SBSW

Okay. Good afternoon. Good morning, everybody. Charles, can I check we online? All good. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, good morning, evening. Those joining us online, welcome. Just before we kick off with the formal part of the presentation today, please just take note that there are a lot of forward-looking statements, so please note the safe harbor statement. Before we kick off, I would like to just invite George Coetzee, our Head of Safety, perhaps just to share a safety moment with us. It is how we start all of our meetings in Sibanye. So George, over to you. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to everybody online and in person. Thanks for the opportunity. I think before we begin the formal session, Richard has asked me to do an opening safety moment, and I would like this opportunity to reflect on the recent Nepal flooding catastrophic incident that we have seen. I was reading last night that as of yesterday, 950 people have passed, and there were still around 4,400 people missing. And we do extend our sincere condolences to all involved. An absolute tragedy. What started as an unexpected rock and ice collapse rapidly escalated into a devastating disaster, reminding us that catastrophic events often emerge from hazards that are unseen, poorly understood, or outside our current experience. Within Sibanye, we have seen that approximately 90% of our fatal incidents are linked to our 18 group minimum standards.

These are known fatal risks and reinforces the importance of rigorously applying our critical control management process, verifying critical controls, critical life-saving behaviors, and critical management routines every day. These are all included in this fatal elimination booklet that has been signed off by each and every person in the company and contractors committing themselves to these standards. But there is also another important reality. Approximately 10% of our fatal incidents occur outside these known standards. These include both in-service and criminally related loss of life incidents, and we have seen that of late in the company. These are the events that challenge our assumptions, expose blind spots, and reminds us that not all catastrophic risks are visible on a risk register. The lesson from Nepal is that managing known risks is not enough.

Catastrophic events often develop from weak signals, changing conditions, and hazards that have not been fully recognized or understood. As leaders, our responsibility is twofold. Firstly, ensure our critical controls are effective for the risks that we know, and secondly, remain curious, vigilant, and courageous enough to ask, what are we missing? What has changed, and what could hurt us that we have not yet considered? Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks, George.

Yep.

Awesome. Thank you very much, George, and a real reminder of the very volatile times we are living in. Once again, welcome. Thank you very much for joining us today. It is a real pleasure to be able to share our results with you. Just as a very brief introduction, in January of this year, we shared with the market our refreshed strategy. This was a strategy that spoke about how as a company, we were going to create a future-focused to high-performing, future-focused metals business. Today is not about strategy, but what I would like to do is just a brief refresh of what we presented back in January, because what today is really about is how are we progressing on this journey. Just a quick soundbite. There are two or three parts to the strategy. The first one is the piece in the middle.

That actually describes not what we are doing, but who we are as our business. It is our purpose, it is our values, it is our stakeholder ethos. That has not changed. I dare say that part of the company supersedes any management changes or any external events. It is who we are. It is what makes us Sibanye. So that has not changed. The left-hand side is what our short-term priorities are, and short-term, we said a couple of years. That is strengthening the business fundamentals. If I could just try and summarize that very high level what we mean by strengthening the business fundamentals, it is getting our operating margins increased. We all know how we do that, costs and production. We do not control price, but that is how we drive revenue. That is our operational excellence strategy. It is about improving our effectiveness and efficiencies through our operating model.

It is about increasing our return on capital and enhancing management focus through simplifying our portfolio. Ultimately, we identify two enablers, looking at a systemic approach, a real enterprise thinking approach, and through, I guess, what is the glue of our company, our culture, our performance culture of care, caring for people. If we got all of that right, then it comes down to we should be generating a lot of cash, and how do we allocate that cash? Our capital allocation model. We shared with you we had three priorities, shareholder returns, our balance sheet, reducing our debt, and ultimately investing in the sustainability of the business. If we got those fundamentals right, I think as a company we have learnt the best way to grow is to be able to be agile and have flexibility with regards to time.

You make your best growth decisions at the right time in the cycle, at the right assets where you can add value that requires flexibility. If we get that right, we will have the flexibility to grow in a value-accretive manner, which is the key point there. But we also highlighted that we had a portfolio of assets that we already have within our existing portfolio. We do not have to go out and join expensive M&A sales processes. We actually have a portfolio of assets ourselves which we could develop that have significant value to us, and that was our focus. Today, what we are going to touch on and really, I guess, hopefully show you is the three boxes we have highlighted specifically around operations and margins, capital allocation, and growth. How are we tracking on the strategy that we put out at the beginning of this year?

Let me apologize upfront. I do understand there was a delay with our results going out from the JSE. Unfortunately, there were some technical issues, so many of you may not have had a chance to digest the numbers yet. I do apologize for that. Not much we could do, unfortunately, but glad it could get out, and we can at least be on time now. Just to give you some of the real headline numbers, starting at the top with our first priority, safety. I do have a slide where I am going to unpack that a lot more, but we have had a great safety performance. Whether we benchmark it against our own history, against peers, how we are doing locally, we have actually had a great performance. However, we still lost colleagues in the second quarter of this year.

Until we can eliminate fatals, we have not yet achieved our ultimate safety focus. We have had a spectacular run of commodity prices, absolutely. It has been a very volatile but a high-price environment for the first half, but also full credit to our teams with a solid operational underpin, highest revenue ever for the company for a six-month period. That is very pleasing. Our EBITDA more than doubled. I think what is relevant to point out there, last year this time we actually had a big EBITDA kick because we, in the U.S., recognized two years' worth of Section 45X. If we normalize for that, EBITDA was up 200%, almost 3x. But the one that matters to us, and if you saw that strategy, it was about cash and margins. That is what we can control and drive. Record net operating cash, a great achievement, and solid margins.

Whether we look at EBITDA margins, whether we look at all-in sustaining cost margins, you will see later we are happy with where we are competing within our business, and that has led to the value. We are declaring a dividend today. Charl will share that in detail. When we look at the yields of that, it is certainly one of the highest yields in the industry amongst our peers. We have had a significant impact on our debt, which was one of our big objectives at the beginning of the year. We have also managed to fund organic growth, and today we will share with you two new projects that our board has recently approved in Burnstone and Mt Lyell. A very exciting pipeline of projects that we have got coming through.

But all-in-all, I think a six-month period for which we are very proud and has certainly helped us progress our strategy, I dare say, a lot further than I imagined we would 12 months ago when we put that together. I do just want to touch on safety. There is a reason safety features in the introduction and not the operational sections, because this is our number one priority. Why? Number one, it's people. We are a people's business. Safety is all about people. The second reason is, for me, if there's one measure to tell you how well your business is doing, that's safety. To get safety right, you got to have your infrastructure working, you got to have your people working according to plan, processes, and delivering, and you need people to feel like they belong and are contributing to the safety culture.

To get this right, you got three metrics you can see in one. And I think this is why that continued downward trend when we look at our lagging indicators is so pleasing. We've been on a definite safety journey for the last five years. We can see it's reducing risk. We can see it's having an impact. We do still have a way to go, of course. But certainly, in terms of our historical performances and a lot of the improvements around us, we are very proud of this. Nevertheless, we had a fatal incident at our PGM operations in the second quarter, and we had one in our gold operations also in the second quarter of this year.

Having gone a quarter fatal-free, tragically the second quarter, we lost three colleagues, and our sincere condolences go to the families and friends of those colleagues, Kanyelo, Tebogo, and Khulisa. A question we often ask, and we were actually asked this at a big industry safety day yesterday, is do we believe fatal incidents are preventable? And I put one point on that slide that I'd just like to unpack because last week we celebrated a significant event. Our Driefontein operations went one year fatal-free. The reason I raise that, Driefontein is the second deepest mine in the world, slightly shallower than Mponeng. That means it's got intense seismicity, it's got intense heat, it's got intense water. We put 7,000 people underground through more than 50-year-old infrastructure every day through three shaft systems.

Arguably, on an inherent risk basis, that is probably the most dangerous mine in the world, if you want to look at inherent risk. But we've got the controls, we've got the methods, and we've got the people to prevent fatals in that environment. If we can do it at Driefontein, we can do it anywhere else in our business. If we've got other mines that go for five or six years fatal-free, we can do it across our business. Fatal incidents are preventable in the South African mining environment. We believe that as a company, and this demonstrates it. I think the last point I just want to make is, you would notice, and George did mention it, we've lost three colleagues to safety incidents in our mines. We've also lost three colleagues to crime. Crime directly related to work. A loss of life is a loss of life.

That is also preventable. Today, I want us to acknowledge those loss of lives, and I want us to appeal to all stakeholders. These are preventable. That's not something we can do alone, but we're committed to preventing it, and we're appealing to all stakeholders to work with us in addressing this epidemic in South Africa of crime. It must stop. Enough is enough. Ladies and gentlemen, with that, I'm going to hand over to the team who will take you through the results and pick it up towards the end. Thank you very much. Kleantha.

Thank you. Hello, everyone. Good to see all of you again. I'm just going to talk through three very quick slides today. We'll cover macros, the precious metals, and then of course, lithium, which has been quite an exciting market in the last couple of weeks. On the macros, the war in Iran has really resulted in downgrades to global growth forecasts for the year, and of course, the longer it takes to resolve the conflict, the greater the potential economic consequences. There's been limited flows of oil and other key industrial supplies like sulfur, aluminum, and helium out of the Strait of Hormuz, and this, of course, increases the risk of shortages, leads to higher inflation, and then of course, impacts on spend and growth. Tariffs and sanctions, as you may have seen in the last few weeks, are back on the agenda.

That, again, impacts investment confidence and adds risk to the forecasts. It also possibly pushes out risk into 2027 as well, so we could see some further downgrades. Global growth for this year is forecast at 2.5%. The U.S. is proving to be fairly resilient at 2.3%, China easing a little bit, and the Eurozone, unfortunately, remaining lackluster. Looking on at the precious metals, prices have consolidated after the massive speculative buying push that happened for both gold and platinum, resulting in record highs in January. In general, the dollar strength and the higher interest rates are usually a headwind for gold and PGMs. But encouragingly, the net central bank gold purchases have continued through the first half of the year. The market liquidity has also improved as both gold and platinum ETFs have declined.

Gold lost about 2 million ounces in ETFs over the half, while platinum ETFs were down just over 500,000 ounces as all the investors look to take profit. It's helped liquidity, and it's certainly helped lease rates coming down significantly. Then on to lithium. Lithium hydroxide prices climbed to a peak of almost $28,000 a tonne in May, and that's the highest it's been since August 2023. From the beginning of April until the middle of May, lithium prices were driven even higher as supply availability was limited, largely by the Zimbabwean government's export ban. At the same time, demand continued to grow for batteries, particularly in energy storage systems and in electric vehicles. We had cathode producers beginning to restock for this demand.

Prices then fell back a bit on the resumption of supply and exports from Zimbabwe, as well as a number of announcements and rumors of possible mine restarts in China, Australia, and the DRC. In quarter two, the price for battery-grade lithium hydroxide declined 9% and was averaging $23,000 a tonne. Today, prices are a bit lower, but still at a $21,000 per tonne number. We expect these prices to decrease somewhat as new supply comes online in the second half of the year, but we cannot foresee this dropping below the levels of 2025. I think just in summary on markets, clearly biggest risk right now is downside risk, and that is from the macro environment and also the geopolitical uncertainty. I will now hand you over to Richard to talk through the South African operations. Thanks.

Thank you, Kleantha, and hello, everybody. I think two quick points before I get into the numbers. First of all, the South African operations converted stable delivery into real leverage this half. PGM and gold both printed high all-in sustaining cost margins, 44% and 32% respectively, and together, they generated the bulk of the group cash. Second, we are not standing still in the portfolio. On PGM, we are putting capital into shallow infrastructure-backed extensions that hold a 1.5-million-ounce underground production profile. In gold, we are producing more surface ounces. We are funding the Burnstone project, and we are also taking a tighter look at what remains economic at our Kloof operations. I will take the PGM business first and then followed by gold. In our South African PGM business, production was consistent and in line with guidance. 790,000 4E ounces.

That was 2% lower year-on-year, and that decline almost entirely from surface sources. Underground production excluding Mimosa, was actually up 1%. K4 operation added 10,600 oz or up 24%, which offset planned plant maintenance at the Rustenburg UG2 concentrator. Also at the end of the half, we had 15,000 oz that were on stockpile at the half-year mark, and that will be processed in the second half. All-in sustaining cost was quite pleasing at ZAR 26,252 per 4E ounce. It was 10% higher year-on-year, and that is the number to hold. Roughly ZAR 1 billion of the increase is royalties and higher basket, and that was about 60% of the unit cost move. The balance is inflation and consumables offset by chrome and other byproduct credits. The chrome operating profit was ZAR 1.1 billion.

All-in sustaining cost was slightly below the guidance, and I will speak a little bit more about that later. Against a 67% higher basket, adjusted EBITDA was ZAR 19.2 billion. That was up 302%. All-in sustaining cost margin of 44%, EBITDA margin of 45%. Notional free cash flow was ZAR 10.4 billion. That was ZAR 9.9 billion higher year-on-year at a 54% conversion. [Sandebeka], this is the operational leverage that we said the portfolio has when delivery is stable and prices move. In the second half, all-in sustaining costs will lift. It will lift because as our planned development and sustained business capital step up and we are managing that inside the guided range. K4 operation is doing what it was built to do, up 24%. Those are new lower cost ounces of capital already spent. Chrome remains a material stream at ZAR 1.1 billion of operating profit.

Volumes were down, and that was after the BTT plant stopped as planned in the second half of 2025 when remaining the tailing storage facility was completed. The remaining stream still matters, however, and chrome should contribute more as the UG2 feed is prioritized going forward, and this is very deliberate as we outlined in our market strategy day recently. The brownfields program is shifting the mix towards UG2, the chrome-bearing reef, so chrome is part of the same quality of ounce plan. Total capital was ZAR 2.6 billion. That was up 4% against a full-year plan of ZAR 8 billion. So across ore reserve development, sustained business capital and projects. Only one-third of the year at the half and spend does accelerate in the second half as sustained business and project spend pick up. At the bottom you can see our brownfields project pipeline is sequenced.

We have projects in execution, Siphumelele and Thembelani. That is existing infrastructure and continuity at Rustenburg and more mechanized mining. Western Limb tailings retreatment is our surface sources, lower risk, and we are currently building out the chrome circuit. In study, a number of projects, East 4 Kopaneng, East 3 Bathopele, as well as the smelter. These are gated on returns, affordability as well as readiness. The point is not to build everything at once. It is to hold about 1.5 million underground ounces a year, lift the UG2 mix and raise the mechanized share. All this without an acquisition premium. We are moving towards a lower risk shallow, and more importantly, it is actually on our footprint. Gold is the same idea in a different shape. Mix and price more than offset a tougher underground half. Production was 294,000 oz or 2% down. Underground was 9% down.

Surface was 13% higher and is now 36% of the mix. That is a structural shift and it is how the result held. Kloof was rebased in the second half last year as we reduced exposure to seismically active ground. Kloof 7 has closed. Beatrix lost higher grade access after seismic damage to footwall infrastructure. Very important to see the plant recoveries at Beatrix are improving on the maintenance intervention. Driefontein was roughly flat year-on-year. Cooke was up 11% on third-party material, and DRDGOLD produced 2.5 tonnes of gold, up 10% on yield. Costs are up and we should be precise as to why this is. Shaft infrastructure maintenance and winder upgrades to keep shafts serviceable. Additional voluntary shifts in a high-price environment. Those shifts actually pay their keep.

At Kloof, ore reserve development and sustained business capital are now expensed because of the shorter remaining life. At Driefontein, water pumping cost is higher on electricity and additional fissure water. At Cooke, plant upgrades for future life, plus double handling and batch feeding of third-party ore to improve recovery. Third-party net cost is also higher, and we all appreciate that because of the gold price is higher. In gold, not a cost overrun story. It is planned work. We encounter these challenges, and these are actually around known constraints, and it leaves us with a far lower risk in that underground business. Gold sold was up 5%, the average price was up 35%. Adjusted EBITDA was at a record ZAR 9 billion, up 87% at a 39% margin. Notional free cash flow was ZAR 3.9 billion and cash generation up 267%.

The gold business in a nutshell, it's noted, fewer underground ounces but more surface ounces. Spend we can explain shaft by shaft and a price that converted that mix into record earnings and cash. Delighted to announce that Burnstone is approved. A project of about 130,000 oz a year at steady state, a 25-year life. Kimberley Reef at about 550 m below surface. The board has approved ZAR 98 million for 2026. The existing shaft decline and surface infrastructure already in the ground. We are not buying a greenfield premium. This is reserve replacement and a shallower, lower risk ounce to offset depletion from our deep conventional mines. Our surface gold business is already working 105,000 oz, up 13%. That's DRDGOLD plus our own surface business and reduces how much of the result depends on deep level production. The Cooke operation still has optionality.

Remaining reserves are under assessment. Nothing is committed. Any additional extraction has to clear returns and affordability. We will not stretch the plan to chase ounces that do not earn their place. At a price point of about ZAR 2.4 million a kilogram, we can look at that properly for life extension to about 2029. That adds three more years. Also looking at including whether a hedge book is the right way to underwrite a specific block of work. The value of the gold business today is the record EBITDA. It's the cash and the growing surface share. It's the transition to Burnstone, DRDGOLD and the Cooke assessment. The future we are all aiming at is a shallower, lower risk, higher margin gold portfolio. Thank you very much. I'll stop there and I'll hand over to Charles.

Thank you, Richard, and good day. I'm going to talk to the international mining and recycling business. I'm going to start with the U.S. PGM operations. Certainly year-to- date, you've seen a resilient production in line with our guidance. We produced 138 kilo ounces of palladium and platinum. This was 2% lower year-on-year but within our plan and our AISC margin came in at 12% and our all-in sustaining cost when you include the 45X credit came in at $1,347 an ounce. That's 12% higher year-on-year and that really reflects the planned development and the mechanization investment now underway. Our adjusted EBITDA was 28% margin and an actual adjusted EBITDA of $66 million.

That's 56% lower than the prior period last year and Richard touched on this, which has to do with the fact that we booked a very high credit for Section 45X in the first half of 2025. What you've seen year-to-date in the Montana operations is a 52% reduction in cash outflow to -$28 million national free cash flow. That's an improving trend of cash conversion and it's supported by higher palladium and platinum prices, particularly in the first quarter of this year while we use proceeds to fund our mechanization process. At the Investor Day earlier in the year, Kevin Robertson and Matt O'Reilly spoke at length to the mechanization process now underway.

If we look at our internal milestones on how we are tracking in the first half year-to-date, we have done a lot of work on mine development, so spend on that to get set up properly. We have successfully trialed mechanized bolting, a ZB21 bolter at Stillwater East with very good results. We have done a lot of work on the operating model to set up properly for moving to task mining and team-based mining and incentivized in a different way going forward. Year-to-date, our AISC cost has come slightly below guidance. To Kevin and the team, it has been a lot of hard work and it has been really good work.

I think if I look at the second half that lies ahead now, we have a number of critical steps in front of us and probably the toughest one we are navigating right now is to conclude our union labor agreements. We have two different agreements underway. We have the Stillwater Mine and the Met in one union bargaining unit, and we have the East Boulder mine in a second. We have been at this for the last two months. It is a work in progress. I am hopeful we will get a land in soon.

It is complex work, and it is a workforce that is having to look at changes to the way they do work, the equipment they use, the move to task mining and team-based incentives, and an incentive structure that is looking at safety and it is looking at mining to plan, and it is looking at ounces, and it is looking at the movement of rock and the processing of rock, and it has got multiple metrics about quality mining and quality as against plan. That is a significant shift from the legacy incentive scheme, which is really focused on the miner and tonnes broken. It is a very important step to us to get right, and it is a key underpin for the future of this mechanization drive. We have got work ongoing in the second half on infrastructure, upgrades to sand plant and control chutes.

We have got a lot of work around capability of our management and our supervisory tier. If I look forward and we are getting that right, and I ask, what does 2027 look like? We should be well on track with Stillwater East mine now getting fully mechanized. We will have East Boulder coming slightly behind, and that was detailed at length in the Analyst Day presentation by Matt, with readiness and set up next year, and infrastructure set up, ventilation upgrade, and the like. From the start of next year, we will implement a new performance management system, and we will focus very much on work execution. If I roll that forward and we track in according to our game plan, we should be seeing it by that point in 2028, a real step change towards the $1,000 an ounce.

We should be seeing significantly improved productivity, improved stope availability, and mechanized task mining now fully fledged. That will all be about team-based execution and associated reward. This really is about a medium-term setup for world-class ore bodies that have significant long-term optionality. We have to get this right. We have to move down the path we are on. I think there is excellent work underway. None of it is easy, but you will see from the first six months, we had outstanding safety performance. We had mining against plan while all of the change intervention was starting to land. Full credit to all the teams involved in that. If I turn to the recycling business, which is led by Richard Stewart, and Richard is here with us today. This year-to-date is really about scale, integration, and margin expansion driving really strong cash generation.

I think it is an outstanding performance by the team, and you will recall that this is a team that has just integrated two acquisitions in the last 12 months to year and a half. What you are seeing in these numbers for the first time is really the wins that are now starting to come through. So 13% adjusted EBITDA margin, $164 million adjusted EBITDA, and significantly strong cash generation that goes with that, so $103 million. That is a 63% adjusted EBITDA conversion. What sits behind that is a lot of work on finding the synergies between the PA site, the North Carolina site, and the Columbus Metallurgical Complex. The Pennsylvania site really significantly increased volumes in the first six months, 2.2 million ounces gold equivalent metal produced. North Carolina, 500,000 oz gold equivalent metal, and Montana on the auto cats, 100,000 oz gold equivalent.

Year-on-year, that is 142% increase in precious metals and coming in on a combined basis at the equivalent of 2.8 million ounces. So a really sizable business. You will see on the slide the breakdown of the different metal components. I think for the two small acquisitions we did and the quick cash conversion and the limited capital we have to spend, it is a fabulous platform that we will leverage going forward. All credit to the team on that. If I turn to Australia, the Century Zinc operation. Here again, you have seen strong cash generation, importantly in a near-end-of-life process. This is not easy to do, and Barry Harris and the team, I think, have done fabulous work here. They are really working with the last year and a bit of a plan, and that is always complex work, and you have limited flexibility.

They produced 45 kt of payable zinc production, 13% lower year-on-year. That talks both to the limitations on the plan. It also talks to a very wet, rainy season and the impacts on that, maintenance work, and a couple of other things they had to navigate. But the production was in line with guidance. The all-in sustaining cost was at the lower-end of the guidance range, $2,162 a tonne. The all-in sustaining cost, given the limited flexibility and what they had to navigate, was 23% higher year-on-year with production down year-on-year. The adjusted EBITDA, $55 million. That is 54% higher year-on-year. The average zinc concentrate price 25% higher, but it is lower treatment charges and it is really good contracting that really made the difference on that delivery.

This is about operational resilience, maximizing high zinc prices on a near end-of-life asset, and I think really good work underway. AUD 41 million national free cash flow, which is 86% higher year on year. Really strong cash conversion there as well. Lastly, if I turn to Keliber lithium project. I think as you are well aware from the Analyst Day we had, we now have mining fully underway. It was initiated in February. We are starting to get the run rates we want there. We are navigating all of the usual complexities of a startup open pit. It is about the sequencing of ore. It is about dealing with slightly higher sulfate content than we had expected in certain parts of the pit. That has impacts on how we look at our rock dump placement and our water treatment processes and the like.

We are hitting the run-rates, and I think that is all good work. We have exceeded our strategic stockpile build, so 218 kt mined, 186-kt stockpile to date, and that provides really the security for a controlled concentrator ramp-up. The concentrator commission is underway, so what the team has been working on year-to-date is really trying to get steady state volume and volume throughput to the right levels, and they are starting to hit the numbers there. Now they are swinging into looking at grade improvement and quality improvement. That is really the task in hand being worked as we speak. The capital spent to date is on plan EUR 719 million, and that is within a EUR 783 million budget. Lastly, and again, we unpacked this in detail at the Analyst Day.

We have hit our internal milestone on stage one, which is about the mining ramp-up, and we have exceeded our stockpile tonnage. That for us is success. We are now busy on the concentrator ramp-up, as I noted, and that is really about now working on grade. Then once we have got that right, looking at the potential for early sales, but we will judge that once we have got the spec where it needs to get to. Stage three is really about the refinery startup. This is a late-year decision. We are working on getting set up for that. It is really late year. It is about all of the cold commissioning taking place, and then there will be a judgment around what the market conditions are telling us about spodumene sales and about refinery startup moving to battery grade over time.

There is a market-related judgment down the track late year and also a quality assessment of the ore that we have for processing in the refinery. Really what that does is it takes you into 2027 and early next year with expected hot commissioning at the refinery and ramp-up and, again, later in the year, really looking at the decision to proceed to battery-grade product. Thank you. With that, I am going to hand off to Charl to take us through the finances.

Thanks, Charles, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. What does everything mean that Charles and Richard have explained? Let's pull it all together in the numbers. I'm really pleased to report on a very strong set of financial results, and it's not often as a CFO that you can stand up and report on a strong set of results. Today, I'm really pleased, thanks to solid operational delivery and supportive commodity prices, to report on the financial performance of the group. If we start out with the highlights, importantly, the strong operational performance was supported by favorable commodity prices. If we look at the PGM basket across South Africa and in the U.S., that was up approximately 70% year-on-year. SA Gold up 35%, and as Charles reported in Australia, the zinc price was up 25%.

Against that backdrop, we remain on target to meet our operational and financial guidance. Adjusted EBITDA came in at a margin of 35%. On an absolute basis, it was ZAR 31.8 billion, and that was up 111% year-on-year. Cash generated by the operations, Richard Cox spoke about the power of gearing. Cash generated by the operations increased by 551% to just under ZAR 21 billion, and that represents a 65% EBITDA to cash conversion. From a capital investment perspective, we spent ZAR 8.2 billion for the first six months of the year, and that was roughly split 60% on ore reserve development and sustaining capital, and the balance, 40%, on projects. If we look at the operational and financial performance, it resulted in a 216% increase in headline earnings per share.

We were up from ZAR 1.90 in the same period in 2025, up to ZAR 6.01 per share. Earnings to cash, the conversion was 45%. Importantly, in line with our strategy that was announced in January, our gross debt reduced from ZAR 39.3 billion, which is the half two reference point of 2025, to ZAR 32.1 billion at the end of half one 2026. That's already an 18% reduction in six months. On a net basis, this translated into a 0.18x gearing. For those who have followed the story, this is a significant reduction from the tough periods of low commodity prices that we have managed to weather the storm. If we move to the financial summary, I would like to highlight a few key points. Revenue increased by 64% to just under ZAR 90 billion, with almost three-quarters of that contribution coming from the South African portfolio.

Importantly, this revenue growth of 64% translated into 111% increase in adjusted EBITDA, and as I said, a 581% increase in profit. The strong financial performance also benefited the fiscus, with royalties and taxes increasing to ZAR 9 billion. That is mainly the result of high commodity prices and the higher profitability of the group. Total capital expenditure as reported came in at ZAR 8.2 billion, but that was down 14% from ZAR 9.4 billion in half one 2025. The reason for that is we've effectively completed the major capital expenditure at the Keliber project. Pleasingly, the Board declared a dividend, an interim dividend of ZAR 5.7 billion or ZAR 2.01 per share, and that is at the upper-end of our dividend policy, which just as a reminder, is between 25% and 35% of normalized earnings.

The dividend implies a yield of 8% if we look at an annualized number, and that puts us at the top-end of our peer group. If we look at a 12-month trailing yield, we still come in at 6.6%, which also places us at the top-end of the peer group. I think importantly, a big strategic lever for us has been addressing our gross debt. You can see that the debt maturity profile has improved significantly following the refinancing and the reduction of our bonds. That reduction was $250 million. We got that bond away against a tough geopolitical backdrop. I was very pleased with the internal people that worked on that, but also our advisors that managed to get us through that period of turmoil.

You can see that the maturity profile remains very manageable and liquidity is extremely strong with headroom at about ZAR 48 billion, and that's roughly equivalent to 4.5x of one month's operating and capital expenditure. Our financial policy is to always have about two months of available liquidity, so you can see that we're in a very strong position. I think the message I want to leave you with today is that overall, we remain very well-placed to achieve our strategy of reducing gross debt by 50% over a two- to three-year period. I will now hand over to Ralph to take us through the organic growth and the project portfolio. Thank you, Ralph.

Thank you, Charl, and hi, everyone. I have the pleasure to provide an update on our group projects profile. Our equivalent ounce production profile continues to provide a strong platform for future growth. While production would naturally moderate over time without further investments, which will drop to around 1.5 million ounces over 10 years, our value accretive project pipeline is positioned to support production, resilience, and improve the quality of the portfolio over the medium- and long-term. Contributions of Keliber and K4, which is in this profile, already provide an important foundation for this trajectory. As you can see, the solid portion of the graph has grown, which now includes our approved projects, which is Thembelani, Siphumelele, Western Limbs Tailings Retreatment, and now more recently, Burnstone and Mt Lyell.

It materially supports our production outlook over the next five years and also creates a solid foundation for our future projects, which is in that hashed area on top. All of those are mechanized PGM projects of relatively low capital intensity. The projects which are still in study phase will continue to be evaluated and sequenced through our disciplined capital allocation framework with a clear focus on returns, affordability, readiness, and strategic fit when ready. If we look how our projects stack up, on the left-hand side is IRR, and at the bottom is the project capital. All of you can see all of our approved projects demonstrate a robust return, and also our studies in the future, we will follow the same principle before we approve those. We have shared basically all of the approved projects, which is in execution in our Capital Markets Day.

I will spend a bit more time today on Burnstone and Mt Lyell, which has just been approved by our Board. Starting with Burnstone, as Richard already indicated, it is a shallow mine for South African gold mining standards, between 550 m and 1 km depth. Our guidance for this year is we will spend about ZAR 98 million of capital for project setup and start of recruitment. Capital guidance for the total project is around ZAR 6.2 billion, and of which ZAR 3.5 billion is for infrastructure development. Just a reminder, Burnstone will create around 2,500 jobs by the time it hits steady state. Quite a healthy net present value of ZAR 19.2 billion, an internal rate of return of 36%. At spot prices, our net present value is around ZAR 29 billion, an internal rate of return of 45%.

Looking at our build-up, our expected AISC would be around ZAR 872,000 per kilogram, and we expect to produce around 4 tonnes of gold per annum when Burnstone is in steady state. On the right-hand side, you will see our capital profile with obviously the bulk of the capital to be spent over the next couple of years. What makes Burnstone attractive? I think if we look at this, Burnstone sits with a substantial amount of infrastructure already developed. I think most important is our vertical shaft and our decline shaft in place. Over and above that, is we have our TMM fleet available, so when we start mining next year, we can start that quite quickly. We will build up to 2029 and create a stockpile for our processing facility to start in Q1 2029.

After that, we will have continuous operations steadily building up to steady state. At this stage, we are targeting 2.7 million ounces, which form part of our reserve. With successful execution of Burnstone, that will open up the additional 8.9 million ounces in future. When we talk about a 25-year life, that is the 2.7 million ounces you see here. It is also my pleasure, which we have not shared a lot of information yet in our Capital Markets Day, it is Mt Lyell. Like Burnstone, Mt Lyell also sits with a substantial amount of infrastructure. It is a copper-gold mine in Tasmania. It is around the town of Queenstown, and I just want to let you focus on that picture. So in that yellow area, so the top northeastern portion, you see Prince Lyell, Western Tharsis, Cape Horn, and Copper Chert.

Those are the ore bodies we are currently targeting as part of the Mt Lyell project. I think more important, if you look on the southwestern side is a tailing storage, fully permitted tailing storage facility. So like Burnstone, again, we sit with significant amount of infrastructure already in place and obviously reduces the capital bill, which we need to pay for Mt Lyell. Our guidance for this year, we would spend around $7.5 million for Mt Lyell, and that again will go for project setup, start of recruitment, and mobilization. Our total project capital to get to production is around $340 million. That attracts an net present value in the region of $550 million, an internal rate of return of 20%.

If we look at today's spot prices, that net present value is above $1 billion and a net present value of the region of 28%. Mt Lyell will also contribute about 300 jobs when it is in steady state. If we look at Mt Lyell, I think this is quite a nice picture. You can see the old vertical shaft and waste room there in the center, and you will see some disturbed ground right next to it. That is where our future processing facility will be. We will start with the decline operations, and then in about three years' time, we will bring in the vertical shaft, which then will allow wasting to a concentrator, which will be right next to that. We see that wasting area.

We spent a lot of time over the last three years to do the feasibility, and a lot of it was focused to engineer out the safety-related issues, which was identified with the previous owner when that mine was stopped in 2014. I think very important is I showed you those four different ore bodies. Instead of focusing just on Prince Lyell, ultimately we will also have Western Tharsis and the other two. That allows us to create multiple attacking points, still relatively shallow before going deeper. Life of Mt Lyell is around 23 years. Another important point is, so what liabilities will we carry? Sibanye-Stillwater will manage all obligations arising post-1999. Anything prior to that will be carried by the Tasmanian Government. We also at this stage, our footprint is basically all undisturbed areas for Mt Lyell, and we will maintain it like that.

If we look at the production profile, we expect around 26,000 kt of copper, which will come out of that. In addition, around 16,000 oz of gold and another about 116,000 oz of silver, which will come out when this mine is in steady state production. All-in sustaining cost is expected around $2.56 per pound. Like Burnstone, obviously initial capital will carry the largest bill. After that, we should stabilize in terms of capital expenditure. As already mentioned, Mt Lyell sits with substantial infrastructure. Our decline is already connected to where the mining workings will happen. We sit with the ventilation infrastructure, we sit with the water pumping infrastructure, which is important in this part of Tasmania, which has the highest rainfall. Established materials handling and logistics areas. Our biggest focus is to get the concentrate built so that we can start to produce some product.

78.8 million tonnes of resource and 54.6 million tonnes of reserve. That excludes work we are doing currently at this stage on future exploration. What is also important for Tasmania, it will be a relatively clean mine, so we will use renewable hydropower. As already discussed, we will stick into our disturbed ground area and also it will allow us to actually contribute to the future environmental cleanup for Burnstone. Apologies, Mt Lyell. In closing, Burnstone and Mt Lyell demonstrates the strength, depth, and quality of our project pipeline, as well as the disciplined approach we are taking to capital allocation. Thanks. With that, I hand over to you, Richard.

Awesome. Thank you very much, Ralph. Just into the last section of the day. Thank you very much. I've got the pleasure today of wrapping up, just talking a little bit about sustainability. I do this on behalf of Melanie, who is our Chief Sustainability Officer. Unfortunately, couldn't be with us today in person, but will be online. I dare say as soon as we mention the word sustainability, we all think soft ESG. In fact, that's something you don't talk about in parts of the world anymore. I hope I'm going to show you that actually sustainability for us is very hard. It, in fact, is what I would argue Sibanye has been built on. We started a company with five gold assets that were supposed to close in six years.

14 years later, they've produced their best ever cash profit that we have seen out of those businesses. We started our PGM business with mines that were due to close and retrench 12,500 people. Today, we're investing in three projects that will extend those for another few decades. I dare say it's the same approach we're taking to our U.S. operations. Been asked on many occasions, why are these operations still going? It's because we can see a different way of achieving value out of a world-class ore body for decades to come. That's who we are as a business. That's sustainability. To be sustainable, we look at it in three aspects, business resilience, and I dare say that's what you've been hearing about today. Where are our margins? What does our balance sheet look like? How are we operating on a day-to-day basis?

Portfolio resilience, what are we investing in? What is the business going to look like going forward? How are we optimizing our returns on capital employed? Again, I dare say I think you've heard about some of that today, as well as how we're optimizing our resource extraction at places like Stillwater. The third aspect is value creation that we call people, planet, and prosperity. All of that comes together in the ethos of our tree. This is not soft. Let's go on to what this means from a hard business perspective. In January, we shared with you how we were thinking about capital allocation. We said we've got a capital allocation model that first looks after the resilience of the business. That's the part on the top, sustaining our ore reserves and making sure the business has sufficient liquidity.

What's left over, we'd put into three buckets, shareholder returns, debt reduction with a target of 50% reduction in gross debt, and then life extension or growth, where we were focusing on organic growth. At the first milestone, our first half years, how have we done against that? Well, I think as Charl shared, very pleasing the numbers that we've produced, which has allowed us to progress the strategy a lot quicker than I think any of us thought we would. We are tracking the promises we made. Dividend at the upper end of the dividend policy that we have comes in at roughly 30% of the cash that we had after operations. We've paid just over 36% towards reducing our gross debt and made a substantial dent in our gross debt, enhancing the resilience of the business.

Investing in our own projects, that is lagging a little bit. That of course has to do with the timing of the projects. This is why we remain confident that the projects we have announced today we can comfortably fund over the next few years. With projects like that, there are always opportunities to look at some neat funding solutions, at streaming options, at various off-take options. These, of course, will be things we will explore. Again, is there risk mitigation there? Even without any of those, we are comfortable that we have the ability to fund the future growth of the company. I think when we look at the environmental side, two points I would really like to just discuss today. Energy, of course, a key aspect across the world and South Africa as well.

Today, we do have the biggest portfolio of renewable energies of most private companies in the country, but certainly of any mining company. We have over 165 MW currently producing today. We see that going up to over 835 MW by 2028. So what is that in numbers for the business? It is more than ZAR 1 billion of saving in energy costs for us by 2028. It is a huge impact in terms of carbon taxes. These are real numbers on the bottom-line, and ultimately, 50% of our power supply will be within our control. For anybody who was trying to survive as a high energy user five years ago, trying to survive in South Africa, this is a significant relief for us as a business and I dare say relief for the country in terms of where excess generation can go.

The next one I just want to touch on is water. I dare say again, as a country, it is probably the thing being discussed most I hear today. Wherever I hear crisis, water is on the list. There are lots of people discussing the water crisis. I am not sure how many of us are actually doing much about it. The country needs to be aware we have a crisis coming and I dare say El Niño is just going to shine a big spotlight on that. From our perspective at the moment, we are lucky in that we have our gold operations, which are very water positive. Today, our gold operations are 90% independent, water independent, 95%, in fact, at gold. Our PGM operations today that are in a water scarce environment are already 42% water independent with a very clear plan to get to 90% by 2028.

This is going to be hugely important for mining companies going forward to be water independent. This is business resilience. I think on the social side, again, not going to go into huge detail today. We discussed this a lot, but the point I just wanted to leave us with today is we hear about social with SLPs. There is a lot more that many mining companies are doing, and we really need to be sharing our story better. From a Sibanye perspective, we have our foundation. Of all the dividends we pay, 1.5% goes into our foundation. We have invested hundreds of millions within our communities, largely infrastructure. We have our own community trusts, where during times like this, our communities benefit significantly, as do other stakeholders from what we make.

And of course, multiple CSI funds, most of which go towards developing economies beyond our mining entrepreneurs and supply chain development. What does this practically mean? Well, to give you one example, I was very fortunate, I think privileged, to spend a day two weeks ago with the families of the survivors of the tragedy of the Marikana event in August 2012. What a day where you sit and on the one hand, there's loss and grieving for what happened 12 years ago. But on the other hand, some of the good that has come out of that, one of which was we celebrated five new graduates that came out of our 1608 Memorial Trust. Out of a trust fund where 138 beneficiaries have gone through school, many of whom have gone through tertiary education.

Today we have 29 graduates, doctors, lawyers, farmers, geologists, 13 of whom are employed at Sibanye-Stillwater. This is what we can do when we acknowledge our past, when we work together for a new future. This is sustainability. When we hear about EMPs, when we hear about IRMA, et cetera, that's compliance. This is sustainability. This is the purpose of our company. Just in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, very briefly, I think in terms of the guidance for the year, it remains largely unchanged. We have made one update to the gold operating unit cost. I think as you heard from Richard, we have had a few real drivers on that cost, much of which has been almost investment into sustaining that business for a few years longer.

But we have slightly increased that guidance, and the only other two small changes is included roughly ZAR 100 million for each of Burnstone and Mt Lyell for the second half of this year as we kick those projects off. In conclusion, I think just going back to my first slide, we set out a strategy at the beginning of the year. I think we were very clear in terms of how we were looking at capital. That was about both creating value for our shareholders, improving our business resilience and investing in our future. I dare say the environment that we've had over the last six months, and once again, I think full credit to our teams for their delivery. We've been able to really fast track this and fundamentally strengthen the business significantly from where we were just 12 and 6 months ago.

I think we've demonstrated the portfolio that we have. Our Capital Markets Day took you through the details, and I said it there and I'll say it again, I still firmly believe we have the best PGM portfolio in the industry and one I wouldn't swap. The flexibility, the opportunity to develop that in multiple phases gives us huge optionality to the PGM markets going forward. And I dare say you've now seen us committing to investing in those as well as our Burnstone and Mt Lyell operations. And ultimately, we've been able to create the shared value that is why we are here as a business, both in terms of our dividends today as well as investing into our communities around us. Going forward. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

I think with that, we will happy to take any questions, Enrique, I guess from the floor first and then online. Over to you. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you very much, Richard and the other presenters. Any questions from the room? Thank you, Arnold. Charles is on his way to you.

Yes, good afternoon. It is Arnold van Graan from Nedbank. Three questions if I may. Richard, the first one is for you. When you took over this role, it is a few months ago or a year ago, you obviously would have had clear plans of where you wanted to be here today at 1H. You have given a lot of detail around that progress. I guess in your own words, where do you think you are ahead, where are you on plan, and where are you behind? That is the first one for you. One for Charles on Stillwater. You are looking at the incentive plan going through that. So two questions. The one is, how confident are you that you would get that through?

Secondly, I think more importantly from my perspective, how confident are you that that would actually drive the productivity and cost numbers to get it sustainable? Because we see these incentives constantly changing and that is the nature of mining. How do you know, or can you give us some comfort that this is actually what you need to make that work? Then a short one for Charl and very important one. When are you going to get to Section 45X cash in the bank? I am assuming that will help bring down that cash balance that you are pushing down, which well done, by the way. That is it from me. Thanks.

Arnold, thanks very much. Good afternoon. Let me take your first one. I think where we are ahead without a doubt overall has been the cash generation. I think, of course, we've had very supportive markets. Overall, what that's impacted positively is the balance sheet. I think we set ourselves a goal of getting that debt down by 50%, the gross debt, that remains the goal. We thought two to three years to really get there. In the current market, that could be quicker. That would certainly be, I think, the areas where we're most ahead. I think where we are tracking well is in terms of our plan on optimizing margins. This has been around business excellence, around operational performance. I think overall across the business, we're seeing a lot of stability coming in.

We're hitting the numbers we want, and of course, once you get stability, you can really start driving those margins. I'd say that's where we're on track. The areas that I think take longer than I originally anticipated to be honest, I think is essentially changing the efficiency and the operating model of the business. This is something we've got a big business at, something we've got to do cautiously. Ultimately, it's about being far more efficient, the systems that we put in place to be sustainable. We are a company that's grown from the acquisition and amalgamation of four, five, six different companies. Getting that standardized across the business is something you need to do carefully in order to not disrupt the business. I think we are making the progress we want.

