Good morning everybody and welcome to the presentation of Rio Tinto’s results for 2005. Leigh Clifford here with me in London; and Guy Elliott, our CFO joins us from Melbourne. Good morning, well good evening to you Guy. The sequence of the presentation today is that I will start with a summary of the results and outlook. Leigh will then provide an overview of our performance during the year. Before he hands over to Guy for a detailed review of our financial results, and then Leigh will do a wrap-up with some comments on a development project and growth opportunities before we take questions. Underlying earnings grew strongly in 2005 to almost $5 billon, a rise of 118% on the previous year. And as you can see from the chart on the right-hand side of the screen here, this level of earnings is well above the trend of recent years. The rise in earnings reflects very strong demand and good operational performance overall and record production levels at many business units. The contribution to earnings from increased production was in excess of $1.1 billion, I think it’s a very important point. We benefited significantly from recent investments in capacity expansion, particularly in Iron ore in the Pilbara and coking coal at Hail Creek and Alumina at the new Comalco refinery. The prices of most products were strong throughout the year although there was some softening of molybdenum and Asian thermal coal towards the yearend. This was offset by a firming in Aluminum, copper and gold over the same period. Net earnings rose 58% to 5.2 billion, the earnings contribution from excluded items were smaller than in 2004 as we made fewer asset sales than in the previous year. So it was very good year for Rio Tinto. In addition to…

Thank you Paul, and good morning everyone. I’d like to touch briefly on our safety performance in 2005. Before looking at group earnings and then covering the operations in more detail. The improvement in safety recorded at our operations in recent years continued in 2005 with a further reduction in our lost time injury frequency rate. Our all injury frequency rate also declined. We remain fully committed to ensuring a safe working environment for all our employees and safety is a key metric in our assessment of operational performance as well as in management's remuneration. Turning now to earnings. With the exception of industrial minerals, each of our product groups had a substantial earnings increase in 2005. Copper, so arise at 135% driven principally by strong prices for Copper, Moly and Gold. Iron ore had the largest increase in the earnings of 205%, and as well we were able to capitalize on strong market conditions by rising production. Energy increased earnings by about 70% with a stronger pricing environments for thermal and coking coal as well as Uranium. Aluminum earnings increased by 18% mainly due to higher prices and record both side Alumina and Aluminium metal production. Diamond earnings increased by 49% principally due to recovery in production lag off and a strong demand for the product. Finally, industrial minerals earnings fell by 23%, and as we disclosed at our Investors’ seminar in October, earnings were affected by a number of one-off items including provisions relating to the restructuring of the product group. On an underlying basis, prices excluding one-off items in each year industrial earnings were at a similar level in 2004 and 2005. Even at times of weaker commodity prices than prevail today, Rio seemed to have generally enjoyed EBIT margins in the 20% to 30% range. We…

Thank you Leigh and good morning everyone. I'm going to examine our results today in our normal waterfall format. Starting off with price, now the strong price environment we experienced in the first half of 2005 continues into the second half of the year. Compared with 2004 prices increased full year earnings by $2.4 billion in 2005. Exchange rates were relatively stable over the period with the Australian and Canadian dollars strengthening by 4% and 8% respectively. The obsessing effect of the movements of the US dollar was a relatively modest $123 million. These two factors and the impact of inflation increased the earnings versus 2004 by $2.1 billion. Looking at prices by commodity, we can see that they were stronger across all our major products. The 71.5% increase in the Iron ore price in 2005 lifted earnings by $976 million. This accounted for over 40% of the total price variance. The copper price, which averaged $1.66 per pound during the year, compared with $1.13 2004 boosted earnings by $482 million. Strong demand continued to the thermal and coking coal in Asia. And tighter energy markets in the US are feeding through the higher realized proceeds in Power River Basin Coal. Together with an improvement in Uranium prices these factors enabled the energy group to generate $501 million of additional earnings compared with 2004. Demand in the molybdenum market has been strong and prices were sustained throughout the year averaging over $30 a pound. This contributed a further $152 million to underline earnings. Prices have been supported by supply constraints from reduced Chinese production but they eased towards the end of the year. Moly prices remained at what are historically at very high levels. Aluminum and Alumina added a $125 million jointly, well its more favorable pricing for Industrial Minerals…

