BHP Group Limited — Environmental & Social Information 2019

Jun 6, 2019

==> picture [83 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

NEWS RELEASE

Release Time IMMEDIATE Date 7 June 2019 Release Number 13/19

Tailings Facilities Management

BHP will be hosting an investor briefing today on the management of tailings storage facilities across the portfolio.

The purpose of the briefing is to provide an update on BHP’s approach to tailings storage facilities’ management and to give further information on the number, design and classification of tailings facilities.

The presentation is available at: https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/media/reports-andpresentations/2019/190607_ESGbriefingtailingsdams.pdf

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

Media Relations

Email: media.relations@bhp.com

Australia and Asia

Gabrielle Notley Tel: +61 3 9609 3830 Mobile: +61 411 071 715

United Kingdom and South Africa

Neil Burrows Tel: +44 20 7802 7484 Mobile: +44 7786 661 683

North America

Judy Dane Tel: +1 713 961 8283 Mobile: +1 713 299 5342

BHP Group Limited ABN 49 004 028 077 LEI WZE1WSENV6JSZFK0JC28 Registered in Australia Registered Office: Level 18, 171 Collins Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia Tel +61 1300 55 4757 Fax +61 3 9609 3015

Investor Relations

Email: investor.relations@bhp.com

Australia and Asia

Tara Dines Tel: +61 3 9609 2222 Mobile: + 61 499 249 005

United Kingdom and South Africa

Elisa Morniroli Tel: +44 20 7802 7611 Mobile: +44 7825 926 646

Americas

James Wear Tel: +1 713 993 3737 Mobile: +1 347 882 3011

BHP Group plc Registration number 3196209 LEI 549300C116EOWV835768 Registered in England and Wales Registered Office: Nova South, 160 Victoria Street London SW1E 5LB United Kingdom Tel +44 20 7802 4000 Fax +44 20 7802 4111

Members of the BHP Group which is headquartered in Australia

==> picture [85 x 27] intentionally omitted <==

Follow us on social media

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Escondida
----- End of picture text -----

ESG briefing: Tailings dams

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

June 2019
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [842 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

Disclaimer

Forward-looking statements

This presentation contains forward-looking statements, which may include statements regarding: 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; 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 including, but not limited to, ‘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.

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.

Presentation of data

This presentation contains data, which may include figures, numbers, classifications, regulatory status, modelling, and other information regarding tailings dams and BHP processes. Unless specified otherwise, the data contained herein are based on the information available at the date of this presentation. This presentation contains views regarding the status of BHP tailings dams and tailings facilities as expressed by various internal or external reviews, including the BHP Dam Risk Review. Those views are based on the information available at the time of those statements, which may predate this presentation. The data and views contained herein may change or may have changed based on additional or changes in information, circumstances, or other events and should not be relied upon a recommendation or forecast by BHP.

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. Statements regarding our operations, assets and values apply only to our operated assets unless otherwise stated. Non-operated joint ventures have their own management and operating standards. Joint venture partners of other companies managing those non-operated joint ventures may take action contrary to our standards or fail to adopt standards equivalent to BHP’s standards, and commercial counterparties may not comply with our standards.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

2

Key messages

Introduction There are three broad design types for tailings dams: upstream, downstream and centerline • Environmental conditions and the nature of tailings need to be considered when designing mine tailing storage. to tailings • dams

• Environmental conditions and the nature of tailings need to be considered when designing mine tailing storage.

• Dam consequence or classification ratings are based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam. They inform dam design, surveillance and reviews.

We have 67 operated tailings facilities[1] across all sites

• Tailings 13 operated facilities are active, 12 of which are in Australia and 1 in Chile. 29 of our operated facilities are upstream, 5 of which are active. •

• Facilities in At our non-operated joint ventures there are 9 facilities, 5 of which are upstream, of which all are inactive.

• the portfolio • The Dam Risk Review identified no immediate concerns regarding dam integrity. Subsequently we have undertaken Dam Safety Reviews which provide assurance statements on dam integrity.

• Maintaining dam integrity requires ongoing focus on appropriate engineering design, quality construction, operating discipline and

• Approach to effective governance. This is enabled through: dam risk • Maintenance of dam integrity;

• management • Governance of dam facilities; at BHP • Monitoring, surveillance and review; and • Emergency preparedness and response. BHP is committed to supporting the development of an international standard and independent monitor for tailings facilities globally • We are establishing a dedicated Tailings Task Force to drive enhanced focus on internal dam management plus support the development of

• The Future international best practice.

• We are progressing the investigation of new technologies to further mitigate current dam risks and eliminate future risk.

• We continue to work with the ICMM and our peers to drive a step change in tailings management across the sector.

• The number of tailings facilities is calculated based on the definition agreed by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group in response to the Church of England information request which differs to the definition applied to our February disclosure. We keep this definition under review. The reduction in number of facilities in this disclosure compared to the February disclosure is primarily due to the aggregation of individual dams into (integrated) facilities. The majority of these changes are associated with the North American Closed Sites.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams

June 2019

3

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

Part 1: Introduction to tailings dams

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [842 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

What are tailings dams?

• A dam is a barrier constructed for the retention of water, water containing any other substance, fluid waste, or tailings[1] .

• Tailings dams are designed and operated differently to conventional dams.

• A tailings storage facility, is not yet a formally defined term. Generally it refers to one or more co-located tailings dams[2] .

