Welcome to the Bushveld Minerals Interim Results Presentation. I will now hand you over to Fortune Mojapelo, CEO. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our half-year interim results call for the six months ended June 30, 2021. Thank you very much for dialing in. I am joined today by Tanya Chikanza, our Finance Director, as well as Francois Naude, our Director of Operations. With vaccination programs now well underway across the world, South Africa included, economies are seeing significant uptick as restrictions are lifted and business reverts to something closer to normality. Industry renewable energy has received particular focus with commodity prices tracking at higher levels as a result of increased demand. Vanadium has seen this trend as well, with around a modest 30% rise in the average price per kilo from a very low base last year. I will ask that we perhaps move to slide number four. Before that, if I can just dispense with the disclaimers, which I will consider noted. 2021 marks a rebasing for us as a company, and it really has been about creating the space for us to implement some transformational changes in the operations. Changes that are required to sustain production on a consistent basis and provide the platform for growth. Our production was adversely impacted, as you will all know by now, by the performance in January and February as a result of quite some significant plant instability that we experienced at Vametco particularly, combined with a planned 35-day maintenance shutdown and a slow post-shutdown ramp-up, which was subsequently followed by an unprotected industrial action. Taking all of this into account, we revised our monthly production targets in line with historical performance in an effort to create the necessary space to implement the required operational changes. Francois will elaborate on these changes, which include building group operational leadership capacity, implementing an operational blueprint that prioritizes proactive preventative maintenance, increasing floor presence of technical operational leadership, and emphasizing integrated planning, as well as establishing standard operating procedures along the process floor. We revised our guidance, as you know by now, from an aspiration-based guidance to one that is based on historically proven numbers, setting targets that have been demonstrated in the past. In revising our production levels, we continued spending on the plans as we need to build a stable production platform before embarking on significant growth. For this period, this revised production downwards contributed to an increase in unit costs due to an unchanged fixed cost base. The implications for this are higher sustaining CapEx spending and increases in some operational costs as we implement these changes. These changes position us well to drive unit costs down as we bring the throughput, as production growth is the biggest contributor to drive our fixed unit costs down on our journey to competitive unit costs. Our costs were driven by significant increases in sustaining CapEx and some costs at the operating level that we are spending deliberately as planned as we build the foundation for bigger volumes. Our head office admin costs have actually not gone up in real terms, and I'm pleased to say this. It is all about getting our operations to run efficiently on a higher throughput. Implementation of the funded Kiln three refurbishment at Vanchem is underway to grow its production to a run rate of about 2,600 metric tons of vanadium per annum by the end of 2022, and this is up from the current 1,100 mtV. This will contribute the most to driving our overall unit costs down in the coming year, as we are investing more for stability to support sustained volume increases in line with our near-term plans to reach a run rate of 5,000-5,400 per annum by the end of 2022 and our medium and longer-term growth aspirations. I should emphasize that production growth ultimately is the biggest factor and driver for sustainable cost reduction, competitive unit cost, and profitability. We will continue to invest in the plans to build a stable platform in order to achieve our growth targets. If we can move to slide number five, that summarizes key numbers from the results that we released. The numbers that we released this morning demonstrate a revenue growth of approximately $4 million, from $43 million to $47 million. This was supported by the increase in the price of vanadium, but impacted by lower sales volumes, which were down 9%. Production numbers for the group were down 5% from last year at 1,574 mtV. They show strong production at Vametco following the maintenance shutdown industrial action in April. We expect operations to continue in the monthly run rate of approximately 240 mtV that we have guided. Numbers from Q2 2021 are already up from Q1 of this year and up 13% from Q2 of 2020. These operational improvements we have implemented enhanced performance in Q2, but this was not enough to offset Vametco's weaker Q1 performance. The EBITDA loss of $10.8 million stems primarily from the stronger foreign exchange rate, which resulted in a negative impact of about $7.3 million on our costs. Our spending on items such as repairs and maintenance and waste stripping, which is in line with our expectations and sets the base for the future, ensuring a stable platform for sustainable growth. Net debt of $54.4 million is up as a result of investing more. For instance, we have increased our sustaining CapEx for the period to $6 million, which is all intended to enhance operational stability. This compares to the $139,000 we spent in H1 of 2020. As mentioned, the strong production at Vametco, coupled with the increase in production at Vanchem, mean that we are on track based on the run rate of the last four months to meet our guidance of 3,400 mtV-3,600 mtV. Vametco and Vanchem C1 production cash costs for the full year are also expected to be in line with guidance. We have the funding in place following the lifting of the PFA, which we raised from Orion. The lifting of the capital ring-fence, which allows us to invest $18 million at Vanchem on the back of the stability of operations at Vanchem, also allows us to rapidly scale up our production towards 5,000 mtV -5,400 mtV target we've talked about. Production growth is the key to margin expansion, unit cost reduction, and increased profitability. During this period, at Bushveld Energy, we monetized our holding in Invinity to realize $13 million after an initial investment of $5 million. We also secured an indirect interest in VRFB manufacturer CellCube of 25.25%, we commenced the construction of the 200 MWh electrolyte production plant, which will provide directly usable product for the energy storage and VRFB sectors. I will now pass on to Francois, our operations director, who will take you through the operational highlights of Vanchem and Vametco. Francois, over to you. Thank you, Fortune. Good morning, everyone. I think if we can move to slide seven, please. I will start with elaborating on the context provided by Fortune in his opening slides, but I will be doing it at an operating level at Vametco and Vanchem before I move on to the operational highlights of Vametco, and then on to Vanchem in the following slides. H1 was about stabilizing the operations to achieve a sustainable steady state production run rate at both plants, in line with our strategic initiative to invest for stability and providing a sustainable platform. Our initiatives included a rigorous implementation of a proactive maintenance program as parts of the plants were previously starved of capital, requiring increased maintenance as it's been sustained capital. Also implementing the new operating model and