Good morning, everyone, welcome to Kumba's interim results presentation for 2026. Thank you very much for joining us in the room and on the call today. On behalf of Kumba's executive team, a very warm welcome. I'm Penny Himlok, Head of Investor Relations, and I'm pleased to be joined by CEO, Mpumi Zikalala, and our CFO, Xolani Mbambo. I'm still trying to get that click. Hopefully at annual results we'll get there. Before we get started, just a quick safety note. There are no drills planned for today, so if you do hear an alarm, please take it seriously and please follow the instructions. Head calmly back through the exit through which you came in and make your way to the front of the building where our safety marshals will guide you. For those on the webcast, a quick reminder that you're on listen-only mode, and we'll open for questions on the line after the end of the presentation. Of course, please take note of the disclaimer, especially regarding forward-looking statements. Turning to today's agenda, we'll keep the usual flow. Mpumi and Xolani will walk you through our performance. We'll follow that up with a Q&A, and we also have members of the executive team here with us in the room that'll be available to help address any questions that you may have at the end. Thank you, and I'll now hand over to Mpumi. Thank you, Penny. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for taking the time to join us today. We do appreciate your time as well as your attention. Let me start by setting the context for performance and some of the headlines before I unpack the detail. As you all know, it's been a period with plenty of challenges with the war in Iran, raising energy prices, and importantly for us, diesel, which I'm sure everyone is talking about, as well as other input costs being essentially affected. In terms of macro parameters, while the stronger rand signals welcome investor confidence in South Africa, it did have a detrimental impact on our costs in U.S. dollar terms as well as our revenue as a business. The most disruptive element for us, however, was the extremely heavy rainfall in the Northern Cape. I will put it in context a little bit later because sometimes when people hear heavy rainfall, they think of one thing, but here it was something completely different. Well, I'm very pleased to say that despite those headwinds, we've delivered on the aspect of our performance that we can control, including on our first priority and our first value as a business, which is the safety and health of our people. Our protocols and recovery action plans proved very effective in managing the issues that were created by the rainfall in the Northern Cape. I would also like to just thank our partners, Transnet, as well as the rest of the Ore Users Forum, for helping to deliver a steady performance when it comes to the logistics aspect of our business. There is more to do, but the additional maintenance completed in May went very well. I'll talk about that a little bit later. That leaves us very much well-positioned for performance in the second half. We also made good progress on our UHDMS project. As previously communicated, the main tie-in remains intact, and it will commence in August. Our teams have done the preparation needed to execute it safely and effectively. It remains one of our most significant value opportunities and an important part of Kumba's future. I have to say that overall, the numbers don't do justice when it comes to our performance for the first half, given the various headwinds. I'm also pleased that we go into the second half well set to deliver on our promises, execute on the next phase of the UHDMS, and continue with our capital and cost discipline. Let's get into the results, starting as we always do with safety. Safety, as I said, is our first value, and it's the foundation of everything that we do at Kumba. I'm pleased to say that this year marks more than 10 years of fatality-free production at Sishen and just over three years at Kolomela. Milestones like these reflect the commitment of our teams to making sure that every person that comes into our perimeters goes back home unharmed each and every single day. As our UHDMS project ramped up, there was much more activity, particularly at Sishen. We had more people coming in, as well as more service partners actually coming into the site. Despite that extra activity and risk, we kept our people safe and improved our safety performance, and that comes from years of work to strengthen our safety culture and embed our fatal risk management program. We continued to also invest in the wellbeing of our people, covering both aspects of wellbeing, the mental aspect, as well as the physical wellbeing. Safety and wellness are part of our culture at Kumba, because when our people are safe and well, we are better able to deliver sustainable results. Moving to our business overview. Operationally, the business held up well despite the weather disruptions and plant maintenance on the ore export corridor. That came down to disciplined execution. A continued focus on operational improvement. Sishen delivered a solid half, offset by planned lower production at Kolomela. I'll touch on that a little bit later. Sales were only marginally lower, and that was despite the additional 10 days of maintenance shutdown that was actually executed on the ore export corridor. As I mentioned upfront, the strong exchange rate, as