BHP Billiton S Africa : Presentation Strategy briefing Peter Beaven Chief Financial Officer 22 May 2019

Strategy briefing

Peter Beaven

Chief Financial Officer

22 May 2019

Disclaimer

Forward-looking statements

This presentation contains forward-looking statements, including statements which may include: trends in commodity prices and currency exchange rates; demand for commodities; plans; strategies and objectives of management; closure or divestment of certain operations or facilities (including associated costs); anticipated production or construction commencement dates; capital costs and scheduling; productivity gains; cost reductions; operating costs and shortages of materials and skilled employees; anticipated productive lives of projects, mines and facilities; provisions and contingent liabilities; tax and regulatory developments.

Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of terminology such as 'intend', 'aim', 'project', 'anticipate', 'estimate', 'plan', 'believe', 'expect', 'may', 'should', 'will', 'continue', 'annualised' or similar words. These statements discuss future expectations concerning the results of operations or financial condition, or provide other forward-looking statements.

These 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. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

For example, future revenues from our operations, 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 operations.

Other factors that may affect the actual construction or production commencement dates, costs or production output and anticipated lives of operations, 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 some of the countries where we are exploring or developing these projects, facilities or mines, including increases in taxes, changes in environmental and other regulations and political uncertainty; labour unrest; and other factors identified in the risk factors discussed in BHP's filings with the US 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, the Group does not undertake any obligation 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.

Non-IFRS and other financial information

BHP results are reported under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This presentation may also include certain non-IFRS (also referred to as alternate performance measures) and other measures including Underlying attributable profit, Underlying EBITDA (all references to EBITDA refer to Underlying EBITDA), Underlying EBIT, Adjusted effective tax rate, Controllable cash costs, Free cash flow, Gearing ratio, Net debt, Net operating assets, Operating assets free cash flow, Principal factors that affect Underlying EBITDA, Underlying basic earnings/(loss) per share, Underlying EBITDA margin and Underlying return on capital employed (ROCE) (all references to return on capital employed refer to Underlying return on capital employed), Underlying return on invested capital (ROIC). These measures are used internally by management to assess the performance of our business and segments, make decisions on the allocation of our resources and assess operational management. Non-IFRS and other measures have not been subject to audit or review and should not be considered as an indication of or alternative to an IFRS measure of profitability, financial performance or liquidity.

Presentation of data

Unless specified otherwise: value represents BHP share of risked discounted cash flows at consensus prices; copper equivalent production based on 2018 financial year average realised prices (as published in BHP's Results for the year ended 30 June 2018 on 21 August 2018); data from subsidiaries are shown on a 100 per cent basis and data from equity accounted investments and other operations are presented reflecting BHP's share; medium term refers to our five year plan. Queensland Coal comprises the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA) asset, jointly operated with Mitsubishi, and the BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal (BMC) asset, operated by BHP. Numbers presented may not add up precisely to the totals provided due to rounding. References to disciplined supply refer to lower levels of investment across the industry. All footnote content contained on slide 34.

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', 'Group', 'BHP Group', 'we', 'us', 'our' and 'ourselves' are used to 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 on Form 20-F. Notwithstanding that this presentation may include production, financial and other information from non-operated assets, non-operated assets are not included in the BHP Group and, as a result, statements regarding our operations, assets and values apply only to our operated assets unless otherwise stated.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	2

Key messages

Our strategy identifies how to position the portfolio to maximise long-term value and deliver high returns for shareholders

Our strategy

Scenario analysis

Portfolio

Capital

allocation

Decision

points

• To have the best capabilities, best commodities and best assets, to createlong-term value and high returns
• Transformation, capital discipline and social value enable the successful execution of our strategy
• Our investment decisions are measured in decades, solong-term strategic foresight is required
• Divergent scenario analysis reveals a range of strategic themes for us to consider
• Generates signposts to monitor, to facilitate timely decisions and risk management
• Assets and options tested against strategic themes to help navigate future uncertainty
• Investment in capabilities required to outperform in the future
• Build a suite of options with different risk, return and optionality attributes
• Strong balance sheet and strict Capital Allocation Framework enable investments in the right commodities and assets, at the right time
• Investments must compete for capital against further returns to shareholders
• Conventional oil, copper and nickel sulphides are attractive; energy coal is challenged; potash is a valuablelong-term option

	BHP's investment proposition: maximise cash flow; maintain capital discipline; increase value and returns
Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	3

Our strategy to maximise value and returns

To have industry-leading capabilities applied to a portfolio of world-class assets in the most attractive commodities

Culture and capabilities that enable the execution of our business strategy

• Market intelligence
• Access, discovery and appraisal
• Value conversion in operations and marketing

Best

culture and capabilities

Best

commodities

Value and

returns

Highly attractive commodities, matched

to our capabilities

• Attractive supply / demand fundamentals
• Large market sizes
• Steep cost curves
• Upstream value chains
• Differentiated demand drivers

World class assets, uniquely suited to our capabilities

Best

assets

• Large
• Long-life
• Upstream
• High-margin
• Expandable

	Driven by a commitment to transformation, capital discipline and social value
Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	4

We are deliberate about the commodities we choose

Focused on holistic long-term value creation potential, informed by supply/demand balance - not just demand outlook

Favourable supply and demand gap		Large market sizes

Favour commodities where inducement economics, rather

than operating costs, set the price more often than not

Enables future growth options in our assets

Differentiated demand drivers

Value creation and return potential

Reduced portfolio cash flow volatility

Enables counter-cyclical investment

Steep cost curves

Reduced risk of disruption in end-use markets

Value in upstream

Strategy briefing

22 May 2019

5

We seek long-life assets with embedded optionality

Creating and exercising embedded options is critical to maximising value

Escondida

Huge resource potential realised through new technologies and exercising embedded expansion options

Asset returns1		Production and resources
(annualised, %)		(Mt, 100% basis)
	~25%	180	Cumulative production	Contained Cu Resource (recovery factor not applied)	Capital investment
		90
		S&P Index
		30-year average									Original plan
		0									320 ktpa
Original	Actual	FY00	FY02	FY04	FY06	FY08	FY10	FY12	FY14	FY16	FY18
expected

Gulf of Mexico

Additional contingent resources unlocked through advanced seismic imaging and robust technical work

Asset returns1

(annualised, %)