organizational restructuring of both the plants in order for senior management to be closer to the plant. Technical personnel supporting operations in ensuring process control parameters are maintained or improved. A lot of effort and work is also going into leadership and people development interventions. This requires spending on maintenance and sustaining CapEx to ensure our operations are stable, and then driving volume growth to reach a steady state and reduce unit cost to a competitive level. The key is steady state production on a stable platform. We therefore made decisions to invest at Vametco so that we can deliver consistently and sustainably. H2 production at Vametco is already demonstrating what we have done, as the H2 volumes for Vametco are the driver to get our cost base to a steady state rate. We are ramping up production at Vanchem, spending on operating expenses up front so that we can hit the ground running when we commission in Q3. To support the growth, we have to start spending on operating expenses up front, already staffing and skilling the required headcount, ramping up well ahead so that we hit the ground running on commissioning. The cost and spend increase seen at Vanchem is to enable us to achieve the 2,600 mtV production run rate, which is more than double current production. At 2,600 mtV, Vanchem costs are expected to be in line with the Vametco cost at a steady state production of 2,800 mtV. Can you move to the next slide eight? Thank you. The group recorded a 78% improvement in total injury frequency rate, to 5.17 relative to the corresponding period last year of 23.75, as a result of improved risk assessment, additional mitigation measures, and obviously also the stability that we've got on the operations. As of August 31, 2021, the group had five active COVID-19 cases and a 96% recovery rate. Sadly, Bushveld reported two COVID-19 related deaths among its employees during the period, and we extend our deepest condolences to their families. We continue to prioritize the safety of our employees. In July, we commenced the vaccination program for both the Vametco and Vanchem employees. Slide nine, please. During the period, I'll talk about the Vametco first half highlights now. During the period, production of 988 mtV at Vametco was down 19% from that of the same period last year, owing to the unplanned stoppages due to the instability and weaker plant performance. That was followed by a 35-day planned shutdown in March, and then a strike action in April. Based on the decisions we've made, we spent significant amounts on sustaining capital and maintenance. This, combined with other operational improvements, which includes process control and reorganization, has now set a firm foundation to ensure operational stability. This ensured production in May and June, if you look at the top right-hand graph, of 278 mtV and 261 mtV respectively. In the start of H2 post-interim period, 251 mtV in July and 260 in August. Vametco is now running at a steady rate, and therefore we are confident of meeting our minimum monthly production run rate forecast of about 240 mtV for the remainder of the year on a monthly basis. Our unit costs are now lower based on the steady state production rate, as shown in the Q2 figures, clearly demonstrating that production volume is the driver to competitive unit costs. H2 production is showing the results of implementing our strategic initiatives to reset the base and provide a sustainable platform going forward. In light of these figures, we are on track to meet our guidance for Vametco at between 2,300 mtV and 2,400 mtV. In addition, we are maintaining Vametco's production cash cost of between $23.70 per kg V and $24.20 per kilogram. Q3 2021 C1 cash costs improved by 2.6% in line with the improved operational performance since the maintenance shutdown, and we expect lower unit costs in H2 to normalize full year costs in line with guidance. Next slide, please. Slide 10. H1 2021 production cash costs for the period was $25.90 per kgV, a 52% increase relative to H1 2020, which was $17.10, mostly due to the lower production volumes, a stronger rand to the dollar exchange rate, and higher maintenance costs in order to improve operational stability. There was an increase in our mining services costs for preparing the Upper Seam. That is the material that we will send through to Vanchem. The H1 2021 total sustaining cash cost was $38.30 per kgV, a 66% increase, mostly due to the factors mentioned above, in addition to an increase in sustaining capital. The sustaining capital expenditure for the period was $3.1 million, relative to last year's period of about $200,000. The increase is in line with our plan to establish a stable and sustainable base. Production rebasing led to about $10 per kgV cost increase, which will unwind as production increases over time, meaning that if production had not been revised in H1 2021, our all-in costs would have been $29 per kgV at the current exchange rate. As for the chart at the bottom where we show the effect of the rebasing, the production volumes in H1. Volume increase is the main factor to cost reduction, and the H2 production at Vametco is already demonstrating what we have done, as the H2 volumes for Vametco are the driver to get our cost base to a steady state rate. I'll move now to Vanchem. The next slide, please. Slide 11. Thank you. We have maintained consistent plant performance over this period, resulting in production of 586 mtV, up 35% from last year. With this sustained reliability, we therefore have forecasted a minimum monthly production run rate of 90 mtV -100 mtV, a guidance of 1,100 mtV -1,200 mtV. At a cost between $30.30 per kgV and $31.10. The cost increase is due to ramping up well ahead. Cash growth takes a year, but you have to start spending on operating expenses upfront. We are already staffing and skilling the required headcounts. We took the decision to double production at Vanchem, and we will reach steady state production, a run rate of 2,600 mtV by the end of 2022, and we will then attain steady state unit cost of our current fixed cost base. Confidence in production is there, which is why we are already ramping up. The stockpile of ore we acquired with the plant has depleted, but we will source our ore going forward from the Upper Seam at the Vametco, which came online this September 2021. The Upper Seam can supply Vanchem a significant proportion of its ore requirements for 18 months and has the ability to supply 34,000 tons of ore per month. We have enough resources at the Upper Seam to support Vanchem beyond even the 18 months. In addition, we have also successfully secured third party ore. Next slide to the costs, please. H1 2021 production cash cost was $29.50 per kgV, a 46% increase relative to H1 2020. Due to the stronger rand and U.S. dollar exchange rate, the higher cost of raw material due to the test work performed with different concentrates in order to optimize the process parameters at Vanchem, which, by the way, has now been resolved with the Upper Seam identified as being the main feedstock into Vanchem. There was also increased maintenance costs, which is in line with the group expectations and other costs as well, which was obviously partly offset by the higher volumes compared to last year. The increase in cost is in line with the group expectations as Vanchem is ramping up. H1 2021 total sustaining cash costs were $38.20, 45% increase relative to H1 2020, mostly due to the factors mentioned earlier, in addition to an increase in sustaining capital. Sustaining capital expenditure spend for H1 2021 was $2.8 million relative to last year, only $400,000. The increase in sustaining capital is in line with group's expectations as Vanchem was still ramping up in H1 2020. We are currently investing to more than double production to 2,600 mtV, which will significantly reduce unit cost and will be in line with the Vametco's cost levels. Next slide, please. Just in summary from my side, we have seen improved operational stability following the integration initiatives at our assets, which have provided stability and improved process control and reduced variation. While this program will deliver sustained impact over an 18-36 month period, we are already seeing visible progress with control charts showing reduced variability and more consistency and improved plant conditions. We have seen an improvement in our production numbers for the last four months since the planned maintenance shutdown at the Vametco, with an average monthly production of 260 mtV. Even though we have been producing at an average of 260 mtV per month, we are maintaining our guidance of 240 mtV per month until we have made a sustainable improvement in production. I will now pass the baton over to Tanya to talk through the results for 2021. Thank you. Thank you, Francois. I can move on to slide 15. