Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Kumba's interim results presentation for 2024. You know, very, very nice to see all of you. I trust that you're all well. On behalf of management, also very much thank you for coming through. As you know, I'm Penny Himel, heading up investor relations. I'm joined by our CEO, Mpumi Zikalala, and Bothwell Mazarura, our CFO, who will present our interim results. In terms of safety, which you know always comes first, we'd like to bring the following to your attention. There's no formal safety drill expected today. So should there be an alarm, please make your way to the reception area in an orderly fashion, where you'll exit the building through the main reception door and make your way outside to the patio area. Please hold on to the handrails when you exit the auditorium as the stairs are a bit steep. A safety representative will inform you when it's safe to return. Before we continue, I'd like to just refer you to the disclaimer, particularly in reference to our forward-looking statement. I will now hand you over to Mpumi Zikalala. Good morning, everyone. Many thanks for taking the time to join us today. Before we get into the detail of the results, I just wanted to step back and put these results and our more recent actions across the business into perspective. At Kumba, we are building on really solid foundations. We have world-class assets. The quality of our resources is a key differentiator in a world that increasingly needs high-quality product to meet growing steel demand and emission reduction targets. And so we have an important role to play in the future of steel. Despite these robust fundamentals, if we don't continue to push forward, there's always a risk that our relative position goes backwards. And so we continue to strive for operational excellence and cost competitiveness. In line with that, our business reconfiguration aims to reduce C1 unit cash cost to $38 per wet metric ton this year. As we position for the future, we'll seek to unlock further value by maximizing our product premium. In the medium term, we are targeting an average of $3 per ton above market levels. Our aim is to grow our margin by improving both revenue and cost. Therefore, we have a pathway for value delivery. I'm pleased to say that in today's result, although we still have much to do, you'll see some meaningful progress as a result of the actions that we have already taken. We are now better equipped to deal with an uncertain world and sustainably deliver to all our stakeholders. Turning to our business overview, our first-half results reflect the strong execution of our business reconfiguration plan. Safety continues to be our number one or first value. Despite the immense change we are all going through, our total recordable injury frequency rate improved to 0.94 from 1.2 for the same period last year. Production decreased by 2% to 18.5 million tons and is tracking well against the full-year guidance of 35-37 million tons. Our EBITDA of ZAR 15.6 billion reflects the impact of lower iron ore prices as well as sales volumes. Attributable free cash flow of ZAR 9.1 billion highlights the benefit of our focus on cost optimization as well as working capital initiatives. This allowed us to deliver headline earnings per share of ZAR 22.27 and continue creating enduring value for all our stakeholders. Our board has declared an interim dividend of ZAR 8 billion, of which our empowerment partners will receive a total dividend of ZAR 2 billion for the same period. Moving on to safety and the well-being of our people. Our people are the business, and nothing is more important than ensuring that we put their safety and health first. At the outset of our reconfiguration process, we focused on further enhancing risk awareness, increasing leadership time in the field, and driving safety through leading indicators. Safety is a journey that starts each and every single day. After a strong performance in the first quarter, we saw an increase in the number of hand and finger-related injuries in June. We immediately implemented a call to action to prevent further injuries, and we are pleased to say that progress has already been made as a result of this in July. Overall, the decrease in the total recordable cases from 18 to 11 demonstrates the progress that we are making. In driving zero harm in our operations, we have also maintained a strong focus on occupational health performance. Our focus this year is on reducing exposure to occupational hazards such as noise, dust, and carcinogens. Notably, I've got to say that pleasingly as well, we have had no level 4 and 5 occupational diseases reported in the last 6 months. As we reconfigure our business, the well-being of our people is certainly top of mind for us. We are providing comprehensive care and support through our employee assistance as well as our journey to wellness programs. We remain committed to training and developing our people as having the right leadership and culture are fundamental towards executing our strategy and actually making sure that we unlock value. Throughout the process, we are continuing to invest in our people to develop our talent pipeline, to also retain critical skills, as well as ensuring that we sustain high levels of performance. Embedding a culture of inclusivity and diversity is also crucial for the future of our business. We continue to make good progress on female representation among our employees and at a leadership level. I've got to say that pleasingly, this includes our board, as you'll see in the statistics. More broadly, sustainability is deeply integrated in our business and in our purpose, which brings me to our next slide. Our purpose of reimagining mining to improve people's lives is made possible by using innovation and building collaborative partnerships. Given the effects of climate change, water is a precious resource. To safeguard this, we're investing in our water storage and dewatering systems. The cumulative work in recent years has resulted in stable freshwater usage and improved the supply of water to the broader Northern Cape region for beneficial use. This is critical because, as we know, the Northern Cape is a water-scarce area. Our total energy consumption decreased by 16%, and GHG emissions were 12% lower, primarily due to reduced waste mining. We continue to make a positive contribution to society by building thriving host communities. Our priority in the first half was providing support to employees and suppliers who are impacted by our reconfiguration process. Job application and interview preparation training were provided alongside counseling, financial, as well as legal advice. Through our ongoing impact catalyst and Zimele initiatives, we continue to support health, education, and livelihood programs in our local communities. In the first half, we facilitated 1,748 employment opportunities across a number of sectors outside of the mining industry, such as agriculture, manufacturing, as well as tourism. Through our corporate and social investment, we delivered phase two of our education program, and that includes the school education as well as early childhood development program. This benefited around 11,088 learners, as well as 394 teachers. As a trusted corporate leader, we advocate for continued transformation and ethical value chains. Kumba's broad-based economic empowerment accreditation has improved to level five. This is from level six in 2023 and level seven in 2022. It's significant progress over a span of two years. In terms of ethical value chains, we are also pleased that Kumba is the first iron ore producer in Africa to achieve the IRMA 75 level of performance audit, providing our stakeholders with a way of accounting for sustainability practices that is transparent, verifiable, and comparable. In addition, by offering a tool such as ValueTrack from our marketing teams, our customers have greater transparency and verifiable sustainability assurance. Next, we'll take a look at the value created for our stakeholders since the start of the year. Despite our cost optimization imperative, we contributed ZAR 27.7 billion of enduring shared value. BEE supplier spend amounted to ZAR 8 billion, including ZAR 1.9 billion of goods and services procured from local host community suppliers. In right-sizing our business to align with Transnet's challenging performance, the number of our employees and contractors, as we've said, were certainly reduced. As I mentioned earlier, we are offering support through our employee assistance programs and our social response plan to limit the impact. We are returning ZAR 8 billion in dividends to our shareholders, including to the Community Development Trust, as well as our own employees. Our contribution to the government fiscus totaled ZAR 4.3 billion in income taxes and royalties. We invested ZAR 3.7 billion