	~22%
	S&P Index
	15-year average
Original	Actual
expected

Production, reserves and resources

(MMboe, net) 1,200

Cumulative production		2P Reserves²		2C Resources²	Capital investment

600

0

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

Fully developing a great resource takes decades… therefore we must think in decades

Source: Refer to detailed tables for Mineral Resources for Escondida (100% basis) in the Appendix, slide 33. Gulf of Mexico refers to Atlantis, Mad Dog and Shenzi.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	6

Our capabilities enable the execution of our strategy

Emphasis on culture and core capabilities to drive competitive advantage

Market intelligence

• Early identification of new opportunities
• Deep market foresight
• Understanding of changing dynamics in jurisdictions around the world

Access, discovery

and appraisal

• Gaining access to new resources by being partner of choice
• Outstanding geological knowledge and exploration capabilities
• Competitive advantage in appraising resources, once discovered

Value conversion in

operations and marketing

• Executing projects on time and budget, at leading capital intensity
• Operating excellence and continuous improvement through our transformation agenda
• Value creation through customer focused marketing

Enabled by transformation, capital discipline and social value

Transformation

• Redesign the way we work
• Accelerate our work on culture and capabilities
• Strategic and innovative partnerships with stakeholders

Strategy briefing 22 May 2019

Capital Allocation Framework

• Transparent framework promotes accountability and discipline
• Balances value creation, cash returns to shareholders and balance sheet strength
• Drives competition for capital

7

Social value

• Protecting our licence to operate by meeting commitments to our workforce, partners, communities and governments
• Buildinglong-term societal value through deep and authentic relationships with local, regional and global stakeholders

The external environment is changing rapidly

Our world is in constant flux and levels of uncertainty are high

Unsustainable		Dramatic change in		Rise of emerging
land and water use		the energy system		markets

23%

of land areas have seen a reduction in

productivity due to degradation3

Bio-diversity loss

~1 million

species threatened with extinction (¼ of all known varieties); extinction rate has accelerated one-hundred fold6

Note: IEA: International Energy Agency.

Strategy briefing 22 May 2019

Up ~3x	70%
IEA's forecast for solar power generation		think China plays a more important role
in 2035 since 20114		in the world today versus 10 years ago5
Swift technological		Heightened degree of
progress		policy uncertainty
85%		93%
reduction in average EV battery pack		increase in volatility of global policy
costs since 20107		uncertainty 2011-2019 vs 2002-20108

8

We have responded: our portfolio is in great shape today

We have reshaped our portfolio through the demerger of South32 and US$18 billion of divestments9

Large assets

~70%

FY13Current

Average Cu Eq resource size per minerals asset

Simple

30

13

FY13Current

Operated assets

Long-life

>80%

~50%

FY13Current

Proportion of minerals assets with 'Life of Asset' planning >50 years

Diversified

CoalPetroleum

Copper

Iron Ore

H1 FY19 EBITDA contribution10

Low-costUpstream

~2x

>30%

	FY13	Current		FY13	Current
	Cu Eq unit costs of current portfolio		EBITDA margins at FY18 average
				realised prices

ExpandableLow-risk

Non-OECD

~$15bn~$14bn

Exploration	Future options	OECD
			Average ~17% IRR
		Unrisked NPV (US$)11	FY18 EBITDA proportion in OECD countries

Note: Average Cu Eq resource size per minerals asset resource base (equity share basis) is converted to copper equivalent tonnes using FY18 prices; metal resources converted on a contained metal basis; refer to disclaimer on slide 29 and detailed tables for Mineral Resources in the Appendix, slides 30 to 32.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	9

Navigating future uncertainty through scenario analysis

Our approach allows us to test the resilience of our portfolio and to optimise it for the long term

We consider durable and emerging trends

Which could lead to extreme, but plausible divergent future scenarios

Deepening global divide in

We derive and test strategic

themes, for example:

Outcomes of hypothesis testing inform how we test and shape our portfolio

Inequality in and between

nations

Resource availability

Non-linear

climate impacts

Strategy briefing 22 May 2019

international relations,

decentralised governance

structures

Socio-political instability,

permanent loss of trust, intensified

by inequality and technological

displacement of jobs

Climate change threats and

resource scarcity drive profound disruption in energy and materials

A major climate change event leads to a global policy response that drives dramatic emission reduction focus

Electrification of transport

Licence to operate

Decarbonisation of stationary power

Biosphere: water stewardship and food (in)security

Circular economy

10

Commodity

entries / exits

Asset

acquisitions /

disposals

Development of

core strategic

capabilities

Competitive portfolio of options and assets

We monitor and test strategic themes

Extreme, but plausible, scenarios used as bookends to test the portfolio and identify future opportunities and risks

Electrification of transport

Electric Vehicles (EVs) progressively displace the internal combustion engine (ICE) as cost, range and charging constraints are overcome

Licence to operate

Developed countries restrict

expansion; government intervention

into access of resources and automation implementation

Circular economy

The reuse, reduction, repurposing and recycling of existing materials; a closed loop for the value chain that minimises the need for primary extraction

Decarbonisation of stationary power	Biosphere
Accelerated social and political push to achieve	Heightened focus on water stewardship and food
zero emissions from stationary power to contain	security amidst climate change impacts and intense
global warming to well below 2 degrees	competition for land, marine and freshwater resources

Note: Themes are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, outcomes from one theme could impact our view on severity, timeframes, or strategic considerations for other themes.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	11

Well positioned to mitigate impacts and create value

Understanding the signposts allows us to identify common no-regret actions and future decision points

Value

Electrification of transport

• Policy support (e.g.pro-EV & anti-ICE)
• Cost competitiveness of EVs
• Infrastructure charging speed and availability

Decarbonisation of stationary power

• Early retirement ofnon-renewable resources
• Standalone renewable cost competitiveness
• Grid flexibility solutions become economic

Biosphere

•Globally coordinated regulatory intervention to resolve land and water competition

• Food security threatened12
• Steep disincentive pricing13

Licence to operate

• Decline in trust between governments, citizens and corporations
• Fluid policy environment at the global, national, regional and sectoral levels

Circular economy

• Policy changes (i.e. imported waste bans)
• Emergence of cost competitive substitutes forsingle-use plastics
• Breakthrough in household recycling
• Consumers reject unsustainable options

