6-K 1 d165872d6k.htm FORM 6-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

June 17, 2021

BHP GROUP LIMITED (ABN 49 004 028 077) (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA (Jurisdiction of incorporation or organisation) 171 COLLINS STREET, MELBOURNE, VICTORIA 3000 AUSTRALIA (Address of principal executive offices) |  | BHP GROUP PLC (REG. NO. 3196209) (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) ENGLAND AND WALES (Jurisdiction of incorporation or organisation) NOVA SOUTH, 160 VICTORIA STREET LONDON, SW1E 5LB UNITED KINGDOM (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F: ☒ Form 20-F ☐ Form 40-F

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: ☐ Yes ☒ No

If “Yes” is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): n/a

NEWS RELEASE

Release Time |  | IMMEDIATE
Date |  | 17 June 2021
Release Number |  | 07/21

Potash outlook briefing

BHP will be hosting an investor and analyst briefing today on the supply and demand dynamics of potash.

A copy of the presentation is attached.

The presentation, speech and webcast will be available on BHP’s website at: https://www.bhp.com/media-and-insights/news-releases/2021/06/potash-briefing

Further information on BHP can be found at: bhp.com

Authorised for lodgement by:

Stefanie Wilkinson

Group Company Secretary

Media Relations |  | Investor Relations
Email: media.relations@bhp.com |  | Email: investor.relations@bhp.com
Australia and Asia |  | Australia and Asia
Gabrielle Notley |  | Tara Dines
Tel: +61 3 9609 3830 Mobile: +61 411 071 715 |  | Tel: +61 3 9609 2222 Mobile: + 61 499 249 005
Europe, Middle East and Africa |  | Europe, Middle East and Africa
Neil Burrows |  | James Bell
Tel: +44 20 7802 7484 Mobile: +44 7786 661 683 |  | Tel: +44 20 7802 7144 Mobile: +44 7961 636 432
Americas |  | Americas
Judy Dane |  | Brian Massey
Tel: +1 713 961 8283 Mobile: +1 713 299 5342 |  | Tel: +1 713 296 7919 Mobile: +1 832 870 7677
BHP Group Limited ABN 49 004 028 077 |  | BHP Group plc Registration number 3196209
LEI WZE1WSENV6JSZFK0JC28 |  | LEI 549300C116EOWV835768
Registered in Australia |  | Registered in England and Wales
Registered Office: Level 18, 171 Collins Street |  | Registered Office: Nova South, 160 Victoria Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia |  | London SW1E 5LB United Kingdom
Tel +61 1300 55 4757 Fax +61 3 9609 3015 |  | Tel +44 20 7802 4000 Fax +44 20 7802 4111

Members of the BHP Group which is

headquartered in Australia

Follow us on social media

Potash outlook and fundamentals 101 Dr Huw McKay Chief Economist Dr Paul Burnside Manager Potash Analysis 17 June 2021

Disclaimer Forward-looking statements This presentation contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding: trends in commodity prices and currency exchange rates; demand for commodities; production forecasts; plans, strategies and objectives of management; assumed long-term scenarios; potential global responses to climate change; the potential effect of possible future events on the value of the BHP portfolio; closure or divestment of certain assets, operations or facilities (including associated costs); anticipated production or construction commencement dates; capital costs and scheduling; operating costs and shortages of materials and skilled employees; anticipated productive lives of projects, mines and facilities; provisions and contingent liabilities; and tax and regulatory developments. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of terminology, including, but not limited to, ‘intend’, ‘aim’, ‘project’, ‘anticipate’, ‘estimate’, ‘plan’, ‘believe’, ‘expect’, ‘may’, ‘should’, ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘continue’, ‘annualised’ or similar words. These statements discuss future expectations concerning the results of assets or financial conditions, or provide other forward-looking information. These forward-looking statements are based on the information available as at the date of this presentation and/or the date of the Group’s planning processes or scenario analysis processes. There are inherent limitations with scenario analysis and it is difficult to predict which, if any, of the scenarios might eventuate. Scenarios do not constitute definitive outcomes for us. Scenario analysis relies on assumptions that may or may not be, or prove to be, correct and may or may not eventuate, and scenarios may be impacted by additional factors to the assumptions disclosed. Additionally, forward-looking statements are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this presentation. BHP cautions against reliance on any forward-looking statements or guidance, particularly in light of the current economic climate and the significant volatility, uncertainty and disruption arising in connection with COVID-19. For example, our future revenues from our assets, projects or mines described in this presentation will be based, in part, upon the market price of the minerals, metals or petroleum produced, which may vary significantly from current levels. These variations, if materially adverse, may affect the timing or the feasibility of the development of a particular project, the expansion of certain facilities or mines, or the continuation of existing assets. Other factors that may affect the actual construction or production commencement dates, costs or production output and anticipated lives of assets, mines or facilities include our ability to profitably produce and transport the minerals, petroleum and/or metals extracted to applicable markets; the impact of foreign currency exchange rates on the market prices of the minerals, petroleum or metals we produce; activities of government authorities in the countries where we sell our products and in the countries where we are exploring or developing projects, facilities or mines, including increases in taxes; changes in environmental and other regulations; the duration and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our business; political uncertainty; labour unrest; and other factors identified in the risk factors discussed in BHP’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘SEC’) (including in Annual Reports on Form 20-F) which are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Except as required by applicable regulations or by law, BHP does not undertake to publicly update or review any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information or future events. Past performance cannot be relied on as a guide to future performance. BHP Climate Change Report 2020 This presentation should be read in conjunction with the BHP Climate Change Report 2020 available at bhp.com. Some of the information in this presentation provides a concise overview of certain aspects of that Report and may omit information, analysis and assumptions and, accordingly, BHP cautions readers from relying on that information in this presentation in isolation. Presentation of data Numbers presented may not add up precisely to the totals provided due to rounding. No offer of securities Nothing in this presentation should be construed as either an offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell BHP securities in any jurisdiction, or be treated or relied upon as a recommendation or advice by BHP. Reliance on third party information The views expressed in this presentation contain information that has been derived from publicly available sources that have not been independently verified. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information. This presentation should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by BHP. BHP and its subsidiaries In this presentation, the terms ‘BHP’, the ‘Company’, the ‘Group’, ‘our business’, ‘organization’, ‘Group’, ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘our’ refer to BHP Group Limited, BHP Group Plc and, except where the context otherwise requires, their respective subsidiaries set out in note 13 ‘Related undertaking of the Group’ in section 5.2 of BHP’s Annual Report and Form 20-F. Those terms do not include non-operated assets. This presentation includes references to BHP’s assets (including those under exploration, projects in development or execution phases, sites and closed operations) that have been wholly owned and/or operated by BHP and that have been owned as a joint venture operated by BHP (referred to as ‘operated assets’ or ‘operations’) during the period from 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020. Our functions are also included. BHP also holds interests in assets that are owned as a joint venture but not operated by BHP (referred to in this presentation as ‘non-operated joint ventures’ or ‘non-operated assets’). Our non-operated assets include Antamina, Cerrejón, Samarco, Atlantis, Mad Dog, Bass Strait and North West Shelf. Notwithstanding that this presentation may include production, financial and other information from non-operated assets, non-operated assets are not included in the Group and, as a result, statements regarding our operations, assets and values apply only to our operated assets unless otherwise stated. References in this presentation to a ‘joint venture’ are used for convenience to collectively describe assets that are not wholly owned by BHP. Such references are not intended to characterise the legal relationship between the owners of the asset. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 2