in capital expenditure as a further demonstration of our commitment to the Northern Cape region, as well as South Africa as a whole. Now, I will take you through our operational performance. Our operational performance reflects a strong focus on operational excellence and good momentum on cost optimization. As planned, waste mining and production were reduced to match Transnet's challenging logistics performance. Most of the reduction was driven by Kolomela in line with our guidance, while Sishen's production increased by 3%. Given significant port equipment challenges, sales volumes decreased by 5% to 18.1 million tons. This gave us, I wish it was billion, by the way. This gave us little room to draw down our finished stock levels. As a result, finished stock increased to 8.2 million tons, with the majority of that stock being situated at the mines. Clearly, this is not where we want to be. We are working hard with Transnet, the All Users Forum, as well as the National Logistics Crisis Committee to improve the logistics performance. I will touch on this in a little bit more detail later. On the next slide, we'll take a closer look at our mine and cost optimization, which is a proof point for our reconfiguration process. Our commitment to operational excellence is helping to lower our cost profile and ensure that our business can withstand the impact of Transnet's logistics underperformance while maintaining healthy buffers and optimal levels of finished stock. This extends across our operations, starting with mine optimization, where Sishen and Kolomela are being managed as an integrated mining complex to maximize value, while maintaining optionality to respond to logistics performance. By optimizing pit designs, we reduced waste volumes by 21% as we aligned mining volumes to current logistics capacity. By right-sizing our mining fleet, we improved our operating time by 25%. Our optimized plan translated into savings of ZAR 1.2 billion in the first half. Operational efficiencies through improved operating time and productivity gains reduced costs by ZAR 0.2 billion. Another ZAR 0.3 billion was cut by improving our sourcing model and the use of consumables. Our sourcing workstream focuses on supply chain initiatives as well as working capital management. All these together, with a simplified and more streamlined organizational structure, helped to deliver savings of ZAR 1.8 billion in the first half. This is more than halfway towards our full year savings target of between ZAR 2.5 billion to ZAR 3 billion. Now, turning to Transnet's logistics performance. Over the last few years, the decline in logistics performance has certainly challenged our business. We have proactively sought ways to mitigate this impact by optimizing our operating model as well as collaborating with Transnet, the All Users Forum, as well as the National Logistics Crisis Committee to improve logistics performance. However, as we know, the poor performance, especially on rail in the first half, impacted our sales. In the first quarter, sales fell by 9% compared to the fourth quarter of 2023. During April, Kumba, together with our AUF partners, assisted Transnet with the repairs on a stacker reclaimer at Saldanha. This was followed by a five-day proactive, I have to say, mini shut of both the port and rail. Improvements made as a result of the stacker reclaimer repairs, coupled with work performed during the proactive mini shut, translated into a 12% increase in sales in the second quarter. Unfortunately, we did not see the same performance uplift on rail post the mini shut. This does, however, demonstrate the powerful impact of partnerships and the difference that this can make when it comes to logistics performance. In the second half, our priority is supporting Transnet as it prepares for its annual maintenance shutdown, which will take place at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Before then, we expect the independent technical assessment to be completed in the third quarter. You'll recall that we have been talking about this for some time now. The assessment aims to expedite delivery of critical projects through mutual collaboration between the All Users Forum as well as Transnet. We also welcome the multi-party government's commitment to continue the logistics reform under the leadership of the presidency as well as National Treasury. Their Operation Vulindlela process is driving government and business collaboration, where both practical interventions and the reforms to freight logistics policy are taking shape. These reforms support private sector participation and investment to improve our logistics network. We are also encouraged by the commitment from government that there will be an increased emphasis on implementation and delivery when it comes to the policy reforms. I will now hand over to Bothwell, who will take us through the financials. Thank you, Mpumi. Good morning to everyone. Thank you for joining us. You've just heard Mpumi speaking of the good progress we're making with the reconfiguration of our business and the work we have done to reduce the costs. We can see the benefit of this in an improved C1 unit cost, which is now below $39 per ton. Our average realized FOB price of $97 per ton was 8% lower than the comparative period. This was as iron ore prices remained range-bound and our premium was negatively affected by timing effects. I'm going to elaborate on this in the next few slides. Despite the lower pricing environment, the progress we have made in reducing costs has protected our EBITDA margin at 44%. Our break-even price, which includes all-in costs and sustaining business capital, net of premiums, was $76 per ton. This was again impacted by timing effects as well as higher freight rates. Headline earnings were ZAR 27.27 per share. On the back of our financial performance, the board has declared an interim dividend of ZAR 18.70 per share. Let me take a closer look at the market environment. Since early 2022, iron ore prices have averaged in a tight range of around $120 per ton. In the first half, the benchmark price averaged $118 per ton. Strong steel exports from China offset soft domestic demand on the back of weak property markets. This meant that year-on-year crude steel production decreased by 1%. Narrow mill margins in the first quarter forced mills to lower their capacity utilization levels. Since then, we have seen an improvement in margins, resulting in increased steel output. Iron ore supply from traditional and non-traditional sources increased due to less weather disruptions in the first half. Notably, Ukraine exports have more than doubled with the recovery of the Black Sea shipping route. From below $0.05/ton in April, lump premium recovered to about $0.20 and is currently supported by relatively low stock levels at Chinese ports. Let me turn to our product quality and customer strategy. Now, this is a familiar slide to you. Kumba's qualities are second to none, and we pursue a diversified sales strategy that maximizes the value of our products. However, in the first half, the share of China in total sales rose to 55%, reflecting a drop in demand from our traditional markets like Europe, Japan, and South Korea. As economic conditions improve, we expect this trend to improve within our long-term target of 45%-55% of our volume going to non-China markets. The chart on the top right shows the premium we achieved on top of the equivalent Platts FOB index. This year, the premium has reduced to near break-even levels due to less favorable timing effects. Let me break this down for you. Kumba's product FE was 64.1%, which is above the Platts 62 index. This earned us a $5 premium. Our lump-to-fine ratio was 64%, adding another $5 to the overall quality premium of $10. And our ability to place products outside China and negotiate margins boosted our premiums by another $3 per ton. But the timing effects resulted in a negative $12 per ton. And this is broken down into two. $8 were attributable to products being priced one month after arrival in China. Now, in a falling iron ore environment, this acts against us, but it can also reverse when prices begin to rise. $4 was due to provisional pricing effects for unpriced sales late last year. Overall, we achieved an average FOB export iron ore price of $97 per wet metric ton. While our realized price is now similar to Australian peers like Rio Tinto and BHP, it is important to note that they benefit from being much closer to China, not just from lower freight costs, but also because negative timing effects would have been far less severe due to the much shorter sailing time for them. Turning to our EBITDA performance, iron ore prices remain the most significant driver of our EBITDA. As a result, lower prices and sales volumes were a drag on our earnings in the first half. I'm pleased to say that we are making good