Time

Note: Represents possible impact on our portfolio if no action is taken to mitigate against risks or seize opportunities. Themes are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, outcomes from one theme could impact our view on severity, timeframes, or strategic considerations for other themes.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	12

Implications for strategy: Electrification of transport

Portfolio advantaged through exposures in copper and nickel with further options available to take advantage of the trend

				Commodities		Assets		Capabilities

• Nickel:major driver for Class I demand; scarce sulphide resource, inducing higher-capex,lower-grade laterites

• Copper:significantly more demand required for EVs to induce high-cost supply
• Oil:headwinds, but supply expected to decline faster than demand, maintaining inducement economics

• Lithium:support, but abundance of resource allows supply to keep pace at relatively low cost
• Cobalt:support, but to lose share in battery chemistry to nickel

• Strong environment for development and expansion of copper assets (e.g. Olympic Dam, Resolution)
• Copper assets innon-OECD countries likely to be required to meet demand
• Increased attractiveness of nickel options as nickel sulphides likely to be scarce
• Conventional oil assets to remain attractive for several decades
• Opportunities to lower our carbon footprint and operating cost as heavy duty EVs become more competitive

• Block caving skills in copper to become a required skill set
• Technology breakthroughs to unlock low grade copper resource in mature assets
• Exploration and development capabilities in nickel sulphides a strategic enabler
• Exploration and development capabilities in conventional oil to remain a required skill set
• Resource access in new jurisdictions vital, enabled by social value and strategic partnerships

Note: Not an exhaustive list for all commodities, assets and capabilities. This represents our initial view to only material impacts on our portfolio.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	13

Implications for strategy: Licence to operate

Assets already permitted with low geopolitical risk likely to increase in value while new resource harder to develop

				Commodities		Assets

Capabilities

• Iron ore, copper, nickel and metallurgical coal:potentially positive as new projects find approvals difficult to secure
• Potash:positive contributor to more sustainable land use and food security

• Uranium:green energy profile but long-term societal attitudes unclear

• Energy coal:projects difficult to motivate
• Potential for value erosion across value chains for all carbon intensive industries (scope 3 emissions costs)

• All assets with permits already in place are advantaged as new developments take longer and are more expensive
• Strong environment for Jansen option and provides differentiated growth potential
• Energy coal assets are challenged
• Economics of Olympic Dam expansion more (less) attractive based on societal acceptability of nuclear

• Social value becomes a major competitive advantage
• Water stewardship a key enabler
• Identifying the right partners in the right locations will be necessary
• Labour productivity remains vital as costs are subject to upwards pressure
• Tax transparency, high standards of governance, workforce engagement, diversity and inclusion are key enablers

Note: Not an exhaustive list for all commodities, assets and capabilities. This represents our initial view to only material impacts on our portfolio.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	14

Implications for strategy: Power decarbonisation

Risks associated with carbon-exposed commodities offset by upside to copper and nickel

Commodities

AssetsCapabilities

• Copper:intensive use in renewable power capacity, but low cost power raises aluminium substitution

• Nickel:incremental demand from storage; cheap transmitted electricity to stimulate other uses (e.g. EVs)

• Gas:could be leapfrogged by renewables in the power sector in developing countries
• Uranium:green energy profile but societal attitudes unclear

• Energy coal:phased out, potentially sooner than expected

• Strong environment for development and expansion of copper assets (e.g. Olympic Dam, Resolution), uranium neutral
• Copper assets innon-OECD countries likely to be required to meet demand
• No appetite for growth in energy coal regardless of asset attractiveness
• Gas discoveries attractive if near LNG ullage, but large capital investments and longpay-backs carry more risk

• Block caving skills in copper to become a required skill set
• New resource access in new jurisdictions vital, enabled by social value
• Technology breakthroughs to unlock low grade copper resource
• Exploration and development capabilities in (scarce) nickel sulphides a strategic enabler
• Decarbonisation of our value chain through carbon capture use and storage (CCUS)

Note: Not an exhaustive list for all commodities, assets and capabilities. This represents our initial view to only material impacts on our portfolio.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	15

Implications for strategy: Biosphere

A positive world for potash and one that favours assets with existing cost effective water stewardship strategies

Commodities

AssetsCapabilities

• Potash:high demand case as food insecurity drives an increased need for potassium

• Hydrocarbons:causal factors in unsustainable land and water use fall out of favour

• Cost curves for many commodities will rise and steepen as the cost of water treatment and water security increases

• Strong environment for Jansen option
• Challenging for energy coal assets
• Conventional oil assets likely to remain attractive but cost will be key
• Escondida and Pampa Norte insulated due to existing water stewardship strategies and could be advantaged if the copper cost curve steepens
• Asset location is an increasingly key strategic consideration for growth options

• Heightened importance on judicious capital allocation, with particular attention to investment time horizons in challenged commodities
• Water stewardship and sustainable operating practices are vital to driving competitive advantage
• Social value creation through investments tackling loss of biodiversity, and othermacro-environmental challenges, takes on increased importance

Note: Not an exhaustive list for all commodities, assets and capabilities. This represents our initial view to only material impacts on our portfolio.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	16

Implications for strategy: Circular economy

A very challenging environment, with potential growth provided by potash

Commodities

Assets

Capabilities

• Copper:likely to remain supported by new demand sources, even as recycling increases
• Potash:higher crop residue recycling and declining food waste, but demand growth still highly likely

• Material risk to most commodities, with a combination of redesign, reduction, reuse and recycling all pointing towards lower reliance on primary demand

• Expect some commodities to have less downside risk than others: iron ore vs metallurgical coal; gas vs oil

• Still room for growth in copper, but a transition to lower cost resources will be required
• Jansen an attractive option for differentiated growth
• Gas assets with installed infrastructure (e.g. NWS) likely to be well placed
• A more holistic view of supply may be required, including participating in different parts of the value chain (e.g. primary nickel supply, combined with recycling batteries, to produce precursor)

• Transformation agenda will be key to cost control and efficiency
• Social value critical to secure strategic partnerships withend-users (e.g. auto makers) to manage and participate in lifecycle product chains
• Sustainable supply chain will be important with the support of advanced technological capabilities

Note: Not an exhaustive list for all commodities, assets and capabilities. This represents our initial view to only material impacts on our portfolio.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	17

