Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the African Rainbow Minerals interim results for the six months ended 31 December 2025. All attendees will be in listen-only mode. There will be an opportunity to ask questions when prompted. If you should need assistance during the call, please signal an operator by keying in star and then zero. Please note that this event is being recorded. I will now hand the conference over to Thabang Thlaku. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. We're all together in the room here. We've got the entire management team. We've got Phillip Tobias, this is Tsundzukani Mhlanga, Mike Schmidt, Jacob van der Bijl, Thando Mkatshana, Maryke Burger, and Johan Jansen. The entire management team is here to answer all your calls. We're not going to do an introduction. We're going to go straight into Q&A. We'll just give them some time to take this, and then we'll go straight to Q&A. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now be conducting the question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please key in star and then one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate that your line is in the question queue. You may key in star and then two to exit the question queue. Just a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, you're welcome to key in star and then one. We will pause a moment. Our first question comes from Nthabong Sehone of Investec. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Just a quick one. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Nthabo. Perfect. I think my question is quickly on Thando or to Thando in relation to the ARM Coal. I mean, I see domestic sales were down 15% year-on-year at GGV, and then PCB also was down 3%. I also see also on the revised guidance, particularly around those local sales, volumes going forward, they've been revised downwards. Could you please just provide some guidance on the contracts and downward revision of that coal business and how we should then be looking at it, particularly on the local sales side? In relation to Modikwa, I just wanted to understand. I saw that like, tons mined were up 5% year-on-year, but the PGM concentrate did go down by 3% due to that planned recovery. How does the recovery's outlook profile with open pit combined look like for Modikwa? If you could maybe speak more around that 4% unit cost reduction at Modikwa and how we should also look at it going forward. I'll leave it there for now. Nthabi? Ntebo. Ntebo. Yeah. I beg your pardon, Ntebo. With regard to the domestic sales, those in the main are suppliers to Eskom. As you probably know, the burn rate in terms of Eskom and power generated from their side has been reducing. We are having that impacting to our domestic sales. The positive thing out of that obviously and tying that with the improved performance from TFR is that some of that coal we do divert into the export markets, of which we receive prices. In terms of our contract with Eskom, we are contracted for a GGV. It's about 2.5 million tonnes at 100% for the full year of sales. Yeah, we all depend on whether they're responsible for the entire logistics as well in terms of getting trucks through and digging it up. From time to time, when they don't use or take that coal, we divert it into the export markets. I hope that kind of answers your question. Yes, thank you. Sorry. The water accumulation there in the coal business there with Impunzi. How will that impact production going forward? Yeah, that's at Impunzi. Maybe a bit of quick background is that that used to be an old underground mine, where we're mining now, so we are mining those areas through an opencast method. We had that accumulation of coal. We have that has been, I would say, maybe a once-off measure. We have since revised the pit layout, and we've added additional pumping capacity. Having said so, though, business, I think the range that we have been experiencing in the last three years has been somehow a bit more than normal range. Those have a impact from time to time. In the main, the challenge of the water accumulation has been addressed for now. Thank you. Thank you. Johan, will you take the Modikwa question? Certainly. Good afternoon. I must state that the open cast is not the preferred source of ore for Modikwa. We're putting that through the concentrator while we are building up the reserves underground in the UG2. The 6E grades for the underground UG2 is 4.76 grams per ton. While for the open cast, it's higher. It's anywhere between 5.2 grams a ton and 6.5 grams a ton. The challenge, however, sits with the recovery. Typical recovery for normal underground UG2 is sitting at about 84.5%-85%. While the open cast, closer to surface, highly oxidized, can be sitting between 50%-54%. The benefits of the open cast is that it's a much lower cost operation. UG2 cost per 6E ounce comes in underground, ZAR 20,200 per 6E ounce, while the open cost comes in at ZAR 16,000. Although you lose some ounces, you're seeing the benefit in terms of the cost. We are going deeper with the open cast, so as you are proceeding deeper, the ore becomes less oxidized and your recovery goes up. We are confident in the outlook for the, for the open cast as a temporary gap filler at Modikwa. Thank you. Thank you. Tabohane, does that conclude your questions? Thank you. Yes, it does for now. