RIO TINTO - SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SEMINAR LONDON 30th APRIL 2002 - Q&As

QUESTION: With these figures I just want to make sure I got them correctly. Is US$30,000 the estimated cost for each loss time injury? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: Yes. QUESTION: And then you said five to ten times that for each occupational disease case. What about fatalities, are they in there already? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: They are included in the LTI. QUESTION: In the LTI? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: Sure. That is an estimate that comes from the DuPont. It is kind of a widely held estimate. QUESTION: Okay. Does the Company do an internal calculation of the total cost of accidents and injuries annually? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: We have not yet done that. QUESTION: Okay. And one further question is, it is clearly a laudable goal to have a goal of no injuries and no accidents and no fatalities. Is that achievable?

ELAINE DORWARD-KING: It is an aspirational goal. We believe it is achievable and we look to companies that have high performance in other sectors such as DuPont to base our validity of that aspiration on. QUESTION: Is it achievable in the mining sector? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: We intend to try! SIR ROBERT WILSON: It is certainly not if you do not try, I think is the point. A substantial part of

management remuneration in this Group is focused on safety performance so that, for example, if you take a Product Group Chief Executive, 25 per cent of his annual bonus is at risk depending on safety performance. He is only going to get that full 25 per cent relating to safety if there are no fatalities in his part of the Group and if the LTIFR is reduced by 50 per cent from the previous year. That applies right the way through the organisation to me, so from my standpoint there have got to be no fatalities anywhere in the Group and a 50 per cent reduction in accidents compared with the previous year. Now what we would like to try and do at some stage is incorporate into remuneration systems other aspects of the sustainable developme nt agenda rather than just health and safety. They are much more difficult to capture in a clear way, but I believe that we will move in that direction in the next few years. QUESTION: I have been trying to understand this morning the gap between the mana ged and reported process we see presented today and the perception that the public and the number of socially responsible investors receive through the media and through the pressure groups. I think a large amount of it lies in the performance of your nonmanaged operations or the operations where you have percentages of ownership or levels of responsibilities for management.

I just wondered if it would be possible to outline at any stage where your partially owned subsidiaries or joint ventures fall short of the standards that you would expect from a fully owned subsidiary in perhaps respects of targeting on energy and in respects of reporting? I do not know whether you have that information immediately available or whether that is something which would c ome out of future reports? SIR ROBERT WILSON: Obviously we cannot put ourselves in a position where we are reporting on data of businesses which are effectively subsidiaries of other companies. I think that your view about why there is a gap between - which we believe there is too, incidentally - perceptions and reality of performance of this Company is partly to do with the performance of partly owned companies. But it is more than that. I think too, and perhaps this is inevitable, that a Group like this is always going to be subject to attack by single interest NGOs on one particular ground or another. That is not something we feel that we need necessarily be defensive about because, in fact, if you look at the culture and philosophy of sustainable development it is we who are in step, not the single interest NGO wanting to take decisions on the basis of just that single interest. But, nonetheless, the fact that we are subject to campaigns by single interest groups means that we are also subject to a bit of casual smearing by those same groups as well, and sometimes that gets absorbed by the SRI community. I am going to make a little quote here from an SRI report, an extract from an SRI report, and then I am going to react to it because it is not untypical. I am quoting now: Opposition for some of the Groups projects: Freeport, Bougainville, Kalimantan, Madagascar, Jabiluka, suggests weaknesses in policy implementation for at least some of the Groups 70 operations. Now I would like to take those five projects that have been named and react to them a little bit. Let me take the first one first, Bougainville. We have not actually been in

Bougainville since 1989, and so you have got to say, well, is that relevant to the performance of this Company in 2002? What exactly is being measured? And it is not clear to me what is being measured if Bougainville is a part of the story.