	Tailings	Conventional
Purpose	Contains unrecovered solids, chemicals, and process water, normally as a slurry.	Hydroelectric dams Water reservoirs
Contents	Solids and liquid	Water
Design	Dynamic; the structures are intended to grow over time to accommodate increased tailings over the life of mine. Structures often stand in perpetuity.	Static; once they fill the structures are typically not expanded. At end of life structures can be decommissioned and removed.
Construction	Earth3, rock	Rock, concrete

1. Canadian Dam Association Dam Safety Guidelines 2007 (2013 Edition).

2. For the purposes of the Church of England disclosure, a tailings storage facility has been defined by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group as an operationally integrated facility of dams/walls. This definition is applied throughout this presentation.

3. Includes cyclone sands.

Tailings dams

June 2019

==> picture [224 x 169] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Escondida Tailings Storage Facility, Chile
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [224 x 175] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Hoover dam, US
(a hydro / water reservoir dam)
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

5

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Life cycle of tailings dams

Design, construction and operation of tailings dams need to account for possible changes over their long life cycle

==> picture [497 x 186] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Site selection Landform
and design Construction Operations Closure (no longer a dam)
Time
Transition Active Passive
care care
----- End of picture text -----

• The operational phase of a dam is dynamic and is likely to include expansion of the dam, raising of the dam height and/or addition of dams.

• The closure phase of a dam can often exceed the operational phase of the dam. It may include transition from operations to active care such as ongoing water, geochemical and physical management to maintain integrity.

• Over time, inactive tailings facilities may transition to passive care where the ongoing water, geochemical, and physical management requirements are reduced or eliminated.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

6

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Principal design methods

There are a range of options for tailings dams design, determined in consideration of a range of factors

There are 3 broad types of tailings dam. The selection of design is based on a number of factors including dam siting, geology, seismicity, climatic conditions, construction materials and the nature of tailings. There are also combinations of the three embankment construction types.

• Upstream construction Downstream construction Centreline construction Starter dam Starter dam Starter dam

• Management Construction relies on the integrity of This construction method does not rely This construction method is useful the tailings for stability. As such, while on the stability of the tailings and where the overall footprint of the this construction method has been therefore can be more versatile during dam may have physical successfully used for decades, these operation (e.g. increased rates of rise, constraints. designs require greater ongoing more accommodating of changes in scrutiny (e.g. longer tailings beaches / tailings properties). small ponds, ongoing verification of the foundation conditions).

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

7

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Factors that influence tailings dam integrity

Maintaining dam integrity requires ongoing focus on appropriate engineering design, quality construction, operating discipline and effective governance

Factors that influence dam integrity include:

• Appropriate consideration of site conditions such as seismicity, climatology, geology, hydrology, and tailings characteristics.

• The quality assurance and quality control of dam construction including materials used for construction and methods of construction.

• Ongoing dam operating discipline, including:

• tailings characterisation and deposition;

• effective water management;

• effective monitoring;

• appropriate consideration of changes (including ore, operating context, climate, etc).

==> picture [366 x 156] intentionally omitted <==

Elliot Lake Closed Site Tailings Storage Facility Ontario, Canada

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

8

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Tailings dam classification systems

Tailings dam classification informs design and management of dam facilities and assessment of dam risk

• BHP primarily classifies dams according to both the classification system of the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) and the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD).

• Dams are classified to inform:

• design criteria;

• surveillance programs;

• dam safety review frequency and requirements.

• Dam classification or consequence is generally based on the modelled impacts following a dam break study, of the hypothetical most significant failure mode for the dam, regardless of the probability of failure or the controls in place to manage the risk of failure.

• Classification is typically assigned by the external Engineer of Record.

• Dam classification informs BHP’s approach to risk assessment and management of tailings dams.

==> picture [287 x 220] intentionally omitted <==

Olympic Dam

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

9

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Tailings dam classification systems

Consequence is based on the most significant, possible outcome in any of the categories, regardless of probability

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

CDA consequence category	Potential loss of life	Environmental and cultural values	Infrastructure and economics
EXTREME	More than 100	Major loss…	Extreme losses…
		Restoration impossible…
VERY HIGH	100 or fewer	Significant loss…	Very high economic losses…
		Restoration impractical…
HIGH	10 or fewer	Significant loss…	High economic losses…
		Restoration probable…
SIGNIFICANT	Unspecified	No significant loss…	Loss to recreational facilities…
LOW	0	No long term loss…	Low economic loss…

Source: Canadian Dam Association Dam Safety Guidelines 2007 (2013 Edition) and Technical Bulletin: Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining Dams (2014). The table is an extract of the CDA Dam consequence categories and criteria. Tailings dams June 2019 10

10

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Common terms used to describe failure mechanisms

There are a range of terms used to describe causes for dam failures. Typically, there is not one cause alone that contributes to a failure

• Overtopping caused by water volumes that exceed the capacity of the dam.

• Structural failure of materials used in dam construction (including from liquefaction, seismicity).

• Foundation failure due to movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam.

• Surface erosion of the embankment from settlement, cracking.

• Internal erosion of the embankment sometimes referred to as piping erosion.

• Deficiencies in the choice or application of design criteria (e.g. not appropriate for the setting; construction does not meet engineering requirements).

