Glencore on Net-Zero Mining

at Glencore. Glencore is a multinational commodity trading and mining Fortune five company and they have a net zero twenty fifty ambition across their mining operations for scope one, two and three, meaning not only the mining but the use of their products like coal. Anna explains Glencore's targets, the opportunities a mining company has in the energy transition around things like battery metals, and some of the ethical considerations

associated with decarbonization timelines, among many other things. Or Bloomberg subscribers who want to know about B and F s research on the energy transition or on corporate sustainability. This can be found on the Bloomberg terminal at b NF GO at BNF dot com or on our mobile app. As a reminder, B and E F does not provide investment or strategy advice, and we have a very complete disclaimer at the end of the show. But now I'm going to speak with Anna. First of all, thank you

very much for joining us today on switched On. I want to know a little bit more about you as we get started. I would love to know how you first got involved in the mining industry. Thanks day, and it's it's great to be on this podcast. Thank you. I probably first got interested in mining in my previous career, previous job in the asset managements industry, where I was part of what is today called an e s GT.

We were probably one of the first in London to be doing this work, and I just got really fascinated by the mining industry and by the scale of the change, the positive impact that it could have, and also just absolutely the kind of the very essential nature of its products that it was producing. So I spent a bit of time analyzing companies and looking at them from the outside in, and then I thought, well, I'd really love to know how it actually works on the inside, How

does it actually work in practice? How do these issues get managed and thought about internally, and so I joined Extrata at the time and then following the merger, came into Glencore. There's sustainability in the name of your title at Glencore, but every company that I talked to who has a sustainability or E s G focused role, each of them is sort of different. I mean, even then I just convoluted the two terms. Sustainability is focused on what a business does, in E s G is more

focused on the reporting. So what does head of Sustainable Development mean at Glencore. You're right, it does its lots

of different things and lots of different companies. In glen Core, my responsibility is really engaging with our external stakeholders, hearing what does the outside world expect of us, communicating to the outside world what we're doing and how we're doing it, and then translating those expectations of the outside world into our company and thinking about how to translates it into

the operational landscape. And clearly one of the biggest expectations that our stakeholders have today, of us, of of anybody, really is the thinking around the transition to a low carbon economy. And so that's been something that's been a very significant part of my role for the last few years, and it looks like it's only going to increase. But that is clearly when we look at our at the

expectations that the outside world has of us. In addition to managing our operations responsibly managing our environmental and social footprint, it's all so hugely centered around what are we as a company doing to as part of the global transition to low common economic one. So you noted that one of the things that drew you to the mining industry was the ability to be part of this transition. And when you started or when looking at the company to

begin with, let's start talking about the emissions. So where do the emissions come from and where is the work to be done? So there are two primary sources of emissions for a company like glanc Core. The first source is the emissions arising from its own activities, so the so called Scope one and two emissions arising from the use of diesel in our trucks or the use of electricity in our smell test the emissions that we cause

directly through our operations. The second source of emissions is from the use of our products um and in the case of blank row with our portfolio of co operations, the majority of those emissions are coming the use of the code that we produce by our customers. Yes, so this this is the Scope three element. So then that

leads me next into what our glend cores targets. When we think about these three scopes of emissions for a company like glenk where with the product portfolio that we have, about ten percent of our total emissions footprint comes from our Scope one and two emissions, So the emissions that are specific to our operations and the remainder comes from from the use of our product, and that split is

fairly consistent across the large diversified mining sector. So when we thought about our targets, when we thought about, well, what does a meaningful commitment to decorganization look like, we realize that it has to include emissions from our products as well as those from our own operations. So we must think in terms of our operational footprint, but also holistically about our portfolio. So our targets are we have a short term target of reducing our Scope one, two

and three emissions by by against nine levels. Then in five we have set ourselves a target of reducing our missions by and then finally we have an ambition of achieving net zero by again across our total footprint. And I keep emphasizing that because when we thought about our missions, we thought, well, focusing purely on our industrial footprints is important, and obviously it's something that we must do, but it's really only ten of the total footprints. So we must

think about everything. We must think about our company as a whole. We must think about our portfolio, on our business strategy, and to think about what we can do to reduce the emissions from our product as well as from our own operations. So how were the timelines chosen? Were they reverse engineered off of warming projections from the I B c C or were they really focused more around this is what we think is actually feasible if we're going to pivot these operations and really transition them