well as higher input costs, meant lower EBITDA and a lower return on capital employed. We declared an interim cash dividend of ZAR 2.5 billion. In addition to this, ZAR 0.5 billion also went to our empowerment partners, and as you know, those include the Sishen Iron Ore Company-Community Development Trust, as well as our employee share ownership scheme, Semela. While earnings were impacted by external headwinds, our dividend reflects our disciplined approach to capital allocation, balancing returns to shareholders with the investment needed to strengthen Kumba's competitiveness and value over the longer term. Moving on to sustainability. At the heart of our business is a simple commitment, that's for us to contribute to a better future for all our stakeholders. This year, we updated our sustainability strategy so that our ambitions and targets remain aligned with our business strategy and the changing external environment. While the targets have been refreshed, our three things remain the same, more details on the updated targets are available on our sustainability report in our website. We continue to create meaningful value for our stakeholders, that includes our contribution to the fiscus, but also the role we play in supporting transformation as well as inclusive participation in the communities around our operations. We are also making good progress on our road to decarbonization. In March this year, Kolomela mine began receiving wheeled renewable electricity. Last week we announced the signing of the Sishen Solar PV energy offtake agreement with Envusa. This is an important step in reducing our scope 2 emissions and supporting our transition to a lower carbon business. All of this work is about delivering sustainable value for our people, our communities, as well as all our stakeholders. Moving on to operational performance. Waste mining rose 4%, that's despite the tough operating conditions, which I will unpack in more detail shortly. As I said earlier, production was lower in the first half, down 3%, we have set up our Jig and Kolomela plants well for delivery in the second half. The 10-day Transnet maintenance shut in May meant that less ore was railed to the port. This also had an impact when it came to our sales. Saldanha Bay port stocks were at optimal levels, putting us in a strong position ahead of the second maintenance shut, which will take place in the fourth quarter of this year. We are confident of achieving our production guidance of between 31 million-33 million tons, which will be supplemented with 4 million tons of finished stock. Essentially, that gap is what will enable us to meet our sales guidance. Taking a closer look at our operational performance. I mentioned earlier the rainfall that we had. Let me just give you a sense when it comes to the scale of what we saw. The heavy rain started in the first quarter, that's as always, for the Northern Cape Province, it actually continued to the second quarter, which is very unusual for the Northern Cape Province. Rainfall in April and early May was the highest on record, ever recorded for Sishen since 1963. For Kolomela, it was the highest on record ever recorded since 1918, that's per our records. As you can imagine, this resulted in flooding across the entire region and also flooding at our operations as well. This coupled with equipment availability and reliability challenges, did impact our waste mining. I am incredibly proud of our teams. Not only for keeping our people safe during the flooding, but also for the way they executed on our recovery plans. We improved our dewatering capacity and drainage infrastructure so that we can better manage heavy and persistent rainfall in the future. We also increased maintenance of our heavy mobile equipment fleet, improving availability and reliability. As a result, waste mining ended the first half 4% higher. Operational momentum is building, the measures we put in place in the second quarter should continue to improve operational efficiency as we move into the second half of this year. Moving to production. We are really seeing the benefits of the maintenance work that we did at Sishen when it came to both our DMS as well as Jig plants late last year. Sishen's production increased by 3%. This was, however, offset by planned lower production at Kolomela as we drew down our high stock levels in the first quarter and undertook plant maintenance in the second quarter. As a result, our total production decreased by 3%. Looking ahead to the second half of the year, Sishen's production will be lower as we go ahead with the UHDMS main tie-in, which means that our DMS plant will be shut and we'll be operating our Jig plant at Sishen. At Kolomela, production will continue at current levels, and we are on track to meeting our production guidance. Now turning to logistics performance. As I said, Transnet successfully completed its planned 10-day maintenance shut in May, which enabled important work across the entire ore export channel. This was in addition to the annual logistics maintenance that is still planned for the second quarter of this year, or for the fourth quarter of this year. As expected, the shut had an impact on volumes railed to the port, which were 2% lower relative to the same period last year, and sales were also marginally lower. That said, we are encouraged to see rail performance stabilizing. This reflects the continued collaboration between the