I move to Freeport. Freeport we do not manage, we have a minority interest there, and it certainly has been a controversial projec t. But if you look at what has been achieved at Freeport in the years since our involvement, there has been a huge change in terms of the human rights performance of that company, huge - huge! and there has also been a significant improvement on the environmental front. Now you have to judge or guess, as indeed to some extent we have, the extent to which that is a consequence of our influence and pressure on the company and the extent to which it would have happened in any case. In a way that is almost an unanswerable but, nonetheless, it should be recognised that there has been a big improvement there. Thirdly, Kalimantan. That is another one where the allegations there substantially relate to human rights abuses, by association in our case, committed by the Indonesian security forces and they date back to events in the early 1990s which were not actually reported until many, many years after that. At which point we introduced and invited in Komnas Ham, the Indonesian human rights organisation, to investigate the allegations and to the extent possible to recommend forms of address for them, which has been going on. Madagascar. Now in Madagascar, it is a project. It is a mineral sands project which is not yet actually starting development; it has been under massive investigation now by the Company for 15 years. I am not saying that the Madagascan project is perfect in the way that we have developed it but actually it is the state -of-the-art as far as we know it, in terms of integrating the social and environmental aspects for a project with the economic to the extent that not only has a huge amount of work been done on biodiversity, a lot of work has been done in terms of the social studies and implications of the project as well. We have invited in, and encouraged to come in, the World Bank and the UN, who have done work in terms of regional development planning, so that a view could be taken be taken, for example, if there is going to be a port at that project site maybe it should be built with looking at the needs of the region as a whole in mind rather than the traditional way that it would be handled by a company, which is just looking at it on a project specific basis. Looking too through a regional development programme,

the implications of what we call the honey pot effect, regional migration when you have got a very poor country, and a significant investment project occurring in it. So I am not saying that it is perfect, but I think people who want to criticise us ought to actually say, well, how can anyone do it better? Because we actually want to know how it can be done better? It is as good as we know it how can be done. The fifth project named here was Jabiluka. Jabiluka we acquired as a part of the acquisition in North a couple of years ag o. I do not know that it implies weaknesses in policy implementation for this Group because it remains an undeveloped project, and since we have acquired it we have said quite unequivocally there will be no development of Jabiluka without the consent of the traditional landowners of the region. So, I am not quite sure what it is we are held to be doing wrong there. This is actually just an example of how the smears from one campaign against us, and of course it always aids the single interest campaigner to smear the Group as much as it can in other areas, actually get repeated and sometimes get picked up by serious minded people. QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that with a further question, because it was Jabiluka or actually specifically Energy Resource s of Australia was the instance that I was trying to understand this morning. As I say, I have read the pressure group information. And then I went back to say, does this Company, arguably one of the most controversial in the pressure group world at the moment, have a fully verified and audited environmental report in the same way as wholly-owned operation of yours would have? I think I am correct in saying I could not find one. So the follow up is, do each of the other operations have these verified social and environmental reports? I suspect that is more Andrews area. SIR ROBERT WILSON: He already does as well! Andy do you want to comment? ANDREW VICKERMAN: Certainly the ones I know of. Certainly Freeport reports very, very comprehensively on social and environmental matters. As Bob has said, on the human rights area

they have gone further than any company I can think of in terms of having appointed a very, very high profile, very experienced individual, Judge Gabriel McDonald, both to the Board and to advise on human rights issues. ERA on environmental matters, Elaine can answer. But I think they have ISO