rather than offload the assets to different companies. We started out looking at the analysis that's been done by the I P c C and really thinking about what does the range need to look like if we are to support the goals of the Paris Agreement. So we started out looking at the midpoint, and we looked at the range that would be necessary for us to achieve, and we then reviewed that against our business portfolio, our business strategy, our footprint to understand what would be a stretching but

possible target for our business. And then we work backwards and thought about, well, you know is a key it's obviously the midpoint in the journey. It's it's a critical

milestone for us as a company. But working backwards to the more sort of short term horizon, again we thought about the different scenarios that have been set out, whether by the ib c C or the International Energy Agency, and that's how we arvived at our target of by again think you also about you know, our own company and how how can we set ourselves a target that is stretching, that is consistent with the decorganization trajectories that have been set out, but also that is meaningful within

our organization. So these targets were well received, I believe by the investment community. And how long ago did you announce them? We first announced our targets in December of last year, and I think the and and thank you

for something that they were well received. We're very pleased by the very constructive engagement that we've had the important components of our targets that I think is different from from the industry, and I think was particularly important to our investors was the inclusion of Scope three in our commitments, So moving beyond purely thinking about our industrial footprints and thinking about our portfolio holistically and thinking about the emissions

from from our products. So we announced our first suite of targets in December of last year, but we obviously we continue to evaluate the work that's being done. We've seen a lot of additional modeling being done by the i A. For example, they came out with some additional scenario modeling earlier this year, and so we reviewed our

targets and increase them. We moved from by in terms of emissions reduction to by five as we continue to analyze those uh, those those scenarios and those trajectories and continue to ensure that our commitments are tracking to those. Let's talk a bit about getting there. How is Glencore's business going to change, restructure, reorganized, refocused to meet these targets If we move through the different scopes of emissions.

In terms of our Scope one and two emissions, we are doing a lot of work across the organization to identify opportunities to reduce our emissions from our operations, whether it's looking at lower emission vehicle technologies, whether it's looking at automation, or looking at increasing the amounts of renewable

power that we're purchasing to support our our smelters. So there is an industrial decarbonization program that's in place, and that is continuously valuating different opportunities and incorporating them into our project management frameworks. From a portfolio perspective, and again bearing in mind that our total emissions footprints arises from

the use of our products by our customers. We have made a commitment to prioritize capital allocation towards the metals that support the transition to a low carbon economy, which means that over time, we've made a commitment to decline our production of coal across our portfolio, but to do

so in a responsible manner. So rather than you know, pressing the switch as some have asked us, and shutting down the mind and walking away from them overnight, we recognize that we have a responsibility see to our workforce, and to our communities and to the environments in which we operate to manage the decline of those operations over time and to do so in a responsible, consistent manner.

So over over time and in line with the targets that we've set ourselves, we are looking to decline the production of our of our coal operations and that is a key contributor to our overall emissions reduction. So you're declining your coal operations and looking at these measure saying energy transition focused metals, what would which medals are those?

What would them be? Glencra has a uniquely diversified portfolio, so we have a significant copper exposure, a copper portfolio, we have a number of nickel producing mines um we're one of the largest producers of cobalts, which is obviously a critical mineral in um in enabling the transition to a low car low carbon economy through the change in transfer station and we also have a number of zinc, chrome and alloys operations, So we have a very diversified

portfolio of metals, all of which play a critical role either in continuing to meet the needs of society or in enabling that transition to a low carbon economy by providing the metals and needed for the energy systems and

for the transportation industry, and you mentioned your workforce. This has definitely been a hot button topic around the coal industry around the world because coal mining closures are not uncommon, but in several places around the world, not excluding the US, and there's been a lot of talk around what do

we do with this workforce? Do you foresee this workforce working in another mining capacity in other parts of the world, because I'm even seeing you know, the goal coal Balt is a good example of there may not necessarily be the same workforce at a coal mine that would then

be available to mine cobalt. Look your rights, it's I think it's one the challenges that we face, not just in terms of the workforce, but also in terms of the communities that live around these operations and will obviously be exposed to um challenges if the operations come to come to an end within Blanc or we acquire our operations to manage to maintain closure plans, and the closer they're getting to that date of closure, the more effort