Ore Users Forum, and as you know, Kumba is part of the Ore Users Forum, and Transnet, which means maintenance can be planned and executed more efficiently, and we should continue to see steady growth going forward. Importantly, the maintenance work completed during the period has also strengthened the network. Some 101 km of rail was replaced when it came to the track, and this allowed for speed restrictions to be lifted on 26 km of the ore export channel. At the Saldanha Bay Port of Saldanha, critical port equipment was refurbished and also, very excitingly, Trippler 3 was cold commissioned, and the commissioning of Trippler 3 will enable better throughput rates in the second half of this year. While the maintenance shut certainly had a short-term impact on our sales, it was an important step in supporting more reliable logistics performance over time. Policy reforms in the logistics sector are also continuing, and we are keeping a very close eye on this. At a strategic level, Kumba and its OUF partners continue to advocate for the release of the request for proposal and for the OEC or the ore export channel to remain a key priority corridor. I will now hand over to Xolani, who will take us through the numbers. Thank you, Mpumi, and good morning, everyone. Our financial performance this half was shaped by essentially four factors. The first one was the stronger rand, and Mpumi has touched on that. Was a softer iron ore price. You'd have seen in our numbers that we came in at $90 this year, realized price versus $91 last year. Thirdly, we experienced inflation cost increases in key mining costs. You'd have seen we all experienced the diesel impact that we're currently seeing as a result of conflict in the Gulf. Lastly, the marginally lower sales volume. You'd have seen a 1% drop in our sales volume as a result of the maintenance work that happened in the Transnet. With that, let me turn to the markets. We saw that the iron ore price averaged $106 per ton during the first half as freight costs rose sharply due to the Middle East conflict. This lifted our CFR pricing. In fact, if you do a net back on FOB, you'll see that last year we had $101 per ton on FOB pricing and this year In fact, the CFR was $101 and this year was $106. If you take the shipping into account and the uplift from $15 per ton to $22 per ton, you'd see that the FOB net back is actually $1 lower than last year, $83 per ton this year. That had an impact in terms of the dollar price that we actually realized. The rally was lost. That momentum was lost at the second quarter of this year as the geopolitical situation eased, that lowered our risk premium. We saw that there was a bit of a return to normalcy, but it was short-lived, that momentum was lost. The prices for the remainder of the year will be driven by a combination of market fundamentals and the evolving geopolitical situation. If you look at the lump and high-grade premium, that is well supported. Having recovered from severe lows at the start of the year, at some stage at the start of the year, we were sitting at $0.0250 per dmtu. That has now since improved. The lump stock at Chinese ports have fallen to a near 12-month low, signaling a constructive outlook for the lump premium in the second half of this year. Let's look at our commercial performance this first half. Our product portfolio achieved an average Fe content of 63.6%. We maintained a high lump to fines ratio of 66%, which is good. These quality attributes remain among the strongest in the seaborne market. Our share of sales into premium market outside China increased from 42% in the first half of 2025 to 47% this half. You'll recall that outside China, we are able to fetch good premium, particularly on the lump, as well as to an extent on the Fe. This reflects strong original demand dynamics from improving steel production in Japan, in South Korea, as well as Europe. As a result, we actually achieved an overall price premium of $7 per ton. Even though it's lower than last year, if you compare to our peers, we are $7 per ton higher, which is positive for us. Let's turn to our financial results. I think that's what matters. I've touched on realized prices, which was $90 per ton, down $1 in the first half of 2025, and that contributed to the price variance that you see on the chart. Is it moving? The strong rand, on average, against the dollar impacted us on both sides. It actually reduced our rand-denominated revenue and inflated our dollar-reported C1 costs. This resulted in lower EBITDA when compared to the prior period, impacting our margins. I'll unpack the key drivers shortly. Despite these impacts, we generated headline earnings per share of ZAR 8.24. In line with our 50%-75% of headline earnings payout policy, we declared a dividend of ZAR 7.90 per share, and Mpumi touched on that earlier. This represents a payout ratio of 60%, which is only marginally below the midpoint of the range, while retaining flexibility given the continued volatility in the operating environment. Let's take a closer look at our EBITDA, which is the slide I was rushing to. Apologies. External factors reduced EBITDA by 30%, accounting for more than 90% of the total ZAR 5.1 billion impact. You'll see we're almost at ZAR 16 billion last year, and we ended at ZAR 10.9 billion. If you look at that chart, the prior period benefited from one-off uplift, which was included in the other income, and it related to