==> picture [427 x 233] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Examples of integrity issues and associated indicators
Low area in
crest of dam
Cracking
Cracking
Slump
Piping
Seepage at abutment
Stability failure
contact (groin)
(internal)
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

11

==> picture [798 x 386] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Introduction to tailings dams Tailings facilities in the portfolio Approach to dam risk management at BHP The future
Industry-wide statistics of tailings dam failures
This study represents one of the most recent analyses of dam failure trends
Tailings dam failures [1, 2]
(Number of records)
30
Groundwater
Failure
Accident
Unknown
20
10
0
1910- 1916- 1926- 1936- 1941- 1946- 1951- 1956- 1961- 1966- 1971- 1976- 1981- 1986- 1991- 1996- 2001- 2006- 2011-
1915 1920 1930 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
(Year)
----- End of picture text -----

1. Ref: The role of water management in tailings dam incidents: Clint Strachan; Stephen Goodwin: Proceedings Tailings and Mine Waste 2015. The statistics presented include the dam failure at Mt Polley but not Samarco. 2. The terms used in the study are intended be consistent with other key publications including ones compiled by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Failures (indicates a breach of the dam and loss of process water or tailings), accidents (indicates repairs made to the dam with no loss of process water or tailings), and groundwater issues (indicates seepage or groundwater impact issues that were inconsistent with design intent). Unknown indicates that the cause of the incident was not known by the authors of the study.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams

June 2019

12

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

Part 2: Tailings facilities in the portfolio and BHP's dam risk review

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [842 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Operated tailings facilities in the portfolio[1]

Within the tailings facilities portfolio there are 67 operated tailings facilities

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

==> picture [141 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

CDA [2] classification of
operated tailings facilities
----- End of picture text -----

Types of operated tailings facilities

Operational status of operated tailings facilities

==> picture [682 x 155] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Extreme
5 Not applicable Other³
2 14 Active
13
Very high Low
16 20 Upstream
Centreline 29
8
High
11 Significant Inactive ⁴
13 Downstream
54
16
----- End of picture text -----

For further details on tailings facilities within the portfolio please see our more detailed disclosure on our website at bhp.com

1. Includes facilities within BHP operations and excludes Non-operated Joint Ventures. The number of tailings storage facilities is calculated based on the definition agreed by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group in response to the Church of England information request which differs to the definition applied to our February disclosure. We keep this definition under review. The reduction in number of facilities in this disclosure compared to the February disclosure is primarily due to the aggregation of individual dams into (integrated) facilities. The majority of these changes are associated with the North American Closed Sites. The classification of the tailings facilities is based on the most recent classification of the facilities by the Engineer of Record. This is subject to change as ongoing reviews are conducted.

2. For the purposes of this chart, ANCOLD and other classifications have been converted to their CDA equivalent. Two tailings facilities are not considered dams and therefore not subject to classification (labelled Not applicable): Hamburgo TSF at Escondida is an inactive facility where tailings were deposited into a natural depression; and Island Copper TSF in Canada, acquired in the 1980s, also an inactive facility. Tailings at Island Copper were deposited in the ocean under an approved license and environmental impact assessment. This historic practice ceased in the 1990s. BHP has since committed to not dispose of mine waste rock or tailings in river or marine environments.

3. Includes dams of combined design and the two non-dam tailings facilities of Hamburgo TSF in Chile and Island Copper TSF in Canada.

4. Inactive includes facilities not in operational use, under reclamation, reclaimed, closed and/or in post-closure care and maintenance.

Tailings dams

June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

14

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Introduction to tailings dams

Operated tailings facilities in the portfolio[1]

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

Location and CDA Classification of operated tailings facilities[2]

Location and operational status of operated tailings facilities

==> picture [710 x 186] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1
3 3 Canada
4 1 US and Canada
1 2
2 32
10 US
5
2 4
2 12
Chile 1 1 10 15 Chile 1 1 2121 [12]
Australia Australia
Not applicable Low Significant High Very high Extreme Active Inactive [3]
----- End of picture text -----

For further details on tailings facilities within the portfolio please see our more detailed disclosure on our website at bhp.com

1. Includes facilities within BHP operations and excludes Non-operated Joint Ventures. The number of tailings storage facilities is calculated based on the definition agreed by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group in response to the Church of England information request which differs to the definition applied to our February disclosure. We keep this definition under review. The reduction in number of facilities in this disclosure compared to the February disclosure is primarily due to the aggregation of individual dams into (integrated) facilities. The majority of these changes are associated with the North American Closed Sites. The classification of the tailings facilities is based on the most recent classification of the facilities by the Engineer of Record. This is subject to change as ongoing reviews are conducted.

2. For the purposes of this chart, ANCOLD and other classifications have been converted to their CDA equivalent. Two tailings facilities are not considered dams and therefore not subject to classification (labelled Not applicable): Hamburgo TSF at Escondida is an inactive facility where tailings were deposited into a natural depression ; and Island Copper TSF in Canada, acquired in the 1980s, also an inactive facility. Tailings at Island Copper were deposited in the ocean under an approved license and environmental impact assessment. This historic practice ceased in the 1990s. BHP has since committed to not dispose of mine waste rock or tailings in river or marine environments.

3. Inactive includes facilities not in operational use, under reclamation, reclaimed, closed and/or in post-closure care and maintenance.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams

June 2019

15

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Non-operated JV tailings facilities in the portfolio[1]

Within the tailings facilities portfolio there are 9 non-operated tailings facilities

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

Location and CDA Classification of non-operated facilities[2]

Location and operational status of non-operated facilities

==> picture [717 x 186] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

1 1
Canada
Canada
2 2 US 4 US
Colombia Colombia
1 1
Peru 1 2 Brazil Peru 1 2 Brazil
17
Low Significant High Very high Extreme Active Inactive [3]
----- End of picture text -----

For further details on tailings facilities within the portfolio please see our more detailed disclosure on our website at bhp.com

1. Includes facilities within Non-operated Joint Ventures. The number of tailings storage facilities is calculated based on the definition agreed by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group in response to the Church of England information request which differs to the definition applied to our February disclosure. This definition is kept under review. The classification of the tailings facilities is based on the most recent classification of the facilities provided by the operator.

2. The operator is responsible for determining classification in accordance with its internal policies and local guidelines. For the purposes of this chart, the operator’s classifications have been converted to their CDA equivalent. This is subject to change as ongoing reviews are conducted by the operator.

3. Inactive includes facilities not in operational use, under reclamation, reclaimed, closed and/or in post-closure care and maintenance.