there is expected in terms of engaging with the workforce and engaging with the community, and some of the opportunities might be redeployments to other mining mining operations. Where that's possible, it might be retraining um And this is where local governments play a critical role, particularly when we're thinking in

the context of this just transition concept. As local regional governments are thinking about transitioning their regions towards a low carbon economy, they may be thinking about building up renewables capacity or develop innovation opportunities, and so we as as as a mining company, will be working very closely with those regional authorities to understand how we can support that

regional development plan through our operational closure planning. So having this plan that's clearly defined in terms of when you want to achieve certain targets certainly gives government something that they can then rely on in terms of to your point on the just transition, thinking about what happens to these people on the other side, what are you your views right now on the existing emissions reduction targets for the countries that you're operating and are they realistic or

some of them too ambitious, And how does this impact the way that that you look at achieving these targets. I think that that we have to look at these targets as as a point in time you know, if we think about how much has changed in this space, even just in the lost twelve to eighteen months, you know, we have all the major economies of the world, including China and the US, committing or recommitting to the Paris Agreement, committing to achieving net zero by fifty or twenties sixty.

We've seen some very ambitious targets being put forward by by the European Union and by the United Kingdom. So we've seen so much happened so quickly in this space that it seems clear that the forward momentum is is very strong if we look at the individual targets, the the nationally determined contributions that have been set forward by

by various countries around the world. You know, we've seen some commentary from the likes of the ib c C that they're not sufficiently ambitious or rapid to achieve the level of change that is needed. But I think what we must also take into account is the dynamics of change and the momentum, and the fact that you know, to alter eighteen months ago, this home minded focus on achieving net zero was not even uh on on on our radar. When you think about the pace of change.

I'm optimistic that we will see continued momentum carry forward and and and increase the pace of ambition. In some of these contributions, things do seem like they're happening slowly and then suddenly quite fast. So see if we can continue to accelerate that momentum. When we think about communities that are dependent on coal for energy right now various kinds, there's energy access, and then there's the fact that oftentimes it's the same communities that have will be experiencing outsized

impacts of climate change. First, how does a company like yours, when you're focusing on these scope three emissions kind of way up the two regarding energy access and then climate impacts, given that you know there's the right now and then there's the not so far away future. And that is exactly why we looked at the emissions arising from our

products as well as those from from our operations. When we think about the transition to low carbon, when we think about the transition to renewable energy, we are cognizant that we cannot just flip the switch. Forgive the pun. Can't overnight switch to renewables. You are unswitched on after all, so there's switching unintentional, but we you know, under any scenario that's been set out by the the I A and by the others, cole continues to play a role.

It diminishes, It diminishes very significantly under certain scenarios, but it is there. And as we are switching to the renewables, as we're increasing the contents of renewables and our energy systems, as we're improving the efficiency of energy storage and energy transmission, we must continue to maintain that access to energy, particularly in the poorer countries that don't necessarily have the capacity or the support today to get that that transition to renewables.

So the coal continues to play a role. It will diminish over time, but today it is part of the energy mix. So when we thought about our commitments, we thought that that was part of our thinking. But we as as you say, we realize that there's the needs of today, but there's also the needs of tomorrow, and so we committed to reduce the production over time so that as we are transitioning, we can the coal can

decline and the proportion of renewables is increasing. Our targets have been set, so we are we're committed to that trajectory. We as as as we said, we do anticipate that coal will remain some part of the conversation, but our reductions are are put in place in line with the scenarios that have been set by the by the I A and by the I P c C. Well, so you're saying that coal will still remain part of the

portfolio in the future. And if we're thinking about the mining industry and this net zero ambition that you have, other than buying offsets, which I don't believe Glencore does, how does or maybe what are the technologies that may get Glencore to net zero. When we looked at our when we look at our trajectory of our of our targets, we made the decision not to use offsets as part

of our day organization trajectory. It may be something that we look at for commercial purposes, but in terms of reducing our emissions footprint, we believe that we will be able to achieve our target of reduction by without without using offsets. And one of the reasons for that is, well, there's a couple of reasons for that. One based on