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, just a further reminder. If you'd like to ask a question, you're welcome to key in star and then one to place yourself in the question queue. Operator, should we just let Tabohane ask, the rest of his questions? Okay. He's just been cleared. We do have a next person in the queue, which is Tim Clark of SBG Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks, everybody. Can you hear me? We can hear you, Tim. Thank you. All right. I've got a few questions. I'll sort of roll through them slowly. Let's start with Beeshoek. The finished stock that you've agreed to sell, the 1.2 million tons. Can you give us an idea, please, of just the sort of timeframe over which you'll sell that? What the offtake is, what the contract is? Maryke? Yeah. Hi, Tim. Yes. The contract has been concluded for 1.2 million tons over a 12-month period, which started in February. The intention is to offtake 100,000 tons per month for 12 months. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thanks very much. let's talk about just how we should think about Nkomati going forward, just in terms of spend. You've got this chrome plant, which is gonna give some kind of revenue credit. How should we think about it? Just, I mean, you've got the liability outstanding. Can you give us, like, some kind of sense or guidance just for our models for the next, I don't know, two years, three years of what we should model in terms of how we should think about Nkomati in terms of, you know, the plant and then, you know, offsetting and the spend on rehab, please? Tim, thank you for that. I will also ask Sue to help in terms of the rest of the rehab. To an extent, this chrome, as you correctly pointed out, this chrome revenue subsidizes the cost of care and maintenance, which as we have indicated in the past, through then. Per month, I think we going to be generating between ZAR 20 million and ZAR 25 million of revenue that will come and subsidize that cost. Well, yeah. I'm sure if I've answered. On the rehab side, did you ask on the rehab in terms of modeling? We are currently not really undertaking major rehab because we are completing this feasibility study in terms of looking at optionality going forward. As we have indicated, we have quite advanced on that, I think it's very encouraging. We're confident that when we take it forward to the board, it will get approval, and then we'll make an announcement in due course. There's no really major rehab that's happened. For the water treatment plant, which we have located. Is that going back to nickel? Commission. Okay. That feasibility study, is that to open up? Can you go for a second? another version of a nickel. Sorry. Is the feasibility study just to open up another nickel mine effectively, a new Nkomati in some different form? Sorry, I don't know much about it. Yeah. That's what it will entail. It will entail really recommissioning the mine and bring it back to life. Obviously in a much more, let me say, a remodel, at a maybe a smaller scale than previously. That's what we are looking at. Yeah, we'll be able to share the details in terms of the actual volumes and so on after we've finalized that study and taken it to the board. I think that gives you a good indication. In line with that, obviously also with the very encouraging chrome prices, we are looking at a potential bigger chrome production than what we are currently doing. To add on the rehab liabilities. All right. Thanks, Thando. Sorry, Tim, to just give in more color on the rehab liability. At Nkomati. At Nkomati, yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Tim. Just to let you know, so that rehab as at 31 December for Nkomati is just over ZAR 2 billion, so it's ZAR 2,011 million, or ZAR 2.0 billion. Again, just remember that we did receive the ZAR 325 from Norilsk, which was their contribution as part of the transaction to us, the rehab waters. Yeah. Water rehab. Mm-hmm. So sorry. It's Thabang. Thank you. I want to ask additional questions on your behalf so we can just clarify some things. With Tendo, current monthly production of chrome, where are they now and where are we planning to go? It's around 8,500 tons per month that they're achieving. Okay. We will peak at about 11,000 tons per month of chrome concentrate. The steady state. With the current project. Okay. Yeah. Okay. The bigger stage, we're still finalizing a few items related to the metallurgical carbon recovery process and that one will complicate those volumes. They are much higher than the current project. When do we expect to get to 11,000 tons per month? We'll get to 11,000 tons per month in the month of April. In April? Yeah. What kind of profit margins are we seeing with the chrome production at Nkomati, more or less? That plant, it costs us about ZAR 10 million. I just want to check my numbers and confirm that. It costs us under ZAR 10 million per month to produce. It's about ZAR 25 million. Mm-hmm. say between ZAR 15 million and ZAR 10 million, dependent obviously on the chrome price. Yes. Okay. I think maybe just to come in. Overall, just correct me if I understood well. I think over the next 12 months we should be able to make at least a profit of ZAR 100 million with this 500,000 tons. Is that correct? Delta will be ZAR 100 million positive. Yeah. It's revenue or profit? Profit. Okay. Yeah. If I was to tend, as I said, 10. Yeah. Yeah. Then Tim, just to add with regards to the broader Nkomati question, I think it's too early for us to give too much information. As you can imagine with the geopolitical changes that have been happening, there are some coke takers who've been looking for nickel supply out of Indonesia because of their relationship with China. As a result, Nkomati has become a little bit more attractive to, you know, to other nickel producers. It's still early stages. We're doing the study and we've only sort of going to go for board approval later in the year. Once we do have the details, we'll come back and guide the market accordingly. Thank you very much. I'll ask one last question, please. Just on Two Rivers. I was just reading your commentary about being impacted by sympathetic geological