compensation for rail logistics underperformance. That is the ZAR 942 million that you see there. Between the currency and price, that is actually about ZAR 4 billion of the ZAR 5.1 billion. We also had CPI, which is a normal increase. Added to that was a cost escalation on input costs, particularly on diesel and explosives, which impacted EBITDA by ZAR 765 million and reflecting the negative effects of geopolitical instability. Our royalties declined, and that's in line with the level of profitability that we achieved in the first half. Higher freight rates contributed positively to our EBITDA, though, through higher shipping revenue because we run shipping for some of our customers. Internal factors had a modest 2% EBITDA impact, mainly due to lower sales volume, with operating expenses only up ZAR 32 million. Well controlled. If you look at the positive stock movement, it largely offset the additional cost of mining ore that remained unprocessed at half year, as we were recovering from the rains in the second half of the year. Sorry, in the second half of the first half, second quarter. This resulted in a marginal ZAR 27 million decrease in EBITDA. Looking ahead, our cost-out initiatives and operational efficiency drive will help mitigate the risk of further cost escalation in a volatile geopolitical environment. Next is our on-mine unit cash cost. The good news here is that Sishen unit cash cost improved to ZAR 549 per ton, which reflects the benefit of stock movement and higher production. It remained well within the guidance, and that's good news. Kolomela's unit cash cost of ZAR 124 per ton actually outperformed its guidance, and that is despite the lower production. Our forecast remains on maximizing value from every ZAR that we spend and converting volumes into cash flow. Let's look at our CapEx. Our capital expenditure for the first half totaled ZAR 5.2 billion. ZAR 1.4 billion of that was up on 2025 H1. If you look at 2025, we were ZAR 1.4 billion below. This places first half spend below the midpoint of our full-year CapEx guidance of between ZAR 13.2 billion and ZAR 14.2 billion. Of course, if you take 5.2 and you multiply by two, you get actually below the range. We expect an uplift in the rand rate in the second half, but we will be within our guidance. Deferred weight stripping was mainly driven by a higher stripping ratio at Kapstevel South at Kolomela, increasing the capitalized deferred stripping spend by up to ZAR 200 million. The baseline stay in business, which is brick and mortar, at ZAR 1.3 billion, was in line with the first half of 2025, whilst ZAR 500 million of fleet replacement program commenced this year, as we noted in our last results. We spent ZAR 1.3 billion in UHDMS project against ZAR 300 million last year as we ramped up the project this year. As a reminder, the UHDMS spend this year will peak, and Mpumi will provide an update on progress of this flagship project shortly. In the medium term, stay in business, fleet replacement, and debt stripping CapEx remain broadly stable, whilst UHDMS CapEx decelerates from next year onwards up to the completion in 2029. Let's look at our capital allocation. Our disciplined approach to capital allocation remains unchanged. From a starting net cash position of ZAR 14.9 billion, we generated ZAR 9.9 billion of cash from our operations. Of this, ZAR 4.9 billion was allocated to sustaining capital, covering stay in business and fleet replacement, as I indicated earlier. We paid the 2025 final dividend of ZAR 6.5 billion to the shareholders and funded ZAR 1.3 billion of UHDMS project spend. After declaring an interim dividend of ZAR 2.5 billion, we retain a national cash balance of ZAR 8.7 billion. Careful balance sheet management remains vital as we navigate market and operational volatility while sustaining a predictable dividend payout. Thank you for your time. Now back to you, Mpumi. Thank you, Xolani. I have to say, I heard your comment when you said the most important part is the financial results. They are very important. I do hope that other parts are also important. Before we wrap up, let me look ahead, starting with our Full Potential programme. Full Potential is how we unlock the next phase of value at Kumba. It's an operational excellence program. From the initial scoping work that's been done, I believe that we have significant opportunities to build on from our current stable base, which has already been established. Our focus is very simple. Firstly, lower C1 and stay-in-business costs. Secondly, improve our overall equipment effectiveness. As a result, step up the run rate cash flow of the business. Last but definitely not least, improve returns from our CapEx program, and that includes our current project, the UHDMS project. While the primary focus is on mine performance, the program covers the full value chain, including our plants as well as supply chain. This will be a multi-year journey, and we will look to set up and embed changes into meaningful run rate performance improvement. We have already identified 28 initiatives within these four areas of buckets that you can see on the slide, and we should start to see some of the early gains starting to come through as early as the second half of this year. Whilst we are busy with the diagnostics, which started with the first phase, which was high level, followed by the deep dives, we are already starting to implement because some of the