our assessment of the Paris rule book. The rules around offsets remain very unclear, and we've seen some criticism come up of less scrupulous scrupulous treatments of offsets globally, um, you know, instances of double counting, or instances of just a lot of confusion around how offsets are treated, accounted for and managed. So we were concerned by this level of uncertainty and we didn't want to rely on something where there's still so much work that needs to be

done as a pillar of our dec organization. We're also very conscious that the expectation is that offsets can be used for those hard to abate emissions. So we put on ourselves the expectation to do as much as we can on our own, on our own efforts, UM, and then look at what is left and consider whether perhaps in the future, with greater regulatory certainty, we may look at usets as a possible option. What are some of

the technologies that we can that we're looking at. You know, there is a lot of work that we are we can do, and we think it's very interesting in the renewable space, in increasing the proportional renewable energy in our in our purchases of energy globally, for our operations. There are a number of technologies around which U seeing the emissions from vehicles, sort of reducing the diesel the amount of diesel that we use in our operations to either

reduce emissions or even zero emissions. I think that technology is still a little bit further off in the future, but certainly there's a lot of work being done towards it, greater deployment of battery vehicles. I think there's a lot of different opportunities that that we're looking at, and I think that's an important point. You know this, this challenge is so enormous and so complex, it requires all the

different solutions. There's no single solution, there's no single technology, there's no single kind of magic pill that just solves the whole problems. So for a company as complex as ours, is diversified as ours, we're looking at multiple strategies, multiple opportunities that will all come together to help us drive that decorganization forward. Now for a very short break, stay with us, let's pivot a little bit, and let's talk

about your publicly listed company. You know this, the reality of the investment community and their influence on the way companies behave is ever present, as investors are increasingly focused on E s G metrics and we've seen this by several funds just closing over the just the last month alone,

very good size. How do you think the investment community should look at companies that I would consider really at the heart of the energy transition, those that have fairly large emissions profiles and have a long space to go, but then you know, a lot of opportunity, a lot of opportunity to make a big difference. How do you think that they should look at these companies in terms

of time horizon? How should they look at these companies in terms of how quickly these companies are transitioning and the work that needs to be done. I think what's important in analyzing companies commitments to decorbonization is understanding to which to the the center which these commitments are holistic. So again I talked about this before. I'll give you

an example. Our industrial emissions footprint is ten percent of our total footprint, So if we were to focus only on that portion of our footprint, we would be dismissing, would be ignoring the majority of the emissions that our company contributes to. So looking holistically at the emissions footprints, both from an operational perspective, but also from a portfolio perspective, I think is critical to assessing the company's commitment. I think also the way that these commitments are going to

be achieved. You know, we get us sometimes well, why don't you just press the button? Why don't you just close these minds? Why don't you just stop operations that contribute significantly to to TO to the car global carbon footprints? And I understand where people are coming from with that question, But the challenge that we have is, you know, by pressing that button, we're putting thousands or tens of thousands of people out of jobs. We're impacting their families, were

impacting those communities. By walking away from those operations, were potentially leaving them for somebody else to operate them, perhaps in a less responsible way. So the manner in which we achieve the decorganization, the ensuring that the decorganization is managed responsibly, that the transition is supported and enabled, and thoughts about also from the perspective of those people who are vulnerable to it. I think that's it's an important

consideration in again assessing the commitment to dec organization. And I suppose the final consideration, the final vector of analysis is understanding the extent to which a company's business model, a company's portfolio is positioned to thrive in the transition. Is a company's portfolio is sufficiently diversified. Is an exposed to the does have the right commodity mixed in it to not only enable the transition but also to to to benefit from it. Is the company's portfolio sufficiently future

proof for this world that we are working towards. So I think those are the three axes of of consideration. Is there is the decorganization holistic, is the commitment's whole of business? Is the thoughts about in a responsible manner? And is the company itself well positioned to uh for for the future of the decoganization process? And how of your interactions with Climate Action one hundred impacted how you guys approached these issues. We've been speaking to Climate actually

one hundreds for five years now. We first started in UM back in two thousands sixteen, and throughout I think we've been very fortunate. We've had a very positive, very positive dialogue. It's been very constructive, it's been respectful, it's

been two way. I think we have certainly benefited from our counterparties and Climate Action one hundred plus really providing very helpful feedback, providing helpful context, explaining the expectations of the investor community, but also acting as a sounding board.