Implications for strategy

Positioning our portfolio to seize opportunities as they emerge

Electrification of		Licence to operate		Decarbonisation of		Biosphere		Circular economy
transport			stationary power

Social value credentials, strategic partnerships, market intelligence, resource access and resource development capabilities are all critical

▲Copper and nickel	▲ Increased value arising	▼Challenges to carbon-	▲Potash a valuable growth
advantaged	from incumbency	exposed commodities	option
▲Existing growth options	▼ Energy coal assets look	▲Offset by tailwinds	▲Water stewardship a key
enhanced	challenged	for copper	enabler
►Oil still attractive, but less	▲ Social value a competitive	▲Long dated benefit for	▼Some commodities seen
so than base case	advantage	nickel	as "part of the problem"

• Risk to primary demand in many commodities

• Potential migration of economic profit downstream

• Potash somewhat insulated from overall trend

Conventional oil, copper and nickel sulphides are attractive; energy coal is challenged; potash is a valuable long-term option

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	18

Broad suite of attractive opportunities

Our portfolio is in great shape today but we have more to do

Optionality

In execution

Higher	Orphan Basin	Ecuador and South		South Flank	Atlantis Phase 3
exploration	Australia exploration
	(Iron ore)	(Petroleum)
return	(Petroleum)	(Copper)
	Trion appraisal	Nickel West		Spence Materials	Mad Dog Phase 2
	expansion		Reprocessing
	(Petroleum)		(Petroleum)
	(Nickel)		(Copper)

Lower return

Resolution	Wards Well
(Copper)	(Metallurgical coal)

South Walker Creek	Olympic Dam
Expansion Project
(Metallurgical coal)
(Copper)

Spence Growth Option	Scarborough
(Copper)	(Petroleum)
Jansen Stage 1	Autonomous Haulage
Australia
(Potash)
(Minerals Australia)

Higher risk	Lower risk
Note: Olympic Dam Expansion Project refers to heap leach technology development option.
Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	19

Our framework promotes discipline in all capital decisions

Our Capital Allocation Framework is transparent and embeds discipline

OperatingCapital

productivityproductivity

Net operating cash flow

Maintenance capital

Strong balance sheet

Minimum 50% payout ratio dividend

Excess cash flow

Debt	Additional	Buy-backs	Organic	Acquisitions/
reduction	dividends	development	divestments

Maximise value and returns

>US$25 billioncash returns to shareholders announced since 1 January 2016

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	20

Key messages

Our strategy identifies how to position the portfolio to maximise long-term value and deliver high returns for shareholders

Our strategy

Scenario analysis

Portfolio

Capital

allocation

Decision

points

• To have the best capabilities, best commodities and best assets, to createlong-term value and high returns
• Transformation, capital discipline and social value enable the successful execution of our strategy
• Our investment decisions are measured in decades, solong-term strategic foresight is required
• Divergent scenario analysis reveals a range of strategic themes for us to consider
• Generates signposts to monitor, to facilitate timely decisions and risk management
• Assets and options tested against strategic themes to help navigate future uncertainty
• Investment in capabilities required to outperform in the future
• Build a suite of options with different risk, return and optionality attributes
• Strong balance sheet and strict Capital Allocation Framework enable investments in the right commodities and assets, at the right time
• Investments must compete for capital against further returns to shareholders
• Conventional oil, copper and nickel sulphides are attractive; energy coal is challenged; potash is a valuablelong-term option

	BHP's investment proposition: maximise cash flow; maintain capital discipline; increase value and returns
Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	21

Appendix

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	23

Transformation - delivers significant value

Increase in productivity, reduction in costs and application of technology

Initiatives	Value14	Timing15	Capex over	Description
					5-years
					(US$m)
						-	BHP Operating System: piloted at Port Hedland and Perth Repair Centre
WAIO				~5 years	<800	-	Value Chain Automation: focused on haulage, shiploaders, rail, integrated mine platforms and decision systems
						- Latent capacity: supply chain debottlenecking initiatives at the port and rail to increase production sustainably to 290 Mtpa
						-	BHP Operating System: piloted at Peak Downs and Caval Ridge
Queensland Coal				~5 years	~1,000	-	Value Chain Automation: focused on haulage, integrated mine platforms and decision systems
						- Latent capacity: focused on pre-strip productivity through equipment availability (including better maintenance strategies), utilisation and rate
						-	BHP Operating System: piloted at Olympic Dam surface operations
Olympic Dam				~10 years	<300	-	Value Chain Automation: replicate Integrated Remote Operations Centre
						- Latent capacity: continued development into the Southern Mine Area to access higher grade ore and refinery debottlenecking
						- BHP Operating System: piloted at Escondida concentrators
Escondida				Various	<200	-	Value Chain Automation: focused on haulage and precision mining
						- Latent capacity: debottlenecking and extending infrastructure life
						- BHP Operating System: piloted at leaching operations
Spence				Various	<200	-	Value Chain Automation: focused on haulage, drills and precision mining
						- Latent capacity: reprocessing of ripios dumped since the beginning of operations
World Class Functions				<5 years	~300	- Increased focus on the most important activities and cross-functional ways of working to drive world-class performance across culture,
				effectiveness and efficiency
Aggregate					~US$3 bn	Potential aggregate NPV14in the tens of billions of dollars
				BHP Operating System
				Value Chain Automation
				Latent Capacity

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	24

Future options - worked for value, timed for returns

Investment decisions made in accordance with our Capital Allocation Framework and fully consider the broader market impact