14,001, or equivalent, being introduced at ERA in terms of their environmental management. I think one of the points at ERA, that attention often gets focused on at ERA, is probably the most closely monitored and regulated mining operation, certainly within our Group and probably anywhere in the world in terms of an operation, because of its location and because of the nature of its production. Any slight infraction gets reported and gets attention, but if one looks at the quality of the management of those issues on that site they are extremely good. So, again, I think it is the point that has been made about minor issues being taken and blown up into much greater smear campaigns than is actually justified by the performance of that operation. It is an extremely well managed, well run operation. ELAINE DORWARD-KING: But we take incidents of infraction very, very seriously, and in ERA specifically I know they are undergoing a review of their management and how they manage for environment performance. But there are some improvements that can be made there to support the other systems that are in place. So, even when you are good you can still get better, and that is what we are driving for. SIR ROBERT WILSON: It interests me, incidentally, that we have come under a lot of criticism having become the incidental owner of ERA. It was hardly the target for us when we bought North, but now we are subject to a lot of criticism on the one hand, but on the other hand they are saying: And you cant sell it. Now, why dont the NGOs want us to sell it? QUESTION: I will just pick up on that as you quoted the profile I wrote. I will just pick up on one example, not to go through them all. But I think the reason I included Bougainville was because there is potential future litigation there? And obviously as a socially

responsible investment, the triple bottom line, that is very much part of the issue. Is that not true? SIR ROBERT WILSON: There is current litigation, of which we have won the first round anyway. QUESTION: Well, that is why it is in the profile. SIR ROBERT WILSON: But I think it is very important that is separated from the performance of the Company, which surely should be looking at current and future performance in any case. QUESTION: Okay. I will move on to current performance. You have talked about Ranger a little bit this morning and Jabiluka as an associated site, but I think you have to be very, very careful. One thing I will say is, I kind of think even in terms of a single issue NGO, saying there are NGOs you will talk to and NGOs you wont is quite dangerous. BirdLife sounds like quite a single issue, and a single issue NGO to me, but with people such as WWF, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, they are not single issue NGOs. But, that is just one point. Just moving on, as we have talked about Ranger this morning...... ......taken on trust and I believe what these people say. Last week when Australias Environmental Minister comes out and says, Okay, it was not a serious breach. But the authorities werent told straightaway, and there were no other issues. I will quote him basically. He said: Given the importance of protecting the World Heritage areas surrounding these mine sites, I expect nothing short of best practice in environmental management. ERA will clearly have to lift its game. I admit, this was probably a one or two. Would you agree with that? These incidents at Ranger, was a one or a two or a three on your level? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: It would be a one or a two.

QUESTION: Right. So, it was not serious. It was not a very serious incident, but it was the fact that I was told 8 months ago in a mainstream manageme nt meeting. It seems actually that the NGOs are ill-informed. Exemplary, no problems, and then I find out that ERA environmental manager has been changed as a result of this! I think you have to be very careful in the message you are giving out to inves tors when we are also listening to NGOs and trying to work out who is telling the truth. So, that was my point on that! SIR ROBERT WILSON: Let me just comment here. What was important there was not the environmental transgression, which was very minor in terms of its implications. What was important was the fact that the environmental manager failed to report it in a timely fashion, and that we take very seriously and we have acted on. That is the important issue in our view. QUESTION: Okay. I do actually have a question on dumping tailings into rivers, particularly in connection with Freeport this morning, and obviously this isnt everywhere. But practices that are illegal in developed countries like the US can actually happen in West Papua and, indeed, in other countries like that. In the light of BHP Billitons, and some other companies, commitments not to do riverine tailings dumping any more, I just wanted to get an update on Rios view on that method of disposal of tailings? SIR ROBERT WILSON: Our position on this is that we regard it as extremely unlikely that a new project would use riverine disposal anywhere in the world. It is extremely unlikely, that we would ever want to use it either, so I think it is a past rather than a future practice. I think, too, that Freeport will quite rightly want to say, well, even for the future, it is something that would not happen in the future. There is a huge difference between the circumstances relating to Freeport and the Grasberg operation and those applying, say, at Ok Tedi, and there are indeed some massive differences which make comparison between the two pretty inappropriate.

