at everything here. How do we keep, protect the critical infrastructure and the mine footprint through that complex 4D modeling that JS referred to. And we will sequence our way through each of those decisions. But basically, if we remove some of them and we have to then actually take the ore handling system potentially outside the footprint of Panel 0, that has a time – a schedule impact for us. So as we do the modeling through the back end of this year, by the end of the year, into Q1 next year, we expect to take the final – essentially, design into feasibility. And then we will take that final design that we have approved into the definitive estimate process. And so in half two 2020, we'll have that final definitive estimate. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: And probably as we hear, there are multiple options, that we said, multiple scenario because just to make it, to give a sense of we're looking at all options, including maybe not a full map. The map needing – need access drive, we could have only half of it, and so on and so forth. So that's the level of optimization that we're doing, so we've thrown the best resources we have in order to get the best solution to unlock the value of this world-class resource, but keeping in mind that the priority number one is safety. I mean, that is absolutely clear as well. Why don't we go back to – into the room?

And I'll try and exhaust a few more Oyu Tolgoi questions. So three things. First of all, on the impairment, because back in December, you had $3 billion of headroom in your annual report. So it looks like quite a big impairment. Have you changed any long-term pricing? I mean, the WACC's obviously moved up a little bit. But why is it such a large impairment to the NPV? Secondly, I was reading this kind of financing support agreement from the Turquoise Hill website and I was getting a bit confused because as I read it, it looks like you have an option to basically determine whether they do an equity issue if there's a cost overrun. Is that – I mean just to get more clarity as to the position with Rio in Turquoise and deciding how the cost overrun gets shared out. And then the other one was around a parliamentary working group because there is a lot of noise and it looks like they're going to put some proposals forward to change the Dubai Agreements and add some stuff. So how should we – should we see that as just noise at this point or how worried should we be around the agreements? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Arnaud, you want to pick up the last two? I thought you had provided that on the debt. But if you can give more details on – about the working group? And then the financing agreement, I think you should cover it, Jakob.

Okay. Good. Yes. Thanks. Thanks for that question. So you would all be aware that the Parliament decided to do some audits on the benefits that OT are bringing to the country. So we fully collaborated with those OT terms. We provided thousands of pieces of information for months. And out of these quite extensive audits, a report was published. And that report has been shared with a subset of the Parliament which is called the Economic Standing Committee. So the Economic Standing Committee. So the Economic Standing Committee has nominated some parliamentarians to review all this information and to come up with a recommendation to Parliament and to the government, which is called the Parliamentary Working Group Resolution. So that work is in progress. And we see how things are evolving in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, in parallel to this, there are some typical positions that are being taken by some politicians around OT, around the agreements. You’re referring to the UDP and so on and so forth. I think it’s important to understand that the UDP has been an important agreement because, fundamentally, it has clarified some of the previous agreements and it has an enabled for the project financing. So the $4.4 billion that we’ve borrowed to around 20 different international lenders and institutions is underpinned by all of those agreements. So the UDP is as important as the ARSHA, as it is important for the investment agreement. And those agreements are really foundational. This is on those agreements that we’ve been able to borrow money. And this is on those agreements that we are able to continue heavily investing through TRQ in Mongolia. So as I said before, we are in continuous discussion with the government and working collaboratively with them to look at what can we do using our existing agreements to create more value for our shareholders Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Thank you, Arnaud. Jakob, if you can comment on the agreement and the financing.

Yes. The impairment part it’s very well captured by you that you have carefully read our annual accounts. So you are in part right. We gave an update and explained that we had some delays, on particularly the main production shaft. And we built that into our cash flow and we came to a result where there was headroom of $3.1 billion. At the same time, we raised the issue that the ground – the weakened ground condition might lead to significant redesign of the mine below the orebody. But we couldn’t state anything else that we would get on with that. And therefore, what we convinced ourselves was that what we knew at that time was that there should be sufficient headroom to cover for that uncertainty. So you could say the headroom that we saw in March was between 0 and 3.1. We were just not able to establish that. Now with the update on 16th of July, that was a trigger, and we have new information and we have done this thoroughly and we have come to – on a 100% basis, the $2.3 billion – $2.2 billion lower as... Jean-Sébastien Jacques: You want to cover the Turquoise Hill financing?

Turquoise Hill, I mean they have independent governance, so it is really for them to talk about the financing. We are very happy to enter the dialogue with them. And when there is news, it will come out. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Any other questions?

Good morning. Richard Hatch, Berenberg. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Hi Richard.

Two questions. First one, just on your iron ore costs. And perhaps it’s too early to ask the question. Maybe it comes with the Capital Markets Day. But do you expect your costs for 2020 to trend back down to the 13, 14, or is it too early to say? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: I think it’s too early to say. Now I made two comments right away is to say we will continue to drive iron ore business on the back of EBITDA margin, okay? And as I mentioned in the speech, it’s what we need. I will give you more details when we are in Capital Markets Day, is to make sure we have the right level of costs and sustained CapEx to maintain the health and maintain the resilience of our business, and so on and so forth. So the important piece, if there is message to take away from this one is we drive this business on the back of EBITDA. If you drive it only on the back of cost, then you may have a very, very different outcome. And look, first half of this year is 70% – 72% EBITDA margin. So we’ll provide more details at the time of the Capital Markets Day. Chris will cover here. And the second question? Yes, second question?