Options	Description	Potential	Capex	Tollgate	IRR14	Risk16		Investment considerations
		execution	(US$m)			(1-5)
		timing
Ruby	Tie back into existing processing facilities in	<1 year	>250	Feasibility	>15	●●	-	Similar scope to existing tie backs	-	Early life sensitivity to oil price
Petroleum	Trinidad & Tobago	-	Utilisation of existing facility capacity
Mad Dog northwest	Incremental production of existing A-Spar					Non	-	Resilient to price	-	Non-operated JV
				-	Low risk, robust economics
water injection	<5 years	>250	Pre-feasibility	*
production wells in Mad Dog field	Operated
Petroleum
							-	Tier 1 resource	-	Oversupply of LNG driving low price market
Scarborough	Tie back development to existing LNG	<5 years	<2,000	Pre-feasibility	*	Non	-	Ability to process through existing		environment
Petroleum	facility	Operated		infrastructure	-	Remote field location, deep water, severe
										metocean conditions
Olympic Dam BFX17	Development into the Southern Mine Area,						-	Access to additional resource in Southern	-	Continued resource definition
debottlenecking of existing surface	<5 years	Up to	Pre-feasibility	12-25	●●		Mine Area	-	Power network instability
Copper	infrastructure to increase production capacity	~2,500	-	Accelerated additional production
	to 240-300 ktpa
	Underground block cave with attractive						-	High copper grades	-	Non-operated JV
Resolution					Non	-	Resilient to price	-	Technical risk due to caving at the resource depth
grade profile and competitive cost curve	>5 years	<3,000	Concept	~15
Copper	Operated				and tailings options
position
								-	Permitting requirements
Jansen Stage 118	Tier 1 resource with potential initial capacity						-	Tier 1 resource, stable jurisdiction	-	Risk of market oversupply
<5 years	5,300-	Feasibility	14-15	●●●	-	Operating costs of ~US$100/t (FOB	-	New commodity entry
Potash	of 4.3-4.5 Mtpa, with valuable expansion	5,700		Vancouver, excluding royalties)	-	Sensitive to price
optionality
						-	Unrivalled position of land	-	High capital cost and long payback
Jansen Stage 2-418							-	Long term growth optionality and value	-	Risk of market oversupply
Sequenced brownfield expansions of up to	>15 years	~4,000	Opportunity	~20	●●		generation	-	Complexities from project size
Potash	12 Mtpa (4 Mtpa per stage)	per stage	assessment	-	Adds diversification to BHP's portfolio	-	Significant capital requirement
									- Further de-risking required
Aggregate					~17		Aggregate unrisked value14of ~US$14 billion spanning commodities and time periods
Note: * Mad Dog northwest water injection and Scarborough IRRs under review with joint venture partners.
Strategy briefing
22 May 2019					25

Exploration - extending our conventional reserve life

Investment decisions made in accordance with our Capital Allocation Framework and fully consider the broader market impact

Options	Location	Ownership	Maturity	Earliest first	Description	Planned future activity
				production
Trion	Mexico - Gulf of	60%	Appraisal	Mid 2020s	Large oil discovery in the Mexican deepwater Gulf of Mexico.	Additional appraisal well approved; expected to spud in
Petroleum	Mexico	Operator	December 2019 half

Wildling	US - Gulf of Mexico	80+%	Appraisal	Mid 2020s	Large oil resource across multiple horizons near operated	Complete appraisal to optimise development plan
Petroleum	Operator	infrastructure in US Gulf of Mexico
Samurai	US - Gulf of Mexico	50%	Appraisal	Early 2020s	Oil discovery in the Wildling mini basin	Operator has commenced pre-FEED activities following
Petroleum	Samurai-2 discovery in 2018
Northern Gas	Trinidad and	70%			Potential material gas play in Deepwater Trinidad, well positioned	Currently drilling to test exploration prospects following the
Exploration	Mid 2020s	recent Bongos-2 success and Bele-1 encountered
Petroleum	Tobago	Operator	to the Atlantic LNG plant onshore T&T
		hydrocarbons
Magellan Southern	Trinidad and	65%	Exploration	Mid 2020s	Potential material gas play in Deepwater Trinidad, well positioned	Rig completed 2 well exploration program in October 2018;
Gas	Tobago	Operator	to the Atlantic LNG plant onshore T&T	incorporating results
Petroleum
Western GOM		100%				Completed acquisition of Ocean Bottom Node seismic
US - Gulf of Mexico	Frontier	Early 2030s	Acquired a significant acreage position in Western Gulf of Mexico	19
Petroleum	Operator	survey ; process & analyse seismic and incorporate into
				ongoing analysis
Trinidad Oil	Trinidad and	65-70%	Frontier	Late 2020s	Potential oil play in deepwater Trinidad	Geologic analysis ongoing
Petroleum	Tobago	Operator
Orphan Basin	Canada	100%	Frontier	Early 2030s	Recent bid success for blocks with large oil resource potential in	Geologic analysis ongoing
Petroleum	Operator	the offshore Orphan Basin in Eastern Canada
			Multi-billion barrel equivalent risked potential; unrisked NPV of up to US$15 billion20

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	26

Projects in feasibility

	Autonomous truck hauling	Ruby	Jansen Stage 1
	Australia	Trinidad and Tobago	Saskatchewan, Canada
	Automating ~500 haul trucks across	Oil and gas development consisting of five	Shaft equipping, mine development,
	Western Australia Iron Ore and	production wells tied back into existing	processing facility, site infrastructure and
	Queensland Coal sites	operated processing facilities in Trinidad	outbound logistics.
		& Tobago.
Operator	BHP	BHP	BHP
BHP ownership	Various	68%	100%
Capex (US$m)	<800	~330	5,300 - 5,700
	Feasibility study phase
Phase / timing	First of several investment decision	Feasibility study phase	Feasibility study phase
expected in CY19 (capex represents full	Investment decision expected in CY19
	amount)
First production / Project delivery	Staged rollout between CY20 and CY23	FY22	~5 years from sanction to commissioning
~2 years from first production to ramp up
Volumes (100% basis at peak)	n/a	16,000 bopd (oil) + 80 MMscf/d (gas)	4.3 - 4.5Mtpa (Potassium chloride, KCL)
		12.5% royalty	6% royalty
Other considerations	Site by site decision on roll out	Production entitlements paid in-kind under	Federal and Provincial Corporate income
		PSA	tax and Potash Production Tax21

Note: Ruby ownership based on current participating interest per the Joint Operating Agreement. PSA - Production Sharing Agreement.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	27

Statement of Petroleum Resources

Petroleum Resources

The estimates of Petroleum Reserves and Contingent Resources contained in this presentation are based on, and fairly represent, information and supporting documentation prepared under the supervision of Mr. A. G. Gadgil, who is employed by BHP. Mr. Gadgil is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and has the required qualifications and experience to act as a qualified Petroleum Reserves and Resources evaluator under the ASX Listing Rules. This presentation is issued with the prior written consent of Mr. Gadgil who agrees with the form and context in which the Petroleum Reserves and Contingent Resources are presented.