QUESTION: I think there was an incident at Freeport. You did in fact own 13 per cent, but I am not sure what the latest figure is. But do you have any potential liability there? I know that we have talked a bit about potential differences between Ok Tedi and Freeport, but would you have a liability there if there was an incident at Freeport? SIR ROBERT WILSON: We have got a 13 per cent or 14 per cent interest in the equity and we have got a joint venture stake on a part of the operations, so were they subject to any claim that succeeded against them - and so far claims against them have not held any ground at all - then I guess the answer has to be yes. QUESTION: There was a thing on policy. I noticed the human rights slide starts off with a policy, the communities policy. Biodiversity is mentioned in detail, but do you have at

present or are you developing a biodiversity policy? Equally, within the same area of codes, in human rights you talk about Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But the other classic codes, which are subscribed to by many of the ILO codes, what is your position on those? SIR ROBERT WILSON: I will ask Elaine to comment on the biodiversity issue. Most of the key ILO

conventions that are alluded to from time to time are effectively incorporated in our policy through the way we express our policies in terms of community relations issues, access to land and so on, rights for employees to use unions and those sorts of issues. So they are incorporated, but maybe not referring specifically to ILO conventions, which incidentally is not necessarily the best way for a policy to be expressed internally in my view, because a listing of a catalogue of various international conventions is not very user friendly as far as the individuals in a company looking at guidelines are concerned. Would you like to talk about biodiversity and the generation of policy there, E laine?

ELAINE DORWARD-KING: We are actively engaged with other organisations, external organisations, working on the biodiversity issue, and Andy talked quite a bit about that. We do not have in place a biodiversity policy yet but we are on our way to having in place a biodiversity strategy for the Group that will have a number of components, policy components as well as performance components as well. Part of the point of doing the survey that was done of all the operations was to see where we were, so we can identify what the performance gaps may be and what the issues are that are being identified, and through development of a strategy get to a place where we can legitimately put something in place that would look like a policy. QUESTION: Just looking at ERA, which was acquired with North and other problems like that which you have actually acquired, to what extent do those kind of assets prohibit you from or affect your judgment when looking at companies which you are going to acquire? Also, the type of mining - if you are looking at deep level, manual and intensive mining that would obviously impact on your LTIFR and potentially your fatalities - to what extent does that influence you away from those kind of acquisitions? SIR ROBERT WILSON: That is a very interesting question, because certainly we look at those sort of issues when we are making acquisitions. Let me take, for example, an opportunity that we had a few years ago. We had a considerable internal debate on it, and it is not untypical the example I am going to cite, because we have a lot of analogous discussions as well. In Peru, I guess it was about six or seven years ago, there were a number of operations in Peru being privatised, being sold off by the Government. They wanted to bring in foreign interest and, in particular, they were interested in encouraging Rio Tinto to come in, and they went out of their way to solicit our interest and for us to bid on these projects. We took a look at them. These were old operations and they were old operations with a legacy of environmental issues, of health problems relating to the old

operations in terms of the health of the local community, apart from safety. So there were environmental issues, there were some serious community issues, there were health and safety issues. We took a look at what we would want to do, were it a Rio Tinto project, and the cost would have been very, very substantial. We concluded that, first of all, because of the cost that would attach to taking on those liabilities we probably would not be competitive in bidding in any case. But also we took the view that it was going to be a monumental diversion of resources from this Group to try and put things right when we got there, and so we did not proceed. Now it is mute point. Is that an ethical position to say, well, actually that is a bit hard, we do not want anything to do with it even though we know we could have done a lot to improve it? So there is a difficulty there, but there is no doubt that there are certain types of project in operation that we would probably avoid simply because of the hassle, the reputational adverse consequence, because we will be blamed once we get there - we will be blamed by parts of the NGO community for everything that we have inherited, even though we might actually be doing our best to put things right! It just did not seem to be a good use in terms of the balance of reward and risk, so we did not go. And we have taken that sort of decision on a number of other occasions as well. QUESTION: Does that apply to the deep level mining as well? SIR ROBERT WILSON: To a significant extent the answer would be, yes, on the grounds of deep level mining and the inherent safety issues that go with that. The labour intensity of the operations means they are usually associated with hostel type accommodation and all the implications and consequences of that, which is not a business that we are in, not a business we would feel terribly comfortable with without making radical changes. As I say, it is a mute point whether or not that is an ethical conclusion or not, but balancing the ethical aspects of it and looking at it really just as a business decision what are the risks and rewards looking like? - that is the conclusion that we come to sometimes.