Yes, on aluminum, just the operating efficiency, $1 billion to $1.5 billion. If we’re seeing the costs stay as they are and they don’t retreat back in the aluminum business, what does that $1 billion to $1.5 billion do just out of interest? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: It's in the range. So what we want to flag I think is the following. So we know that the costs last year, the impact on the bottom line was around $500 million of cost input. And it was not only aluminum. There was – a big chunk of it was aluminum. Do we believe that some of the costs have reverted as we're having this conversation? The answer is yes, but not to offset totally the $500 million that we had last year. So there is an element there. But the important piece is, why we give a range. And that's a focal point is to say, we will – and that's back to the first question about, we will continue to drive our iron ore business on the back of EBITDA margin, and it links back to the value over volume. What I'm not ready to do is to drive volume for the sake of it in order to have a fixed cost absorption, and therefore to meet a target, which is slightly artificial in that sense. We will continue to drive the iron ore on the back of EBITDA margin. If it means producing more, yes, if it creates value. If it means not producing more, so be it. And I think that is absolutely essential. So that's why we're trying to flag. What we are to flag is we could be at $1.5 billion; we could be at $1 billion. There are two key elements to the driver. And the main…

Good morning. Jatinder Goel from Exane BNP Paribas. A couple of questions. First, on iron ore would you be happy to keep this year's volumes in Pilbara if you can't get to your optimal blend until Koodaideri comes in? And in that scenario, does the $1 billion to $1.5 billion improvement still hold? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: I think I've just answered the question on this one. I've just answered exactly the question, which is value over volume is we will add volume in any year, at any point in time only if it creates value and so on and so forth. Hence, the range we're giving on the mine to market.

So the $1 billion to $1.5 billion still holds even if you don't increase any volumes from this year in iron ore until Koodaideri comes in? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: Yes, I just said it. Is to say, if you get to $1.5 billion on the cost target, if you increase the volume above and beyond where we are today, okay? But we will take this decision only if it creates value on the EBITDA margin. No. Go ahead.

I mean, I mean, look we're not going to guide today about future volumes. That's clear. But I can help you a little bit. The updated guidance for this year actually is quite a significant step-up in production in the second half compared to the first half. So I think you can get half the answer there.

Thank you. Second question on OT. Obviously, every investment competes with each other. But if it makes financial sense, would you be comfortable taking more attributable country risk if it comes to that point by increasing your ownership effectively? Jean-Sébastien Jacques: I think well for the answer to the question is this contract, if you want to pick it up, Jakob?

Yes. But I just want to understand fully what's behind your question. Sorry, just one thing...

So you are adding 300 basis points as continuous premium to your impairment calculations. If it comes to a point, would you be comfortable increasing your attributable country risk by increasing OT ownership at some point?

Yes, so there is two different things. But I actually said 200 basis points real-term. And look, that has nothing to do with the project. That has something to do with the country risk, yes? And the ownership, we are very comfortable with the current shareholder composition. It's very normal that major projects, this joint venture, and you have some kind of share risking. That's our position. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: I'll pick it up on this one. It's pretty simple. I mean there is no change of policy because your question is about M&A. Do we have a working brief on the M&A? The answer is yes. There is no change. And are we looking at opportunities, options? Yes. But we will trigger the options only if it means creating value for our shareholders and nothing else. All right. Why don't we take a question from the conf call, David? David any – okay, one more. Let’s wait. David, any chance, otherwise we’ll come back to…

Thank you. Your question comes from the line of Hayden Bairstow from Macquarie. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hi, J.S, just a couple of quick ones. Firstly, we've obviously done iron ore to death. I just want to touch on IFC a little bit. Realized pricing seemed a bit soft. Can you just remind us how they sell iron ore versus spot and how we should think about that just given it did seem – it didn't seem like all the spot premium prices came through in that half. And then just on Pacific aluminum back here, it's back to an EBITDA loss. I mean where are you sitting with that asset base, there's obviously the power price pressure in Australia, thanks. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: So you want to pick up IFC and I'll pick up PacAl, thanks.

There's a number of factors in the IFC pricing including, for example, Japanese fiscal year including some lag similar to our iron ore business where the prices are reflecting a prior period. So that's the main two you've actually got in the realized pricing. Jean-Sébastien Jacques: All right. Thank you. And then on PacAl is – absolutely. I mean there is an energy cost issue in Australia. I mean it's a well-known one, which is – it shouldn't be the case if you step back and you think about Australia being very mineral and energy rich, that should be one of the most competitive place to have energy. Right? So we are working very closely with the federal – the feds and the state government in order to find a solution to this challenge, all right, because the energy cost is massive. We are not making money in those assets and so on and so forth. So those conversations are now taking place as we speak. But we inform the market, we did – in the appropriate manner, but we are taking it very, very seriously and there are active discussion because the current situation is not sustainable here. I know that we – the market – the aluminum market is not being helpful in the sense of, for the first time is in terms of demand, the demand on aluminum is pretty weak. Historically, we said – and it's the case, that the demand for aluminum products is above GDP growth rate, whereas currently, it's around 1.4, 1.5, which is pretty low. And the reason being why the aluminum demand is low is because of the situation around transportation, and automotive and so on and so forth. So we have a situation where the demand for aluminum product is…