The other one we haven't touched on today, but I should mention, is simplification of the portfolio. I think the reason is difficult to discuss that in an event like this until there's a decision made on something, we can obviously announce that and share it. We are getting quite close on a few, and I think the team has done great work in how we can simplify and realize value for some parts of the portfolio that are non-core, but certainly look forward to sharing more of that with you as and when we can when there are hard numbers. Thank you. Charles, do you want to-

Yeah, sure. Is my mic on? Yeah.

Yep.

Arnold, I think the key thing to understand is this is an integrated approach with multiple components at work at once, and I will quickly sketch them and go to your question. Interestingly, your observation that incentive schemes come and go, what we find at Stillwater is a legacy scheme that has been there for 20 years. It is focused on miners, and as you are probably familiar with that technology in narrow seams, it is two miners to a stope. They do everything from drill, blast, muck, and haul, and they are heavily incentivized on volumetric numbers. It is not about the quality of the break, it is not about the cycle time of blasting, it is about the volume. That is an agreement that has been laid up through negotiation over 20 years. We are busy changing that, which is complex work, not easy or quick work.

I think importantly, when you look at our miners in that mode of activity and incentive, they are exceptional miners. They are high capable individuals that are incredibly well-trained, and they have done this their whole life. From their perspective, why change anything, right? That is the fundamental issue you have to navigate in a negotiation. They are working to plan and slightly ahead of plan, as we have shown. But that plan is producing, as you know well, without 45X credits at in and around $1,500 a troy ounce. That is when they go in full bore, right? That is the best we can do. You have to fundamentally change a number of things to move that dial towards $1,000. One is to really look at your planning and have a very integrated planning approach.

But it goes, and you would have seen this in the Analyst Day, really the stope configuration. You have got a vertical ore body. You have got different dips between Stillwater and East Boulder. Stillwater allows us to use slightly bigger equipment on bolting, mechanized bolting, which is bespoke to us as well with Komatsu. East Boulder has a different dip, so you have to use smaller equipment, otherwise you get sizable dilution. In both setups now, you are going to get dilution, but you are going to get very much enhanced productivity and cycle time. So your ounce return is significant. But what underpins that is task mining, so not two miners doing everything and getting highly rewarded for that. It is an integrated approach between the planners, the drill and blast, the mucking, the haul, all the way through to the plant. Right?

That full team incentivized approach is new for that operation. It is not new anywhere else in the world. It is not even new in the U.S. and Nevada, for example, but it is very new to that operation. So you still want to favor the miners because that is where your core skill sets are. That is where the history is. But you want a fully incentivized team. And then with that, we are not just changing mechanized bolters. We are going from two-yard to four-yard muckers. We have got a number of equipment shifts which all enable much higher productivity. So we are confident on our plan to get towards $1,000 over a two-to-three-year step change program. It is being introduced incrementally between the two sites. There is a lot of training that goes with it.

The fundamental first cab off the ramp now that we've done the trial mining, which we did collaboratively with miners, and we've done the work management, is both to land the incentive scheme in the agreement. Once it's there, we can work with that going forward. I sketch that it has multiple components, not just volume and break. That, to be blunt, the miners don't like because they're doing very well with how they do things right now. There's a lot of convincing to do. But ultimately, without that anchor incentive done in a structurally different way, without the enabling equipment, without the changes to work management, without upskilling our supervisors, you don't get towards $1,000. You have only incremental gains on the current mine plan. This, for these operations, is make or break for the future. But it's not a one-hit wonder. It's not a silver bullet.

It's an integrated program that gets layered in over several years of change management, and we have to take our workforce with us. And right now, to be blunt, they don't like change. So a lot of work going into that. I have a very high regard for the United Steelworkers as a union in the U.S.. I've spent quite a bit of time with their national leadership, giving them the why, giving them the how, appealing to them to back us to make the change. I think at a national executive level, they get it. I think we still have work to do with our workforce. These are two different contracts still in negotiation. We can have bumps in the road. I don't doubt this for a minute.

But the direction of travel, where we have to get to and how quickly we have to get there, either makes this 40-year options on these ore bodies or four years, because we're not going to vote sizable capital if we can't make these changes. And you've got capital down the road on tailings expansion, rock dumps, and so on. And in the U.S., that's expensive spend. So we've got to get this right. We've got to take our workforce with us. I think there's a core that gets it. They are totally up for this. Any one of those miners who's worked in Nevada and elsewhere, this is well known to them. But it's a change from a way of doing things, and that way was not broken. It's a proud way of doing things in Montana.

But you don't get towards $1,000 without the systemic integration of multiple pieces now shifting. So does this keep me awake at night right now? Absolutely. But the roadmap is clear. The plan is really good. The leadership team is fully on it. Now it's about change management and getting people to go with it, and we've put a lot of change on the table in the negotiations, so it's not an easy one. The legacy negotiations have always been incremental additive items to a legacy agreement, and we're changing that whole model. So not easy, but work in progress.

Thanks, Charles. Is my mic on? In terms of 45X, about 10 days ago, we had our first interaction with the IRS. It was a team of five, of which two were engineers. They confirmed that they are looking at the 2023 tax return, which is the first year of the 45X credit. That it was more a process kickoff, but the two engineers on the call already started asking some questions around process, our relationship with our refiner. They also asked if they can do a site visit. Arnold, I do not have a timeline. I mean, no timeline was agreed at that meeting. I think it is safe to say that it is now in process. We will update you as and when we get more information.

We have also asked the team to look at are there other companies that have received the 45X, and there are. Through the direct pay method, we know of a company called Corning that has already received $83 million back in the direct pay method. I think it is just a process issue now, but unfortunately, there is no specific timeline.

Okay, gentlemen, thank you very much for the comprehensive answers. Appreciate it.

Thanks.

Yeah, no problem.

Thanks very much. It's Brian Morgan, RMB Morgan Stanley. Just a couple of questions. Should I just do them all in one go? Cool. Charles, Stillwater West, it's now out of the five-year plan. Is it out even if we get to $1,000 in the next two to three years? Is that the right way to read it? Maybe another question is, since we last spoke in April, how have you seen the spent catalyst feedstocks into recycling business? How does that move? Have you seen any improvements in that regard? Charles, maybe a question for you just on that specifically is the advances now ZAR 7.5 billion, ZAR 7.4 billion of advances coming out of that now. It's quite a big number. How should we be thinking about the accounting of that? Because it's a lot of cash. Just some thoughts around that one.

I had a fourth one and I've forgotten what it was. I'll just leave it to that, if you don't mind.

Great. Richard, do you want to pick up the recycling one there, if that's okay?

Howzit, Brian. Good to see you. From an autocat recycling perspective, I don't think we've seen much incremental move or the market size getting bigger. It's really just been moving pieces of the puzzle left and right. There has been some slight incremental move in the market in terms of the pricing, but nothing that's going to significantly move the needle.

On Stillwater West, the track we're pursuing is we've got to get towards the$1,000 at Stillwater East before we go anywhere near Stillwater West. It's going to take us two to three years to really show that we are hitting bullseye on that objective. Once we know we can do it, and we can do it well, then we will have a run at looking at Stillwater West. But we'll look at it in the way you look at a new project. Although we've got a lot of fixed infrastructure, we've got multiple different setups for mining. You want to know that you can go back there with a fundamentally different productivity structure and a different cost structure.

You've got to look very carefully at how you sequence that on that legacy set of operations because it requires infrastructural upgrades and it can be very expensive if you do it wrong. I don't see it as a full mine standing up immediately. I see it as probably incremental. I see the planning phase getting stood up once we know we're well on track elsewhere. That takes you year two into year three. Then it'll be going back to the capital allocation discussion. It'll be stacked in a rank of multiple cabs in the company looking to get capital, and only the fittest will survive. It's in the frame, but it's not near-term, and you don't want it to go away. But you don't rush back there because then your whole cost structure changes, your CapEx changes, and you're back treading water.

The whole objective to $1,000 is long-term palladium pricing is around $1,100. That might improve. There's no radically bullish case on palladium long term. It might be a conservative case we're dealing with, but you've got to manage to $1,100 and show a margin on that. That's how we think about it. You don't chase volume for volume's sake because on the mechanization plan, we can unlock real cash flow. We step up ounces incrementally year by year, but we get very good returns once we get those productivities up, and that's the objective.

Thanks, Brian. As you say, it is a big number. I think importantly is that, and you would know that number moves up and down as commodity prices moves up and down. I think, well, I know that the team has done some really good work around that. So there's no risk in it for us because we either lock in the price. First of all, we deal with reputable collectors and the team has a very good handle on that. Then I think from a pricing movement perspective, that risk is ameliorated through either locking it in through hedges or more recently we've put that metal consignment line in place. That will continue to show up as working capital. There's unfortunately nothing we can do. That's the nature of that business.

I guess with a 14% margin and the manner in which we turn that working capital, it remains a very, very good business for us.

The 45X accounting. You were asking on the 45X accounting?

No.

No.

That was Arnold.

Sorry, just one more question if I may, actually, Richard. Just on Mt Lyell to you. You are talking about simplification. Everybody is clamoring for projects at $6 copper. It is not big. You got a lot of other stuff to do in your portfolio. Is this a core asset, really?

Yeah.

Let me expand. Brian, thanks for the question because that is a good one. I think the way we look at it is where can we create value? That is the critical question. Exactly as you say, would we be copper miners competing in bulk mining in Argentina? No, that is not our business. I do not think we can add any value there. An underground mining operation in Tasmania right now, that is exactly where our sweet spot is. That is what we understand. I think a couple of points to it. If we just look at Mt Lyell alone, the numbers you have seen, the valuations that we have done it on, the decision we have made it on is, of course, on the resource we know now.

I have got to say, when you go and look at an asset like that, I used to have a professor who said to me, when you are looking for exploration, you look for juicy plumbing systems. This is juicy. The opportunity to expand that resource and make that into a much bigger project is significant. That really is very interesting country. In terms of a project like that today, I guess the question we ask ourselves is, we did look at alternatives. Could we have sold it? Could we have brought in a partner? Could we have done some sort of fancy offtake financing? The answer to all of that is yes, absolutely we could in this market. When you look at the value that we could generate from that asset by building it ourselves, it is significantly higher.

If you flip that and said, if we had an opportunity to acquire an asset like that in a jurisdiction where we've got a well-established team on a mine that we understand, that is our bread-and-butter underground mining, would we have moved on it? The answer is yes, we probably would have. Here we have it within our portfolio ready to go. Absolutely it is. I do think the one thing that we will still look at carefully with Mt Lyell, as you saw, it's got some interesting byproducts on gold and silver. Of course, copper there has a lot of interest in terms of offtake. Could there be ways to help finance this in a smart method with some of those byproducts? That's certainly something we will continue to explore in a bit more detail. For now, absolutely happy with it.

It could be a real value addition to the company.

Thank you. We have no further questions from the room. We've got a question from Nkateko from Investec. Please comment on cost in SA Gold, excluding DRD. All is sustaining cost now at about $3,500 an ounce. Is this the new cost base for these operations before Burnstone?

Thanks for that question. Including DRD, we're at ZAR 1.6 million a kilo. Excluding DRD, we're at ZAR 1.8 million a kilo. DRD is doing ZAR 1 million a kilo. That does trajectory tell us where we also want to follow in terms of the surface business. What is the future cost of the SA business? I think what's the trajectory? When we look at the mix, it's also quite difficult to aggregate. Take, for example, our most expensive business. That's Kloof. Kloof is 15% of gold production. Currently, Kloof is producing at 2.4 grams per tonne. Can we keep it at 2.4 grams per tonne? If we think we can keep it at 2.4 grams per tonne, there's a business for the next three years. If Kloof's with us, it's going to increase cost. Our best business is Driefontein, ZAR 1.6 million a kilo. That's 50% of the production.

But what we see at Driefontein, of the working cost, 25% of the working cost is electricity, and electricity did go up by 13% with the regulator. Driefontein does pump a lot of water, so it's a big question, what's happening with the Driefontein water? Is it stagnant? Is it increasing? I think in the Wits basin, we are seeing water increase annually. I do think in Driefontein, if they manage their production, which they are, we might see a slight uptick in cost, but that will obviously anchor the cost towards the lower level. Beatrix, ZAR 1.8 million a kilogram at the moment. It's not really a cost issue as much as a production issue. We are chopping through some difficulty extending life of mine below deepest level, but I think we'll be learning there and we will get better.

So managing the cost into the future, what have we signaled? We've signaled costs for gold the back-end of this year within the range of ZAR 1.75-ZAR 1.84. I think that does take into account some of the significant infrastructure spends at the moment. Will that continue into the future? Likely not. We are responding to some of the infrastructure vulnerabilities. 10% of our business is surface, and Cooke at the moment is producing at ZAR 1.9 million a kilo. We see opportunity to grow that. But within those numbers is quite a big maintenance spend to prep that business for the long term. Cooke on the third-party, three years ago, there wasn't a lot of near surface half a gram a ton material around, and it certainly wouldn't have sustained ZAR 1.9 million a kilo.

But at a ZAR 2.4 million a kilo price environment, there's a lot of these resources around, and we are investing in that business. It's quite significant. In the first half, we put ZAR 50 million into Cooke because we see an opportunity for the long run. So it's quite a difficult one to pitch what happens long-term. There is a lot of infrastructure spend. I think that'll go away. I do think the cost pressure that we are signaling ZAR 1.75-ZAR 1.84 has got a lot of investment in there. A lot of our businesses are like Kloof, for example. It's got a one-year life. A lot of that capital is expensed. That's in the number. You all of a sudden have a longer life. Assets no longer impaired, that drops out of that number.

I do think it's a good number for the near-term. But as we see future potential of our Driefontein operation and the surface operations, I do think that cost inflation on that number certainly will come down. Rich, I'll leave it there.

Thanks.

Thank you very much, Rich. We also have profiles from our SA Capital Market day that one can have a look at looking into the future for costs. The next one, also from Nkateko, you are lagging your peers on dividend payouts. At what point do you think you will consider adjusting dividends higher to align with peers?

Thanks, Nkateko. Listen, I think firstly just, our dividend payout is obviously at 25%-35% of normalized earnings. I think if I compare that to peers, most are between 30% and 40%. So we're possibly slightly lower on that front. But listen, I think we've been clearing our capital allocation model. So in that model at the moment, we're looking at that roughly third, third model. That is until such time as we can get our gross debt down by at least 50%. Until then, I don't materially see that model changing. I think it is about resilience of the business. Commodity prices have been high, but we're also living in very volatile times. Volatility we know often precede shock. So listen, we are certainly getting ourselves resilient for what may come.

Once that is down, that would be a logical point to revisit the capital allocation model, and that would be a discussion with the Board. As it stands at the moment, I think we're sticking to what we said, in terms of consistent dividend payouts, in terms of reducing our debt and investing in our business for the future.

Thank you. From Enoch, from Shanghai Metals Market also asked, what were the average PGM prices during the period? Did you produce osmium? How much mechanization are you doing in Southern Africa?

I think there's some quick answers to that one. We don't produce any osmium. No, we do not extract that. The average metal prices, I'm sure were in the booklet. I'm not sure if anybody's got them on hand. I think it was around ZAR 40-

Yes.

It was just under ZAR 44,000 per 4E ounces.

ZAR 44,000 per 4E ounces in South Africa. In terms of mechanization, I think, Rich, do you want to-

Yeah. Of the 776,000 oz we did, conventional is about 60%, trackless about 30%. Our surface contributes 5% and purchase of concentrate about 5%. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you. Xing Liwei from Dow Jones asked how much chrome was produced in H1 and that compared to the previous year. I do not know if Rich.

Yeah, thank you very much for that question. Chrome was lower. Last year we produced about 1,160,000 tons and this year 950,000 tons for the same period. Quite a significant 210,000 tons lower, so 18% year-on-year. A big chunk of that, or 175,000 tons was because we closed the BTT concentrator and that is because as we planned, the resource feeding the BTT concentrator completed and that contract completed. The balance is when we closed the BTT concentrator because the tailings facility closed, it has a neighboring tailings facility, and that neighboring tailings facility is a younger tailings facility, so less chrome in the mix. Still profitable and that was fed through remainder concentrators that also lowered the chrome output.

We see going forward with the agreement we have with Glencore, the technology we are implementing, the workarounds on the Rowland chrome, we will get back to better numbers in the back end of this half and then into next year.

Thank you. Nkateko asked, please comment on the integrity of the infrastructure at Mt Lyell and any potential risks.

I will take it.

Thank you.

Nkateko, thank you. I will start this. We are extremely fortunate that we had a care and maintenance team at Mt Lyell since the mine closed in 2014. The decline is in extremely good shape and that also allows us to have a relatively quick ramp up. Part of our feasibility study, which we started already in 2023, was looking at the rest of the infrastructure and anything which we are not deemed fit will be rebuilt and that is part of the capital expenditure you see. For example, the concentrator is totally new. Then you also see that post-capital implementation, we also will do shaft refurbishment of the vertical shaft, and we allowed around $74 million for that. I think importantly is we want to start mining, we want to get going. That infrastructure is in quite a good shape.

Thanks to that care and maintenance team. Thank you.

Thank you, Ralph. Steve Shepherd says congratulations on the operating and financial results. Also commenting that Stillwater has been problematic. Apart from a few years, it has been either loss-making or marginal. On this basis, is the risk management time and effort really worth it? Is it core to Sibanye, the Sibanye assets? Is the question he is asking. Thank you.

Let me take that, Steve. Thank you and good afternoon. Yes, listen, I think it is, and I guess that is almost the point that I was trying to make by saying we are looking at this asset differently. Yes, you are exactly right. Listen, Stillwater historically has done exceptionally well in high-price environments. It did for us. It paid itself back. But in low-price environments, it struggled. And that is a little bit ironical given that it is by far the highest grade PGM deposit in the world by 5x. But it is due to the higher costs in mining in the U.S.. That is simply the maths around it. I think the critical aspect is if you are going to be in the PGM industry, you have to recognize that all PGMs come from three areas at the moment, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Russia, and Stillwater.

Having that flexibility of an operation that sits in a geographically different area, I still think is critically important and very strategic. Now, does that mean we will continue to try and make an operation work at a loss-making level forever? No. Of course, there is a limit and there is a line that has to be drawn, and I dare say if we listen to Charles, that is part of the line we are drawing with stakeholders. We have a plan. We know how to get there. If that plan does not deliver, then at a point, we have got to call it. But we do have a plan that we think will deliver at $1,000, and I think we have a real responsibility to try and make it get there. If we cannot, there will be a point to call it.

If we can get there, that is absolutely one of the best PGM deposits in the world with still 40-60 years' worth, 40-100 years' worth of mining if you look at the whole ore body, and I think we have a responsibility to try and make it work. Listen, Steve, I think it does remain core to the portfolio as long as we're in the PGM business, which we certainly plan to be for the foreseeable future. Thanks, Steve.

Thank you very much. Shashi Shekhar of Citi asks, could you please elaborate more on the increase in trade and other payables of ZAR 9.2 billion that impacted your free cash flow, and will it reverse in future?

Yeah. I think importantly, the ZAR 9.2 billion was a release of working capital, so that was a positive impact on the free cash flow. In terms of the overall level of trade and other payables, it's a number that goes up as commodity prices go up. If you look at the same period for the previous year, there's one thing to mention is that we included the North Carolina site from about September last year which brings across its own trade and other payables. That would not have been in the same period in 2025. Then, as I said, as prices move up, these numbers also move up because of the way that we lock in the prices.

Your question on whether it will reverse, if prices do come down, which is not a positive for us, you will see a release after a period of time. If you ask me, I hope this number grows which does then suggest that we get higher commodity prices. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you. There was a second question on dividends, but it was similar, so already answered. Thanks, Shashi. If we do not have any hands in the room, I think there is a caller on the line. Operator Judith, if we can queue that. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Ephrem Ravi of Citigroup. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question. I think there is a bit of an echo here, but I will push through nonetheless. Firstly, on Century, you are clearly reaching the end-of-the-life of tailings. From memory, there is a silver deposit nearby, given where silver prices are and your balance sheet now having pretty much peak yeared. Are you putting that project into the pipeline? Would that be a consideration at all going forward and diversifying your metal suite in precious from gold and PGMs into silver as well? The next question was on Keliber. Obviously, there is also the gating of the lithium hydroxide project from spodumene to a technical grade to battery grade. Is prices a factor at all that you are considering, or is it more customer availability and long-term contracts that are driving that decision? Thank you.

Let me give that a try. I just want to make sure I got you correctly on the first question, Ephrem. Was that with regards to the PhosOne project or?

Yes.

Perfect. Ephrem, no. Listen, I think we have been quite clear that phosphate at the moment would not be part of our strategy. That does not fit in with what we are looking at. As you quite rightly mentioned, at the moment, Century has about 12 to 18 months' worth of mining left. There again, we are in quite advanced discussions with our partner in that regard as to how that infrastructure could best be used towards developing that phosphate project. But it is not a project that we would be looking to put any capital into. From our side, that is how best we could realize any value from the existing infrastructure we have. That is one of those examples I referred to regarding progress on simplifying our portfolio. But no, that would not be one that we would be looking into going forward.

I think with regards to the Keliber question, let me give that a first crack, but please, Ralph or Charles, feel free to add. I think at the moment or the decision regarding turning on the refinery really hinges around three big things. Today we are commissioning the concentrator. As Charles mentioned, we have commissioned the throughput portion of that. We are now looking at how we can optimize the grade. Once we have that up and running and grade being at the right levels, then we can contemplate. That is one of the first parts to turning on the refinery. The second part to turning it on will be what commodity markets are doing, what lithium markets are doing.

The reason why that is important to us is if you do get a collapse in lithium prices and essentially if China wanted to manipulate prices by bringing a lot of supply online, you can put a mine and a concentrator on care and maintenance quite safely and at a relatively acceptable cost. You do not want to put a refinery onto care and maintenance. Those are big chemistry sets. Once we turn that on, that is one you want to run consistently for an extended period of time. So we will assess the market and assess the concentrate. If we do not turn on the refinery, then we have the option of selling the spodumene concentrate. I hope that that addressed the question. Thanks, Ephrem.

I think that concludes it if you want to just thank.

Wonderful. Awesome. Thank you very much, everybody, again, for joining us today. I think a pleasure to have you all here today. We look forward to seeing you soon. Please enjoy the rest of the afternoon. Thank you very much.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome. I think it's a real pleasure to have you with us today as we present our operating and financial results for 2025. So thank you very much for joining us today. I think just in terms of the agenda that we've got, I will start off with a few high-level of salient points. Then we'll move into the Performance Excellence, which will be presented by a number of the team. We'll then move into growth and just touch briefly on the resources, the mineral resources and reserves that we've recently published. Charl will take us through the financial performance and Ken to touch on how we're interpreting these very volatile markets we're seeing and a little bit of the outlook in that regard before I wrap up with the way forward. I think there are several forward-looking statements in the document. So would urge you please to just take note of the safe harbor statement. Thank you. I think when we reflect on December 1, 2025, I think certainly during the latter half of the year, it was at a time of significant change at Sibanye, we, of course, have the leadership transition. And with that, we also undertook a refresh of our strategy. This was something that we presented to the market at the end of January. But for anybody who was not able to make that, if I could try and summarize our strategic refresh in one word, it would be simplification. Specifically, what we're really focusing on in the short term is around maximizing and driving our operating margins. We're doing that through a keen focus on operational excellence and simplifying the operating model that we have and then further simplification through our portfolio such that we're focusing on the highest return assets, of course, cash generative assets and ensuring an appropriate management focus in that regard. This is all coupled with a very disciplined capital allocation framework which we shared as being roughly 1/3 towards shareholder returns, 1/3 towards reducing our gross debt and 1/3 towards growth. And again, Charl will unpack that in a little bit more detail. And in terms of growth, we certainly see the best value at the moment for us in terms of returns as being internal in terms of the resource value that we have. We have a significant resource base, particularly in South Africa, our PGM operations and organic growth will be our immediate focus. But we did also share a value creation framework that we have put together that will help us assess any external growth opportunities moving forward. In addition to the strategic refresh, I think there were some quite key decisions that we needed to make towards the end of last year, especially amongst several of our operations. One of the big ones was the start-up of the Keliber lithium project in Finland. That is a greenfield project that we have built and given the volatility in the lithium market, we had to make a decision how best to proceed with that project. And I think very pleasingly, towards the end of last year, together with our partners, Finnish Minerals Group came to a way forward, which really considers a staged ramp-up of the Keliber project. And we'll share a bit more of those details with you in the presentation, but it really is an approach that mitigates some of the risk of the market while allowing us a lot of strategic optionality around the project. And we will unpack that for you in the coming slides. The second big decision we had to make was around Kloof. We did share with the market that early on in the year, due to increased risk of seismicity have what we deem to be an unacceptable safety risk, we ceased mining of quite a few of the deeper level areas at Kloof. And this had a material impact not only on the output from the Kloof operations but also the future of that operation. Towards the end of last year, we did make a decision that Kloof would continue to operate on a year-by-year basis, assessing the profitability each year as we proceed. So very dependent on sustained higher gold prices. And then there were several priority projects that we have been evaluating during the year, and we're making -- we'll be making financial investment decisions on -- during the course of this year. There was also some overhangs from previous or legacy issues. We had to address the Appian court case. We came to a settlement there in November, ultimately a settlement payment of $215 million. And then we also had the South African gold wage negotiations that had been continuing from about the middle of the year I think credit to the team, we successfully settled that also towards the end of the year. And again, credit to all stakeholders, I think a very good outcome considering the environment we're currently operating in. But I share this because I guess it was a rather busy, a transformational and actually quite a noisy second half of the year with lots of decisions being made in terms of how we will continue going forward. And that has also reflected in our finances, which are complex. And again, I do say, a lot of noise. But hopefully, certainly the way I feel, and hopefully, you can see that what this has done is simplified our operations going forward. It's already simplified where our focus needs to be and I think it's set up a solid operational base, which we have launched into 2026. And then I look forward to that simplification also starting to feature in the financial numbers but as you ultimately simplify the total portfolio. I think looking at our operational output, safety and I'll unpack safety in a bit more detail in the coming slide, but very pleased with the continuous improvements that we've seen in many of our indicators both lagging and leading indicators. We have seen some of our best numbers ever, which is pleasing in terms of the progress that we've made over the years, but our focus on eliminating fatals remains our absolute priority as a company. I think I have to give full credit to many of our operational teams. As I said, this was a busy period it was a very volatile period in the markets. And yet our operational teams delivered solidly across most of our business. All of our operations came in largely within guidance, recognizing we did have to revise guidance at the gold operations because of the Kloof decision I mentioned earlier. But coming within guidance or better than guidance across the board was very pleasing and full credit to our teams in that regard. We also made some great strides on our sustainability strategy across many aspects, including water, including the social investments in South Africa. But one that really is a bit of a standout is our positioning with regards to our renewable energy where I think we really are now positioned as a leader in renewable energy in South African mining. And certainly, that is not only going to have a material impact on our carbon footprint going forward and our ability to provide responsible metals but also significant commercial benefit. Just during the year-to-date on a small portion of the projects we've commissioned, we've already achieved close to ZAR 100 million worth of savings and avoided over 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. And we see that going up to close to ZAR 1 billion worth of savings over the coming years. Like I mentioned, I think with much of the decisions and complexity we had in the business over the second half of the year, that does reflect in our numbers. But looking through those numbers, I guess, sort of really through to the core financials I think what we really see is stability, a real turnaround. And I think a solid base of which to build into 2026. We achieved the highest EBITDA that we have in 3 years at just under ZAR 38 billion or just over $2 billion and to see a headline earnings per share up by just under 300%. I think is very pleasing, particularly given that most of that just came during the second half of the year. Our balance sheet remains strong. Our total net debt to adjusted EBITDA has declined to below 0.6x, so very comfortably within covenant limits. But as we shared during our strategy renewed focus on gross debt to ensure stability through a cycle is where our focus will be going forward. But overall, with a good operational output, with the strong financial stability and underpinned. I think as a company and the Board, the Board is very comfortable to declare a dividend of ZAR 131 cents per share. That equates to roughly a 2% dividend yield. And again, I think, reflecting largely just the earnings over the second half of the year. And that dividend declaration is at the top end of our dividend policy. So very glad to be back into dividend-paying territory. I think as we look at performance excellence, we did share at the end of January during our strategic update that our strategy is based on 4 pillars. Simplification, I've mentioned already, simplification of our -- of how we operate, driving accountability, simplification of our portfolio, getting our focus on capital allocation in the right place. And the second pillar was performance excellence. Performance excellence is really -- covers a holistic improvement. And within there, we have safe production. We have the operational excellence, which I think will be well understood by many. Resource optimization, how best we can extract our resources, maximizing long-term economic value and of course, embedding sustainability in the way we operate. And for us, sustainability is really about people, the planet and prosperity for both. I will specifically touch today on safe production and then hand over to the 2 COOs, Richard and Charles to look at operational excellence and Melanie in sustainability. So I think touching on on-site production. As I mentioned earlier, it's been extremely pleasing to see the trend that we have seen since 2021, in particular, in our raised 2021 because that's the time when we started our fatal elimination strategy. Since then, we've seen over 40% reduction in serious injuries. And the reason we look at serious injuries that is very often associated with high energy incidents. So high energy incidents that could result in either fatal incidents or certainly life-changing incidents. I think we've also seen a very similar pleasing decline in terms of the high potential incidents that we measure. Some of those are associated with injury somewhat. But it certainly gives us a good data point to understand whether or not we are decreasing risk within our operations. And whether we look at our own history, whether we benchmark ourselves against peers who have similar underground neuro tabular labor-intensive operations generally, across the board, I think we've seen a significant reduction in risk in our operations and that is a trend we'd like to see continue. And we continue to benchmark ourselves against ICMM and peers, many of whom, of course, operate in very different environments. I think what's always tough talking about the safety trends is as pleasing as it is to look in the rearview mirror and I understand that we're doing the right things to reduce risk. As a management team, we also recognize that, that is unfortunately very cold comfort to family and friends of colleagues who we have lost on our operations. And tragedy, during 2025, we did experience 6 fatal incidents across our operations. And in this regard, I would really like to extend our heartfelt condolences on behalf of the management team and the Board to the family and the friends of [ Alberto ] Xavier, [ Onkazi ] Jozana, [ Fonso ] Matsolo, [ Brian ] Hanson, [ Asituey ] Ramaila and Klaas [Onkosana. ] Eliminating fatal incidents is absolutely our #1 priority as a Board, as a management team and as a company. Our focus moving forward into 2026 remains on how we can more effectively embed our fatal elimination strategy. The strategy fundamentally hangs on 3 pillars of critical controls, what we call critical management routines or effectively management practices, and then life-saving behaviors. So those are the 3 key pillars that will mitigate risk within our operations. The focus for 2026 is how we can enhance compliance in this regard but most importantly, enhancing it through a transformation of culture, which will also drive behavior. I think what we have seen historically within the mining industry is that compliance has driven through force, through instruction and we recognize the opportunity to change that culture and to drive compliance through a culture of accountability and a culture of care. And through that, we truly believe we will eliminate fatal incidents from our operations. Thank you very much. And with that, I will hand over to Richard Cox to take us through the South African operations. Over to you, Richard. Thank you.

Thanks, Rich. Hello, everyone. As Chief Operating Officer of our South African operations, my focus is on delivering performance excellence through safe production, operational efficiency and holistic improvement, our strategy insures, we consistently improve delivery across our portfolio. So let's take a look into our 2025 results for the South African business. Turning to our SA PGM operations. we've maintained consistent delivery, meeting or exceeding guidance each year since 2017. More specifically, for 2025, total 4E PGM production reached 1.8 million ounces including attributable production from Mimosa at 117,000 ounces and third-party purchase of concentrate at 73,000 ounces and all aggregated aligning with our 1.75 billion to 1.85 million ounce guidance and stable year-on-year. Since the Lonmin acquisition in 2019, production has remained steady between 1.73 million and 1.83 million ounces annually, reflecting our operational resilience and ongoing progress towards the second quartile of the industry cost curve. Breaking it down, underground production increased 2% to over 1.6 million ounces supported by improvements at Rustenburg's mechanized Bathopele shaft and more stable output compared to 2024s disruptions at Siphumelele and Kroondal operations. In Marikana, output was affected by safety-related stoppages at the high-performing safety shaft, but this was partially offset by K4's ramp-up where production rose 41% to almost 100,000 ounces, contributing to Marikana's improved cost position. Surface production was lower by 29% at 108,000 ounces influenced by higher first quarter rainfall and the commencement to transition feed resources, such as Rustenburg's Waterval West TSF and Marikana's ETD1 to ETD2 tailings facilities. We are evaluating long-term service opportunities at Rustenburg to support the sustainability of the surface business. Purchase of concentrate volumes were reduced by 24%, in line with contractual terms. We remain focused on cost discipline Operating costs increased by just 7.3% in absolute terms. All-in sustaining costs rose 10% to just over ZAR 24,000 per 40 ounce and that was within our ZAR 23,500 to ZAR 24,500 an ounce targets hosted by byproduct credits of ZAR 11.1 billion. Now these credits were enhanced by stronger ruthenium and iridium contributions, helping offset the 261% increase in royalties to ZAR 765 million from higher prices and a 12% rise in sustaining capital to ZAR 2.9 billion for key mining equipment and precious metal refinery infrastructure. Project capital was lower by 16% at ZAR 675 million, which was below guidance due to completed Rustenburg initiatives and deferred Marikana expenditures. Total CapEx came in at ZAR 5.9 billion, under our ZAR 6.5 billion estimate. So this foundation we are creating enables us to capitalize on stronger PGM prices. The 2025 average 4E basket price increased 28% to over ZAR 31,000 per ounce, driving adjusted EBITDA up 125% to ZAR 16.7 billion. Early 2026 prices have risen 43% to over 44,000 per ounce as shown in the chart, following an even higher and brief January adjustment. With supported fundamentals, we anticipate potential for additional earnings and cash flow improvements in 2026. We continue investing through the cycle in low risk, low capital intensive projects with quick paybacks, all supporting stable, high-performing operations with optionality to extend our portfolio. Overall, our SA PGM operations are very well positioned to benefit long term and also from the current market upside. This slide illustrates our advancement on the PGM cost curve and based upon end December 2025 data and highlights our positioning relative to peers. Starting on the right, Marikana's total cost, including CapEx has been influenced by K4's project buildup phase. But as K4 approaches steady state, we're seeing a shift towards lower costs. This combined Rustenburg and Kroondal position has moved slightly higher due to the Kroondal transition to toll treatment which does introduce processing costs, however, enhances profitability through improved revenue and margins. While we are actually below the 50th percentile now, and our low capital intensity brownfields projects are poised to further strengthen competitiveness against peers spots 4E and 6E, which includes base metal basket prices are positioned well above our costs, underscoring our leverage in the prevailing market. And so our progression from the fourth to the second quarter reflects the value of our strategic investments in building long-term sustainable advantage in this business. Now to our gold operations. These mature assets are highly geared to gold prices and continue to generate strong cash flows in the current supportive price environment. Total production, including DRDGOLD was lower by 10% at 19.7 tonnes. Underground production reduced by 8%, primarily due to operational challenges at our Kloof operations, including seismicity and infrastructure constraints, while surface production was down 16% influenced by lower yields as we transitioned from higher grade to lower-grade tailings and low-grade third-party sources. A 39% increase in the gold price received helped mitigate this impact. The all-in sustaining cost increased 15% to ZAR 1.4 million per kilogram, with 14% lower gold sold. At our Kloof operations, persistent challenges, including a shaft incident at our [ Manana 7 ] shaft in May of '25 infrastructure age showing in ventilation pass and ore pass systems, logistics constraints and seismic risk in high-grade isolated blocks of ground or IBGs, resulted in production lower by 31% year-on-year at 3,374 kilograms. This prompted the rebasing of the plan and a life of mine adjustments to 1 year. Safety remains our #1 priority. We did relocate a number of Kloof teams from higher-risk IBGs to Driefontein operations. And subsequently, post a comprehensive review process, removed those areas of Kloof operations from a long-term plan to align with our risk tolerance. As said, the sustained rise in the rand gold price over the period boosted adjusted EBITDA of 115% to ZAR 12.5 billion, representing 33% of group EBITDA and surpassing 2020's record. Excluding DRDGOLD, EBITDA increased 111% to ZAR 6.1 billion on average price of ZAR 1.8 million per kilogram. For the whole gold business, we are pleased to have concluded a 3-year wage agreement with labor, and that provides a degree of cost certainty moving forward. There is a lot of work underway in reporting our strategic transitioning of the SA gold business, and this effort is to ensure long-term sustainability. Our investment in the DRDGOLD is a prime example, providing long-life, high-margin surface gold exposure that is cash generative. We are also focusing on our higher-margin shallow gold mining business with Burnstone's feasibility study underway and final investment decision being targeted for the first half of 2026. As you see in image, the Burnstone project exemplifies this strategic shift. We are also focusing on high-margin shallow gold mining, where we have added over 1 million ounces in reserves at Cooke surface, Burnstone, attributable DRD and Beatrix operations. Turning to the charts. The gearing and all-in sustaining cost margin chart illustrates how price rising prices are opening up expanding margins. The average gold price received planning steadily against controlled all-in sustaining costs. The adjusted free cash flow bar chart highlights the magnitude and rapid cash flow turnaround moving from negative in 2024 to positive and significant in 2025. Looking forward, our core operations will continue to drive performance excellence and we're excited about the prospects in our current portfolio. For 2026, the outlook is positive. Spot prices are up 9% year-to-date to over ZAR 2.5 million per kilogram and 20% above second half 2025 levels. all boding well for another successful year with potential earnings and cash flow growth. I'll now hand over to Charles.

Thank you, Richard. The U.S. PGM operations have had a solid year with production of 284,000 3E ounces and an all-in sustaining cost of $1,203 an ounce beating our guidance, combined with a strongly improving safety performance into year-end. The significant downsizing in late 2024, while turning around the cash bleed at the time in the context of depressed prices also sow the seeds of improved mining productivities and cost efficiencies that we have built on through the year under review. Certainly, with improved PGM prices later in the year, we returned to profitability. And when you overlay Section 45x benefits, you have a competent outcome. During this period of getting our operating performance right, albeit at lower volumes, the team led by Kevin Robertson has also done a significant amount of work on setting up the Montana operations for long-term success. You have seen in the earlier global cost curve that we are now sitting in the middle of the pack and have been for 2 consecutive quarters. But our drive towards $1,000 an ounce is aimed at being a lowest quartile PGM producer on a sustainable basis through price cycles. In the Montana operations, we have a legacy of semi-mechanized mining with narrow headings and small stopes using a range of small equipment such as 2-yard LHDs and CMAC bolting, which ultimately constrains you with lower tonnes per cycle and a higher cost per ounce, notwithstanding the fact that our miners are incredibly good at what they do and bring significant skills and experience to the process. Through last year, we trialed mechanized bolting with success, and we are not right now rolling out a significant transformation program, which will see amongst many changes the stepwise introduction of mechanized equipment, a progressive increase in heading size in advance with associated workforce and supervisory upskilling and a shift from legacy captive stoping to task mining. The benefits of these changes really start bearing fruit in 2027 because we have a phased introduction of new equipment and changes to where practices running in parallel with our established approach. Where this takes us in the next 18 months is a fully mechanized and scaled operation with higher productivities and lower costs, improved safety and wellness benefits and a business that we believe will be resilient through price cycles. We are starting these change interventions at Stillwater East and then moving to East Boulder. And once we know that we can deliver around $1,000 an ounce, we will consider bringing back toward a west, although this will require infrastructure upgrades and a range of capital spend, which means that we have that decision point further down the road and it will neatly based on an extensive feasibility study. If I turn to the U.S.-based recycling business, 2025 has also been a busy year for us. We bedded down and integrated the Reldan acquisition and late year added the Metallix acquisition. Together with our Columbus AutoCAD recycling business, we believe that we have a compelling PGM and precious metals recycling platform that has low capital intensity and which can provide stable margins through price cycles. The team led by Grant Stuart is moving very quickly to integrate the management teams and optimize which feeds go to which site while leveraging a single sourcing and sales platform that now has very wide reach both in the Americas, but also into Asia and elsewhere. As investors and analysts will appreciate there is significant change underway in global metals recycling where we are seeing consolidation, vertical integration and indeed, some companies in various parts of the value chain going to the wall. Within the significant shifts underway, I think we are well positioned. We know what our value proposition is, the niches that we play in and which differentiates us against some of our very large competitors. And we now have the ability to organically grow an integrated recycling platform without needing to necessarily chase new acquisitions. Our Century zinc retreatment business in Australia has also had a very good year from a stellar safety performance through to increased production of 101 kilotonnes of payable metal and a 17% decrease in all-in sustaining costs to $1,920 a tonne, which exceeded guidance. This team is very ably led by Barry Harris, and I want to thank Robert Van Niekerk who was the executive lead through the last couple of years for a seamless handover. As you will be aware, the team has been working on 2 feasibility studies, [ FOS 1 ] and Mount Lyell. The Mount Lyell feasibility study is currently under assurance review and evaluation. We expect to have a close-out review in early May. The [ FOS 1 ] study is expected to be completed end of March with Assurance targeted to be completed at the end of May. Final decisions will be made within our disciplined capital allocation framework that Richard has spoken to. Given the remaining short life at Century, a pathway to new opportunities in Australia is important. And I'm looking forward to spending time with the team on the ground next week and working through the opportunity set. With that, let me hand over to Robert.

Thank you, Charles, and hello, everybody. Sibanye Stillwater has a substantial life of mine and solid project base, focusing only on the precious metals. We've got 356 million ounces in the resource category, of which about 16% 58.2 million ounces has been converted into the mineral reserve category. SA PGM operations contributed about 50% of the resource base, 177 million ounces. And again, about 16% of that has been converted into reserves, 29.4 million ounces. If you look on the right-hand side of the slide, you can see that these reserves serve very, very significant operations. Some of the Rustenburg operations have in excess of 32 years life. The Marikana K4 project, for example, has a 45-year life of mine and the Marikana East 4 project has a 34-year life of mine. As Richard said earlier on our gold operations are mature. They are bid to the gold price, but I would likely -- they are very insignificant. We have a 43 million-ounce resource and a 9.4 million ounce reserve. The Beatrix operation in the free state is a solid operation. The Driefontein operation is a very solid operation. And our DRD operation is our world-class tailings retreatment operation. And we also have the Bernstein project, which is there still to become a very efficient, shallow, low-cost, 25-year life of mine operation. The second biggest category of our resource base is our U.S. operations. Here, we have 80.9 million ounces in resource, of which only 19.4 million ounces have been converted into reserves. Again, these assets are highly leveraged, they are high grade, they our quality assets. And again, if you look at the right-hand side of the slide, the Stillwater mine has a 26-year life of mine and the East Boulder mine has in excess of 30 years, actually 35 years life of mine. We'd also like to add that this year, we have included a maiden reserve for the Marikana East project in the SA PGM region. We have also included a maiden reserve for the Cooke TSF and I made a reserve for the Mount Lyell copper project in Tasmania, Australia. In closing, I'd like to leave everybody on the call with a message that next year, '26 and 2027, Sibanye Stillwater will be focusing on converting a large percentage of the abundant resources into reserves. With that, I'm going to hand over to Melanie. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to all attendees. Our renewable energy program remains central to our journey towards carbon neutrality. Having set ourselves a target to reduce our emissions by 40% come 2030. And now with the conclusion of the new agreements with Etana and NOA, our renewable pipeline has expanded to 765 megawatts, delivering nearly the same capacity as a single Kusile unit and thus strengthening our energy security and accelerating progress towards carbon neutrality. Naturally, this positions us as the largest contracted private renewable energy offtake in South African mining. And with this portfolio and come 2028, it will supply more than half of our South African energy needs -- it will generate over ZAR 1 billion in annual savings and avoid 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 each year, a 41% reduction from our 2024 levels. At the same time, our operations, high water demand and presence in water stream catchments make strong water stewardship critical. Through disciplined management practices, and our investment in advanced water treatment plants, we've significantly reduced portable water reliance and increased resilience and also contributed to margins. 4 of our operations are now fully independent of municipal portable water with our gold assets at 94% independence. Importantly, though, the water liberated through these efforts is equivalent to the needs of a midsized city and an essential social contribution in a water scarce country that's currently grappling with water challenges. Our commitment to communities remains equally strong. And through the Marikana renewal process, we prioritized addressing the needs of affected families and rebuilding trust. And a key focus was closing the housing gap for families, not supported by the AMCU Trust. I'm pleased to share that we delivered the final 2 of 17 houses, honoring our commitments to the widows. As a business, we remain committed to shared value with all stakeholders as we earn trust where we operate. Thank you, and handing over to you, Charles.