structures. Never heard of those before. Can you just chat to how long it's gonna take before your productivity improves as the geology improves? Just how long... You sort of spoke about it improving over time now that you're getting past the dikes. Maybe you can just give us some timing. Thank you. This is Johan Jansen. What we encountered was a fault parallel to the advancing faces. About 18 months ago we started intersecting the fault. We've done redevelopments, went through the fault. We've established the faces on the other side of the fault, which was quite an effort. At this stage we are busy bringing the supporting infrastructure up to date, the conveyor belts, moving them back to within 60 meters, 80 meters from the, from the face. We've already seen an improvement in the productivity, and we will continue to see that over the next quarter. By the start of the next financial year, we will be back on 720,000 tons per month. Thank you very much. I think, Tim, that's what I said there, Tim, that's what I said. Our forecast for FY27 will be an improved output because we'll be moving towards strength out of these geological features. Thank you, Phillip. Thanks. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, just a final reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, you're welcome to key in star and then one. Our next question comes from Thobela of Nedbank. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. I did get cut off a few times there. Please forgive me if I do ask questions that have been asked already. Earlier on, during the webcast, Mariki talked about the value-in-use model when I asked a question about the realized pricing on the manganese. Could you just expand some more what is meant by value-in-use model for ARM and how does that potentially improve your realized pricing? It did seem as though- He llo. Hello? Yeah. It's not in the open. Our open. Can you guys hear me? Apologies, Thobela. Please continue with your question. Oh, okay. Yes, we can. Okay. It did seem as though she wasn't just talking about just sort of the manganese operation, but this perhaps could be applied in other divisions. Can I just get clarity on that as well? That's my first question, and then I'll ask my second question later. Thabela. Thobela. Yes. I would like to expand on that. What a value-in-use model is, you take your specific ore, and you are correct. We've got it for manganese at Black Rock as well as iron ore at Khumani. It is tested in various applications, so where it would be used in different smelters and for what purpose in that smelters. You develop a model to determine the intrinsic value of your ore type to the customer buying it. Through having that value, you can maximize the economic value you get back in your pricing. To just further explain it, obviously in a smelter they don't only use your specific type of ore. They would use different suppliers' type of ore, which has got different grades and contaminants. We know Black Rock as well as Khumani has got a very high-grade reserves. We are doing this work in specific to ensure that we get the net back per product on maximizing economic value. It would mean that we would receive above an index price realization for premiums for our specific product based on our product's value. Okay. Okay. Now that's clear. Mariki, had the other question asked? Go ahead. Go ahead, Thabela. Did you answer for also applied to iron ore? Yes. Yes. It's for both. Yeah. Thanks very much. Okay, Thabela, we'll go to your question. Yeah. Maybe just to follow up on that is, would that then maybe mean that your sales volumes perhaps, you know, because you may, I mean, would your sales volume remain the same in terms of how you are focusing currently, or would this value-in-use, you know, kind of, affect your sales, potentially given perhaps, you may have to change your product spec then there? It would not have any impact on your volumes. The only impact that it would have is on your revenue line. The thing is to see if we can get better prices due to the specific ore type, and we can engage on that. Volumes will remain the same both for Black Rock and Khumani, which is currently in the five-year plan. Okay. Then my second question is around the domestic sales in the iron ore division. I think, my question I guess is you've talked about having signed a new contract to sell for domestic sales. Where would those, given that Sishen was the one that used to supply to your domestic markets. I'm guessing Khumani will be the now the one supplying into that. Is that, I mean, my understanding was that your export sales, you know, you derived better revenue there versus perhaps on the domestic side. Could you just clarify as to why perhaps go via this route now? Thanks. To bring it for clarity, the contract on Beeshoek was signed with AMSA, and it was for 1.2 million tons. We're sitting with a stockpile of 1.48 million tons. The only reason why we signed a contract with AMSA, and it is not at a brilliant rate, it's ZAR 800 per ton, where our previous rate per ton on Beeshoek was ZAR 1,221. You can imagine it's 25% lower than our previous base price. That's the best option we could get to get some value for the stocks currently lying at Beeshoek. The intent is never to supply the domestic market from Khumani. No. Khumani is a export mine, and our revenue receiving from exports is much better. Yes, the domestic market will definitely not be supplied by Khumani. This is a isolated matter in specific pertaining to Beeshoek being on care and maintenance, and we having that 1.48 million tons of stockpile. Maybe just to come in, Thobela. I mean, just a bit of background. You remember that, at some stage we said we don't have a long-term contract with our SOAM customer, that we were