Those particularly well on both, whether those are the coal or the iron and manganese lines. We're putting a lot of effort to address it, but it's not going that well at this stage. In line with our capital allocations, we've obviously declared the ZAR 30 year -end dividend, which is what? 150% higher than last year. It is a payout of 112% of the dividends that we did receive from our underlying operation at Friday's close price of a 12% dividend yield. The headline earnings were undoubtedly underpinned by extremely high commodity prices, particularly iron and PGMs. The costs were impacted obviously due to a lot of inflation pressures, but we did have low volumes, primarily due to logistical constraints. Obviously all of this was and continues to a lesser degree to be exacerbated by COVID challenges. The iron and PGM prices have come down from the highs that we did experience in 2021, but all of our operations still have reasonable margins, and the fundamentals and outlook for the metals we mine remain pretty bullish. We continue to assess value-enhancing growth opportunities, both organic and from an M&A focus. Many of the projects we've announced over the last two years have primarily been organic in nature. When we benchmark our assets in terms of our capital allocation, we've always got superior returns from an organic source, and that is obviously understandable. You know these assets, you know what you can achieve. You can piggyback on the current fixed overhead. We've been pretty successful in ramping up organics. I mean, the latest one, we've done a lot of work around Beeshoek. If you'll recall, eight years ago, it closed down, effectively mined out. We got another 14 years of life, we're down to six years. We just reran the satellites around us and done the optimization studies. We're back up to 15 years. That will always be a story of ore bodies you own. You very rarely mine them out and walk away that easy. That's going to be true for iron ore and certainly also true for the Nkomati, which, if there are any questions, I can touch on. On safety and health, we remain absolutely committed, focused on achieving zero harm to people and the environment. Regrettably, we've had fatalities, and we continue to have disabling injuries, and it's simply not acceptable. How do we get out of it? The systems and processes are ultimately moving to more and more levels of automation and mechanization and taking the contact away where these accidents happen with people. It's our absolute resolve to apply all of those technologies and focus on ore bodies that lend themselves to mechanization. That really goes on to what our capital allocation strategy is. It's about delivering competitive returns and creating sustainable value for all of our shareholders and operating our portfolio safely, responsibly, and efficiently. We want to allocate our capital in value -creating investments, and we do focus on value -enhancing and integrated growth. In terms of the vaccination program, we absolutely endorse and support it. Pleasing to say that the corporate office is fully compliant and that we are busy with rollouts at the operations. We've been able to reach a couple of primary sites, some secondary sites. What the only distinction, primarily, we can vaccinate extended family and community, and secondly, only the employees. We're in that process of rollout. We have about a 28% take-up. We want to accelerate that, encouraging people to get through to the critical mass before we encounter more waves that come our way. The industry in general has done pretty well with COVID, surprisingly well with its COVID infection rates. Regrettably, we've still lost lives. In the group since COVID, we've lost 34 of our employees. Beeshoek, Khumani, pretty much steady state. Khumani does 14.5. Beeshoek, 3.5 million tons. Khumani's got a 25-year life. Beeshoek is now up to a 15-year life. Black Rock has got assets, probably 50 years of life. We are ramping up. We're not there. It's been a long slow process. We had to change the shafts, change the plants, change the infrastructure, do the development to get out to the ore bodies, install belts, and do silo transitions. All that transition is being done, but we still maintain our trucking systems, which are pretty tough in terms of cost position. Only once we commission the belts and the silos will we do away with the expensive trucking. The underground ore movement is a big component of our cost. That we should see coming off over the next 12-18 months and either factor down the labor or ramp up production if the market conditions allow. The two alloy businesses, C ato and Sakura, really struggle on the back of pricing, nothing else. Operations doing pretty well. Cost performance is not bad at all, but the price does not support it. Post the reporting period, prices have increased substantially, and I don't think we've been able to capitalize on that yet if it holds. We unfortunately lost one of the furnaces or the transformers. We lost three transformers in short