Potash: a future facing commodity with attractive long term fundamentals

Potash fundamentals: key messages A future facing commodity with attractive long term fundamentals from multiple angles • Potash sits at the intersection of global demographic, social and environmental megatrends A Future Facing • The environmental footprint of potash is considerably more attractive than other major Commodity chemical fertilisers • Conventional mining with flotation is more energy and water efficient than other production routes • Traditional demand drivers of population and diet are reliable and slow moving Reliable base • Attractive upside over basic drivers exists due to the rising potash intensity-of-use needed to support demand with higher yields and offset depleting soil fertility attractive upside • On top of the already compelling case, decarbonisation could amplify demand upside1 The industry’s 4th • Demand is catching up to excess supply, and major supply basins are mature wave is underway: • Price formation regime accordingly expected to transition from current SRMC to durable inducement demand to catch-up pricing, with Canada well placed to meet market growth longer term at LRMC in the mid $300s over the course of • Post the balance point, long-run geological and agronomic arguments skew probabilistic risks upwards the 2020s (LRMC plus fly-up) rather than downwards (SRMC), in our view Note: Short Run Marginal Cost (SRMC); Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC). 1. Based on BHP’s 1.5°C Scenario. Refer to the BHP Climate Change Report 2020 for information about this scenario and its assumptions. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 4

Potash attractiveness parameters Transitioning towards inducement pricing as consistent demand uplift absorbs today’s excess supply Favourable supply and demand gap Large market size Inducement pricing expected to emerge and sustain once demand growth absorbs current supply excess ~70 Mt today, 89-97Mt in 20351 Differentiated demand drivers Value creation and return potential Considerable differentiation from industrial metals Capital intensity of new supply creates over the course of the development process: steep inducement curve no global demand peak in prospect Operating margins superior in upstream segment Thrive in a Paris-aligned world 1. The rounded average of Argus, CRU and IHS is ~89 Mt. ~97 Mt is the level implied by Nutrien’s 2020s range midpoint of 2.25% extrapolated to 2035. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 5

Downstream potash drivers highly differentiated Diversification in terms of demand drivers vs. our wider portfolio of steel making, non-ferrous and energy commodities Fertiliser value chain Metals value chain Energy value chain Population growth and dietary change Urbanisation and industrialisation Motorisation, electrification, industrialisation Food, feed, fibre, fuel Buildings, infrastructure, machinery, appliances Transport, power, heat, chemicals Low degree of recycling1 High degree of recycling Low degree of recycling2 Steady increase in intensity through the entire Swift increase in intensity on the way to middle Swift increase in intensity on the way to middle development journey, high income plateau income, where a distinct peak forms income, flatter beyond, high income plateau head head head per per per needs energy demand Crop Metal y Primar GDP per head GDP per head GDP per head Traditional growth drivers Major uses by society Degree of Circularity Relationship to living standards Note: Illustrative only, reflecting stylised empirical path of major societies through time that have reached high income levels. 1. Recycling of nutrients via crop residue or manure occurs, but the food value chain is very inefficient and highly subject to waste. 2. Petroleum value chain specifically features plastics recycling, but this is a very small item in the entire value chain (a sub set of a sub set). Carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) expected to increasingly feature in industrial applications. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 6

Fundamental relationships are extremely reliable Crop production growth has exceeded population growth in the long run: potash has in turn exceeded growth in crop production Population up ~2.5 fold since 1960, crops ~3.5 fold, potash ~4.5 fold CAGR, 1960-1993 (Index, 1960 = 100) (%) 500 3 Potash fertiliser 450 2 demand 400 1 Crop 1.9 2.3 2.4 Collapse of production 350 0 Eastern Bloc Population Crop production Potash fertiliser 300 CAGR, 1993-2020 (%) Population 3 250 200 2 150 1 100 1.2 2.1 2.7 0 Population Crop production Potash fertiliser 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Data: UN World Population Prospects 2019; International Fertilizer Association; BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Note that ‘potash fertiliser demand’ relates to estimated underlying consumption at the farm-level rather than to upstream MOP shipments. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 7

Potash benefits in a decarbonising world Rising biofuels production and land use implications of afforestation burnish an already attractive potash demand profile Cumulative demand in the next 30 years compared to the last 30 years1 (%) 400 1.5°C Scenario Already compelling Central Energy View demand case … Lower Carbon View 300 Climate Crisis … potentially amplified under a 1.5 degree pathway 200 100 0 Nickel2 Potash Copper 2 Iron ore3 Metallurgical 3 Oil coal Data: BHP; Vivid Economics. 1. Our portfolio is tested across a range of futures. Refer to the BHP Climate Change Report 2020 for more information about these climate-related scenarios and their assumptions. Scenarios were developed prior to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore any possible effects of the pandemic were not considered in the modelling. 2. Nickel and copper demand references primary metal. 3. Iron ore and metallurgical coal demand based on Contestable Market (Global seaborne market plus Chinese domestic demand). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 8

The waves that have defined the potash industry A 4th wave is underway, with demand in catch-up mode. Once it does, an inducement pricing regime is the most likely outcome Change over 5 years MOP price (%) (US$/t real) 75 700 Supply led Supply led Demand led Wave #1 Wave #2 Wave #3 Wave #4 Supply 50 catch-up 525 Demand (late and catch-up excessive) Demand catch-up Demand 25 350 catch-up Inducement pricing regime 0 175 Re-orientation Development of of ex-Soviet capacity Demand boom, Saskatchewan deposit to the global market price upswing (25) 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Demand growth over last 5 years (LHS) Capacity expansion over last 5 years (LHS) Price level (RHS, not smoothed) Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources Note: New supply from FSU is shown in 1990s when existing supply was re-directed from domestic and Eastern Bloc markets after local demand collapsed. Eastern Bloc demand excluded until 1992. 2009 demand excluded. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 9