Thank you Guy. I would now like to conclude today's presentation with look at our growth options and the way we go about creating new opportunities. Rio Tinto is always seeking to be creative in its approach to finding value opportunities and I think Hope Downs is one example of this. We are now close to finalizing our decision on that project and discussions with potential customers are well advance. In fact the response is being overwhelmingly positive. Once approved the first phase of production will commence in 2008 and an initial capacity is likely to be 23 million ton. This project which has further expansion potential beyond the first phase will contribute to our leadership position in the Iron ore industry in Australia. Turning to another example, our announcement last week of the establishment of a joint venture exploration venturing and development agreement with Norilsk Nickel of Russia is the good example of what I’ve said before is about the importance of innovated alliances. Russia has a history of world-class mineral discoveries and it remains highly prospective. The scale of the opportunity is very significant, the proposed area of exploration is about the size of western Europe. The joint venture breaks new ground for mining development in Russia. It will combine the skills and resources of Norilsk Nickel with values of Rio Tinto, a really strong combination. It offers Rio Tinto unrivaled entry into Russia in partnership with the leader and not in country's mining sector. It also represents a long-term strategic commitment to Russia, which leverages our exploration capability and it illustrates our willingness to pursue value-adding opportunities wherever they arise. I would now like to look at our other projects and growth options in a little more detail. And its important to distinguish between capital expenditure relating…

Q – Heath Jansen: Good morning, Heath Jansen here, just a couple of questions. One first of all on the capital management, just in terms of, is there any preference in terms of buying back of PLC stock out of the Limited stock for that $2.5 billion, and is there a minimum amount to shareholder representation that you want to maintain of the Limited shares, and is that one of the reasons why you’ve done a special dividend of 1.5 billion – of $4 billion buyback? And then just second on the CapEx program, and I will saw you talking lot of that in Aluminum or Alumina, how long before we see approvals that costs just to see that Aluminum smeltings going forward and probably because a consensual price on your chart, in contextual rather than feasibility size, could you just give us an update on that please?

Perhaps I could invite Guy to address the first question about, which of the two share we would prefer to buyback, and mainly for CapEx question to you, Guy?

Heath, we have always been care I think about this but when it comes to on-market buybacks, we would buyback the lower prices of the two shares if we were in the market, and today that’s the PLC share, and of course that’s where we have been buying in recent months. But the situation could change and at some point we could buyback limited shares, we are going to approach the shareholders at the AGM to ask them to give us the flexibility to pursue any of various ways of buying back shares including the off-market approach which we adopted successfully last year in Australia. I am not saying that we will buyback off-market in Australia, we will just see the option to do so, because we can't really foresee exactly how markets will behave over the next two years. So I think what you can see from that is, we want to retain the option to get to return capital to shareholders in a number of ways. So by the time we paid this special dividend we would have used 3 of the 4 obvious routes to buying back the anyone that weren’t used in a immediate future as the buying back on market of Limited shares. Now you referred to a minimum amount of shareholder representation in Australia. Now that is something that we watch very closely because we are conscious of the tension between wishing to buyback shares and return capital to shareholders, and at the same time the desire for liquidity and a really meaningful presence on the Australian markets, so that will way with us to some degree. Is that why we done a special dividends? No not really, I think that the reason we have done a special dividend is that, there is several constituencies here, and they will have slightly different tax requirements and for these reasons not everybody likes buybacks and so to some degree we have addressed that by making the special dividend payment, and in addition to that, its the quickest way of returning money to shareholders. It’s going to take us a bit of time to return $1.5 billion by buyback we could like that but we really wanted the competition number of objectives at the same time