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to give you an overview of the company's financial results for the six months ended June 30, 2021. To summarize the first half of 2021, as Fortune mentioned, Bushveld Minerals generated revenue of $47 million, up from last year's $43 million. Supported by improved average realized prices, partly offset, however, by lower sales volume. Cost of sales, excluding depreciation, increased to $43.3 million in comparison to H1 2020, which was $30.1 million. I will elaborate on this increase in the next slide. EBITDA loss was $10.8 million for the period, a $9 million swing when compared to the EBITDA loss of $1 million for H1 2020. As you can see from the EBITDA waterfall, the increase in loss was primarily due to a stronger rand to U.S. dollar exchange rate on costs in H1 2021, resulting in a negative impact of some $7.3 million. In fact, the impact of the strong rand on costs accounted for about 80% of the EBITDA swing. Depreciation is flat over the two periods, and the net finance cost increased to $3 million compared to $0.8 million in H1 2020 as a result of the interest cost of the Orion Mine Finance PFA and the convertible loan notes with Duferco and Orion. You will recall, this is the first year we are incurring the Orion costs. The income tax credit of $3.7 million is to account for the deferred tax asset. We closed off with a loss after tax of $19 million. Slide 16. As I mentioned, we saw the cost of sales escalate by 44% over the half year to $43.3 million, with the strong rand against the dollar contributing 41% of the increase. Our maintenance costs increased by 30% as we sought to sustain the plants and improve operational stability, as Francois spoke about just now. Energy and raw materials increased by 11%. Mining costs are mainly as a result of bringing online the Upper Seam Project started this year at Vametco to supply ore to Vanchem, and these increased by 83%. Operating and administrative expenses were contained on a rand basis. Sustaining capital was up to $6 million owing to planned maintenance at the assets, in line with the group's maintenance plans to improve operational stability. Last year's minimal sustaining capital was an anomaly due to the effects of COVID-19 on the operation. The group cost per unit sold, including sustaining capital for the period, was $39.70 per kgV, up from $25 per kgV in H1 2020, and in line with the unit cost of $38 per kgV at Vametco and Vanchem. This is demonstrated more clearly in the waterfall chart on the next slide. If I just turn to slide 17, the exchange rate difference in sustaining costs make up a large portion of the increase in unit costs. As Francois explained, the increase in cost per unit sold at an asset level was driven by the decision to continue spending on sustaining capital and maintenance to support the plans and the recent operational stability. Employee and contractor costs also increased in line with ramp up of headcount in Vanchem operations, as well as organizational restructuring. We are already witnessing the impact of higher volumes at Vametco on reducing unit cost, and we expect to carry this throughout H2. Moving on to the balance sheet on slide 18. Property, plant, and equipment increased due to assets under construction both at Vanchem and at Vametco. The group cash balance at the end of the interim period shows cash at $31.6 million relative to $50.5 million at December 31, 2020, with total net debt of $54.4 million, up from $33.7 million at December 31, 2020. We have renegotiated the testing terms under the ZAR 125 million net bank revolving credit facility and have made positive progress in negotiations with Duferco on the remaining balance of $11.5 million of the convertible balance. We expect to pay $5 million to Duferco in November and $6.5 million will be converted into Bushveld shares as we previously reported. Slide 19. The table summarizes the main components of the cash flow during the period, with the free cash flow decreasing based on the operational reasons already outlined in the previous slide. Net cash from financing activities of $8.5 million includes proceeds of $9.6 million from shareholder subscriptions at the Bushveld Energy level. These proceeds came from Acacia Resources and Mustang Energy. They are offset by finance costs, lease payments, and Orion PFA repayment. Net cash invested of $13.1 million includes disposal of Bushveld's investment of 8.71% in Invinity for $12.7 million, offset by investing in growing capital of $4.5 million, excluding the sustaining capital of $6.1 million that I spoke about earlier. There's additional investment in EHL of $19.6 million, the holding company for Enerox. Our closing cash and cash equivalent position as of June 30 was $31.6 million. We realized post-period end, $3.5 million from the sale of the shareholding in the AIM-listed AfriTin Mining Limited. We will continue to balance cash conservation and investing for growth at Vanchem. As Francois mentioned, and Fortune as well, that the production volumes are important in our drive to reduce unit costs and achieve profitability. Our focus will continue to be on that. Thank you for listening. I will now hand back to Fortune. Tanya, thank you very much. I will now go on to talk about our growth plans. If we can go to slide number 21. Bushveld is still very much in an investment and growth phase. While in this investing phase, all in sustaining costs can be expected to be elevated as assets require a certain minimum throughput to optimize costs. As our production volumes increase, we expect that our costs will reduce significantly. Production growth is key to unit cost reduction, to margin expansion, and to increase profitability. The operational stability that we've been talking about allows us to set the right platform for driving this growth. We have outlined that we anticipate to get to a run rate of 5,000 mtV - 5,400 mtV per annum by the end of 2022. This comprises mainly of Vametco operating at 2,800 mtV annualized, per annum, and Vanchem increasing its production from approximately 1,100 mtV- 2,600 mtV, which is more than 2 x, by the end of 2022. You will recall that we have talked about a multi-phased growth plan for the company, with the immediate short-term target being 5,000 tons-5,400 tons, and a more medium-term target of between 6,500 tons-6,800 tons on the back of further work in terms of the refurbishment work at Vanchem and all the expansion work at Vametco. We have indicated that we are currently engaged in studies that will define that growth roadmap beyond this 5,000 mtV -5,400 mtV per annum. At the conclusion