Reserves and Contingent Resources are net of royalties owned by others and have been estimated using deterministic methodology. Aggregates of Reserves and Contingent Resources estimates contained in this presentation have been calculated by arithmetic summation by category. The barrel of oil equivalent conversion is based on 6000 scf of natural gas equals 1 boe. The Reserves contained in this presentation are inclusive of fuel required for operations. The respective amounts of fuel for each category are provided by footnote for the resource graphics. The custody transfer point(s)/point(s) of sale applicable for each field or project are the reference point for Reserves and Contingent Resources. Reserves and Contingent Resources estimates have not been adjusted for risk. Unless noted otherwise, Reserves and Contingent Resources are as of 30 June of the indicated financial year. Where used in this presentation, the term Resources represents the sum of 2P reserves and 2C Contingent Resources.

BHP estimates Proved Reserve volumes according to SEC disclosure regulations and files these in our annual 20-F report with the SEC. All Unproved volumes are estimated using SPE-PRMS 2007 guidelines, which among other things, allow escalations to prices and costs, and as such, would be on a different basis than that prescribed by the SEC, and are therefore excluded from our SEC filings. All Resources and other Unproved volumes may differ from and may not be comparable to the same or similarly-named measures used by other companies. Non-proved estimates are inherently more uncertain than proved.

The SEC permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only Proved, Probable and Possible Reserves, and only when such Reserves have been determined in accordance with SEC guidelines. We use certain terms in this presentation such as "Resources," "Contingent Resources," "2C Contingent Resources" and similar terms as well as Probable Reserves not determined in accordance with the SEC's guidelines, all of which measures we are strictly prohibited from including in filings with the SEC. These measures include Reserves and Resources with substantially less certainty than Proved Reserves. U.S. investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, File No. 001-09526 and in our other filings with the SEC, available from us at http://www.bhp.com/. These forms can also be obtained from the SEC as described above.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	28

Mineral Resources and Competent Persons statement

Competent Person Statement

The information in this presentation that relates to the FY2018 and FY2013 Mineral Resources (inclusive of Ore Reserves) were first reported by the Company in compliance with the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, 2012' ('The JORC Code 2012 Edition') in the 2018 BHP Annual Report and the 2013 BHP Billiton Annual Report respectively. Both reports are available to view on www.bhp.com.

The detailed breakdown of Mineral Resources for all assets are shown in the Annual Reports on 100% basis, with corresponding BHP interest. Compilation of Mineral Resources information from 2013 is included in this presentation to provide a portfolio comparison between these two dates. Divested assets are no longer owned or operated by BHP and the majority of these were demerged into South32 in May 2015. Other divestments are noted in the corresponding BHP Annual Reports.

In relation to the 2018 Mineral Resources, the company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the Mineral Resources information included in the original 2018 market announcement and, in the case of estimates of Mineral Resources, that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed. The company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons' findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement.

The information in this presentation that relates to Mineral or Coal Resources is based on information compiled by: L Moharana (MAusIMM) for Western Australia Iron Ore (WAIO) and Divested assets (Alumar including MRN, Worsley, GEMCO, Hotazel); R Macpherson (MAIG) for Minerals Australia Energy Coal, Metallurgical Coal - Operations and Projects including Queensland CQCA-JV, Gregory JV (divested on 27 March 2019; available on www.bhp.com) and BHP Mitsui Coal and Projects and Divested assets (Illawarra Coal and BECSA); M Menicheli (MAusIMM) for Nickel West Operations and Nickel Colombia (Cerro Matoso); D Clarke (MAusIMM) for Olympic Dam; M Williams (MAusIMM) for Escondida District, Pampa Norte, Antamina, Pinto Valley, Cerrejón, New Mexico Coal, Samarco; J McElroy (MAusIMM) for Minerals Americas Jansen Project and M Furness (MAusIMM) for Cannington.

All of the people listed above are full-time employees of BHP and have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' and consent to the inclusion in the presentation of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Resources and metal equivalent calculations

Please refer to detailed tables in the Appendix, slides 30 to 33, for Mineral Resource classifications (100% basis) for each asset / deposit included in the average copper equivalent resource size per minerals asset calculations on slide 9 of this presentation.

Resource base (equity share basis) is converted to copper equivalent tonnes using FY2018 average realised prices as reported in the BHP results for the year ended 30 June 2018 for Metallurgical Coal, Energy Coal, Iron Ore, Copper and Nickel. The conversion of U3O8, Au, Ag and Zn use prices as reported in the BHP 2018 US Securities and Exchange Commission Form 20-F. Potash price used is US$233/t, Molybdenum US$7.11/lb, Lead US$0.87/lb, Aluminium US$2,132.98/t and Manganese Ore US$198.32/t.

The reporting of Mineral Resources for polymetallic deposits in terms of metal equivalents (a single equivalent grade of one major metal) is based on FY2018 average realised prices as reported in the BHP results for the year ended 30 June 2018 for Cu and for other metals the BHP 2013 and 2018 Form 20-F submissions (unless otherwise stated). The metallurgical recoveries applied are those footnoted for the respective operations as footnoted in the corresponding Annual Reports from 2013 and 2018. It is the company's opinion that all elements included in the metal equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold. No mining or metallurgical modifying factors were applied to the results. The following copper equivalent grade calculations are listed below.

2013 calculations

Olympic Dam: CuEq = Cu % + (U3O8 kg/t x 1.064) + (Au g/t x 0.459) + (Ag g/t x 0.0089); Spence: CuEq = Cu % + (Mo % x 3.039); Antamina Sulphide Cu-only: CuEq = Cu % + (Mo % x 2.048) + (Ag g/t x 0.0097); Antamina Sulphide Cu-Zn: CuEq =

Cu % + (Zn % x 0.45) + (Ag g/t x 0.0096); Cannington: PbEq = Pb % + (Ag g/t x 0.043) + (Zn % x 0.95), Molybdenum price used is US$11.18/lb.

2018 calculations

Olympic Dam: CuEq = Cu % + (U3O8 kg/t x 0.709) + (Au g/t x 0.407) + (Ag g/t x 0.0059); Escondida: CuEq = Cu % + (Au g/t x 0.575); Spence: CuEq = Cu % + (Mo % x 2.294); Antamina Sulphide Cu-only: CuEq = Cu % + (Mo % x 1.546) + (Ag g/t x

0.0065); Antamina Sulphide Cu-Zn: CuEq = Cu % + (Zn % x 0.33) + (Ag g/t x 0.0064).