If I can respond to your comments on Aluminum, firstly let start with the book side and we are investing in a new ship loader at Weipa, new power station so our capability will expand book side is quite considerable. We don’t really want to be in the book side market, rather be in the alumina and perhaps in the metal side of the market. In terms of Alumina, we call Alumina plant the basic operation that plant a chemistry of it and the process is going well, we have had some problem with the digestion pumps and that’s really being now supplemented with additional pumps, modifications to the pumps and I believe that’s something that we will overcome in the short-term, that's an engineering issue not a process issue. Once we've got the real confidence in the performance in the capability of CAR one, we are in a better position to make judgments on CAR two certainly spend money on preliminary work on CAR two and that decision will be taken having regards to the market circumstances and obviously the capital environment. We also obviously have the scope to potentially expand the coal refinery but that we had to clear up the ownership issue, that’s behind us now, there is a bit of work obviously involved in any feasibility study there. In terms of aluminum smelting, and for flat mater alumina in general we have a number of options that we are progressing rigorously, but as with all of those sort of things in this stage of their valuation, I am not at liberty to speak but let me say we have, we believe there’s some value creating options out there and I hope, during the course to the next year I think some of those will come to version.

Thank you. Q – Jeremy Gray: Jeremy Gray from CSFB, congratulations on the number. Just on Moly prices, do you say firm despite the recent pullback, can chemical support similar production that was in '06 and '07 that we saw in '05? And just I left a few question, was Utah Ken’s copper project in Russia discussed when you are with them last week?

In term of Moly production in '06, I mean Tom is here only to give into more detail with you later, there comes a limit about maintaining the levels which I think were about 32 million pounds this year, but we ended in strong production going forward in 2006, I think Tom maybe could comment on how 2007 is looking, you want to make a comment on that? A – Tom: Hey we have, we have been doing in the fourth quarter of last year. Fourth quarter of last year that without any extra work you would have a little bit less Moly in 2006 compared to 2005, but that our efforts underway including with our ITP initiatives where to reaching objective to get closer to 2005 level, and that work in underway as we speak. We are also doing some drilling work and recognizing if these market stay stronger for a longer period of time, if we can find opportunities to find new pockets of Moly in that, we will certainly endeavor to do so

As regard roughly, can I say that its a competitive environment in Russia and I wouldn’t want to foreshadow anything as regards join venture, I mean to say the join venture will certainly be looking at Greenfield exploration, exploration which might have taken place in the past and whereas within laws of the Russian federation we might be looking at individual development projects but we wouldn’t be going beyond that. Q – Sophia Hares: Good morning, Sophia Hares from UBS, quite a few details on operating cost, another issues project cost, could you expand on that and also I guess the question is to what extent do you think project cost could actually slowdown the expansions going forward, in other words, are there some projects which often seems on the joint board of denouements but because project costs are rising substantially, you could come to your decision that its actually going to be delayed?

I think Leigh will take that please.

Let me say, in terms of our operating cost, operating cost being impacted by the sorts of things that Guy referred to but of course in many of the areas, particularly say in the United States and Canada and West Australia, Queensland, you are competing with the same skills, be they electricians, welders, etc. etc. labor. And we have seen project cost rise but I think it’s a testimony to our teams in Western Australia but they are able to bring for the Iron ore project, I mean on budget, and certainly a couple of months ahead of schedule. Look it's fair to say, going forward cost pressures on new projects are significant. I'm not aware of any project which we've abandoned because all of a sudden the construction costs rose about that previously anticipated. It's fair to say that some costs on review higher, but portion we have got some very good, good old buddies. I think it’s a broader question that you raised and it affects. It affects a number of our competitors and some who are inspiring competitors as to the rigor with which they have been able to evaluate those projects. It is a pretty demanding environment, and I think in some cases people are underestimating the supply side ability, in other words the ability to access equipment and might be an essential part of that project, it was overestimated.

So did I say underestimate.

So, did I say underestimated – for me underestimating the cost.

Okay, who would like the next questions? Looks that is a very clear presentation. Q – John MacKinnon: John MacKinnon from Deutsche Bank, you mentioned that ongoing rationalization or optimization of the portfolio, you outlined what assets you might be picking at that, I am assuming in terms of disposal, given the account those of the markets? And the second question is on the CAR project. And can I ask if it was actually possible in 2005 at the EBIT level, and what the size the CAR two costs - study costs were in 2005, and what they going to be in 2006?

If I could just take a brief falling on portfolio, and leave the CAR questions to Leigh and Guy. I think we have over the last two years worked through enormous strategic components of our portfolio pretty thoroughly. There was a very big disposal program in '04, there were a number of minor disposals in '05. I'd say we are very close to now to a portfolio which we would regard as reasonably optimal, and wouldn't encourage you to think that there are many significant disposals lying ahead of us. I think that would be my response to that question, next on CAR.