succession. Still struggling to understand how and why it is the cause. These things have to be shipped offsite and repaired, and we're going to probably fly two back by the end of the month. They've been offline now for what, since February? We're talking nearly six months. Modikwa is in a slow ramp-up, moving in the right direction. Still needs a fair amount of capital, albeit self-funding, over the next four to five years to get it into what we would call an operation that we'd be satisfied with. Although there's been improvement, it's still not where we want it. It's currently ranging in the region of 200,000. Nameplate is 240. It needs a lot of development to get there. We started up all three designs moving in that direction. Moving in the right direction. We have started trials, a very small trial on the Merensky at Modikwa, the intention is to follow a similar process, which took us a couple of years to get to the answer that we followed with Two Rivers. We have done a bulk sample previously. We do have established portals there, and we want to continue with some trial mining and optimization study and look at a high -level mechanized and semi-automated approach before making any decision. Once the feasibilities are done. This could take anything between 12 and 18 months before an announcement, one way or another. I'm just stressing this to say that our organic opportunities are enormous around our ore bodies, extremely long -life. TRP is sort of maxed out on life capacity now. They've got about a 25-year life on the UG2. We just announced the Merensky, which has a similar life, 20, 25 years, and that feasibility is approved. It's a three, four-year ramp-up to full production. Probably in 2024, late 2024, we should be at a nameplate of 180,000 tons per month or 180,000 ounces per year. Nkomati's under care and maintenance. I alluded to the fact that it has a huge underground resource. At the right trigger price, it certainly will be a go. We know what that is. We know what the capital is. We know what the mining method is. I think it's a timing point of view from a sustainability point of view, and that's price -dependent. I think nickel and Nkomati are polymetals; they've got significant byproduct credits in palladium, rhodium, copper, and even cobalt. There's no doubt that we will start up that operation sometime into the future. We don't have specific timing, and we haven't concluded the feasibility. On the coal, we struggled obviously again, particularly with getting volumes, internal challenges, and pit challenges. For the last year and even today, we are really struggling to get TFR mobilized and moving to its historic norms, not asking anything special. They were way off the historic norms. We are, as an industry, through the Minerals Council and a lot of involvement, working very closely with the SOEs in terms of how we can help and how we can collaborate. It's in our interest to make them successful so that we can deliver our product growth and contain our costs. With that, I hand back to Q&A. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if anyone would like to ask a question, you are welcome to press star and then one on your touch-tone phone or on the keypad on the screen. If you, however, wish to withdraw the question, you may press star and then two to remove yourself from the question. If anyone would like to ask a question, you are welcome to press star and then one. Our first question is from Brian Morgan of RMB Morgan Stanley. Hi, guys. Thanks very much. Can we just chat on call quickly? I don't know if Sue's there, but I was expecting quite a big derivative P&L move on the coal debts at the end of the period, given what coal prices have done. It's not quite as big as I expected. Could you just remind me how that whole thing works? Hi, Brian. It's Tsundzukani Mhlanga here. Hi. Sue is here, so I'm going to kickstart, and then Sue will add. The derivative, which is—I assume you're talking about the remeasurement on the value of the loans, right? Is that what you're referring to? Okay. It is. We did have some. You're saying we expected it to be bigger. I think. Given the coal price move. Yeah. It's always referenced to the last time that we assessed and completed the model. I think our ask hasn't changed as substantially as the move that you've seen in the spot price. We had, even the last period when we did the measurement of the loans; and the prices that make the difference are the ones that are in the long term, right? That's part of the reason, and I think even the higher spot prices were partially netted off with, or kind of offset by, expectations on the operational side, so revised downwards on unit expectations, et cetera. On a net basis, relative to where we were this time last year, your movement in terms of how the progression of those loans is expected has not shifted as substantially as what the spot price movements would be. I don't know if that makes sense, Brian. It does make sense. I just would have thought that ZAR 160, ZAR 170 a