How soon will demand catch-up in Wave #4? Consensus view is that demand will catch-up in the late 2020s/early 2030s MOP demand (Mt) 110 3% average CAGR 100 2% average CAGR 90 Specialist average (1.7%)1 Achievable production (w/o Jansen) 80 1% average Jansen CAGR S1 Greenfield under Spare construction capaci y,, brownfield 70 expansion Existing supply 60 10 year linear trend (+1.8 Mt/y) 50 40 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Historical data: CRU. Nutrien range of 2.0% to 2.5% in the 2020s as disclosed in 2021 Q1 earnings call. Achievable production is BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Note that the chart shows linear interpolations that result in the same 2020-2035 aggregate tonnage increment as the stated CAGRs. 1. Specialist average based on CRU, Argus, Fertecon (IHS Markit). 2020-2035 CAGR calculated relative to trend level in 2020 (69.5 Mt) not to actual level estimated by CRU (71.6 Mt). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 10

What can be expected under inducement & fly-up pricing? Forward looking LRMC is broadly in line with through-cycle averages, considerably above SRMC experience of the last few years MOP price (US$/t real) 750 Upswing average Indicative of multi-year “fly-up” pricing should a strong demand-led 500 2008-2013 cycle emerge with a delayed supply response from ageing basins Through cycle average $470 2008 to date $350 Long-run marginal cost (LRMC) at mid case macro assumptions1 250 Short-run marginal cost (SRMC) across a range of macro assumptions1 Downswing average 2014 to date $260 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Data: IHS Markit. Average trade value of Canadian MOP exports. 1. Macro assumptions include items such as FX rates, energy costs, carbon and labour. Shaded boxes are the approximate price range associated with the operating conditions described therein. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 11

Inducing solution mining will provide tilt to the cost curve SRMC significantly higher than conventional flotation, forward looking LRMC for Canadian solution mining is mid-$300/t Operating cost curve Inducement cost curve SRMC conditions LRMC conditions Solution mines use significantly more energy and more water The inducement curve is steep due to the underlying capital than conventional mines. Sustaining capex is also higher intensity of projects This comes at a material operational cost disadvantage that is Solution mining in Canada is expected to set the industry LRMC expected to amplify under rising carbon pricing • Other candidates are too small, or disparate, to serve as an • The lowest cost mines1 (~US$100/t FOB), and the vast majority effective “bench” to anchor long run trend pricing of mines in Q1 of the operating- cost curve, are large scale • This solution mining bench is still “available” because conventional operations conventional opportunities, with their favourable operating • Operating solution mines in Canada1 are currently in the range costs, have been rightly prioritised for development of US$180-$210/t (FOB) • In bulk mining, you do not save the best for last • We estimate a trend price in the mid-US$300/t region will be required to induce a material portion of this Canadian bench into production 1. Source: CRU. Note: Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC); Short Run Marginal Cost (SRMC). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 12

Fertiliser and the global food supply chain

Crop yields hold the key to future food security Impressive gains in yields have offset declining cropland per head since the 1960s, but there remain major yield gaps between regions that could narrow with better farm practice, including scientific fertiliser application Competition for global land use Global Global Crop yields: large gaps between the frontier and the rest is crop use3 dietary profile1 cause for optimism Bubble width = yield Pasture land 24% 1960s 1970s Fibre <1% 3 100% 1980s 1990s Other animal 2000s 2010s Fuel 7% Forest, products shrubland and a Crop land 12% 90% fresh water Meat 40% Feed 15% 3 Beverages, Corn 80% nuts, etc Built-up land 1% Sugar 70% Barren land 22% Fresh fruit and vegetables 2 60% Cropland per capita in Vegetable oils 50% ha/cap steady decline 0.50 Rice 2 Food 78% 40% 0.40 30% 0.30 Cereals 1 20% and pulses 0.20 0.10 Soybeans 10% 0.00 1 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 0% 0.25 0.75 USA1.25 1.75 Brazil 2.25 2.75China 3.25 3.75 India 4.25 Data: UN FAO, IHS Markit; BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 14

What governs crop yields? Potassium availability is just one of a complex web of interacting factors that impact crop yield Potential yield OGRAPHY Determined by genetics FARM EATHER PRACTICE YIELD Attainable yield GENETICS SOIL Limited by external factors – aspects of climate, soil type and geography UTRIENTS Achieved yield Nitrogen (N) Dependent on farm practice to optimise Phosphorus Potassium availability of water and nutrients, to minimise (P) (K) the impact of pests, disease and bad weather, Secondar & micro- and to condition the soil nutrients Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 15

Why do plants need potassium? Potassium works as a chemical regulator – adequate potassium is needed for healthy growth Liebig’s Law of the Minimum Building block Potassium is found in cells throughout Potassium availability is a plant; It regulates critical processes one of dozens of factors including photosynthesis, enzyme Soil conditions that influence crop yields Water and other activation and temperature control growth factors YIELD Any one of these factors Iron may be yield-limiting Drought tolerance Potassium plays a major role in the Phosphorus r Calcium Nitrogen If potassium availability isn’t transport of water, and in the uptake Potassium Sulphu Magnesium of other nutrients yield-limiting then applying more won’t have any effect on yield Identifying existing or The ‘quality nutrient’ approaching yield limitations, Potassium can improve appearance, including potassium, is critical in taste, shelf life and nutritive value closing the gap to Attainable Yield Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 16

What is fertiliser? Fertilisers are materials that contain essential nutrients that are the “building blocks” of plants Consumption of primary nutrients Consumption of potash Potassium chloride (MOP) is the most via inorganic fertilisers fertiliser in different forms common type of potash fertiliser • The primary nutrients are Potash fertilisers nitrogen (N), phosphorus 20% Purity (KCl / K O) account for 20% 2 (P) and potassium (K) but Agricultural: min 95% KCl (60% K2O) many other nutrients are Technical: min 98% KCl also needed Phosphate fertilisers Pharmaceutical: 99.9% KCl 25% such as DAP and SSP • Different nutrients perform Particle size different functions in plants 90% Potassium chloride and are not substitutable (MOP) Fine: 0.2—0.5mm Standard: 0.5—1mm Coarse: 2—3mm • Plants can draw on native Nitrogen fertilisers such Granular: 3—4mm potassium in the soil, but 55% as urea and farmers commonly provide ammonium nitrate additional nutrients by Colour spreading potash fertiliser Red and/or organic material like 6% MOP derivatives White animal manure 4% Other types of potash (including polyhalite) Data: BHP; IFA. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 17

Most potash operations fall into three basic types MOP is extracted from underground ore deposits or recovered from natural brines Conventional mining Solution mining of ore Natural brines Solution mining is more water-intensive than ore flotation Sylvinite ore Sylvinite brine Carnallite slurry Crystallising MOP Flotation-based Crystallisation- from sylvinite brine is Crystallisation-Standard MOP mill based mill more energy-intensive based mill than flotation Compaction Jansen is Fine MOP plant designed to produce MOP via flotation Granular MOP Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 18