still busy in negotiation with them. Then, the last basically delivery of ore was done in July, during which period we were still negotiating. That was at the back of the November 24th, where they announced the potential shutdown of the long steel business. That being announced November, they were still taking some product for us. With us being in the mining, obviously you have to be producing, delivering stockpiles so that you can really, you know, deliver whatever quantities that are required. We, at the back of hope that we were gonna enter into an agreement, we still carried on mining, and we only drew the line in the sand, you know, end of October when we said we cannot carry on. At that time, we've already accumulated 1.486 million tons. We just have to basically sell this and then clean up everything at Beeshoek. Okay. No, that's helpful. I have my one last question on Two Rivers. I think if I recall well, in terms of your ramp-up profile of prior to the Merensky project being put on care and maintenance, it was quite significant, just in terms of what was anticipated then. If I look at the current ramp-up profile with the Merensky project being sort of pulled back again into production, this one, this ramp-up profile seems a bit softer. Could you just explain, you know, what's the thinking now versus before you put that particular project on care and main? I can just take that. Thobela, on the Merensky project, like we communicated earlier today, we started the decline development in October of last year, a limited development, whilst we were finishing the feasibility study to recommence with the project. We plan to complete all of that work as well as the review work and third-party work by May this year. We'll take it to the partners for approval with a planned restart date of the first of July. The current, we have redone the whole life of mine model and optimized the mining cut, et cetera, to make we get the best value out of the project and extracting the resource at the maximum grade. With this latest ramp-up schedule, the schedule that we've done, we ramp up to 200,000 tons per month over a three-year period. It's from July, three years forward, we have steady-state production. We are benefiting now obviously from the fact that we've already got, three levels developed, and we are proceeding down towards, level four, of which two are already equipped. We do have quite a big head start compared to the original feasibility study. Yeah. Thobela just actually made me aware. When you're looking at our PGM forecast, the Merensky numbers are not there. You can't compare this to the numbers, same, that we gave you in 2024 because we're still to include that once going through the governance. Yes. Once the governance process is done, we'll be able to include the Merensky guidelines. I'm actually looking at the, at the year before that, 2023, where at the time the Merensky project was due to come in online. If I look at your ramp-up profile, then I have it right in front of me. I think from 23 to let's say, from 24 to 25, you're going to move from 313 koz to 485 koz. Kilo ounces. That's the, that big jump versus perhaps I guess the current softer profile. Yeah. That's because those numbers didn't include the Merensky estimate, and these ones don't. If I can add, I think we haven't disclosed in the current reason. Yeah. We haven't disclosed in the current numbers the Merensky ramp-up like Thabang and Sue, like we say, that we still deliver that governance process. However, I can share that the work that is done with the mining schedule, that ramp up is over a three-year period. I think it's substantially still in line with what we've guided internally for. Okay. Just, Thabiso, I mean... Go ahead. Just to help you. Just to clarify. I mean, remember what Jacques said. Where we stopped in August 2024, we were already at level three. This is going to be a five-level, you know, operation delivering 25,000 tons per half level. We need to develop to level four and to level five. That is basically going to take us about two years to do that. The third year that Jacques is referring to is when we ramp up to steady state. Which is basically from the beginning, it will be a total of three years to get to steady state. Okay. 'Cause I guess my understanding was that the bringing back of the Merensky project would take a lot less time than what I'm hearing now. I guess that's the, where the misunderstanding would have been. Thanks. Thank you. I can maybe also just add, Thabiso, that obviously, with the concentrated plant finished, we could sequence now and see exactly when is the optimal amount to solve that concentrated plant. You know, with a combination of building stockpile upfront, maybe for the first six months or one year, and then only starting that. It doesn't mean that, if it's a three-year ramp-up, you're only gonna start seeing ounces produce, incremental additional ounces from Merensky in three years time. You could, as quick as within the other 12 months, you'll start to see additional ounces coming from Merensky. Okay. No, thank you. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from Ntebogang of Investec. Please go ahead. Thank you again, team. Just a quick one on the Two Rivers production currently. Yes, there were some geological challenges in phase, in one age. I just want to quickly confirm as to going forward, is the 3.09 head grades that was reported for one age sustainable going forward? If you could maybe guide us more on how you see that head grade improving as the geological issues improve. In relation to the Two Rivers Merensky project, I mean, my understanding is that there's around ZAR 2.6 billion of working cap or capital that needs to be put for it to be able to get back online. With the current planning, I don't know if it's fair for me to ask if you could maybe provide with just some form of color in terms of how you're going to be spending that ZAR 2.6 over the next two years, if it is then what is approved. I think my second last question or my last question is mainly around project priority. I just want to have sort of like a greater clarity around your growth projects. I mean, you've got Nkomati, you've got Bokoni, you've got Two Rivers Merensky projects. Or even other M&A, and then there's also Surge also as well as part of your growth projects, right? Are you able to explicitly rank those growth projects in a order of capital priority for us? I'll leave it there. Yeah. You want to comment on the grade? Yes. If I can go first on the grades, please. Thank you for the question. The grade of 3.09 is a fair outlook of what we could expect going forward. We've moved into an area with split reef, so the grades would no longer be as high as it had been in the initial phases of the project. The monitoring of the quality of the mining is excellent, and I expect to see the grade remaining where it is. Thank you. Thank you very much. In terms of the project, yes, you are correct. I mean, we've got the trade-off studies that is currently underway at Nkomati. We are now recovering chrome, you know, from the 500,000 tons stockpile that you mentioned. There's another study as well on the chrome side that is taking place. A study basically to restart Nkomati. That is basically at Nkomati complex. You come to Two Rivers. Obviously, the project there that still need to be concluded is the Merensky. As Jacques says also, we're basically at the tail end of completing that study. The numbers will be put on the table to see what are the returns, confirm the capital that is required, confirm everything basically the contributions that that project is gonna bring to the Two Rivers Mine. We also mentioned that we already completed the DFS at Bokoni. We're doing the independent review, third-party review. We're doing the value engineering, firm up the numbers. These three will have to be ranked in the order of priority, and a investment decision will be made at the, at the right time in terms of how we stagger them. Surge where we are will most probably say one can say maybe the best guess is come end of June, we should really have the outcome of the pre-feasibility study, whereafter that will really transition into a definitive feasibility study with some regulatory approval process. We see that process being concluded most probably the best case towards 2029. If everything else work well, that mine should really go into execution around 2030. If you look at the project staggering, the Surge is still about last year, we used to say five years. It's about 4 years now, from execution, unless if things are really expedited, you know, in terms of the approval, because we've also seen the response from the Canadian government in as far as expediting some of these critical mineral projects. If I might also just add, Philip, with regards to the point around being on the capital, I just in reference with Umalati, Thandi alluded to it, that the volumes that we are looking at from the potential output mining is less than what we had before. Also the fact that the mine was a producing mine when it was placed on care and maintenance. The ramp-up capital that we would require to put that mine back into operation is not as substantial as completely if you had to go and build a new greenfields mine. It's, it's certainly, I think a lot more affordable. Depending on how the economics stack up because it's open pit, ramps up production very quickly. It should become potentially cash positive generator in a much shorter period of time compared to points of a Bokoni project where there's a new concentrate plant that needs to be built and substantial underground development. With regards to Merensky, I think the biggest amount of money that would have to be spent is on the mining, specifically building working capital and stockpile to consistently be able to feed the mill. With Two Rivers is substantially stronger balance sheet. The all costs is that Two Rivers would be able to fund the full capital required to complete the ramp-up Merensky from the strength of its balance sheet and from its cash flow generation, without requiring additional funds from the two partners. That then really just leaves Bokoni that we would have to see and we're busy with finalizing that work. We've also said as we are looking at a much smaller study and 120,000 tons, we believe is the right size, which strikes the right balance between capital required as well as sufficient volumes to ensure sustainability and cash competitiveness from a unit cash cost point of view. We would be able to, you know, provide further guidance on that cash flow required to support that project during the next results issue. Ntebogang, is your question answered? Uh, I just- Um. The ranking. I just wanted- The ranking part is the one that's not answered. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's the sense that I got, Ntebogang. We were sort of giving you detail on what we're doing with the projects, but we're not ranking them. If I had to summarize what I think Phillip and Jacques are trying to say is that if you look at the current project pipeline, part of few of these projects are actually still in study phase. Until they've completed and we've got board approval, it's very difficult for us to say, you know, we're going to prioritize project A over project B, right? That's number one. I think Jacques was also just trying to illustrate to you that some of the projects are actually going to be able to self-fund because they'll be generating some cash themselves. Some bigger projects like Bokoni and Surge, only once we've got the information in front of us will we be able to make a decision going forward. Remember, your capital allocation model is continuously evolving, and it would be very premature for us to say we're prioritizing this now when in two, three years time, once the studies are done and we've got board approvals, the world has changed. Yeah. We, we can't give an explicit project ranking right now, specifically because a lot of these are still in study phase and don't have board. As Jacques said earlier on, most probably when we come to the next reporting cycle, we will be having, you know, detailed outcome and the decisions that have been made. We'll be able to update the market in terms of where we are. If I might also just add, as part of this analysis, we're obviously doing very detailed cash flow schedules for all of these projects. We also look at it on a portfolio view where we look at from an ARM's point of view, what is the forecast cash flow coming in from the operations, what would be the cash required to finance each one of these projects, as well as our other commitments, you know, with regards to returning money back to the shareholders in the form of dividends that we are committed to. We would be making a very prudent decision in terms of which project will start first. Also maybe we don't do all of them at the same time just because from a affordability point of view that we do stagger them. Maybe just one last point, there's absolutely been no decision made at this time. We are still busy with the study work, and we will review the results as well as the cash flow requirements from a portfolio view very carefully before a recommendation or decision is made. Thanks, team. Maybe to finish off, which is my question is mainly around balance sheet, right? Your balance sheet has strengthened to now currently with net cash of around ZAR 8.4 billion. I'm also then taking into account of the Harmony collar. One can possibly consider that I'm not an accountant, but like a lazy balance sheet. I'm trying to understand, with the excess cash that you guys have, because of my view, what is management thinking around using that cash for future growth? That's why I'm trying to understand in your projects, the ranking and also the prioritization in terms of capital allocation. I don't know if I'm making sense. No, thanks, Ntebogang, for that question. No, yeah, I might have a differing view from yourself in terms of it being a lazy balance sheet, but see that as it may, that's okay. I mean, you're quite right. Our balance sheet has strengthened from June, where we are now, you know, sitting, you know, still in a relatively strong net cash position. The question you're asking there was actually quite valid and quite, you know, one that we actually deliberate, you know, amongst ourselves with, and specifically knowing that, you know, we've got these projects, we've got this project pipeline. We have, you know, ammunition in terms of, you know, raising additional funds through using the Harmony collar and, you know. You know, at the same time, still looking at the projects that are in the pipeline and seeing those that can, you know, generate cash as quickly as possible, because at the same time, you do not wish to be strained or find yourself in distress in terms of, you know, having to honor commitments and you don't have enough cash. As you know, Jacques was saying that, you know, you really do need to look at it from a portfolio perspective. Yes, you're sitting on cash currency, but there is a pipeline. You know, there are also other moving parts where, you know, we're looking at the cash coming in from Assmang, you know, in the form of management fees as well as dividends, and you know, all the other commitments. It is really just a quite a tight balancing act that, you know, we're gonna have to make. You know, that's also the balance sheet will be also be informing, you know, the decisions that we make, you know, in terms of which project we're actually going to proceed with, what is palatable for us and you know, what we can comfortably deliver on without straining the balance sheet. Again, if we find ourselves in a place where, you know, and I don't think we're there, where, you know, we decide not to go with any projects, then, you know, instead of sitting there on the cash, we would definitely look at returning that cash to the shareholders. Because remember, we look at the cash and we say, "Okay, how can we generate a return more than, you know, that cash just sitting in the bank?" That's where then we would deploy that cash towards to say, "We believe we can get you as a shareholder a better return than our weighted average cost of capital." If not, then the default, then we say, "Okay, then let's rather return to shareholders." I hope that helps a little bit. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Andrew Snowden of Ninety One. Please go ahead. Hi there, guys. I am seeing you next week, I thought I'd ask this question now anyway. It's just really following on the previous question. The capital allocation slide that you showed, was that the order of priority in which you're looking at things, or were you just saying these are all the things that are considered? 'Cause it is quite an interesting order in which it's displayed. I guess that's the first question. The second one, maybe you can talk me through why you put the collar in place in the first place if you're not actually using it. You know, again, you know, to the previous point, you're sitting on... I'm in the same camp. It's a lazy balance sheet. 