Maybe I can just say Guy responded to a specific EBIT question. When we look at alumina business as a whole, alumina business obviously was profitable during the year, and I'm just not quite sure how we treated some of the capitalization, so well I respond the Guy too, Guy can be having a look at that. CAR two costs was some as I recall, certainly over $10 but $15 or $20 million that sort of number during the year. There was a fair bit of done, so as you can appreciate we are in pretty good shape to respond when the circumstances arise. There has been been quite of bit of work done on CAR two and pre-planning forward. Can I just come back on CAR one, I think the important thing is, this was the first Greenfield alumina plant for 20 years. And in terms of the chemistry and the operation of the process gone very, very well. One element and its essential element the digestion comes big, positive displacement pumps, of caustic soda pumps. Frankly, we've had some issues which manufacturing fault issues and I believe that the steps we are taking with losing capacity, and changing some of the parameters of those pumps will get a seer over the next six months. But I can assure you with applying very diligent efforts to it. John, probably you are best to respond to the question on alumina contribution.

And all I'm going to say is that CAR was certainly cash positive during 2005 and the second thing I can say is that the CAR two study cost which we wrote off during the year amounted to $7 million aftertax.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yes, John Komets from Westtech (phonetics), if you could comment on Iron ore, particularly we have been seeing that it appears with the Chinese steel making industries is in serious surplus at the moment, what are you expecting to happen in terms of Chinese steel production, and will that affect any of your productions for Iron Ore exports into the nine months?

Can I say firstly, I realize there is quite a diversity of performance in the Chinese steel industry. I think when you talk to anyone of the Chinese steel industry, they recognize that there is going to some necessary rationalization, but I think we tend back to the fundamentals that steel demand in China, and we’ve got to take a bit of a medium and obviously a long-term perspective here. Now I don’t believe anyone who has spent as much effort an analysis as we have of Chinese steel demand and I am satisfied we have got a very hand along that. And the investments we are making are not for next month, for the month after, thereafter the medium return. Interestingly the Chinese steel industry has been consuming a lot of very inefficiently produced an expensive domestic iron ore, but also if I had say to you that the demand we are seeing today, I mean I am talking about this incident for China from Chinese steel mills to iron ore is very, very strong. And their demand our relationship and I am talking about out relationship is with the major Chinese steel producers. We don’t, there’s enormous number of producers in China and a wide variety of economic performance, but our relationships is with the bar-gangs, Shal-gangs, Mar-gans, I-gangs, with the producers of China, so we are very, very well placed. And I am satisfied with the expansions that we are undertaking, a very, very mindful of the long-term and the medium-term demand in China. A – Guy Elliot: If I could just add briefly, I had the opportunity last week with the Davos meeting to hear one of the Chinese Vice-premiers who is responsible for the economy and who has been responsible for putting together the new 5 year plan for China, which will be published in March, and I have to say which is one of the most clear confident and convincing presentations of the business plan if you like with, that I heard in some while and our view remains strongly net positive towards the developments of the Chinese economy with a progressive movement from investment as the meeting component towards consumption, and while we not at all complacent. I think we remain very confident of the way in which China will develop as a market for our products. Q – Tom Louis: Tom Louis from Deutsche Bank, I have a question on iron ore, I see you delivered 26% of your sales on a CIF basis, how does that compares with last year and would you see that sitting over the next few years, and also just the Indian what sales into China do you see as you expand along side in Australia, do you see, if you are looking to displace at that Indian tonnage and where do you see Indian exports into China over the next 3 or 4 years?