elements are actually just quick wins for us as a business. Let me give you just one example in the mine and plant productivity space. Our truck fleet is our largest capital asset, and changing our mine traffic procedures could lead to a 10% improvement in our haulage cycle time. This would increase the volume throughput, or in a constrained rail scenario, this would reduce the number of trucks required and, as a result, have an impact on costs. That's one of our early focus areas, and there will be a number of other initiatives that we will continue working on. I have to say that I'm looking forward to telling you more about this as we move forward. Within the volume lever, as we work with our logistics partners, there is a next phase of upside that we could also unlock if we can actually get back to contractual run rates from a logistics perspective. I will leave it at that for now, but as I said, I look further to giving you additional updates as we continue at the end of the year. Now, let me give you an update on the progress made on our UHDMS project. As we've said before, UHDMS is a transformational project for Kumba, with the potential to reshape the future of Sishen and create significant long-term value for our stakeholders. The project is now approximately 45% complete, with 96% of all detailed engineering work behind us. By the end of this year, over 75% of the steel will have been completed from an installation perspective, and the balance of that will be concluded by 2028, as we've previously said. Importantly, all major procurement has been completed for the project, and we have had no supply chain disruptions due to tensions in the Middle East. Construction of the first coarse and fines modules took longer than planned as we were constructing within an existing plant, as we've always said. However, as we previously said, we have applied the learnings from the construction of those modules into the next phase, and we are already seeing a significantly faster pace of construction when it comes to our next set of modules. To put this in context, just in terms of the step change that we are seeing from a construction execution perspective, I'm not just talking about a couple of days or a couple of weeks. I am talking about a couple of months, which is significant for us. As we said when we started with the project, we set the modular approach from a construction perspective will actually allow us to learn from the construction of the first couple of modules and implement the learnings into the schedule going forward. The main tie-in remains on track to start in August. Pre-shutdown mechanical and electrical works are on schedule. We have also installed pre-assembled structures ahead of the time. Zooming in to the slide, I apologize to those online, I did just want to put it in context in terms of pictures. On the right-hand side of the slide, you can see the full scope of the UH DMS project, which is ultimately about converting the current technology that sits within our current coarse drum plant, as well as our fines plant into UH DMS technology. You will also see from the numbering on the slide that the full scope includes other sections which are part of the materials handling of the overall DMS plant. The full extent of the area where construction is taking place is within an area of 1 km by 0.35 km, if you just look at the full extent of this. I'd now like to share a couple of interesting facts. The full electrical cabling that is going into this construction over the life of the project is 460 km. 460 km is just over halfway if we look at the distance between Sishen and the Saldanha Bay Port. As you can imagine, lots and lots and lots of cabling. If you look at the overall steel construction, that will essentially be done by the end of the project. It will be over 4,000 tons of steel. As I said, over 75% of this will actually be installed by the end of this year with the conclusion of the modules and the main tie-in, which is the main materials handling element. This conversion enables mining and processing of C-grade material, increasing our premium product portfolio, as well as realizing the Full Potential of Sishen. Moving on to the next slide, I'm very excited to be sharing just a couple of the work that we are doing with you. Firstly, I'd like to zoom in to the coarse DMS plant. This picture shows the full extent of the coarse DMS plant. It has got eight modules, moving from module 735 all the way to module 743. As we've said before, we will only convert six out of the eight coarse modules. Just look at the picture because it will change as we move on to the next slide, which will now show you where we practically are with regards to the construction. The first module that we converted was module 743. As I said, this module is currently being commissioned. In addition, the second module is module 735. We are almost halfway with the conversion of this module. The reason why the construction of this module, as I said, has moved significantly faster is because we took the learnings out of 743 and applied them into 735. Some elements of what we are seeing is that we performed work in series, so steps were following each other when we were constructing module 743. Through including a hard barrier between the top section and the bottom section of the plant, we are actually able to do work in parallel, which is assisting us with moving significantly faster