How is MOP used? Most MOP is used as fertiliser, often in combination with other nutrients Combination Bulk-blend NPKs ~75% into multi-nutrient fertilisers Compound NPKs Jansen product is suitable for straight application or Fertiliser ~20% combination into multi-nutrient Straight application MOP fertilisers (NPKs) ~70% ~92% Conversion Potassium sulphate ~5% into derivative fertilisers Potassium nitrate ~30% MOP Heavy industry Animal nutrition Direct use ~8% ~30% Low-sodium table salt Non-fertiliser Water softeners & ice melts MOP ~90% ~70% Conversion Potassium hydroxide into derivative chemicals Other chemicals Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources. ~10% Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 19

Geography of supply and demand Production concentrated in Canada, Russia and Belarus; Biggest consumers China, Brazil, United States and India Supply Demand Conventional mining (~70%) Surface brines (~25%) Solution mining (~5%) Standard/fine (~45%) Granular (~45%) Industrial (~10%) Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Note: 2020, 70 Mt MOP production, 72 Mt MOP sales (CRU). Split by grade is approximate. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 20

Major producers and trade flows Highly globalised commodity, most major markets have multiple sources of imports Uralkali EuroChem Nutrien Mosaic Belaruskali K+S QSL Potash ICL Arab Potash Area producing: >10Mtpa MOP Global overview <10Mtpa MOP Brazil <2Mtpa MOP RoW Russia & Canada Belarus India USA SEA China Others Israel & Jordan Data: Trade volumes 2018-2020 average (CRU). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 21

Potash supply chain Supply chains are long with several steps even in-market Commonly, sales are made inclusive of ocean freight (CFR) Raw potassium ore is processed Product for export is railed …and loaded onto bulk carriers1 into MOP at the mine to port terminals… Retailer Blender Distributor Importer Local customers are served Retailers can offer a suite Local blenders mix National and regional by road, rail, barge of products: fertilisers, bulk-blended NPKs distributors take the seeds, equipment, product to market agronomic services Fertiliser factories Fertilisers are transported by rail, use MOP to make NPK Factory road or barge; farms compound NPKs Farmers buy from local may be over 1,000km or other potash retailers/blenders; from the point of import fertilisers larger agribusinesses may buy directly from distributors 1. MOP is commonly shipped in Handysize, Handymax, Jansen product will be sold both onshore Supramax or Panamax vessels (20,000-80,000dwt). and offshore into upstream supply chain Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 22

Potash: a low emission, biosphere friendly fertiliser MOP is a critical nutrient with a modest environmental footprint, with conventional flotation route advantaged over solution mining MOP MOP Nitrogen Phosphate (flotation-based) (solution mining) fertilisers fertilisers Production footprint Low Scope 1+2 emissions (<100kg CO2e/t) Low water consumption (<1t/t)Consumption footprint High nutrient content, minimises relative transportation emission1 No energy-intensive downstream processing requiredNo N O/CO release upon use23 2 2 No risk to waterwaysEnables higher crop yields, reducing need to cultivate virgin land41. Varies for different fertilisers. 2. Nitrogen fertiliser use releases N2O directly via leaching/volatilisation and indirectly through microbial denitrification. This contributes 10% of CO2-equivalent emissions from the global food system.5 3. Some common phosphate fertilisers also contain nitrogen, which generates N2O upon use. 4. Land-use and land-use change (LULUC), mainly in the form of deforestation, contributes 32% of CO2-equivalent emissions from the global food system and 11% of all anthropogenic emissions.5 5. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2, 198–209 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 23

Pricing realisation calculation Prices are influenced by grade and volume, but there are also (fluid) variations between prices in different regions • Most sales are made on a delivered basis US$/t MOP (quarterly average) • Sales may be spot or contract (nominal) Selling price • Transacted prices are monitored by specialist 400 Brazil CFR China CFR price-discovery services US FOB w/house • Prices vary by product (e.g. standard/granular) CFR Brazil 350 (granular, spot) CFR China – (standard, contract) 300 • Sellers may offer volume-based discounts, Discounts conditional rebates or extended credit 250 – 200 Vancouver netback range Seaborne • For CFR sales, sellers arrange ocean freight freight either using spot or long-term charter 150 Realised FCA – (Nutrien) 100 Port costs and Realised price 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 inland freight = FOB mineQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2Q3Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3Q4 Q1 Q2 There is no single “potash price”: for example, this chart shows a 5-yr history of Nutrien’s Data: CRU Fertilizer Week; Nutrien. realised price (FCA, offshore sales only) against benchmarks reported by CRU Fertilizer Week Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 24

The outlook for potash

Demand drivers: from demographics to fertiliser demand Forecasting long-term MOP demand is a 3-step process Potash Potassium Socio-economic Crop fertiliser chloride drivers production demand demand Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 From population and income to From crop production to potash From potash fertiliser to crop production fertiliser potassium chloride • How much do people eat? • How much potassium nutrient do • How much potash fertiliser crops take up? comes from other primary • Which crops are needed to sources? meet that requirement? • Where does that nutrient come from? • What about non-fertiliser • Where are those crops grown? applications? Potash fertilisers • What about crops for fuel and fibre? Nutrient recycling Native potassium • How much nutrient is lost in-situ? Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 26

Forecasting Demand: Step 1 – crop requirements Estimate the quantity of each crop required to meet demand for the 4Fs: food, feed, fibre, fuel Food intake Population x (kcal/person/day) Wastage1 Animal Animal feed Global food supply calories requirement (kcal/yr) Vegetal Global crop calories production Fibres (tonnes) Biofuels 1. Wastage includes inbound supply-chain losses and post-retail waste. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 27

Forecasting Demand: Step 2 – potash requirements Estimate the quantity, and source, of potassium nutrient needed to support crop production Plant biomass Observed K balance Nutrient recycling = Observable K input Yield – K output This “equality” is frequently negative as farmers “mine the Potash Animal Crop Residue soil” for the required potassium and do not provide sufficient fertiliser manures residues external sources to maintain soil quality. K uptake 30% 20% 20% 30% Inferred K balance = Observable K input + Inferred soil K mining – K output Native Intensity-of-Use = potash use This requires a step up in the supply of external potassium potassium crop production (soil K) sources if yields are to be maintained, leading to a rising intensity of potash use. Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Note: Figures are approximate estimated global average; regional/local contributions to K uptake vary widely. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 28