Tailings dams

June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

16

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Introduction to tailings dams Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Tailings facilities with extreme or very high classifications

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

Asset	Location	Primary Dam Type1	CDA Consequence	Facility Status1	Principal Potential Impact
			Classification2		Driver of Dam Classification
Operated Assets
BMA – Goonyella Riverside	Queensland, Australia	Upstream	Very High	Active (1 TSF)	Employee impacts
Escondida	Region II, Chile	Downstream	Very High	Active (1 TSF)	Employee impacts
Nickel West – Leinster	West Australia, Australia	Upstream	Very High	Active (1 TSF)	Employee impacts
North American Closed Sites – Copper Cities	Arizona, US	Upstream	Very High	Inactive (2 TSFs)	Community impacts
North American Closed Sites – Elliot Lake	Ontario, Canada	Downstream / Centreline	Very High	Inactive (3 TSFs)	Environmental impacts
North American Closed Sites – Miami Unit	Arizona, US	Upstream	Extreme	Inactive (1 TSF)	Community impacts
			Very High	Inactive (1 TSF)
North American Closed Sites – Old Dominion	Arizona, US	Upstream	Very High	Inactive (1 TSF)	Community impacts
North American Closed Sites – San Manuel	Arizona, US	Upstream	Very High	Inactive (5 TSFs)	Environmental impacts
North American Closed Sites - Solitude	Arizona, US	Upstream	Very High	Inactive (1 TSF)	Community impacts
Olympic Dam	South Australia, Australia	Upstream	Extreme	Active (2 TSFs)	Employee impacts
		Upstream	Extreme	Inactive (1 TSF)
West Australian Iron Ore – Whaleback	West Australia, Australia	Upstream	Extreme	Active (1 TSF)	Employee impacts
Non-Operated Joint Ventures
Antamina	Ancash, Peru	Downstream / Centreline	Extreme	Active (1 TSF)	Community impacts
Samarco – Germano	Mariana, Brazil	Upstream	Extreme	Inactive3 (2 TSFs)	Community impacts

For further details on tailings facilities within the portfolio please see our more detailed disclosure on our website at bhp.com

1. Primary dam type is that associated with the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode for the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF). Where a TSF is based on the definition agreed by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group. 2. For the purposes here, ANCOLD and other classifications have been converted to their CDA equivalent. The consequence classification stated is that associated with the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode for the facility. For Non-Operated Joint Ventures, the operator is responsible for determining classification in accordance with its internal policies and local guidelines. For the purposes here, the operator’s classifications have been converted to their CDA equivalent.

2. Germano is in the process of decommissioning. Tailings dams June 2019 17

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP Dam Risk Review – 2016

The Dam Risk Review was undertaken to assess the management of tailings facilities following the failure of the Fundão dam at Samarco

• The Review assessed dam design, construction, operations, emergency response and governance to determine the current level of risk and the adequacy and effectiveness of controls.

• The scope of the review included:

• significant[1] tailings facilities across both BHP operated and non-operated assets;

• any proposed significant tailings or water dams as part of major capital projects; and

• consideration of health, safety, environment, community and financial impacts associated with failure, including the physical impacts of climate change.

• Undertaken by multi-disciplinary expert teams, combining leading external tailings engineering firms and BHP personnel.

• Actions were assigned at the asset-level to address findings, and followed up by our internal audit teams to assess quality and completeness.

==> picture [315 x 254] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Facility Information
prioritisation request
Review of
Prioritise
Document credible failure
review scope
review modes and
and resource
triggers
Field and
desktop review Implement and
Report
• Integrity track actions
• Governance
Preparation
Planning
Execution
----- End of picture text -----

• Actions at the Group-level were identified to address common findings and lessons learned.

• Significance was determined as part of the review process taking account of the dam classification under CDA and/or ANCOLD. It included active and inactive facilities.

Tailings dams

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

June 2019

18

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP Dam Risk Review Dam integrity review findings

• The Review identified no immediate concerns regarding dam integrity.

• Tailings dams are however dynamic structures and maintaining dam integrity requires ongoing focus on appropriate engineering design, quality construction, operating discipline and effective governance processes to ensure risk controls are effectively implemented and maintained.

• Subsequently we have undertaken Dam Safety Reviews which provide assurance statements on dam integrity.

==> picture [382 x 205] intentionally omitted <==

Goonyella Tailings Storage Facility, BMA Queensland Australia

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

19

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP Dam Risk Review Asset level actions

At the Asset level, the following actions have been taken:

• Design: Revise dam break analyses to take account of all credible failure modes and failure paths incorporating liquid and solid flows. Revise design criteria associated with these where required.

• Emergency Preparedness and Response: Revise Emergency Response Plans, train personnel and undertake emergency response scenario exercises. Incorporate lessons learned from this back into plans.

• Roles and Responsibilities: Assign single point accountability for dam ownership coupled with appointment of a Responsible Dam Engineer for overall dam stewardship and a qualified consultant to be the Engineer of Record, responsible for dam design.

• Risk Management: Undertake detailed engineering risk assessments including revisions of risk ratings.

• Change Management: Review change management processes to better capture changes for process, plant and personnel related to dams.

• Review: Complete Dam Safety Reviews, aligned to the guidance from the Canadian Dam Association – considered the most rigorous in the industry.

>400 Dam Risk Review actions assigned to BHP assets

==> picture [135 x 178] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Open
7%
Complete
93%
----- End of picture text -----

• 93% of assigned actions have been identified as complete by our assets.

• The remaining open actions in progress are those with longer lead times.

• Our Internal Audit and Assurance function have also been reviewing these actions.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

20

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP Dam Risk Review Group level actions[1]

At the Group level, the following actions have been taken:

• Accountability: The Resource Engineering Centre of Excellence has been allocated global accountability for the technical oversight of dam integrity and governance.