of those studies, we expect to provide a much clearer picture on the additional growth that we still are committed to beyond these levels. What is worth highlighting and emphasizing, however, is that the growth that we have outlined here to 5,000 tons, 5,400 tons is based on funded work that is currently underway in respect of the Kiln three refurbishment at Vanchem. The successful negotiations with Orion to uplift the PFA capital ring-fence has allowed us to reallocate that funding towards the Vanchem refurbishment and expansion, which allows us to secure this immediate growth target that we're referring to. If we can go to slide number 22, please. I want to talk very briefly about Bushveld Energy. Our priorities for the second half of this year include making further progress on the construction of the Electrolyte Plant, which is set with an initial 200 MWh worth of capacity, scaling up on the vanadium electrolyte rental product that we have previously talked about, as well as attaining financial close and commencing construction of the Vametco hybrid mini-grid. We have spoken before about the significance of this mini-grid in an environment where the government is encouraging large energy users to self-generate with the regulations significantly eased to allow for self-generation projects of up to 100 MW. We believe that this mini-grid will showcase the business case for these self-generation projects, combining renewable energy with long-duration energy storage, and in the process will create significant opportunities for vanadium redox flow batteries. We continue to support CellCube despite the ongoing litigation that is going on amongst the shareholders. We believe that as a producer and a manufacturer for VRFBs, it is very well positioned to benefit from this increasing momentum, that is backed by the energy transition towards greater and greater stationary energy storage deployments. If we can move to slide number 24, I want to spend the next few minutes talking and commenting about the recent developments in the vanadium market. The ferrovanadium price this year has averaged $33.40 per kg V, which is 30% up from last year. Current prices across markets are $34 per kg V in Europe, $32.50 per kgV in China. The United States is registering higher prices at $37.80 per kgV. Iron ore had until recently reached new highs at $200 per ton, which has now dipped to levels of about $120 per ton. Roskill expects prices to decline further towards the end of the year due to reduced demand in China as a result of restrictions in steelmaking volumes. Iron ore is obviously very important for vanadium market dynamics because when iron ore prices are significantly below $100, the lower they are, the more incentive they create for co-producers to blend their ores with seaborne hematite iron ore in their steelmaking facilities, with the result being of a reduction in vanadium slag that gets produced. Indeed, what we have seen in the past 12 months with iron ore prices running as hard as they did, is that the incentive to blend was completely eliminated, resulting in most co-producers operating predominantly with exclusively their magnetite feedstock. We also have seen that they were operating at near full capacity. What that means for the structure of the vanadium supply is that the 70% + worth of supply which comes from co-producers is significantly limited in terms of its ability to continue growing vanadium supply into the market. I think if anything, with iron ore prices continuing on their march downwards, it can be expected that the opportunity and the incentive to blend seaborne iron ore with magnetite deposits may well return. The medium to long-term fundamentals for vanadium remain quite attractive. Another consideration that is worth highlighting is the movement of the South African currency relative to the U.S., with the rand reaching a two-year high this year. The strong South African rand in the period was supported by increased exports from mainly the mining sector, which was driven by the rapid growth in commodity prices that we saw, helped by manufacturing figures that were also stronger than expected post the reopening of the economy and high interest rates relative to the U.S. The South African currency is expected to remain at similar levels for the rest of the year. If we can move to slide number 25. Vanadium redox flow battery adoption continues to grow, especially in China, which is the world's largest vanadium market. This has been supported largely as governments focus on accelerating the energy transition to low carbon energy, with VRFB adoption particularly growing notably. As you can see from this slide, China is the largest market for VRFBs, with about 1.5 GWh - 2 GWh of projects underway, and major projects also established across the rest of the world. It is notable that some of the largest stationary energy storage projects that are being deployed in the world are vanadium redox flow batteries, and a number of these are in China. China has demonstrated clear support, to not only growing renewable energy penetration and stationary energy storage, it is encouraging to see also some explicit support that's been given towards vanadium redox flow battery deployments. As I said, beyond China, it is also very encouraging to see the developments in the rest of the world, which bode very well for future growth of vanadium redox flow battery deployments. If we can move to slide number 26. I will move on to number 27. Apologies. This will give us just a brief overview of the company's objectives for the year, and the coming half. To summarize our 2021 and near-term plans, our financial objective is to strengthen the balance sheet. That is our near-term key focus, cash conservation, as well as investing for growth in Vanchem and increasing cash flow through margin expansion and debt reduction. In the slightly longer term, we intend to implement a cost savings program from 2022. On production, as we touched on earlier, the objective for group production for 2021 is between 3,400 and 3,600. We also intend to complete the studies at Vametco and Vanchem, which will map the way for further production growth beyond 5,000 mtV, 5,400 mtV per annum. Looking ahead, we intend to achieve the production run rate to 5,000 mtV-5,400 mtV by the end of 2022. We'll do this by prioritizing a sustainable and consistent output of a 2,800 mtV per annum at Vametco and the refurbishment and ramp-up of Kiln three at Vanchem to produce at an annual steady state production run rate of 2,600 mtV per annum. In addition to the increased revenue generation that this provides, it will also play a significant role in driving our unit costs of production down. Now to conclude on slide number 28, please. Bushveld continues to be a leading primary vanadium producer and energy storage solutions provider with two of the world's four operating primary vanadium processing facilities. We believe that the vanadium market is a compelling one with very attractive features in the short and medium, even long-term as well. To investors, we provide access to both the steel and the fast-growing VRFB battery storage sector. As I said, our vanadium market outlook in the near and medium term is strong. We continue to target production stability at our operations in order to set a strong base from which to continue growing our production further, given the significant depth of inventory of our resources. I'm going to stop here and thank you very much for your time and for your attention. We'll open up now for questions. Thank you. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question at this time, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Please ensure the mute function on your telephone is switched off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Again, please press star one to ask a question. We will now take our first question from John Meyer from SP. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thank you very much for the presentation and particularly for drawing up those waterfall charts so we could better understand the cost base and the elements behind that. There's quite a lot of questions that I could ask, but I'll just start with a few. Can you tell us what sort of condition Kiln three is in at Vanchem and how this compares with the kiln at Vametco? Can you talk us through what the cost implication is of the concentrates coming from the mine over at Vametco for Vanchem? What other material you're going to need to buy in? What's happening with the Mokopane Vanadium Project? Could you tell us what you see as acceptable as group unit costs going forward? Because clearly there's quite a lot of admin and other costs that bump up those group unit costs. Lastly, could you just give us some more visibility on VRFB battery demands and sales? I know you talked a bit about this, but could you tell us a bit more about what orders you're seeing through CellCube, and through other people? As you increase production at the Bushveld Energy Electrolyte Plant, at what point does Vametco or Vanchem get paid for the vanadium material that goes into that plant? Clearly there's going to be a certain pipeline, and timing issues involved with the production and then sale of that electrolyte. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much, John. I will ask Francois to comment on the first part of your question, which talks to Kiln three at Vanchem, relative to Vametco. There is a particular reason that we targeted Kiln three. It was largely to do with its dimensions, which as you saw earlier on, gives a significant increase in our production. By the way, that 2,600 number we're talking about, it is based on a single kiln operation, which is kiln number three. Francois, you might want to just provide a bit more color to the question from John. Yes. Thank you. Just to give you context. Vanchem has got three kilns. Kiln one, Kiln two, Kiln three, as we refer to them. Kiln one is only 25% of the installed capacity. Kiln three is 50% of the installed capacity. That's the biggest kiln at Vanchem. It's a similar length, 90 m in length, similar diameter, 4.2 m diameter, also at three degrees for its throughput. It's very much the same kiln as what is at Vametco. Its historical performance also indicated the steady state production that we are targeting for Kiln three was achievable and is achievable. Obviously, with the feedstock now, which is actually a better quality now that we're feeding from the Upper Seam, from Vametco into the kiln, the V content is better than what we get from the third-party ore suppliers in general. The 2,600 number is achievable. I hope that answers that question. I don't think I need to go in further detail. Thank you for that, Francois. The second question, which I will ask you to just to stay on, was the cost implications of getting concentrate from Vametco to Vanchem. Just as a precursor to any additional color that Francois may provide on that. Let me just make a couple of points. The first one being that, when we bought Vanchem, obviously it came with the stockpile that was from Mapochs. We also indicated that in terms of ore supply, we would continue to look at third-party supply, but Mokopane would be a key source of ore, and that at Vametco, we have a significant resource base, which can also support Vanchem. You'll have heard us talk about additional third-party ore that we have procured. Our measure is always, especially with third-party sources, we'll only consider it if it comes in at a cost that is more competitive and more attractive. Our default at the moment, if we don't use third-party ore source, is to rely on our resource base that we have. When we talk about Vametco particularly, there is a couple of things that we have done. I mean, we can talk about the concentrate that comes from Vametco, which is fed into Vametco, kilned, and sending some of that to Vanchem. On a more sustainable basis, our plans are as follows. Number one is we've initiated what we call the Upper Seam Project, which Francois will just talk about in a second, which is able to support ore supply to Vanchem and can do it cheaper than it costs us to source third-party ore. Longer term, there is some work that we're looking at to ensure that the upstream crushing and milling capacity that we have at Vametco is actually able to support our ore requirements, not only at Vametco but at Vanchem operating at a level of about 6,500 - 6,800. That is essentially ensuring that even with implementation of phase II at Vanchem, we're able to support our ore requirements from our deposit at Vametco. That does not mean that the Mokopane project is not key anymore. It remains an important part of our ore supply story. Certainly, what we want to try and do is, at any point in time, pursue the cheapest ton of ore that we can feed into our operations. The material coming from the Upper Seam Project, and in time, a scaled up concentrate production at Vametco are the more attractive sources. Francois, can I just ask you to just come in and perhaps just add a bit more color around the Upper Seam Project and the longer-term concentrate production that will also support phase II at Vanchem. Sure. Thank you, Fortune. Yeah, just to color in the Upper Seam, it's targeting the Upper Seam material. That's the massive magnetite ore body, which has got, at least for the next 18 months, already exposed in the reserve base that can support Vanchem feedstock to its full capacity, 34,000 tons. It comes up cheaper than what we usually bought Mapochs ore for or any other third-party material at this point in time. Obviously, we are, as Fortune said, if there's third-party material available that comes in cheaper than what we can produce ourselves, then we'll definitely look at that. It is a separate stream, so it's a mobile crusher and screen with a dry magnetic separator system, and then we support Vanchem's material and feedstock requirements. It gets upgraded to 85% mag and then sent over to Vanchem, similar as the Mapochs ore, because that was also a massive magnetite. The difference is it's just better material. For the medium term, we are doing work around improving a permanent installation at Vanchem to upgrade the concentrate section so that concentrate section can supply concentrate to both Vametco and Vanchem at production run rates, which we're targeting for the next medium term phase, which is around 6,000-6,500 production run rate. That's the medium term. That's the studies we are working on. That's as we promote the studies that will be concluded by the end of this year. Therefore, there's no risk in the short term of supplying Vanchem with its full requirements to support phase III. We will obviously also increase the reserve base. There's a massive resource base of the Upper Seam. As we start mining the Upper Seam, we'll start increasing our reserve base in the Upper Seam as well. Thanks for that, Francois. I think if I may just add the point that the supply of concentrate from Vametco to Vanchem, we don't expect it to result in greater ore costs relative to what we were sourcing from third-party sources like Mapochs. In terms of, I imagine, Johnny, asking the question as you think about your model. Our plan and our approach is that our own ore sources should come in at a cost that is cheaper than getting from any third party, which is why we're kind of moving in the direction that we have outlined. There was the question you asked just around overall group unit costs, and I