Fundamental relationships are extremely reliable Crop production growth has exceeded population growth in the long run: potash has in turn exceeded growth in crop production Population up ~2.5 fold since 1960, crops ~3.5 fold, potash ~4.5 fold CAGR, 1960-1993 (Index, 1960 = 100) (%) 500 3 Potash fertiliser 450 2 demand 400 1 Crop 1.9 2.3 2.4 Collapse of production 350 0 Eastern Bloc Population Crop production Potash fertiliser 300 CAGR, 1993-2020 (%) Population 3 250 200 2 150 1 100 1.2 2.1 2.7 0 Population Crop production Potash fertiliser 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Data: UN World Population Prospects 2019; International Fertilizer Association; BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Note: ‘potash fertiliser demand’ relates to estimated underlying consumption at the farm-level rather than to upstream MOP shipments. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 29

Rising Intensity of Use (IoU): indicative ranges Historical norm of potash growth exceeding crop growth is not under plausible threat. Attractive upside should IoU accelerate further. Potash fertiliser demand: both rising crops and rising IoU have/will contribute (Mt MOP-equivalent) IoU @ To reduce rates of soil K depletion, Trend annual 1.5% p.a. IoU will have to accelerate; growth of growth of 1.5% p.a. corresponds to IoU @ 2 Mt incremental demand of 42Mt 0.75% p.a. IoU @ 0% p.a. +1.3% +1.1% p.a. p.a. Trend annual If IoU continues to rise at roughly the +0.7% Increase Increase growth of p.a. historical trend, this corresponds to in crop in crop Increase production production incremental demand of 28Mt 1.5 Mt +1.9% in IoU p.a. Increase in crop We expect crop production to slow production Trend annual as a result of demographic factors; growth of crop production alone is forecast to require 15Mt incremental potash <1 Mt fertiliser demand by ~2040 2000 2020 2030 2040 Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 30

Potash demand outlook to 2030 by region Soil depletion a global phenomenon, underscoring our belief that IoU is likely to rise across multiple regions Additional tonnes 2020-2030 NORTH AMERICA EUROPE & CIS ASIA & OCEANIA Historical demand growth1 0.2% Historical demand growth1 0.2% Historical demand growth1 4.3% BHP forecast growth2 1-3% BHP forecast growth2 1-3% BHP forecast growth2 1-4% External forecast growth3 1.7% External forecast growth3 1.1% External forecast growth3 2.0% Soil nutrient imbalance4 Poor, deteriorating Soil nutrient imbalance4 Poor Soil nutrient imbalance4 Poor, deteriorating Potash contribution to K uptake5 30-35%, Potash contribution to K uptake5 20-25%, Potash contribution to K uptake5 30-35%, recently improving stable improving CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA AFRICA WORLD Historical demand growth1 4.4% Historical demand growth1 6.1% 2 2 Historical demand growth1 2.7% BHP forecast growth 2-4% BHP forecast growth 5-10% External forecast growth3 2.9% External forecast growth3 2.9% BHP forecast growth2 1-3% Soil nutrient imbalance4 Poor, deteriorating Soil nutrient imbalance4 Poor, deteriorating Potash contribution to K uptake5 35-40%, Potash contribution to K uptake5 5%, External forecast growth3 2.0% stable improving 1. Average growth per annum of MOP shipments 2000-01 to 2019-20 (CRU). 2. Forecast average growth per annum of MOP shipments 2019-20 to 2030 (BHP range). 3. Forecast average growth per annum of MOP shipments 2019-20 to 2030 (Argus; CRU; IHS). 4. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (FAO and ITPS, 2015). 5. BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 31

Big picture themes in agriculture Climate change and “Precision Ag” are both principally opportunities for potash, in our view Climate change Precision Agriculture • Rapid decarbonisation: • Leverage advanced tech to optimise farm practice—Greater pressure on land use—Intensification positive for potash IoU—Improve application efficiency—In-situ losses of K are much lower —Possible resurgence of biofuels than N+P, so less potential —Biofuels still heavily dependent on—Better identify nutrient deficiency efficiency gain crop-fed 1st-gen tech—Adopt ‘nutrient-budget’ approach—Correcting K deficiency, reducing • Physical impacts of climate change: reliance on N fertiliser, ‘nutrient— Harvests vulnerable to extreme—Crop failures may become more budgets’ are all supported by weather events frequent Precision Ag—Changing temperatures and—Potassium aids drought tolerance rainfall • Rapid decarbonisation offers potential upside for potash • There are many barriers to global adoption of Precision Ag, particularly if labour is cheap, but even in the US farmers don’t always see positive • Adaptation (technology and farm practice, cultivated area, crop choice) cost:benefit in some technologies expected to prevent supply constraint on crop production • But for potash, Precision Ag presents net upside and could accelerate • Any supply constraint would likely push up food prices and potash IoU potash IoU Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 32

Big picture themes in agriculture If the world cuts its meat intake, it is not a negative for potash demand. Food waste is likely to get worse before it gets better. Meat consumption Food waste • Negative aspects of meat • Up to one-third of food supply is lost consumption are in the headlines: or wasted—Major emitter of GHGs—Tracking food waste over time is • Upstream waste is highest in difficult – not commonly reported—Uses lots of land and water developing economies:—Replacing meat calories with plant— Cutting waste requires both major —Ethical concerns based calories lowers overall crop—Lack of cold-chain infrastructure investment and behavioural production, but also removes K—Slow / inefficient distribution • Possible solutions include: change input from animal manure—Often hot / wet climates—Reduce meat consumption via—Developed economies have not —Intensification will require greater substitutes / flexitarianism made significant inroads on use of animal feed crops versus • Consumer waste is highest in —Intensify livestock production to consumer waste grazing developed economies: reduce land use and manage—Can developing economies cut —Diversified diets, including emissions upstream waste while avoiding perishables rising consumer waste? —Food cheap relative to income—Strict food hygiene regulations • Pace of dietary change is extremely slow • Cutting food waste would reduce crop production required per capita • Per capita meat consumption still rising in many parts of the world • Unfortunately global food waste is likely to get worse before/if it gets better, given the interplay between economic development & food • When/if meat consumption does start to decline this is not negative for consumption behaviour potash: livestock currently supplies tens of millions of tonnes of K into agriculture that would have to be replaced with potash Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 33

Geography of supply Production concentrated in Canada, Russia and Belarus Canada (Saskatchewan) a and Belarus • 32% of production in 2020 of production in 2020 • 3 companies: Nutrien, Mosaic, K+ ompanies: Uralkali, Belaruskali, • 7 conventional mines, 3 solution EuroChem • Industry dates back to 1950s conventional mines, but some ineries use thermal processing ndustry dates back to 1930s, but China (Qinghai) returned to the seaborne trade • 10% of production in 2020 the 1990s • 1 major company: QSL Industry (+numerous smaller producers) • Production is based on natural • Industry dates back to 1990s many Middle East (Dead Sea) of production • 9% of production in 2020 major company: K+S • 2 companies: ICL, Arab Potash conventional mines, most production • Production is based on natural ed on Hartsalz ore • Industry dates back to 1930s ndustry dates back to 19th century Conventional mining (~70%) Surface brines (~25%) Solution mining (~5%) Data: 2020, 70Mt MOP production (CRU). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 34