18% of your market cap is now sitting in cash. You're also sitting a significant value for your Harmony stake, and yet there doesn't seem to be any real initiative by management to try and unlock any of that value. Maybe you can just talk me through some of that, you know, and again, in line with that, just looking at where you're ranking things like share buybacks, and maybe you can just remind us where, you know, just how much you're allowed to buy back at this point? Thank you. Thanks. Sorry. Let me just the first question around the capital allocation guidelines. The way they are documented there, it's not in order of priority. I think we do have a footnote at the bottom of the slide where we do say that. Secondly, the question around why do you have the collar if we're not going to use it? Yeah. I can speak to that. I think that when that collar was put in place, it was specifically to protect the farm and the strategic intent behind it, which I'll share now. At that point in time, specifically on our PGM and basket prices were a lot more depressed. We're talking about March, April last year, even though it was our view that the metals were in deficit, either due to the destocking, which was substantial inventory above on surface, we haven't seen the metal prices were not reflective of the fundamentals, supply and market because of the three metals, specifically platinum, palladium, and rhodium. The strategic intent behind the collars, there was at that time, even a strong rally up in the gold price, Harmony share price responded quite positively. We said, given those growth ambitions that we do have, the uncertainty around the PGM prices, how long it will take before it starts to recover, it may be good to just try and strengthen the balance sheet by having some fixed security in place. If we want to, for instance, in future, deploy some of our cash on some of these growth projects that we are, you know, that could be value creative and generate cash above our cost of capital. We don't want to get into a position where you draw down your available cash on the balance sheet and then the commodity price weakness continues and you start to come under balance sheets, you know, stress. In that case, it's good if there's a facility available maybe linked to a revolving credit facility that you do have access to. It's really just capitalizing at the time on the quick Harmony prices that we saw, you know. With the benefit of hindsight, it sort of rallied even further beyond that. In the context of where we were with the commodity prices and not knowing exactly how long it will take, specifically for the PGM prices to respond. Where we are now, we still think it's a good facility because that strategic intent behind it hasn't gone away. If we do proceed with some of these projects, it may still be good to put a revolving credit facility in place. We will obviously use the cash first because that's a lower cost of interest compared to paying interest on the RCF. At least you've got access to that liquidity on a very short period of time if you need it. As a holding company and a commodity producer, especially in today's world, commodity prices are very volatile up and down, and you need a bit of headroom to make sure that you've got, you can cover yourself in any eventuality that may happen. I hope that sort of provides a bit of clarity. The only reason why we haven't used the call yet is because use of proceeds, we haven't finished the studies yet. We will do that over the next couple of months. As soon as we make a decision, we will look at what is the most appropriate way to utilize that strategically to protect the balance sheet. Maybe just a very quick follow-up on that. Because your actions and the outlook comments don't seem to be marrying up at the moment. Talking about a much stronger second half versus the one you've just reported. If we look at what the basket price, in particular for PGMs, has done since then, iron ore, I think there's a consensus view to be lower, but it's still holding up. The rand, yes, was stronger, but it's now been weakening a little bit with the events in the Middle East. You know, the sense is you should be generating very significant free cash flow over the next six months, which puts you in an even stronger position. Maybe you could, you know... Do you agree with that view, first off? You know, what are your concerns at this point? The actions by the company don't seem to be marrying with the outlook. You know, just how good an outlook do you need for you to start utilizing that significant cash balance? I guess that's the question. Yeah. If I can answer that. You're quite right. I think our outlook is also very much in line with some of our peers in the commentary that has made that we do think in the context at least of the PGM prices, the prices will remain stronger for a longer period of time, which is positive. That we will specifically from our two operations, Two Rivers as well as Mponeng, should be at least current spot prices, are quite strongly cash generative. However, we've seen also how quickly things can change in today's world with the volatility. We have been wrong in the past where what we've guided on the outlook, you know, doesn't transpire. That's why we do think that it is prudent to, you know, keep a certain amount of cash or, you know, access to cash in the form of a RCF available, that you don't overextend yourself. The intent is once these projects are, studies have been completed and they are properly evaluated to make a decision on going forward with them or not, and at that point in time, you know, we'll be in a much better position to see, what resources do we need from the balance sheet to be able to support those projects. Yeah. Thank you. Maybe if I could just add, sorry, I think. Sorry, carry on. Sorry. No, I just wanted to add something to what Jacques... Yeah, thanks. Just to add to