think one of the points you alluded to is the difference between the cash costs and the total sustaining cost. On slide number nine, I'm going to come to this slide, Francois, that you talked to earlier on. One point that I would emphasize is if you look at the bottom right, the total sustaining cash cost during H1 2020 compared to H1 2021, you'll see a significant increase. If you look at our C1 cash costs, you see that there is quite a gap between C1 cash costs and the total sustaining costs. I think the point I would emphasize is we've made a very deliberate decision that getting stability means investing. It means implementing our proactive maintenance. We did a 35-day maintenance shutdown this year. It means that our sustaining CapEx investments are significantly higher than they were also last year. The big driver, actually, when you look at a buildup of our costs, it's not what you would call group head office, for example. The contribution of group head office to our unit costs is actually very small. I think what you see there is the effect of two things. One is the fact that we rebased our production base. Two, it is that we're continuing to make investments, right? At Vanchem, we are implementing our Kiln three refurbishment. We continue investing in terms of stay-in-business CapEx. All of this is necessary to get us to the level of 5,000, 5,400. From there on, we expect to kind of normalize these sustaining CapEx investments and to see a much closer relationship between your cash costs, C1, and your sustaining cash costs. Again, Francois, I talked to your chart on slide number nine. I will again refer back to you to add any color that I might have left out. Sorry, Fortune. Once Francois is finished, may I kindly just talk through the admin expenses specifically after Francois? Thank you. I think just a quick one maybe to add. I think we need to understand that it is a bit of an anomaly, this H2 specifically. If you look at the Q2 cash costs, we already, as I said, 2.6% lower. Even with an April month, that was also a challenge for us. Definitely looking at the remainder of the year, there will be a significant reduction in our cash cost position with the production now running at a good, steady state. There's no additional cost increase. Most of our all-in sustaining capital has been spent in the shutdown period. The sustaining capital component for the remainder of the year is still targeted at improving key areas of the plant, but it won't be that significant compared to what H1 was, because most of that sustaining capital was spent during the shutdown period. I mean, it's all a volume game. We're well structured, as Fortune said. It's now getting Vanchem at that same production levels. For the group, I can confidently say we'll have a more stable cash cost position going forward. Yeah. I think if I can just add, Francois, just refer people back to slide number 10, because one of the things we did commit to doing going forward is to provide a bit more transparency as to the makeup of our costs, because then we can have, I think, very pointed conversations around that. What you will see there on the production cash cost is the impact of the foreign exchange rate as well as the production volumes. If you adjust for those, you start to get a much clearer picture of what our cost numbers would be looking like. Now, the foreign exchange is what it is. There's nothing we can do about that. To reiterate Francois's points, ultimately, what is important is that we drive volume, both through Vametco and through Vanchem. If we do that, we should get ourselves back to towards a cost-competitive position. Tanya, did you want to make a comment on the question? I think there was a part of the question from John related to our admin costs. Then I'll close off with just a comment on the VRF piece. Thanks, Fortune. I think, John, your question was, what are we going to do with where we expecting the group costs to land and containing our admin costs. I think we've got a slide, that slide 16, which was looking at what our total all-in cost, which came in at $39.7, which if you think about the conversation we've just been having around what the all-in sustaining for the operations were, which was around $38. You can see what the delta is there in terms of what was basically sitting as admin outside the operations. In terms of the admin, our admin costs actually have been quite well contained this year. Clearly, we're on a drive to make sure that we bring them down. When you look at them year on year, they're not necessarily the same buckets, but they have been impacted by the exchange rate movement. In H1 2020, admin alone was $14 million, and in the current half year, it was $14.5. If we were to actually apply the same exchange rate as last year, we'd find that actually that admin came in at $12.7 million. We have actually been containing those costs on a like-to-like basis. If you look at that bucket, what actually makes up for it, this specific admin expense of $8.8 has got pre-stripping of the exchange rate movement, has got staff costs in there. Those staff costs, just to remind you that anyone who's not actually directly involved in the production of a unit at the operations, even if they're at the operations, is not included in here. They will sit in this particular bucket. As well, in terms of the reorganizational costs, reorganization that took place at the operations earlier this year, there is an element of cost which actually sort of crept in into those staff costs in terms of VSPs and reorganizing people. I think that is the only bucket. We did include a slide, I think slide 33, which looked at those numbers to just show what the movement has been. All in all, I would say that we remain focused on it. Obviously, if you look at the ZAR 14.5 in total, again, things like the selling distribution costs, they're really driven by what our sales volumes will be. The idle plant costs were because of what we saw happen in April with the plant not actually ramping up slower than originally planned for. Thank you. John, with your permission, your question about VRFBs, I'm going to hold it. There is a question that came through from Tim Huff that is still talking to the operations, which I would like to just attend to, and then I will come and talk to the VRFB question you raised. The question being- Thank you This is from Tim Huff of Peel Hunt. You noted that sustainable CapEx has increased at parts of the Vametco plant to catch up for under-investments in the past. Part 1 of the question goes, which parts of the plant are you having to reinvest in at the moment? The second part is, and how long do you expect the reinvestment period to last for? I will pass the question on to Francois. Francois, I trust you got the question. Yes. Thank you. I'll first answer the first question, which parts of the plant. Like I said, the biggest component of the investment was the kiln, in the refractories of the kiln, because last year with the COVID-19 pandemic and cutting down on spending capital, we had to redo a lot of the refractories this year in the kiln. That was one of the reasons in January and in February where we had that instability, because we had refractories that was failing. In the kiln, there was a significant investment to get the refractories up. That's something that won't disappear. I mean, that will be on an annual basis, but it won't be the magnitude that we had to do this year. That's the one area of the plant that a big cost came from. The other areas is, the kiln is being starved from concentrate, from the concentrate section due to lack of maintenance and a lack of process controls, and the lack of asset integrity at our concentrate section. Most of our effort is going