QUESTION: I notice from your report that you do not have a long term climate change target, for reasons which I think are very intelligent actually, that you need to understand and work out the cost benefits analysis of all of them, but you are going through the process this year of developing one. Can you talk us a little bit through how you are going to be going about that? SIR ROBERT WILSON: Elaine, would you like to comment on that? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: Sure! We have a number of initiatives going on with regard to examining what the implications are for the Group from climate change, both on the economic side as well as on the environmental or operational side. We have people in all the groups, as well as here at the centre, that are targeted on exploring that internally and also looking externally to identify what the linkages that we should have with other sectors, in terms of looking at what it means to trade carbon or understand the carbon trading possibilities and mechanisms just to identify one? Obviously there are some issues associated for our Group companies that are in the coal business with regard to sustainable development and how climate change fits into that piece for us. It is quite a process, that will go on involving a lot of people and discussion as we figure out what a legitimate target might be for the Group and how far out that might go. QUESTION: I apologise for this question and I feel I ought to know the answer to it, but since I have not been present at any general, straight, financ ial presentation to the City of Rio Tinto recently, to what extent would elements of this presentation actually fit within your standard financial presentation? SIR ROBERT WILSON: The answer is, not very much. There would be brief references to it. We may be wrong in the perception we have of what different parts of the investment community are interested in hearing, but so far we have not had much demand from the

investment community at large for us to get into the sort of discussion that we have been having here this morning. I think that will change, perhaps particularly it will change with growing recognition that there is here an interface with the risk profile of the Company, and that is a very strong part of the business case for our stance that this is actually mitigating risk in this Group in a pretty material way. But at this stage, no, we have not yet been incorporating a substantial part of this in conventional financial presentations. QUESTION: I feel that if there was a trailer within that it would start people asking questions which you obviously believe are important and on which you spend a lot of time and effort. To some extent, there is a belief that perhaps companies with these kind of programmes, these kinds of risks and opportunities, should actually expose the financial community to something which you, yourselves, consider important. SIR ROBERT WILSON: I agree with that. I think probably we ought to maybe trail this a little bit more, and also convert this sort of meeting into an annual event in any case, so there is going to be a clear opportunity for those parts of the investment community that want to, to get into more and more detail and dialogue with us on some of these issues, than can ever be possible in the context of a presentation which is also covering financial issues. QUESTION: I just want to say actually it is quite refreshing that Rio Tinto is one of the few FTSE 100 companies to actually include slides mentioning sustainable development in its mainstream presentations. At least it is there, and is very much an exception at the moment. I just wanted to ask a question about future strategy. Just looking through the draft report of the MMSD Global Reporting, which is out, one of the areas was on reprocessing, recycling and looking at how companies are moving to integrating management of their product chains and possibly capturing more value through products and services.

Just picking up on the first slide, mentioning investing in areas where we have a competitive advantage which is mining not downstream - again it fits in with the presentation to mainstream investors - I was wondering whether you could just outline what sort of strategy you have for moving into some of these areas? With things like the end-of-life vehicle directive product take-back, all the drive is there from consumers and from legislation for product take -back and recycling. SIR ROBERT WILSON: Yes, I think it is quite difficult in most parts of the mining and metals industry, and most parts of our business, to actually see yet how this is all going to fit together. For example, we are producers of iron ore. We sell iron ore to the steel industry. Well, what part can we play in the life cycle of that product? And I do not really see it. The same would apply to other sectors too, may be not to the same extent, and there may be some opportunities in areas such as copper and aluminium, although even in the case of aluminium the nature of our business is essentially upstream focus. We produce in that case, or we go as far as, the aluminium ingot, but there are layers and layers of manufacturers and fabricators between us and the final consumer. I think some of these industry areas as a consequence, not as a consequence so much as a next stage in terms of the follow-on to MMSD, there will be some work in looking at the role of the industry in terms of the life cycle of particular products. But it is going to be quite difficult given the structure of the industries that we are in I think. QUESTION: I know you have done a lot of work with Borax. Have you made an actual firm commitment to do product life cycle analysis across your main product areas by a certain date possibly? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: May I? SIR ROBERT WILSON: Please!