when it comes to the modular construction. What you'll also see is that the first picture did not have anything that was looking a little bit grayish around it. This picture indicates the additional work that has been done outside of the coarse DMS plant. This picture includes the modular substation, which is already in place. It also shows the various conveyor work that's actually been installed. There's also a section that shows, just on the other side of this plant is our quaternary screening plant. You can see, and I'll show you a little bit more on this in subsequent slides. Additional work has taken place, and you can actually also see some of the transfer towers that have already been constructed. If we move on to the next slide. Thanks, Penny. Now, this shows you what the final constructed space will look like. As I said, we are only converting six out of the eight coarse modules. We will decommission module 741 and module 731, and that's simply because the capacity of the new modules is higher than the capacity of the old modules, and we don't need to convert everything to get back to full capacity. That's without us compromising the overall capacity of overall Sishen mine. This picture reflects what will be in place by 2028 when it comes to the coarse DMS plant. On the next slide, I just want to zoom in a little bit further on the actual modules themselves. To just give you the full extent of what we are practically talking about. This is now zooming in to one of the first coarse modules, so it's module 743 that's already essentially been converted from a construction perspective. The picture on your left shows the current existing technology, and you will clearly see that it has the drum technology, which is the technology that we are moving away from. With the new technology, you will see the cyclones, which are the UHDMS cyclones that we are installing. Just on top of the picture, you can see a small sliver of the mixing box, which essentially feeds the cyclones, and you can see one of the screens that is sitting underneath there. This is an indication of the visible difference that we are essentially seeing as we are constructing the various modules, simply because we now have the extra cyclones that are part of the UHDMS technology. Last but definitely not least, to just give you an indication of the work that's taking place within the materials handling section. This is critical because, as we've said before, this is work that will also be taking place during the tie-in. This picture has the coarse DMS plant on the one side, and just outside of this visual is the quaternary screening section. This is an area that we call the Spaghetti Junction. It's simply because it's got massive conveyor structures running through. For those in South Africa, you know Spaghetti Junction means there's a lot that's taking place there. For us, it's the quaternary screening section where we've got massive conveyors that run in front of this area. I'd like to zoom you in to the grayish-looking structures that are already in place. This is an actual photo that shows you the full extent of the work that's been done ahead of the tie-in. The reason why we actually spend a lot of time installing cable racks, conveyor structures, massive transfer towers ahead of the tie-in was to reduce the complexity of the tie-in, and as a result, minimize or de-risk the actual tie-in period. Ladies and gentlemen, this is clearly massive, but also very exciting and complex engineering work and construction that's currently taking place at Sishen right now. As I close, as a reminder, our modular construction approach means that the Jig plant will continue operating during the tie-in period, and we have built up sufficient product stockpiles so that sales can continue uninterrupted through the shutdown period. On capital, we remain firmly on track. To date, we have invested ZAR 5.2 billion, which is broadly aligned to the project's overall progress. As I said, we not only progressed work, but also brought forward work ahead of the tie-in in order to de-risk the actual tie-in. The total project capital remains unchanged at ZAR 11.2 billion, and we remain on track to close off this project in 2029, with the bulk of the construction being concluded by the end of 2028. As a reminder, UHDMS is a high-quality investment that creates value on multiple fronts. It allows us to produce more premium product, recover more value from a resource we already own, and improve the efficiency of our operations. Its real value also lies in unlocking a longer life of mine and greater flexibility across our resource base, strengthening our ability to create value for decades to come. I would like to take you through how we see the long-term realized price evolving. Looking ahead, we remain positive on the long-term outlook for high-quality iron ore for a number of reasons. Total iron ore demand is set to rise as urbanization and industrialization reshape the steel demand in developing economies. While China's demand plateaus, the growth in ex-China markets will more than offset this reduction. Key contributors to this growth are new steel capacities in India and Southeast Asian markets. Kumba is well-positioned to benefit from the steel production growth, both geographically as well as from a product quality perspective, due to our high-grade Fe content as well as the production of our lump product. Additionally, despite