into getting the concentrate section up and running so that we can get a consistent feed through the kiln, have enough calcine stocks available that we can send through the kiln. That's where a lot of investment goes in to make sure that the throughput through the kiln is not haphazard and it is consistent. We've seen the kiln now in the past few months, if it runs, you get better recoveries. Obviously, your throughput is also improved. The last area of the plant where a lot of investment goes into is the leach section. The leach plant is quite an old plant, high corrosion that took place over many years. One of the areas that we also spend a lot of money in was replacing one of the belt filters that was totally worn, and some of the structural work was also getting fatigue. Those are the main areas. Outside of the kiln refractories, that is an annual process. We've got an asset integrity risk register to manage our asset integrity work. The key is in the concentrate section and the leach section, which we've now done most of the work already this year, and we will start reaping the benefits as we go along. Thank you very much, Francois, for that. Now, finally, on the question of VRFBs, John, you asked the question of how we are seeing the demand for vanadium redox flow batteries all- Finally, on the question of VRFBs. Can I just ask everyone else to be on mute, please? Because I can hear myself on echo. Apologies. On your question was, what we are seeing in terms of deployments of VRFBs, and what that means for demand of vanadium. What we are seeing in terms of the pipeline of companies like CellCube. Unfortunately, I'm not able to comment very directly on pipeline of company like CellCube or Invinity that we're involved with other than what has been, of course, disclosed. I think the point I'd highlight, though, is that if you just look in the public domain on projects that have been announced that are under development, it's quite a number of significant developments to talk about. In China, we're talking about 1.5 GWh - 2 GWh of projects that are currently underway. Just to put it in perspective, 2 GWh of VRFBs requires approximately 10,000 tons, if not 11,000 tons of vanadium. That's just over 10% of the global market. Which projects are we talking about? More recently, you will have seen VRB Energy announce breaking ground on a 500 MWh project. This project, it's not the first time we're hearing about it. VRB Energy has talked about the projects that they were doing. I think it was an 8 MWh project, and there was this particular one that they were working on. You will have seen Shanghai Electric also talk about a 500 MWh project under development. What China has done is China has actually made some very explicit commitments towards the deployment of long duration, and in some instances, particularly vanadium redox flow batteries. It is good to actually see these projects now get underway. What we do also see is the level of demand for vanadium units into electrolyte production. Yes, our own plant will come into production next year, 200 MWh but we're constantly fielding inquiries for supply of vanadium for purposes of converting into electrolyte. We've seen interesting inquiries from markets such as China, which would corroborate the kind of momentum that we are talking about here. What does this mean for demand? What we're seeing is the likes of Roskill, the likes of BMI, who used to be very bearish, if not very conservative, around demand for vanadium from vanadium redox flow batteries. We've seen each of these guys significantly upgrade their forecast in terms of forecast of vanadium demand from the VRFBs. They're getting more and more comfortable with the place of VRFBs in the broader energy storage market. I will overlay all of this with recent statements by the Secretary of Energy in the U.S., where she came out saying that in their view, flow batteries are the answer for grid-scale energy storage, with the only caveat she makes that vanadium flow batteries are the most mature, but if there is a concern, it is around the availability of vanadium to support the certainly large-scale requirements for energy storage. Those are the things that I look at in terms of vanadium demand from VRFBs, and then compare that with what we are seeing from our sales and marketing team in terms of inquiries for supply of vanadium. There's certainly a significant increase, at the very least, inquiries, and we're starting to supply some vanadium units into that space as well. Any other questions, operator? We have one further question from Nick Chalmers from Alternative Resource Capital. Please go ahead. I've got two or three questions, if you don't mind. First, on the Orion PFA, it's clearly good news that you can now draw up on that facility for the current phase of refurbishment at Vanchem. Could you just clarify what that means for the servicing cost of that facility, and specifically, whether the revenue and unit production link charges that were exclusive to the Vametco, do they now also apply to revenue and production from Vanchem? Secondly, Bushveld Energy, obviously, H1 was a period of quite significant investment in that side of the business. Could you just give us a bit of guidance on what H2 investment is going to be, both in terms of CapEx on the electrolyte manufacturing facility, and also any other indirect investments in CellCube or anything else? Thirdly, just touching on the previous question about sustaining CapEx. Once we get past this year of sort of catch up of sustaining CapEx, what's a reasonable annualized figure for us to sort of be looking at both Vametco and Vanchem going forward? Thanks, Nick, for the question. I will take the first question on the Orion PFA, I will comment as well on the Bushveld Energy question you asked. I will pass the sustaining CapEx question to Francois and Tanya. On the question of the PFA, the way the PFA was structured, It's based on production volumes, in terms of which we pay a certain percentage of the realized revenue per unit. It's split into two. There is a percentage of realized revenue and a unit dollar cost per kilogram of V. Together they make up the servicing for the PFA. The whole premise of the funding was us growing our production to 4,300 within a certain time frame. We agreed in our structure that should it take us a while longer to get to 4,300 at Vametco, we included a make whole provision that essentially allows for volumes from Vanchem to contribute towards that 4,300 mtV. There was a reason we did it that way, and it was primarily because when we entered into the agreement with Orion, one is that we had just acquired Vanchem. The funding that we did with Orion was focused on Vametco and the growth at Vametco. Obviously, as we have been implementing our plan, doing our studies, one of the things that we did raise with Orion was the fact that if it is cheaper and if it yields more bang for buck, so to speak, to increase production in the short term at Vanchem relative to phase III at Vametco, that it would make sense that we should look to do that. When you overlay that with the point we made on the prioritizing stability at Vametco, surely we didn't want to rush the growing production to 4,300. There's a lot of work that Francois and the team are doing in the operations, and stability is quite key for us. On that basis, what we sought to do was to lift the ring fence, which was in Vametco and was just ring-fenced to Vametco. Rather than this cash sitting there until such time as we are ready to do phase III at Vametco. In respect of which, by the way, consider that where you're looking at phase III, Vametco, phase I, Vanchem, phase II, Vanchem, and phase III, Vanchem. From a group perspective, we wanna make sure