• Standards: To complement existing risk management requirements, a common standard for the management of dam risk has been developed so that there are clear, minimum requirements for dam integrity and governance including design, operations, construction, review and emergency response.

• Review: Dam Safety Reviews are being undertaken across BHP and a process for independent review boards is being established across the company.

• Technology: The assessment of technology options to further reduce dam integrity risk is progressing in conjunction with Group Technology.

• Industry collaboration: BHP has continued to support industry-wide efforts to improvement the management and reduce risk of tailings facilities, including the development of the ICMM Position Statement.

==> picture [232 x 330] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

1. Group-level actions are those that apply at a global, company-wide level for all BHP operated Assets. Tailings dams June 2019

21

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Elliot Lake
----- End of picture text -----

Part 3: Approach to dam risk management at BHP’s operations

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [842 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Approach to dam risk management at BHP operations[1] Maintaining dam integrity requires appropriate engineering design, quality construction, ongoing operating discipline and effective governance processes

• BHP’s approach to dam risk management is a multi-dimensional process of continuous assessment focused on:

• Maintenance of dam integrity;

• Governance of dam facilities;

• Monitoring, surveillance and review; and

• Emergency preparedness and response.

• Technical, Group-level oversight of these processes is currently supported by our Resource Engineering Centre of Excellence and moving forward will be supported by our newly introduced Tailings Taskforce.

==> picture [267 x 267] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

4. Emergency
1. Dam
preparedness
integrity
and response
3. Monitoring,
2. Dam
surveillance
governance
and review
----- End of picture text -----

Group-level oversight and assurance

1. This approach applies only to BHP-operated dams with the specific details commensurate with risk.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

23

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

1. Dam integrity

Dam integrity is an ongoing process of continuous assessment that must be maintained for the life of a tailings dam

Critical components to maintaining dam integrity include:

• Design: the basis of dam design is guided by design criteria specified through ANCOLD, CDA and local regulations taking account of the dam classification.

• Construction: quality assurance and quality control across all construction phases (from initial construction to dam lifts / expansions during operation).

• Operations and maintenance: operating and maintaining the dam in accordance with its design requirements.

• Change management : identifying, assessing and mitigating the impacts of any changes on dam design and integrity.

• Monitoring, surveillance and review: ensuring the dam is functioning as intended.

==> picture [367 x 139] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [367 x 138] intentionally omitted <==

Olympic Dam Tailings Storage Facility South Australia

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

24

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

2. Dam governance Effective governance encompasses a range of aspects from change management to document management to appropriately qualified personnel with clear accountabilities

We have a number of specific roles across our assets to support the governance of our facilities:

Dam Owner	The Dam Owner is the BHP single point of accountability for maintaining effective governance and integrity of the
	dam(s) throughout the life-cycle. The Dam Owner is also accountable for ensuring adequate resources, processes
	and systems are in place.
Responsible Dam	The Responsible Dam Engineer, supports the Dam Owner as a qualified BHP individual accountable for maintaining
Engineer	overall engineering stewardship of the facility. Responsibilities include oversight of planning, design, operation,
	construction, maintenance and surveillance of dams on a site. The Responsible Dam Engineer must possess the
	requisite knowledge, skills and abilities to perform these responsibilities commensurate with dam risk.
Engineer of Record	The Engineer of Record is an independent, qualified professional engineer retained by the Dam Owner for the
	purpose of maintaining dam design and certifying dam integrity. The Engineer of Record will have suitable
	experience in the design and construction of dams commensurate with the consequence category of the dam, its
	type and its location. The Engineer of Record is generally a more experienced engineer who also supports the Dam
	Owner and the Responsible Dam Engineer on any other matters of a technical nature.
Tailings dams
June 2019	25

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

3. Monitoring, surveillance and review

Given tailings dams are dynamic structures, effective monitoring, surveillance and review is central to ongoing dam integrity and governance. These processes span six dimensions with the specific details commensurate with the significance of the facility.

1. Monitoring systems

• For example this can include instrumentation such as piezometers, radar to monitor aspects such as water levels and stability.

2. Routine surveillance (Operators)

• ‘On-going’ observations related to the conditions and performance of the dam

• Frequency: daily to weekly depending on the dam

3. Dam inspections (Responsible Dam Engineer)

• Detailed inspection

• Visual observations

• Frequency: weekly to semi-annually depending on the dam

4. Dam safety inspections (external Engineer of Record)

• Detailed inspection by qualified dam safety engineer

• Visual observations

• Reviews instrumentation data and inspection records

• Review of the Operations, Maintenance, and Surveillance Manual (including emergency response)

• Frequency: annual

5. Dam safety reviews (external Qualified Professional Engineer)

• Comprehensive review against design criteria to ascertain adequacy of dam integrity

• Checks design, construction, performance, management, operations and emergency planning

• Frequency: every 5-10 years, depending on the dam classification and risk profile, could be more frequent in line with the recommendations provided by CDA Dam Safety Review process

6. Tailings Review Boards[1] (Multi-disciplinary Board of independent experts)

• Established, commensurate with dam significance, to review a range of subject matters including the current status of the dam; any proposed design changes and outcomes of any inspections or dam safety reviews

• Frequency of meetings depends on scope of review board, operating status of dam and level of dam risk

1. BHP assesses the dam classification, risk, and operational circumstances in determining whether to empanel a Tailings Review or Stewardship Board. Not all facilities will have Tailings Review or Stewardship Boards. Tailings Review or Stewardship Boards are either in place or in the process of being established for BHP operated Assets with Very High and Extreme classified tailings facilities.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams

June 2019

26

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

3. Monitoring, surveillance and review Dam Safety Reviews

CDA process for DSRs

==> picture [382 x 378] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

••• Type of owner/budgetRequired frequency of dam safety reviewConsequence classification 1. objective of dam safety reviewDefine roles, and responsibilities and
• State of knowledge
•• Regulatory requirementsPotential safety concerns 2a. Develop scope of dam safety review to
meet objective
2b. Gather information
Information for dam safety review Required
•• Dam historyDam construction competencies for Qualified 2c. Issue Request for Proposals
• Design data Professional
• Operation data
• Surveillance data Define type of dam Audit Style dam safety Comprehensive design
• Management system safety review review review
• Identified issues
• Joint Works Agreement
3a. Confirm scope and Agreement between
Owner and Qualified Professional
May need to gather more information
including field investigations
Required content and format
for report structures for 3b. Review information provided
Owner’s use
3c. Conduct Consequence Review Extent to which this is carried out will
How this is done will depend
depend on the type of dam safety review:
on the scope of the dam safety
review: Basic, Audit, 3d. Carry out site visit and interviews Basic, Audit Style, Comprehensive Design Review, or Construction Phase
Comprehensive Design
Review or Constructive Review
3e. Identify function and Failure Modes
LEGEND May be done as part of the dam safety
review scope or as a separate project
Input into dam safety review 3f. Assess safety of dam outside of the dam safety review
process
Dam safety review task by
Owner Analyses required and approved? 3g. Carry out analyses
Dam safety review task by
Qualified Professional Carry out further investigation, analysis
4. Prepare dam safety review report and assessment
Decision by Owner
5. Review report, prioritise
deficiencies and make plans to Next steps? Fix or decommission
Documentation by Qualified address deficiencies
Professional Engineer
Regulatory acceptance of risk
Start / End of process • Regulatory
• Legal
• Financial
• Rist
Dam Safety Review
----- End of picture text -----

• Dam Safety Reviews are systematic, detailed, external reviews of design, construction, maintenance, operation and governance processes that affect a dam’s safety. They include a review of the dam break assessment and dam consequence classification.

• BHP has elected to apply the guidance provided by the CDA[1] , the most recent and comprehensive guidance documents for this type of process in the industry.

• The review is led by an external Qualified Professional Engineer, who has the appropriate level of education, training and experience, with support and input from other technical specialists from fields which may include, for example, hydrology, geochemistry, seismicity, geotechnical or mechanical.

• An assurance statement is signed by the Qualified Professional Engineer as to the integrity of the dam.

• Frequency generally every 5-10 years commensurate with the consequence classification of the structure.

• CDA Technical Bulletin: Dam Safety Reviews (2016).

Tailings dams June 2019

27

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

4. Emergency preparedness and response

Emergency preparedness and response is a key element in our approach to dam risk management

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

• Emergency response planning for our tailings facilities is designed to be commensurate with risk and includes:

• identifying and monitoring for conditions and thresholds that prompt preventive or remedial action;

• assessing and mapping the potential impacts from a hypothetical, significant failure including infrastructure, communities and environment, both on and offsite, regardless of probability;

• establishing procedures to assist operations personnel responding to emergency conditions at the dam; and

• testing and training ranging from desktop exercises to full-scale simulations. Desk top and field drills are scheduled at a frequency commensurate with the level of risk of the facility.

==> picture [384 x 287] intentionally omitted <==

Example modelled, hypothetical significant failure scenario

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

28

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

Part 4: The future: Advancing the science and independent oversight

==> picture [842 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [842 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP Tailings Taskforce

Prior to Brumadinho we already had a significant focus on looking at how we could deliver a step change reduction in tailings risk. Brumadinho however has further strengthened our resolve.

BHP has now established a Tailings Taskforce.

The Taskforce will be accountable for further enhancing our focus on tailings including the continued improvement and assurance for BHP’s operated tailings storage facilities, progressing our technology efforts and leading ongoing participation in the setting of new international tailings management standards.

==> picture [411 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [411 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

30

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP tailings technology strategy

Accelerating the pathway to safer, more sustainable management

==> picture [763 x 331] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

We get there through R&D in …with the approach to de-risk technology
key workstreams… options linked to Asset challenges
WORKSTREAMS APPROACH
Characterisation TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
In process & deposition OR ELIMINATIONDRY STORAGE Emerging Proving at Scale Developing Established
Our Goal
Monitoring
Real-time sensing & prediction
Reducing tailing dam failure
Dam Stabilisation INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
risk by accelerating
Active, legacy dam strengthening DEVELOPMENTRESEARCH & BHP
technology for safer, more
sustainable tailings
EOMs MINING COMPANIES
management. Tailing & Deposition
Reduce, Dewatering, Deposition
REGULATORS
Harnessing benefits including
increased water recovery, Closure TECHNOLOGY PLAYBOOK
reduced land disturbance
Reprocess, Reuse, Landform
and reduced closure costs.
Avoid
In-situ extraction
AdditivesNew Drycol
Screw PressPlate Filter,
Pressure Filters, Vacuum Filters, Centrifuge Evaporative Drying
Paste In-line Thickening AdditivesNew Magnetic, Polymers, Mechanical Electrical, Microwave, Solvent extraction Electrokinetic
Centrifuge Pressure Filtration Vacuum Filtration Belt Filtration
SCALE
----- End of picture text -----

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

31

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

BHP tailings technology R&D

Building a portfolio view on BHP R&D investment

• WORKSTREAMS INDICATIVE OPPORTUNITIES

• Characterisation • Tailing Liquefaction 3 year R&D on critical state line methodology

• In process & deposition • Dry Tailing piggy back deposition 3 year R&D on geotechnical stability • Fundacion Chile 5 year R&D on real-time monitoring for early warning