ELAINE DORWARD-KING: For the Borax Corporation I believe the target is to be complete with life cycle analysis on the primary product streams by the end of this year anyway. Okay? Which is difficult but much easier than going that next step which is the full life cycle of use, disposal, re-use, recycling, and requires engagement of customers and downstream users. But, there is that commitment to better understand that. I think when you are talking about product responsibility and how the metals and minerals industry can engage, it is a bigger question than just asking whether we are involved in recycling and reprocessing. It has to do with the aspects of taking

responsibility for your products, and that we take ownership of understanding the materials we produce as far as possible and provide people with what the implications are both in terms of human health and the environment. So there is more there for us to engage in and be involved in, and take responsibility for, than just that most far downstream piece of recycling and we are engaged in that. Of course, the level and tenor of that engagement is different depending on the commodity and the product groups, and some product groups are a lot closer to that partly because they may be closer to their customer. QUESTION: Just to help out Bob here with the previous question from the gentleman, as one of the few mining analysts here on the sell side, the social environmental performance comes into presentations when we go and visit the mines of the Rios, Anglos and Billitons. The operational managers there generally put a lot of time and effort into showing us their lost time frequency numbers and their accident rates, so we do get exposure to that. It has probably been a long time since Bob has been out on one of those mining visits! (Laughter) SIR ROBERT WILSON: With analysts anyway! (Laughter) QUESTION: I would just like to pick up on the point that Jo first raised where we were talking about the long term strategy of Rio Tinto. If the sustainable revolution continues to develop and the recycling of all number of goods and materials and products out

there does continue, then there is a perception that there will be a reduced demand for raw materials. I was wondering whether that was something the Board of Rio Tinto are at least chewing over at the moment and perhaps got some future acquisitions in mind? The second question I have got relates to one of your slides, your energy slide, Measurement - Energy Use. As you have identified that climate change and carbon dioxide emissions is a risk to your Company, I was quite surprised to see that you have got a 25 per cent total energy use increase over the last five years. I know you said that 70 per cent of that was related to your acquisitions, but the remaining 30 per cent, I was wondering if you could actually explain why there is such an increase and also in which areas does this come from? Thank you. SIR ROBERT WILSON: Firstly, the question of declining demand. We do not actually see this in the near term; it certainly could arise though in the longer term in some parts of the world. But meanwhile there are going to be other parts of the world where minerals consumption is going to continue to grow very fast, and I am referring in particular to China where there has been an explosion of minerals consumption in the last few years which looks as though it is likely to continue for a fair time ahead. This is obviously something we are always going to need to be looking at in terms of, what is our reasonable expectation of future demand pattern? The second part relating to energy consumption, and Elaine may want to elaborate on this, the increase in energy consumption - in the areas other than businesses we have acquired - is related to the growth in volumes. What you have seen, and what we have been reporting against, is our reduction in consumption per unit of output but, of course, output has been rising very sharply. Elaine, would you like to elaborate a bit further on that? ELAINE DORWARD-KING: That is the answer! The other 30 per cent was from expansions at our operations, one of the biggest being in the aluminum business, the Comalco operation, and expansion of the smelters and operations there.