progress in reducing our unit costs, and this has provided a partial offset to the price and volume decline. We saw a decrease in operating expenses on the back of our reconfiguration plan and our cost out programs. This is providing a welcome buffer against cost inflation. Let me unpack cost in a bit more detail on the next slide. The progress made in cost optimization is clear, especially when we look at our unit costs. Sishen's unit costs decreased by more than 8% to ZAR 539 per ton, while Kolomela's unit costs improved by 12% to ZAR 425 per ton. Mpumi spoke of the three primary areas contributing to our cost optimization of ZAR 1.8 billion in the first half. These are optimized mine plan, better operating efficiencies, and improved sourcing and use of consumables. The 20% reduction in waste mining has allowed us to optimize the use of our mining equipment. We've parked some gear, and we've increased our operating efficiencies. This has had a positive knock-on effect on our maintenance bill and allowed us to optimize the use of key inputs such as diesel and tires. Our work to improve the way we source key products has seen us containing cost inflation at 5% at both our mines, and this is in line with CPI for the period under review. Increased production, particularly at Sishen, also had a positive impact on unit costs. The positive unit cost impacts were partially offset by a combination of higher drawdown of WIP stockpiles and an increase in deferred stripping capitalization. Altogether, the reduction in our unit costs has translated into an improved C1 unit cost of $38.5 per ton. This positions us well to deliver on our guidance of $38 per ton for the full year. Now, let me turn to capital expenditure. Capital expenditure was ZAR 3.7 billion and was made up of the following. Firstly, expansion capital of ZAR 600 million, mainly due to the completion of Kapstevel South after rephasing of waste stripping from the second half of last year into 2024. We are delighted to report that first ore was mined from Kapstevel in June. Expansion capital will vary as the project pipeline is developed and projects are approved by the board for execution. Secondly, sustaining business capital was ZAR 1.6 billion, and this largely related to capital spares and mining fleet replacements in support of asset integrity and reliability. Our SIB capital requirements are determined on an annual basis through our life of asset and business planning cycles, and they take into account the mining profile that we see going forward. SIB CapEx of ZAR 4 billion-ZAR 5 billion is expected in the medium term. Lastly, deferred waste stripping of ZAR 1.5 billion was driven by Sishen's higher stripping ratio, which was partially offset by lower waste mined at Kolomela. Our CapEx guidance of ZAR 8 billion-ZAR 9 billion for the full year remains unchanged. Now, let me move on to capital allocation. Kumba's balanced and disciplined approach to capital allocation allows us to continue delivering shareholder value. For the period under review, we generated cash of ZAR 12.5 billion after paying for sustaining capital. Guided by a capital allocation framework, ZAR 10.2 billion was used for dividends to shareholders before allocating ZAR 900 million of discretionary capital, which was largely focused on the completion of Kapstevel South. We ended the first six months with net cash of ZAR 14.6 billion. Our dividend policy remains unchanged, and it targets between 50% and 75% of our headline earnings. On the back of our closing liquidity position and after considering future capital requirements, the board has approved an interim cash dividend of ZAR 18.77 per share. This translates to ZAR 6 billion in total, and it's at a payout ratio of 85% of our earnings. As I conclude, the importance of maintaining a flexible yet efficient balance sheet in this dynamic environment cannot be overemphasized. My focus remains on reducing our costs, maximizing value for our products, and sustaining our competitive position. The iron ore market has shown us that we need to build more resilience. Strong free cash flow supports our value-focused approach to capital allocation, and we have a proven track record of maintaining capital discipline through the cycle. Our healthy liquidity position is supported by committed debt facilities of ZAR 16 billion at our disposals, and these have been renewed for another five years. Our efficient balance sheet positions us well to deliver sustainable returns to all our stakeholders. I'm going to hand over to Mpumi for the rest of the presentation. Thank you, Bothwell. The fundamentals for premium iron ore are strong as the pressure on the steel industry to decarbonize increases, with many of the countries that we export to implementing a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. Given that our 64% Fe quality and 64% lump-to-fines ratio offers the ability to reduce carbon emissions by around 15%, the market holds a favorable long-term outlook on high-grade iron ore like ours. Let's take a closer look at why lump is becoming more attractive. Lump supply growth will become increasingly limited as demand increases. Almost all new capacity is likely to come from replacement projects of Rio and BHP in the Pilbara in Australia. As you may know, sinter is the nearest substitute for lump in a blast furnace, but sintering production emits around 250-300 kilograms of CO₂ per ton on average, and that's because coal is an integral part of that process. The middle chart shows sensitivity of sintering costs to CO₂ prices, and the correlation between the two suggests increased support for lump as the world transitions to carbon-light steelmaking production. In the long term, we expect lump premium to trade higher than current levels. We will now take a look at our focus for the second half. Our immediate focus is to safely optimize our operations and meet our cost and production targets. As we know, culture drives strategy, and having highly capable teams ensures the successful delivery on all our strategic priorities. The logistics system is key to our value chain, and supporting the turnaround of Transnet's logistics constraints in partnership with our stakeholders is critical if we are to continue creating shared value. Working together with Transnet to finalize the independent technical assessment, which will identify the work required to ensure the recovery of the logistics system, is a key priority. Equally important, our sustainability initiatives, and these include progressing our renewable energy projects and supporting our mine communities to build self-sustaining livelihoods so they can thrive beyond the life of our mines. That brings me to our full year guidance. Subject to logistics performance, total production of between 35-37 million tons is expected to be made up of an estimated 26 million tons from Sishen and 10 million tons from Kolomela. We have seen a strong uplift in sales performance in the second quarter and have maintained our guidance of between 36 and 38 million tons for sales. Our C1 cost guidance remains at $38 per ton, and as Bothwell mentioned, capital expenditure is expected to remain between ZAR 8 billion and ZAR 9 billion for the full year. Now, before we move to Q&A, I would like to remind you of our value proposition, and we always show you this. Kumba has robust fundamentals and offers sustainable value. At the very core of our business, our premium products have an average 64% Fe content and lump-to-fines ratio of over 66%. This high product quality enables us to participate in green steel premium upside, and we will continue to deliver value-based production while maintaining a relentless focus on the safety and health of all our people. We are committed to unlocking value through the reduction of structural costs, and we are confident of the value that we can deliver through our safe, stable, capable, and cost production now and in the future. I will now hand over back to Penny, who will lead us through the Q&A session. Thank you, Mpumi. We'll now open up for questions first in the room, followed by the conference call line, and then we'll move to the questions sent through on the webcast. Thank you. Hi, thanks. Excuse me. Sorry, it's winter. It's Brian Morgan here, RMB Morgan Stanley. Perhaps if you could just give us an update, a little bit more granularity on the rail performance in the second quarter and into the third quarter. You had the 5-day shut, which was on the rail line, and maybe just give us an update on how you've seen performance in the last couple of weeks and months. Thanks. Thanks, Brian. So, Brian, as you would have seen in the graph, we saw a reduction in performance in the second quarter, and I'll specifically focus on rail. Clearly, part of that was because of the proactive 5-day mini shut, because it means that there were no trains running during that