• Monitoring • 3 year Geomatics satellite sensing on dam movement for early warning

• Real-time sensing & prediction • Digital Twin model 2 year R&D for real-time prediction on dam health

• Dam Stabilisation • Insitu dewatering (e.g. electro kinetics, blasting)

• Active, legacy dam strengthening • Bacteria inoculation for cementation • Coal tailings mechanical dewatering at Coal assets

• Tailing & Deposition • Coal tailings alternate dewatering (e.g. electrokinetics, microwave) assessment

• Reduce, Dewatering, Deposition • Tailing dewatering for dry deposition and tailing reduction

• • Offset closure costs (e.g. reprocess tailings)

• Closure • Remove and reuse (e.g. building construction materials)

• Reprocess, Reuse, Landform • Repurpose tailing landforms

• Avoid • Innovative extraction, in-situ extraction

• In-situ extraction

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

32

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Collaborative research and innovation

WORKSTREAMS

• Characterisation Monitoring Innovation

• RESEARCH • Liquefaction Risk • CalTech Digital Twin • Zero Waste Mining (tailings avoidance, repurpose, • Piggy Back Deposition • Fundacion Chile remediation) • Remote Sensing for movement

• IMPACT • Static liquefaction understanding will lead to better • The integration of monitoring and sensing • XPrize and its Chilean Mining Consortium sponsor, a and earlier predictors of instability technologies into a digital platform will empower partnership including BHP, aim to revolutionise mining

• • Moisture reduction and increasing pile density in real-time risk management direct to our to sustainably meet the resource needs of the planet. TSF’s will materially reduce liquefaction potential operational decision makers • Focus on tailing challenges to identify innovative and scalable technologies to catalyze zero waste mining

• ACTIVITY • Foundational research into material bulk strength under static loading and precursors for static liquefaction.

  • Piggy back deposition – impact on paste or filtered tailings on conventional tailings footprints.

Tailings dams June 2019

• Sensor integration into an early warning operations reaction digital platform.

• Crowdsource innovative solutions to mining industry tailing challenges through the XPrize design and competition process.

• Competition design phase underway.

• Zero Waste Mining (tailings) XPRIZE competition launch scheduled Q2 2020.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

33

Introduction to tailings dams

Tailings facilities in the portfolio

Approach to dam risk management at BHP

The future

Industry collaboration

BHP welcomes a common, international and independent body to oversee integrity of construction and operation of all tailings storage facilities across the industry. In addition, BHP supports calls for greater transparency in tailings management disclosure and will work with the industry to make sure the disclosure is consistently applied and informs better tailings dam stewardship.

• BHP continues to engage with a range of organisations including ICMM, ICOLD and the UN Environment Programme.

• The International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM), Principles for Responsible Investment and United Nations Environment Programme have agreed to lead a review to establish an international standard for the safe management of tailings dams that can be applied to all tailings dams wherever they are located and whoever operates them.

• Professor Bruno Oberle was recently appointed to oversee every aspect of the review and prepare a report which is expected to be published by the end of the year. Professor Oberle is Chair for Green Economy and Resource Governance and Academic Director of the International Risk Governance Center at L’Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland, a panel member of the International Resource Panel and a member of the Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He was previously the Swiss Secretary of State for the Environment and Director of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment.

• Set up in response to the Brumadinho tragedy in Brazil, the review will be informed by evidence and lessons from this dam failure as well as earlier mine tailings dam failures.

==> picture [202 x 92] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [68 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [198 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [122 x 66] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

34

==> picture [137 x 77] intentionally omitted <==

Case Study: North American Closed Sites tailings facilities

==> picture [389 x 205] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Copper Cities
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [388 x 204] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Selbaie
----- End of picture text -----

North American Closed Sites tailings portfolio

• The North American Closed Sites portfolio consists of 32 operated Tailings Storage Facilities distributed across 19 mine sites at locations in the US (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Utah) and Canada (British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec).

• In addition to tailings facilities, there are also other dams that don’t contain tailings however still require management.

• All the facilities are inactive and in various states of regulatory closure, from active reclamation to long-term care and maintenance.

• The facilities range in age from 1880s (Old Dominion) to 1990s (Elliot Lake).

• Many of the structures have been inactive for 30 years.

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [441 x 333] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Bullmoose (NOJV) Selbaie & Poirier
Elliot Lake
MB
BC AB SK
QC
ON
Island Copper
WA MT ND NB
MN
ME
OR SD WI VT
Lisbon ID WY NE IA IL INMI OH PA NYNJ CTMANHRI East Kemptville
Carson Hill CA NV UT CO KS MO KY WV VA MD DE
OK AR TN NC
AZ NM MS AL GA SC
TX LA
Miami Unit FL
Copper Cities
San Manuel Ambrosia Lake
Old Dominion
Solitude
Canada Arizona Other US
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

36

North American Closed Sites tailings portfolio

Classification is based on the modelled, hypothetical most significant failure mode without controls – not on the current physical stability of the dam.

• North American Closed Sites account for over half of BHP’s operated very high and extreme classified TSFs.

• Given these facilities are inactive, the most probable failure modes for these facilities generally arise from environmental factors including extreme precipitation and extreme seismic events.

• The dam classifications driven by the modelled most significant, possible failure scenarios within the closed sites portfolio cover a range of potential impact triggers from community to environmental impacts.