I think we've built up a relationship of trust where we're able to work with them to discuss different ideas, discussed different strategies, and to assess with them what uh you know, how these strategies are positions against our commitments and against those expectations. So it's been a really helpful dialogue. I think it's really helps us evolved, evolve and grow um and hopefully our our counterparties within the initiative have also found it useful as we're building up that that

knowledge and working together in working towards the decorganization. Well, let's go back to the business and the way it works a little bit, and this one area where people have been focusing a lot of attention lately has been the potential of the circular economy and having nothing ENDPTH in the was stream and in particular in the metals

and mining space in regard to battery amount. Also's been a focus on how do we tackle this and the question I have is you know, do you think that we will reach a point where medals who many of which can be recycled many times over, where we could reach a not entirely but close to circular economy And

is that space the glin core is looking at. So Blanco is one of the largest recyclers, um we have recycling operations all over the world, and so yes, absolutely we consider ourselves to be part of the of the circular economy. Is that the solution unfortunately probably not under any projection that we see, any scenario, any modeling that's been done again, whether by the International Energy Agency or even by the i p c C. We need new material. We need new material to meet meet the needs of

a growing population. We need new material if we are to make the switch in terms of the energy and trance quotation sectors. We certainly need more recycling. We certainly need to see improvements in recovery rates. We need to see more physically more recycling happened. We need to see the regulatory framework strengthened to support a greater uptake of recycling. But that is not going to be the only answer. We're not going to be positioned to meet all the

needs through through recycling. Clearly, another consideration in this is lifestyle, and I think there is a lot that needs to happen in terms of how we think about consumption, how we think about evolving needs of society. And while all of that means that that there should and probably will be greater uptake of recycling, there's still going to be more people in the world. They're going to need more more materials, more vehicles, more energy, and all of that

is going to require new materials, new metals. Let's talk about some of the technologies that are urging in the mining space, such as black chain. What are the main sources of innovation that you're seeing, either in circular or the non circular side of things. I think from an industrial perspective, we're seeing a movement towards reduced the mission vehicles,

zero mission vehicles actually vehicles and all of that. There's a lot of work being done to help the mining industry reduce reduced the emissions arising from from the vehicles that we used to to to whether it's to dig the minds or to move the material or to transport our products from a From a supply change chain perspective, I think the blockchain is really interesting and we have a number of projects that we're involved with where we're

looking at how blockchain can be used to support greater traceability and transparency. I think one thing that we're very conscious of is decomanization can't come at any cost. It doesn't come at the cost of cutting corners. We must still operate with responsibly. We must produce these metals that are needed for a low common economy in a responsible manner.

And the way that we demonstrate that can can be done through blockchain um as a vehicle for greater reliability and which more more traceable data on how on how these materials are produced. So that's something that's that's really interesting and I think it supports this focus on responsible production of metals, but it also speaks to and and enables greater collaboration across the value chain. Nobody can go it can do this alone. Nobody can achieve perfect decorganization alone.

We need support. We need partnerships, whether it's with our suppliers or it's with our customers, to think about how we can support support all of these different efforts, whether it's through our long term agreements with our customers, or whether it's through blockchain where we're all of us able to work together to to enable the greater transparency around

our products. When you talk about blockchain and things that it's trying to address making sure that these metals are being sourced in a responsible way, what does that mean? What is can you expand upon? I guess what the

irresponsible things are that you're looking for with blockchain? I suppose there it could be something as simple as including in the blockchain the greenhouse gas footprint of a particular product, and so you know, what are the emissions associated with this ton of of cobalt or or whatever it might be. It might be something a bit more complicated, alike, how are how is the company producing this metal managing its

commitment to respect human rights? Um, it might be great secularity around how the steps that were taken to ensure that there was no child labor involved in the production of this metal. So it can be any and as I said, some of the some of the data is right straightforward. It might be a simple number, you know, the the amount of emissions associated with the product, or

it might be something more sophisticated. But what it enables is for the for the customer or the end user to have confidence that the product is produced responsibly and that it helped it plays a part in that greater goal.