Thanks, Melanie. At Keliber, we are looking forward to hosting a Market Day in a couple of months and then a deep dive on the operation. When you get there, you will see a really impressive build and the team on the ground led by Hannu Hautala has done an incredible job in completing the build program on schedule. and where changes to spend were related to revised permit requirements late in the process. This is Sibanye's first greenfields project build and it has been incredibly well executed. The financial investment decision for the refinery was made in November 2022. In October 2023, the scope change for the effluent treatment plant was approved along with authorization to begin construction of the concentrator. Mechanical completion has been achieved for all components of both the concentrator and refinery with the exception of the rotary kiln at the refinery. As you may be aware, mining activities were delayed due to postponing contract signing until the completion of the deep dive analysis in the second half of last year. Commissioning of the concentrator crusher, conveyance system, sorting plant and laboratory is scheduled to be completed ahead of plan. The phased approach is a direct outcome of the deep dive work conducted by the corporate technical team. The guidance is that we will produce at least 15,000 kilotonnes to 20,000 kilotonnes of spodumene this year either for direct sale or as a feed into the refinery, if approved late year and subject to market conditions. Let me unpack the stage approach in a little more detail. Stage 1, EUR 783 million is the initial capital and excludes any other preproduction SIB costs. 237 kilotonnes of stockpile is required by year-end and counter the limitation put in the Syvajarvi mining permit being kept at 540 kilotonnes. Stage 2, spodumene grade of greater than 5.1% is targeted to ensure a sellable product, which will not incur penalties or rejection from commercial counterparties. Stage 3 refinery startup decision is conventional in the market assessment at the time. If it's a pause, we will continue with spodumene in sales. Stage 4 focus on technical grade will allow the team to sort up processing issues before quality issues. The team will continue to incorporate lessons learned from other facilities. Stage 5 decision to proceed with ramp-up to produce battery grade lithium. It must be noted that the qualification process for battery grade may take 6 to 9 months, which means battery grade could be commercially available, likely at the earliest in 2028. On the operational overview, it's important to note that the feasibility profiles had a number of satellite ore bodies in as well. As far back as 2023, we have kicked off mining optimization studies, which resulted in extended life only out of the Syvajarvi and Rapasaari pits. We intend to kick off further work on the other pits as well as this year work on the [indiscernible], which is a new pit, which will lie close to Rapasaari. When you're on site, you'll see that we have a strong land position with further exploration options ahead of us at the right time. And given all the exploration juniors that have paid claims outside of our lease boundary, I have no doubt that the lithium story has legs in Northern Western Finland for a very long time to come. The spiking SIB in 2008 in the graph on the lower left is mainly driven by the waste stripping for the Rapasaari pit. The cost overview will be updated as we get new insights from our cost optimization and debottling studies. And certainly, the team is focused on improving this picture. Here, the further optimization work is focused primarily on the following work streams. Mining study work to optimize pick design pushbacks and stockpiling. We're targeting here a potential EUR 10 million to EUR 15 million savings and the mine to deliver a stockpile of 50 kilotonnes oil by 30th June, about 1 month of inventory. As I noted, 237-kilotonnes to be on stockpile to ensure stable production in 2027. The concentrator study is targeted in spodumene grade about 5.1% to optimize spodumene concentrate sales and boost refinery capacity. Metallurgical work on grade versus recovery is in progress. First grade recovery curves issued for mining production planning were also taking place. Cost reduction and efficiency optimization targeting the potential unit cost decrease of $1,000 per tonne of lithium hydroxide has a number of components. We're reviewing the procurement for more cost savings, developing a full digital twin of the value chain to further optimize, we're studying the personnel and staffing optimization opportunities, and we're reassessing the maintenance strategy and costs post ramped up. So there's a lot of further optimization work on the go, and I'm confident that we'll start to see gains from there in the next few months. Refinery debottlenecking study is targeting higher throughput potential and overall yield improvement also on the go. This is about increasing refining capacity by adding a magnetic separator and resolving process bottlenecks. We're looking to boost the yield 2% to 3% recovery in lithium from the effluent treatment stream, reducing ETP costs by reviewing current initiatives and working with other third parties to support refinery commissioning and ramp-up phases. With that, thank you, and let me hand over to Charl.

Thank you, Charles. Good morning to all participants. It gives me great pleasure to share the financial results for the year ended 2025. If we start with the key highlights. Headline earnings per share for 2025 increased 281% to ZAR 244 cents per share. During the same period, adjusted EBITDA increased almost threefold from ZAR 13 billion to just under ZAR 38 billion, 189% increase. As a reminder, we have set a target of reducing gross debt by 50% from the current ZAR 2.2 billion level over the next 2 to 3 years. But through the cycle, net gearing target of below 1x net debt to EBITDA remains consistent with our financial policy and has served us well during periods of constrained commodity prices. If we look at our net debt to adjusted EBITDA at the end of 2025, it is down 1.77x at the end of 2024 to 0.59x at the end of 2025. As a reminder, the dividend declared for 2025, as you would have heard, is ZAR 131 cents per share or 2% yield. Turning to the income statement. The revenue increased by 16% and costs were down 8% However, as highlighted on the previous slide, this translated to an increase of almost 200% in adjusted EBITDA. Noteworthy items for 2025 include the following: the loss on financial instruments of ZAR 3.8 billion was mainly due to the impact of the protective gold hedges that amounted to ZAR 1.7 billion as well as a revaluation of the Burnstone debt. With the sharp increase in the long-term price of gold, the Burnstone debt is now expected to be fully repaid, and that meant that we had to increase this liability by ZAR 1.7 billion. Another big item that impacted this period. Impairments for the year at the U.S. PGM operations Keliber and Kloof amounted to ZAR 15.8 billion. The impairment at Kloof was due to the reduction in the life of mine due to the removal of isolated blocks of ground for safety reasons. The impairment at the U.S. PGM operations and Keliber were the result of changes in economic parameters such as long-term prices. This was partially offset by the reversal of impairments at Beatrix, Driefontein and Burnstone due to the increase in the long-term price of gold. The transaction cost includes the $215 million or ZAR 3.6 billion settlement of the Appian claim. If we look at the net other costs, that benefited from credits in 2024 that were once off and did not repeat in 2025. It is important to note that taxes and royalties of ZAR 4.3 billion increased in proportion to our profitability. As already mentioned, a full year dividend of ZAR 3.7 billion or at the top end of the range, 35% of normalized earnings will be paid compared to the last dividend that we paid in 2023. This represents an increase of 146% on an absolute basis. In 2025, we had significant nonroutine cash impacts that affected our financial results. These included the Appian payment and the gold hedges that was put in place in December 2024 to ensure the ongoing sustainability of our gold operations. The question that a lot of people will ask is what would your financial results have looked like in the absence of these nonroutine items? The short answer is that the money available for the 3 areas of distribution would have increased by ZAR 5.2 billion to approximately ZAR 14.6 billion, and each bucket would have been allocated ZAR 4.9 billion. However, in 2025 on a look-back basis, we did allocate more to growth as one. The revised allocation model was not in place. And two, we were finalizing the Keliber project. Importantly for 2026, our growth capital plan, excluding DRD is ZAR 3.7 billion compared to the ZAR 9.4 billion that we spent in 2025. The growth capital excludes Burnstone and other projects in study phase. And as we generate all cash and earn the right to allocate more to each bucket, these will be considered. Our debt maturities remain manageable due to a well constructed maturity profile. Gross debt was ZAR 39 billion and less the cash on hand of ZAR 17 billion equated to net debt of ZAR 22 billion. Liquidity headroom is strong at ZAR 40 billion or roughly 5.5 months of OpEx plus CapEx. The next priority on our debt profile will be the upcoming renewal and downsizing of our 2026 $675 million bond, and the target date for completion is before the end of half 1, 2026, and this will be subject to supportive markets. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I will now pass the baton to Kleantha that will discuss market performance. Thank you, Kleantha.

Thanks, Charles, and good morning, everyone. Markets were characterized by tariff uncertainty and geopolitical tensions throughout 2025 and into 2026. And this has driven the precious metals rally. Gold spot prices brought the $4,500 mark during December, up 73% since the beginning of the year and driven again by geopolitics, wars and a weak U.S. dollar. Gold ETFs were up 25% year-on-year to 4,000 tonnes and Central Bank buying continued. The platinum price rally has been driven largely by tariff uncertainty and was exacerbated by primary supply disruptions during the first half of the year. 3E recycling volumes were up 9% year-on-year. However, this is still below the pre-COVID levels despite better prices attracting hoarded stock. The tariff uncertainty has resulted in significant platinum flows into both the U.S. and China. Over 600,000 ounces of platinum was imported into the U.S. in July compared with normal levels of around 200,000 ounces. Between July and October, 1 million ounces of above normal levels moved into the U.S. And overall, platinum imports were up over 50% year-on-year. NYMEX stocks quickly reached a peak of about 650,000 ounces in April and then dropped back to 280,000 ounces in July. This as reciprocal tariffs were delayed and then PGMs were on the list of goods not subject to tariffs. Stocks then jumped back to around 700,000 ounces in October. As the outcome of the Section 232 investigation was delayed due to the government shutdown. Since then, the outcome has been announced as negotiations not tariffs. So uncertainty still lingers. Imports of platinum into China also increased steadily during the first half of the year and then fell back in the second half as prices became too high. Investors and jewelry manufacturers switched into platinum as gold just became too expensive. Overall, platinum imports into China were up 7% year-on-year to 4.5 million ounces, supported by the launch of the platinum futures trading on the Guangzhou Futures Exchange in November. Large daily trading volumes north of 6 million ounces per day in December resulted in the GFEX having to implement restrictions on trading. Platinum demand and along with the palladium during 2025 was largely driven by investments and speculation rather than by fundamental industrial requirements. Over the near term, we continue to forecast deficits for both platinum and palladium while the rhodium market balance will remain first to balance. The recent rally in prices has set us a new higher base and the heightened focus on securing critical minerals will continue to drive regional supply chains and with it price differentiation. And now moving on to lithium. The appreciation in lithium prices due in quarter 4 was driven by China's anti-evolution drive and the camp down on primary supply in that country. As well as from better-than-anticipated demand from battery energy storage systems. China changed the feed-in tariff model for renewable energy mid-2025, unlocking demand for energy storage systems. Prices moved from a low $7,000 per tonne levels up to just over $16,000 per ton currently. Inventory levels remain low as [ Cattle's ] lepidolite mine has yet to start producing again, and winter supply from brine production is reduced. Looking out to 2029, battery energy storage system demand is expected to grow at a 23% CAGR while demand from battery electric vehicles will grow at a 9% CAGR. The market is expected to remain in surplus over the medium term and will start tightening from 2028 to 2029. New supply will need to be incentivized by higher prices. Looking forward to the rest of this year, we remain bullish on gold. We believe that PGM prices have reset at a higher base, but will continue to be volatile. And similarly, we believe that lithium prices will continue to be influenced by Chinese decision-making. We will, therefore, continue to focus on what is in our control, performance and delivery at our operations. I'll now hand back to Richard to conclude.

Thanks very much, Kleantha. And then I guess, just heading into the last section to wrap up with. So I think just starting off with our guidance for 2026 and the outlook. Starting off with our South African PGM operations, I think a very slight decline in terms of our production guidance in line with the overall life of mine profile that many of you will be familiar with, but no significant changes across the South African PGM operations. guidance of the South African gold operations is slightly lower than what we achieved this year or during 2025 and that is driven largely by the reduction of output at the Kloof operations, as Richard touched on earlier. I think in terms of the U.S. PGMs, we do see a slight increase in terms of output at the underground operations that is coupled with the ongoing work towards reducing the overall unit costs down towards $1,000 per ounce and associated with that, we do see an increase in some of the capital as we start making those investments. On the recycling, we have quoted our production guidance as a gold equivalent to ounces. So you'll see 400,000 to 420,000 ounces there. Please note that is gold equivalent, we produce a range of metals. But I think when looking at it on this basis, it does just demonstrate the significance of this business, almost 0.5 million equivalent gold ounces that we have built over the time of a, as we mentioned, low capital intensity, very low capital base. On Keliber, the guidance we are providing is we are anticipating producing spodumene concentrate as we ramp up the concentrate at this stage, whether or not that goes into refinery, of course, will be dependent on the decision that is made on the commissioning of the refinery. And in terms of total costs, we are guiding towards a total expenditure of about EUR 180 million to EUR 190 million. Just to unpack that briefly, approximately half of that, about EUR 90 million is the remaining project capital that was due to get spent predominantly in the first quarter and a little bit in quarter 2. So that is in line with the original project capital of EUR 780 million that we've shared with the market. And the balance is really the cost of the -- as we ramp up the overall operation. At Century zinc, this is likely to be the last full year of production on a Century zinc and again, largely in line with what was achieved during 2025. So just moving on to the strategy. I think as we outlined in my earlier slides, I think we've set a very solid base moving forward into 2026. The 4 key pillars that we have with regards to our strategy, being simplification, simplification of our operating model and our portfolio. Performance excellence, which I think you heard us touching on today and unpacking around safe production, operational excellence, optimizing our resources to maximize value and embedding sustainability in the way that we operate. Growth, which is initially focused on the value creation. We believe we can drive from our existing resources and therefore, unlocking organic value. And finally, a disciplined capital allocation model by bringing these 4 pillars together with the base that we've set in 2025, we are certainly confident that we can unlock significant value as we move forward into 2026, irrespective of the environment that we find ourselves operating in. I think just wrapping up with the overall strategy that we shared with the market at the end of January towards creating a future-focused metals business. In the short term, our strategy is very much focused on strengthening our business fundamentals. And this will be achieved through increasing our operating margins through our operational excellence simplifying our operating model and ultimately, simplifying our portfolio towards highest return assets and cash-generative assets. I think we're successful in this regard. We would be generating free cash through a disciplined capital allocation framework that looks at returning capital to shareholders, reducing our total gross debt and investing in the growth and sustainability of the business, particularly unlocking our inherent resource value. We certainly see that as ultimately continuing to build our business, building our production profile and continuing to build on our resource stewardship model across primary mining, secondary mining and recycling. So ladies and gentlemen, I think in conclusion, once again, thank you for joining us today. To try and sum up in 3 quick points. I think where we are sitting today as a business. I think we've had a solid operational output in 2025. And I think we're well positioned moving into 2026 to unlock the significant value that we have within our portfolio. I think we have seen a noisy set of financials. But looking through that, there is some real financial stability in the company. We've reduced our gearing significantly and certainly, at the current commodity prices that we are experiencing and the operational output that we are achieving, we look forward to some significant cash flow as we move forward. And then I think we finally have a resilience and a disciplined strategy. This is a strategy that is independent of the external environment and positions us for long-term themes which we see underpinning growth within the commodities market. So just in terms of way forward, as we did share with you at the end of January, we launched our strategy on the 29th of January. Today, we have shared our results. But as we move forward at the end of April, we will be looking to have a 2-day Capital Markets Day focused specifically on our international operations. That will be a webcast as well as an in-person visit in Finland to our Keliber operations, but we'll also cover both U.S. and recycling and Australian operations. And then towards the end of June, another 2-day Capital Markets Day in South Africa, specifically focused on our goals in PGM operations. So we look forward to engaging with you and getting those invitations out and thank you once again for joining us today. And of course, we're happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much, and over to you, James.

Thanks, Richard. Thanks, gentlemen. I've got a couple of questions here. I think we'll start with the Kloof questions. I'd say Keliber questions, sorry, missing my Ks up here. At Keliber, you note that initial value realization depends on producing and selling spodumene concentrate. It's a specified grade during the concentrator start-up. How do you assess the risk of achieving specification grade the early stages of ramp up? Can you give us some comfort around achieving these initial targets that's from Arnold Van Graan.

I'll ask Ralph to come in and join me on some of the details. But just on a high level, let me make just unpack the sort of what we've spoken about the stage ramp-up and life mitigate risk. I think a lot of the work -- initially, the feasibility study for Keliber was, of course, based on mining all the way through to a final battery product. A lot of the work that we did in the second half of last year was around looking at these independent steps. So both the costs associated with them, the commercial liability associated with them and almost if you were to optimize, for example, just up to a spodumene concentrate what would that mean? What's come out of that work is essentially we are confident that we can look at this in different stages, that we can have an initial stage that in its own right is commercially viable. And of course, that gives us the option to remain at that point. But we are also aware of a lot of the work that's currently going on in the EU as well as Western economies generally things like Project Bolt, but also EU looking at sustainability and supply of critical minerals. And we think that this will have an impact on what the ultimate sort of pricing layout looks like in time to come. And that, of course, is a key aspect of how we look at the refinery and when and how we turn that on. So I'll let Ralph answer some of your more detailed questions. But I think just on a high level to note that, that was a lot of the work we have done and out of that, very confident that we can look at the project in different stages, each being commercially viable in their own rights. But Ralph, please feel free to add anything there.

[indiscernible] So just to give you confidence, we always visit the spodumene grade even during the feasibility. And we're quite confident we can push a grade in the high limits of more than 5% based on those test work. Also, the concentrator is very traditional technologies. So obviously, we test the recovery versus spodumene grade. So we're quite confident, and we're also confident in Syvajarvi, which is our first pit. It's quite high grade with the lithium oxide percentage of close to 1.1% and even more at certain stages which will also assist us in getting that higher grade. So from a Keliber perspective, we don't see any new risks because we are pushing a higher spodumene grade initially. Thanks. I hope that answers your question.

Thanks, Ralph. Second question is on impairment due to the longer-term lithium price forecast, stage start-up to preserve flexibility. Question is what long-term lithium price assumption underpins the revised recoverable amounts at Keliber and at what price level does the project fail to meet our hurdle rate?

Let me maybe pick up on the hurdle rate question. And Charl, if I could ask you then to pick up just on the prices that we used for our impairments. So I think in terms of hurdle rates, let's put it this way. I think what you see in terms of the total project as we've shared with you, we currently have an all-in sustaining cost of about $12,000 odd per tonne. That is if we go all the way through to a battery grade. So we've always said we would obviously like to see prices I guess, well in excess of that in order to meet our internal hurdle rates. So looking at a region of 14,000 to 15,000 is where we'd want to see it sustainably at least going forward on that basis. I think importantly, of course, what we are assessing as part of this is also the opportunity on the earlier stage concentrate. And of course, that then is driven by volume in concentrate prices. I think critically, the long-term opportunity of this project is about supplying battery grade into the European ecosystems. We never built this ready just to us what you mean concentrate into more broader Chinese supply chains. So I think that's the opportunity that we've really got to this particular project. But Charl, would you like to pick up on the long-term price for the payment models?

Thank you, Richard. So the average price that we've used over the life of the mine but obviously, I appreciate that the price falls up over the duration of the life of mine. The average price was just under USD 17,500 per tonne and that equates roughly to a long-term price of about USD 20,000 per tonne.

In a further question on what the remaining book value for Keliber is?

Yes. So the remaining book value is ZAR 9 billion or just under EUR 460 million.

And Richard, for you, what are the next steps in the battery metal strategy?

Thanks very much. I think as we shared at our Strategy Day, I think our long-term strategy as a company still remains to be able to supply metals that ultimately will support decarbonization and an energy transition. So that remains the long-term strategy. I think it's broader than perhaps just battery metals. But in the short term, our strategy is very much around optimizing the current portfolio. So as it stands today, we have our core operations of our South African gold, our South African PGMs, our U.S. PGMs, recycling and Keliber and that is where our focus will be and certainly our investment into our organic projects there. I think we will continue to assess the various projects, and that is where I did share with the market the growth framework that we've developed, which talks about the different metals we will look at in the jurisdictions we will consider. That will ultimately drive how we think about it. But as I say, our sort of immediate focus, our short-term strategy is very much on delivering from our core operations.

Thank you, Richard. Thank you for this wonderful presentation, well done IR team. Thank you. Can one expect this level of financial performance going forward, should the commodity prices hold? Richard, you can take that or Charl.

Yes, happy to just take that more generally. I mean, I think as we mentioned on a high level, of course, I think the benefit of the prices that we saw coming through, gold, of course, we saw coming through throughout most of the year but the really big -- all of these prices ramped up towards the end of the year. PGMs really only started recovering in H2 with a significant ramp up in December. So of course, I think the type of financials that you've seen were based more on a back-ended portion of the year that delivered most of the value. But I think what we would look forward to prices remaining exactly the same. I think as I mentioned, we've had a noisy set of numbers and quite a few one-offs that we've had to deal with. So if anything under this environment, everything else the same, I would expect to see slightly improved financials with that noise out the window. But as Kleantha mentioned, the approach that we're adopting for the year ahead, I think we've got great tailwinds with the commodity prices. I think we see new bases being set, I think this market is being grown by a world that's scrambling to secure critical metal. So that's likely to remain. But it will be volatile. And certainly, that's the way we're positioning it and looking at our business for the year ahead.

Given the record gold prices, to what extent are the reserve reductions at Kloof, structural geotechnical constraints versus price-sensitive. Would a sustained higher gold price justify re-extending the mine life?

James, let me take the first crack at that, and Rich, if you'd like to add anything. I mean I think critically, so of course, as has been noted, I think we do have slightly conservative prices that we use for reserves and the reason for that is we look to do our long-term mine planning and capital allocation based on what we still see as through cycle prices, ultimately, making capital decisions for really long durations. I do ever think Kloof is important to say that I don't think gold price was not a factor at all in terms of the decisions that we made. The decision to reduce Kloof was a safety decision, first and foremost. We did have some shafts that were coming to the end of their life. Anyway, that was part of the plan during the course of last year Kloof 7 shaft in particular, was planned to close. But then we lost volume due to safety and that decision, I think when we make a decision to stop mining areas because the safety, price is not a factor that gets considered in those decisions at all. So what we are looking at is Kloof for safety on operation that today is producing a lot less than it was obviously designed to. That means it's got a very high fixed cost base. And fundamentally, that means your unit cost goes up. According to the reserve price we use, i.e., through the cycle, we do not have long life reserves at Kloof, but we fully recognize that at these prices, Kloof remains profitable, and we can continue to mine it as long as the prices remain where they are. So we have put a year-to-year plan in place and we will continue to assess Kloof at those prices. And I think that brings significant benefits, as Rich mentioned, not only commercial and cash flow for the company but of course, also is a large employer. So we will keep Kloof going for as long as it is profitable and makes sense, but we won't be declaring or changing significantly the life of mine and reassessing capital at these numbers.

I guess a related question, but can you give us a sense of your gold operations, excluding DRDGOLD environmental liabilities? And how much of this is funded through environmental trust that, so I guess that's rehab. I'm trying to get a sense of the longer-term cash flow impact, should there be further closures or rationalization?

Charl can I perhaps ask you to pick that up or Rich?

Happy to pick that up. Thanks for the question. So we do have a liability over the gold operations of ZAR 5.4 billion and of the ZAR 5.4 billion, ZAR 4.7 billion is funded and the balance then is with guarantees.

Charl, anything you'd like to add to that or...

No, Rich full cover. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I've got a question for you, Charl, actually. So I'm going back onto you. How should we model the benefits of Section 45 ex credits in '26 and '27 in particular, and how this relates to cash flows. And then related to that is when are we expecting to receive the credits from 2023 and 2024's cash. And is the higher CapEx -- okay, that's a separate question. It's just a Section 45 ex.

Yes. So in terms of 45 ex, the '23 and '24 payment should -- sorry, the '23 and '24 credits, we are expecting that in 2026. And then thereafter, we expect it to flow in the year following the claim. So the '25 claim to flow at the back end of '26 and some early '26 towards the back end of '27, give or take a few months.

Just on when do we expect in '23 and '24?

Yes. So '23 and '24 claims we expect in 2026 due to the large amounts, and this being fairly new. And those amounts are subject to examination as it's referred to in the U.S. or as we refer to an audit. But again, we are working closely with our tax advisers, and we are continuously following up.

A question on the higher CapEx at SA PGMs in 2026. Due to some deferral spend in 2025, is it because of that? Or what other factors?

Thanks, James. So I'll ask Rich to pick that up. I don't think it's so much a deferral in 2025, but we do have an increase in SIB around some specific projects. But Rich, perhaps I can hand over to you, please to pick that up.

Thanks, Rich. So there is a little bit of extra venture within our precious metal refinery as well as some trackless mining machinery. But largely year-on-year, it's the same except for those extra pickups in trackless mobile machinery and in the precious metal refinery.

So the related question to that. I'm not sure if it is relevant. But is capital spent on ore reserve development what type of development is funded from this CapEx and what type of development have funded from working operating costs? And in terms of the Kopaneng deeps project, Will it be a similar layout in arrangement to Siphumelele mechanized section and which words shaft would be used to transport mainland materials?

Perhaps we'll ask Rich just to pick up on Kopaneng and Charl on the capital.

Okay. So in terms of ore reserve development, it is effectively underground development work that's undertaken to open up access and prepare the cave mineral reserves for mining in the future production periods. But I have to specify here that the amount that gets capitalized is specifically in the off-rig development to open up those ore blocks. The reef plane or on-reef development is expensed in the period that it's incurred. I hope that answers it.

Position on the Kopaneng deeps layouts, et cetera.

I'll take that, James. So Kopaneng is a concept study at the moment. It's a very attractive downdip extension. So the strike is over 5 kilometers. And that has been the challenge of how to gain access, so a very good question. So initially, we will gain access on one of the flanks through a down-dip extension of the Bambanani asset. And then Khomanani offers a very attractive into the ore body. However, Khomanani 2 shaft doesn't have a rock pass. So we have to look at other down dip extensions and then possibly even a down dip development of a decline from Khomanani as well. So man and material probably through Khomanani and Bambanani in initial phases. But I think in the long term, there are other more attractive options for bigger volumes. We will be doing a pre-feasibility study in 2026 to sharpen up those carryforward options.

Question for Kleantha. How will the GFEX impact prices this year? Should there be physical delivery for May and June?

Thanks for that question. Look, I think essentially, we're going to see heightened metal flows into China at least up until settlement date. So we've got a good price underpin their for platinum. And I think we're also going to see East rates moving up a little bit as we get closer to that date. Once that settlement date is reached essentially, you're going to have a very nice cleverly made platinum stockpile in China. And I think post that, you will get some price correction. But yes, that is the nature of investment demand, unfortunately. So I think we will see some underpin, and then we'll see a bit of correction post that settlement date.

Turning to the U.S. now. In the U.S. PGM operations, repositioning now for optimize, for currently -- sorry -- basically, the question is are we repositioning for current 2E PGM prices? Or is there further downside risk if prices soften?

Thanks, James. So I'll pick that up initially. I think as we have shared and as trials unpacked, our objective in the U.S. is ultimately to get our cost base down closer to $1,000 per ounce. And again, the reason for that target is that because that's where we see sort of through cycle I guess, being a low point, and therefore, that operation being able to wash its own face sustainably for significant option to the optionality to the upside in terms of palladium prices. So we -- I think in terms of have we positioned it for the current palladium prices, I think right now, our objective, we restructured that operation 2 or 3 years ago to position it for the downturn that we saw. And our focus right now is on achieving those cost levels. Once we've achieved those then we will be able to assess the operations going forward and understand what a new base could look like. As Charles mentioned, we do have the opportunity to relook at Stillwater West in time. But today, that's not currently part of the focus. The focus will be on East Boulder and Stillwater West, so largely in line with the current production levels.

Thanks, Richard. Questions on streams and hedging. Could you give us an update on the streaming deals? I guess that the details of streaming deals and then unpack your hedging book for us, ounces per year and at what price.

Thanks, James. So let me maybe take the streaming question. And Charl, if you could then follow on with some of the hedge questions. So I think in terms of the stream, we fundamentally have 2 streams within the company at the moment. One is at the Stillwater operations. That stream largely considers a palladium stream of about 4.5% and most of the gold that comes out of that operation. So that -- and that is a sort of evergreen stream. I think it does step down at some point to 2.5%, but that's still quite a bit out. So that's the one stream that we've got in place. The second stream that we have in place is on the South African PGM operations. That stream again considers all of the gold that is produced from those operations, which is about 1% of the total metal. And then if I recall, it's about 2.5% on platinum, which also steps down and that is there for the life of the current mine that does not include any extensions beyond that. So the platinum is limited to the current life of mine.

Thanks, Rich. If we look at the gold hedges, so in December 2023, we entered into some hedging arrangements for our South African gold operations. These hedges were put in place to protect the downside, specifically around our legacy assets. They have -- all of the hedges have now been concluded at the end of December 2025. So there are no further gold hedges in place at the current moment.

Thanks, Charl. Charl, probably one for you again. What are the plans with the convertible bond due 2028, given that it is now in the money from Lorenzo Parisi...

Yes. So we'll keep an eye on the convertible bond. It's got a 2028 maturity, but it's got a call option. So we can call it towards the end of the year. And we'll just monitor it carefully to see what we do in terms of the convertible bond. Based on current prices, it is in the conversion territory. But for now, the focus is on refinancing the 2026 $675 million bond, and we'll just carefully monitor the convertible bond going forward.

The value of that convertible bond on the balance sheet...

That's $500 million.

In terms of simplification, Richard, might we think about the Finnish and possibly the Australian assets being potentially available for sale?

Thanks very much. I think we've been sort of quite clear at the moment that the Keliber lithium project certainly forms part of our strategic priority assets. I think we see that as a very valuable asset. So I think the short answer to that is no. I think when we look at the Australian assets today, the new Century Zinc operations have been very successful. We remain very committed to those operations until the closure of those and then the completion of that particular project. In Australia, we have a couple of projects that are being assessed. We have the Mt Lyell project. I think as we mentioned, certainly, copper is a metal that we would be interested in if we could see value accretion in those opportunities. So Mt Lyell will currently be assessed, as Charl said, and understand whether or not that meets our hurdle rates and our overall capital investment criteria. And then we do have opportunities as well with the Phos 1 project to extend the New Century or to utilize the New Century infrastructure post mining of zinc. I think it would be a wonderful opportunity to see that infrastructure continue being used. Phosphate likely does not fit in with our sort of strategic focus going forward. So our priority would be to look at how we could maximize value, try and ensure the sustainability of that project going forward, but how we could get value from that unlikely to be a core investment thesis on the phosphate side from our side.

Thanks, Richard. Just some questions on renewable energy. Can you remind us what is feeding into the operations currently, volume, solar versus wind? Listen, I don't think we can give that breakdown right now, but we'll be able to get it. we got it. Okay. And what's in the pipeline? And when will it start feeding in? And then secondly, Sibanye Stillwater is advancing well on the clean energy front. What is the overall renewables ambition and what are the targeted deadlines?

Thank you very much. Perhaps, Rob, if I could maybe ask you to pick up on some of those.

Yes, Richard. I can talk to the renewable energy. At the moment, we've got Castle wind farm as well as the solar project, the Springbok Solar project, providing electricity into our operations. The Castle wind farm was commissioned in March. The Springbok Solar project was commissioned in September. And to date, they've generated 293 gigawatt hours. In 2026, we're going to have another 2 plants coming into play. They are both wind farms. It is Umsinde wind farm and the Witberg farm. And then by the end of '26, we'll be receiving more than 400 megawatts on an annual basis. This will exceed 700 megawatts in '27 and '28. So [ Les ], I hope that answers your question on the renewable energy.

Thanks, Rob. That's pretty comprehensive. Did you give the overall target. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that.

Overall target is slightly about 700 megawatts, James. By the end of '28.

That's as big as the Castle unit. I think Melanie mentioned that. Pretty interesting. Let's get on to some of the SA PGM questions. What are the key drivers of the lower SA PGM volumes and the much higher costs?

Thank you very much. Let me take that one. So I think the slight reduction in volume, our underground operations are, in fact, largely stable year-on-year. So we aren't seeing significant change there. Much of that downgrade of about 100,000 ounces comes from a combination of surface as well as some lower third-party assumptions on lower third-party [ pop Kloof ] processing material. So that's a predominant driver down. I think in terms of the costs, the operating cost base, I think, is actually pretty stable. We're seeing that coming in, in line with or, in fact, below inflation. The big increase is largely around, I think, as we mentioned a bit earlier, the sustaining capital, in particular, which is being driven by the new projects in our refinery, specifically our OPMs or other precious metals plants in our precious metals refinery as well as some upgrades to mechanized equipment. That's a really big driver on the cost side.

A question from Nkateko about production guidance being lower and then also a reduction. Is it the reduction related to third-party volume of own metal. I think Richard just answered that there's quite a big decline in the surface. And then we have got lower third-party metal. So I think that's pretty much been covered. A question on the Appian settlement, how it's been accounted for in the cash flow statement, Charl?

Yes. Thank you. So the Appian settlement is in the cash flow from operating activities. So the number has been effectively paid or deducted in that number. So if you want to normalize cash flow from operating activities, excluding Appian, you have to add that back for the year 2025.

The cash flow table that we've got in the book, that would be under corporate audit.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Question on uranium assets. When will there be a value unlock, Richard?

Yes. Thanks very much. I mean I think we've got the 2 uranium sort of assets at the moment. The one is the old Beatrix 4 shaft or Beisa as it's known. That is an asset where we are still in the process of a transaction with a junior company, Neo Metals, who is looking to develop that asset, and we retain an equity exposure to it. That transaction is still in process. Unfortunately, still tied up with regulatory conditions and licensing that we're looking at there. But once that is closed, I think then we'll start seeing the opportunity to develop and get exposure to that project. The second big one is the Cooke Tailings project. That is the Cooke Tailings dam that is both a co-product gold and uranium opportunity. We have recently or in the process now of completing the feasibility study on that. It's going through assurance that will also be reviewed in the second quarter of this year towards a financial decision or looking at various ways that could potentially be taken forward. So that would be the second one. And again, during the next quarter, we would come up with a decision on how to move forward on that. So those are our 2 current exposures to uranium.

Thank you. I guess sticking on the growth theme, what accretive investment opportunities do we see in South Africa amid the strong gold and platinum group metal price environment and with Burnstone update. And then some questions on collaboration or other with DRDGOLD.

Yes. Thanks very much. I think as mentioned, right now, our focus in terms of opportunities on our current resources. That's where we see best returns. I think any M&A in the gold space at this point in time is probably, I would suggest high risk depending on how you're looking at doing that, but given where the commodity cycle is, so that's not one we're looking at immediately. And again, on the PGM side, I think we've said we're very happy with our portfolio as we look forward to the commodity markets of PGMs and how we see that playing out. And we think we've got some of the best brownfield opportunities to develop. So that's where we see our best value coming through. In terms of further collaboration with DRDGOLD, been quite open in that regard. I think it's been an excellent collaboration. I think we've seen real value created for both companies. And certainly, as we look forward to the future, we are building -- continue to build a significant secondary mining business. We are doing a lot of surface mining and projects on our PGM side. We still have some gold opportunities in South Africa, and we'd like to see that business growing. So moving forward, I think we'd certainly be keen on more collaboration with DRDGOLD and see that as a long-term partnership and future with the company.

Yes. Just another angle on the DRDGOLD side. I guess from a gold bull or a gold bear's perspective, it's obviously worth about ZAR 25 billion now of 50% -- are we looking to dispose of the stake in time and what would trigger a sale? Or are we looking to buy -- increase our position in DRDGOLD in juice?

We're definitely not looking for a sale, as I mentioned. I think that's -- we see a long-term opportunity to continue to grow with DRD and add a lot more value between our resources, their skills and the ability to grow together. So no, we're not looking to sell. I think in the long term, we would love to increase our stake in DRDGOLD but again, clearly now is not the time for that. I think we have different opportunities to invest capital now. But down the road, if that opportunity is right and we can do it in a value-accretive manner, certainly something we would consider.

And then I guess -- yes, another growth question, I guess, on copper for Sibanye, more copper exposure or not?

Yes. I think as we shared in our framework that we'll use to assess external growth opportunities, copper was definitely a metal that I think we would like exposure to. But I think the critical question is less around what we want exposure to or not. The real question when we look at any form of growth is going to be, is it value accretive? So yes, copper is a metal we would look at. But if we're going to do it, it would have to be done in a value-accretive manner. And I dare say, where could we -- where do we see our strengths and opportunities? I think there are some niche opportunities, where we could really create value from copper, and we will continue to look at those. But that will be the underlying driver is it value accretive and where do we think we can unlock value.

Thanks, Richard. And then a question on our chrome strategy, I guess, production and revenues. Does chrome now play a negligible role given the rise in PGM prices? Not. And I guess maybe just touch on the deal with Glencore.

Thanks very much. No, Chrome is definitely not negligible to us. I think it's clearly a byproduct in that regard, but it's a very important byproduct for us, one we've given a lot of attention to over the last 5 years and continue to look at going forward. So of course, in different commodity cycles, the relative impact of chrome is important. I think we've seen over the years how chrome has gone from being about 2% of our revenue basket almost as high as 15% during downtimes. At the moment, it's probably sitting around 10% to 12%. So it's still a very material number. And of course, even though it's relative to PGMs, that number in our earnings and bottom line is material. So we will continue to focus on all value opportunities and chrome is certainly a very important one. I think critically, the transaction that we did with Glencore, what that really looked around, I guess, was 3 big opportunities. The first one was at our Marikana operations. Historically, that chrome was sold to Glencore under, I guess, onerous terms for us. And that prohibited the potential expansion of some of those resources. And I think in recognition with Glencore by opening up those resources, we can all benefit. And that was the first opportunity from that transaction. So that really unlocked some of the value from the new projects that we have announced as part of our strategy. I think the second benefit was by looking at our chrome operations across the board at Rustenburg and Marikana. We think there's some real synergies that can be derived there. And then we have substantial chrome in surface tailings, which, again, I think with our combined skills, we've got an opportunity to unlock that. So no, not at all. I think we will be -- we are already, I think, if I'm not mistaken, the third biggest chrome producer. And I think with this going forward, we'll be a substantial chrome producer. So that's absolutely part of the strategy going forward.

And just first estimate for gold from Burnstone.

I think perhaps before then, I need to say our first step is really to get an investment decision from our Board. So that we would be going to in quarter 2 or towards the end of the first half. So let me just make that clear. We do still need to go through that process. I think first gold from Burnstone would come relatively quickly. But I think the thing with Burnstone is it is a long ramp-up period. So while you access the ore body quite quickly and can get first gold quite quickly, it's about a 4- to 5-year period before you reach steady state of about 120,000 to 130,000 ounces. So that's sort of what that profile looks like. But again, we'll unpack that in more detail at our Capital Markets Day sharing those profiles with you.

Thanks, Richard. There are a couple here that I'll just answer myself, I think, before we go to the call. Any further payments due for this Appian settlement? No. they're done. A question on surface sources and projected life for Rustenburg PGM surface tailings. Again, that's been subject to a study, and we'll come to the market with all of the detail later this year when we have our Capital Markets Day. So if you can hold on for that, we'll be able to give you all that sort of detail. And then a question from Steve Shepherd about development assay results are no longer included in the disclosure. One wonders how analysts are able to forecast future head grades and yields without this crucial information. We'll speak about that offline, Steve, I have my opinions. Can we go to the call, please?

We have a question from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley.

I've got a number of different questions, believe it or not, after all the ones you've been on the webcast. I'll just limit it to a couple. Just the first one, just on Burnstone, are you in a position where you could guide on what CapEx for that project should be? It looks like your group CapEx this year is ZAR 17 billion roughly. So I'm just kind of adding what we should add on top of that to get the 120,000 ounces. Otherwise, we can't really credit you with those yet. Second question is just on costs. I think you've done a good -- I think to understand what's happening in the gold and SA PGMs. But just in U.S. PGMs, I see CapEx is up. But even if you strip that out, it does look like the underlying unit cost is up. Is this just a case of a bit of catch-up in forward development? What's driving that? Clearly, you still want to move down towards $1,000 long-term target, but it's going up in the short term. And then final one, I think you've lost over it a bit, but just on Keliber, that extra EUR 100 million over and above the project CapEx this year, that just seems strange given the project is now finished. What actually is that? Is this a working capital build? Or is there a working capital build in addition to that? And if it is, can you actually capitalize all those ore stockpiles?

Chris, thanks very much. Good to hear from you. Let me -- I'll take the Burnstone and the Keliber question and then ask Charl, if he can pick up on the U.S. cost in particular. So Chris, just on Burnstone, we haven't actually released a full capital number. So as soon as we've got that feasibility done, we'll do that. But what I can share with you is that the large project capital at Burnstone has already been spent. So when we turn that project off, the underground infrastructure is developed, most of the surface infrastructure is developed. The plant is largely done. So the capital that will really be required on Burnstone is essentially opening up that ore body. So it's development capital predominantly. So what we're really looking at is the cost from going from start-up to steady state. For those who are familiar, it's a Kimberly ore body, which means there's a lot of development required if you really want to set that mine up for the long term, and that's our intention. So it's not a big slug of capital that will come through. It's essentially opening up and development capital. So if you were going to think of a mine ramping up its ORD style capital that will be capitalized preproduction. So it's not big project CapEx, Chris, but we'll certainly look to give you the profiles on that as those studies are completed and made public. I think on Keliber, so let me just unpack that and so we can be absolutely clear on those numbers. So we always said -- or the project CapEx for Keliber was EUR 763 million. That number has not changed. The last portion of that number, i.e., the EUR 90 million that I quoted gets spent in 2026. So -- and that gets spent during the first quarter of -- first quarter and a little bit into the second quarter. So the total project capital remains at $763 million. It hasn't changed, and the last $90 million is being spent in Q1 and Q2 of this year. The balance to get us to the $180 million, so the balance, let's call it, of $90 million, that is effectively preproduction costs as we start up. A large amount of that will likely be capitalized as preproduction, but it's preproduction and sustaining capital type costs, Chris. So the project capital remains as is. We're just spending the last $90 million now, but it is part of that original $763 million and then the other $90 million preproduction. I hope that clarified it for you, Chris. Charl, do you want to pick up on the U.S.?

I does, I does.

Super thanks, Chris.