period. But secondly, for the second quarter, we also had a couple of derailments that were caused by sections of the rail track that require a little bit of maintenance. The good thing is that the independent technical assessment that we've been talking about is being finalized. The final report will come out in the third quarter. Clearly, that's the final report, but we started to see the outputs of the work through the various packages that have come out. Working together with Transnet and in the space, specifically Russell Baatjies, who's the CEO of TFR, we have been focusing on identifying critical projects that they need to work on, and he has started planning for the shutdown. So, for example, Russell knows exactly how many ballasts he requires and joggles, which essentially are joint sets to finalize the maintenance. So the key focus area is on making sure that we support Russell and his team as they plan for the shutdown. As I look at the last couple of weeks, and I'm going to exclude the five days, we've seen production stabilizing, but clearly, it's not where we'd like it to be. That's where the essence of finalizing the independent technical assessment and making sure that through mutual collaboration, Transnet is positioned to execute the next shot with the right level of detail is key for us, and that's what we're focusing on. The last thing that I'll say is, I keep saying this, the good thing that I certainly like is the fact that when it comes to the new Transnet leadership, they are transparent. We look at the outputs of the independent technical assessment together. They don't sort of look at the results and screen them and only show us something that's been screened. We see it together, and as a result, we can therefore help them as they plan for the future. That's great. Thank you. Can I move on to Kolomela? Life of mine's looking quite short, 10 or 11 years. Could you just chat to us a little bit about that, Ploegfontein, when it might be added into reserves and what that might mean for life of mine? Yeah, and I like that. So we've always said that when it comes to the side of Kolomela, we've spoken about the essence of the art of the possibility when it comes to the likes of Ploegfontein, which is a little bit ahead, and the likes of Heuningkranz. But as we've always said, we typically do work similar to what we did for Kapstevel South, and we'd only bring that through once we finalize that work at a feasibility study level as a project. So we'll continue working on this similar to what we did with Kapstevel South, but we'll only talk about the detail of it as we finalize the essence of what it is that the overall project, be it Ploegfontein or Heuningkranz in future, will actually look like. But the good thing is that, so I always go back to the resource, because the first question is always, is there something in the ground? And then it's figuring out the essence of what that could look like, and that's what our technical teams look at. And then it's about developing that into a project before we bring it forward. But when you get a tick on the first one, at least you can then progress through the various other steps. Mpumelelo from Absa Capital, I just got one question. If I could get more color on the technical hub in Northern Cape, is that responding to Transnet or is that in terms of the business reconfiguration? Thank you. Thanks, Mpumi. And actually, I forgot to mention this earlier. I'm super proud of my team, and I've got a couple of them here, and also new members of my team that you'll meet over time. And the senior general manager of that hub is actually also here. This is the hub that will offer services to our business. So things such as human resources, finance, some of the technical skills as we look at mine planning, et cetera, will be centered at the hub, and they'll service both Sishen and Kolomela. And there's good progress that's been made, and Andre Roux, who is actually going to lead this, is well set up to drive that. And I look at track record from a delivery perspective, and clearly, history tells us about somebody's track record, and he's well set up to deliver going forward. Thlohelo Bhela from Nedbank CIB. I think my questions are around cost savings, so Bothwell, this one's for you. With regards to cost saving, we saw that you guys were tracking ahead of your guidance. The question is, were they front-loaded, or should we expect the run rate that you have achieved in the first half to continue? That's the first one. Yeah, thanks for that. Yeah, so we did save about ZAR 1.8 billion in the first half of the year, which is rightly, as you say, ahead of our run rate. We are targeting ZAR 2.5-ZAR 3 billion for the rest of the year. So it's actually good momentum that we've seen in the first half, and we would like to see that continue into the second half. We are still guiding in terms of unit costs at Sishen and Kolomela, and C1 unit costs the same as we guided at the beginning of the year. But we are certainly going to continue in terms of our drive from a cost savings perspective. I think in this environment, you can never, I guess, stand still. You've got to continue looking for savings as you go through, and we'll continue to do that. I've always said our break-even price, if you take out the impacts, the timing effects that we've seen in the first half, is in the lower $60s per ton. We certainly prefer it to be lower than that. I would prefer to see it in the mid-$50s, so we will continue to look for cost savings as we go through. But I think we've done really, really well in terms of what we plan to do from a reconfiguration plan perspective, and we're starting to see those savings coming through. Okay, so another one still related to cost. I think over the past few years, you've done the Tswelelopele program where you were able to save, I think, close to ZAR 6 billion in cost savings. How is it that mining companies, especially when they are against the wall, are still able to sort of pick up some other things and be able to have more cost savings that you can achieve? And perhaps, why were those not achieved in previous years? Thank you. Yeah, so look, I think what we're trying to do, right, and through Tswelelopele and now with the reconfiguration plan, is not to wait until we are against the wall in terms of, I don't know, prices or what the market is doing. I think what we've done with the reconfiguration plan is to proactively reconfigure our business in line with our logistics reality. And that talks to, I guess, looking for the value sweet spot of our business at the constrained volumes that we are pushing through. But also what we've done is look at our central cost overhead. And what we've said is we need to optimize that and make sure that it's fit for purpose for our business going forward. What that means is once you've reduced your fixed cost overhead, so even if you were to expand, if logistics improve, your fixed costs are now optimized. And what you will see perhaps is an increase in your variable costs, but not your fixed cost overhead. So this positions us well for the future. The other thing we've done as well is you'll see a big element of our cost savings is around efficiencies, so optimizing the way we use our gear. And once you embed that in the system, again, even when the volumes return and you have to increase your volumes, you're still doing it at more efficient productivity levels and efficient use of your equipment. So again, you position yourself well for the future. So what I'm saying is we've positioned our business well going forward, and we're doing it in a situation where we're not against the wall. And by reducing our break-even price, if the I don't know price then comes down, we won't have to react. There'll be no knee-jerk reactions because we've already set up our business well for the future. Bothwell, if you don't mind, let me add to that, Tawella. The key around the reconfiguration is that we retain the optionality as well. That's absolutely key because clearly we've always said that working in collaboration with Transnet or All Users Forum and the NLCC, we don't expect the turnaround to happen in a short period of time because we understand the extent of the work that needs to be done. When it does come, we actually want to make sure that we would have retained the optionality to still benefit from that. The last one from my side is I have to say that the question that says, why do people wait? We actually challenge ourselves with another question, a slightly different question. For us, it's we expect ourselves as a business to continuously improve. It will never be enough. We have to continue pushing ourselves. That's what operational excellence is all about. The full extent of the first pillar of our strategy of unlocking the full potential of the core means continuously pushing ourselves and