Recent and forthcoming greenfield additions to supply Centred on the three major basins: other deposits are either small, inaccessible or already extensively developed Uralkali Ust-Yaiva, Solikamsk-2 Acron Talitsky EuroChem Usolskiy Mosaic Esterhazy K3 Belaruskali Petrikov Slavkali Nezhinsky K+S Bethune Belaruskali Darasinsky EuroChem Volgakaliy North America CIS Under construction 1 Under construction (Mtpa , MOP) (Mtpa, MOP) (replacement) 30 30 In ramp-up phase In ramp-up phase (replacement) 20 20 10 10 Belaruskali Slavkali Acron Mosaic EuroChem2 Uralkali3 0 K+S 0 Existing Incremental Existing Incremental Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources. 1. Estimated Achievable Production (after disruption allowance but before voluntary curtailment). 2. Includes Phase I capacities only. 3. Includes new mine to recover lost capacity at Solikamsk-2. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 35

Identifying available capacity Estimated 76t Achievable Production in 2020, rising to 86Mt with forthcoming additions CY2020 capacity (Mtpa MOP) 100 90 Can be re-utilised in future 80 70 60 50 Nameplate Inaccessible Allowance for Achievable Temporary Expected Shortfall Actual Re-utilisation Capacity Future capacity capacity unplanned production curtailment production production under ramp-up / achievable downtime construction production Data: BHP analysis based on multiple sources. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 36

How soon will demand catch-up in Wave #4? Consensus view is that demand will catch-up in the late 2020s/early 2030s MOP demand (Mt) 110 3% average CAGR 100 2% average CAGR 90 Specialist average (1.7%)1 Achievable production (w/o Jansen) 80 1% average Jansen CAGR S1 Greenfield under Spare construction capaci y,, brownfield 70 expansion Existing supply 60 10 year linear trend (+1.8Mt/y) 50 40 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Historical data: CRU. Nutrien range of 2.0 to 2.5% in the 2020s as disclosed in 2021 Q1 earnings call. Achievable production is BHP analysis based on multiple sources. 1. Specialist average based on CRU, Argus, Fertecon (IHS Markit). 2020-2035 CAGR calculated relative to trend level in 2020 (69.5Mt) not to actual level estimated by CRU (71.6Mt). Note that the chart shows linear interpolations that result in the same 2020-2035 aggregate tonnage increment as the stated CAGRS. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 37

Canada is well placed to meet long-term demand growth Other deposits are either small, inaccessible or already extensively developed Canada Deposits in Russia and Belarus Western Europe are physically much smaller than Canada is home to more than Deposits in Western in Canada. half of global reserve base 60% Europe are lower Russia Options for conventional than Limited greenfield opportunity of global grade Canada; mining and solution mining reserve base some operations date beyond current tranche of to early 1900s Belarus projects (2 being replacement) Ore body is generally flat, thick and high-grade Depletion will be an issue in United States 2040s and beyond China Main salt playa in China is being fully exploited Middle East Southeast Asia Africa Brine operations in Potash occurrences in Southeast Asia Middle East limited and Africa are scattered and small-scale by physical footprint and water withdrawal South America Production is South America, mainly from salars, has declined with focus shifting to lithium. Inducement cost of greenfield projects1 are typically US$300-500/t Water stewardship an important Large ‘bench’ of resource still available for future development in Canada issue, especially in Chile. Data: USGS (2009). ‘Reserve base’ includes sub-economic reserves that may be developed in the future. USGS has switched to much smaller ‘reserves’ metric in recent years. 1. Greenfield inducement cost is all-in opex plus capital servicing, expressed in real US$ per tonne production, FOB Vancouver-equivalent. (CRU, Argus, Nutrien). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 38

Potash fundamentals: key messages A future facing commodity with attractive long term fundamentals from multiple angles • Potash sits at the intersection of global demographic, social and environmental megatrends A Future Facing • The environmental footprint of potash is considerably more attractive than other major Commodity chemical fertilisers • Conventional mining with flotation is more energy and water efficient than other production routes • Traditional demand drivers of population and diet are reliable and slow moving Reliable base • Attractive upside over basic drivers exists due to the rising potash intensity-of-use needed to support demand with higher yields and offset depleting soil fertility attractive upside • On top of the already compelling case, decarbonisation could amplify demand upside1 The industry’s 4th • Demand is catching up to excess supply, and major supply basins are mature wave is underway: • Price formation regime accordingly expected to transition from current SRMC to durable inducement demand to catch-up pricing, with Canada well placed to meet market growth longer term at LRMC in the mid $300s over the course of • Post the balance point, long-run geological and agronomic arguments skew probabilistic risks upwards the 2020s (LRMC plus fly-up) rather than downwards (SRMC), in our view Note: Short Run Marginal Cost (SRMC); Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC). 1. Based on BHP’s 1.5°C Scenario. Refer to the BHP Climate Change Report 2020 for information about this scenario and its assumptions. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 39

Appendix

Fauna & Aspect & Humidity What governs crop yields? Flora Exposure Knowledge Potassium availability is one of many factors opograp Wind limitations Infrastructure Altitude Rain Sunlight limitations Financial OGRAPHY emperatu limitations There are many interacting factors that influence crop yield FARM EATHER Any one factor may be yield-limiting PRACTICE Yield Micro-YIELD organisms potential • The potential yield is determined by genetics Harvest Organic GENETICS SOIL Index matter Drought • The attainable yield is limited by external factors Soil & flood UTRIENTS moisture – aspects of climate, soil type and geography esistance Quick Disease Soil pH maturing resistance temperatur • The achieved yield depends on farm practice Pest N Soil texture to optimise availability of water and nutrients, to resistance minimise the impact of pests, disease and bad Minimal Secondar lodging nutrients weather, and to condition the soil P Salinity Micro K nutrients Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 41