==> picture [237 x 119] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Stanleigh
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [195 x 118] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

San Manuel
----- End of picture text -----

CDA Classification of Closed Sites TSFs[1,2]

==> picture [220 x 171] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Extreme Not applicable
1
1
Low
5
Very high
Significant
13
3
High
9
----- End of picture text -----

1. These data are for operated tailings facilities only. The number of tailings storage facilities is calculated based on the definition agreed by the International Council on Mining and Metals Tailings Advisory Group in response to the Church of England information request which differs to the definition applied to our February disclosure. We keep this definition under review. The classification of the tailings facilities is based on the most recent classification of the facilities by the Engineer of Record. This is subject to change as ongoing reviews are conducted . Closed sites also have a portfolio of other containment structures which have not been included in these figures.

2. Tiger TSF which is part of San Manuel and Miami No 2 which is part of Miami Unit have yet to be classified by an Engineer of Record however have been assessed as low based on internal classifications One tailings facilities is not considered a dam and therefore not subject to classification (labelled Not applicable): Island Copper TSF in Canada, acquired in the 1980s. Tailings at Island Copper were deposited in the ocean under an approved license and environmental impact assessment. This historic practice ceased in the 1990s. BHP has since committed to not dispose of mine waste rock or tailings in river or marine environments.

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams

June 2019

37

North American Closed Sites dam governance A clear approach to dam governance is in place across the North Americans Closed Sites portfolio

• Dam Owners have been assigned for each key grouping of sites specifically to provide a single point of accountability for all aspects concerned with dam governance and risk management.

• Qualified, external Engineers of Record undertake annual detailed dam safety inspections, classify the dams and provide technical advice while Dam Control Owners are internal resources responsible for undertaking more frequent inspections to assess controls and monitoring is effective. There are Engineers of Record and Dam Control Owners for each site.

• In addition a qualified Geotechnical team provides internal technical support across the portfolio.

==> picture [459 x 313] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Head of
Closed Sites
Geotechnical
Responsible Responsible
Dam Engineer Dam Engineer
US Canada
Dam Owner Dam Owner Dam Owner
(Arizona) (CA, NM, Utah) (Canada)
Engineers Dam Control Engineers Dam Control Engineers Dam Control
of Record Owners of Record Owners of Record Owners
(by Site) (by Site) (by Site) (by Site) (by Site) (by Site)
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

Slide 38

Dam safety reviews[1] (DSRs)

==> picture [776 x 253] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Canada
Elliot Lake – Initial DSR in 1999;
MB subsequent DSR completed in 2007 and
2013. Planned updates based on
Other US
BC AB SK QC consequence classification rating in
Lisbon – DSR completed April 2019 ON Canadian Dam Association framework.
Ambrosia Lake – DSR completed April 2019 East Kemptville – DSR completed in
2007 and 2014
WA MT ND NB
MN ME Selbaie – DSR completed in 2015
Miami Unit Arizona – DSR completed in 2018 OR ID WY SDNE IA WIIL INMI OH PA NYNJ CTVTMANHRI Poirier completed 2018; – Geotechnical Assessment DSR scheduled 2019
Copper CitiesSolitude San Manuel – DSR – DSR – completed in 2018 DSR completed in 2018 completed in 2018 CA NV AZUT CONM TXKSOK MOLAAR MS ALTNKYGA WVSCNCVA MD DE Bullmoose (NOJV) – DSR Teck AssessmentIsland Copper in 2016 [2] completed in 2017 – Geotechnical conducted by
Old Dominion – DSR completed in 2018 FL
----- End of picture text -----

• Dam Safety Reviews are a critical process for deeply understanding the status of the closed sites dam portfolio.

• The outcomes of the DSRs to date have not identified any deficiencies which have safety implications.

• In addition, the DSRs have confirmed that the regular dam monitoring, maintenance and surveillance activities … have been efficient and effective in identifying maintenance issues promptly and resolving them quickly.

• Tiger TSF which is part of San Manuel and Miami No 2 which is part of Miami Unit are scheduled to be reviewed.

• Island Copper TSF in Canada (a submarine tailings deposit which occurred prior to BHP’s acquisition, now inactive) is not considered a dam and therefore a geotechnical assessment rather than a DSR has been undertaken. Tailings dams

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

June 2019

39

Example of an emergency drill: Elliot Lake

The Emergency Response Drill for Elliot Lake involved a two-step process so that the community was engaged, aware and available

First step: a community emergency planning workshop

• The purpose of the workshop was to introduce BHP’s emergency planning process to the community of Elliot Lake and to assess BHP and community emergency response readiness.

• External participants included representatives from municipal governments, First Nations, regulatory agencies, emergency response agencies and public health agencies.

Second step: execution of the emergency drill

• The emergency scenario was based on a failure at the Stanleigh tailings facility causing possible: – washout of the Stanleigh Dam Road and impacts to a garden centre;

• impacts to the drinking water supply to City of Elliot Lake;

• disruption of power and gas and land-based communication; and

• rise of water levels in regional lakes.

• Participants in the drill included BHP, City of Elliot Lake, Algoma Emergency Services, Northshore Search and Rescue, Algoma Health, local Ontario Provincial Police, Ministry of Environment and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (notifications only).

• The drill demonstrated successful activation, mobilisation and communications between BHP and City of Elliot Lake Emergency Operations Centre with a full field response achieved.

• Lessons learned from the activity have been captured and are intended to be incorporated to enhance preparedness.

Tailings dams June 2019

==> picture [235 x 156] intentionally omitted <==

Stanleigh Dam A

==> picture [235 x 175] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

40

==> picture [842 x 475] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [138 x 77] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix

Comparison ANCOLD and CDA Dam Classifications

CDA (2007)	ANCOLD Guidelines on Tailings Dams (2012)
EXTREME	Extreme
VERY HIGH	High A
	High B
HIGH	High C
SIGNIFICANT	Significant
LOW	Low
CDA does not have this category	Very Low

==> picture [69 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

Tailings dams June 2019

43

==> picture [842 x 475] intentionally omitted <==