saying to our teams, is there more value that we can still drive? I actually quite like the fact that our teams respond positively because they all manage different parts of the business, and having the collective strength of the Kumba team allows us to continuously improve that. Thank you. It's Tim Clark from SBG Securities. Let me start off with my first question. Just on this $12 adjustment, I think I've got my head around the $4 per ton provisional pricing where you had material that was priced in December, and when receipt came through, the prices were low. So I've kind of got my head around that one. The $8 I find a little harder to get my head around the China M+1. And I wonder if you could just try and give us a little bit more sort of practical color on how that eventuates how you end up with that flowing through. Sort of when was that material priced, and therefore how was the adjustment done? Because this is a continual flow, right? So it's like a river flowing. How do we end up with these rapids in the river? Timo, who's going to take that? Okay. If I can have a microphone. There's one, yeah. Okay. All right. So Tim, I thought the question was never going to come, so thanks for that. Okay, so the $4 makes sense. The $8 I think also makes sense because all of our ore is priced on an M+2 basis. So that 2-month lag effect applies to all the sales. And if you look at the way that price has developed in the first half, although the average is $118, we actually ended up with a much lower price at the period end than where we started. So that's how this is flowing through, okay? Now, there's a little bit more in this because there's also an effect on the freight side as well, but that's a tiny effect incorporated in that $8. This can swing very, very quickly, though, right? As a reminder, last year at this time, we were reporting a negative price impact of $5 a ton, and we ended the year with a positive price impact, a timing effect for the year as a whole. Also, keep in mind that we are reporting over just a six-month period, so any effect that you see might be exacerbated because of the relatively low volume that we're looking at for just the six-month period. If the prices were to go sideways from this point onwards, then we should see a very significant dilution effect on this because by year-end, our volumes would have doubled. That $4 that we're reporting would have become a $2 effect. The $12 that we've been reporting would have become a $6 effect, just like that because of dilution. And that's if prices move sideways, right? I'm not saying that they move sideways necessarily, but that just goes to show the volatility that you see in that timing effect. Longer term, over the very long term, you expect it to be zero, right? As I've always said. So yeah, if you just look at the $12, it's a little bit higher than intuitively you might expect, but actually, if you dig into the detail, it's exactly that $12. Okay, I'll run through the numbers. I mean, a number of investors I speak to who have run that M+2, we try to replicate that, but it did surprise us negatively in terms of the overall impact, so hence the question. Timo, while you're there, it's always very useful for us to hear from you on what's happening on the market. And particularly, we've seen recent lump prices increasing, I think. The average for the period you noted is flat, but the mark-to-market looks quite positive, and then also grade premiums rising. Now, the question I've got is, it seems a little bit odd with negative margins. You showed a nice margins chart on negative steel margins, and those margins have been relatively poor. So it does seem a bit strange that lump and quality is coming through. We have various reasons for it, but we're very interested to hear from the coalface as such as to what you think the dynamic is and what the outlook for the next six months is. All right, the iron ore face will speak. So on lump, let's start with lump. We've seen a bit of an improvement lately. You're absolutely right. Over the period as a whole, it's flat compared to last year. We've seen an improvement now. It's now sitting at $0.18. It's climbed as high as $0.20. Why is that? The correlation that I'm looking for is between the lump premium and the stocks of lump in the Chinese ports. Those stocks have actually depleted quite nicely and are sitting at about 11%-12% of overall stock that is sitting in Chinese ports. That's on the low side. So as soon as you see that drop, it's an indication that lump is being consumed. So there's a direct correlation there. As Mpumi illustrated, longer term, we're actually very, very positive on lump because we are going to see the CO₂ benefits flow through into the lump premium. And exactly as Mpumi explained, if you replace sinter, you replace 250-300 kg of CO₂, depending on your assumption for the price of CO₂. That's obviously going to have a positive impact on lump. Not all of that benefit is going to flow through into the lump premium because although you avoid the CO₂ emissions associated with sintering, you are going to pick up a little bit of a CO₂ penalty from using lump in the blast furnace. So you've got to take a net effect and can't just simply add that full 250-300 kg benefit onto the lump premium. Where do we expect it in the second half of the year? This CO₂ effect is a longer-term effect, so don't expect the premium to pick up from this level. In fact, probably trading around this level or even slightly down, that other effect that Mpumi is speaking about where demand for lump continues to grow, but supply will only start dropping off in a couple of years when we need replacement projects. I mean, that's where we would expect the positive boost for lump to come in, not just yet in the second half. Then on the grade premia, yeah, we have seen the 62, 65 come back quite nicely. For much of the first half, it was actually below the 10%-20% range that I always speak about. It was 8%-9% of the 62 index. It's now sitting at about 14%-15%. Actually today, it's 16%. Why is that? Mill margins in China have improved lately. They are not at very healthy levels, but they're certainly better than they were earlier in the year, so that's helping. Secondly, what's helping is the stocks of IOCJ, Carajas fines material that's sitting in Chinese ports. That's relatively low, and that is definitely having a positive impact on that 65 index. So those two factors combined, I think, is what's behind the pickup in that differential. It's not alumina. We've heard someone say that it's a lot of high alumina content in low grade. I mean, that'll contribute also. Globally, the supply of low alumina products is coming down. Of course, the depletion of Yandi has a big role to play there. That is also supportive, but I don't think that's the main effect, what we're seeing now. Thank you, Timo. Sorry, my last question is just on your UHDMS. I fully appreciate you don't want to be doing a project when you're reconfiguring and you're reorienting and you're setting the cost scenario. You've obviously spent a long time planning and developing the plans for your UHDMS, and there is a significant potential benefit from your UHDMS. When does it become a go, no go, or when do you think you're going to get towards a project approval kind of? When are we at stability levels where you want to go ahead with this and greenlight it? Yeah, thanks, Tim. So I've always maintained that the UHDMS as a project is absolutely critical. It's fantastic technology, and it's very rare that you find technology that gets you quite a few ticks. So reduction in terms of the amount of tons that we mine from a waste perspective, uplift in terms of the amount of premium products that we'll produce. And clearly, it's got a benefit when it comes to our unit cost as well. So the reason why we paused the project is because, as we've said before, it is a brownfield project. And we realized when we started with construction that our level of engineering design was not where it needed to be. And clearly, during this time, our project team has focused on improving that. So we have been doing the work, call it in parallel, to make sure that we put ourselves in a better position. What didn't make sense was us essentially trying to do two things at the same time. So reconfiguring our business as well as embarking on a new project because we just needed to pause, review where we are as a business, face the reality in terms of the logistics performance, and make sure that we strip out those costs. But that project still remains, even now, absolutely critical to Kumba. And I've said that we'll certainly come back before the end of the year, and we will come back before the end of the year because even though we've been focusing on reconfiguring the business, we've still stayed very close to the project. So we'll certainly come back. Yeah. Thank