Chris, on development, we do have quite an expanded development set of activities, particularly at East Boulder. We also have some incremental capital. So we're replacing the bridge at Stillwater East that runs between the East mine and the concentrator and mill. And that was capital we deferred in the last couple of years. We're now getting into it. And then we do have some mechanized bolters starting to come in. So there is that capital. And then we also have the initial spend on rock dump and tailings expansion at East Boulder as well. So all in, you've got -- you do have a sustaining cost number that is higher than you're probably expecting. But I think the underlying run rates that you're getting from the operators is what you can see going forward. And as I outlined in the presentation, you do have a mixed year of activity here. We've got steady-state performance and then we've got a big shift into the transformative work where you really start to see the benefits on a cost basis and a productivity basis probably at the tail end of the year and into next year. So those will start to be daylighted at Stillwater East late in the year, but they will only get into East Boulder next year.

Is there another question on the line...

Can I just ask is $130 million a good stay in business CapEx level then for kind of 300,000 ounces at Stillwater. Is that what we should assume going forward?

Chris, is that -- you're talking on the U.S. operations?

On the U.S. operations, yes.

Yes. That's correct, Chris, broadly in line with the guidance that we put out. That's right, yes.

We like you. We'll give you another go. Operator, is there another question?

Yes, we have a question from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities.

Just a question on your recycling guidance. I know you've now consolidated the ops. But if on my calculations, then Columbus volumes have materially decreased. Could you just unpack that for me? And then for another one on Kloof for Charl perhaps, just the closure liabilities, do they cover the pumping costs that you foresee there? I'm just thinking about the aquifers that Kloof sits on. I know you incur about ZAR 1 billion a year for Cooke pumping. Does the liability you've mentioned cover the pumping that's envisaged for Kloof?

Adrian, good to hear from you. Listen, I'm going to ask Grant, I think he is on the line, just to pick up your question on the recycling breakdown. I don't believe there's been a significant drop-off at the Columbus facility, but let me ask Grant just to unpack that. Just in terms of Kloof, I'll ask Charl if he does want to come in with any numbers. But just high level, Adrian, I think where Kloof is very different to the Cooke operations. So that's ZAR 1 billion you just quoted now, which is the pumping across Cooke 1 to 4. That's very interconnected with other operations. So on the northern side, we have the Harmony shaft. And on the southern side, we obviously got South Deep. And that is why a lot of that pumping has had to remain while we develop stable systems to be able to ensure seal from the surrounding operations as part of a connected basin. Both Kloof and Beatrix are stand-alone operations in that regard. So when Kloof ultimately comes to closure, it's not interconnected to any other operating mines. So essentially, that can be flooded in line with our environmental permits. So the pumping issues and liabilities that we have previously experienced at the Cooke shaft are not applicable to either Kloof or Beatrix. It would, in time, become applicable to Driefontein. And I think that's where there's obviously an important conversation around extending life of mines around Driefontein and what that future liability may look like. So that is one where that's got to be looked at down the line in the future. Driefontein still got 10 years ahead of it. But for Kloof and Beatrix, that's not a problem on the liability. Charl, I don't know, if you want to just add any numbers to that, and then we can -- I don't...

No. Yes, we would not provide for pumping or any liabilities because as you've explained, it's -- we have the ability to flood and it's not similar to the Cooke scenario. So no, well covered. Thank you.

And then Grant, if you are online, do you just want to pick up on the recycling question of Adrian?

Yes, sure, Richard. online. Adrian, good to chat. Yes, there hasn't actually been much of a decline on the ounces profile delivered by Columbus. If you look on '24 and '25, it was a 2%, I think, decline. I think there is a significant shift though in the market. So there is going to be a lot of different industry play coming out and strategic moves and shifts that will have to take place. And I guess we'll unpack that for you during the April '20 discussion, where we outlined some of our broader recycling strategy.

Thank you. Operator, are there any calls on the line still? -- delay. Thanks a lot. I think that's it really. only one more question. There's always one from Arnold Van Graan about share buybacks mixed. Richard, how do you feel about that?

Arnold, that's a great way to end this, and thank you very much. Good to hear from you this morning. No, listen, I think as we shared in our Strategy Day, the capital allocation model we're looking at, at the moment is very focused on the 3 pillars. So we've got our dividend policy that largely talks to about 1/3 of distributable free cash flow going to shareholders, 1/3 going to paying down our gross debt, which I dare say should reflect in our overall share price as we get that down. And therefore, hopefully, we would see shareholders benefiting from that capital uplift and then towards growth. I think until such time as we've got our debt in line, for now, we will be sticking to that dividend policy, and we wouldn't be considering any extra. Of course, if commodity prices stay where they are, and we've achieved those objectives on the gross debt side, then we'd have to look at where that policy or the capital allocation strategy lies. But for now, we'll be sticking to our dividend policy, Arnold. Thank you very much. I guess, is that the last question then? If that's the last question, then perhaps just from my side, thank you very much, everybody, for joining us again. As mentioned, this is just one in a series of engagements we're looking to have with the market. I think we can tell that there are still a lot of questions and a lot of details we need to share around some of the projects in particular that we've got, and we certainly look forward to unpacking that with you during April and June of this year. So thank you very much for joining us again. Please have a good and a safe day. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. A very warm welcome to our H1 2025 results presentation. Please take note of the safe harbor statement. It's important. There are forward-looking statements within our presentation. Thank you. If we can move on to the next slide. As you are well aware, today is my last results presentation with Sibanye as I retire at the end of September. As such, the format for today is I will essentially start with an introduction, covering the salient features. And of course, all of that is focused on the first half of 2025 or the 6-month period of 2025. And then I'll literally hand over the baton to Richard Stewart, our CEO Designate. Richard will manage the rest of the presentation delivery and the Q&A. Of course, I'll also be available for questions, but I'd ask you to please address your questions to Richard. And if you specifically have something for myself, I would be happy to answer. Thank you. We can move on to the salient features. Safety, of course, is our single biggest priority, and regrettably we did have three fatalities during this reporting period. However, and as sad as that is, we need to see the progress we're making, and we're making good progress with an improvement in our safety frequency rates. But of course, that will be covered in more detail in the rest of the presentation. Generally, in my view, H1 has been a period of solid delivery, except for a disappointing performance at our Kloof gold operations. And again, this will be well covered later in the presentation. Pleasingly, group adjusted EBITDA was 120% higher than the same period in 2024. And all my references to previous periods will be the same period in 2024. Even if you strip out the 45x credits, it was still 51% higher than that same period at ZAR 10 billion. Obviously, from our point of view, due to solid operational performance and of course, later in the quarter, we had the benefit -- sorry, later in the -- in the latter half of the year, the first 6 months, we did have the benefit of increasing basket prices. -- was retained. And together with increased earnings, our leverage measured in net debt to adjusted EBITDA at 0.89x. Again, well below 1x and certainly very far below some of the numbers that were projected by the market earlier on in this year and late last year. Importantly, 45x credits to date, amount to ZAR 5.2 billion. You can see the U.S. dollar in brackets. And at current conservative production rates, the total fair value of these 45x credits out until 2034 increases to ZAR 12.6 billion. I want to point out that is 32% of the acquisition value of Sibanye -- of apologies, of Stillwater, the Stillwater operations in Montana. Remembering, we also raised a $500 million stream on that. And also important to remember that this asset has been paid for out of previous earnings, but money raise, that is not related to operations, from 45x in the stream on a conservative basis amounts to 54% of the original acquisition value of the Stillwater operations, making it a very, very good acquisition. You would have also noted that we have launched or filed a petition for a palladium trade remedy. And again, that's all part of our multipolarity strategy. And when you look at both 45x and assuming a successful outcome remedy, these are testament to the value already created and to value we expect to be created from completing this strategy in the U.S. When you look at the graphs below, a lot of good quality information, but you will be -- you will note the punch line is the trend, is your friend. And I'm very pleased to say that I leave this company with an increasing earnings trend and a decreasing leverage trend. And I have no doubt that Richard will take this company forward to new heights. So let's look at the last slide before I really refer to the CEO again, relative total shareholder returns since listing, so not an arbitrary debt. You will note we're right at the top of the list. And again, I know that Richard and his team especially with an increasing commodity price will take us back to number one, but a position I'm very proud that we have achieved under quite difficult market circumstances. If we can go to the next slide, please. Thank you. And at this point, it would be nice, Richard, if you could join me. I have at previous results presentations, spoken about best practice in succession planning I have highlighted the fact that I believe we have followed best practice. And in fact, I believe we've had a world-class transition and not just at CEO level, we have in place and later on in the presentation, Richard will certainly introduce the C team and the new members in his office. And as I've just said, I know that Richard will take this company together with his world-class team to new heights. So Richard, all that really remains for me to say, I will follow your progress as an interested shareholder. I will watch your progress carefully. I'm not going to be one of those shareholders that ask those type of questions at results presentations. But Richard, I want to wish you all the best in your new chapter.

Neal, thank you very much. I guess if I could just take a brief opportunity to firstly say, I think when I was informed of my appointment to be taking over from Neal in October, I got some very sage advice from a seasoned campaigner at the time for whom I have much respect, whose advice to me was just remember that what got you to this point in your career may not be what you need for the next phase. And I think over the last 6 months, I have realized, I don't know that you're ever 100% ready for a transition of this nature. However, as Neal has outlined, I think I would like to commend and thank our Chairman, our Board, but Neal, in particular, for what has been a very well thought out, deliberate and structured transition process. This has given me the opportunity to transition out of my last role and ensure a continuation of the leadership within the South African region that remains a critical region to our business. That's also given me the opportunity to visit our operations and meet with stakeholders, both internal and external, but in particular, to work alongside Neal and truly understand the many nuances of our business, but I don't know you always get to experience when filling an individual executive role. I truly hope that this installs confidence amongst our many stakeholders that this transition has been planned with the utmost efficiency. And that was together with the experienced team that we have, we will continue to build and evolve the legacy is Sibanye- Stillwater. I'd also like to just take this opportunity to thank Neal. No doubt from the slides that you've seen him present, you would realize that the company, Neal will be leaving at the end of September as he transitions into a new phase of life, is a very different platform to what we inherited and started with in 2013. We have a significant operating base, we have a fantastic set of resources, and we have a world-class experienced and committed team that will continue to grow the legacy of Sibanye-Stillwater. Neal, thank you for that.

Thanks, Richard.

Moving on to an overview of the first half of 2025. I think as mentioned in my last statement, we have significant continuity in the leadership of the team. For those of you who have been familiar with the team, you'll see there's very little change at a C-suite level. We do, however, welcome Richard Cox into the role of the Chief Regional Officer for Southern Africa, taking up the role that I previously fulfilled. We have not moved quickly to replace the head of business development at this stage. It has not been a huge priority for us over the last few months. But certainly, looking ahead, that will be a position we will look to fill in the near future. Where we have seen some expansion in terms of the leadership team is in the CEO's office. James Wellsted will be known to many of you, and he will continue in his role as the Head of Investor Relations and Corporate Affairs for the group, but we also welcome on board Bryony Watson. Bryony will be taking over from George Ashworth as our Chief of Staff as George retires with Neal at the end of September. We also welcome Kleantha Pillay, who will be moving into a group role heading up our sales and marketing, and this is very much an underpin towards our customer focus for the various metals and products that we produce. And finally, George Coetzee is joining the team as Head of Group Safety and will be reporting directly into myself. On safety, that certainly remains our #1 focus and our first priority. As Neal mentioned, I think it's been very pleasing this half to see a continued sustained decline in many of our lagging indicators. Over the past 3.5 years since we started our fatal elimination program, we have seen both our serious injury frequency rate and our total recordable injury frequency rate declining by about 15% year-on-year. Having achieved 3.9, the lowest ever in terms of our total recordable injury frequency rate, the first half of this year was particularly pleasing, given that we had set ourselves a target of going below 4 by the end of 2025. Nevertheless, despite these improving trends, it is with a very heavy heart that we do need to still report on the loss of 3 colleagues during the first half of this year. Mr. Xavier Humberto, at our Kloof operations; Ms. Bomkazi Jozana, at our Driefontein operations; and Ms. [ Motzelo ] at our Rustenburg operations. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families who will continue to receive our support. It is also sad to note that we have lost a colleague in July post the reporting period at our Stillwater operations. And similarly, our thoughts, prayers and sincere condolences go to the families of Bryan Hanson. Eliminating fatal incidents and life-changing incidents is our absolute #1 priority. And that is because we care. One of the ways to measure ourselves against whether or not we are progressing on this journey is through a leading indicator we've developed around our high potential incidents. And it has been pleasing that since we started measuring this in August of 2022, despite a significant increase in the number of near-miss reports that we are generating across our group, we have seen a consistent decline in the high energy incidents that could potentially result in a loss of life. These number of incidents have decreased from an average of around 50 to 60 incidents per month down to below 10. This still remains high and is the absolute focus of our leadership and management team to mitigate and eliminate these incidents and thereby fatals within our operations. For 2025, we will continue to drive this through enhancing compliance across the group, primarily through our leadership and effective management routines but also through embedding critical controls that mitigate against this high risk. We fully recognize that in order to have a long-term sustainable elimination of fatal and life-changing incidents requires a true culture throughout the organization, a culture of care. And that too is being driven from the highest levels. Moving on to our strategic positioning. I think as Neal mentioned, when we look at how we currently positioned, I think we're well positioned not only to survive but in fact, to thrive in what is currently a very turbulent and volatile industry and world. I think, firstly, looking at our commodity diversification and particularly our exposure to gold that has assisted our stabilized earnings through very turbulent commodity market cycles. We've also invested very strategically to position ourselves to deliver into long-term strengthening markets, including the lithium market as well as PGMs. Importantly, we positioned ourselves in specific ecosystems, recognizing a global geopolitics several years ago and what we called multi-polarity, and that the need for local supply, especially of critical minerals was going to increase. But not only have we positioned ourselves in these ecosystems, we've also ensured that we beneficiate the metals we mine to produce an ultimate product that is of value to the supply chains, which we serve into. We've already seen the tangible benefits of this from our U.S. operations in terms of the Section 45x credits that we received and our ability to file a petition against the unrolled palladium antidumping -- petition against unrolled palladium coming into the U.S. from Russia. We've also developed the first fully integrated lithium project in Europe. And again, with an increased focus on local supply and local protection of critical metals, this remains a critically strategic project. Construction of Keliber is nearing completion and will be completed in the first half of next year. And we do recognize that today the lithium market remains under pressure. And as such, we are evaluating a responsible start-up to these operations. We've also seen the benefit of being granted a strategic project status at both Keliber and our GalliCam project in France under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, which has provided us with access to both grants and tax credits as these projects ramp up. I think an important aspect of our asset base are our extensive resources. We have significant brownfields opportunity within our existing operations, and we have already commenced selectively investing through the cycle in select projects. Many of these brownfield projects are very low capital intensity, the lowest in the industry, given that they already have much of the supporting infrastructure, surface infrastructure and overheads in place. It is pleasing to see K4 ramping up and the positive impact that that is having on the Marikana operations, including on unit costs. And most recently, in June, we also approved the commencement of the Siphumelele-Bambanani mechanization project which will see the benefits from having combined the Kroondal operations and the Rustenburg operations. This is a project that will not only significantly enhance the efficiencies and therefore, costs of both Siphumelele and Bambanani, but also brings to account significant resources that were previously sterilized while these mines set in two different companies. We are assessing the Burnstone project that was placed on care and maintenance to preserve our balance sheet 18 months ago. And the decision on Burnstone is likely to be made towards the end of this year. In addition, earlier this year, we did announce the JV with Glencore and Merafe to optimize value from byproducts being produced from our -- in particular, our South African PGM operations and chrome, a potential transaction that is currently under consideration by the Competition Commission, but that will add significant value in longevity to our operations and significant value to multiple stakeholders. And finally, our strategy is underpinned by sustainability. Sustainability will continue to underpin modern responsible mining companies and it is extremely pleasing that during the first half of this year, we have announced an expansion of our presence in the circular economy through the acquisition of Metallix that will be complementary to our existing recycling business. Also very pleasing is to have received our first renewable energy from our Castle Wind Farm. This particular project was commissioned at the end of the first quarter and already to date has added significant savings of just over ZAR 20 million to our energy bill in South Africa, but even more importantly, has reduced our total carbon footprint by some 60,000 tonnes, while it's been in operation. And finally, we concluded last week our annual Marikana memorial lectures. I dare say if I had to take a sound bite out of these lectures, the key theme that came through, and I dare say this could be a lesson for the country as a whole, was the power of genuine stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement to build trust, to understand one another and together, co-create a new future, which can add significant benefits and value to all stakeholders around our operations. Moving on to our operations at a very high level. I think our SA PGM operations can best be described as stable and consistent. They do consistently deliver on both production and cost guidance. And we have, as I mentioned, been investing in these assets through the cycle through K4 and more recently, the decision to invest in a Siphumelele-Bambanani mechanized project. Our U.S. PGM operations have delivered on their restructuring from 2024, significantly reducing absolute costs and minimizing cash outflows. With the recent Section 45x providing financial support on the increasing palladium price, these operations are returning to positive earnings. We do, however, recognize that within our control is costs and to be truly competitive over the long term, reducing those costs as an absolute necessity. And we have a pathway to reduce costs to below $1,000 per 2E ounce over the next 2 to 3 years. As Neal mentioned, the only operations that are not currently within guidance and have been disappointing relative to our own expectations was ISA Gold operations. The operations had a tough start to the year. Pleasingly, during the second quarter, both Driefontein and Beatrix improved to expected output levels, and we look forward to a second half from both Beatrix and Driefontein. Kloof, however, was significantly impacted by seismicity. And due to safety concerns, we did reduce production in certain areas at Kloof. This, coupled with some infrastructure challenges during a transition from a low-volume, high-grade operation to higher-volume low-grade operation has meant that we have -- we are reassessing Kloof to understand what a stable and future-looking production profile could look like from these operations within the current environment, and that work will be concluded during the second half of this year. I dare say, however, these were operations that was slated to have been closed by 2020. And yet still, after 13 years of operating, they remain significant deleveraged to the gold price. And for operations that we to have been closed today to contribute just under 50% of our earnings, I think, is a significant testament to our gold operating teams and management. Also pleasing has been the return on our investment into DRD Gold, which remains our long-term exposure to gold. Despite significant capital investment over the past few quarters into what is called Project 2028, a project that will not only increase production by about 30%, but also the longevity of the West Rand and operations under DRD Gold, they have also managed to make a significant dividend payment for which Neal we are extremely grateful. Our Australian operations last year suffered at the hands of what -- of the impact of climate change, having experienced both flooding and fire within a single year. I think full credit to our operating teams in Australia, we took learnings from those incidents, mitigated those risks and put in remediation measures, and this year are performing well above expectation. Our recycling business remains a significant differentiator and a way to gain exposure to critical metals through low capital cost and certainly is becoming more strategically important as we see regional supply chains and regional ecosystems clamoring to secure critical minerals. Sandouville is continuing to ramp down, and we look to that operation going on to full-time care and maintenance from January 2026. The GalliCam pre-feasibility project will be completed around year-end, and the results of that project will drive some of our thinking around Sandouville moving forward. And finally, Keliber is on track to deliver construction -- the construction phase by early 2026. we have been through the peak project capital cycle. And as I mentioned earlier, we are assessing the optimal and most responsible ramp-up of Keliber given the current depressed lithium market fundamentals. I think looking at our earnings graph over the last 2.5 years tells the story that we have been through from an operational restructuring and repositioning. Having recognized the significantly and very fast decline in the PGM markets in 2023, we moved to restructure our loss-making operations and reposition our business. Through this, we were able to arrest that earnings decline and kept it stable during that period of significant restructuring. And seeing the benefits of that now coming through together with good operational performance, and as Neal mentioned, more recently, increasing commodity prices has seen a significant turnaround in our earnings base, more than 50% higher than what we experienced at the same time last year, excluding the one-off credits, which are a real value that have been added during the period under review. I think as we move through our peak capital cycle, getting to the end of the Keliber and the K4 projects, this is an opportunity to focus on cash conversion from our operations. As Neal mentioned, it's been pleasing to see the turnaround as well and the declining trend in terms of our net debt to EBITDA, with that number coming in significantly or comfortably below 1x, which is the level and target that we have set ourselves. But with increasing cash generation, our focus will now also turn on an overall reduction on our gross debt number. And finally, I think our capital allocation model is one we've shared with the market on several occasions and one you're probably familiar with. But again during the difficult cycle we have been through over the last couple of years, I think just to confirm that we have remained true to our capital allocation model. Firstly, looking at project capital, we have responsibly invested through the cycle. We have completed the 1 year in completion of the build of the Keliber lithium project. We're nearing completion of the K4 project as that is currently ramping up in production. And most recently, approved the commencement of the Siphumelele-Bambanani mechanization project. Burnstone, as I mentioned, is currently being assessed. And to talk to the responsible nature of this, we have also walked away from several investments including the rhyolite ridge opportunity, the lithium project in the U.S., which did not meet our hurdle rates. We have said in terms of our capital allocation that we do want to maintain healthy cash reserves and we have managed to maintain our target of ZAR 20 billion, which provides us with the required liquidity and headroom to manage the business comfortably. I think important to highlight that our dividend policy does and will continue to remain unchanged at 25% to 35% of normalized earnings. Over the past few years, dividends have not been paid in line with the policy. And at present, we are just starting to enter again a position of dividend-paying territory. Given the current global uncertainty and commodity price volatility, we have made a decision not to pay dividends at the interim at the half year, but we will be reviewing this at the year-end. And certainly, with our current outlook on the second half, should commodity prices remain where they are, we are confident that we will be back in dividend paying territory by the end of the year. Moving on to our balance sheet and debt management. I think as you've heard, our balance sheet remains in a healthy position. We have sufficient liquidity. We've got an undemanding debt maturity ladder, which Charles will touch on in a bit more detail and our net debt to adjusted EBITDA has returned to below 1x and therefore, derisked our balance sheet compared to where we were 12 to 18 months ago. And finally, we have made some small but very measured and strategic growth investments. The acquisition of Metallix, which we announced in July, will expand our very strategic recycling footprint. And this is an acquisition that is expected to contribute immediately to the group's earnings and cash flow and also presents significant opportunity to leverage our existing recycling [ rolling ] footprint that we have in the U.S. and internationally. And then as I mentioned, we have also announced the Glencore Merafe JV transaction where we truly look to enhance value from our chrome byproducts at our SA PGM operations. And with that, I'll hand over to Kleantha, who will take us through an overview of the markets. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard, and good afternoon to everyone. I'm going to talk through 3 slides, and I'll be covering the macros, PGMs and lithium performance over the half year as well as our expectations for the next 18 months. Markets have been overwhelmed by the constant tariff news, which continues to create uncertainty. The cost of goods imported into the U.S. will rise to reflect the tariffs, in turn potentially reducing demand. The U.S. is forecast to have slower GDP growth as a result of these tariffs, although this has been upgraded following this pricing of the spending bill. In the near term, quarter 3 and quarter 4 growth is expected to slow as the impact of tariff front-running phase. Global Data's U.S. light vehicle sales forecast has been reduced by 1 million ounces for 2025 and over 1 million ounces in 2026 to reflect the impact of the tariffs. While this will lower PGM demand, it will also impact used vehicle scrappage rates with cars being kept on the road for longer, putting pressure on the secondary supply. China is only modestly impacted by the tariffs, having reduced their reliance on the U.S. for exports over the past few years. Growth is still, however, predicted to fall short of government's 5% target. Global growth is forecast to slow to 2.6% this year, largely dragged down by the weaker outlook for the U.S. A combination of the weaker U.S. dollar, range-bound yields with expectations of future rate cuts and worsening geopolitical tensions has resulted in strong gold investment demand from the over-the-counter markets, ETFs and of course, from central banks. Gold prices were up 26% in the first half of the year, with average gold trading volumes of $329 billion per day during the first half, the highest for any half year period on record. Broad and sustained conflict resolution, which seems quite unlikely in the current environment could see a moderation in price. More likely, though, should economic conditions deteriorate exacerbating geopolitical tensions, safe haven demand will remain strong. Now moving on to PGMs. The rally in PGM prices, including those of the minor metals is reflective of the tape supply situation in South Africa. Platinum prices have outperformed, driven by lower mine supplies. And looking ahead, local production is expected to fall below the 3.8 million ounce level this year, reflecting the lack of investment over the years, coupled with aging assets. Metal flows were significantly impacted by tariff threats with almost 360,000 ounces of platinum flowing into U.S. ComEx vaults between January and April. Following the delay in reciprocal tariffs and the PGMs being on the list of goods not subject to tariffs, ComEx Volt stocks fell back to the 270,000 ounce level by mid-July. Platinum lease rates have been significantly elevated through the half year, with 1 monthly lease rates moving from just over 11% in January to a July peak of almost 37%. Investor interest in platinum contributed to the elevated demand with more price upside expected compared to gold, and we saw a net platinum ETF inflow of 30,000 ounces during the half year. Chinese platinum imports were up 63% year to June, driven by investment interest and some jewelry manufacturing, which is dominated by gold switched to the lower-cost platinum metal. While positive, Chinese consumer sentiment and the October Golden Week holidays will offer indicators of whether this actually translates into retail success. Palladium demand has also been driven by investment. We saw net palladium ETF inflows of 115,000 ounces in the first half of the year, while more recent high prices have led to some profit taking. Since early August, positions have stabilized around the 870,000 ounce level. The increase in rhodium prices can also be attributed to the tight supply from South Africa as well as more buying interest from auto OEMs. Stocks are clearly depleted, and some OEMs are gearing up for more stringent China 6B testing standards. The demand for ruthenium has been driven by new chemicals capacity in China, and this is the production of caprolactam, which is used to make nylon fibers as well as for the ever-increasing demand for data storage boosted by the AI boom. Ruthenium prices were up 49% in the half year and have since hit all-time highs of $930 per ounce. Global government and defense industry interest in securing niche critical metals has also resulted in emerging investor interest in the mine at PGMs. Over the next 18 months, we again see downward revisions to late duty vehicle production with battery electric vehicles being the most impacted, while hybrid vehicles have been slightly upgraded. We also see some near-term growth in PGM loadings as China gears up for tighter emissions testing standards. Secondary supply is expected to remain largely flat year-on-year, and the higher PGM prices during the first half of this year, together with some consolidation in the U.S. recycling market, resulted in some ordered volumes at U.S. scrap yards being liquidated. However, scrapped vehicle numbers are expected to fall both in the U.S. and Europe following weak new vehicle sales. In Asia, we see some pickup as Japan's new car sales improve and China scrappage incentive scheme lifts volumes. In summary, in the short term, the running PGM price has been underpinned by supply tightness and purchasing for investment and jewelry. Longer- term cyclical trends, as we all well know, are demand rather than supply-driven. And we, therefore, remain rather cautious on prices, though the recent drag has possibly set us a new higher base. The outlook to the end of next year remains positive due to higher hybrid vehicle forecasts coupled with declining primary supply and lower levels of auto cat recycling. We expect to see both platinum and palladium remaining in deficit after 2026, with the rhodium market remaining close to balance. Global growth remains the biggest risk to the forecast. And then finally, let's look at lithium where the market has remained oversupplied and prices during the first half of the year have remained depressed. At the average first half of the year price just over $9,000 per tonne, approximately 1/3 of all lithium supply was unprofitable. The surpluses have been exacerbated by the slowdown in battery electric vehicle demand growth, some as a result of the U.S. tax credits for battery electric vehicles scheduled to end in September. The most recent price movement up to just over $11,000 per tonne in mid-August has come as a result of the Chinese government taking its oversight of domestic lithium extraction, part of a wider push to reduce excess capacity across many industries in China. China's initial focus has been on operations that are underutilized, inefficient and uneconomic and also on those that may not have the correct permits. Many of the Chinese lepidolite mines are uneconomical at current price levels, but have been supported financially through vertical integration. We see short-term price pressure persisting due to oversupply. The sustainability of the recent price value is very difficult to call as it will largely depend on the next steps the Chinese government take. We remain fairly bullish that electrification will continue to drive demand. We're forecasting a healthy 10.7% CAGR for battery electric vehicle production over the next 10 years. And we expect to see lithium deficits later in this decade. This will really underpin incentive pricing for new lithium projects. And now let me hand over to Richard Cox to talk you through the operations.

Thank you, Kleantha. Hello, everyone. Our South African PGM operations, which continue to deliver consistent, reliable performance are on track to achieve guidance for the third year running, and 8 out of 9 years overall. Total production for the first half of 2025 was 840,000 4E ounces, 4% lower year-on-year. This reflects consistent performance from underground operations at 750,000 4E ounces, in line with the first half of 2024. Rustenburg, up 2%, Marikana, down 1%, while service production was down by 50% to 54,000 4E ounces, impacted by higher seasonal rainfall affecting the entire industry in the first quarter of 2025. Purchase of concentrate volumes from third parties, were also 29% lower at 35,800 4E ounces, in line with revised annual contractual agreements. The second quarter of 2025 production improved 13% over the first quarter across most shafts. Operating costs, excluding purchase of concentrate in Mimosa production, were well contained, increasing by just 4% to ZAR 19.3 billion, which is below inflation, attributable in part to last year's restructuring and closure of high-cost shafts, offsetting additional toll processing costs from Kroondal shift to toll treatment of concentrate in September 2024. All-in sustaining unit costs increased 11% to ZAR 23,900 per 4E ounce, in line with our ZAR 23,500 to ZAR 24,500 per 4E ounce guidance range, impacted by lower production, a 20% rise in sustaining capital mainly at Marikana and 11% lower byproduct credits. Chrome ore sales of 1.07 million tonnes decreased 17%, with revenue down 31% to ZAR 2.2 billion due to 12% lower production of 1.16 million tonnes under heavy rainfall and a 13% fall in chrome ore price to $259 per tonne. Our strategic efforts since 2016 to boost our chrome business have contributed to industry-leading all-in sustaining unit cost. Adjusted EBITDA was consistent at ZAR 4.8 billion year-on-year despite 16% fewer 4E ounces sold, due to smelter rebuilds at Marikana furnaces, 1 and 2 and the consequent lower volumes through the precious metal refinery circuit. This was offset by a 7% higher average basket price of ZAR 26,300 per 4E ounce. We did have a ZAR 1.6 billion inventory buildup partly from Kroondal's pipeline change, reversible of net realizable value adjustments and the smelter rebuilds. And this buildup will be released in the second half of this year. The Marikana K4 project produced 44,000 4E ounces, a 68% increase year-on-year, positively contributing to reduced unit costs at Marikana, with project capital at K4 expected to decline from current levels of ZAR 305 million for the first half of '25 as the project ramps up. Our partnership with Glencore on the Merafe venture will unlock value by accelerating delivery of legacy Marikana chrome ore volumes by about 20 years, enhancing byproduct credits against all-in sustaining costs, and we're awaiting competition commissioning approval. We focused on moving down the cost curve and improving relative competitiveness. Pleasingly, Marikana continues to move down the cost curve as the Marikana K4 project ramps up to steady state in enhancing efficiency. This positions us favorably against peers, underscoring our cost discipline and leverage in the rising PGM environment. The combined Rustenburg and Kroondal operation are moving slightly up the cost curve due to the Kroondal change in toll treatment of concentrate, which added processing costs, but profitability benefits from higher revenue and margins and elevated metal prices, plus chrome ore byproduct offsets. Our low capital intensity brownfields projects relative to peers, such as the Bambanani- Siphumelele project, the Thembelani project, the [indiscernible] project, will continue to improve competitiveness. During the second quarter of 2025, the Board approved the Bambanani-Siphumelele project. This project involves the extension of the Bambanani decline allowing extraction of Siphumelele 2 reserves from low-cost mechanized Bambanani infrastructure . Given the improving production and sales outlook in the second half of this year and the PGM price, which has improved by 23% since the end of May to the current level of ZAR 31,600 per 4E ounce, the outlook for the SA PGM's operations is very positive. Our South African gold operations are highly leveraged to the gold price with an improving outlook. The average gold price received increased 36% year-on-year to slightly more than ZAR 1.8 million per kilogram. And adjusted EBITDA, which includes DRD gold for the first half of 2025 increased by 118% to ZAR 4.8 billion from ZAR 2.2 billion for the first half of 2024. This is the highest since the second half of 2020. The contribution to group adjusted EBITDA increased to 48% from 33% for the first half of 2024 confirming the strategic importance of the South African gold assets in the diversified group portfolio. Production for the first half of 2025, including DRD Gold, declined 13% to 9.3 tonnes of gold. And from managed operations, excluding DRD Gold, production was lower by 14% to 7.1 tons. Excluding DRD Gold, EBITDA increased by 166% to ZAR 3 billion. Capital spend was lower by 16% to ZAR 1.7 billion with the Burnstone project on can maintenance, ore reserve development down 3% to ZAR 1.4 billion and sustaining capital higher by 2%. Notably, and historically, these managed assets unbundled in 2013 is high- cost end-of-life assets with 13.5 million ounces in reserve and an 8-year remainder life of mine have produced 12.9 million ounces over the past 12 years. As stated, our managed gold assets delivered ZAR 3 billion of EBITDA in the first 6 months of this year. Since our ZAR 10 billion market capitalization in 2013, they've generated substantial cumulative earnings far exceeding that evaluation. With another 4 to 10 years ahead, these are functional and viable assets that have delivered outstanding returns. Driefontein operational performance improved during the second quarter of 2025 with gold production 32% higher compared to the first quarter after a January fire and March stock note by Section 54 order delayed ramp-up at the [ Flanganani ] fire shaft. Seismicity in high-grade VCR stopes also led to crew reassignments to lower grades. At Beatrix, we've built up the stockpile all ahead of the metallurgical plant due to ongoing upgrades and infrastructure constraints that have temporarily reduced throughput. This includes approximately 28,000 tonnes containing around 92 kilograms of gold, which we expect to process fully during the second half of this year. Overall, the mine itself is performing very well. And rather, the targeted improvements to the leach and carbon regeneration circuits that have necessitated this reduction in processing capacity leading to the temporary build out. Turning to Kloof. Our operations faced a tough first half of 2025 primarily driven by increased seismicity in high-grade isolated blocks of ground along with infrastructure limitations in the shaft or parts and ventilation systems at 2 coning shaft. These issues have resulted in stop-start operations that further impact stability of production. Compounding this with two significant incidents. The tragic fatal accident at 1 Shaft in January, together with the Section 54 stoppage resulting in a loss of about 25,000 ounces and a shaft incident in May at the 7 shaft causing a further loss of roughly 2,000 ounces. Throughout though, our decisions have been guided by a strong emphasis on safety and the sites limited operational flexibility. Longer term, current life of Mine is currently under comprehensive review to optimize the plan for long-term sustainability and commercial viability. All the while holding our unwavering commitment to safe production practices. Gold wage negotiations started in mid-July this year and are progressing constructively to date. Production and all-in sustaining cost guidance for the managed operations for the full year has been revised to between 15 and 16 tonnes and between ZAR 1.45 million and ZAR 1.55 million per kilogram following the first half performance and constraints at the operations. Our Burnstone project is being evaluated in the current high gold price environment together with funding options for value. Turning to DRD Gold, stable operating performance supported by higher gold prices have boosted earnings. Production decreased by 8% to 2.27 tonnes of gold for the first half of 2025. All-in sustaining costs increased 15% to ZAR 1.08 million per kilogram. Adjusted EBITDA grew 70% year-on-year to ZAR 1.8 million for the first half of 2025. This strong result enabled a final dividend of ZAR 0.40 per share for the year ended 30 June 2025, with around ZAR 178 million accruing to Sibanye-Stillwater. We thank DRD Gold for this dividend and the consistent cash flow the company provides. Our investment in DRD Gold circular economy model continues to deliver reliable earnings across market cycles. Looking forward to the second half of the year, we expect improved results from Driefontein and from Beatrix, with Kloof operations under review. Encouragingly, with third quarter average gold price to date at slightly more than ZAR 1.9 million per kilogram, 7% above the first half, if sustained, further profitability gains are anticipated. I'll now hand over to Charles from the U.S. operations.

Thank you, Richard. Our Montana PGM operations for the half year 2025, we produced 141,000 ounces at an all-in sustaining cost of $1,207 an ounce. This was in line with our plan, which as compared to our performance pre-restructuring late last year, saw a 41% decrease in all-in sustaining costs and a 52% reduction in total capital to $45 million. We had several disruptions during Q2, one of which was commissioning of an electric furnace #2 in Columbus, which resulted in an inventory lockup of approximately 5,700 ounces. This is cleared post quarter. As you'll see, adjusted EBITDA for the half year was $151 million. Richard Cox showed in the industry cost curve in his presentation that the Stillwater assets are currently sitting in the middle of the pack, whereas a year ago, we were the highest cost producer in the industry on the same graph. The team has done significant work to affect the shift and our intent is to keep moving down the cost curve, but to get to a consistent $1,000 an ounce cost character in these Montana operations from our current run rate of just under $1,400 an ounce before the Section 45X credit is going to take several years and requires a large number of changes from equipment through to debottlenecking all aspects of the mining and ore handling process in both Stillwater and East Boulder. That work is underway. It's looking good. We have a lot of heavy lifting to do to hit that aspirational target, but I think we're well on the way, and we'll talk to that as we go in the future on the plan for next year, et cetera. Section 45X of the Inflation Reduction Act saw a benefit for the mining operations of $159 million credited to costs in the half year. The impairment of 238 million was not related to operations, but rather was due to a change in accounting treatment from the original evergreen treatment of Section 45X in the original Inflation Reduction Act to it now being phased out from 2031 through to 2034 with a 25% step down each year. Our treatment of Section 45 in our books has followed the letter of the law from the original inflation Reduction act now to revisions on the newly promulgated Big Beautiful Act, which revised tax and spending policies in the U.S. We will be making our formal 45X submissions with revised tax filings during the second half of this year. We would expect the cash flow for the 2023 filing and the 2024 filing years to be realized next year in 2026. You will have also seen that together with the United Steel Workers, we recently filed an antidumping and countervailing duty petition against unwrought Russian palladium imports into the U.S. The petitions were filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission. The goal of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty law is to ensure that domestic producers can compete on a level playing field by addressing the market distortions caused by unfair trade practices elsewhere. These investigations by Commerce and the ITC should take approximately 13 months, though preliminary duties and determinations are expected in the next 3 to 5 months. The heavily subsidized Russian imports have been sold below market prices since 2022. And at the very time that we reduced annual production at our Montana operations by 200,000 ounces and cut 700 jobs because of low palladium prices, Russian imports stepped up into the U.S. Imports of unwrought palladium from Russia into the U.S. increased by 35% from 2022 to 2024 and increased by another 50% in the first quarter of 2025. It is this unfair trade practice specifically that we are addressing with the trade remedies that we have available to us in the U.S. In handing over to Grant to talk to our recycling business, let me just note that while auto cat recycling remains subdued in the U.S. and hence impacts our Columbus recycling business, our move into industrial scrap and e-scrap recycling through Reldan is performing above plan, which is very pleasing to see. We are also excited to add metallics to this platform in the near future, which will allow us to unlock further synergies as we build out a substantial critical minerals recycling business that is complementary to our U.S. PGM mining business. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Charles, and good day, everyone. Our recycling journey in Montana began over 2 decades ago when spare melt capacity was first leveraged to process spent autocatalytic converters. What started off as an efficiency initiative has evolved into a strategic platform. Since acquiring Stillwater in 2017, we have deliberately strengthened and expanded this capability, transforming Columbus into the cornerstone of our recycling business and the springboard for broader growth. While the global auto cat recycling market remains under pressure with macroeconomic factors extending a vehicle's life on the road and thereby limiting short-term volume recovery, Columbus continues to form as a stable cash-generative platform. In the first half of 2025, average daily feed was 9.6 short tonnes per day, slightly below the prior year due in part to market factors, but also due to the transition to a second furnace, which resulted in a temporary inventory buildup of 147 tonnes containing an estimated 12,000 3E PGM ounces. With the electric furnace now operational, inventories are expected to normalize in Q3 of 2025. Together with the $126 million of Section 45X credits that Charles has just mentioned, Columbus delivered an adjusted EBITDA of $129 million or ZAR 2.4 billion. As part of our growth strategy, we acquired Reldan 15 months ago. Reldan has been a successfully integrated entity into our organization and delivered $20 million in operating cash flows year-to-date, equating to an adjusted EBITDA of $18 million or ZAR 330 million. Reldan is structurally well positioned underpinned by strong Fortune 500 customer base, a disciplined operating model with a sharp focus on cost management and a suite of industrial and precious metals. Year-to-date, we have processed 8.6 million pounds of industrial scrap and waste and sold 64,000 ounces of gold, 933 ounces of silver, 20,000 ounces of PGMs and 1.5 million pounds of copper. Most recently, we announced the acquisition of Metallics. Now Metallics further strengthens our value proposition by adding scale, advanced processing technologies and logistics and a logistics fleet that extends our sourcing reach across the U.S. Together with Reldan, we will have presence in Mexico, India, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Metallics brings increased volumes of gold, silver, PGMs and copper and like Reldan, is expected to be cash generative from day 1. So what we have now is a platform with real structural integrity and reach. Our auto cat platform is the mature foundation with PGM scale, dependable assay capability, quick turnaround times and a business with integrity and reputation. Reldan as a diversification engine with a geographic reach and competence and scale in gold and silver and now Metallics as the accelerator of scale and innovation. It is expected that the transaction will close in September now that we have all regulatory approvals in hand. In conclusion, this is more than a series of acquisitions. It's a strategic convergence that redefines what's possible in precious metal recycling and positions us uniquely to shape a cleaner, greener future. Thanks, and over to you, Robert.