Themes in agriculture Good or bad for potash demand? Climate change Precision Ag Food waste Plant-based meat Potash ‘holidays’ Shifts in average temperature and more ‘PA’ is a broad term applied to tools or Up to one-third of upstream food Alternatives to conventional meat, K does not leach out from soils as easily frequent extreme weather poses a risk to services that leverage advanced production is never eaten. Tackling food including plant-based proteins, cultured as nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers. Soils future food security. technologies to optimise farm practice. loss and waste (FLW) is part of the UN’s meat and insects have grabbed the also contain ‘native’ K from naturally-Sustainable Development Goals. headlines. People in some places are occurring minerals. We expect that adaptation – both through Examples include GPS guidance, choosing to eat less meat for biotechnology and farm practice – will telematics, variable-rate technology of • Developed economies have high rates Soils that have been well-maintained may environmental (as well as ethical) reasons. avoid food production becoming supply seeds, fertiliser and pesticides, and aerial of wastage at the retail and consumer be able to support several harvests constrained. imagery. level. Livestock practices vary widely but, on without further application. average, each meat-based calorie Water stewardship will be vital – adequate PA technologies seek to reduce the cost of • Developing economies have high rates This gives farmers flexibility to adjust requires more crop input than each plant-potassium helps plant tolerate drought. labour and/or crop inputs, or increase of loss in processing and distribution. potash purchases from season to season based calorie. Usually, beef has more revenue via the quantity and/or quality of in a way that is not possible with nitrogen Rapid decarbonisation pathways offer There is little data on FLW over time, but it feed-crop input than pork or lamb, which in production. (or, to a lesser extent) phosphates. They potential upside to potash demand, may still be getting worse. Factors that can turn have more than poultry. can ‘bank’ potash in the soil when it’s particularly through resurgent growth in Some PA technologies are aimed increase FLW include: Reduction of meat consumption is thus affordable or skip application when it’s not. biofuels and the pressure to accelerate specifically at the efficient use of fertilisers. • Varied diets that include many associated with lower crop production for yield growth if large-scale afforestation The main focus is the precise and timely Other drivers of demand volatility include perishable foodstuffs the same calorie intake. However, animal diminishes available cropland. application of nitrogen and phosphate weather conditions, seasonality of manure contributes millions of tonnes of K fertiliser, which are it risk of high in-situ • ’Cheap’ food relative to household application, and stock-change through the However, outcomes that further decelerate to crops every year. The substitution of loss. income and consumer quality supply chain. population growth and/or depress income animal manure with potash negates the expectations impact on potash demand of lower crop growth are negative for crop demand. Potassium is applied in smaller quantities, Farmer response to potash affordability less often and is less mobile in the soil – • Food hygiene regulations production. is a key driver of short-term demand Global agriculture will have to adapt to the potential efficiency gains are thus volatility. However, K is an essential changing climate, but this does not Tackling FLW should be a global Meat consumption patterns change much less. ‘building block’ in plants and over the alter our basic thesis on potash priority and over time will allow the very gradually. Despite temporary dips long-term, consumption is driven by demand growth. A 1.5C Paris-aligned Efficient application poses little threat world to feed more people with less resulting from swine fever and the agronomic requirement. Crop prices pathway provides potential demand to potash demand. However, regular crop production. But doing so will need COVID-19 pandemic, meat will adjust if necessary to support the upside. and accurate soil testing will help to both big investment and big shifts in consumption is still on an upward trend appropriate use of fertiliser needed to identify under-application of K that behaviour, so progress will likely be globally. However, a reversal of this achieve required crop yields. might otherwise be missed. Adoption slow. trend is not negative for potash of a ‘nutrient-budget’ approach, rather demand. than depleting native K, provides further demand upside. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 42

Potash operations fall into 3 basic types MOP is extracted from underground ore deposits or recovered from natural brines Conventional mining Solution mining of ore Natural brines Usually 400m to 1,100m deep and Hot water (or brine) is pumped Potassium-bearing brines are channelled accessed by shaft underground to dissolve the potash ore into ponds and concentrated by solar Usually room & pillar with continuous Potash brine is pumped back to the evaporation until potash salts crystallise mining machines surface for processing Salts are either harvested by cutting Widely used in Canada, Russia, Employed on a large scale only in Canada dredges or mechanical shovels Belarus Employed in China, Israel, Jordan and Chile Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 43

Food and agriculture in numbers Global diets dominated by crop and vegetable products Global dietary profile1 Global crop production2 Global crop use3 Global land use4 Other crops Fibre <1% Built-up land 100% 100% 100% 100% Other foodstuffs Fuel 7% Crop land 90% Sugar 90% Sugar crops 90% 90% Other animal Feed 15% 80% products 80% 80% 80% Meat Pasture land 70% 70% 70% 70% Fresh fruit and vegetables Fruit and 60% 60% 60% 60% vegetables 50% Vegetable oils 50% 50% 50% Forests, shrubland and 40% 40% Oilseeds 40% Food 78% 40% fresh water 30% 30% 30% 30% Cereals 20% and pulses 20% 20% 20% Cereals and pulses 10% 10% 10% 10% Barren land 0% 0% 0% 0% 1. IHS Markit (2019). 2. FAO (2019) (excludes hay/silage/forage). 3. BHP estimate (excludes hay/silage/forage). 4. FAO (2018) / ourworldindata.org (2019). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 44

Potash fertiliser use by crop Global agriculture is fragmented, but top 10 country-crop combinations account for 50% Potash fertiliser consumption by country Brazil USA Indonesia and EU-28 India RoW China Malaysia 24% 16% 14% 9% 8% 29% 9% 0% 100% China 12 Brazil Indo/Malay USA USA China China India Brazil China 8% 7% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% F&V % Soybeans Oil palm Corn Soybeans Rice Wheat Rice Sugar cane Corn Fruit and vegetables Corn Soybeans Rice Oil palm Wheat Sugar cane Other crops and grassland and beet 19% 14% 12% 11% 8% 7% 6% 22% 0% 100% Potash fertiliser consumption by crop International Fertilizer Association “Assessment of Fertilizer Use by Crop at the Global Level” (2017). Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 45

Forecasting Demand: Step 1 – crop requirements Estimate the quantity of each crop required to meet demand for the 4Fs: food, feed, fibre, fuel Food intake Population x (kcal/person/day) For a Livestock may be fed region/country on crops (e.g. soybeans, split, need to account Food intake and corn) or waste products for physical constraints calorie mix are (e.g. DDGs) or with (land, water, yield), influenced by incomes fodder pace of development Wastage2 and cultural practices and projected trade flows Global food Animal Animal feed supply calories requirement Vegetal (kcal/yr) calories Global crop production Fibres (tonnes) 98%1 of biofuels are produced from food Biofuels crops like corn, 1. http://www.biofuelstp.eu/feedstocks.html. sugarcane, palm oil 2. This includes inbound supply chain losses (e.g. crops rotting before they reach market due to lack of and rapeseed cold storage infrastructure) and post-retail waste (e.g. food expiring in homes before consumption, unfinished portions in restaurants, etc). The former is principally a developing world problem and the latter is principally a developed world problem. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 46