you very much, everyone. If we could now maybe go to the conference call to see if there are any questions on the line. Yes, thank you. The first question comes from Ephrem Ravi. Sorry, apologies. Ravi of Citigroup. Please come ahead. Thank you. First question, given the dividend payout ratio was about 85% in the first half, are you still kind of looking at dividends in the range of 50%-75% payout for the full year? And secondly, given the life extension projects that you need to undertake later part of the decade and into 2035, around Kolomela and others, how much net cash buffer do you think is appropriate to kind of keep carrying on for the medium term? And finally, I get a sense that you are holding back on volumes to reduce working capital because of the rail issues, obviously. What kind of impact has that had on cost per ton? I.e., if you are not constrained by rail and port, what would your cost per ton have been? Yeah, sure. Let me start with the dividend question. So our policy remains unchanged, as I said. 50%-75% of our headline earnings is what we target as base dividends. And then what we do, we look at our liquidity position on the balance sheet. And if we have generated excess cash, that's when we declare dividends above that target payout ratio. And we've seen the same now in the first half of this year. If you look at the cash position at the end of the half, so we have benefited, and I'll combine your two questions here. We have benefited from the good work we've done on the working capital side. So you have seen better collection from a debt perspective, and we've seen a drawdown in our WIP stockpiles, and that has benefited our cash position. So if you look at how much cash I've held back at the end of the first half, it's about ZAR 6.6 billion. That also includes about ZAR 2.5 billion of restricted cash that sits in our mining and in our marketing entities. So all in all, it's about ZAR 4 billion that I've held back. But that's to take into account what I see as a timing effect when you compare H1 and H2, both from a cash perspective and the working capital movement. So part of that working capital movement is likely to unwind in the second half of the year. But also, if you look at our capital expenditure, ZAR 3.7 billion for the first half and expecting ZAR 9 billion for the full year, the run rate in the first half is slightly behind that of the full year. So again, we've held some cash back as a result of that. Now, typically, from a buffer perspective, we have gone down over time from holding about ZAR 5 billion of cash on the balance sheet to actually saying we target a net zero cash buffer. And that's because we've got good facilities that we have in place. I talked about the ZAR 18 billion worth of facilities that we have. But also, we continue to see positive cash generation going forward as a business. So as we plan and we look at the dividend cycles and what we declare, we do take into account the long-term capital outlook in terms of how much we declare and how much we hold back, and we continue to do that on an ongoing basis. I think there were three questions in there. I can't remember what the third one was. Yes. What would our cost have been if you are not constrained by rail, i.e., you could produce more and sell more? Yeah. So obviously, there is a natural dilution effect if you can produce and sell more. But what we have done in the reconfiguration of our business is to actually say, let's reconfigure our cost base in line with the reduced volumes. And that's how we've targeted our $38 per ton C1 unit cost. So that's where we are. And if you look at how when we were before we were constrained, we were also in that range of between $35-$40 per ton. So the work we've done is actually in reaction to the fact that we are constrained and targets a similar unit cost to if we were unconstrained. Thank you. Our next question comes from Richard Hatch of Berenberg. Please come ahead. Thanks very much for the call. Much appreciated. Just a couple of questions. The first one is just following up on the UHDMS. I think the last CapEx number that I could see was ZAR 3.6 billion. I just wonder, have you got any kind of steer on what the—and I'll stand corrected if that's wrong—have you got any kind of steer as to potential CapEx for that project at this point, or is it still too early to say? And then the second one is just, I mean, just it seems like the mines are running pretty well. I wonder if you just might be able to just talk a little bit about your fleet availability, optimization, breakdowns, and such like. Are you seeing what you need to see there just to ensure that you're happy that the fleet has got the flexibility to ramp up if you need to? I suspect it has given the fact that you're parking up kit, but just to clarify on that, thanks. Thanks, Richard. On the first one, when we do come back before the end of the year and talk about the UHDMS, we'll provide that update. So not here at the moment. But as I've said, we will come back certainly before the end of the year. And you know the second half is long, so we've still got a little bit of time, and it may actually be sooner and not be at the very end of the year. And then on the second one, the mines are running exceptionally well. So Bothwell showed the improvements that we've seen from a unit cost perspective. But in the earlier slide, I sort of gave an indication that we've seen things such as a 25% improvement in operating time. And that's been driven by a couple of things. So both Sishen and Kolomela have parked up gear. If I look at overall gear, and here I'm going to include our contractor fleet. As we've said, we've sadly had to essentially let go of some of the contractors that were doing some of the load and haul activities for us. Our overall KIT, including the contractor fleet, and please take that, I mean, just take one additional element as you think about that because their gear would typically tend to be smaller. This is just the number of fleet. If I look at the load and haul fleet, most probably our trucks have reduced by over 40% if I take both mines. What we've seen on the other side is we've seen a significant improvement when it comes to things such as equipment availability. If I take, for example, just both the truck fleet at Sishen and Kolomela, it's been interesting because as we've packed up gear, our teams, as Bothwell indicated, have actually had less gear to maintain, which has enabled them to improve on the quality side of the maintenance. And we are seeing the net output of that through improved availabilities. And clearly, on the utilization side, we've seen an improvement. We've also implemented some smart things just around how we use our fleet. And that's how net we've managed to see an improvement of 25% when it comes to operating time. So as I look at both mines, I'm actually very pleased with what I've seen, particularly from the mining side of the business because, as you know, that's where the bulk of our costs sit. But even on the plant side, our teams have really, really been focused on getting back to basics and improving on the fundamentals and linking this back to the question that Thobela asked earlier. We've seen the continuous improvement just on the fundamentals, the basics of how we are driving for operational excellence. So it's actually good. Okay. That's really helpful. Thanks, Anthony. Our next question comes from Alex Opong of Bank of America. Please come ahead. Hey, it's Alex Opong, Bank of America here. Thank you very much for the presentation. Most of my questions have been answered, actually. But perhaps just to follow up on the previous question on Sishen and UHDMS, what are the main factors you consider at the moment in order to advance the project? And could you please remind us if this is a life extension project or more of an upgrading quality of the product given the logistical constraints? Thank you very much. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Alex. So when we paused the project, we paused it because our engineering design, which was sitting at around 30%, was good enough for a greenfield project where you'd be building something from scratch. But it was certainly not good enough if you consider that this is a brownfield project where we are looking at building within an existing plant. So as you think about what we are considering, we have to break what's currently there and then build something new within the same space. And as we do that, for the bulk of the construction, because we've got multiple modules, others would be running, but we'd take one module down. And we saw that we certainly needed to upgrade our engineering designs. And that's the work that, when I was responding to Tim, has actually been done. I'm pleased with the work that's essentially been done on the engineering front, which then enables us to go back and say, how do we explore this optionality going forward, understanding that the essence of the value that the UHDMS brings, as we've said from the word go, is certainly unquestionable. So we've spoken about the fact that if I go back to what we've already shared, the UHDMS will allow us to treat lower-grade materials. So currently, our cut-off grade is around 48% Fe, and the UHDMS will allow us to lower that to 40%. So the treatment of the C-grade material coming out of the pit. And as soon as you do that, it means that you can actually reduce the amount of tons that you move from a waste perspective, which is what will give us the benefit from a unit cost perspective. In addition, what it will do is it will actually give us better premium products. So for me, it's always been the case that it's very rare that you find a project that gets you all the ticks. So better premium products, a reduction in cost, and clearly, there's also the life extension side. So when we do come back, we'll provide an update on all of those. But the key, key, key for me is the technology itself is absolutely fantastic, and it's proven technology. So we've always spoken about the fact that when it comes to the technology front, it's not as if you'd be attracting high levels of risk. So it still remains something that's key. It's just that from a timing issue, yes, even though we were upgrading the engineering designs, to Tim's question earlier, we needed to make sure that we focus on that side of reconfiguring the business because, again, it's another critical part of work, and then come back to the optionality that we've got from a UHDMS perspective. So we're looking forward to updating you before the end of the year on the UHDMS. Sounds great. All clear. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from Ian Rossouw of Barclays. Please come ahead. Thanks. Hi, Tim. Just a couple of follow-ups. Firstly, Mpumi, just around these critical projects with TFR and the report that you said will be available in Q3. You mentioned that you already have an idea what these are, and some of the details have already come from the report, but it won't be a quick fix. Do you mind just giving us a bit more details? I think you mentioned one or two, but I couldn't exactly hear what those were. And just then, perhaps secondly, on funding, I mean, around Transnet's ability to fund these projects. I know there's been mention previously about public sort of private partnerships and some of the, I guess, users funding some of these projects. So just your thoughts on that side. And then Bothwell, maybe just to get a bit more details on the working capital reversal you mentioned that you expect in the second half. Just if you can give us some details on that, please. Yeah, thanks, Ian. I think the first one is I just want to go back to one point. What's critical for me is that with the independent technical assessment, one, it's being done by a credible and independent engineering firm. But secondly, that's a project that's been conducted by both Transnet and the All Users Forum. And we are a member of the All Users Forum. And as I said to Brian earlier, as the work is coming out, because clearly, we haven't really waited up until the finalization of the actual report in Q3, what I like is that the feedback is coming to both of us at the same time, which for us is critical because we have to work like that if we are to essentially drive the collaboration. Some of the things, and they have started coming out, is the need to focus on the rail track itself. So as we look at what Russell Baatjies and his team, and Russell's the CEO of TFR, are focusing on, Russell is already, as part of this maintenance shut, focusing on what it is that he wants to do in terms of the rail track. And the same logic is going to the various areas because, as you'd imagine, there's the track itself, there's the rolling stock that runs on the track, and then there's also the essence of looking at the port because we always look at this as an integrated channel. And then there's also the engineering space, which supports Transnet. So we've started to see some of the outputs. We are certainly looking forward to getting the final report. At the next update, we are looking forward to providing you with more detail. I think for me, the critical thing is the fact that Transnet is not holding back. We are working together with them. I don't take that for granted because it hasn't always been the case, believe it or not. But we know that that allows us to actually drive for greater collaboration. Then on the fixes themselves, it's been the essence of looking at the critical projects that need to be driven in the short term. That's based on the essence of what will give us the quick wins. That's what this is focusing on. There is something that we are looking at from a mutual collaboration perspective to have a look at how best we can aid, help Transnet as they embark on the work because we are clearly mindful of the other challenges that they have. For me, the criticality is the fact that because they are transparent and we are all agreeing on the essence of the critical projects that need to be driven, we can then better assist Transnet in terms of the execution of those projects. And we've seen the value of that when we work together on stacker-reclaimer Number 4, which was a piece of work that was done in April. And then the separate piece, and I know people typically tend to think about them together, but we see it as a slightly separate piece that needs to run in parallel, is the whole essence of private sector participation because that then comes with other possibilities around how one could actually look at the space. As I've said, what we are encouraged by is that certainly from a government perspective, even with the new government that's come in, we're encouraged by the statements that are coming out from the likes of the new Minister of Transport, Minister Barbara Creecy. And we actually are looking forward to working together with her. And there's clearly continuity because we have been working with the various teams. And that includes the team that sits in the presidency because ultimately, they are driving the work around the National Logistics Crisis Committee. I've spoken about this before. The president himself chairs the meetings that take place every six weeks. Clearly, that's looking at the top three priorities for the country. We like the fact that the transport and logistics space is part of the top three priorities because it means that it's getting the right level of focus. Hello? No, thanks. Thanks, Thanks, Mpumi. Yeah, on the working capital, so as I said, concerted effort through the first six months to optimize our working capital because clearly, it is cash that would be locked up. And especially in two areas, the first one being debtors. So a concerted effort to get the cash in early, and you've seen that in the first half. But also, we've had a drawdown in terms of our work-in-progress stockpiles, and that has released some working capital as well. If I fast forward to the second half of the year, we don't expect to see the drawdown in work-in-progress stockpiles to the same extent. In fact, you'll see the strip ratio, especially at Sishen, equalize. It was quite high in the first half, and it will equalize in the second half towards our guided strip ratio of around four for Sishen. So you won't see the same big positive impact from a work in progress perspective. And likewise, from a debtor perspective, quite a concerted effort in June. Part of that unwinds in the second half, but we will continue to look at ways to optimize. So I guess what I'm saying is don't expect the same huge benefit to recur in the second half of the year. Okay. Understood. Thanks, both. That's all from me. Thank you. We have no further questions from the telephone lines. Thank you. Thank you very much. In terms of the webcast, we have very similar questions. Most of them are, again, on the UHDMS, which have been covered to an extent. But I'll just mention these, one being from Myron, where he's asked, what would the lump-to-fines ratio be in 5-7 years' time, taking into account the UHDMS? And then we've had a question from Miles Allsop asking about if you're going to come back towards the end of the year, does that mean UHDMS will be approved? And I think the last, the UHDMS question was also from Myron, where he's asked, what is the reason for the delay, which you have covered, Pumi. Yeah, I think I've covered most of the questions on the UHDMS. All that I'll say again is the technology is sound. It's proven technology. Secondly, the benefits are clear. I spoke about the reason why we just needed to spend a little bit more time on it, which was to update or upgrade the engineering design and make sure that clearly we position ourselves