ton of coal, regardless of how badly the operations are performing, should be generating a huge amount of cash and that debt should be paid down pretty quickly, right? No, unfortunately, we were kind of hoping the same, and it's what I think Mike and Chairman was alluding to. We haven't been able to capitalize as much as we would've liked to from a cash flow generation perspective on the currently high spot prices, because we've had a significant volume impact. The expectation is that you continue to have volume impact into the next year, albeit less. On the longer term, we haven't had significant changes in terms of expectations. Brian, just on there; interesting, that, and that's true. If you look at the various indices that measure coal, coal pricing varies between ZAR 174 and ZAR 141, depending on where it is, and that's the price you're referencing. That's by far not the price we realize. Firstly, we sell into very different markets with very different qualities, as low as ZAR 52. I wouldn't want to try and second guess what the average is, what we're feeding. We do a blend throughout the market. Both in the year that's passed and outside of that, we were really struggling to get supply out in terms of demand because of the market conditions. Eskom has not remotely fulfilled even their contractual commitments. Even around this table, the price we get from Eskom is such that we don't even carry our overheads. That is a blended product, and so it all helps. Pushing up Eskom with a very low price, it's even below our cost of production. The markets are picking up. It is looking better, but we are not realizing even close to ZAR 100 in terms of what we get, Brian. Remember, there's also a marketing fee that's quite a knock that we take. We deliver to port, and we do not benefit from that arbitrage, and we take quite a large marketing fee. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Can I ask about Modikwa? so it's running at 200,000 tons a month, and based on the guidance through 2024, if I look at slide 24, if I look at that, it looks as though you're suggesting we should be going towards 2.7 million tons a year. What's the ultimate end game here with Modikwa in terms of tons mined? Are we going to stop at 240? Is there room to go beyond that? How should I be thinking about that going forward? Brian, it's such an interesting question about the volatility and changing opinions through the cycle. We've gone through an extremely difficult PGM cycle. Modikwa never washed its face. Substantial losses. Made a hell of a lot of money in the last two years. And so have all the platinum counters, and thankfully, it's brought us some relief. The fact that Modikwa suffered for so long is that it did not, consciously, invest a CapEx, literally, to self-capitalize. Just to put it into perspective, we've got three decline shafts there. From 2017 to 2022, one week, and in those declines, the capital. The replacement and expansion we had accelerated a year ago. You've got to catch up then. That target to get to 240 in three years is an extremely aggressive target, to say the least. Fortunately, it does not require any funding at these prices from either partner. It's self-funded and five-star rated. Your next question is, okay, we need to get to 240. Is there opportunity to go beyond? Undoubtedly there is. That ore body, we're mining 13 out of about 23 kilometers of that strike, let alone the deep extension. We could, at this license permitting, continue to mine for over 100 years. Obviously, then you do have that opportunity, all things taken into consideration. Our big, big drive is to get to nameplate capacity and then to reconsider whether the plant would justifiably ramp up. The challenge you're sitting with Brian on is the atypical decline, which is first-generation shafts. If you go throughout the history of South Africa, in all the declines, I'm talking conventional declines, not mechanized mining, you will struggle to find, over the life cycle of a decline, first generation, to exceed on average 80,000 tons per month per decline. That's where we get to the 240. To try and expect as you get deeper and further in and you become highly inefficient with conventional labor, that's what that ore body for now lends itself to. I would premise my taking a guess and say 240 is probably as good as it gets. Unless we can transition that mine in the next 10 years into an appropriate level of mechanization, if that's equipment, I would stick to 240, I would rather do what we've done at Two Rivers, which is to see if we can capitalize or optimize on the overlying Merensky, which would lend itself to higher mechanization, high volumes, high tons, low cost, and pretty safe using high-profile equipment. You can go green on that equipment. Therefore, you can sort of offset the overall dynamic of that mine. Mindful, you've got to look at tailings today, which is a challenge. We are embedded inside a certain community, and you know the challenges we face there. Added to that, there's not a lot of space in the market today to take up base metals and primary smelting. If you take your partner, whom you know well, they have got understandably big ambitions to grow the existing and fill up that capacity. These are all serious things that have to be looked at in a sustainable way. 240. Long story. 