Thank you, Grant, and hi, everyone. I'm pleased to report that the Australian operations had a good start to 2025. They produced 51,000 tonnes of payable zinc metal, which is a 22% year-on-year increase. This level of production even exceeded my own expectations and was thanks to less rain this year compared to last year and also the successful implementation of remedial measures to address risk excess of rainfall. As one would expect, with an increase in production, costs come down, and the unit costs this year are 21% lower than for the same period last year. The H1 good performance was supported by an 11% increase in the average zinc metal price and increased from $2,366 a tonne in 2024 to $2,626 per tonne in 2025. Worthwhile mentioning is the treatment charges, which were less than 50% of what they were last year, this in part due to the industry benchmark, which was lower, but also the team capitalizing on very lucrative spot sale agreements in the first half of this year. Increased metal production, reduced costs, higher metal price all contributed to an adjusted EBITDA of $36 million, which was significantly more than the $19 million loss of 2024. Looking at the remaining 6 months for the year, we've hedged approximately 60% of our zinc, which we can produce, and this at a cap and a floor of between AUD 4,900 per tonne and AUD 4,100 per tonne. And this, coupled with a decent performance, is going to assist us to contribute very significantly to the organization again. Closing out with the development projects, the feasibility study for the Mount Lyell copper project in Tasmania is progressing well, and I'm expecting it to be finished before the end of this year. And then the phosphate feasibility study, which uses the Century existing infrastructure, is expected to be finished in the first quarter of next year. At this point, I'll hand over to Mika. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Rob, and hi, all. Greetings from Finland. We have 2 strategic projects in the region Europe, which are classified as strategic by the European Commission, and it's obviously related to Critical Minerals Act. We are quite proud of that. Although market for lithium is currently challenging, we can see that the electric vehicle volumes are growing again in the region Europe. If you look at Q2 sales numbers, it was almost 30% positive year-on-year. Our long-term view about EVs and lithium has not changed. We see it very positively. And what we can say also is that particularly when we are having the pole position to enter the lithium hydroxide market in Europe, so we are confident that that will give us longer term a lot of opportunities. We are on schedule, and we are also on the CapEx plan, which was revised just some time ago to EUR 783 million. As you can see, EUR 577 million so far has been used, and we haven't changed the guidance for the total year '25 on this one. It's still EUR 300 million. The permits are in place for us to start. And we did an impairment because of the lithium price outlook being more challenging than what it was before. This impairment is about 35% of the value. Currently, we are working on different options, different financial scenarios, different risk management actions, how to mitigate the risks during the ramp-up but also looking what is the most responsible way of ramping up and starting this operation for all the stakeholders. Let's then move to Sandouville France. Actually, we are working on 2 streams there. One is about history, and the other one is about future. We have ramped down the current production during H1. And we are now preparing Q3 for care and maintenance, and we continue that Q4. And at the end of the year, we are going to be in care and maintenance. The future work is obviously about GalliCam. And GalliCam project is now going forward in a good way. We believe that we can finalize the pre-feasibility study around the year-end. Maybe just a few words about the ramp-down of the current production. We have been following the plan, and the plan was to ramp it down at the end of H1, and we are there. We have also agreed already with 72 out of our 200 head count to leave the company still during this year. We are negotiating with the unions in good faith to do further reductions in order to reach the care and maintenance position at the end of the year. What does it mean? We are targeting, give and take, to 60 in this headcount reduction, and half of that would be care and maintenance and the other half is GalliCam project. About GalliCam, I said it's advancing well, and we have very good encouraging results from the lab tests. The pCAM product is not yet ready. We are still working with the density of the product. We are going to do tests in the cells and so on. But the research and development work together with the engineering work is progressing well. We are also looking for possible partners to mitigate the risks further and to make sure that we are part of the right ecosystems if we make the decision after the feasibility study to continue. So thank you very much all. And over to you, Charl.

Thank you, Mika, and good afternoon to all participants on the call. It is my pleasure to take you through the financial results for the 6 months ended 30 June 2025. Group revenue decreased by 1% to ZAR 54.8 billion with increased commodity prices offset by lower volumes. Cost of sales decreased by 20%. However, if we normalize for the impact of Section 45X for 2023 and 2024, it reduced by 11% or ZAR 5.4 billion. EBITDA increased from ZAR 6.6 billion to ZAR 15.1 billion. And if we normalize for the Section 45 impact of 2023 and 2024, it increased by 60% to ZAR 10.7 billion. Moving on to impairments. The U.S. operations realized an impairment of ZAR 4.2 billion, and this was due to the Section 45X credit phaseout in 2034, which was clarified in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act recently enacted in the United States. Previously, this legislation had an evergreen time frame for Section 45X. The impairment at Keliber of ZAR 5.3 billion was predominantly due to changes in economic factors, most notably the lithium price assumptions. At Mimosa, we also booked a ZAR 461 million impairment due to the increased operating cost and capital and the introduction of the Zimbabwean beneficiation tax on platinum. The net impact of all of this was a loss for the period of ZAR 3.9 billion, but it turns into a profit of ZAR 1.9 billion if we exclude the noncash impairments and the historical Section 45X credits. Headline earnings per share increased from ZAR 0.10 per share to ZAR 1.90 per share or a 19x increase. On the dividends, as mentioned by Richard, due to the current volatile global economic and geopolitical environment, we felt it prudent not to pay an interim dividend. A decision will be taken at the end of the year once we've had some time to see if the commodity price performance is sustainable. Turning to our debt position. Gross debt increased to ZAR 40.2 billion from the December 2024 reported number of ZAR 39.4 billion. Net debt stands at ZAR 19.2 billion, and available cash was ZAR 21 billion, and available liquidity, which includes our undrawn facilities, is just under ZAR 47 billion. On the bonds, we remain on track to refinance the 2026 $675 million notes in half 1 2026. At this stage, we are targeting downsizing the notes to $500 million. Also pleasingly, the 2028 $500 million convertible bond is now in the money as the share price have been trading well above the conversion price of approximately ZAR 24 a share. Just to note that this convertible bond is callable in November 2026. I will now hand over to Melanie Naidoo-Vermaak to provide an update on our renewable energy portfolio. Thank you, Melanie.

Thank you very much, Charl. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to all our attendees. As Neal and Richard have often emphasized, sustainability is a principle and one that's deeply embedded in the group's strategy, its operations and values. Our sustainability framework comprises several key pillars, with our commitment to decarbonization being one of the most critical. The group's renewable energy program is our most powerful lever for decarbonization given that 92% of our group emissions originate from Eskom. And through the development of our large-scale solar and wind projects, alongside innovative energy solutions, we're actively reducing our emissions, we're lowering our operational costs and strengthening energy security. And the milestones achieved this year demonstrate that we are firmly on track to meet our 600-megawatt renewable energy target by 2027. At the end of March this year, Castle wind farm entered commercial operation, already giving us 56 gigawatts of clean energy with a ZAR 21.6 million cost saving for the South African region. And our Springbok solar facility is undergoing grid compliance certification as we speak, and we expect our first energy from that project in the next few days. The graphs on this slide show our growing portfolio of privately developed renewable projects, which, when fully operational, will get us to the 30% substitution of our utility energy supply by mid-2027, and that would reduce our annual emissions by 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. These projects, coupled to our pipeline in development, gets us to that 600-megawatt target by 2027, driving tangible progress toward a more sustainable and resilient energy future. Thank you. Richard, handing back to you to conclude.

Thank you very much, Melanie. So I think just to move us into a final conclusion for today's presentation. I think as mentioned earlier, most of our operations are still well within guidance, and we look forward to a very constructive second half of 2025. The only guidance that we are revising in line with, as I discussed, the review of the current [ turf ] operations, is our South African gold guidance, which has been revised down from 16 to 17 tonnes of gold to 15 to 16 tonnes of gold at all-in sustaining costs of between ZAR 1.45 million and ZAR 1.55 million per kilogram. The balance of guidance, as I say, remains unchanged from what we put out earlier this year. Thank you very much to all of my colleagues for the detailed presentations given. So I think in conclusion, as you can see from both the heading as well as the strap line on the slide, our immediate focus is very much on prioritizing safe production, optimizing our margins and ultimately continuing to strengthen our balance sheet. As described earlier, I think we have a unique asset portfolio and are very well strategic positioned to not only survive but thrive in the very turbulent market conditions we currently find ourselves in. Our production turnaround has been pleasing post the repositioning and restructuring and good progress made on eliminating fatalities, albeit that still remains our #1 focus. Our improved operational performance has underpinned the financial turnaround that we have seen over the last 6 months. And today, most of our operations are either generating positive cash flow or very close to it, and we expect to see that turning during 2026. The closure of Sandouville later this year will continue to reduce losses further from that operation. And as we move through the peak funding of both Keliber and K4, we look to a higher cash flow conversion and that benefiting our overall gross debt position. The significant Section 45 payments, we look to that cash coming through in 2026, again, benefiting the balance sheet. And today, we remain very bullish on gold given the current market dynamics and are cautiously optimistic about the outlook for PGM markets, fundamentally remaining very bullish in the medium term but in the short term remain focused on the fundamentals coming through. I think our balance sheet is healthy. We have a low leverage. We have ample liquidity and sufficient debt headroom with a derisked debt maturity ladder ahead of us. We have been responsible with our capital allocation during a very difficult cycle, both managing to preserve the balance sheet but at the same time investing to ensure the longevity of our business. Overall, the outlook for the second half, particularly if commodity prices remain where they are, is extremely positive both on an operational and from a financial perspective. But we recognize that our absolute focus needs to be on what is within our control. It means a sustained safety improvement combined with operational and cost discipline, which will remain our absolute core focus. Thank you once again for joining us today, and I'll now hand over to James to manage any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone, and well done, gents, for the presentation. Starting with a question from Arnold Van Graan from Nedbank. Richard, you had some challenges at the SA gold ops. Have we seen the brunt of the impact of these challenges, I assume, meaning end? And when do you expect the operational performance to stabilize? How should we think about the SA gold production and CapEx profile over the next 2 to 3 years?

Thanks very much for that question. So I think as we mentioned, I do think that both Beatrix and Driefontein have stabilized. I think always important to remember, and that's the point we were trying to highlight, assets of this size, when they get to this point in their lives, are very operationally geared. And of course, they don't have the levels of flexibility that they had 5 or 10 years ago. But certainly, those 2 operations seem to have stabilized well. I think our major challenge has, of course, been the Kloof operations. And on the back of the seismicity and some of the decisions we've made around what we will not consider mining predominantly from a safety perspective and the infrastructure that we've got there, we are undertaking that review to understand what Kloof's outlook looks like. So I think to try and give you some sort of high-level numbers, I think what we can expect over the next couple of years, Driefontein is probably going to be producing in the region of 8 to 8.5 tonnes of gold or, let's call it, 0.25 million ounces-odd. I think Beatrix is probably around half of that, so about 4 tonnes of gold, 125,000 ounces. Kloof has historically been doing and expected to do in the region of about 5 to 6 tonnes. I think we can expect to see that probably halving based on what we have seen, but that is the work that we are finalizing and will come to the market with in the near future. So I'd be saying from our underground operations going forward, probably in the region of about 475,000, 480,000 ounces per annum. Of course, we've obviously got our surface operations in DRD on top of that. I think the CapEx question is a good one. If you go back and look at our capital profile over the years, it's been pretty consistent at about ZAR 3.5 billion per annum over the last few years, excluding project CapEx. And again, as I say, these are large operations with a lot of fixed infrastructure. Most of that goes into sustaining that fixed infrastructure. So we've sustained that throughout, and that won't change. I think sustaining capital in terms of that infrastructure is almost irrelevant in terms of the total volume you're outputting. So I would say you can expect the capital to remain roughly the same at about ZAR 3.5 billion per annum.

Thanks, Rich. I must say it does look like some of these analysts and investors are a bit quick off the trigger because they're asking questions that were covered in the presentation, but all my hard work done for nothing. Just first one from René Hochreiter on, congrats -- and I'm not directing that at René, by the way. Congrats on the Section 45 benefits -- 45X benefits. Can you expand on how you can get costs down below $1,000 per ounce at Stillwater? Rich, do you want to take that or hand it to Charles? Charles?

Charles, would you like to comment on that one?

Yes, sure. Thanks, James and Rich. And thanks, René, for the question. So I think the short answer is there are no immediate silver bullets. This is a shift over time. It's one that we've done a lot of work on and continue to work on. I think when you look at both Stillwater East and you look at East Boulder, there are 2 big shifts over time that you need to effect. One is to fully mechanize cut and fill, and the second is to increase sublevel extraction. Now we've done recently some really good internal work on mining cycles. And what that shows you is that time spent at the face is largely related to bolting, 36% on average, and secondly, mucking, 21% on average. And if you're looking to address that, we've done a number of things. One is we trial in a fully mechanized bolter. What this does is it increases your height and length of each round. So you get some dilution with that, but you potentially get a lot more ounces per blast cycle. Now if we get that right and the early trials on a Komatsu mechanized bolter at Stillwater East are good, then there's a knock-on effect you have to address because you now have higher tonnage and volumes. You've got to look very carefully at your ore handling. So we've got some debottlenecking to do there certainly at Stillwater. At East Boulder, you've got a different dip angle on the ore body. So you've got to go with a smaller bolter. So all of this work is daylighting the fact that there is a real opportunity set here to realize lower cost, improved productivity, enhanced mining cycles. But as you increase ounces, you've now got to look very carefully at your tailings capacities and so -- and your rock dump capacity. So what we've done at East Boulder through this year is we've deferred some capital spend on those expansions. So there's a kind of -- there's a confluence of factors that have to be worked quite carefully. Now we absolutely know we can get towards $1,000 an ounce over a couple of years if you work all of these different components, and you start to spend back the capital to enhance the tailings capacity particularly at East Boulder. So that trade-off work is underway. I think by year-end, we'll have that well in hand. We will be guiding the market early next year on what that looks like near term. I hope, René, that addresses the key aspects of your question. And then if you -- moving towards sublevel extraction on greater opportunity sets, then there's a lot of geotech work we're busy doing to understand how that can work most effectively. So it's work in hand. And then we've also done really good work at the back end on the mine planning, introducing a digital twin capability. So I think our sort of trade-off optimization work is a step change from where it was a year or 2 ago. When you put this all together, I'm quite comfortable when we start talking to this early next year, we'll have a good roadway. Again, it's not a 1-quarter wonder, so this is going to take 2 to 3 years to really get that right. Thanks.

Thank you, Charles. The next question is from Lorenzo Parisi at JPMorgan. Again, I think these are answered or were answered in the presentation, but how confident are we to receive the $285 million actual cash inflow next year from the Section 45X credits? Would we expect to receive additional Section 45X credits in future on top of the $285 million? I think Neal indicated a fair value that was quite sizable from future Section 45X credits. Can you remind us of the expected CapEx for next year? And then at current prices, would you expect to generate free cash flow next year but also the lower CapEx spend but excluding Section 45X credits? I think that's probably for Charles.

Thanks. Look, on 45X, I mean we're following the letter of the law. We're doing our tax submissions and revisions in the second half, and then it runs a process. So it's legislated. We are still first cabs off the rank on this. So until we get the check in the mail next year, I'm obviously cautious, but there's nothing that suggests you wouldn't get that. So hence, our current accounting treatment. But I think the whole industry is now navigating the early submissions on 45X. So there's a look back for 2 years, and that's what we've been dealing with in the numbers today. And then there's obviously a look forward over the next several years. So it's a very material positive addition to U.S. critical minerals mining. And I think it's one that we've been very directly involved with in the prior administration and also with the current administration to make sure that it works well. So I think the mechanics are mapped out in law, I think the process is there, and we are busy navigating that. So we expect the cash returns next year. James, just remind me of the second part of the question, please?

Okay. Let me just get back to the...

Oh, it is capital. So we will guide capital at Stillwater next year with our market release once we've got it through our executive and Board on the late year planning submissions. And on pricing, so we've seen positive movement in particularly palladium in the last couple of months. Obviously, we can't bank that yet. We would expect that to keep firming. So I think once you get into a 2E price that's in the $1,200 to $1,300s and given all the heavy lifting we're doing to improve operating efficiency cost -- and cost structures, then the net of that is you start to return to positive cash flow, and that is absolutely our intent. Exactly the timing of that, it will be price-dependent, and it will be dependent on all the work we're doing to move down the cost curve. And as we've tried to demonstrate, there's been a real shift in the last 12 months, and we continue on that journey.

Thanks, Charles. Sibanye Stillwater has announced it will acquire U.S. precious metals recycler Metallix in a deal valued at $82 million in cash. When shall this be finalized? And will this affect the 2025 figures and how? What is the sense -- okay, maybe that's the first part of the question. I'll ask the second part later. Charles, do you want to take that?

James, I think let Grant go. I mean I can address it, but it'd be good for Grant to work with it. Thanks.

Yes. Thanks, James. Thanks, Charles. The deal, the transaction is looking to close towards the back end of this month. So yes, we're looking towards September for the welcoming of the Metallix team on board. As far as the strategy goes and the integration, we're looking at clearly optimizing and making sure that we realize synergies from that. So we expect that the operation will be cash-generative from day 1, together with the synergies and optimization opportunities definitely impacting positively the financials for '25.

Thanks, Grant. The second part, I'll guide to Richard, is what is the sense in the longer term for Sibanye Stillwater when thinking about the strategy of the company?

Thanks very much, James. If that relates specifically to recycling, I'm not quite sure, but let me just answer that. I think strategically, recycling is a critical part of our business that we've always discussed in terms of getting exposure to the circular economy. I think it gives us exposure to many different critical metals that -- very quickly and at a relatively low capital cost. And I daresay that recycling is becoming increasingly important in the world, not only from a footprint perspective but also in terms of being a source of quick supply of local critical metals in terms of security of supply for certain regions. So recycling certainly still remains a core part of the strategy, and it is a nice steady margin business for us. I think if the question related more to the general strategy of the company, I think as we have shared before, we don't see a significant shift in the strategy coming. I think hopefully, as you would have picked up from the presentation, our immediate focus and short- term focus is very much on our operational excellence, on increasing margins and, of course, continuing to strengthen the balance sheet. But in terms of long-term strategy, we will continue to review and refine that together with our Board to take into account the environment we're operating in, but we certainly don't see significant or massive changes coming in that regard. Thanks.

Thanks, Richard. While we're on the topic of recycling, this is from René Hochreiter again, what PGM incentive basket price do you think is needed for recycling to return? Are current spot basket prices of around $1,700 per ounce higher than this incentive price? Richard?

René, thank you. So I don't think it's quite as simple as looking for a trigger price. I think that's oversimplifying it. This is obviously a significant business we've been in for a while. I think as I've shared before, in my mind, there are probably 4 big drivers to ultimately what drives recycling. Price does play a role, tends to play more of a role sort of higher up in terms of -- higher up in the value chain sort of at a collector level. I think as you get lower down in the recycling chain, it is more of a margin business, but that's really the fact that price plays. I think much bigger drivers really go around scrappage rates of vehicles. And of course, that is far more linked to macroeconomics. I think another big driver is interest rates. Recycling business is working capital-intensive throughout the chain, and interest rates tend to have a -- can eat a lot into those margins. So that's quite a big driver. And then the final one is supply chain efficiencies. And certainly, I think more globally, we have seen a lot of breakdown in those supply chains over the last few years. And I think that will continue to make it a bit more disruptive or more expensive to move material around the world. So I think it's a combination of those rather than necessarily looking for a single price trigger point at which we can expect a return. In terms of the market, as we've said before, many of those actually work in reverse to the drivers of primary demand, so you tend to get an overall balanced market. Thanks, René.

I can just say that a lot of the market forecasters have been expecting recycling to recover for the last 2 or 3 years but no sign of it yet. This is from Nkateko Mathonsi. Can you give guidance on the life of mine of Bathopele and the surface operations at SA PGM? Do you plan to open up new tailings dams? I guess that's a question about capacity of our tailings dams. Richard?

Nkateko, thanks very much. I think the life of mine at Bathopele is about 4 or 5 years that is remaining there. I think in terms of the surface strategy, that's a good question. I think at the moment, we currently have official reserves of about 2 years, if I'm not mistaken, in that sort of ballpark. They are quite short life, and that's been intentional in that we've really just continued with those operations almost year-to-year. I think as we have alluded to before, and this is also where some significant value from the potential future partnership with Glencore- Merafe can play a role, is we have been working on quite a significant surface strategy. We do have significant tailings dams that still contain both PGMs and chrome. And that is a strategy that we will be -- or a project that we'll be looking to finalize towards the end of this year and probably will be coming to the market with that early in the new year. But we do have significant surface resources, which do have a lot of value that we are looking to unlock. In terms of new tailings capacity, we have got plenty of capacity either on existing tailings or within permitted footprints for -- really for the life of our current operations. So happy with the deposition capacity we've got, but certainly, we are looking at a much bigger surface potential similar to what we've unlocked in our gold operations that will be coming to market in the near future.

Thanks, Richard. Another one from Nkateko. Richard talked about higher cash conversion as the CapEx spend on Keliber and K4 started to conclude. Does it mean M&A is no longer a priority in the -- I think she probably means as we generate more cash, are we going to spend more on M&A? Richard?

Thanks, James. Nkateko, let me answer your question. I think James put a different twist on it there, but let me just, I think, be clear on the view. Listen, I think importantly, M&A has always been part of the DNA of the company. I think we have shown how we've been able to create significant value through it over the years, and I think it will continue to be part of the DNA going forward. Importantly, of course, is the timing of how you grow, when you grow. And that's driven by a multitude of factors, a lot of which is obviously dependent on your current strength and ability as well as value propositions that may be out there. So I think to give you 2 short answers, M&A will remain part of the DNA of the company. But in the short and medium term, as we've highlighted, our current focus is on our existing operations, optimizing margins, and we do have some brownfield projects which we've committed to, and that will remain our focus for now.

Thanks. And I hope my twist was right, but apologies, Nkateko. This one from ING Bank. And moving on to Keliber questions. What does the responsible start of Keliber refer to, if I may ask? Is it related to mine or the refinery part of the project producing lithium hydroxide? Richard?

Yes. Thanks very much. I think as you've quite rightly pointed out, Keliber is very much an integrated project. So it comprises a mining operation, concentrator and refinery. I think if we step back and look at the project overall, as mentioned, this is the only current refinery in Europe and one of very few outside of China. And I think we remain very bullish on the lithium price in the long term. But the prices are very depressed right now, and to commence operations at a significant loss is just not something that we believe is in the best interest of all stakeholders. So we are evaluating multiple opportunities. Some of them include potential revenue drivers because this is such a critical project in Europe. Are there opportunities where we can get competitive pricing to recognize that opportunity? And others may include either phased or much slower ramp-ups. These are all the options that we are looking at responsibly, and that's what we mean by responsible start-up. But at current spot prices and where it has been right now, our focus is to ensure we minimize risk and minimize losses to all stakeholders. Critically, we do recognize, of course, as well that there are multiple stakeholders included in this, various financiers and, of course, within the projects themselves, and all of that will be taken into consideration as part of these decisions.

Thanks, Richard. A question from Alexandra Symeonidi from William Blair. What do we expect the production cost to be at Keliber? And where do we expect it to be in the global cost curve? I'll direct this over to you, Richard, first.

Thanks. I think at the moment, of course, it does depend on how we ramp up and the timing of that. But roughly speaking, the total cost at the moment, you're looking at about $12,000 to $12,500 per tonne. That would put us in the -- currently in the fourth quartile of existing projects today. What is important to look at, and I think that's why we're looking at it carefully, is what future cost curve looks like when we start looking out a few years, and that does become competitive. But I think that also does set some sort of target of where we'd be looking for the market to be as we move forward.

Thank you. From [ Bradley Beerwinkel ], a retail investor. Please talk about the uranium business progress, Neo Energy, as well as the tailings. What is Greg Cochran cooking up? Sorry, that's a pun on Cooke dump, but okay. How much zinc is still left in the dumps and in the ground at Century? And are there any mine developments surrounding the underground pipeline at Century? Does the Mount Lyell feasibility focus include recoveries from the historical waste dumped into the river? Rich, do you want -- did you get all those? Or should I ask them one by one?

I think, James, if I could, let me tackle the uranium ones and then perhaps if you could just pick up on the others. So I think just on the uranium side, as you correctly mentioned, we are in a sales process of Beatrix 4 to Neo Metals. That process is continuing. We are awaiting some regulatory approvals in that regard. So that is in process. The Cooke tailings project, which is obviously a significant uranium resource, we are looking for that feasibility to be completed towards the end of this year, and then we will see how best to progress with that project. But certainly, it is a significant project and a significant resource where we do believe there will be a lot of value coming from that, but that will be driven by the outcome of the feasibility later this year.

The next -- yes, so the other 2 questions were around Century. How much zinc is still left in the dumps and in the ground at Century? And then are there any mine developments surrounding the underground pipeline at Century?

Thanks, James. Let me have an initial comment, and Rob, if you'd like to add anything. But in terms of resources, we've got roughly 2 years' worth of the zinc operations remaining in those tailings dams. And yes, there are significant resources surrounding that infrastructure, in particular, phosphate. And that certainly could be an opportunity to utilize that infrastructure going forward. It is a feasibility study that we are working on with the owners of that project. Probably worth noting that phosphate was recently included in the critical minerals list that was recently published in the U.S. But yes, there are the resources around that.

And then a question on Mount Lyell. The feasibility focus, does it include recoveries from historical -- this is waste dumped. I would have said tailings deposited into the river.

Not as far as I am aware, but perhaps, Rob, could I ask if you've got any comments to add to that?

Richard, I can confirm you are correct. The feasibility study deals only with the underground operation. Having said that, any surface sources, whether in waste material or surface tails, will and can be -- can and will be considered as optimization to the feasibility study. But the study expected by the end of the year only focuses on underground material. Thanks.

A question from Siphelele Mdudu from Matrix. Are you not worried that this inventory buildup will be released in H2 2025 comments -- will put downward pressure on PGM prices in the near term as it seems that the industry has built up inventories? Richard?

Thanks very much. No, I think, is the short answer. I think what's really driven up the price is, yes, I think some of the supply shortage that came out, particularly during Q1 out of primary production in South Africa, did -- was one of the triggers to prices moving. But I think that that's something that's been well understood and modeled. Overall, primary supply continues to decline. So I think these are short movements. More of a driver to what we've seen in terms of the commodity price increases has been the investment buying and the increased buying particularly going into China, as Kleantha mentioned. So I don't think the release of inventory coming -- I think there are a few companies, as you quite rightly mentioned, where we're seeing inventory coming out in the -- over the next few quarters. But I don't think it's big enough to materially move the market, no. And much of it does come out over an extended period of time. I think the bigger fact is that overall primary supply continues to decline at the moment particularly out of South Africa over the coming years.

The next question from [ Antoine Dassault ]. The question is on GalliCam about timing, CapEx, installation, R&D work, et cetera. So I think we've said in the book that the pre-feasibility study is going to be done by the end of the year. And obviously, those numbers will be revealed after that. So I don't think we'll carry on with that question. There was a question from William Blair as well. Sorry, I missed what Charles said. Is there a plan to tender part of the '26s to reduce them to $500 million ahead of H1 2026 when you plan to refi? Or did Charl mean that the new bond will be $500 million, I guess? Thanks.

Yes. Thank you. And no, we are -- we do not have any plans to tender the bond before H1 2026. The plan is to use some of our excess liquidity and launch a smaller $500 million bond. As Richard has explained, there is a focus on gross debt reduction. And if you look at our debt, it's really chunky, really consists of 4 blocks being the 2026 bond, the '28 convertible, the '29 bond and then the Keliber debt. So we don't get a lot of opportunities to address the chunkiness of the debt. And that's why at this stage, the planning stage, we are considering a $500 million bond to be issued in half 1 2026. Thank you.

A question from [ Joe Mahaka ]. The company has not been profitable since 2022, which was when the downturn in the commodity prices happened. It seems 2025 will be a third year in a row making a loss. I don't think that's strictly correct. But when do you expect the company to become profitable again? Richard or Charl?

Charl?

Yes. Thank you. So thank you for the question. And if you look at the bottom line numbers, we do report losses, but those include the impairments that we had to take. We do operate in a cyclical business, and we suffer the vagaries of the market specifically with reference to commodity prices. So those have necessitated that we do write-downs on some of our assets, predominantly the U.S. and more recently on Keliber. If you do strip out for those noncash impairments, we've made profit in all of those years. Even if we include this year's impairments of just under ZAR 10 billion, we do forecast that we should make a bottom line profit including that number. But as I've said, you really have to add those numbers back. They relate to historical acquisitions and, due to the accounting standards, determining that we have to do those impairment assessments. Thank you.

Thanks, Charl. Just before we go to the phone lines, I think we'll just end with the question or a comment from [ Steve Sheppard ]. Not a difficult question from me this time, which is unusual for Steve, but if you think it is appropriate, I'd like to wish Neal a long and happy retirement. The oldies amongst us know that he's been a legend in the mining industry. And to Richard, all the very best of luck filling Neal's big shoes. For what it's worth, I believe the group is going to be in strong hands with you. All the best to Neal and Rich. Thanks, [ Steve ]. I think can we go to the phone lines for questions?

First question comes from Adrian Hammond of SBG.

I have a few questions. Firstly, for Charl on free cash flow, I see you've changed the definition to include deferred revenue. I see that as a low, and why have you included this time? Why have you changed the definition? And then for your EBITDA that you've explained in the -- one of the slides with the Section 45 credits, how much deferred revenues in your EBITDA for the first half? And then in your net debt-to-EBITDA calculation, sorry, a lot of accounting questions, but you do have a challenging set of accounts, does the net debt -- certainly, the net debt benefits from any prepayments that you've arranged, but does the EBITDA as well include the deferred revenue relating to that so that we can just understand your calculation there?

Yes. So thank you, Adrian. Yes, we did change the definition. We specifically looked at the impact that the cash receipts has on those numbers because those numbers simply had the entry in where we actually recognize the deferred revenue. So you really have to match the 2, show the inflow and the outflow. And it's for that reason why we've changed that definition just to make it more clear. Insofar as the EBITDA, I don't have the exact number, but it's probably about ZAR 1 billion. There's definitely ZAR 733 million for the chrome portion, and then there's obviously the deferred revenue from the Stillwater stream and the recently announced Franco- Nevada stream. So it's roughly about ZAR 1 billion of deferred revenue that's being recognized in our numbers. On the net debt to EBITDA, yes, we have shown the inflows insofar as the cash is concerned and the impact that that has on the debt or the net debt number. But similarly, we do recognize the deferred revenue in the EBITDA calculation as it comes in on that revenue line. So there is a matching of that, Adrian. It's not just simply -- we're not just picking the fruits of the one portion, but we're also showing the other side as well.

Next question, please. operator. Sorry, it's still you, Adrian.

Just wanted to understand, Keliber, the outlook there seems to suggest you may delay the ramp-up. And would that mean you push CapEx out or you cut CapEx in the near term? And then just trying to understand the permit situation. There's been some still pending appeal, so just trying to understand what the real implication is to the project based on those appeals.

Adrian, thanks very much. Let me -- I can perhaps just touch on your capital question, and Mika, will hand over to you just to unpack the permit. So what we -- in terms of capital, we will continue the build of the project and finish the build of the project, which is in the first half of next year. So the project capital, we will complete. I think it makes sense to complete the project fully. What we really are looking at in terms of the responsible start-up is whether that start-up is slowed down or delayed in some form or another compared to the original plan. So that is the work that is currently being looked at. So no impact on the project capital. Of course, part of the reason we're looking at it is the cost of the start-up. And once we have made a final decision on that, we will come to the market with that, but no change on project capital. We will complete that build of the project. Mika, could I perhaps hand over to you just to pick up the permit questions? Thanks.

Yes. Thank you very much. We are ready to go when it comes to permits. So concerning this one appeal, we need to remember that we have an enhancement order, so we can start to concentrate despite of this appeal. We also think that the likelihood that that appeal would change anything is almost nonexistent. Thank you.

Thank you. Operator, is there another question? I believe there was another one pending.

Yes, sir. Next question comes from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley.

I have 3 questions, but I'll ask them quite quickly. So just to understand on the IRA credit, you've shown a cumulative future value of that. Is that full amount in cash or -- I seem to remember that in the future, there may be some portion that is only available in tax offset. Could you just confirm that? Second, the IRA credit, which relates to the recycling business, do you expect to be able to hold on to all of that? Or do you anticipate that your customers who you -- I guess, collectors who you're buying from will want to share in that just in the same way that you've obviously come to some agreement with Johnson Matthey on the underground mining? And then final one, just do you have capacity to process Rustenburg and Kroondal to your own operations should you not be able to renew the toll agreement with Valterra from the end of next year?

Chris, thank you. Thanks very much. Perhaps I can pick up the third part of your question and then ask Charl and Charles perhaps just to deal with the first 2. Chris, the short answer is yes. If we did have to process at our own operations, we certainly could do that. We do have the opportunity to do that. I think there are -- as I've said many times before, I think there are ways to optimize value better across the industry. And in that regard, we are continuing to engage with Valterra. But if we did have to move and process across our own, we would, but would likely have an impact on -- we would have to play a little bit with things like mass pulls, et cetera, to make it work, but we do have a solution if we have to. But we think there is better value and hence continue to engage. Charl, could I pass over to you just on the 45X. Thanks.

Sure. Thanks, Chris. On the IRA credits, you are right. There is a -- initially, it's cash, and thereafter, it is an offset. However, there is a market for that offset. So effectively, you can unsell that at a discounted rate, which based on historical numbers is in the order of 90% to 95%. So yes, there is a portion that is an offset against future taxes, but you have the ability to generate cash off that. [ Peter ], you can maybe confirm what the dates are. And then [ Peter ], insofar as the recycling customers are concerned, maybe you can also just weigh in there. Thanks.

As it relates to the recycling customers, they don't really have a path to the 45X credits. But we've got certificates from all of them that effectively that they can't claim. It is obviously a market that we need to evaluate going forward, but at this point in time, there's no real risk from that point of view. No, nothing else to add.

Thank you. I think there's one more question on the line.

Question comes from Dmitriy Dyachenko of Investment Capital Ukraine.

I have a question regarding the Burnstone project. I saw media reports in June suggesting that the company was going to restart the project. And now you say the project is currently being assessed with a decision expected by the end of the year. The question is, what factors will influence the decision, the price of gold maybe? Because to me, the long history of the project's development indicates some problems with the geology. And for now, is the project more likely to be restarted or to remain on care and maintenance?

Dmitriy, thank you very much. And I think it's worth just sort of going back to the reason we put Burnstone on care and maintenance in the first place was very much around preserving the balance sheet. And I think that's the major things that we are currently assessing, once again, almost relates more to capital allocation in the coming year. So the project is technically sound. We understand what's needed. We did start the ramp-up, and of course, we have done all the necessary studies. So it's more around looking at what the detailed numbers would look like over the next 12 to 24 months to get the project restarted since it's been put on care and maintenance and how that ultimately will fit into capital allocation going forward. Also looking at alternative mechanisms to potentially finance that start-up. So that's the assessment far more so than any technical concerns or gold price, I should imagine.

Thank you. Question from Lorenzo for Charl. I think would we call the convertible bond soon? As far as I know, we can't call before 2026 anyway, but...

Yes. Thank you, Lorenzo. No, I mean the call period only starts in November 2026 or shortly thereafter. Actually, I think it's the 19th of December. Yes, the price is well within that range now, but at this stage, we simply don't have the ability to call it.

Thank you. A question from Itumeleng Rancho from Sibanye Stillwater actually. Considering that many countries are looking for alternative trading partners to the U.S. in light of the tariff war, is it not the time to look east from a strategic growth perspective? Diversifying into Europe is consistent with the apparent paradigm shift to find alternatives, so a lower risk in that regard for current projects. So I think it's 2 questions, Europe and China.

Yes. Thanks very much, James. I think as we outlined in the strategic overview of the presentation, I think a large part of our strength is that we have positioned ourselves in ecosystems over the last few years where we believe we can be competitive. And one of those has been the U.S. So we have been very successful in the U.S., I think as we've been outlining today, and that remains part of the strategy, is to deliver into those Western ecosystems. This is why we beneficiate our metals, and it's why we've developed footprint in those areas. So that will continue with the strategy, as I mentioned during the presentation.

Thanks. Last question from Robert Sennott at Seaver Hill Capital. First, I want to compliment Neal's bold acquisition of Stillwater and look forward to Richard's future efforts going forward. I'd like to know, though, why Sibanye Stillwater has not acquired the missing card that would give the company the best possible hand, a royal flush, and that is silver. I believe Sibanye needs the diversification that silver can provide. Have you got one to sell, Robert, or -- but let me pass it on to Richard, please.

Yes. Robert, thank you very much, and listen, I think a very interesting suggestion. Earlier on, I was asked a question around strategically how we see recycling playing a part of our business. And I think your question relates really well to that. I think at the moment, in fact, we do have significant exposure to silver in that we produce almost 2 million ounces a year out of our recycling operations. So I think that's a really good example of where you can get relatively material and quick exposure to some of these critical metals through expanding those footprints. So I do agree with you. It's a great part of the mix. In our case, we've really focused over the recent times in getting that exposure through our recycling footprint. Thank you.

Thanks, Richard, and thanks for all the questions. We really enjoyed the interaction. We are now done. I think we've -- had answered all the questions that were sent through on the webcast. So I'd like to hand over to outgoing CEO, Neal Froneman, for a last word.

Thank you, James. And I think let me start off by saying you saw the Sibanye team in action today. And let me start off by complimenting them, Richard and the rest of the team, that actually prepared these results, prepared this presentation, and it included all the preparation for the Board work as well. So well done. I thought you guys and ladies all did very well. Let me also just thank my team for all the support that I've had over many years. And as I've said, and I don't say it privately either, that I believe this is the best team in the mining industry, and they'll certainly demonstrate it. Also I want to thank everyone on the call and specifically those that made positive comments about myself and Richard, [ Steve ], thank you. And there were some comments on the questions sent. We recognize that and note them. Thank you very much. The company is in great shape, got a good strategy. As I've said, it's never going to be a dinosaur, does things off the wall, sometimes very hard for people on the outside to follow. But this company is going places, and under Richard's stewardship, I look forward to seeing that. So thank you very much, everybody, for those on the inside that did all this work, those on the outside that make all this happen for your good questions and your support. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and good morning. On behalf of the C-suite, welcome and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules. At our 2023 year-end results in February, we made a commitment to focus on our balance sheet. Today, I hope you will recognize the tremendous effort from the Sibanye Stillwater team in doing just that. And hence the theme of the H1 2024 presentation is reflected in the presentation title, and let me read it. It says, delivering on our commitment to strengthen the balance sheet while also increasing liquidity. Please take note of our safe harbor statement. The agenda for today includes a brief strategic context. That will be led by myself and essentially it all starts and ends in the market. And you will see what I'm referring to when we get into that. I will also cover the salient features for the first half of 2024. Charl Keyter, our CFO, will then complete the financial review, after which he will hand over to our chief regional officers who will each cover their regions. We have Richard Stewart doing the South African region, we have Mika Seitovirta doing the European region, Charles Carter will do the US region, and Robert Van Niekerk who's also our Chief Technical and Innovation Officer is also the Chief Regional Officer for Australia and he will cover the Australian region. So our 3D strategy is well known to the market. There's just a few points that I want to make, and I'm not going to go through all the detail on the slide. Our Board, together with the executive, have recently been through an extensive strategic review. And we remain confident that our strategy is relevant and delivering on shared value remains a keen focus for us. Our focus however remains on the strategic essentials especially through the current commodity price cycle. There are two other things that I want to mention that I think are relevant to the discussion today. Despite the noise that is creeping into the debate regarding the relevance of ESG, we as a company remain steadfast in our view regarding the importance and the relevance of ESG. We believe it's a good business practice and it will remain embedded as the way we do business. I also read much around the issues of diversity with suggestions that if you go work, you go broke. And again, I think that's such nonsense. We will continue to drive inclusivity, diversity, and belonging as we believe it creates a competitive advantage for a company like ourselves. Just moving on to the strategic context, I want to say that in terms of the metals that we have exposure to, understanding mobility or probably more particularly the evolution of mobility is important to understanding how the green metals could well be used in the future. I think it's important to note that electric powertrains are technologically smart and will certainly be the powertrains of the future. Within a short period of time, the issues around constraints and negative views of battery electric vehicles will be addressed and there is no doubt in my mind that battery electric vehicles will remain a very significant part of the future global car pool. I think it's also important to note that legislation on its own cannot drive what policy is being implemented in many countries. Consumer preferences and societal patterns will also influence the market and the way cars and power trains are utilized. I think as such, and it's well noted on this slide, power trains will be an evolving mix of technologies, and it will include internal combustion engines for a long period of time still, hybrids, fuel cells and pure battery electric vehicles. Hydrogen will certainly play a role in power trains both in fuel cells as well as in direct combustion engines. Synthetic fuels have the potential to extend the era of vehicles with pure internal combustion engines. Our views in this regard have been very consistent and it's amazing to me how the pendulum swings from extreme positivity of battery electric vehicles to negative views and the same regarding internal combustion engines and PGMs. I think the bottom line is that you need to be on the right side of technology and we have, I believe, good exposure to all the evolving technologies from our metals point of view. We will now move on to just talk a little bit about the markets, specifically PGMs and lithium. Within our C-suite we have dedicated commodity champions whose responsibility it is to stay abreast of market trends and developments that relate to their metals and to develop our house views. Richard Stewart is our commodity champion for PGMs and Mika Seitovirta is our commodity champion for battery metals. So at this point, I'm going to hand over to Richard to take us through our house view on PGMs, more specifically platinum and palladium, And after that I'll ask Richard to hand over directly to Mika to cover the lithium market. Thank you, Richard, over to you.

Thank you very much, Neal, and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Discussing commodity markets at the moment, I guess many are asking many questions about where these markets are going, and PGMs are certainly no exception. And the way we look at the markets at the moment to drive our business is really across three different time periods. So we look at a short term, generally less than two years, tactically how do we respond to the current market? We look at a medium term, generally after about 10 years, where I think we have some confidence in terms of the way we forecast. And then slightly more speculative beyond 10 years. So certainly our view in terms of the short term and what we're seeing is that there has been a distinct dislocation between the fundamentals that we see. Fundamentally we believe the 3E metals, PGMs are very much in deficit. And the price trends that we've seen, which of course have been falling a lot faster and a lot further than I think many imagined. Of course, the question is, why is that the case? We don't see a silver bullet or a single reason for this. It really has been a coming together of multitudes of factors. We have mentioned in the past things like de-stocking, several OEMs did build up stocks post-COVID, and that has been coming out over the last few years, although we do think that that is declining. We have also seen in the market some significant disruptions to supply chains and changes to supply chains, in particular, a lot more Russian metal finding its way into China. And then we have some in the PGM market, probably about 80% of the metal trades as physical metal under long-term supply agreements with a very small portion trading in the spot market that ultimately sets the price. And of course, when you have disruptions to supply chains and take some spot buyers out of the market, that does have a significant impact. Combine all of that with some negative sentiments around global macroeconomics, BEV growth rates and essentially, what you end up is a highly dislocated market between, let's call it paper trading, and ultimate fundamental or physical trading. When we've seen this in the past, that does tend to come together again. And the more extended the dislocation, the more severe the correction. So our view is that for next -- for the short term, we do still expect volatility, but ultimately we think the fundamentals will come through and therefore there is risk upside for some very rapid reactions and price appreciation as markets continue to tighten. But certainly we are planning for a volatile short term period. In terms of the medium term, we have in fact, I think, become more robust given what we've seen happening over the last 18 months. Our view on the markets has not materially changed. But because of the lower price environments we've seen, the primary supply coming out of particularly South Africa and North America has in fact declined more than what we originally forecast, and we don't see much growth coming out of Russian supply. Similarly, secondary supply we think is going to remain constrained because of both margin pressure as well as supply chain disruptions. And as we've seen demand for in terms of the rates of which BEVs are growing, and they will continue to grow, but just that rate has been moderated. And we think that gap will be filled by ICE hybrid vehicles, which is good for both PGMs and battery metals, and taking a combination of that supply pressure and demand moderation in the medium term, we actually think the PGM market remains pretty robust, a view that we have held for an extended period of time. Over the long term, it does become a bit more speculative and we do see structural changes occurring. Today, PGM demand, about two-thirds of it is underpinned by auto catalysts, and we see that declining to about 50% out to 2040. The difference in demand will be made up by industrial applications, a significant portion of which will be associated with the hydrogen economy. But of course, there are still many factors that we need to understand and understand how these technologies develop and are taken up before we can get confidence in that forecast. And that drives our long-term market development strategy around securing sticky industrial applications to replace largely auto-capitalist demand for the decades to come. So just looking at our overall view of that market, we do model it as a 2E basket, being platinum and palladium, given that they are substitutable. And what you can see in the white bars is almost an average of various market research houses, which would suggest that we still have deficits up to about 2027 and then moving into surpluses. For the factors that we've mentioned above, the supply constraints, as well as a moderation in terms of battery electric vehicle penetration, we in fact see deficits for the balance of this decade, only then moving into slight surpluses early in the following decade. So overall, a robust view for the medium term for PGMs. I'll now hand over to Mika, who will discuss lithium markets. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. A few words about leading supply and demand balance and the outlook, how we see that. First of all, behind there is obviously the growth of the electric vehicles. Many of us have revised downwards the forecasts and the volumes of the EVs and so have we. Even in the downwards scenario though we believe that during the next five years, by 2030, the volumes are going to be double against today's volumes. This is obviously something that is going to impact the lithium demand a lot. So, despite of the short-term surplus in the market, we see a very strong outlook long-term for lithium demand. Meaning that actually during the next five years, consequently we believe that lithium demand is going to double as well. It is also to be noted that the deficit starts ‘26/’27, which is a perfect timing for our Keliber project when we start to commissioning with our own ore. Over to you, Neal.