well from a construction perspective. I think what you should read from that is the fact that we'll have to go and get the re-baseline of the project approved prior to coming back and providing an update. The commitment, and we made that commitment actually from the end of last year, is still to come back before the end of this year. Yeah. When we do come back, we'll make sure that we provide a more detailed update on the UHDMS itself, understanding that we are firm believers in the technology and the value that the project will bring. But yes, we'll have to go back for reapproval, and we'll come back post that. Thanks, Mpumi. The other question, your favorite topic is Transnet. From Miles Allsop, what do you like? We know you like to see the rail becoming unconstrained. That's number one. And the other one is more around the construct of the PSP. How will it actually take place? The question seems to be more focused in terms of locomotives and accessing this through limited private operators. Yeah. No, thanks, Miles. So if you look at our guidance, we've guided from a sales perspective at 36-38 million tons for the next three years. And that's because we've always said that when we think about the essence of the maintenance that needs to be done, we don't think that it will essentially be done within a narrower timeframe. And we also believe that we needed to think like that in order to get ourselves as a business to strip at cost, and Bothwell has covered that in more detail. But fundamentally, do we believe that the infrastructure from an iron ore export channel can actually be fixed? Yes. We've seen the previous performance levels, and clearly, doing the independent technical assessment is fundamentally premised that focusing on the work that needs to be done to get back to peak levels. That's what we'll work on over the next couple of years with Transnet. And again, key for us is collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. We figured that one has got to get into a space where there's great partnership between the public and the private sector to drive the turnaround. And that's why we don't take it for granted when Transnet is transparent and able to work with us. On the construct of the PSPs, Miles, it's actually interesting. So if you look at the essence of what's come out from a policy reform space perspective, there's a couple of things that have come out. Firstly, it was the white paper on rail. And that was then followed up towards the end of last year in the fourth quarter of last year by the freight logistics framework, which gives a few, I guess, gives the openness towards the essence of exploring private sector participation. And some people look at third-party operator. Some people look at the actual full concessioning of a line. In our space, what we've always said is that one shouldn't just look at rail on its own or look at the port on its own. We need to look at this as an integrated channel because if one part improves and the other part does not improve, we'll still have challenges. So how we are thinking about the essence of exploring the private sector participation space is certainly fundamentally premised on looking at the whole system as an integrated channel. We are looking forward to engaging clearly government as well as Transnet around the art of the possible around this. Again, what we are positive about is the fact that the policy reforms are opening up to allow for this particular space to be explored. Thanks, Mpumi. I'm just mindful of time, so I'll move to the questions that we haven't covered yet, and maybe we can just split them into sort of two minutes each. The one is also from Miles asking about what would the cost be if Anglo decided to de-emerge Kumba? And then the next question is a different one. It's actually for Timur, so I'll address that separately. I'll take the first one. Miles, what we are excited by, and I need to highlight this, is the fact that Kumba remains part of Anglo American. So you know, and you've heard about the outcome of the portfolio review from an Anglo American perspective and the focus on copper high-quality iron ore and crop nutrients. And there's reasons why we are happy to remain part of the group. I said earlier that I'll only mention one of the parts, and Timo. So Timo, I was smiling when Timo said, "We'd like to hear it from a person who's closer to the ground." We get to benefit from Timo's team around us getting greater access to a solid marketing team. And there's other reasons why we get to benefit by virtue of Kumba being part of the group, especially within the simplified portfolio. What I will say is that certainly we are excited to be in the space that we are in. Thanks, Mpumi. And then if I can move to Timur, the question there is about more of an economic question around China. What is the state of the steel curbs in China? Is the government still pushing hard on this? And like it did two years ago, how much of your product will be going to China in the next two years? And of the new plant capacity in the global steelmaking industry, 67% is EAF capacity. How is the trend impacting your business? Quite a few questions in this space. That's a lot of questions. Okay, where shall I start? Maybe with the EAF capacity. Yeah, I mean, the investments that we've seen, there's a lot of investments in EAF, but blast furnace, the blast furnace route will remain a dominant route for many decades to come, which is where the majority of our product is placed. We are excited, of course, particularly by the emergence of DRI steelmaking and the potential of placing some of our premium quality lump ore in DRI steelmakers as well. But the majority will still continue to go to blast furnaces, and they're going to be around for decades. So not too concerned about that. Your question on the split between China ex-China, our longer-term aim remains around about a 50/50 split. First half of the year, we've seen a slightly higher percentage going to China, 55%, with 45% going ex-China. I think we'll get back to a 50/50 in a not too distant future. And frankly, we may well push slightly above that in years to come as we see the emergence of DR steelmaking, particularly in Europe. But that remains to be seen. I mean, let's stick to a 50/50 for now. And then I think you were asking about steel curbs in China. Look, at the moment over this year, what we're seeing is a little bit of a pullback in steel production in China, more so on the blast furnace side than on the EAF side. So it's actually not been necessary for the government to institute a curbs. I mean, they have happened without the pullback in production has happened without the curbs being implemented. And frankly, we're not hearing too much about that this year. Of course, we are seeing relatively weak demand in China at the moment as the efforts to restart the property market have so far not really given us the benefit that we had expected and certainly hoped. But to compensate for that, China has exported much higher volumes than in the past. We're now sitting at a run rate above 100 million tons, and we would expect that to continue over the next couple of years. So overall steel production in China, I don't expect too much in the form of curbs this year, but I would expect basically a sideways movement in steel production in China, maybe slightly down, but not too much. Thank you very much, Tim Clark. And then maybe one last question is just from Martin Creamer on the update and the renewable energy progress. Thanks for that, Martin. Still remain on track. We've spoken about the 11 megawatts of wind energy that will come through from an Envusa perspective. But we've also spoken about the 67 megawatts of solar PV that's going to come from Sishen. So at a high level, we indicated that we are going to have Envusa constructing on top of one of our existing dams. We've made fantastic progress in terms of rehabilitating the dam in order to allow Envusa to come through and progress with the construction. And we've previously spoken about the fact that our delivery date is before the end of 2025, and that's what we're focusing on. In essence, and maybe let me just add a quick one. Martin, as we've said before, this is overall part of the Envusa plan of the development of the 3-5 GW of energy before the end of 2050. Clearly, even though we're speaking about or we're talking about the solar PV at Sishen, what we would be looking at is hybrid wind coming through at a point in time as part of the phase two projects as well. Thanks, sir. Thank you, Mpumi. Thanks to everyone for joining us today. We really enjoy these engagements and really look forward to seeing you and engaging. Thank you very much. With that, we'd like to invite you to enjoy some refreshments outside, and we will then be progressing with the rest of our schedule for the day. Thank you. Bye-bye.