240. I think it's as good as it gets. 2024, 2025. Okay. That's great, color. Thanks much. Appreciate that. Certainly you spoke about Two Rivers doing 180,000 tons a month. Could you give me a split there between Merensky and UG2 as you would envision it and also sort of grade and recovery for 2022? The UG2 should do what I'll give you on an ounce basis, on an annualized ounce basis. Lisa's got the slide at about 380. Yes, 360,000 PGM ounces, and this is including the additional plant capacity, right? Yeah. That should happen in the next 12 months. Yeah. Start commissioning in November of this year, 2021, and then it's like a six-month ramp-up period from what I understand. They've got sufficient stock. The plant's in place. The tailings in place. The power's not there yet. The water's a bit of a challenge. Working on it. Certainly, the plant's in a position to do it. I think 12 to 16 months, which is the 360 that we call. By 2024, the Merensky, because the ramp -up is so —I would call it seamless because it's high-profile equipment. We should ramp up about 180,000 ounces. Per annum. per annum. Overall, we're talking 500,000 ounces. That's about the best Two Rivers could do. We can sustain that for about 23 to 25 years. Okay. That's fine. That's perfect. That was helpful. Thank you very much. Our next question is from Thabang Thlaku of SBG Securities. Hi, everyone. I'm sorry, this may be a silly question, but I'm struggling with it. Can I please ask for the breakdown of the ZAR 20 dividend in terms of the cash receipt from the underlying businesses? Happy to. Just so, Thabang, just to answer that. Hi. Yeah. Hi, Thabang. The dividends that we received during the year: we received ZAR 4 billion from Assmang. We received ZAR 1.431 billion, so ZAR 1.4 billion from Two Rivers. We also received ZAR 289 from Modikwa. You guys don't include the Harmony dividends in the dividend that you then pass on to your own shareholders? We do, Thabang. ZAR 82 million. Okay. From Two Rivers. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry, go ahead. I did that calculation. I get to about ZAR 5.8 billion and a bit, and then I divide that by the number of the outstanding shares of 224, and I get to ZAR 25.85. Even if I reduce the ZAR 10 from ZAR 18, I'd only get to ZAR 15. I still wouldn't get to the ZAR 20 that you guys have declared for this half. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Thabang, we did mention in the presentation that we actually pay over and above the dividends that we received. We paid 112%. While the dividends received during the year total ZAR 6.018 million, if we include the interim, we paid a total of ZAR 6.637 for the year, or declared ZAR 6.637. Just as a follow-up, obviously, these underlying subsidiaries are not listed, and neither is Assmang. Forecasting this dividend is a little trickier than if it were based on some sort of earnings multiple. How can we think about the dividends from Modikwa and Two Rivers going forward? Even Assmang, because it seems to be paying a slightly higher dividend than in the past. Could I start, Thabang? In terms of the Assmang dividend, we've been working on it for the last number of years to get a more formalized way of determining, because the shareholders' agreement is quite clear that the idea is to maximize dividends to the shareholders, taking into account the outlook, the capital requirements of the business, et cetera. The reason you're probably seeing Assmang pay a higher dividend than historically is because we've been pushing quite hard to have a formalized way of approaching what maximization is. Looking at how much cash is needed based on the capital requirements, and really focusing on giving all of the excess over and above that out to the shareholders. That's where we are with the Assmang one. In terms of Two Rivers, because of the high capital requirements phase that Two Rivers is going to be going through for the next two to three years, while it self-funds the Merensky, you're probably going to see very limited dividends coming out of Two Rivers. Once that CapEx, because we are working very hard to ensure that it is funded at the operation by the operation, without a need for cash calls from the partners or Impala and us. That comes at the price of dividends. You're going to see very limited dividends coming out of there. Where you will see increased dividends coming out is really at Modikwa. The reason it was relatively smaller in the current period is because the first thing Modikwa did in the period was repay its partner loans, and Tim has helped me with the numbers, it's about ZAR 580 million that they repaid, and then plus the ZAR 289 million dividends that we received. There is going to be an improvement