So switching tracks again, Glencore has increased their stake in a business called British Vault, which is a battery factory, and I want to know a little bit more about British Vault and some of the opportunity that is seen there and additionally, if there are other opportunities that Glencore is looking at, not directly as a part of their business,

but more as a part of their portfolio. Well, I think British Cold is a really exciting example of how we leverage our marketing capability in addition to our industrial

uh the industrial side of our business. So through our marketing arm we're able to work with our customers um whether it's on securing long term agreements that enable them to meet their objectives of for example, producing battery battery vehicles which they're able to commit to because they have a long term agreement with us for a supply of cobalt that they need for those for those vehicles, or as in the case of British Vault, and also earlier

this year, a Norwegian company called Fair an investment agreement where we are actually participating in the long term success of that of those companies by supplying them with low carbon, cobalt, nickel, the metals that they need. So it's a partnership that leverages our strengths as a producer, but also builds on the relationship that we have developed through our marketing arm and feeds into that portfolio strategy of positioning the company

in that decarbonization future. One. Now, let's talk about one of the may be more effective in Europe ways of reducing a mesh. I'm thinking of the e v T S. Let's talk about carbon trading versus a carbon tax in which you think might be the better or more effective mechanism for decarbonization. To be honest, I think either it will work as long as the mechanisms are designed effectively. I think both of them have their advantages. A carbon

tax regime is predictable. It supports that long term investment that is so important for companies such as the in the mining industry. Carbon trading regimes such as the the the Emissions Trading Scheme and in Europe drives that greatest certainty in terms of ensuring that the emissions targets will be met. So they both have very strong advantages, but we've also seen both of them be less successful where the design enabled too much volatility, outsize allowances for for

various sectors, or just poor enforcement. So I think both have both can contribute, Both can enable decarbonization. The question is does the design support rigor in um in driving those those commitments or does it allow for too much flexibility that so so that that is less effective. Well, and this really comes down to policy makers and what do you think they should be doing to accelerate the

energy transition? And maybe maybe that's carbon tax or carbon trading, um, but what sorts of things should they be looking at more closely to try and get there. I think it's one of the big issues that we see is inconsistency

its countries, regions operating in silos. So while I think a global carbon carbon price or global carbon market is perhaps not realistic, a more harmonized approach would would allow companies to work more holistically across their their full value chains, So I think work in that direction would be beneficial.

I think one area that we're all hoping to see some clarity and perhaps coming out of the COP twenty six meetings later this year is a resolution of the treatments of offsets, the treatments of carbon accounting, the mapping of the different efforts around the world and thinking about them again from that kind of holistic, consistent perspective. Well, we've been across a number of topics and the time that we've had, and I've got one for you that's kind of outside of center, which is in not in

the mining space. What energy transition technologies do you feel are most overhyped or perhaps most under hyped that may have potential that we haven't yet realized. Let me preface by saying I think all technologies have a role to play. Dec organization is enormously complex. It's an unprecedented level of challenge that we face as a society. So to say any one technology does not work is probably incorrect. We need every everybody to play their part, every piece of

the puzzle to come together. So I don't think there's any technology that we would say, oh, you know, it just doesn't have a role at all. They all do. I think the question is the the amounts of attention and resources that is poured into into particular areas. And I think one area that we've been perhaps a little bit more skeptical of today is sort of the is that the technology around direct air capture, this concept of

taking carbon dioxide straight out of the atmosphere. All the technology has been around for a long time, it's been proven, I suppose, you know, there's been so much resource, so much investment put into it to date, and yet it remains relatively a relatively small contributor to the overall emissions, and in the scenarios that we've seen, it's total contribution in the near future, in the next sort of ten

years and so remains quite small. So while it absolutely has a role to play in that total spectrum of things we must be doing, I suppose the question for me is how much effort do we put into that technology versus some of the other ones, where perhaps the scalability and the rates of adoption and the scale of

change could be um could potentially be great. So excellent, Well, I just want to say thank you very much for coming on today and telling us a bit more about how Glencore is going to tackle not just Scope one and two, but Scope three emissions. We look forward to checking back with you over the years and seeing how you're getting on. As I know, the targets are new, but the near term goals are just around the corner, and so I know that you will be extremely busy.

Thank you, it's been great talking to you. Today's episode of Switched On was edited by Rex Corner the gray Stoke Media bloom Berginias was provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or a recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. Bloomberg an e F should not be considered as information sufficient upon

which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any liability as a result of this recording. It expressly