we're optimizing our capital spend. If it is cheaper and we can do it quicker to do a phase I at Vanchem or phase II for that matter, you want to do that rather than still prioritize Vametco phase III, just because that's what you raised the money for. Thankfully, Orion were very pragmatic about it and recognized that there is more value to be had by going ahead with completing the Kiln three refurbishment, uplifting production levels to 2,600. From an Orion perspective, we get to the 4,300 level that is required to service this facility. Lifting the ring fence does not create any additional servicing obligations on our part. We still are able to support and service the facility, which is essentially predicated on a production base of 4,300 mtV per annum. I hope that is clear. I guess the short of it is by lifting the ring fence and applying it to Vanchem, we are not growing or increasing our total tons committed to this facility beyond the 4,300 that we agreed in our agreement. On the question around Bushveld Energy. Look, on CellCube you will know we announced that we invested $30 million together with our partners in CellCube in just early Q2 of this year. The expectation is that we do not anticipate to put more capital into CellCube certainly in H2. The capital commitments for Bushveld Energy going forward, they are as we've guided before. I will get Tanya in on to talk about some of those specific CapEx numbers. I think the only notable one to talk about is Belco. As you recall, BELCO is a plant that we are building together with Industrial Development Corporation. We own 55%, IDC owns 45%, and that project is funded with some debt and equity. Tanya, if you could just come in perhaps, and just talk to some of those specific numbers. The capital spend on energy is very limited going forward. In fact, I would say is mainly in respect of our commitments already to the BELCO plant. Thanks, Fortune. Yes, that's right. I think our philosophy at the moment is when we look at capital make, we look at the growth capital and then looking at the sustaining. From a growth capital perspective, as I mentioned earlier on, we are prioritizing Vanchem. The Vanchem capital growth spend is important because that will get us the volumes that we need. We expect in the coming 12 months, this year and next year, for Vanchem coming, Kiln three completion to spend around $18 million. That will primarily be growth and a bit of regulatory capital as well, that we need to spend around that. That is the key focus. In terms of all the other capital, from an operations perspective, you'll have heard Francois talking about the importance of getting our operations to be stable. We prioritize things which need to be done, but there's a balancing act between that sustaining CapEx and cash conservation, because that is important until we get that growth coming through. We have spent sustaining of about $6 million in the operations. We'll spend a little bit more for the rest of this year, but we do not expect those numbers to be the same as what you're seeing this year because cash conservation becomes more important. At Belco, we are fortunate that we do have the IDC as our partner. We do continue to spend on that, and the timing of that really depends on the status of some of the work that's being done in that vein in terms of just balancing the cash requirement, and continue to focus on that capital spend. All in all, we'll spend the capital that we need to spend, but we won't just spend capital just for the sake of it. Thanks, Tanya. As there are no further questions at this time, I'd like to turn the call back to your speaker for any additional closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much everyone for spending time to listen to our presentation today. I think in conclusion, the one point I just want to say, it's something that I've said in a previous analyst call, it is really a case of, with the operational leadership capacity that we have created, looking after Vametco, Vanchem, and the Belco plant that we're building. As unfortunate and disappointing perhaps as a revision of a guidance may have been earlier in the year, the big motivation was that we move away from chasing targets that are aspirational in terms of our guidance, to a philosophy that demonstrates a consistent production at a certain level. Only when we've demonstrated that, we take that into the guidance numbers we provide the market. That we prioritize, particularly at Vametco, getting plant stability. Only when we've got that, can we then look at raising production in a way that is sustainable. If we rush with phase III expansion at Vametco without getting sustainable, stable operations, we're only going to amplify the inefficiencies. I think that since we made the call, we did, it's been good to see month-on-month production levels at Vametco at about average of about 260 mtV. It's good to see the metrics that we track showing much less variability. Make no mistake, there's still quite a lot of work that we are doing within the plant in terms of establishing operating procedures, in terms of implementing our integrated planning and work management system, in terms of the proactive maintenance and just being completely disciplined, with respect to that. An important point that Francois made earlier on, which is around ensuring that the operational leadership, their capacity is released to spend time in the plant and not spend a lot of time dealing with administrative matters. I think, I'm very pleased to say that we are seeing the results of that shift. Our aspirations remain growth, but sustainable, stable growth. I believe, as I've said before, that we have turned the corner in respect of that. Pleased to see the kind of stability we've been seeing at Vanchem, which is one of the strong motivations for us to prioritize it, in terms of getting Kiln three, getting the PFA uplifted so we can increase the production. Vanchem was never meant to operate at 1,000 tons per annum. When we talk about, we've got the resource base in terms of grades to be a low-cost producer. What is really important is that we then get the tons through this plant at an optimal throughput to ensure that the cost position is commensurate. Sorry, to ensure that the production volume is commensurate with the fixed cost base that we do have. Certainly, at Vanchem getting production to 2,600 is the start. That we expect to get with a one kiln operating. There're still another two kilns. Which ones we're going to prioritize between that and Vametco will be the subject of the studies that we're busy with, which we expect to complete by the end of this year. Only at that point I think we will provide much clearer steer around what happens beyond Kiln three. Even before then, I think if we pause and we look at Bushveld as a company that is operating at 5,000 tons - 5,400 tons per annum, that makes us one of the largest primary vanadium producers in the world. If we're doing that off a base that is stable, off a low-cost base, then we've got a very, very good story to talk about. Beyond that, when the capital is there, we will make the commitments to increase production further, in the medium term to the 6,500 thereabouts. In the longer term, we've talked about 8,400. I do believe that that is sometimes tended to be a distraction. Let's look at the asset base we have. Let's look at the production base that we do have today. Let's make sure that with that, we are generating good revenues, we're generating cash flows, and we've got a competitive cost position. That is our focus. I believe that we are well on track with that. On that note, I'm gonna propose to end this call and to thank you again for your patience and for your time with us this morning.