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	29

Mineral Resources (100% basis)

Commodity	Financial year	Measured Resources (Mt)	Indicated Resources (Mt)	Inferred Resources (Mt)	BHP interest
Deposit	%
Minerals Australia
Iron Ore
WAIO	2018	2,750	6,500	20,020	88
	2013	2,550	4,210	14,560	88
Energy Coal
Operations - Mt Arthur Coal	2018	875	1,299	1,019	100
	2013	887	2,169	670	100
Projects - Togara South	2018	719	177	1,051	100
	2013	719	177	1,051	100
Metallurgical Coal - Operations
Queensland CQCA-JV	2018	3,844	2,481	2,198	50
	2013	2,561	2,882	2,353	50
Gregory JV	2018	7.9	112.7	0.3	50
	2013	7.9	130.7	0.3	50
BHP Mitsui Coal	2018	310	328	239	80
	2013	258	347	233	80
Metallurgical Coal - Projects
Queensland CQCA-JV	2018	509	1,872	1,089	50
	2013	273	1,476	1,398	50
Gregory JV	2018	5.6	-	-	50
	2013	5.6	-	-	50
BHP Mitsui Coal	2018	-	1,233	176	80
	2013	-	1,457	154	80
Copper
Olympic Dam	2018	3,515@0.83%Cu, 0.26kg/tonne U3O8, 0.37g/t Au, 1g/t Ag	3,292@0.69%Cu, 0.22kg/tonne U3O8, 0.29g/t Au,1g/t Ag	3,920@0.67% Cu,0.22kg/tonne U3O8,0.26g/t Au,1g/t Ag	100
	2013	1,543@0.97%Cu, 0.29kg/tonne U3O8, 0.37g/t Au, 2g/t Ag	5,095@0.80% Cu,0.26kg/tonne U3O8,0.36g/t Au, 1g/t Ag	3,296@0.69% Cu,0.23kg/tonne U3O8,0.25g/t Au,1g/t Ag	100
Nickel
Nickel West Operations	2018	175@0.71%Ni	160@0.64%Ni	209@0.67% Ni	100
	2013	214@0.61%Ni	186@0.61%Ni	150@0.59% Ni	100
Nickel West Projects	2018	156@0.59%Ni	113@0.63%Ni	209@0.67% Ni	100*
	2013	156@0.60%Ni	114@0.60%Ni	203@0.66% Ni	100*
* Projects comprise Venus, Yakabindie with 100% BHP interest and Jericho 50% BHP interest.
Strategy briefing
22 May 2019			30

Mineral Resources (100% basis)

Commodity	Financial year	Measured Resources (Mt)	Indicated Resources (Mt)	Inferred Resources (Mt)	BHP interest
Deposit	%
Mineral Americas
Copper
Escondida District	2018	5,779@0.61% TCu	5,050@0.52% TCu	16,573@0.49 TCu	57.5
	2013	5,785@0.67% TCu	3,542@0.54% TCu	12,930@0.47% TCu	57.5
Pampa Norte	2018	921@0.52% TCu	1,189@0.48% TCu	2,565@0.37% TCu	100
	2013	593@0.63% TCu	1,386@0.49% TCu	1,275@0.40% TCu	100
Pinto Valley	2018	174@0.31% TCu	40@0.32% TCu		100
	2013	350@0.32% TCu	617@0.31% TCu	191@0.26% TCu	100
Antamina	2018	242@0.88% Cu,0.75% Zn,11g/t Ag,235 ppm Mo	804@0.90% Cu,0.75% Zn,12g/t Ag,201 ppm Mo	1,372@0.90% Cu,0.55% Zn,10g/t Ag,201 ppm Mo	33.75
	2013	183@0.77% Cu,0.60% Zn,10g/t Ag,238 ppm Mo	943@0.92% Cu,0.66% Zn,11g/t Ag,208ppm Mo	860@0.82% Cu,0.39% Zn,11g/t Ag,173 ppm Mo	33.75
Potash
Jansen Project	2018	5,170@25.7% K2O		1,270@25.7% K2O	100
	2013	5,328@25.7% K2O		1,288@25.7% K2O	100
Energy Coal
Cerrejon	2018	2,849	975	709	33.33
	2013	2,924	989	695	33.33
Iron Ore
Samarco	2018	3,340	2,150	950	50
	2013	3,000	3,000	2,000	50

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	31

Mineral Resources (100% basis)

Commodity	Financial year	Measured Resources (Mt)	Indicated Resources (Mt)		Inferred Resources (Mt)	BHP interest
Deposit		%
Divested assets
Metallurgical Coal
Illawarra Coal	2013	278	455		586	100
Nickel
Nickel Colombia	2013	115@1.04% Ni	186@0.9% Ni		90@0.8% Ni	99.94
Energy Coal
New Mexico Coal	2013	779	265		10	100
BECSA	2013	2,572	838		2,023	90
Silver Lead Zinc
Cannington	2013	68@186g/t Ag,5.35% Pb,3.26% Zn	18@122g/t Ag,3.94% Pb,2.56% Zn		10@86g/t Ag,3.25% Pb,1.80% Zn	100
Aluminium
Worsley	2013	339	584	50		86
Alumar (MRN)	2013	328	81	999		14.8
GAC Project	2013	87	113	327		33.3
Manganese
GEMCO	2013	85@46.5% Mn	68@40.0% Mn		37.3@41.8% Mn	60
Hotazel	2013	74.4@37.2% Mn	181.9@39.9% Mn		4.3@34.5% Mn	44.4

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	32

Mineral Resources (100% basis)