Thank you, Mika and Richard. Let's now move ahead with the salient features for the first half of 2024. So, the picture on the right hand side of the slide is actually the first slide in the year-end presentation which was delivered in February of this year. As I mentioned in my introduction today, we committed at that point in time to focusing on our balance sheet. And the piggy bank was also used to reflect the cost savings we intended to achieve from the large amounts of operational restructuring that we intended undertaking and had undertaken to preserve our margins through this lower price commodity downturn. I am particularly pleased with what we have achieved to date on both of these. Richard will cover the cost benefits of our operational restructuring in his section. But let me start with the impact that we've made on the balance sheet. So I'm very pleased to advise that we've increased our balance sheet strength and liquidity by more than ZAR25 billion or $1.4 billion. And we will in the following slide show you how that amount has been calculated. But first of all, what did we do? And the H1 balance sheet initiatives are listed there, and I intend to go through them in some detail. We announced the uplifted agreements we had on our covenants. The debt covenants have been uplifted to 3.5 times until June 2025 and 3 times until December 2025. We have a currency geared collar that we've implemented at our South African PGM operations to protect the margin in a strengthening ZAR environment. That was done on the basis that we could see the potential of an improving climate in South Africa. And I dare say the appointment of a government of national unity is a first very important step in that and we believe the rand will continue to strengthen and that is a protection on the downside. Our convertible bond derivative was reclassified as equity following the Sibanye Stillwater shareholder approval. The ZAR6 billion RCF refinancing and upsizing was completed. We entered into post June 30, in fact in August, a ZAR1.8 billion gold prepay that is currently being implemented. The Keliber Lithium project was separately financed to the tune of EUR500 million through a green financing. And then of course, operationally, we benefited from improved adjusted free cash flow compared to the second half of 2023, following some of the operational restructuring starting to impact. Very pleasingly, and I've highlighted it in dark black, is that our net debt to adjust the EBITDA is currently at 1.43 times and I want to point out that does not include the gold prepay and I will give you a pro forma indication of what that looks like with the gold prepay. As I say, a very pleasing result and certainly the expectations I think of the sell side analysts that we would be resorting to some form of deeply discounted rights offer must now be moot. So I did indicate that in the following slide, which you can now see, we would indicate what we have completed and the value ascribed to each one of those initiatives. The covenant uplift gives us a turn of 1 times and assuming our adjusted EBITDA for a year is about ZAR13 billion at this point in time, that's a ZAR13 billion benefit. The currency hedging and geared collar is on the slide, the prepay, the refinancing, the green loan, and all of that totals up to just over ZAR25 billion or as I said $1.4 billion. What we still have in the pipeline is another $600 million to $700 million of streams and other prepays that we are working on. So we are looking forward to an estimated pro forma total of increasing the balance sheet strength and liquidity in excess of ZAR36 billion or about $2 billion. And as I've said, any suggestions that we're going to have to revert to equity to strengthen our balance sheet must be somewhat moot now. There is one area where we still have some work to do. The polygons on the left indicate a number of techs, areas where we've completed restructuring or in Sandouville’s case, we've terminated what we believe was an onerous contract, the covenant uplifts, the convertible bond and the gold prepay are all done. The one area where we still plagued with losses in our business is in the US and with the announcement today, we have initiated what I believe will hopefully be the last phase of restructuring and I think it's quite material and quite significant. So let me talk you through it. And when Charles covers the US region, he will provide more detail. But we are now entering a final phase where we will be restructuring the US business for a 2E PGM basket price below $1,000 per 2E ounce. How are we going to do that? We are terminating high cost production of about 200,000 2E ounces from the US PGM operations. Stillwater mine will be put on care and maintenance. We will increase productions slightly from our higher grade Stillwater East operations, which has lower cost infrastructure and more efficient infrastructure. We will also reduce production from East Boulder and that will essentially improve the cost performance but also defer expansion capital. Unfortunately, it does result in a further headcount reduction of approximately 800 employees and contractors. The net result is that we will still ensure a sufficient scale of operation to maintain our very important recycling operations and to leverage off the recent Reldan acquisition. Probably more importantly with a high quality ore body of this nature, we retain mining optionality for a higher 2E basket price environment. We certainly did look at putting the entire business on care and maintenance. That is a much higher cost option than what we have set out here, but I will leave it to Charles to talk us through that detail. As we always do, we are sharing with you our gearing and this is a graph of adjusted EBITDA and of course net debt to adjusted EBITDA multiples reflected in the red dotted line. Pleasingly, and as I've said, without the gold prepay, our net debt to adjust at EBITDA as of 30th June comes out at 1.43 times. If we include the gold prepay, that number is actually 1.29. You would remember that we have said around 1 times is a net debt to adjust at EBITDA multiple that we are comfortable with. So again, I think very pleasing from our point of view under these circumstances to be operating at those sort of levels. So we've covered protecting the balance sheet. Let's now move on to some of the other salient features in terms of embedding ESG in our business. Very pleasingly, we are achieving record group safety performance and I will leave it to Richard to talk in more detail about that. We are advancing our green metal strategy and growing our secondary and urban mining platform that is inherently environmentally friendly and responsible. Our journey to net zero continues with 407 megawatts of renewable energy PPAs projects under construction. And in addressing the Marikana massacre, which was not during our ownership of those assets, we have implemented the Marikana renewal process, and that is resulting in significant collaboration from those impacted and affected communities, and it's resulting in positive change. And I'm sure you may have seen some of the media commentary on that at the anniversary. In terms of delivering on operational improvements and operational sustainability, very pleasingly, the South African PGM business had a solid operational performance, benefiting from the proactive restructuring done earlier this year. Our gold business had a disappointing operational performance mainly due to seismicity and of course any restructuring is disruptive, but we certainly look forward to improve performance for the second half of 2024. Our US PGM business had a solid operational first half and continued to build on the good results of the restructuring later last year, but because of low palladium prices it remains loss making and hence the restructuring that I referred to in the previous slide. Our US recycling business generates positive earnings and cashflow. Sandouville also generated an improved performance, but of course, because of the structural change in the low, in the nickel market and the low nickel prices, that we brought forward the conclusion or the termination of the nickel supply contract that we had with Boliden. The Keliber Lithium project continues well and in line with our expectations and pleasingly the Century zinc retreatment operation is on track for a profitable 2024. I'm not going to go through all the financial numbers. Charl will cover that in the financial review. But just to say, clearly earnings and cash flow impacted by a significant decline in the PGM basket price. We made a basic loss of ZAR7.5 billion. We did have headline earnings of ZAR137 million. There was a ZAR7.5 billion impairment of the US PGM operations and you can see that basic loss is basically the impairment. Our gross debt of ZAR34.2 billion is actually 9% lower than at 31 December, 2023. And we ended up with cash and cash equivalents of just over ZAR15.5 billion. I would like to just talk a little bit about unlocking the latent value potential as the last slide in this section. There are a number of areas where the significant value that we are in the process of unlocking. Our South African uranium assets and strategy has good direction, especially with the appointment of Greg Cochran to lead this part of our business. In terms of the Cook tailings resource, we've completed a review. We will complete a further feasibility study in 2025. I think important to note that it's near to midterm potential from a uranium production point of view, plus it has the benefit of gold byproduct credits. It's an opportunity to use this asset to build a uranium business leveraging of Cook's low technical risk development. The Beisa uranium mine also has significant U308 resources and there's significant potential to unlock value through a partnership or sale to third parties where we are in discussion. In terms of the Century operations, very pleasingly, we are now starting to assess opportunities to leverage the existing infrastructure, which is the port, the concentrator, the pipeline. By looking at phosphate deposits within that region, we have a number of our own phosphate deposits, but the region is well endowed with some very good phosphate deposits. So that will be receiving some attention and we look forward to providing you with more information in due course. We completed the Class 3 feasibility study on Mount Lyell during the first half of this year and we have decided that it warrants taking the feasibility study to a Class 2 estimate and we expect that being completed in 2025. Rhyolite Ridge, there's a decision pending once we have the environmental permit record of decision and the Class 2 feasibility results. So we look forward to receiving those and applying our minds. Reldan has very significant future recycling growth potential in Mexico and India. And it's not just through electronic waste. This business is being very complementary to our autocat recycling business in Columbus. So I would like to at this point hand over to Charl Keyter to take us through the financial reviews. Thanks, Charl. Over to you.

Thank you, Neal. Good morning and good afternoon to all participants. Starting with the financial performance for half one 2024, revenue was down 9% due to significantly lower PGM prices. Although production volumes were up at the SA and US PGM operations, the 4E and 2E basket price were down 28% respectively, and the 3E basket price was down 53% for our US PGM recycling operation. Pleasingly, the gold price was up 18%, but this was almost fully offset by lower volumes. Cost of sales increased period over period, but this half year includes six months for the new Century operations compared to four months in the previous period and it includes the newly acquired Reldan operation from 15 March, 2024. Normalizing for the Reldan acquisition, costs in absolute terms only went up by 2%. Adjusted EBITDA came in at just over ZAR6.6 million, almost half the number for the same period in the previous year, and this was predominantly driven by lower revenues. During this period, we also re-performed our impairment assessment and based on consensus low of future Palladium prices, an impairment of $400 million was recognized at our US PGM operations. The loss for the period was ZAR7.2 billion, but after backing out the US impairment and the associated taxes, the profit would have been approximately ZAR550 million rand. In line with our dividend policy, no dividend was declared. This slide shows our debt maturities and liquidity. Net debt at the end of the period was ZAR18.7 billion, and the repayment profile following the refinancing of our rand revolving credit facility remains very manageable with the 2026 bonds being our first significant maturity. Liquidity headroom is just under ZAR40 billion, which is roughly 2.5 times our requirement. And that is having two months of operational and capital expenditure in available headroom. Liquidity headroom was extended through the refinancing and upsizing of the rand revolving credit facility, the conclusion of the Keliber EUR500 million green financing and the execution of a ZAR1.8 billion gold prepay. Just a few words on the cyber-attack that we experienced post half one 2024 and also the reason for the delay in results. In July, we experienced a cyber-attack that impacted our global ICT systems. On discovery, the group ICT team acted swiftly to isolate our networks and systems across all regions and business units. The operational impact was limited but I think very importantly, safety of our employees were prioritized in all instances. The biggest impact was at our US metallurgical complex impacting smelting and recycling processes that resulted in increased stockpiles that will be processed over the rest of 2024. All credit has to go to our ICT team that restored the majority of our ICT environment in just over three weeks. I will now hand over to Richard Stewart to take you through the results of the SA region. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Charl. And again, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll work through the regional operating updates. Thank you. I guess just to kick off with our first and last priority is safety. I think it's been very pleasing over the last few years as we have shared with the market we implemented a Fatal elimination strategy in 2022. And I think it's been very pleasing over the last few years to see the positive impact the strategy has had in reducing risk across our operations. Over the current period, we saw our best ever serious injury frequency rate and a continued decline in the high potential incidents that we measure across our operations. These are all leading and lagging indicators that suggest that high energy incidents, which can result in fatal accidents, are being mitigated and reduced on a sustainable basis. Despite that, tragically, we did have a significant improvement year-on-year, but tragically still lost three colleagues during the reporting period. We lost a colleague at Beatrix Operations, Kloof operations, and Bathopele. And on behalf of the management team and Board, our sincere condolences go to our lost colleagues. Over the past 18 months, and in particular in the South African region, we have undertaken a significant amount of restructuring of our operations, specifically to position ourselves for sustainability in the current price environment we find ourselves in. Across South Africa, that's included the closure of unprofitable operations. That's included four shafts that we've closed and two processing plants. We've also restructured operations that were marginal. That included the Marikana Rowland shaft and the Rustenburg Siphumelele shaft. And then to meet that downgrade in terms of production or restructured production, we also have restructured our regional overheads and services to align with that new operating footprint. We use the opportunity of the restructuring to introduce a new operating model for services in the region. We no longer have separate team servicing gold at PGMs, but rather a single central services team providing services to all our operations in the region, which we certainly believe will introduce increased efficiency and effectiveness to our operations, bringing revenue benefits. This has been a significant restructuring. In total, since the beginning of last year, we've seen our total employee base, which includes contractors, declining from about 82,000 employees to just under 70,000. That is a total reduction of about 15% and in line with the reduced operating footprint as a result of the restructured shafts. Of course this restructuring has been highly disruptive to operations and does come with a cost. Most of those costs have been incurred now with the final costs to be incurred during the third quarter of this year and we then look forward to seeing the full benefits coming through in the years to come. The estimated savings from the restructuring in the South African region is about ZAR3.5 billion per annum, and that's measured against the cost base of 2022. And we expect to see the full costs from the final restructuring that was completed in June of this year coming through by the end of the year. We have also undertaken significant capital reviews and in that regard have made a decision to delay the Burnstone capital and place that project essentially on care and maintenance in the current environment. The table on the right, we have presented something similar before and this reflects updated numbers based on the actual savings realized. And as can be seen, gross savings from operational restructuring is currently sitting at just under ZAR5 billion per annum. And when we consider the capital deferrals that are included in that on an annual basis, we're looking at a total saving of close to ZAR7.5 billion per annum. I think despite those significant disruptions through that restructuring, the South African PGM operations delivered a solid and steady performance. Total production for the half year came in at just under 880,000 ounces, which is 4% higher than the equivalent period last year. And you might -- will recall, we acquired 50% of Kroondal from Anglo during the fourth quarter of last year, and that added just under 70,000 ounces for the current reporting period, and more than offset the losses from restructuring and shaft closures across the rest of the PGM footprint. Our production was negatively affected by a shaft bin failure that we suffered at Siphumelele that put that shaft out for almost two months. And then the legal industrial action that we had at Kroondal, specifically at our K6 and Kwezi shafts. Adjusted EBITDA came in at just under ZAR5 billion. And although that is a significant decline year-on-year, that is primarily driven due to the much less than 28% drop in the total basket price. But I think pleasing is that we have maintained our capital investment into our operations year-on-year with a total of ZAR2.55 billion being spent during the current reporting period, and I think testament to our sustained investment in our assets for the future. All-in sustaining cost increase was disappointing at 9%. Much of that driven by the one-off costs associated with the restructuring, as well as the closure of the Klipfontein open cast at Kroondal. Taking off the one-off adjustments, what we tend to see is an increase of about 6% to 7% in the fundamental underlying costs, which is broadly in line with inflation year-on-year. I think worthy just to highlight that Kroondal did deliver its last ounces into the purchase of concentrate agreement with Anglo during August. And as from the 1st of September, that means Kroondal will now be on a toll processing agreement similar to Rustenburg. This will result in Kroondal's costs increasing, but also the total revenue increasing in terms of getting 100% of basket prices. Net-net, that does give us a positive margin gain for Kroondal as we move from a PUC to a total agreement. Gold operational output was a little bit disappointing. Overall, we saw a decline of about 17% year-on-year to just over 10.7 tons of gold produced. A significant portion of this was due to the closure of Kloof 4 shaft, which was finally closed earlier this year, and that did account for about 7% of the total decline. We did experience some increased size of seismicity specifically at Kloof and Driefontein and in addition we did suspend some wide reef mining operations at Beatrix where we suffered a fall of ground in a back area where we stopped production to investigate the mode of that and understand the implications going forward. I think very pleasing is that Driefontein returned to normal production during the half and by June was back at expected levels. Driefontein has significant flexibility to deal with seismicity and we are looking forward to that sustained production into the second half of the year. At Beatrix, we have instituted a new mining method for the wide reef areas and by the end of the first half, two thirds of those had been brought back online, and we expect the last portion to be brought back online during Q3. So we look to Beatrix to return to steady state levels by the end of Q4. At our Kloof operations, with the closure of Kloof 4 shaft, we have had a reduction in terms of the total flexibility, so the seismic impact there was significantly greater. In order to address this, we are increasing flexibility and opening up mining areas on secondary reefs, lower grade reefs, the Kloof reef, as well as investigating other high grade areas. And this will be a process that's undertaken during the course of this year. We do, however, expect Kloof to maintain current levels and therefore below optimal output for the balance of this year. As a result of the decline in production, all-in sustaining unit costs were 18% higher. That is driven by volume. Our total absolute cost base at gold had in fact decreased by 3% with the restructuring initiatives, which year on year taking into account inflation is about a 10% real discount in terms of those costs. Adjusted EBITDA, despite the challenges, came in at ZAR2.2 billion. This accounts for almost a third of the group EBITDA and I think is testament to the benefit of having gold in the portfolio during these macroeconomic challenging times. DRD contributed just under 2.5 tons of gold to the total output at an all-in sustaining cost of about ZAR930 per kilogram. And finally, our gold wage agreements that expired toward the end of June of this year, and we are currently in final negotiations with organized labor across our gold operations. Thank you. And I'll now hand over to Mika.

Thank you, Richard. In Sandouville, we have had focus on two things mainly. First of all, reducing the losses. Secondly, building up the future through our GalliCam project. We have been rather successful in reducing the losses in Sandouville. H1 is clearly less losses than it was last year. There is a 57% improvement. However, we are still loss making. And therefore, we have also decided that with the current feed and with the current products, we are going to stop the production. It means that there will be no more feed after the year-end and we are ramping down consequently Q1 ‘25. GalliCam is moving forward and it is a project which is now in the pre-feasibility study phase. And we believe that we are going to finalize that by the year-end. And then we are going to do the decisions about the definitive feasibility study and a possible demo plant in Sandouville, provided that the results are as encouraging as they have been so far. The good news are that we have actually produced pCAM in our lab, and our innovation is working through the chlorine route. Secondly, we have also patented this one to protect ourselves. So we see a good future for GalliCam process and the next time we can tell you more about it is definitely when we have the results out of the pre-feasibility study. Coming to Keliber, Keliber is moving forward and there are no changes when it comes to commissioning the refinery H2, 2025. You can see from our CapEx number the latest forecast for this year. It has been changed from EUR360 million to EUR300 million and we are in some of the installations a bit late which means that the CapEx is going to be spent on the next year's site instead of this year's site, but the commissioning of the unit H2 ‘25 is still valid. Some milestones. Our project is now fully funded. So we have EUR500 million green loans secured in August. And we got very good support from the European Investment Bank, Finnvera and a consortium of leading banks and it confirms to all of us the strategic importance of this project not only for Sibanye Stillwater but also for the European Union and European customers as such. For the future, we have also done exploration. So we have some really good results on that one. And obviously long term, we all want to see growth. And we know that there is a strong demand of lithium. So we continue that work in parallel with the construction of the sites. Now, I want to show you some very beautiful pictures from Finland. You can see on the left hand side, you can see two pictures of the refinery in Kokkola. That construction is the most advanced of the three places where we are doing the construction. You can also see that actually in Paivaneva the concentrator is moving forward as well. And even the Syvajarvi open pit mine site has started well and really ready for first of all with the external spodumene feed starting the commissioning for the refinery H2 ‘25, but with our own or during towards the very end of 26. And over to you, Robert.

Thank you, Mika, and hello everybody. The Century operations again had a very tough start to the year. They received about 1,100 millimeters of rain in the first three months of the year, as compared to a historic average of about 550 millimeters of rain. That said, I'm pleased to say that the lessons learnt from last year and the rain protection precautions that team put in place will enable them to produce 16,000 tons of payable zinc in quarter one. The operations recovered very nicely in the second quarter of the year. They produced 26, 000 tons of zinc. So, all in, we have produced 42,000 tons of zinc for H1 2024. It's very difficult to compare the first half of this year to the first half of last year as we didn't own these operations for the whole of the first half of last year but I can tell you that quarter two this year, the production was substantially better than quarter two last year. Our all-in sustaining costs improved by 8% to $2,228 per ton of zinc compared to the same period last year. This is largely due to improved production, but also in part due to very tight cost control measures the team on the operations have introduced. Our EBITDA loss has reduced from $28 million in H1 last year to $19 million in H1 this year. A substantial portion of that $19 million is directly due to the [yearly] (ph) maintenance of our transshipment vessel. I can confidently report though that all of our deliveries will be filled before the end of this year. In conclusion, I am looking forward to a good finish to the end of this year. I'm looking forward to a good H2 2024. And in fact, I'm looking forward to a good 2025 as well. In part assisted by two tailwinds at the moment, the first being metal prices are substantially more than we anticipated and better than what we budgeted for. And spot treatment costs are also lower than the current benchmark spot treatment costs. You can see on the slide that we have hedged approximately 20% of our production for the next 18 months. So that is about 2,000 tons per month of playable zinc from July of this year through to December next year. So, I think I will leave it there and hand over to Charles. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert. As we turn to the Americas region, what you'll see in these results are the benefits of the restructuring we did late last year. We had a 16% increase in mine PGM production to 238,139 2E ounces, which is the highest production rate since H2 2021. We also had a 23% decline in all-in sustaining costs to $1,343 an ounce. Operating unit costs remain stable at $1,067 an ounce despite inflation year-on-year, which was due to improved production. Both production and costs were ahead of plan and I want to recognize our operating teams for that strong performance. All-reserve development was 42% lower at $65 million and sustaining capital 51% lower at $21 million, a combined saving of $68 million. Project capital declined by 63% to $8 million. However, during this period, the average 2E PGM basket price declined 30% to $977 an ounce, which has now led us to take more significant restructuring steps that I'll talk to in a moment. Adjusted EBITDA of $27 million, as you are aware, includes EUR43 million insurance payout from the ‘22 flood. As Neal has outlined with a with a PGM basket price below $1,000 an ounce, we are now needing to do further restructuring in our Montana business. This will see us reducing next year's production by approximately 200,000 ounces or some 44% of current run rates. We are doing this by placing the Stillwater West mine on care and maintenance while keeping Stillwater East going where we intend to increase production to approximately 130,000 ounces next year. At East Boulder, mine production will be reduced to 135,000 ounces. We will be mining four ramps instead of the current six, which in turn allows us to defer expansion capital in the tailings and rock dump facilities. We are also reducing fleet at both operations, which will have a number of costs and resourcing benefits. This reduction in mine ounces should see us reducing absolute dollar all-in sustaining costs by some 41% or approximately $385 million on current projections. Our total capital for next year will more than halve to some $29 million. Neal has highlighted the significant reduction in headcount, which will see our employees' numbers reduced by almost 40% as we align hourly and salaried employees with the revised production profile. As part of this restructuring, we are collapsing our current dual management structure across two mines into one new structure, reducing some layers and moving select management functions to the center to service all business units. We will also further reduce our contractors and backfill these roles with our own employees where possible. We will also make a number of changes on our met complex, but retain sufficient scale to support our PGM recycling operations. Importantly, at all business units, we will retain the optionality to return to higher production as prices permit. This restructuring is not just about reducing volumes and people, but critically, it's also about improving operating efficiencies, ongoing cost reduction, and throughout preserving the optionality of these high quality long life ore bodies at both mines. With this restructuring, we are also initiating a new vision to drive towards a sustainable business through the price cycle for the long term. Let me characterize key aspects of this vision for our Montana business. First, a key foundation for all the changes required to create this vision are engaged employees committed to delivering world-class outcomes. Obviously, with the restriction of the scale, we run the risk of losing significant talent and undermining team morale. But I do believe that as we deliver the necessary changes to make this profitable, we can make these operations a rewarding place to work for the long term. Second, we want to continue our best-in-class ESG performance. An example of this is that we have just received the record of decision for a dual federal and state environmental impact statement for our East Boulder tailings and rock storage expansion. This follows a three-year, nine-month process with no legal challenges and with the final decision issued with no objections, both of which are unprecedented in mining permitting processes in the US today. This speaks to the integrity of our stakeholder engagement and our collaborative relationships with environmental and community NGOs. It's also a testament to robust regulatory structure in Montana where an independent review panel must sign off on all new tailings facilities. Last but not least, it talks to an exceptional environmental planning and permitting team in our Montana business. Obviously with the significant restructuring announced today, many of these relationships with our diverse local and regional stakeholders will likely be stressed, but I believe that the integrity with which we conduct these engagements will ultimately prevail. And the test of any partnership is to be able to have open and honest conversations, especially in challenging times. Another key aspect of our vision for this business is to drive our all-in sustaining costs to $1,000 an ounce, which we believe we can achieve over the next three years, primarily with a focus on ongoing cost optimization. We will focus on optimizing and resource loading the current mining front while introducing task mining as appropriate. On mining methods, we want to fully mechanize cut and fill and convert to sub-level extraction where possible at both operations. As mentioned, we will fully optimize feature requirements. And we also intend to improve shift, execution, and blast cycles, which will be a key parameter to get better efficiencies and cost outcomes. Throughout this process we are introducing a digital trend for enhanced planning and more strategic look at how to optimize these operations. While scaling back production in the short term, we believe that we can also use this time to properly reposition these operations for improved future performance. This is especially true at Stillwater West, which as noted, we are placing on care and maintenance. But we have work to do here to ensure that when that operation restarts, it does so with improved underground infrastructure and efficiencies. On all of this transformative repositioning work, we will need to work collaboratively with the United Steelworkers to find new pathways to improve deficiencies in operating flexibility. This is an important partner for us who we firmly believe can help us create a long-term sustainable mining business that is world competitive. In concluding, let me note that we are uniquely positioned as a leading US critical minerals, PGM miner and recycler. The steps we are taking today will position this business for a sustainable long-term future that is important to the US critical mineral self-sufficiency agenda. As I hand over the Grant to take you through recycling, let me just note how proud I am of the work that he and the Reldan team have done to integrate this e- and industrial scrap business into our Americas platform in a very short period of time. You will see the first glimpses of this impact in these results as we now introduce gold, silver and copper to America's business. But I also know that the embedded growth potential of this enlarged metals recycling platform is significant and it is only a matter of time before US owners and analysts will start to recognize this in Sibanye Stillwater’s valuation. Thank you and let me hand over to Grant.

Thanks very much, Charles, and good day to you all. Yes, important to note that the Columbus recycle business remains largely unimpacted by the restructure. We will continue to receive material and differentiate ourselves in the market through our positioned approach to responsible sourcing, our strong assay turnaround, time capability, and our long-term relationships built on experience, knowledge, and trust. Despite the sustained macroeconomic pressures on spent autocat volumes, the US PGM recycling business remains solid with volumes stabilizing around 155,000 3E ounces. Gross margins have remained stable at between 4% to 5%, despite the 54% decline in 3E prices from the first half of 2023 to the $1,252 that we have received this year. The PGM recycling segment contributed a solid $8 million, that's ZAR147 million in adjusted EBITDA for the first half of 2024, again, underscoring the strength and stability of our operations. In mid-March of this year, we also concluded the Reldan transaction, marking a strategic milestone in our recycling strategy beyond our traditional focus on PGMs from autocats. We have expanded beyond solely relying on PGMs from spent autocats and tapped into high margin industrial waste streams, which open up new avenues for growth. Reldan specializes in processing industrial and electronic waste, offering a significantly less capital intensive alternative to traditional mining operations for producing a suite of green metals. From March to June 2024, Reldan processed 6 million pounds of mixed scrap and sold 42,000 ounces of gold, 850,000 ounces of silver, just under 15,000 ounces of platinum palladium and 1.1 million pounds of copper. The resulting combination of Columbus and Reldan industrial and precious metal suites presents a natural hedge reinforcing the sustainability of our business model. The acquisition further enables us to leverage Reldan's network sales team and metal logistics routes to capitalize on existing territories and relationships within the US, Mexico and India for the benefit of the Columbus Met Complex. Reldan's strong early performance contributed $300,000 in the adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow of $9 million for the initial four months under our ownership. Having recently visited both operations within Mexico and India, I'm deeply excited about the growth prospects in both of these regions, so please watch this space. Neal, over to you for the conclusion. Thanks.

Thanks, Grant. And two slides in the conclusion. The first slide is really about guidance. And let me say, other than our South African gold operations which have been severely disrupted through the restructuring and seismicity, we are having to adjust gardens unfortunately on that. The Keliber lithium project, we won't quite spend all the capital we intended this year, so the revision is really a revision in spending. There's no other revisions to that project to date. We are not changing the US guidance, but I do want to say we should expect significant, well there's the potential for disruptions due to the restructuring that we hope to have completed by the end of the year, but I think that is just a bit of a warning or a heads up. So the anti-fragility journey continues. And in my mind, the key aspects of becoming anti-fragile are the bullet points set out below. So first of all, let's recognize the record safety performance that has been achieved with a continuous focus on eliminating fatalities and reducing high potential incidents. As I mentioned right at the beginning of the presentation, ESG will remain embedded in the way we do business. We think it's appropriate and it leads to sustainability. As I also mentioned right at the beginning, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging will remain an integral part of our strategic differentiation. The fundamentals as elaborated on by Richard and Mika indicates that from the metals we produce, we have exposure, we remain positive regarding that exposure. We've also shared with you significant strengthening of the balance sheet with more non-debt initiatives well advanced and we look forward to including those when we deliver our year-end results. We have sufficient liquidity to ride out an extended depressed commodity price environment and progress our key projects should that depressed commodity price environment occur. We've taken decisive steps to optimize our operations for the short and medium term and Richard shared with you the very impressive amount of savings that we are looking forward to from that. There was a strong performance from our South African PGM operations. There are operational improvements expected from South African gold in the second half of this year and clearly we hope that's sustainable into 2025. Unfortunately, the US PGM operations enter a new phase of restructuring for the current lower price environment to reduce the cash outflows and preserve optionality. Again, I want to say it means we are taking 200,000 ounces out of the market over 2025 and that will probably be ongoing. We are working towards a cost structure of $1,000 an ounce over a two to three year period. And our integrated global recycling footprint, which spans autocat’s industrial and electronic waste is very well positioned for growth in key regions being the US, Mexico, and India. So bottom line, we exposed to the right metals and ecosystems, very importantly, at the right time. And we look forward to a much better future in terms of improving commodity prices and profitability. With that, I will hand over to James to pick up any questions. Thank you, James. Over to you.

Thank you, Neal. The first question comes from Andre Luis Alves Catenani asking about the company's outlook on increasing allocation of gold assets, specifically in terms of expanding gold share of the total asset portfolio through investment in additional mines.

Let me pick that up, James. I think, as we've said previously, we like gold. We still think gold has got quite a bit of upside, but we are not focused on external growth at the moment. I thought I made it clear right at the beginning that our focus is on the strategic essentials, focusing on the balance sheet and of course delivering good operational results. So perhaps sometime in the future but certainly not right now.

Thanks, Neal. Then a series of questions from Arnold Van Graan from Nedbank. You've proactively and prudently shored up the balance sheet to ride out the storm, which should be commended. How much time has this given you? And in other words, how long can you run at current metal prices before further action is needed?

Well, certainly I'd like to ask Charl to give his view as well, but in my view, as long as the commodity prices stay the same and Arnold you made it clear at current metal prices together with the restructuring that we've done and the additional strengthening that we're going to still follow through with, I think we can run a very long time, whether that's three years, five years or 10 years, we certainly will not consume our balance sheet and all our debt. We will get to a breakeven position and then have sufficient reserves in our balance sheet. Charl, I don't know if you want to add to that.

Yeah, thank you, Neal. And, Arnold, I mean, to answer your question is, we always had a three-year hump ahead of us, which was associated with [indiscernible], so it was the occurrence of the debt and the financing and then building the project and once that started ramping up, our forecasts showed that we would be in an equal and even financial position, in other words operating well below our covenants. So effectively what we did was just to be proactive in this process and to make sure that we can get over this three-year hump. So, I'm saying we -- it sounds like we bought three years, but it's really a hump that sorts itself out from ‘27 onwards.

Thanks, Charl. Again on the debt, you referred to the possibility of adding a further $600 million to $700 million in non-debt financing to the balance sheet. Is there not a risk that you're paying way too much of the future upside and value with these alternative funding structures, the tenure and impact of which invariably outlast the down cycle? Equity dilution is never great, but isn't it cheaper than some of these alternative deals? Neal?

I think yeah. So did Arnold ask that question?

Yeah.

So, Arnold, listen, we're very aware of, let's call it the long-term impact of a stream arrangement as an example. But I can assure you that, first of all, we don't stream primary products. There might be very small streams on primary products. Secondary products actually have very little value or they attract very little in terms of valuations by analysts. So as long as you're streaming a secondary product and as long as you're streaming a byproduct at a significant high in the price cycle, I think it's smart. We are very well aware of the cost of capital related to equity and the cost of a stream. So we don't go blindly into streams, but the work we're doing on it at the moment, we are quite comfortable that it's the right decision.

Thanks, Neal. I think these two will be for Charl. Does the Keliber green funding loan have recourse to the Sibanye balance sheet or is it ring-fenced to the project first of all and then what concessions did we have to make to the lenders for the covenant uplift?

Thanks, James. So in terms of the Keliber green financing, yes it has recourse to the balance sheet to the extent that it's drawn. So, obviously Keliber being a very important part of the company going forward, they signed up as a borrower and a guarantor under our facilities and hence the reason why they will be included. But I'd just like to make the point that to the extent that it's drawn, that amount will be included. So, fast concessions to the lenders. It was a voluntary concession that we as a company offered, but it's effectively 20 basis points or 0.2% at the top end. So should we go over three times leverage, there's a 20% basis point additional on the margin. So no major concessions or any restrictions from our lender side.

Thank you, Charl. There's a couple of questions on the US PGM restructuring. I think we've answered most of them. Looking at 2024, we haven't changed guidance. So obviously what we look at is the 200,000 ounce reduction in production coming through in 2025. In terms of all-in sustaining costs, I think that was covered as well. It won't be immediately down to 1,000 but certainly we will be working to get costs down to 1,000 per ounce is the target. I think the specific questions which may be of interest is, and Neal or Charl, how quickly would we be able to reopen Stillwater West should prices recover? And what kind of prices would drive that decision?

So, I think reopening any mine is probably a six to nine month sort of process. But, Charles, would you like to come in on that?

Yeah. Thanks, Neal. Look, we're not in a rush to do that because we've got work to do, as I alluded to, on the underground infrastructure at Stillwater West mine that particularly relates to the haulage systems. We have multiple handling at the moment. It's not cost effective. So we've got to look carefully at that and we've got to look at the infrastructure around our shaft just on some upgrades, et cetera. So, you certainly need higher prices, but we just need a bit more time to work on improved efficiencies because it's a very spread out mine. It's old infrastructure. It's long travel times. And that doesn't change, but within that we have work to do. And we're not rushing to do that spend through ‘25, but we are going to be doing the planning and the thinking and the optimization trade-offs. So, I've got no doubt we will get higher pricing through 2025, but this is not an on-off switch that you trigger very quickly, but so it's more about the work to do. And then, once we have the efficiencies identified and the mining cost efficiencies daylighted, then we would make that decision. I think the other parameter that's not an on-off switch is simply getting labor back. So this takes time. And we'll have to work that in. So I don't see this as a 2025 option realistically but I do think it's incumbent on us to keep the option developing, work on the underlying issues, that means that when it comes back, it's a much more productive operation with a better cost profile. Thank you.

Further to that one from Arnold Van Graan, just you mentioned that you would be increasing output at Stillwater East and East Boulder and increasing grades. Is this akin to high grading and what impact would this have on the flexibility of these operations in future?

Yeah it's not -- sorry, go ahead.

Yeah. Go ahead, Charles.

No, it's not about high grading. So, what, as I've just mentioned, why are we putting the West mine on care and maintenance, which has good grades in patchy areas, is the underlying infrastructural cost issues, handling issues and constraints around that. On Stillwater East, we have good grades. We are selective because of ground conditions on those grades, but we've got very new infrastructure. And we've got very clean haulage systems and handling systems and very efficient systems. So the grade switch is really just a function again of infrastructure and modern infrastructure. And we've opened up a very good set of options there that we can just continue to leverage going forward. So that's not about high grading. That's just about the quality of the infrastructure and the ore body. And within that, we've got selectivity, but again, not driven by grade. It's more driven by ground conditions at the moment. But as we solve for that, that new East mine has significant leverage long term. And then at East Boulder, again, it's not about high grading, the decision to go from six ramps to four, within which we are selective on those ramps on the base of cost and efficiency is more about the fact that if we go flat out on the current six ramps, which we can do, we then accelerate the spend on the enhanced tailings facility and the extended rock dump facility. And that means a big capital spend in ‘25. So we have the latitude to push that out of it. And that's why we are reducing volumes. We are favoring the volumes at East Boulder on more efficient stopes and better cost profiles. Again, not high grading. So those are some of the trade-offs we've been doing. And I think it solves for multiple things, but it allows us at any point to switch back to bringing that, now that we've got the permitting on all of that expansion, we've got the time to decide when we trigger and that'll be driven by decisions around capital spend timing and I mean that gives us choice. So I think the flexibility is in our hands there. Thank you.

Thank you. I think this one is for Richard Stewart. I think some market participants are now saying that PGM loadings in China have fallen over the last two to three years more than previously expected and thus current deficits are overestimated, hence the low prices. What's your view on that?

Thanks very much, James. I think there's no doubt that the Chinese sort of loading in terms of their vehicles has been lower and has been declining over the last couple of years relative to Western markets. So, I think that's quite well known. I also think that is built into the existing deficits and current deficits that have been forecast. I don't think there's much of an impact on current. The reason for those lower loadings is largely driven by less stringent controls, less stringent testing that needs to be done, specifically real world driving testing. So the real question I think that needs to be asked, the current deficits I don't think are impacted, it's well-modeled, but what does that mean going forward? One of the concerns that's been raised is if Chinese OEMs start getting an increasing market share relative to Western OEM companies in the rest of the world, would that result in an overall lower PGM loading globally? I think that's more the concern that's been raised. I think it's important to recognize those, that if you are going to be selling cars into global markets, they would have to meet with the requirements in those markets. So we have looked at the lower loadings, particularly in China, we've built that into our models and our forecasts, and quite comfortable that the deficits we’re forecasting have got that in account. So well-known number, I think it's in a lot of the numbers already. I don't think it's a huge surprise.

Thanks, Richard. We'll ask one more question then go to the phone lines if that's okay. Neal, I think this is definitely for you from Arnold Van Graan. Is your business not spread too wide? Lots of moving parts, businesses at different life cycles, markets, commodities and capital cycles. Sounds like he's quite confused. Can you really manage this effectively?

Yes. Arnold, it sounds like you and I are having one discussion today. Absolutely, we can manage it effectively. I think what you see today through the presentation is chief regional officers totally in control of their regions and actually making positive impacts. It is complex, but we thrive on the complexity and we certainly have the skills base to deal with it. I would also say that certainly it provides a platform and we probably haven't made this as clear in this presentation, other than saying we're in the right metals in the right ecosystems. We are very well produced to work through this commodity cycle in PGMs, which is affecting probably 90% of our revenue at the moment. But as Keliber come on stream, as we move from zinc into phosphates in Australia, as we develop Mount Lyell, as we increase our exposure into other metals, we become a very different company. The environmental credentials and the business opportunities from secondary mining and recycling are just fantastic. We are unique in that combination and very well positioned to create value in the long term. The one thing that is very certain to me is this company will not become a dinosaur. So you can see I'm certainly very well aware and our Board continuously checks with us that we have the capacity and competency to manage a business like this and we certainly do. So I remain very positive about our exposure and the breadth of the business. Thank you.

Thank you. Operator could we now take a couple of calls from the course call line please.

Thank you, sir. First question comes from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon, Neal, James and team. Thanks so much. I'll limit my questions to two please. Could we, first question is on the US PGM assets. So, it looks like obviously you've reduced production there from around 450,000 to about 250,000 ounces. So it's about a 40%, 45% cut to production. I got the comment there from Charles that you cut some CapEx by more than 50%. So I guess my key and I think you gave a number, I might have missed that. But my key question is how long can you actually maintain that current production run rate at that reduced level of capital spend? Should we expect that you still have a life of mine out to 2040, 2050 at 250,000 ounces, or does production start dropping off below 200,000, say, by the end of the decade? So that's the first question. Then the second question, just going back to a question, I think, Charl answered earlier, I mean earlier this year you talked to on your plans to having maybe a free cash outflow somewhere between ZAR8 billion to ZAR9 billion this year. I see that your free cash outflow was ZAR7.3 billion in the first half of this year. So, obviously, probably pretty disappointing maybe against your own plans there. Just from the comments, clearly you're taking action in the US, you're taking action at Sandouville. Can you get this business to free cash flow breakeven by 2025? It just seems that the way you talk about the CapEx hump that maybe it's only ‘26 or ‘27 that we only get to free cash flow breakeven under current prices. Thank you.

All right. So, Chris, I'm going to ask Charles and Charl to comment directly to your questions, but we have to get to free cash flow breakeven. It's not just about a capital hump and certainly I don't think it's just about cutting capital in the US. It's about deferring capital just to make it clear. The plan to get to $1,000 an ounce is a plan that is sustainable in the US. There's no doubt that our South African business will be cash flow, at least cash flow neutral, if not positive, and our Australian business will be cash flow positive. Europe, post the Keliber construction, will of course also move into a cash flow positive status. So listen, the cash outflow this year is recognized. I do think it will be less than doubling what you saw in the first quarter. But let me first ask Charles to come in on your US PGM question. And then Charles, if you can just hand over to Charl to deal with the cash outflow.