what Jacques said, I think someone said it on the podium earlier. Yes, on the, you know, the platinum operations will be generating cash, but, you know, that won't necessarily come through to the center. That cash will be used to fund the requirements of those businesses. On Two Rivers, specifically on Merensky, so depending on what that build is, it might be ZAR 1 billion, ZAR 2 billion, ZAR 3 billion, I'm not sure what it is, will go towards that and then Mponeng as well, is, you know, increased CapEx requirements. That, you know, that cash, the mine as is, as it's generating that cash, will go towards funding that. I just wanted to add that. Anyway, the last question was on the issue of the share buybacks. You did ask a question as to whether we reconsider doing another share buyback. I mean, as Stu mentioned, it's part of the things that we consider whenever we have a capital allocation, you know, review decisions to say which ones come first. You know, where we are now, as Jacques mentioned, in the next two months, there's some serious decisions that we have to make in terms of those three project studies. This thing as well is weighed against all the other points that we have to consider. We do take note of what you raised with our earnings call. Super. Maybe one last one. As you can tell, we're gonna have an interesting meeting next week. Just can you maybe give me a sense, 'cause I'm sure you've done the calculations to, at current spot, the sort of free cash flow that you'd expect to generate with that after number you're willing to share? No, is that free cash flow in PGM or at group level? Either way, just an indication. Again, from what we've seen so far and what things have done, if anything, the one number that's surprised everybody is just how strong cash generation is. My worry is that management is coming across a little bit too conservative given the current market conditions. Hence the question. We have to get that information. Can we give it to you when we see you next week? 100%. We can. Send you an email. We can drop you an email once we have the numbers. Great. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from Ntebogang Segone of Investec. Please go ahead. Sorry, guys. Just a quick one, right. If the PGM if the cash flow from the PGM business will be funding this project, now my question is around dividends going forward. I mean, dividends, your dividend policy is based on dividend receipt. Ferrous outlook seems muted, you're not expecting as much dividend receipt from ferrous as historic levels. Now the cash from the PGM business, essentially, I'm assuming that now, because it will be funding this project, it will then not be going to dividends to then African Rainbow Minerals. How should we then look at dividends going forward for ARI? We are committed to basically, giving cash back to our shareholders, so. It's a capital allocation decision, but it's a commitment that we have made, in the bigger scheme of things. As we weigh these, this project that we need to advance, we also basically take into consideration the dividend payment as well. Yeah. Maybe I can, maybe I can add in, Ntebo. Our dividend policy remains that 40%-70% of the dividends that we receive from the underlying operations. Yes, as you point out, you know, we might not be expecting and, I mean, we were not expecting, actually, before this rally in, in the PGM market price. We were not expecting dividends coming through from those operations for the next three years. Thankfully, we're in a better place. If, you know, those operations are able to fund their requirements and there's anything that's left over, that will obviously be given up through to and to our partners. I think what you can, you know, model if you need to model, is, you know, work with that 40%-70%. You know, in the past couple of years, we have gone above that range, and that is when, you know, we, you know, looking at, you know, the cash that we're actually sitting on, we say, "Okay, actually, we can afford to go beyond that range." We make that decision. We've made it a few times, quite often. But just to be on the conservative side, still use that 40%-70% as a guideline for the dividends that would then be paid into issuance. I think also maybe just also add on, I think it just sort of links into the question that Andrew asked before. At current spot prices, we'll run the numbers, sort of my assessment is that if the current spot price prevailing the PGMs, the cash generative amount of cash that will be generated about, as well as at, in the Big Hole, is quite substantial. I think that most likely will be more than what the, there will be surplus cash available even after servicing requirements to complete the Merensky study as well as the development at the Big Hole. There is a good chance that if the current prices prevail, that there will be cash flows passed off, passed up through the form of dividends to our group. Yeah. Equally, as Ferrous is facing challenges due to pricing and costs, and while we try to turn around that business, we can expect no dividend from that center. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, with no further questions in the question queue, we have reached the end of the question and answer session. I will now hand back for closing remarks. Thank you everyone for dialing in. We appreciate your participation. We will be on the road next week seeing investors. If you've got any more questions or you feel like we maybe didn't answer some of your questions to your satisfaction, please feel free to pop me and Shane an email, and we'll endeavor to give you accurate answers as soon as possible. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's event. Thank you for joining us. You may now disconnect your line.