QUESTION: The length and gestation period for developing new mines was touched upon today, and I think it was Guy Elliott who at one point cited ten plus years in some cases. Do you see that process as having a lot further to go? Could it be a couple of decades before certain major mines are developed in future? And do you feel that could lead to supply constraints longer term for any particular commodities? SIR ROBERT WILSON: It is difficult to know whether it is going to lead to supply constraints that begin to cause shortages. There is no doubt that the pipeline in terms of new projects, particularly complex projects, is extending very considerably and that is partly because the process of social and environmental reviews is now much more comprehensive than it used to be, partly because more and more countries are exposing those reviews to a public review process and so that extends the decision pipeline as well. Yes, I think it is going to continue to extend. I remember an example that use to be cited in our Group a few years ago when the Marandoo mine in the Pilbara, one of our iron ore mines in the Pilbara, was developed about nearly ten years ago - would I be right on that? - nearly ten years ago when Marandoo came into production. It took longer for that to be permited and built than it took 30 years ago to build the initial mine, the railway at Tom Price, the port infrastructure - just for one relatively small addition to the complex of iron ore mines in that region! That is the way of the future, I believe. That is going to make it very, very tough for small companies to ever emerge from being small companies to large companies in this industry. They will not have the resources to last that out. QUESTION: Could you explain a bit how you arrived at the particular targets that you published, in particular the lost time frequency which is half of last years rate? Is it due to actions you took some years ago, so it is really going to come on board simply by the actions you took a couple of years ago, or is it different methods of reporting?

SIR ROBERT WILSON: How do we arrive at the targets? The targets are quite simply set so that the target for 2003 will be set at half the rate we achieved in the first half of 2002 and that is what we have been doing for the last several years. So the target will be zero fatalities plus halving the rate in 2003 compared with where we were the first half of 2002. That is tough targeting, it is deliberately set tough targeting, because when we first starting doing this the reaction of virtually every operation is, Come on, that is impossible. It has actually been achieved by some, it has not been achieved overall which is why our average has always been falling a bit behind that halving process, but what is quite clear is unless you set a target out there you do not get the mine -set in terms of radical change that has got to be put in place to achieve it. QUESTION: Do you require more capital or more training to go in each year to actually keep bringing that down, or it is just past practices? SIR ROBERT WILSON: A lot more training, a lot more internal site based auditing and, if necessary, capital. In other words, if capital is required to make operation safe it will be available but, by and large, the safety issues that we face are not issues arising from shortage of capital. Most of the serious accidents are either vehicle -related or they are related to working at heights. A very high proportion of the accidents that we report are not our workforce, they are actually contractors, because we include contractors in our data and that is always the most difficult part to improve - it is contractor performance and bringing them to the standards that we demand. Perhaps one final question and then I suggest that we break up. Those of you that can join us stay over a bite to eat - I think we have got something out there - are very welcome to do so. QUESTION: Can I ask very quickly whether you had any sort of hard numbers on any of the ROIs on these efforts you are making, whether in terms of insurance costs are coming

down because of your improving health and safety record or the volatility of the stock relative to the industry has been reduced as a result of the processes that have been put in place? SIR ROBERT WILSON: I do not think we could ever separate out single effect very easily. And just in the same way, incidentally, that for a number of years people have said, well, what are the costs of your social and environmental programmes? What actually is the bottom line hit of these activities? And increasingly we are finding we cannot answer that either. I regard that as being positive because what is actually reflected is that these are no longer separate programmes which are being costed as a separate effort, it is a part of integrating these programmes into our overall management activity, and they just cannot be untangled afterwards. I think we have got beyond the point of actually being able to really very closely say, well, what is the cost of your environment programmes? I can see how this has developed over the years because if you go back four decades lots of smelting operations around the world will not have had acid plants to collect SO omissions. Now no-one would think today, even if they are still thinking of trying to cost their environmental programmes, they would not say having an acid plant to collect SO is an environmental cost. It is just because the culture has changed, it is just an integrated part of operations. So not a terribly satisfactory answer except I think, as I say, it is reflecting the way these issues b ecome integrated into the business. Thank you all very much for your interest. I hope we have been responding to the sorts of questions that you had in mind through this presentation and if we have not we would like your comments on that as well.