Yeah, thanks, Neal. So, what we've been talking to today is really the 2025 plan that's work in progress, which has a lot of moving pieces that I think we've touched on to give you a sense of the significant shift. With year-end and early next year when the company guides to the full planning cycle, we will be talking also to the three-year plan which we're busy working on. So it's not that we've backed ourselves into a corner and now it's cut, cut, cut and then there's nowhere to go. We have made, I think, some very good choices around constraints facing us right now that we are taking head on and the flexibility we need to retain as we move forward. So we've -- the development pullback, the capital pullback is to match the current production run rates which we replace with development. The capital, as Neal said, and I've illustrated is about short-term deferral that doesn't back you into a corner but we do have sizeable capital in the three to five year window. So those are the choices which would have otherwise been triggered if we were going full bore on current run rates, we would be triggering that next year. So we've freed up next year to do a lot of work on costs, a lot of work on asset optimization and we expect in that three year window. So, to bring it to $1,000 an ounce is not simply about lifting the ounces, it's about lifting the efficiencies. And we believe as we get that right, we then can lever up really good free cash flow and then we have the flexibility to decide on volume. So East Boulder you can switch back to six ramps very quickly. They're there, they develop, they're active. We are doing the development to protect all of that. Stillwater East, as I've illustrated, it's new infrastructure. We can further develop, which we're doing. We can further open up. We've got significant leverage there. Both of that protects reserves and it protects life. And then Stillwater West, it's care and maintenance for now, which I see going through next year. We will do the work during that year to decide when we bring it back. That'll be as much about price as it will be about infrastructure optimization and getting it set up properly. So I don't see any impact on life. I don't see any impact on reserves. I don't see any impact on flexibility to lift this game when we decide to. And that'll be very much free cash flow driven as a decision point. So I think we're setting out the store for next year and you should have comfort in what that looks like. Year-end, we'll be setting out the store for the medium term. I'm actually quite excited about what that starts to look like. Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. And, yeah, to Neal's point, there's definitely, if we look at 2025, if we look at current commodity prices, because I think that's a big determinant in whether we will be cash, free cash flow neutral. But definitely, looking at our operations, South African gold, SA PGM, Australian zinc retreatment, I mean, clearly there we will be at a cash flow breakeven position and I would even go as far as to say that we would be putting some money in the tool. There are two outliers. Clearly, Stillwater needs a slightly or Stillwater US operations needs a slightly higher 2E price. So based on current estimations, albeit a much significantly lower cash outflow, there will still be a moderate cash outflow for 2025. And then Keliber is the other big outlier. We need to spend about $600 million in CapEx there, roughly $300 million this year, $300 million next year. So, those would be the two that would be consuming cash over that period. But the operations themselves will fully fund themselves and as I said, will put some money back into the bank.

Thanks. Just maybe point out to Chris as well, if you look at that cash flow statement or cash flow, free cash flow table, the SA gold operations show H1 2023 free cash outflow of ZAR1.25 billion. And then it increases to ZAR2.4 billion for H1 in 2024. But remember that we consolidate DRDGOLD as well and DRDGOLD's CapEx has gone from ZAR657 million in H1 2023 to ZAR2.5 billion in H1 2024. So that's about a ZAR1.8 billion impact on the free cash flow, and that does explain quite a bit of the increase in the free cash outflow from the gold operations. Could we have another call from the line please?

Thank you. Next question comes from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks Operator. Hi, Neal. So firstly, I'd like to know about mobile levers you can pull should you have to continue to fund the balance sheet, would you consider selling assets such as your interest in DRD, which is very cash generative, right, quite a valuable asset or any other opportunities you can cough? Or are you prepared to keep cutting costs off the business to fund your offshore strategy? That's the first one. Perhaps for Charl, an indication of what we should be modeling for the restructuring costs for Stillwater this year. And I do notice you sold a lot more metal than you produced out of SA PGM business. Do you have quite a bit of stock there? Could you give us a bit more color as to how much you might draw down for 2H? And then just maybe for Richard, you've obviously got quite an insight into recycling. I noticed that the flows there are quite weak still, yet the market seems quite optimistic about a recovery. But, could you perhaps share some insights there? Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Adrian. And clearly, Charl and Richard will pick up the relevant portions. We're not anti-selling assets. In fact, our uranium strategy specifically includes considerations like that. I also want to say there's a limit to cost cutting. And I know you can always cut costs further, but at a point it does cause damage. I personally am a lot more upbeat about the restructuring flowing through in the right way, and 2025 will hopefully be a year where there's no negative impacts from restructuring and reorganization. And as Charl said, as long as commodity prices continue at this sort of level and let me also be clear that we do want to complete the balance that we refer to of the $600 million to $700 million of balance sheet strengthening which is non-debt and non-equity just to be clear. Once that's in place and commodity prices remain roughly where they are together with the savings that we've already shared with you and that flowing through into 2025, I think we are well positioned with the current projects. I'm not talking about new projects, but our current projects. And we will be prudent. We are really very negatively disposed towards using equity. As I said earlier, we know the cost of that and it's not something that we're going to resort to and I don't think we have to resort to it, even over a two to three year period. So, Adrian, we'll keep a balanced view, but I don't know that post the additional streaming and prepay that we're intending to do that we'll actually need to do anything more. Thanks. Charl, will you go next and then Rich, you can follow Charl.

Thanks, Adrian. So, Adrian, the retrenchment costs to be modelled I would say is in the order of about $12 million to $15 million dollars. That's by our own calculations the number. So not a big or massive outflow from a restructuring perspective. On the stock buildup, I'll also take that question. So we had a furnace rebuilt at our PGM refineries, and that has resulted in us building up additional stock at the end of 2023. Clearly, we take a very keen eye on working capital, and we asked the team to work that through the process, and a lot of that came through in quarter one of this year. And that's why you'll see a higher metal sold than a metal produced. But I would say we are now back to historical averages. So, there's not a lot of metal that we can accelerate through the process. Thanks. Rich?

Thanks very much. And yeah, hi, Adrian. Just in terms of the recycling I guess, the reason why we are possibly a little bit more bearish on the recycling I guess is three things. So firstly, we do think that recycling is impacted by margins. We often hear recycling is a fixed margin business, so it's price inelastic, but at low prices even fixed margins become less money. A big part of recycling is obviously how you finance it, so it's working capital. So a combination of small markets and high financing costs where we're sitting at the moment definitely impacts on those businesses. And then the final one is spare capacity. So over the last four or five years we've seen a significant amount of spare capacity, processing capacity for recycled materials being built up during the high cycle. A lot of those facilities are running well below where they should be or designed to be, and that increases unit costs. So overall, the recycling market is currently under a lot of pressure, and we need to see that changing. I think importantly, what do we put into our models? So when we showed our sort of house view, what our model is based on is, we look at history, how much of the metal that went into automobiles ultimately finds its way back in terms of recycling. And when you look over an extended period of time, that number is actually pretty consistent over the last sort of decade or so. So it becomes quite a good benchmark to use going forward. Yep, you might get volatility in the short term, but overall that should be the metal we see coming back and that's what we've built into our models with some short-term pressure. So, Adrian, that's how we get to our numbers, thanks. Hope that helps.

Next caller from the lines please.

Thank you. The next question comes from Rene Hochreiter of Sieberana Research, NOAH Capital. Please go ahead.

Hi everybody, thanks for taking my question. Just two quick questions from me. How much did Chrome contribute to revenue at your SA PGM ops, just in percentage terms or in rand billions or whatever? And then in terms of the Keliber project, what long term lithium price are you using for the valuation of Keliber and is it giving you a decent IRR at current lithium prices?

Thanks, Rene. And I'll ask Mika to go first just to comment on the assumptions regarding the lithium prices and then Charl or Richard if you can just pick up the Chrome question. Thanks Rene.

Thank you very much for [Technical Difficulty] Thanks, Neal. We are actually not disclosing the prices we are using in our financial model, but I can assure you that our prices are very moderate, they are flat, and they have been there since the definitive feasibility study and we have kept them the same. So we feel that we are quite safe actually against the forecast that we showed a bit earlier in this presentation, where we can clearly see that if you take whatever consensus forecast, you can see that they go right towards 30,000, reaching first 20,000 probably during the next five years. And against that picture, we are sure that we can keep our costs and breakeven levels well below those levels. So we are confident that we are on the right side of that. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Rene. So Just on the Chrome side, for the half year, the revenue was about ZAR3 billion. So full year annualized closer to ZAR6 billion at current prices. That's about at the moment running at about 7% to 8% of the total revenue basket for the South African PGM operations. So in that sort of ballpark and that's about 1.3 million tons that we see coming through there. So that is a significant portion of the total revenue basket.

Thank you. Next caller please from the lines.

Thank you. Next question comes from Nkateko Mathonsi of Investec Bank. Please come ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my call. My first question is on Stillwater and the restructuring all-in sustaining cost of about [$1000 to 2E] (ph). And I mean, I think Charl did say that at current prices or at current environment, you need higher prices to actually generate positive free cash out of that operation. And then based on your supply demand numbers that you presented, maybe in the medium term, we do get those higher prices, but longer term as some of the commodities actually move into a balance and surplus, we may not have those higher prices. So my question is, and I think Neal talked about, said you consider the full closure of this operation. And my question is, why is the restructuring the most optimal solution versus a full closure when you consider the long-term headwind as far as a commodity like palladium is concerned? And then my second question on the gold side of things, Burnstone, you put it on care and maintenance at these record prices. Why not closure or is the care and maintenance the first stage before you actually go for a full closure of that operation? And then also still on gold, seismicity seems to have increased quite a bit. Is it fair to say as far as the cost structure of your gold operation is concerned, you've made a step change on the cost curve as far as positioning is concerned? I'm going to leave it there and yeah.

Okay. Thanks, Nkateko, and I'll try and just lead into the Stillwater and palladium question and then Charles come in afterwards. In terms of, these are not just commercial decisions. We employ people and there's a balance in our decision making looking after social impacts as well. So, it's not simple we close and we displace, in this case, 1,500 or 1,600 employees. That's not the sort of company we are. However, let me say we're also very commercial. And putting the operations on care and maintenance is actually a higher cost option. You have a continuous negative cash flow with no possibility of recovering those costs. Now, your point, Nkateko, of in the longer term, current indications are that palladium will face headwinds, but if you look a little bit deeper into our market development strategy, there are lots of initiatives that are focused on the market development for palladium. But also, I would suggest that the reason we produce a 2E graph that shows what it shows is because of the almost the ability to substitute platinum with palladium. So, yeah, we have a slightly different view of the market and the long term. I just want to make a point on Burnstone as well. Burnstone is not a project that, well, let me say the reasons for what we're doing with Burnstone is to preserve capital now. And it's a good project. And when we have spare capital, we will certainly develop it. And, Rich, you may want to say more when you answer the gold question. But let me just see if Charles, if you want to add anything to the decision-making around Stillwater, and then we can hand over to Richard to deal with gold as well.

Yeah, Neal, not much to add to what you said, which I think captures it all. But just to reinforce, we made lots of trade-off analyses and looked long and hard at the best outcomes. And I think the takeaway should be that this is a world-class ore body. The geology is exceptional, but it's not easy. It's very fickle. It's not a linear reef pattern. It requires quite an adept mining approach. And over the last couple of years, we've been working hard to improve efficiencies around that. Now, I think we're in the game of getting that right. And as we get that right, and we bring that cost structure down, and we bring the optimization up, you have a very levered option here, and you still have choice. Care and maintenance might remain for a while. It allows you to bring it back, it allows you to later on say, on balance, we have a long-term bearish outlook and therefore we make a choice. We don't have that outlook by the way, and I think Neal's made that very clear, as has Richard. So you want to protect optionality here and you want to protect a world-class long life asset that in anyone's portfolio is a Tier 1 asset when optimized and when mined efficiently. So I think we have all of those choices on the plate. And we have a game plan for getting it right through next year. And then we have a game plan that gives us optionality beyond that. Choices can be made either way as market circumstances dictate. Thank you.

Thanks very much. I think just maybe just to comment on Burnstone, I think, Neal said the crux of it. It's a project we like very much. It's a good project. A lot of the capital has been spent and it's really now about the ramp up. Yes, it's a high gold price environment now, but clearly that is still a project that needs to ramp up. Those sort of profiles are obviously long-term decisions we make as opposed to where we think the gold price is going to be 6 to 12 months and it is about looking at the region as a whole. So we do look at the capital we've got, what can we turn off or slow down now that doesn't have a big impact on the rest of the business and turn back on again at the right time. So it's a combination of factors, but certainly Burnstone is not a project we would put into full closure given where it is and certainly the value of the project that we still see there. So that would be that reason I think just to add to Neal's comments. In terms of the gold costs, I think important to recognize obviously the gold operations we've got are very operationally geared and what I mean by that is it is a high fixed cost base. These are assets that originally were expected to close more than five years ago and we've still got 10 years’ worth of reserves on it. But that means it needs to be carefully managed. And there are two ways to manage that. The one is obviously volume and output. And the other way is managing fixed costs, which is a lot of the restructuring we've done, predominantly through infrastructure and overheads. So where do we see this business based on where we've got it right now? I think our outlook for a steady state in terms of the big three operations, Kloof, Beatrix and Driefontein, so I'm excluding DRD, is probably somewhere in the region of about 550,000 to 600,000 ounces per annum. That's where we see the current steady state. And that would be off a cost base of between ZAR1 million and ZAR1.1 million per kilogram at those sort of output levels. Today, Driefontein is operating there. Beatrix, we expect to see getting there towards the end of the current half. And then of course, as I mentioned, Kloof, we needed a bit of opening up to get that flexibility. So if you translate that into a dollar per ounce number at those output levels, it's in the region of about $1,800 to $1,900 per ounce, which is roughly the cost structure we would see for these operations. Thanks.

We're getting short of time now, so could we just take the last two calls on the line, please? First caller.

Next caller comes from Leroy Mnguni of HSBC. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, Neal and team. I'd like to ask about the fixed costs in your US PGM business. So you've got a business that was by design, sort of designed to cater for 750,000 ounces to maybe a bit more and a much bigger recycling business as well compared to what it's delivering at the moment. You're now cutting that to about 250,000 in terms of the mining side. How are you ensuring that you can take out the fixed costs so that it doesn't drown your unit costs at your reduced production rate?

Yeah. Thanks, Leroy, and a very good question which we apply all the time when we go through a restructuring, especially on the basis of reduced outputs. There's a very significant cost reduction based on taking out 800 employees. Some of those you may argue are variable because they are production people, but as Charles explained, simplifying the management structure to one GM across the entire operations effectively taking out a whole level addresses your question and certainly we can give you some more detail on that but it has been addressed. Charles, do you want to add anything to that?

Yeah, I think, putting Stillwater West on care and maintenance had a significant fixed cost component because of the aged infrastructure and the travel times and the shaft setup and everything else. So that is a big swing on getting a lower operating cost structure for the rest of the business. And then the met obviously has a higher fixed cost component. But the met also has flexibility. So we are currently running one furnace. We have two furnaces available. You can scale up or down and you have the backup furnace as needed. But that gives you a residual fixed cost structure that really needs this kind of operating profile and that operating profile also protects your recycling profile. And we have some upside on that recycling volume as it currently sits at the met. So you've got to get the mix right and I think this plan that we put in on the table today does that. Obviously as you get volumes up at the right times, your unit costs drop and your cash flow opens up significantly. But I think we're moving now to a place where we've made some very hard decisions on the organizational structure. And talent in the US is very expensive. So, -- but for good reason, because we pay prevailing wages, we are well regulated. We have exceptional ESG, environmental, and other performance, which is very costly. So, we're running the business now on a scale down basis that protects all of that, but that gives us optionality going forward. And I think the mix of the mining and the recycling and the grain recycling platform and the grain mix within the metals and the sourcing, et cetera, that's a very interesting business long term and that's the one we're protecting right now.

Thank you very much and I'm afraid we've run out of time. We do have details of the people who have sent other questions in. So we'll make sure that we respond to you by email most likely. So we will try and deal with all outstanding questions. Neal, if I can hand over to you for a last word please.

Yeah. Thanks, James, and thank you everybody for attending and those that asked questions, I hope we answered them in a way that was understandable. And yeah, look, I think I want to say we've worked very hard. This has been a tough six months for us. We did commit to address our balance sheet, which I think is the issue that has caused the most concern more recently. And I dare say we've done a good job of doing that. And there's more in the pipeline, and I'm pretty confident we will close it out before the end of the year. In addition to that, what can go very badly wrong in a phase like this is the restructuring and the wheels coming off your operational engine room. And of course that just depletes the balance sheet in a much quicker way. I'm again very pleased with the regions in delivering the results they've delivered. Clearly there are some areas of disappointment. We're well aware of that, but I think if you look through those, there are lots of good results. And if you understand and see the cost savings that are going to come through with the restructuring, you see a business that even in a low price environment is going to be essentially sustainable. So, very pleasing achievements which I do believe will lead to the creation of value. In addition to that, I think we have a wonderful strategy, we're in the right metals at the right time and certainly in the ecosystems that we participate in, we are well supported. So this company is actually very well positioned and I think we can look forward to a rerating now from the bottom. So, thank you again all for your time and we look forward to sharing our year-end results with you early next year. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our 2023 H2 and Year End Presentation. Please take note of the international piggyback. We gave considerable thought as to what would be the appropriate way to signal our focus on the balance sheet and we thought this was the most appropriate way to indicate our focus. For a challenging 2024, we are not trying to create a silk purse out of a sow's ear. So let's move on. First of all, please take note of the safe harbor statement. There are lots of forward-looking statements, especially around what the markets may or may not do. What we intend to cover today is, I will go through the salient features of 2023. We want to start with it all starts and ends in the market. We really just want to focus on the PGM market. I think that is the priority. We want to share with you our proactive focus and our protection of the balance sheet. That is definitely our priority for 2024. I will also discuss a concept that I introduced, at the last presentation, a little bit more on resource stewardship. I will then hand over to Charl Keita, our CFO, who will do the financial review. Charl will hand over to the Chief Regional Officers, Richard, Charles, Mika, and Robert for the operational review. And then I will pick up again to conclude today's presentation. So let's, just look at the salient features, for the year ended 31 December, 2023. I think in terms of embedding ESG as the way we do business and work, we certainly can celebrate a record low serious injury frequency rate. Unfortunately, we did suffer regression in fatalities year-on-year, predominantly due to the Burnstone Conveyor contractor incidents -- incident, where we unfortunately lost four human lives. We are pleased to say that we well advanced with our renewable energy projects with 267 megawatts in construction. We're also pleased to say that we achieved conformance, for our storage facilities -- tailing storage facilities according to GISTM. And in line with our capital allocation model, we established the Sibanye Stillwater Foundation and the first allocations for the benefit of social upliftment have been made. And Richard will cover that, in his section. In terms of financial performance, earnings and cash flow were significantly impacted by steep, a steep decline in PGM process. We have been looking after our balance sheet not only recently, but for some time. And I'm pleased to say that we ended the year on a net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio of 0.58x. We have a low risk and well stated -- staggered, I should say, debt maturity ladder. And of course, we applied our dividend policy. But due to the losses in the second half of the year, there is no final dividend. In terms of the South African PGM operations, again, another really consistent and solid operational performance. We achieved industry leading cost control with only a 4% increase in our -- all in sustaining costs to approximately R20,000 per 40 ounce. I want to point out, and Richard will do more of this, we -- with the significant revenue generated by our byproducts and in particularly Chrome. And I think that it's not well understood how much revenue comes from chrome. But in terms of byproduct, credits, R10.9 billion it was the impact. Load curtailment was very well managed, and we ended up the year with effectively zero inventory, which is a good outcome considering what other, companies have had to report. We were proactive in restructuring many parts of our business. But in the South African PGM operations, we started just after mid-year results presentation, and that was -- that restructuring was completed in February of 2024. The South African operations, I'm pleased to say, both gold and platinum are profitable despite, the depressed PGM basket price. In terms of South African gold operations, again, another good outcome. A very significant turnaround from a R3.5 billion adjusted EBITDA loss to a R3.5 billion adjusted EBITDA profit. That's a R7 billion swing. Load curtailment was also managed, very well. Kloof 4 shaft was restructured again proactively, due to a constraint resulting from seismicity and the implementation of our safety strategy resulted in the closure of that shaft. Obviously, the final catalyst was a shaft accident in the shaft. The South African gold operations, as I've said, are also profitable and generating, a positive cash flow. Important, we often ask, why do we continue to pursue gold as part of our commodity mix? Well, I think it's very clear in global economic downturns that, gold safe haven status is a positive. And just to note, if we could create value by growing our gold portfolio, we would. Gold is a good commodity to have when you have a large base of industrial commodities as well. In terms of the U.S., the first half of 2023 was also impacted by a shaft accident at Stillwater West. We moved in quarter four to right size the operations for the lower palladium price environment that has worked extremely well. We've got another a number of other levers we can pull, and there's ongoing work, to ensure that these operations become profitable. They're still loss making at the moment. I will note when we look at reserves and resources that store is a strategic asset, both for ourselves as a company and for the U.S. And we have really no option but to ensure that it, becomes profitable even at these depressed palladium prices. So that's not due for closure at this stage. In terms of the European region, the construction of the Caliber Lithium Refinery is on schedule and on budget. Late last week, we received a court ruling on the appeal regarding the environmental permits, for both the Rapasaari mine and the concentrator. The court upheld the permit, but referred certain of those conditions back to the permitting authority. We suspect that may have an impact on when we bring Rapasaari mining to operation. And it may also require some rescheduling of capital. And once we have done that work and we are clear on the impact of this, we will provide the market with more guidance. The Sandouville nickel refinery in France was severely impacted by the collapse in nickel process. However, we had a very good outcome from the work that we initiated to look at the conversion of that refinery into a nickel sulfate, processing plant, incorporating battery recycling. That study, as it was done morphed into a study on PCAM, on producing PCAM. And we had a positive outcome from that transition, and we will now take this to the next level of engineering. For the first time, we have I think a positive way forward for Sandouville. In the Australian region, again, good news. We completed the acquisition of New Century Resources. We now own a 100% of the company. The adjusted EBITDA turned positive in Q4 after the very extreme weather event in March of 2023. And we also '23 to acquire a 100% of the Mount Lyell copper project. So let me move on to it all starts and ends in the market. And that's a quote, from one of our previous Non-Executive Directors, Barry Davison. And as you know, Barry was instrumental in building Anglo Platinum, and we learned a lot from Barry. And this is one of the -- one of the things I would like to do acknowledge, that he taught us and Barry often listens into our calls. And, if you are listening in, Barry, greetings. I'm not going to get into the nuts and bolts of supply and demand as it relates to the PGM. I want to take more of a bit of a philosophical view of the market. Our view has been consistent. We recognize the issues of the day in very solid and very positive. And let me share with you why? The graph on the right hand side, indicates the makeup of light vehicle production by powertrains. On the left hand scale is millions of units of light vehicle production. And you can see the different colors indicate, what is ice? What is hybrids? What is BEVs, and fuel cells are hardly seen in this period. The point that needs to be made is the following: is that absolute light-duty vehicle production is forecast to grow over the rest of this decade, to well in excess of a 100 million units per annum. I think the second point is that electric powertrains are expected to increase in market share in coming years. Now, that does mean that, battery electric vehicles will increase in market share. But for some time, we've been saying those penetration rates are overstated. But what seems to be forgotten is the role that hybrids will play and what's becoming much clearer to us, as we get to understand supply constraints, consumer preferences, and technology advances. The use of PGMs in the hybrid and internal combustion engine segment to the market is well supported. More recently, you had GM Ford, Toyota, BMW. And in fact, about a week, 10 days ago, Mercedes have all made public announcements pulling back on battery electric vehicle plants. And that type of messaging drive sentiment. Sentiment impacts short positions in the market. And from a palladium point of view, you are starting to see that unraveling. The point of all this is that, those technologies that use Autocts, and that's ICE engines in the purest form and plug in hybrids, in this decade are expected to provide approximately 70% of the powertrain mix, which is a very solid underpin to the PGMs. I think that's clear and it's well understood that the majority of PGMs, especially platinum, ruthenium, and iridium have significant industrial underpin as well. In other words, they're not really impacted, by what happens in the Auto segment. So, again, another underpin to the demand side of PGMs. We do expect, primary supply cuts from loss making production. We've cut back 40,000, 50,000 ounces on shafts that have come to the end of their lives, on some loss making production. And I expect other companies will do exactly the same. So called recycling and extrapolating, recycling of AutoCAD in straight lines is not going to happen. Recycling remains subdued for very good reasons. There's very little price incentive, to collectors. Logistics are difficult at the moment. People are not scrapping cars. The steel price is not underpinning the scrapping of cars either. So where we've ended up is in a bit of a volatile situation where supply chains have created major disruptions for end users who, through the experience, stocked up and built up inventory. And what we're seeing in the depressed environment at the moment is that that inventory is being reduced, and there's destocking taking place. That's what depressing the price. None of the fundamentals have been impacted negatively. And, of course, inventory is finite, and we are already seeing a little bit more activity in the spot mark spot market from end users. So we remain positive and constructive regarding the PGM markets. Now, this is some company information, coupled with of course forecasts of others from a base data point of view. But it's not, it's very difficult to look at platinum and palladium as separate metals. And we initiated the substitution of palladium with platinum for very good reasons, and we'll get to more of that later. But the graph that you see here indicates, a base case market balance in red. It indicates through the gold bars, the -- our view as a company of lower BEV growth. And, of course, you can see in terms of platinum and palladium looked at from a 2E perspective, the deficits increase from the base case just through that out into 2028. And when you look at supply rationalization, and you develop what we call a combined scenario of both BEV -- lower BEV growth and supply rationalization. You can see why we remain constructive and bullish regarding these two metals with deficits all the way out in our view to 2030. In terms of rhodium, it's also not too different. When you factor in our view of lower BEV growth, which we've maintained, as I've said, early on in the presentation for some time. When you look at supply rationalization, and yes, we're very mindful of the changes occurring in the fiberglass industry in China. You can see again, from a combined scenario point of view, rhodium remains only moves into a surplus in 2030. All of this bodes very well for the underpin to our PGM business. In addition to that, and I said I was going to come to this, we have as a company been driving, what we believe is innovative market development. Now I referred to the tri-metal catalyst work that we did with BASF in 2020. We felt that, the palladium, palladium demand had entered a phase where it was not sustainable in terms of the way we are mining. We looked at the international basket waiting and recognized that it was important to look at potential -- the potential substitution of palladium with platinum. Now today, we received many comments that you've actually undermined your own business. That's not true because the reverse is also true as platinum, will increase in price that provides the underpin at a logical point in time for palladium to be substituted for platinum. And therefore, we are very confident that we've done the right thing from a sustainability point of view to ensure that our baskets are balanced. In addition to that, we've more recently embarked with Heraeus Precious Metals on two projects. I'm not going to go through these in detail, but the one is a ruthenium based catalyst for PEM electrolysis. And again that is to ensure that there are cheaper options for producing hydrogen and not having to revert to scarce iridium. The other one is we are exploring new applications for palladium in the hydrogen economy. So, palladium has had in our view, very little market development investment. And we are following through on that. I'd like to now move onto what we believe is a very proactive focus and protection of the balance sheet, which is going to be a key focus for us in 2024. But before I go into the details, I think it's important to just look at the external context in terms of the world we're operating in. And again refer to the gray elephants. And the gray elephants, you would know are those highly probable, high impact, yet often ignored trends that are shaping the 2020s. And we spent quite a bit of time on talking about these gray elephants. Today, I really want to pick up on just a few. And we had noted previously the increasing trend in temperatures. 2023 was the warmest year on record. That's accelerating this imperative for climate change. And of course, our metals are key and underpin what is necessary to protect the world from this runaway climate change. That's not the focus of this, but I think the global trade patterns and supply chains are being significantly disrupted. And geopolitical developments are making deeper and deeper impacts. I referred to the destocking that's currently taking place. I have not yet referred to palladium that we believe is coming from Russia via China at a discount and impacting and undermining, what is a commercial palladium price. Those are all patterns that come from the gray elephant of big squeezes. We are very cognizant of them and of course have strategies to deal with that. I have said many times in these presentations, the issue of multipolarity or in another word, the deglobalization of the world is happening at an accelerated rate. Our positioning in Europe and the U.S. was not by chance. It was taking recognition of this multipolarity. And of course, those are markets that are short of these critical metals. Those are markets that we can support and jointly prosper in together with our stakeholders. I think when you look at the fact that 64 elections will take place, country elections that is in 2024. And you look at what is happening in the division between the East and the West. This is a very significant platform for angry people to express their discontent all over the world. And it is something that can really undermine very quickly, the underpins and the changes to market. So it's something we are monitoring very, very closely, but that is the broad external context. When we bring that into the company, you are all familiar with our strategic thinking, our three-dimensional strategy, the strategic foundation, the strategic essentials and of course, they are strategic differentiators. In a challenging environment, the primary focus has to be on strategic essentials. And that is where our focus is. And just to remind you, what does that actually mean? It means, first of all, we've got to ensure the safety and well-being of our employees. So safety first. Prospering in every region in which we operate. That means having good stakeholder relations, with all stakeholders in the regions we operate in. Achieving operational excellence and optimizing long-term resource value. We're going to cover a number of those aspects in this presentation. You saw increases, within our South African PGM business of only 4% in a high inflationary environment. I will get on to recently declared reserves and resources and show you how we've optimized long-term resource values. Those are some of the key assets within the company. Maintaining a profitable business and optimizing capital allocation. In this presentation, I believe I will talk about capital allocation. Charles will talk about capital allocation, and Richard will talk about capital allocation. But dealing with loss making shafts in a proactive way dealing with loss making parts of our business in a proactive way. Considering capital allocation and even rescheduling capital such as Burnstone and perhaps even Keliber is important. Embedding ESG is the way we do business. That was the very first strategic highlight for 2023 that I covered. So that's what we mean by strategic essentials. And focusing on the strategic essentials to protect the balance sheet is what is critical in a year like 2024. So let's talk about the proactive actions we've taken to protect and strengthen the balance sheet. And I want to do that against the backdrop of the table on the right hand side. What we've got listed there is some of the restructuring benefits that have been achieved in our business over the last year and early into this year. I'm not going to go through it in detail, but you can see that our gross savings and CapEx deferrals from the period that we're going to talk about now has amounted to R6.6 billion or $375 million. And this, you do not do overnight. This has been a journey, and I will share with you that journey. So in February 2022 at our year-end results presentation, we noted the prospects of a global economic downturn post the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia. And we knew that was going to drive up energy prices. We knew that was going to drive up inflation. And of course, the only way central banks can really manage inflation is to raise interest rates. So we could see that coming. In August of 2022, we recognized that our U.S. PGM business could well be delivering additional palladium into an anticipated palladium price weakness in 2028. And that was the first round of restructuring at our U.S. business. In [indiscernible] processing plant from May of 2023, we started to protect the downside in terms of gold price at let's call it significant levels, probably even record levels. That is protecting the balance sheet. In November of 2023, instead of using our balance sheet to acquire Reldan, we raised $500 million through a convertible note to fund the Reldan acquisition. And that was actually raising $500 million at an interest rate of 4.25% in a time where interest rates were well north of that. Bond rates were sort of at 7%, 8%, 9%. Yes, you can talk about dilution, but there's no -- there's no reason why this convertible note has to actually convert. In November of 2023, we closed Kloof 4 shaft, mainly due to safety reasons. In November of 2023, we went through a further round of USPG on operational, restructuring with the very fast decline in the 2E basket price. 2024, we completed the 189 process for the closure of Simunye shaft, the rightsizing of Siphumelele and Rowland shafts and conditional operations of our 4 Belt shaft. That is in my mind being proactive and being on the front foot in dealing with changing economic circumstances. Our operating guidance for 2024 again, I'm not going to go through it in detail. But you will note that the U.S. region is now being pinned from primary mining at about 440,000, 2E ounces a year. Our U.S. recycling business excluding Reldan is expected to generate about 300,000, 3E ounces. Our South African PGM operations again solid performer at about 1.8 million ounces of production with costs around just under R22,000 of 4E ounce. Gold is profitable with an expected production of about 600 -- just over 600,000 ounces. The Sandouville nickel refinery is unfortunately still going to be loss making but we are working our way to reduce those losses at the current nickel prices and of course minimize the losses as we progress the feasibility study to convert that plant into a pCAM plant. The Keliber lithium project is ongoing. As we noted early on in the presentation, we are still understanding the impact of the court judgment and that might require a little bit of rescheduling both on the capital and the output side. The Australian region is profitable. And of course, we exercised as I said earlier our option on the Mount Lyell copper mine and we will continue to take that up to the value curve. As I said right at the beginning, I wanted to talk a little bit about resource stewardship. I did introduce the concept at the previous results presentation. And I think it's really about saying that, if you are going to position yourself as a metals producer which, are designed to address climate change. You need to think broader than just primary mining. Secondary mining has been something we've been part of for some time through DRDGOLD and of course more recently Century. We are looking to grow that business. Recycling or open mining is an area where we're quite active and we have recently announced the Reldan transaction, which I'll get to now. But those are the three operating legs of the company. And let me just provide you with a bit more detail on Reldan which is a U.S. based metals recycler based in Pennsylvania, and has joint ventures and operations in both India and Mexico spreading our footprint. So in November 2023, we announced the acquisition of Reldan at a $211 million enterprise value. And of course taking from enterprise to the cash consideration will result in a $155.4 million cash outflow. It's anticipated to be value accretive on day 1. That's not a big ticket in the big scheme of things. At reprocesses, industrial and electronic waste, to produce various metals. And I think it's important to understand the scale of these businesses. So we've really highlighted the amount of gold, a recycler produces. And in this case for 2022, that was a 140,000 ounces of gold. Now that compares very favorably 264,000 ounces that DRDGOLD produces. And DRDGOLD is considered a large gold mining company. It also produced just under 2 million ounces of silver, 22,000 ounces of palladium, 25,000 ounces of platinum and 3.4 million pounds of copper. So a significant producer, significant scale. As I've said, got a presence in Mexico and in a number of environmental certifications and accreditations, which attract blue chip suppliers. And we expect this transaction to close during this month. So let me then move on to the bigger part of resource stewardship and just talk a little bit about our reserve and resource base as recently declared. And obviously the pie charts on the right hand side of the slide are important. What stands out before I even go into the test is the very large reserve base that we have in the U.S. And you can see why that is so strategic in terms of our own company and as I've said also for the United States. So really pleasing to announce a 55% increase in attributable lithium mineral resources. And we will -- I do believe in the not too distant future, be able to upgrade the mineral reserve as well. We have a very sizable PGM mineral resource and reserve base with long life operations and lots of optionality. As I've said, the U.S. resource and reserve base is strategic and significant. The South African PGM basis is also significant and large. The South African gold resources and reserves went down impacted mainly by the closure of Kloof 4 shaft and Beatrix 4 shaft. The new Century operations, we have an attributable zinc mineral reserve of £1.7 million which we've declared for the first time. And for the first time, Mount Lyell has just under or just over I should say £1.6 million of copper mineral resource, which was added. Lots of questions on uranium. As you know, we've been sitting on our uranium waiting for the process to be what they are. We have £32 million of uranium resources on the cooke tialings down with DRD having now finalized their regional tailings facility. That can be brought to account, very quickly. Then of course, we've got the Beisa uranium mine, with £27 million of resource. And we're actively progressing, the thinking around that. So with that, I'm going to hand over to our Chief Financial Officer to take us through the financial review. Thanks, Charl.

Thank you, Neal. Good morning and good afternoon to all participants. Having now spent almost 30 years in the mining industry, you very quickly learn that summers are short half of 2023, financially speaking, we enter a period which is beginning to feel like autumn as we saw a pullback in commodity prices, specifically PGMs. This has had a significant impact on our results, as you will see during the financial review. Our balance sheet remained strong and we maintained our financial flexibility. However, for the first time in four years, we moved into a net debt position. Net debt to adjusted EBITDA increased to 0.58x and this was driven predominantly by lower commodity prices, capital expenditure and timing of year end payments. Now debt maturities, as can be seen on the slide, remains manageable. Gross debt, including borrowings, increased by approximately R15 billion and this was due to R4 billion drawn under the Rand revolving credit facility due to earlier payments in December 2023 associated with the South African mines closing around '23 December. We also issued the convertible bond at the end of 2023. Cash on hand was at R25.5 billion and net debt was just under R12 billion. Liquidity still remains very strong and we have headroom of just under R50 billion which is split roughly half cash and half available facilities. Our North Star remains the capital allocation framework and the decisions taken around cost cuts and production rightsizing base testimony. Looking at project capital, Burnstone has been slowed down and we will continue to review this based on the financial position of the group. For now, we will continue with our two major projects, K4 and Keliber. If we look at stakeholder shared value, as stated and based on the financial performance and in line with our dividend policy. No dividend has been declared at year end. If we now move to stakeholder shared value again. The Sibanye Stillwater Foundation non-profit company was conceived at the end of 2021, but it was only finally registered in 2023. The historical allocation of R212 million has flown and more on that later. At the end of 2023, we issued a convertible bond of $500 million and the proceeds will partially be utilized for the funding of Reldan. The message I want to leave you with on this slide is that we are well aware that we are on a much tighter period, but we will continue to evaluate all investments and expenditures based on this capital allocation framework. Looking at the income statement, revenue at R114 billion was down from R138 billion in 2022. Volumes at all our major primary producing operations were up, but were offset by pullbacks in PGM basket prices of between 24% and 32%. The gold price was the shining light and was up 21% year-on-year. Costs were down almost R5 billion and this is a function of solid cost control by the operations and a major contributor was lower volumes from recycling. Adjusted EBITDA halved year on year and still came in at a respectable R21 billion and we forget that not too long ago this was considered record performance, but it has been completely overshadowed by the last three years. We also, as signaled in our trading statement, booked in payments to the value of R47 billion. This was at our USPGM operations, Mimosa, Sandouville, New Century Resources, and the Burnstone operation. The biggest contributor was the significantly lower consensus price outlooks. We also fully impaired the now closed Kloof 4 shaft. Taxes and royalties were much lower and reflects the lower profitability. The net impact of all of the above was a loss for the period of R37 billion or R13.34 per share, and this was primarily driven by the impairments that we booked during 2023. I'm now going to pass you back to our Chief Regional Officers to take you through the operational reviews. Thank you, Richard.