Forecasting Demand: Step 2 – potash requirements Estimate the quantity, and source, of potassium nutrient needed to support crop production Residues have Observed K balance = alternative uses including heat/power Observable K input – K output generation, animal Potash fertiliser Crop K uptake feed, construction Plant biomass Animal manures Crop residues Nutrient recycling This “equality” is frequently negative. How so? Because Yield farmers “mine the soil” for a proportion of the required potassium, and do not provide sufficient external sources Potash Animal Crop Residue to maintain soil quality. Which gives the following: fertiliser manures residues Inferred K balance = K uptake Observable K input + inferred soil K mining – K output At some point, the ability to “mine the soil” at historical rates will decline, perhaps starkly in some regions. That will require a step up in the supply external sources of potassium if yields are to be maintained, with rising intensity K doesn’t leach out of soils as easily as N and P. Healthy soils have a K ‘reserve’ and farmers can “mine” this reserve based on short-term farm Native of potash use being the logical conclusion. economics, as a trade-off. As reserves are finite and this process degrades potassium natural soil fertility, it is not sustainable to continuously thrift on external (soil k) Intensity-of-use = potash use spoil of potassium. Long-term application must be driven by agronomics. crop production Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 47

Forecasting Demand: Step 3 Estimate the contribution of other primary potash fertilisers; Estimate non-fertiliser consumption of MOP Potassium Potash fertiliser chloride consumption SOP NOP Demand (tonnes K2O) (tonnes MOP) NPK1 MKP Secondary potash fertilisers Direct use Chemicals SOP SOPM Secondary Non-fertiliser Fertilisers applications Other primary potash fertilisers are made from include drilling fluids, The principal potassium chloride animal feed, water chemical derivative is Primary feedstock softeners, ice melt, food potassium hydroxide, fertilisers additives and used in batteries, soaps, are based on pharmaceuticals biodiesel manufacture naturally-occurring and as a precursor to minerals like kainite, other potassium langbeinite and compounds polyhalite 1. NPK fertilisers can also be based on other primary potash materials. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 48

Potash: a low emission, biosphere friendly fertiliser MOP is a critical nutrient with a modest GHG and broader environmental footprint GHG emissions intensities inform our investment decisions: Not all fertilisers have the same environmental footprint: Scope 1+2Scope 31 Low Medium High <100 kg CO2e/t <1,000 kg CO2e/t >1,000 kg CO2e/t Low Potash doesn’t have high emissions in production potash2 or distribution <100 kg CO2e/t Potash doesn’t release CO2 or N2O Medium phosphate3 Potash doesn’t pollute waterways High nitrogen4 >1,000 kg CO2e/t 1. Scope 3 impact relates only to emissions associated with downstream processing and use, not other considerations such as transportation. 2. Based on MOP produced by flotation and without downstream processing. 3. Based on ammonium phosphates (DAP/MAP). 4. Based on urea. Note: a) Scope 1+2 emissions for flotation-based MOP 50-80 kg CO2e/t, other production routes are 100-500kg. High nutrient concentration (60% K2O) maximises efficiency in transportation and spreading. b) From BHP research conducted so far, nitrogen-based fertilisers rather than potash appear to have a larger downstream emissions impact. However, trying to estimate the GHG contribution impact of fertiliser on soils and crops is very complicated. We continue to develop and improve our knowledge in this area. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 49

Jansen fits our strategic framework Our strategy identifies how to position the portfolio to maximise long-term value and deliver high returns for shareholders Future fit, exposure to global mega trends: decarbonisation and land use Attractive Attractive fundamentals, supply-driven market, growing population and diet commodity • Durable inducement pricing transition from short-run marginal cost • High-quality resource, low-cost, high-margin, long-life in a stable mining jurisdiction World cla • Capital efficient expansion options asset • Diversification of commodities, customer base, operating footprint Expertise in bulk mining, logistics and product marketing Operation High-performing culture, latest technology enabling top quartile operational performance excellence • Low-carbon footprint and lower water intensity Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 50

Jansen offers structural, competitive advantages Hard-to-replicate design, could be leveraged further in future stages Performance Upfront 60% less Shaft design 40% Leading equipment Continuous, driven geological equipment highest larger than other and material automated loading culture information throughput producers handling systems system Culture to drive higher Leveraged 3D seismic Automation approach Increased ventilation, Advanced predictive Automation maximises productivity, lower technology to gain resulted in fewer higher capacity for multiple maintenance drives efficiency and removes operating costs understanding of producing borers brownfield expansions higher plant availability, all interactions between underground resource operating hours equipment and personnel Across the value chain we have built in structural advantages, incorporated latest proven equipment and digital technologies Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 51

Jansen is low-cost, high-margin and long-life Simpler, smarter design adopted, while shaft completion de-risks project Final investment decision on track for mid-CY21 Major construction permits in place, port to be finalised • Project scope: Shaft equipping, mine development, processing Major permits facility, site infrastructure and outbound logistics Environmental Impact Study Approved • First production: ~5 to 6 years construction timeframe, ~2 years from first production to ramp up Mining Plan Approved • Volumes: 4.3 – 4.5 Mtpa (potassium chloride, KCl) Mining Closure Plan Approved Cash positive with high margins through the cycle Other key requirements • Opex: US$100 per tonne Construction Water Authorisation Approved • Sustaining capex: US$15 per tonne, (real) long term average Port and Rail In progress Steps before FID Shaft progress • Finalise port Final lining completion 91% complete1 • Consider final project risk and return metrics 1. Project scope includes finishing the excavation and lining of the production and service shafts, and continuing the installation of essential surface infrastructure and utilities. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 52

Jansen must compete for capital Stage 1 will be assessed through CAF at both project and portfolio level New capital tested against the CAF framework Evaluation approach1 • Project capital: US$5.3 – 5.7 billion Valuation • Projects need to compete against alternatives with similar risk, time multiple Base Cash 1 value returns horizons, with life cycle returns also a consideration NPV • Capex spend over seven years ROCE1 – peak spend in FY25 and FY26 Risk metrics Economic risks considered Maximise returns Commodity • Our assessment incorporate: project specific risks, economic exposure Optionality balance risks, country risks and non-quantifiable risks Capital • Cash generation at the low point of the cycle underpinned by low Efficienc Net industry cost position Ratio operating cash flow IRR1 and Payback Free cash flow Margin 1. NPV: Net Present Value; ROCE: Return on average capital employed; IRR: Internal Rate of Return. Potash outlook briefing 17 June 2021 53

BHP

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

|  |  |  |  |  | BHP Group Limited and BHP Group Plc
Date: June 17, 2021 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stefanie Wilkinson
|  |  |  | Name: |  | Stefanie Wilkinson
|  |  |  | Title: |  | Group Company Secretary