in the dividend outlook for Modikwa. Modikwa also has its own CapEx requirements, but they're not quite as high as what Two Rivers is at the moment. I don't know if that helps in terms of how to think about it. Tsundzukani Mhlanga is absolutely spot on, but I'd probably just put a little bit of caution, albeit that it is not in the budget; the latest thinking is to accelerate all three declines' developments. To that effect, albeit that we haven't made a final decision, I believe in this environment that's the right thing to do to get to it; it's got a very, very high fixed overhead component of this. We need to get to nameplate capacity. While Modikwa can fund it itself without going back to the partners, albeit at the cost of relinquishing the proposed dividends, that's the route I would start an engagement process with our partners. If we fail in that, to Tsundzukani Mhlanga's point, we will see improved dividends coming. Thanks, Thabang. Thanks, Pa. Thanks, everyone. Tsundzukani, I'm just going to push a little bit here. Just looking at all these subsidiaries, would you say it's prudent to look at our estimated cash generated and then a chance for capital over the next 12 months and then assume anything over and above that, and by CapEx, I mean both growth and maintenance CapEx, and then assume that any leftover cash is likely to be paid out? Yes. I think that's a prudent approach too, Thabang. Just flagging that with Assmang, there's going to be a little bit of a timing difference. With Assmang, it's going to look like there is a little bit of cash that gets left behind at the Assmang level to fund the CapEx that's coming. There is a little bit of a timing difference, but I think that's the right way to think about it. Okay. Mike, I just wanted to find out if you'd be willing to commit to some sort of number on that gram per ton number for Merensky at Two Rivers. Is 1,000 too cold or too warm? I know it is close to UG2. Well, I'm talking blind because the work's done, the feasibilities are done. We've got all that. I just was caught off guard about the number. I haven't gone back to that number, but that number, I would think, is in the region of about 900 grams per ton, Tsundzukani. Yeah. It will be less than 900 tons. Yes. In the current period, the UG2 was mining at ZAR 905 per ton. That's going to be less. The Merensky will be less than that. No. I'm going to go back just to the feasibility, and I'm just going to add the inflation, but I think Tsundzukani Mhlanga is right. It's probably between ZAR 700 and ZAR 800. Yeah. I'll get you the exact numbers. I'd rather stick to a conservative nine, and it still makes good sense. Okay. Easily achieve those numbers. The volumes are there easily. I've already modeled Merensky, and really the only thing that's outstanding for me is that gram per tonne number. Mike, are you still of the view that the NPV is around ZAR 3 billion-ZAR 4 billion, or do you think it could be slightly higher than that given that PGM prices seem to be holding up? Yeah. It's certainly between ZAR 3 billion and ZAR 4 billion. Thabang Thlaku, I know that, I saw your note and that your valuation was higher. I think the differential comes from your PGM price assumptions. We were very conservative in terms of our price assumptions. At the time, I think we had taken a view of a 40% discount to spot relative to where the long-term price was that we were using for assessing the project. That ZAR 3 billion-ZAR 4 billion NPV is based on that conservative outlook, and it'll be quite leveraged to the change in the PGM price. You're probably at a higher NPV because of the PGM price assumptions than we are, because we were conservative. Okay. That's quite helpful. Thanks, guys. Our next question is from Justin Brown of Miningmx. Good afternoon. I just wanted to find out, in the presentation, there was a graph showing capital expenditure up to the end of the 2024 financial year. It's about ZAR 17.3 billion. How much of that is growth capital and how much of it is just sustaining business or operating capital? Justin, this has always been a question that we get over and over again, and it's a bit tricky to answer. At least ZAR 5.7 of that, which relates to the Merensky project, will be classified purely as growth. Okay? Right. That's the simple one to answer. We then have a significant portion of CapEx that is going into completing the BlackRock project, which is almost finished, the ZAR 6.7 billion that was approved. There's also the Gloria project, which is ZAR 2.7 billion, that was approved. The reason I say the split is not as simplistic is because a lot of that CapEx for the BlackRock project as well as the Gloria project is a mix of expansionary and SIB in the sense that it's the refurbishment of existing production systems for improved efficiency and cost. It's quite difficult to split that one very purely. In my non-mining speak, it was explained to me in a way to say, to replace a winder, it will cost you X, but you can get a slightly bigger winder, which is going