Thank you very much, Charl, and good afternoon or good morning ladies and gentlemen. It gives me real pleasure today to share with you our operational update. I will specifically be sharing some of the group safety and South African regional update. I'll then hand over to Charles to talk us through the Americas region. Grant will update us on the recycling, and then Mika on the EU region, and finally Robert will pick up on the Australian region. Thank you very much. So I guess just starting off with what is our number one priority both on our operations and as a group in terms of safety. 2023 was really a story of two tales. I think it was very regrettable that we saw an increase in the number of fatal incidents that we had from five in 2022 to eight in 2023. Very sadly, one of these incidents was a multiple fatal where we tragically lost four contracting colleagues when a conveyor belt that was under construction at Burnstone collapsed. Our sincere condolences go to the families and friends of all of our lost colleagues. I think while the number of fatal incidents experienced is deeply regrettable and I think it was took a hard toll on the team. We have since 2022 been implementing our fate elimination strategy. And I do think that there are many underlying trends that show us that we are progressing well along this journey. This strategy at its heart really looks at eliminating high energy or high risk incidents, and we mitigate against those risks through our critical controls of behaviors and also through our management routines that make sure we enable safe work. Some of the trends that we have seen that tell us we're on the right journey would be instances such as our serious injury frequency rate. This we use as a measure since the energy that's involved in a serious incident is quite often similar to what could result in a fatal. And having seen a consistent year-on-year decline with many of the serious injury frequency rates we experienced last year, the industry leading and certainly records for ourselves does tell us that we are on the right trend. I also think last year for the first time, we saw that frontline stoppages, safety stoppages by our frontline employees exceeded the number of safety stoppages we saw from management and from our safety officers. This is important because it really tells us two things. Firstly, that our frontline employees are able to identify risk within their working areas, but more importantly that we're developing a culture where our frontline supervisors stopping for safety incidents rather than continuing work is embraced and really seen as part of our overall commitment to not working in unsafe environments. We've also seen a real reduction in risk where historically some of our top incidents that resulted in fatality such as fall of ground. We've now gone 25 months without seeing a fall of ground incident showing us that where these controls are implemented we are able to eliminate fatalities. And I remain absolutely confident that if we can continue to implement the strategy and drive it throughout our organization, we can show that deep level mining is possible without fatal incidents. Moving on to Social, I think Charl did highlight the formation of the Sibanye Stillwater Foundation last year. I think a key achievement towards delivering on our ultimate vision of shared stakeholder value. The specific foundation allocated its first funds to the South African region last year. And through that, we've just imbursed our first set of funds to two very esteemed partners in gift of the givers and Breadline Africa. This specific foundation is really aimed at uplifting our communities around our operations also from where many of our employees originate with a focus on infrastructure. And Gift of the Givers will be working with us in uplifting infrastructure around schools, around our operations, and Breadline Africa investing those funds into creating sanitation and replacing put between toilets in many of our originating areas. I think two absolutely key initiatives that really underpin our commitment to social upliftment and ultimately education in our country which is core to providing equal opportunity for all South Africans. Onto Energy and the E and ESG, I'm very proud to say today that Sibanye is one of the top three private power purchasers within the country and in fact as we stand today have the largest amount of energy projects currently under construction. Last year we concluded the financial close of three significant projects that are currently in construction and will deliver 267 megawatts of solar and wind renewable energy to our operations from 2025 onwards. This is estimated to contribute about 15% of our total electricity requirements from 2026 and will also significantly reduce our Scope 2 emissions by just under a 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum. In addition, we've got five further projects that are currently under in development, and we are looking forward to reaching financial close on those during the current year. And those should be in operation by 2026. These five projects will deliver a further 365 megawatts of energy, that will ultimately provide about 30% of our total energy requirement from 2027. Not only does this have a significant impact on our Scope 2 and emissions and carbon footprint, but in addition comes in at tariffs that are lower than current Eskom and certainly where we forecast Eskom tariffs to be going over the coming years. This has come at a significant capital investment of between €12 billion and €14 billion largely funded from third-party balance sheets with ourselves providing power purchase agreements to underpin that capital investment. Moving on to our SA Gold operation, I think 2023, we saw a very pleasing turnaround from 2022 moving from an EBITDA loss of about $3.5 billion in the previous year to an EBITDA profit of about €3.5 billion last year. This came on the back of a 30% higher production output, coupled with a 20% increase in the gold price received over the year. With the increase in output, our all in sustaining costs dropped by just over 10% year-on-year. And I think this output was particularly pleasing given two significant operational disruptions we experienced during the year. One being the curve fore shaft incident where at the end of July, we had steel on the counterweight of a conveyance system that fell down the curve shaft and resulted in the decision to close that shaft, a process that was concluded in December of 2023. We also had a significant fire at our Driefontein 5 shaft, our largest operation at Driefontein. And that largely resulted in no production for the third quarter of last year and a ramp up during the fourth quarter with more production only normalizing in November and December of 2023. The net impact of that fire was almost a ton of gold that was dropped out of our production. DRD production decreased by about 8% to just under 165,000 ounces, and all in sustaining cost rose by about 10% to just under R900,000 per kilogram. Nevertheless, this did contribute a 13% higher EBITDA to the group of R1.75 billion driven largely by 20% increase in gold price. As was mentioned earlier in the presentation, we have made a decision to defer much of the Burnstone capital over the coming years, and this will be evaluated on an annual basis. Moving on to our PGM operations, I think production from PGMs was pleasing and consistent year-on-year. In total, we produced just under R1.75 million ounces and that excludes about 21,000 ounces that came from Kroondal towards the end of the year in November and December, where we now account for 100% of production given the transaction with Anglo Platinum, which I'll talk on in a bit more detail in a second. Very pleasing was the continued and sustained industry leading cost performance. Our total unit costs last year only increased by 4% to just over R20,000 before the ounce, significantly below both inflation and mining PPI experienced across the industry. This of course has given us the benefits of continuing to move down the industry cost curves, and increasing our resilience to the overall PGM environment that we are facing at present. This cost performance largely comes off the back of two things. The first one is a very tight and stringent cost control, but also through the increased focus we've had on delivering additional byproduct benefits, most notably in Chrome, which I'll expand on, overall creating a credit benefit of about R6,500 before announced to our PGM costs. It was also mentioned that we were very proactive in terms of restructuring our PGM operations, with 4 shafts being impacted last year, a process that was concluded in February of this year. And overall we expect that to deliver about R750 million of annual benefits to the PGM operations. Adjusted EBITDA was down by about just over 50%, and that was largely driven by a 32% decline in the total PGM basket price that we received, largely as a reduction of palladium and rhodium prices. I think we also highlighted that at the end of 2022, the deferred payment agreement with Anglo Platinum came to an end and that last payment was made in the first half of last year, the benefits of which going forward would accrue to the Sibanye Stillwater Group and of course our empowerment partners at the Rustenburg operation. I do think we're in quite a unique position in many ways in the industry with our current processing capacity. We do have spare capacity, especially in our base metal and precious metals refinery. And that puts us in quite a unique position to manage load curtailment and ensure we can keep work in progress down to a minimum. But in addition, also the ability to unlock future value. And I'm sure many of you would have seen the announcement by Ivan Platts where we have agreed to purchase a concentrate agreement with them for their future expansion projects due to come online later this decade. I'll touch a little bit more just on the focus on byproducts. When we commenced our operations or started the PGM operation some four or five years ago, chrome sales amounted to about a R1 billion per annum. Over the last four to five years, we've placed a significant focus on enhancing our chrome production, both on our existing underground operations, as well as looking at ways to optimize a significant surface resource that we have in terms of our tailings. This has seen the production from chrome increase to where it was forecast to be currently. We've increased that by more than 25%, which when you combine it with the current chrome prices, means the revenue we received from chrome last year was just over R5 or 10% of our total revenue basket. This is given that chrome comes at a very small incremental cost. This has had a significant benefit to the overall revenue or credit towards our overall PGM costs. We still see a lot of upside with chrome and look forward in the coming months to share with you some of the plans we've got to further increase our overall chrome production and become a significant provider into the global crone markets. Just moving on to the Kroondal transaction, this is a transaction that we've shared with the markets before and essentially includes us buying 50% of Anglo American share in what was called the PSA or the Kroondal operations. The consideration for that transaction was a delivery of 1.35 million ounces into the existing PSA structure, and we expect to complete that delivery by the middle of 2024. In addition, we do pick up the closure liabilities for the infrastructure we have purchased from Anglo. This transaction has added significant value to the overall Kroondal infrastructure. In total, we've unlocked almost 1,700,000 ounces of additional reserves that could not have been done outside of this transaction. As we know, we had significant resources at Rustenburg that could not be mined from the existing Rustenburg infrastructure, but can be mined from the low cost Kroondal mechanized infrastructure. This adds about 1.4 million ounces to the overall Kroondal life of mine. In addition, through having this critical mass in terms of production, it also means we can unlock a lot of the Kroondal tail, and that's about 300,000 ounces that previously would not have had sufficient production capacity or could not have covered its costs as a standalone operation. But by being incorporated into Rustenburg, we are therefore able to unlock the 1.7 million ounces and extend the life of these assets out well into the middle of the next decade. I think importantly and as a heads up to the market, when we do close the transaction in the middle of the year, Kroondal effectively gets amalgamated into Rustenburg. And that also means that we will transform from a purchase a concentrate agreement that we currently have with [indiscernible] to a toll treatment agreement. What this essentially means is that our overall operating costs at Kroondal will increase. So essentially we will incur additional tolling costs that will increase the total operating cost base. However we also achieve 100% of revenue. So under the current purchase of concentrates agreement, we only receive a percentage of the total revenue basket, whereas under the toll agreement we receive 100% of the revenue basket. The net increase in the revenue received does exceed the increase in the costs and therefore the overall margins will increase from the Kroondal operations once the tolling agreement is instituted around the beginning of this year, albeit you will see that increase in unit costs and increase in associated margins. Thank you very much. And with that, I will hand over to Charles to take us through the U.S. region. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard. We've obviously come off a challenging year with production just over 427,000 ounces. We lost almost 25,000 ounces due to the shaft incident at Stillwater Mine, which impacted the West Mine in particular. The average basket price declined 33% year-on-year to $1,243 an ounce. And we're obviously very focused right now on a 2E basket price in the 900s, which means that we have to continue to both meet the new plan that we've put on the table and indeed move beyond it where we can with an ongoing focus on costs in particular. Importantly, we did significant restructuring late last year. We restructured the leadership team. We took out the CEO position with the GM's reporting direct to Kevin Robertson. We strengthened the central technical function in the [indiscernible] and we did a number of other streamlining adjustments to the leadership spans of control and accountabilities. More than adjusting the leadership team, we revised the mine plan significantly with a lower for longer production profile and we constrained near-term growth and deferred growth capital, knowing that we can come back at this as prices permit. We also did a workforce restructuring. We took out 270 contractors and 100 employees for a workforce reduction of around 16%. This was well executed by the teams. And I want to thank all employees for their responsible approach to this reality and in particular to the United Steelworkers for the professional manner in which they dealt with a difficult situation. The revised plan is starting to see an estimated $400 an ounce benefit on all-in sustaining costs. We are continuing to work on ways to improve this with every cost element currently in focus. We have already seen a reduction in gross mining costs of around 19% over the past four months at Stillwater mine. And we're starting to see a much better run rate with improved efficiencies at both mines. And most importantly, we are seeing a good safety start to the year. While 2023 was a tough year from a performance perspective, we completed a number of key infrastructure upgrades at both mines that will better position these operations for the future. At East Boulder mine, we completed the tunnel through rail upgrade and we commissioned a heat exchanger line for additional intake resolving a longstanding ventilation constraint at East Boulder. At Stillwater mine, we commissioned the new mill at the start of this year and that is working well. We completed and commissioned the West Fork ventilation infrastructure, and there will be a major event changeover late in the second quarter going into the third quarter but that's all looking good. And we did significant restructuring on the fleet. We removed 140 units to simplify and focus our maintenance efforts and our efficiency gains. At the MET complex, we completed the second furnace rebuild, and we'll bring this back online once recycling volumes pick up. As you'll see in the numbers, we had an all-in sustaining cost of $1,872 an ounce as seen in these results, which is mainly due to lower than planned production, increased ORD and sustaining capital expenditure. In the detail of our earnings report, however, you will see that in the new mine plan, we have production marginally higher this year than last year. We have development rates maintained at around 25,000 meters for the year. We have total operating costs reducing by at least 18%, and we're looking to go beyond that. We have ORD and sustaining CapEx reducing by between 55% and 60%, and we have project CapEx reducing by almost 70%. As I've noted, the growth capital is deferred for the next several years, but we will come back to that as we are able to. We are repositioning for profitability and sustainability to ensure delivery of a significant long-term value while cutting across right now to meet the challenges of markedly lower pricing. As I've noted, we've had a positive start through the first two months of 2024, and we're working hard to keep improving our safety performance and to ensure that we achieve our production plan while continuing to dose every element of spend as we move forward. I'm confident that we have the right plan for the times that we're in and our real pride in the hard work underway by all team members who are affecting significant shift at our Montana operations. We are also doing significant activities off mine sites such as lobbying for the Inflation Reduction Act tax credit at the moment, the latest draft from the IRS really hands this credit only in final refiners. And we believe the original intent of legislators was that this should also impact critical minerals mining and not just processing. So that's an ongoing lobbying effort. We'll see where we get to. But I think importantly, what's happening in the U.S. right now is that we need to ensure that we are safeguarding the competitiveness of an industry that is pivotal for American green metals production in the U.S. for the long-term future. And to that end, any enabling legislation is helpful. Improved operating performance we are seeing at the start of this year is also being seen in slightly stronger recycling volumes through the first two months. As I hand over to Grant Stuart who will take you through the recycling performance, let me just echo what Neal has covered, and I'm excited by the potential of the Reldan transaction. In short, it has scope to broaden our recycling feeds beyond order cuts. It adds new metals to the character of our Americas business, and it strengthens our earnings and free cash flow capability going forward. Our U.S. metals recycling business is an important complement to our mining business, and we are working aggressively to develop a cost effective and highly leveraged platform for any future price upside while ensuring a competitive cost base that is sustainable beyond the current price squeeze. We have started 2024 on the front foot in all parameters of the business and all things permitting, you will see us moving down the global cost curve through the year.

It has been a cause for concern. PGMs from recycle totaled just over 310,000 3E ounces, 48% down on 2022 and influenced by a relentless and complex set of factors within the U.S. auto industry. Towards the end of 2022, a notable dip in the U.S. auto sales became apparent, driven by compressed disposable income levels, heightened financing costs and near record vehicle prices that deterred potential new vehicle purchases. Today, buyers grapple with the same impact of interest rates on car loans with average vehicle prices hovering around $48,000. These factors have no doubt contributing to various recyclers in the value chain. Beyond the macroeconomic complexities, lifestyle changes post-COVID, including increased remote work and reduced driving have led to a shortage of end-of-life vehicles. Consumers are running their vehicles for longer periods and our customers are confirming average scrappage rates moving from averages of 12 to 15 years to beyond 20 years. In 2022, our adjusted EBITDA stood at $78 million whereas in the current period, it's been adjusted to $33 million following a 24% drop in the average realized 3E dollar price received and a 45% decrease in the volume fed. Despite encountering volume challenges over the past three years, we maintain an optimistic outlook grounded in the resilience of our recycling platform to facilitate sustained growth within the circular economy. Several factors bolster our confidence, including palladium and rhodium in the short term. Additionally, the dissipation of China's destocking cycle downgrades in battery electric vehicle sales, potential Fed rate drops, recategorization of hybrid sales as ICE vehicles, and IRA credits applicable to both battery electric vehicles and plug in hybrid electric vehicles, all contributing to this positive outlook. Moreover heightened auto catalyst loadings to mitigate emissions and supply cutbacks further reinforce this position. Our outlook is underpinned by a comprehensive assessment of the order catalyst recycling landscape, with upside potential anticipated following Reldan's integration as we explore consolidation opportunities, the integration of collector and logistics networks and anticipated resurgence in volumes. Over to you, Mika.

Thank you, Grant and hello, everybody. In Europe, we continued to implement our battery metals strategy during 2023 and our battery metals strategy is concentrated actually to two ecosystems for the time being. One of them being in France and the other one being in Finland. And when we talk about what we have achieved so far, we talk about mainly two assets, which are the Sandouville nickel refinery in Sandouville, France and then the Keliber project in Finland, in Kokkola and in Kaustin. If we start what was positive in Sandouville last year was actually the safety development. So in recordable incidents, we did better than '22. That tells a lot about the employee's discipline, and I'm really happy about that trend, what we have there. Operationally, it was a big disappointment, Sandouville last year. We were badly hit by the decline. We started our hedging only in the mid of the year and also related bad market conditions when it comes to product pricing. We also had a big impact in our variable cost mainly due to inflation in the post war market. And also, we had a lot more maintenance than we thought we would need in order to stabilize the production during last year. However, we decided already in the beginning of the year to do a strategic review of the asset and the different options we have. So we have been doing a lot of work with the different visions for Sandouville including the current business model which we didn't find long-term viable. Also we have been looking into a possible closure of Sandouville and then we have been looking into alternatives where we have a different feed and different end products for Sandouville. What has been encouraging is that, we decided that the most preferred outcome for Sandouville is actually to start to transform it towards precursor market as a peak and producer. That's very much in line with our strategy. It is exactly what the ecosystem in France and Europe needs. And we think that we can do it as a brownfield project, capitalizing on the asset we already have. And the scoping study what we finalized in the beginning of this year shows encouraging results. It's a market where there is a huge deficit between the supply and demand and it's a value chain position which we believe is going to be very profitable. We are going to use the chlorine route and not as usually the sulfate route. And that has many benefits. And we believe also that we can have less CapEx, less OpEx through this kind of a solution and the CO2 profile is going to be extremely good in comparison with the conventional processes. Right now we have started the prefeasibility study and we expect to finalize that by the end of the year, including also a transition plan if the results of the feasibility studies are as encouraging as the scoping study results. Then let's move to Keliber. Keliber safety development was also positive between '22 and '23. So we had less recordable incidents than the year before. And I'm happy about this safety trend as well. We achieved a lot during 2023 at Keliber. We started the construction of the refinery. We started the construction of the concentrator and we also started the construction of the mine, which means that we are construction for the time being in three different places. We are on budget and we are on time with that construction aspect today. Keliber has also recruited a lot of people, and it has been really nice to see how attractive employer this project actually is. So we can attract good talents from the region, outside the region, and that has to do obviously that we are dealing with battery materials in the future, but also that we are now as Sibanye Stillwater, we are an international player and we can offer long-term development opportunities for the people who join us. After successful recruitments, let's talk about permitting. We got the decision 23rd February, a court ruling concerning Rapasaar mine and Päiväneva concentrator. As you might remember, we had three appeals. One of them was our own and two private persons on top. Now the court upheld the permit, but referred certain permit conditions back to the permitting authority for a further review. This is not unusual in these processes. That means that construction of the concentrator can proceed as planned on the environmental permit that remains valid. Commencement of production at the concentrator is subject to the permitting authority's review and the issuing of enforceable permit decisions. Our current expectation for the review process timeline is that the concentrator operations can commence exactly as we have planned. Based on the preliminary analysis, we accept the process will delay the commencement of the Rapasaar mine. We are now in the process of assessing the overall impact, if any to timing of the Keliber project and we will keep the market updated accordingly. Thank you very much and over to you, Robert.

Hello, everybody, and thank you very much, Mika. I'll talk to the Century zinc retreatment operation and the Mount Lyell Copper Project. We acquired a majority interest of New Century Resources in March 2023 and 100% ownership of New Century Resources on 15 May, 2023. Since then, we have restructured the company to optimize both the regional as well as operational efficiencies. And I can report that the integration is progressing well. As of March, we have produced 76,000 tonnes of payable zinc metal and an all in sustaining cost of less than $2,000 per ton. Over the same period, we have sold 77,000 tonnes of zinc metal. As we've reported previously, adverse weather, in fact, the worst storms on record for that particularly -- particular area strongly affected production in H1 2023. Having said that, assisted by good cost control measures, adjusted EBITDA are returned positive by Q4 2020. Capital expenditure over the period was $9 million. This included $6 million sustaining CapEx and $3 million growth project CapEx. We have now also acquired 100% of the Mount Lyell copper project in Tasmania and are busy conducting a feasibility study, which will be completed by the end of the first half of this year. Having said that, I'll hand over to Neal to conclude. Thank you.

Thanks, Rob. And, let me wrap up with some brief conclusions. So with the photograph of the Keliber refinery well progressing in Finland. Let me, just bring up what I think the key messaging you should take away from today's presentation. So, we have delivered on guidance. We had a solid operational year. Financially, of course, we were impacted by lower commodity prices in fact all around. But we ended up with a net debt to adjusted EBITDA of just under 0.6x. And I think that that was a good operational outcome under the circumstances. Hopefully, you've seen the proactive austerity measures that we implemented, essentially over the last 18 months, recognizing the potential for a global economic downturn. That has resulted in savings on both the costs and, of course, rescheduling of capital to date of just over R6.6 billion or $375 million. Very, very significant. Doesn't mean we've arrived. There's continuous ongoing assessment of all operations and projects and investments to further ensure longer term, sustainability. I do hope that the analysis on really just the PGMs, show that the fundamentals remain sound. And we've been very consistent in our view over the last few years about these fundamentals, about the fundamentals that underpin, battery metals. And today we didn't cover lithium. But lithium also has in our view, good long term fundamentals. But we need to batten down the hatches for this year and work through this, destocking phase. But lots of positive signs on the horizon. Strategically, we're absolutely convinced be in the right metals at the right time. We're in the right global systems. We've chosen the right partners. Also, at the right time, having identified multipolarity as a gray elephant. We are prepared for lower earnings in 2024, predominantly due to current commodity prices. And we are being very circumspect about M&A. But it's also prudent to ensure that we do not miss county -- countercyclical opportunities to diversify and grow our global portfolio. I think it should have come across that we are disciplined. We are focused on the strategic ascent essentials. We are very transparent in capital allocation and in fact, in terms of our strategic thinking. And, I want to finish with saying, the antifragility journey continues. And the strategic essentials and the focus on the balance sheet remain our priority for 2024. So with that, over to you, James, for Q&A. Thank you.

Thanks, Neal. I'll try and find similar questions together just to save a bit of time. We'll first ask from the webcast, and then we'll go to some of the call questions on Chorus Call. So first of all, first up is, it's about Stillwater. At what level -- which level of palladium price will the still water operations be forced to cease production? When are you looking to turn positive from a bottom line point of view at Sandouville? Are you still looking for acquisitions? And at what level of price so let me just keep the Stillwater ones first. So what level of palladium price will the Stillwater operations be forced to cease production? CapEx is being guided to decline by 50% year-on-year. Can you specify which initiatives are behind this decrease? And then all in sustaining costs are far higher at in the U.S. and in South Africa. Why are the PGM costs in the USA so much higher than in SA? And it looks like a bad investment to me. So I guess the question is, what's our sense on costs at Stillwater and perspective on the future and on the value of the investment there, please?

So, James, let me start. And, Charles, if you could also come in at the right time. Listen, first of all, it's absolutely not a bad investment. I think it's pretty well known by now that, Stillwater has paid for itself. So we've got a high quality ore body with 50 years of life. I mean that's not a bad investment. So I think the challenges in the short term to get the cost structure down to a level where the operations are at least washing their face. And I believe that is possible. And certainly, I think, with the -- with enough time, Charles and his team could get that cost structure down to $1,000, a two-year ounce. But, Charles, you can you can comment on that. Just in terms of your question on the very different cost structures between South Africa, and the U.S., that is real. They're two very different operations. The workforce is different. It's less labor intensive. It's more mechanized, and that is the nature of the cost structures in the U.S. I think it's important to realize that that higher cost structure is also offset by a grade that is roughly 3x higher than what we mine in South Africa. So it's horses for courses, and none of the fact that it has a higher cost base shouldn't be seen as a business that is not well run. But, Charl's, over to you on some of the other aspects, and perhaps you can confirm, your planning, to get the cost even lower and [indiscernible].

Thanks, Neal. Well, let me just pick up firstly on the capital shift question year-on-year? So I touched briefly in the presentation on the fact that we put in a lot of infrastructure through last year. These were big capital items. So the vent infrastructure at both operations, we did the met furnace rebuild. And those kinds of things are behind us. So the stay in business capital has moved from a $118 million down to $54 million. And so that's a good set of decisions for this plan for this year. So we're not really shortchanging anything there, but we've been very prudent on what we want to spend on this year. The growth capital, we have pushed out without sacrificing future growth, and we can do that for a year or so. And we also did accomplish quite a lot of growth capital through last year at the East Boulder tailings building the like. I think the shift really is also within ORD. So that's R211 million down to R94 million. So our flag that we've kept the total development pretty much the same year-on-year. However, we've changed the mix within the development. So, we've reduced primary development, and we've weighted heavily towards secondary. Secondary, it's really like comparing your cross cutting a South African operation. So it's giving you access into the ore. And we've really created the flexibility to do some of that through last year. And now we're really pushing on that, and we're also favoring grade. And obviously, there's a cost component to that. So that's really the key shift there. I think to go back to Neal's question, I mean, nobody in Montana is complacent about a two year ounce price reality in the 950 or thereabouts. So we've got lots of work to do, but there's no silver bullets here. We -- I'm looking forward just getting to Q1, and you've been able to see that we've done quite a lot of heavy lifting from Q4 to Q1 to get production on track and to get our costs moving in the right direction. And obviously, we have more work to do. But, ultimately, you need that longer term lift towards higher volumes over the medium term to get your unit cost down. But we are already moving in that direction. And we pull in every cost lever we can. And the challenge is to get to breakeven. It's very, very difficult in the 900. But you will see the directional shift and you'll see the delivery, and I'd rather have the runs on the Board and talk to that outcome than speculate. Thank you.

Thanks, Charles. The next set of questions has to do with free cash flow generation, and what the annual cash burn of the group will be for 2024 at current spot prices. And then linked to that, have we done enough to curtail loss making operations? And, would we consider rights issue, or can some CapEx plans be deferred?

Yes. So, again, let me just lead into that. And, Charl -- sorry, if you wouldn't mind picking up. I think that the restructuring we've done is appropriate for where we are. I think if I didn't get the message across in terms of the market, I don't believe that the current depressed environment is an environment that's going to be with us for a long period of time. Having said that, doesn't mean that we're betting the farm on improving or increasing basket prices. But I think, we're in this for the long run. We are not going to damage our business by taking, knee jerk reactions. I think in terms of the question on, let me call it other levers or perhaps even when you refer to a rights issue, Of course, we're very familiar with rights issues. We've done them. But I would say that's something that is, well down the line and something that, if we are wrong on the fundamentals that underpin, the PGM markets, we may have to resort to, but it's not something we are considering now. Charl will share with you a number of levers that we can still pull on the revenue side, which we will do in the next probably three to six months. But, Charl, over to you on some of the more specifics.

Yes. Thank you, Neal. And, yes, I mean looking forward to 2024 and using our budgeted assumptions plus the guidance that we've put out today. We estimate the cash burn somewhere between R8 billion and R10 billion for the year. So if we look at our budgeted assumptions, PGM prices are slightly lower than what we had in our budget. But the gold prices are significantly higher. I mean, in fact today almost 28%, 29% higher. So I mean, we are well aware of the challenges with that amount of cash burn. But I mean, the levers we can pull and I think that's been evident through the levers that we've already pulled, is obviously looking at how we allocate capital, how we spread capital, and possibly how we defer capital. Historically, we've also looked at other sources of financing, and there's a couple of vanilla ones, and those would typically be looking at. And that's more sourcing liquidity, but those can come in the form of prepays. Historically, we've looked at streams. But as Neal says, rights issue, as I said earlier to somebody, that's probably the fourth or the fifth parachute that you want to pull. Thanks, James.

Thanks, Charl. The next set of questions are related to the Rhyolite Ridge and Keliber. So how do we plan to fund the equity injection to Rhyolite Ridge and what structure would funding at Keliber take and then do recent developments in Finland change the timeline for this funding needed for Keliber. And then similarly question on, the refinery at Keliber coming online before the mines. Do we have plans to process third-party materials and the status of Rhyolite Ridge? So perhaps we can just…

Let me kick off and Charles, you're welcome to add to Charles and Robert. You're both intimately involved on Rhyolite Ridge and Mika, obviously, on Keliber. So let me just say very broadly, as Charles said, we're not hell bent on growth. We are not hell bent on acquisitions this year, and the message that, that I tried to convey, through the presentation is that our balance sheet takes first and foremost priority. So when it comes to Keliber or [indiscernible] for Rhyolite Ridge, it'll be very carefully considered, at the right time. However, let me say that the Keliber project is well on its way. It was always intended to fund the initial portions of Keliber using equity, which is being done and will carry us through probably to the middle of the year. The financing of Keliber through alone is also well advanced, and on Rhyolite Ridge. It's a great project. We the ioneer team. It's a project that deserves to be built. There is an impending record of decision, towards the end of the year. We will consider our role based on the economics of that project just like any other partner would. And I've always maintained that the funding of a good project, even in tough times is achievable based on good economics. You can fund just about everything, as long as the economics are sound. And we expect the economics of Rhyolite Ridge to be sound. So it is financeable. And again, we will make those decisions, towards the end of the year. Mika and Charles, Robert, anything you want to add?

Thank you, Neal. I think you covered it well. But maybe I just add there that concerning this permitting situation, I just want to repeat the fact that we are doing this overall assessment whether it has any impact on the Keliber project timeline or not. And that is ongoing work. And at the same time, I just want to highlight to everybody that we have the permits. The crude rolling didn't have any impact on the [indiscernible] mine permit nor on the refinery in Kokkola permit. So those are all valid. So there we can move according to the plan. And I think there was also a question concerning the external feed and that's right. We are starting with the external feed as from 25 to ramp up to production. That plan is still valid and we have a couple of alternatives where we are going to get that feed from. Thank you.

Yes, spot on. And I think it's important just to note that, that was in my mind a very smart and appropriate decision to use third-party concentrate to prove up the technology, debottleneck, debug what will inevitably be a challenging start up. But it's also profitable to start up that plant in that way. So that third-party concentrate start-up was a very, I think prudent approach to starting up Keliber. Charles, anything you want to add on?

No, Neal. I think you've nailed it and important decisions late here. We're excited about what we're seeing and we have a good partner. So time will tell. Thank you.

Thank you. The next, I think let's go to the phone lines to Chorus Call, please for the next series of questions and we'll come back to the webcast questions.

You've taken quite an watering impairment at Stillwater, R38.9 billion. I see from the notes that you're assuming a $1,281 an ounce basket price, which is quite high than spot. Could you give us some details around what you have assumed around production volumes and level of CapEx relative to today into the future in that calculation? That's the first. Second question is PGM costs, I see you've guided this high 9% to 12% year-on-year. I'm surprised by that. You obviously restructured those four shafts this last year. I would have expected that to be lower. And then the final one, I guess maybe perhaps less a question than just a comment, is that ultimately, we have probably market has been quite disappointed, I think by the level of net debt both free cash flow burn. I'm not quite convinced that enough further R8 billion to R10 billion of free cash flow burn this year is really good enough. And from what I can see, I think the market's primary concern is that you will actually have to raise more capital later this year. Welcome to comment on that. I think you already have. Thank you.

Yes, thanks Chris. So let me start at the back and I'll ask Charl and Charles to comment on Stillwater, what was considered in the impairment. And then, Rich, if you can comment on the cost increases in the South. I can say that we are going to raise additional capital. But this perception that it's going to be rights issue is completely wrong. I think let's talk some nuts and bolts. We have very successfully used streams in the past. We have very successfully used prepays. None of that is debt. None of it is a dilution to shareholders. So the figures quoted by Charl are certainly our view. But I can tell you, we're not going to wait until we see whether Charl is right or wrong. We're already progressing some of those issues, and they are smart, they are smart ways of raising capital on assets, especially those that are difficult to find partners for or difficult to sell. So please don't think we're sitting on our hands and not doing anything to further strengthen the balance sheet, but it's also not. And I'll try to explain that right at the beginning. This is not about a rights issue. That's as Charl said, that's maybe the fifth or sixth parachute that you pull. So I wanted to just answer your third part to that question and then perhaps we can go first to Charl or Charles on Chris's questions around Stillwater and the impairment?

Yes, so Neil, I'll take that one. Chris, so what we have assumed is a production profile similar to what we've guided for the next three years. And then over a period of two years, it builds up to around 600,000, 650,000 ounces. And then we've kept it at that level based on the production profile, basically into the future. In terms of capital expenditure, again looking at this year, what we've guided that is the level of capital expenditure we aim to keep going forward. There might be some slight investments in '25, '26. But thereafter, we're probably looking at R170 million to R200 million. So significantly down from what we've got now. I think the number you are seeing there, although it's expressed as a per 2E ounce, it does include the 3E ounces from recycling as well. So that was just expressed as a 2E ounce. But yes, I think that's the numbers, Chris. Flat profile next three years, slowly building up and then basically a flat capital profile for the remainder of the life of mine.

Yes, thanks Charl and Rich, would you please pick up, Chris' question on the 9% increase in unit cost at SA PGMs? Thanks.

Perfect. Thanks, Neal. And Chris, good afternoon. I think there are three aspects to the SA PGM costs that are worth noting. The first one is that when we do our forecasts and budgets for the year, we do build in our budgeted price parameters for byproduct credits. And as you would know at the moment, some of those byproducts, chrome in particular is at quite a high price. So our assumptions in terms of the credits we get from byproducts are a little bit lower based on our sort of through cycle pricing. That's probably got in the region of about a 3% impact on those costs if spot prices were to persist. So that's the one. I think the second point is just we obviously do quote all-in sustaining costs, not cash costs. So those all-in sustaining costs do take into account development, and we are investing significantly in the development of our assets, especially around K4, where we're seeing a ramp up in development at those assets during the course of this year. So ORD costs do feature. And then I think the final one which you touched on, yes, the benefits of the restructuring are considered in those cost forecasts. Importantly, of course in this year, there are some one-off costs that do come with that restructuring that we had to incur, and that gets built in. Benefit that we referred to is the annualized benefit we'll see going forward, but that does need to be offset this year or some of the one-off costs with the restructuring. So overall, our base number was in fact still below or very close to inflation in terms of what we're looking at.

Adrian Hammond of SVG. Please go ahead.

Good day, everyone. Question for Charl. Just a bit more understanding about your balance sheet, please. I would like to know what your working capital needs are for the entire business. And could you clarify what debt facilities you have, including the U.S. dollar RCF and what you've drawn down of that? And then in terms of your covenants, it's quite obvious you're going to get close to that covenants by June. What mechanisms do you have in place with your lenders regarding extension of those covenants please? And then, I think a bit I'd like to ask a question around the gold business, massive free cash flow loss of R10 billion in 2H. How do you get there? I'm just trying to understand what's happening within that business. And then on Stillwater, the cost that you've given us, is that IRA credit included in that stipulated cost? And if so, how much? Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Adrian. And obviously, I'll start. I just missed your first question. Sorry, there was just a slight dip on my side. It was something on the balance sheet. Would you just mind repeating that?

Yes. Sure. Just your working capital needs, so much cash you need at all times and then on the debt facilities?

Yes, so Adrian, our financial policy is to have liquidity or working capital for the business of two months of operating expenditure plus CapEx. So if you look at our liquidity headroom sitting at R50 billion, that is probably between 5x and 6x or five and six months of operating cost and CapEx. So but on the numbers is two months. So you know just working back from that it's probably in the order of about R20 billion that could be a safe number. In terms of facilities, we've got two facilities. We've got the $1 billon revolving credit facility that was fully undrawn, so we've utilized zero of that facility. And then we've got the R5.5 billion facility and at year end that was drawn R4 billion and that was mainly due to timing of payments. We have an early closure in December, which does bring that working capital need earlier. Those payments would normally either flow month end or immediately after month end. So you have a little bit of a skewed picture over year end. And then we also at any one time have available facilities which are uncommitted lines, overnight facilities, roughly about R1 billion, R1.5 billion. So we also have the ability to utilize those. On the covenant side, our covenants are I think the two main ones are the leverage covenant, which is 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA, and then the interest coverage one, which is EBITDA divided by our net finance charges and there we have to exceed 4x. So Adrian, I mean running the numbers and assuming that these prices stay where they are, we are probably getting to a number that starts with a 2 by year end. But as Neal said, for that reason, that is why we are looking and that assumes we run the business full tilt, spend all the CapEx, do everything that's required. That's without pulling any levers. We know we have the ability to flex certain elements within CapEx. So that's a big lever that we can pull. But we are looking at what are the other forms of bridging that covenant. So yes, as I said, we've been here previously and we'll definitely make sure that we don't go into breach. But it's a number we'll continue to keep an eye on. But I think probably by our August results, we'd be in a much better position to say how the world has moved on and then we can provide you with an update and the planning accordingly.

Cool. Thanks.

Based on the, 45.

Sorry. Go ahead, Charles.

Yes, sorry. Sorry Neal. Just on the 45x credit, we've made no assumption of that credit in the guidance we've given for the costs range for the year. So we'll lobbying hard to try and get that credit. If that comes through, that's an opportunity, but it's not in the guidance.

Okay. Cool. And then on the gold?

Yes, that's where I was going. Adrian. Charl, can you just comment on the free cash flow from gold? Adrian, maybe you just want to ask it again.

Sure. Just a bit confused about the large loss in 2H.

Neal, do you want me to pick that up?

Yes.

Thanks, Adrian. Yes. Look, I think in the second half of the year last year, we had those two significant events that I mentioned. So in July, we obviously had the incident at the K4 shaft and we had the fire at Driefontein. So effectively, what it meant for H2 was that we carried the full cost of K4. That restructuring was only completed in December, but essentially carried pretty much the full cost of that shaft for six months without any revenue. And at D5, we carried the full cost for a quarter and then ramped up during the fourth quarter. So production was significantly lower. In total, the impact from each of those, Driefontein fire was just over 900 kilos of gold that we didn't produce, so basically lost revenue. And at [indiscernible] was also just under a tonne of gold that we lost there. So I think that drives the major discrepancy with those two incidents I referred to earlier in the presentation.

It just seems larger than what you're saying. But if I can just ask Neal question. Neal, you're sitting on one of the significant uranium resource. What would it take to monetize that in terms of bringing it to market?

Yes, so Adrian and again, Richard, stay online if I can put it that way. Adrian, we've been working for some years on how do we monetize the uranium assets that we have. The Cooke dump is a spectacular asset that is the primary reason we actually acquired Cooke, not for the gold business. So we've explored many options. It's been difficult not being able to process the Cooke dam until more recently with DRD having now done. I think in line with protecting the balance sheet and being careful in terms of where we spend money. And what I can say is we're not going to bring these assets to account using our own balance sheet. Richard has had a lot of inbound calls. We've got a couple ideas we can't really share with you now and we will make a decision over the next probably quarter, two quarters on exactly how we're going to take that initiative forward to realize value. It'd be let's say instantaneous cash. Value for those assets, by doing some smart things. Rich, I don't know if you want to add to that.

Neal, thanks. I think you've covered the key aspects. I mean your point on the DRD unlocking it through the deposition, that was always one of the problems of that project. So that's really been solved for now. Just to add, the Cooke Dam itself is really a co-product project. It's got a significant amount of gold. So of course, there we've got the relationships with DRD. And as Neal says, I think we've got several opportunities to look at how we can optimize value with that through that asset. With partnerships, I think some of the other uranium assets are not assets that we would look to develop ourselves, but they certainly may have opportunity within broader strategies and groups. And we are engaging with various parties to explore what could be possible there. So Adrian, is receiving attention, but we have to give more detail in the future. Thanks.

If I can just come in quickly, Adrian, and I'll give you we'll talk offline on the cash flow issue. But if you look in the book, under the cash flow table, there is an explanation. And the big amount big part of that R10 billion you mentioned is due to intercompany working capital accounts payable. So it's actually money flowing from the gold operations to the SA PGM operations. It happens every period, and there is an explanation, albeit a bit confusing, underneath the table, but we can cover it offline if you wish. And then just, I just wanted to ask at the SA PGM operations. In 20 or last year, we guided for, all in sustaining cost from the SA PGM operations of 20,800 per ounce to 21,800 per ounce. And this year, it's 21,800 per ounce to 22,500 per ounce. So that's only a 5% and 3% respective increase in costs year-on-year in the in the guidance. And actually, we came in if you look on the front page, the actual all in sustaining costs came in well below the 28,000 bottom of the range that we indicated coming in at 20,054. So, yes, as Richard said, it's a bit complicated due to byproduct credited movements. Can we take the next call?

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, Neal and team. My first question is a follow-up that Adrian asked on the gold operation. Your all in sustaining cost is sitting around $2,000 an ounce. Is there even a possibility to get it closer to $1600 or lower? Because remember two years ago, we were presented with this plan to get the cost down, it seems to be pretty stickier on the 2000. So we can talk to that. Other questions related to battery metals portfolio, one, caliber depending on that delay, how does it impact your CapEx? Second on Sandouville, is there a timeline like tentative timeline on when you make a decision? Because looking at losing $70 million in EBITDA, that was last year. We don't know what this year is going to look like? And then third on new century, the flooding event last year seems to have repeated this year as well. What steps have the company taken to kind of manage the operations around them? Thank you.

Yes. Thanks, Raj, and good morning. So I'm going to ask my Chief Regional Officers to step up and talk about why don't you start with, Keliber? And to, let's say, protect the assets against these extreme weather events. Mika, if you wouldn't mind starting.

Thank you, Neal, and thanks for the questions. If I start from Sandouville. First of all, we are doing a lot of work in order to reduce the losses at Sandouville, and we can do a lot of things there. So, we are moving forward. However, I want to emphasize that what we have said is that as an outcome from our strategic review, so Sandouville is not going to be profitable enough. So, therefore, we are doing now the feasibility study. The timeline is a good question, but it's a little bit too early to give you a timeline. I'm absolutely sure that we can give the timeline of, the transition, when the feasibility study and the transition plan are ready, and that's going to be later on this year. And then we can also say that the transition will take this time and then the ramp up of production provided that it's as encouraging as the scoping study results have been. So that will come later on and then obviously we can also tell to you much precise numbers concerning the CapEx demanded and, also the profitability numbers and the returns on that potential investment. Concerning Keliber, we need to remember that, as it is today, so most of the CapEx is already either used or committed, at this stage. We are constructing in three different places. So that means that the work goes on, and we shouldn't have too high expectations that there are possibly a lot of CapEx that can be reduced for cash, we are assessing the full impact, if any of these new permitting decisions and we will come back to you and update to market as we are a little bit more advanced in that work. It came so recently, the court ruling that we still do need to do our homework first. Thank you.

Rob, will you go ahead on New Century?

No, I will do that and [indiscernible]. I would like to say that the flooding we had last year at New Century is very, very different to the albeit difficult start we've had this year. Now last year, we had a flood which took our operations out totally for about 21 days, and it took almost a full month to recover from that flooding event. And at the same time, a lot of the infrastructure at the Century operations were damaged this year. We have had excessive rainfall in January. We've had excessive rainfall in February as well. So the start of the year has not been pleasant at all. Having said that, the terrain and the infrastructure has not been damaged nearly to the same extent as what it was last year. And I am able to report that we are up and running again. And like I said, we didn't go and lose 21 full days of production the first two months of this year. We did put a lot of call it anti-flood mechanisms in place. We put additional pumping capacity in place. We put additional access in place, and we made it possible to protect the water required for the operations and the infrastructure to dewater flooded operations a lot easier than what it was at the same time last year. Raj, I hope that answers your question.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect. Thanks Rob and Rich, if you can answer Raj's question on the stickiness of the gold costs.

Raj, thanks. And yes, let me comment on it like this. I think so firstly, so I don't think that these operations we're targeting a cost at the moment of close to 1,600. I think what we are really looking at getting down to is probably closer to about 18 [ph] at the moment. Let me say that the first one of the first issues that we've got to get right in gold, we've had a couple of years with real disruption. So we had a strike impact in '22. Last year, we had the two significant incidents as I've described at K4 and D5. All those incidents besides losing production, which obviously ups units costs, comes with their own costs and build up again. So getting stable production is one of the first keys to ultimately being able to manage your costs. I'll then say we've got a few levers that we are still looking at pulling to get the cost down in gold. The one that I did describe earlier was energy. And that's been a big driver of the cost over the year that's driven some of the stickiness you've referred to. With incoming some of our own energy sources, as I say, that should benefit some of that. I think the second big lever that we are looking to pull is you would have seen that the restructuring that we've done so far has really been on an operational basis. So we've been addressing loss making operations, restructuring those and operations that have come into the end of the life closing those. Clearly, with a slightly smaller operating base through that restructuring, we are also looking at how we can optimize our central and support services to those operations, which would reduce ultimately allocated costs and overhead costs that those operations are currently carrying. So that's the lever we're pulling. And then I think the final one where gold carries quite a significant cost relative to most is on all care and maintenance assets where we have been battling to get closure of those assets for various regulatory and other reasons. And those costs continue to be carried by the Gold ops. There again, we do have a strategy to address those costs over the next year and two years and get those down, and that should again benefit the bottom line. So, Raj, I hope that helps. As I say at the moment, I think sort of 1800 is what we have in our sights. So it's clearly not what we've guided to. Those are our plans that we have this year that we'd like to implement to get that down there. Thanks.

Thanks, Richard. That's it from me. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Nkateko Mathonsi of Investec. Please go ahead. Nkateko, your line is open. You can ask your question. Not getting a response, going on to the next question, which comes from Arnold van Graan of Nedbank. Please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon, Neal. Yes, I've got an overall question. So you've been very clear on your strategy and your outlook for commodity prices. But looking at your asset base, you've got lots of different assets, different commodities, different jurisdictions, different life cycles, capital needs and nuances as we've heard from a lot of the questions on the call already. So for me, it seems as the business is becoming large and unwieldy especially in a down cycle environment. So do you believe that the business is still fit for purpose in the current environment -- to cause lots of attention, lots of management time. So generally, when you see this in companies, they tend to move away from this, move away from these large unruly asset base. Maybe just comment on how you plan to deal with this especially in this environment. I guess it's much easier in a higher metal price environment. Yes. That's it for me. Thanks, Neal.

Yes, thanks Arnold. And that's a good question. And it's really a question that is best answered through the strategy that we're pursuing. And remember, we have been pivoting into a producer of green metals, which we've done off a substantial base of PGMs. But the combination of PGMs and let's call it other green metals, which in this case, we have direct investments in nickel and lithium, some in copper now are all part of that pivot. Now again you got to go back to strategically what is the purpose? Well, the purpose of our business is to safeguard global sustainability through our metals. And I dare say that, that is playing out very well for us. So it doesn't mean it's easy. And as you quite rightly point out in economic downturns, it becomes more challenging. But having a purpose like that, having the base of metals that we have and being able to expand into the ecosystems that we identified early on are proving very actually helpful and constructive. Our relationship in both the European Union, and the U.S. is at the highest levels and we get good advocacy both from the U.S. and the EU. And we certainly are seen as part of the solution. That doesn't help the pivot or your specific concern. But if you believe in your strategy, you continue with it, but you cut your cloth to suit, which is exactly what we've been doing. And yes, there might be some smaller assets, but they are smaller assets, that are building blocks in terms of growing let's call it that portfolio. But also, as the operating legs, primary mining, which is normally of very significant scale. So that's hard rock underground, and open pit mining. The secondary mining is a business where you might say we have some small challenging operations, but they are again building blocks of expanding the tail. We're not the only ones doing that. I think you've seen both Glencore and Rio start moving into that environment and where we are probably together with some other major mining houses at the leading edges on the recycling or the urban mining. And that's off the base of AutoCAD recycling and building the urban mining recycling, the lake. And that we are -- that we're able to do in small byte sized chunks. And it's the strategy, and the strategy remains very much intact and very much informed by the external environment and the gray elephants that we refer to. Now in terms of being unwieldy, I think the new structure that we implemented about two years back and regionalized the business has worked very well. And certainly, I think internally, we don't find it unwieldy. I think you should have seen today we have Chief Regional Officers that are totally on top of their regions and their assets. So I think from a group perspective, again it's really, but we are a modern mining company. We are not going to be kind of dinosaurs in the mining industry and revert back to what is traditional. The world is changing and we're changing with but it's being managed and it has been well thought through from a strategic perspective.

Thanks, Neal. Listen, we're pushing over time. So I think -- assets given the current boom in the prices. So maybe if you've got a final comment on that, and then I think we'll have to close.

And much more other than uranium is something that, I certainly understand well and in fact, a lot of my team was part of the Uranium 1 experience. So we've got the knowledge. We like uranium. We've consciously held uranium assets. We have been in the background working on what is the best way to realize value portfolio. But under these circumstances, it is most likely going to be brought to account utilizing more appropriate structures and certainly not our balance sheet. We're in a very good position with uranium production available in the short-term and relatively quickly and it's not complex compared to many other projects in the rest of the world. So I can really only summarize and repeat, James what we've been said. There's a lot of hype and be careful of hype in the uranium market. It's a bubble, that can burst, but I would suggest that there's more solid fundamentals underpinning the uranium market at this stage, but these things can turn very quickly. So I'll leave it at that. Thanks, James.

Thank you. And, if there are any more questions, please, direct them to the investor relations team by email, and we'll follow-up online. Thank you very much for attending the presentation today, and have a good evening and a good day.