Well, the last one was a pretty detailed question that I don’t have on the fingertips, but if I can come back to the first one. We as Tom, people have suggested our Rio Tinto is not in the favor of CNA, we meet the customers needs and if the customer wants to buy, that’s fine with us, we would like to provide CIF, and increasingly we have been as our sales into China are expanding results CIF, we also are selling to some dedicated through dedicated stockpiling facilities in China, so we again I will obtain a ship, and we have a number of their shipping people both in China, and I can’t remember the expansion in sales but I know our bulk sales rose to around, maybe Guy can look through this while we speak, that rose to around 40 million tons, this is totaled CIF sales issued with our shipping group and I didn’t visage that would increase going forward. And as regards to India spot sales, I mean India has always been in the Chinese market and India is often been a spot seller and it tends to be a characterized by very much being a spot seller. I don’t envisage that we are going to tight India's share of the market, I would like to think we can maintain, possibly increase that share of the market, but you can appreciate that the Indian iron ore is high quality and the Chinese who want to have a diversity of supply, but at the same time the Indian is a pretty diverse, the Indian suppliers are a pretty diverse supplies, I would like to think about quality reliable as we are.

That’s just again a small edition on India. With the impression I have is that’s going forward, we will see a situation where India will look to be adding increased value locally to its resources, not least those of iron ore and one can envisage a situation as the Indian economy continues to grow, but there may be less iron ore available to international markets from India. And that may well be a factor, I am not suggesting this year or next year, but certainly over the next ten years, as we look at India's export capability in Iron ore.

I think it’s a very good, it’s a subject of quite vigorous discussion in India. Guy, do you have the, say the bulk shipping CIF statistics?

The number is 26% for - but if you look at Iron Ore group as a whole, its 34 million tons in 2005, which compares to 20 million tons in 2004, so you can see a very considerable increase. If you look at China the number is more than doubled to 28 million tons. So I think you can see very clearly that the direction in which we are moving towards more CIF delivery.

So that additional 6 million tons is spread over salt, coal and few other bulk commodities.

Steve from Liberty, another question to Guy perhaps. Guy, you talked about the geo in the late stand then one or two in the balance sheet strength that continues to strengthen and to take advantage of major portfolio opportunities that may arise and in the old days that used to mean to buy the stress sellers, and I guess many of the users were suspect although its just stress sellers and are now in the same issue that you have in cash, and the other week really 15% around back of an acquisition which was the message that the market loves acquisitions and I guess every corporate in your too has a same issue in that. How does one justify buying assets in the market that have moved to 300% if they use historical commodities assumptions and this is the usual all questions that arises after this presentation but I just wonder, am I says on the back of the demand at the minute?

Well, let say I hand over to Guy, you might get usual load answer but, Guy?

I mean we didn’t actually just meant we buy distressed asset, it is true in the past from time-to-time we have picked up assets at low points in the cycle, that as I think the Hope Downs transaction because it was an acquisition it was a joint venture. But as that illustrates it is possible actually to do really value creating transaction add strong points in the cycle. And you just got to be clever about it I think, I don’t think its just a matter of picking up distressed assets, what is now very competitive environment and as you would like to say not very many people in distress, I mean in the fullness of time we think the cycle probably will time and at that time we will I am sure will be able to pick up some assets but we don’t have to wait until that happens if we can pick up. Now the other point you said was you can’t make acquisition if you use historic prices. Well we have said quite clearly in our investment seminar the process through which we go to establish what we think the equilibrium prices are. And while we yes we do observe history, particularly the history of costs. We are not saying slavishly that all prices are again to return, just on historic norm, we’re actually saying that they are going to return to something approaching marginal cost and its a very important question as to whether that cost has changed. So I don’t think you should therefore conclude that we have raised our long-term prices because in several cases we have as high as 25% since 2003, and say we haven’t done at all prices we done at one or two, and I think that’s a combination of creativity and opportunity will perhaps enable us to do some M&A, I can’t tell you when but then really - and that’s why we want to preserve a certain amount of flexibility on the balance sheet.

Can I just said add a comment to that. I have often said when we are looking at how to grow the business, certainly M&A and the Hope Downs type joint ventures are important. Well often say the importance of alliances then they want to say what do you mean by alliances, well what I mean is a risk, that’s an example of an alliance which potentially can lead to substantial investments in growth in the business, and I would like to think we’ve got a key both in Brownfield Greenfield expansion M&A when its attractive in alliances like the minerals project which we described earlier, don’t forget our on the line rate of growth from the establish portfolio is running at 6% has gone to sometime, we think it will for sometime.

Any last question otherwise we will certainly be available out in the lobby. Are we done? We are done. Thank you.