to be X plus 10, and that allows you to increase production, but it would have required replacing anyway. The cost of that winder, would you classify that as SIB CapEx or expansionary? This is the reason why I say it's quite difficult to split. Then you'll see that that CapEx is higher than what we had previously guided over and above the Merensky, and some of that is related to this extension of life at the Beeshoek mine. We've got to do additional waste stripping, which will be capitalized for the purposes of that. I'm sorry I don't give you a clean number of the circa ZAR 17 billion or what the split is going to be. At the very least, ZAR 6 billion-ZAR 6.5 billion of that will be expansionary and the rest is quite difficult to split. Some of it is extension of life, which we view as expansionary. I don't know if that helps, Justin. Yes, thank you. What is the mine? Is it Beeshoek, mine, you mentioned just a moment ago? Yes. It's the Beeshoek iron ore operation. This is the one that Mike said we have done additional drilling, and we've increased the reserves quite substantially. We were initially on six years of life remaining, and we've now increased that to 15 years of life that's remaining. There is some CapEx that needs to go with that because the approach to the life of mine is now different. We need to strip; in addition, there are some fleet replacements that we are having to do because initially, when we thought we had six years left, we were going to run the current for the rest of the period. Now we are considering some fleet replacement for improved efficiency, et cetera. It's the Beeshoek mine, the iron ore operation. Good. Sorry, is this the Financial Director speaking? I just want to make sure. No. It's Tsundzukani Mhlanga here. Okay. Hi, Tsundzukani Mhlanga. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I knew who was talking. Sorry, I came on a little bit late on the call. Okay, great. Thanks, Tsundzukani Mhlanga. I just want to know who I was speaking to for the moment then. Thank you. Thanks, Justin. Ladies and gentlemen, just a final reminder: if anyone else would like to ask a question, you are welcome to press star one. We will pause a moment to see if we have any further questions. Thabang Thlaku, that number's ZAR 800, you understand? The next question is from Jandre Pretorius of Fairtree Asset Management. Good day. Thanks so much for taking my call. Just a bit of a question on the profitability on the coal side, and apologies if I missed this earlier. You mentioned at some point that the cost of production is above what you would receive from Eskom. Maybe just some color in terms of how you think, where the profitability lies between the two different parts of the coal business, as well as would you ever consider closing or downsizing any part of the coal business, or what is that thinking about the future there? Thank you. Maybe if I can just clarify that statement or that comment, which you heard correctly, when you mine a coal seam, you get different grading. The top quality grading is where you normally demand quite a good premium over and above your cost. That historically has been exported. That's where you make your money. It doesn't really matter what you get for the remaining cost of the seam. If you had to sell everything and you simply excluded or ignored the high quality in that seam, and you sold it all on an Eskom basis, the mining cost would exceed the cost of sales. Historically, you've made, let's call it, your profitability or the lion's share thereof, out of quality and export sales. The lower quality seam material, which was suitable for Eskom, would then be negotiated in term contracts, which are generally very low. There's a lot of pressure, understandably, on Eskom to deliver, particularly with the rising electricity prices. I think I hope that qualifies. As long as you've got that mining proportion, it's fine, where you can get different prices for different grades within the CMU mining. It's not through operations. I don't know if that helps. Yes, that's very helpful. Thank you. Just maybe if you have any kind of indication in terms of the export split of the business going forward, just percentage-wise for PCB and GGV there. Any idea what that split looks like? No, we've got it, just turning to the page— Hang on one second. I want to take you to the page because we do. On slide 30 of the presentation, in the bottom right-hand corner, we show a split of what the export sales are going to be for the next three years and what Eskom and local sales are. Obviously the bulk of Eskom and local is just Eskom. We do show it there. Oh, thank you. That's very helpful. Yeah, I have to access it. Jandre, have you been able to access it? Yes, I see the slide. Thank you. I see the chart there. That's helpful. Thank you. Just to confirm, sorry, I think my chart had stayed static while the operator was speaking. Thabang Thlaku, that ZAR per tonne number for the Merensky cost is ZAR 800 per tonne. Our next question is a follow-up from Thabang Thlaku of SBG Securities. Thank you. I've got two more follow-up questions. On coal, guys, it just seems to be quite problematic. We've gone through, as Brian mentioned, a high -price environment, and it's just not coming through. Can we get an update on the operational issues that you guys have experienced with contractors and so forth, and is that largely behind you? I do know that, because that's a difficult question, Thando's on the line, and I'm going to nicely pass it to him. If I could, I would ask the operator to open Thando Mkatshana's line so he can speak to some of the operational challenges with coal. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you clearly, Thando. Thank you so much. Thabang Thlaku, I got the end of your question, but I think it relates to our operational challenges that we face. I will start with the PCB. As you know, PCB, actually Tweefontein Mine, which forms part of PCB, is mining old underground workings there. Somehow, a year ago, we reported a fatality that came out of an explosives combusting, and exploding prematurely. Since then, we had to really space the blasting holes away from areas that had been hot while we were looking for a solution. We have since found a new sleeve that you could insert and is able to withstand temperatures up to about 250, 300 degrees Celsius so that we can blast the hot holes. Unfortunately, in the meantime, while we were looking for that solution, we have areas that have not been blasted very well, and we've been struggling to expose coal there. We're going to be out of those areas by the end of the first quarter; actually, this month, we believe we'll be out of those areas. We will sort out that part of the operation. We also had planned the second pipeline that was supposed to come early around the first quarter of the last financial year. Due to COVID and the delay in the supply of spares, that pipeline got commissioned late, around November last year. Those were the main early challenges that affected the coal operations at the mine. The biggest contributor, the total business on the coal, we lost production of about four million tons as a result of stockpiles being full. When the stockpiles are full, because TFR is not performing, we have had to stop operations and do other work. In December, we also took a longer break than we normally do. Normally, we'll have a five-day break. In this case, we took a two-and-a-half-week break to accommodate the movement of coal. Our main inhibitor in terms of being able to produce has been the TFR performance that has resulted in the sales not, or rather, coal not being moved; hence, the stockpiles were full. Thank you. [inaudible] I just have one more follow-up question. Tsundzukani Mhlanga, how should we think about that management fee from Assmang? Obviously, you guys have renegotiated, and commodity prices are high. How can I model that fee going forward? Tsundzukani Mhlanga, are you there? Please make sure the line is not muted. Please hold on while we reconnect with the main speakers. We've been rejoined by the main speakers. Please go ahead. Hi, Thabang Thlaku. Apologies about that. I could hear you, but I think we lost sound this side, so I do apologize. Can you hear me now? Thabang? Yes, I can. Okay, perfect. I was saying that we have revised the fee arrangements with Assmang such that the fees that ARM earns, the management fees, are more in line or are aligned with the profitability and performance at Assmang. That's how you should think about it. I think, based on the profitability this year and the fact that we've had a full year of the revised fee arrangements, you have a sense of what the fees are and the relationship will be between those two factors. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. It seems we have no further questions on the line. May I hand it back to Mike for closing comments? Thank you, operator. [inaudible] will be the closing comments? Thank you. Thank you, Tsundzukani Mhlanga. As ARM management and ARM as a collective, we are positive on the outlook of ARM performance going forward. Yes, we have seen a decline in the commodity prices. However, management is doing all it can to ensure that we continue working hard to increase profitability, and that includes continued focus on cost containment across the board. Basically looking at seeing what we can control and doing that to the best of our ability. Our balance sheet remains strong, which puts us in a position to take advantage of any value-enhancing growth opportunities that come our way. We're looking forward to taking advantage of those in a responsible manner, obviously, and not overpaying for any assets or the like. Yeah, we're still excited about the business. We're seeing a lot of opportunities within, both organically and outside externally. Yeah, we're just looking forward to getting on with it as management. Thank you, operator. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's conference. Thank you for joining us. You may now disconnect your lines.