Commodity	Financial year	Measured Resources (Mt)	Indicated Resources (Mt)	Inferred Resources (Mt)	BHP interest
Deposit	%
Mineral Americas
Copper
Escondida deposit	2018	5,376@0.61% TCu	3,674@0.51% TCu	10,437@0.52% TCu	57.5
	2017	5,524@0.63% TCu	3,675@0.57% TCu	9,649@0.51% TCu	57.5
	2016	5,645@0.64% TCu	3,409@0.51% TCu	11,296@0.52% TCu	57.5
	2015	5,872@0.64% TCu	3,229@0.50% TCu	10,085@0.50% TCu	57.5
	2014	5,351@0.65% TCu	2,689@0.52% TCu	10,311@0.51% TCu	57.5
	2013	5,382@0.68% TCu	2,166@0.54% TCu	6,794@0.51% TCu	57.5
	2012	4,056@0.72% TCu	3,213@0.56% TCu	6,645@0.50% TCu	57.5
	2011	3,089@0.75% TCu	3,036@0.58% TCu	5,824@0.53% TCu	57.5
	2010	1,998@0.78% TCu	3,137@0.62% TCu	3,374@0.50% TCu	57.5
	2009	1,786@0.82% TCu	3,206@0.67% TCu	3,921@0.53% TCu	57.5
	2008	1,819@0.84% TCu	2,984@0.70% TCu	4,233@0.53% TCu	57.5
	2007	1,513@0.89% TCu	3,371@0.71% TCu	3,767@0.54% TCu	57.5
	2006	1,484@0.88% TCu	3,489@0.72% TCu	4,892@0.54% TCu	57.5
	2005	1,605@1.00% TCu	3,372@0.73% TCu	5,111@0.54% TCu	57.5
	2004	1,710@1.02% TCu	3,393@0.72% TCu	5,114@0.54% TCu	57.5
	2003	1,333@1.13% TCu	2,720@0.85% TCu	1,979@0.67% TCu	57.5
	2002	1,377@1.15% TCu	2,737@0.85% TCu	2,002@0.67% TCu	57.5
	2001	1,422@1.09% TCu	2,224@1.02% TCu	1,772@0.80% TCu	57.5
	2000	1,212@1.25% TCu	1,794@0.99% TCu	1,274@0.80% TCu	57.5

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	33

Footnotes

1. Slide 6: IRR (real) on a risked basis. Indicative internal analysis. Source: Thomson Reuters, BHP. Market indices reflected with Total Shareholder Return (TSR).
2. Slide 6: Reserves/Contingent Resources at 30 June 2018: 1P: 303 MMboe (10 MMboe fuel); 2P: 431 MMboe (13 MMboe fuel); 2C: 346 MMboe.
3. Slide 8: Unsustainable land and water use per the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and ecosystem services performed by the IntergovernmentalScience-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
4. Slide 8: Source: International Energy Agency.
5. Slide 8: Source: PEW Research Centre (https://www.pewglobal.org/).
6. Slide 8: Source: IPBES(https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/tca-ind050519.php).
7. Slide 8: Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
8. Slide 8: 93% refers to the increase in the monthly standard deviation of the global economic policy uncertainty index,PPP-weighted, for 2011-2019YTD versus 2002-2010. Source: (www.policyuncertainty.com).
9. Slide 9: Divestments: announced or completed from FY13 onwards.
10. Slide 9: Segment EBITDA: percentage contribution to Group Underlying EBITDA, excluding Group and unallocated items.
11. Slide 9: Unrisked NPV and IRRs: as presented at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Metals and Mining Steel Conference on the 14 May 2019.
12. Slide 12: Food security threatened by land degradation, water quality and availability, climate change impacts.
13. Slide 12: Steep disincentive pricing (e.g. carbon price, taxes onnon-sustainable forestry, nitrogen fertiliser run-off).
14. Slide 24, 25: Returns (IRR) and value (NPV): Calculated at 2019 analyst consensus price forecasts (except Potash which are at CRU and Integer (Argus Media) price forecasts); ungeared,post-tax, nominal rates.
15. Slide 24: Timing: Representsramp-up to steady state.
16. Slide 25: Risk: Based on a BHP assessment of each project against defined quantified andnon-quantified risk metrics rated out of 5; 5 represents more risk.
17. Slide 25: Olympic Dam: IRR of12-25% represents different development options of varying levels of certainty. The upper end of range relates to investment in a potential lower capital and production development towards BFX.
18. Slide 25: Jansen: Based on CRU and Integer (Argus Media) price assumptions(2025-2035 average mid-case: CRU US$325/t and Integer (Argus Media) US$342/t, rebased). Jansen Stage 1 IRR of 14-15% reflects capex range and excludes remaining funded investment of ~US$0.3 billion for completion of the shafts and installation of essential service infrastructure and utilities. Jansen Stages 2-4 capex is presented in real terms (July 2019) - those options would be brownfield and predominately require surface infrastructure, with shorter construction schedules and less risk than Stage 1. The execution of future stages would be subject to our review of supply and demand fundamentals and successful competition for capital under our Capital Allocation Framework. However, we expect that each subsequent expansion would be approved for development after the previous expansion had reached 3 to 4 years of full production. The existing shafts are capable of supporting production for Stages 2-4.
19. Slide 26: WGOM OBN 2018 Seismic Permit is OCS PermitT18-010.
20. Slide 26: Petroleum exploration and appraisal NPV: Unrisked values at BHPlong-term price forecasts.
21. Slide 27: Below are tax consideration for Jansen Stage 1 project. Withholding tax on dividend payments under the current corporate structure is 5%.
22. • Royalties: 6% of mine gate revenue (revenue less port and rail costs)
    • Federal and Provincial Corporate Income taxes: Combined top rate 27% (Carried forward losses frompre-production years can be utilised to decrease future taxable profits)
    • Potash Production Tax (PPT), two components.
    • • Both components are calculated based on K2O tonnes. Thus potassium chloride (KCL) needs to be converted to potassium oxide (K2O), with a conversion rate of 0.6.
      • A base payment levied at a rate of 35% on the producer's annual resource profits, subject to minimum payment of CAD$11.00 and a maximum of CAD$12.33 per K2O tonne sold. New producers may qualify for a base payment holiday for the first 10 years of production.
      • A profit tax imposed on the producer's gross annual profit tax that is determined by rates, which increase with profits per tonne sold, as follows: 15% of the profit per tonne below CAD $66.95 and 35% of the profit per tonne above CAD $66.95 (tax brackets are indexed for inflation). Profit tax is assessed on a maximum of 35% of total tonnes sold, but producers may claim a base payment credit with respect to amount of tonnes that are subject to both the base payment and the profit tax. There are no tax holidays available for the profit tax.

Strategy briefing
22 May 2019	34