increasing price pressures, decarbonization policies have strengthened with the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, framework in Europe. Under CBAM, agglomerated products like pellets will face an import levy depending on the quantum of embedded emissions and prevailing carbon prices. These penalties are likely to trend higher longer term, making lump iron ore more attractive or a more attractive alternative in the region. Lump's replacement potential is significant given imported pellets occupy roughly a 35% share in total EU imports. The steel industry's decarbonization journey continues to reinforce demand for higher grade ores as well as lump products. These materials improve blast furnace productivity, lower emission intensity, and support the transition towards lower carbon steelmaking pathways. That brings me to our full year guidance. For 2026, we expect total production of between 31 million and 33 million tons as we cut back to allow for the planned UHDMS tie-in period. This includes about 22 million tons from Sishen and about 10 million tons from Kolomela. Next year, production will increase by around 12%-13%, to between 35 million and 37 million tons. Our sales guidance stays at between 35 million and 37 million tons, and we plan to supplement production with finished stock built up ahead of the UHDMS tie-in. Our C1 unit cost guidance remains unchanged at $45 per ton. The increase to $46 per ton in the first half is largely due to a strong rand and above inflation increases in key input prices. However, we remain focused on cost and capital optimization, and our Full Potential programme will be rolled out in the second half of the year, and we expect to start to see some of the benefits coming through. As Xolani has mentioned, capital expenditure is expected to be between ZAR 13.2 billion and ZAR 14.2 billion for the full year. Before moving to Q&A, I would like to remind you, as we always do, of our value proposition. As we look ahead, we need to be prepared for the macro environment to remain volatile. As you have heard today, I'm excited about what we can achieve with all the elements under our control. To quickly recap how these elements come together, firstly, we are putting in place a new Full Potential programme to build from our stable operating base in order to take operational excellence to the next level across our entire business. That includes our mining and plant productivity. It also includes better cost competitiveness and enhancing returns on our key capital projects, including the UHDMS project. Secondly, we want to improve the competitiveness of our ore export corridor. We will work with our partners to support improved logistics performance while securing sustainable capacity over the longer term. Success here will allow us to unlock another level of upside from the Full Potential programme. Thirdly, across the business, we are looking to enhance our return on capital with real discipline on capital allocation, supported by specific interventions from our Full Potential programme. Now, we do have all the right ingredients required to succeed with a clear strategy, world-class assets, a fantastic team, and strong partnerships. Together, these foundations position Kumba well to deliver the next level of performance over years ahead. With that, I will hand over back to Penny, who will lead the Q&A session for us. Thank you. Thank you, Mpumi. We'll now take questions in the room, then we'll look to the conference call line, and finally, we'll take questions from the webcast. I see Brian's hand is up already. Hi, thanks very much. It's Brian Morgan here, RMB Morgan Stanley. Thanks for all the detail on the UHDMS. It's excellent. My question's actually on Transnet this time, again. We saw, I think you said 101 km of rail replacements in the first half, and we've got another shut in the second half of the year. Just maybe update us on where we are on that process of replacing the rail, then maybe just help me understand, if you replace 100 km of rail, but you only have speed restrictions lifted on 26, how does that work? The second question is, rain's become more and more of an issue over the years, and it looks like it's getting worse. Is there anything you can do about that? Is there CapEx needed to prepare for rain readiness? What are the mitigating factors you can, or actions you can take into account there? Thanks, Brian. I think a couple of things. Firstly, you'd recall that we previously spoke about the independent technical assessment that was done on both rail as well as port. You'd recall that we said at the time that there's just over 860 km of rail and that over 500 km needed to be replaced. Over the last couple of years, they have been replacing that. Last year, they didn't have the rails that were required ahead of the shut. As a result, the amount that was replaced was actually significantly lower than what we wanted to see. We are excited by the 101 km that was replaced this year. Remember, we are still working back towards the 500 km mark. This work will continue as we move forward because fundamentally this infrastructure has actually been there for some time, and this work is work that needs to be replaced. The actual speed restrictions themselves, they don't have speed restrictions throughout the railway line. They have sections that are more worn than other sections, so this actual replacement assisted with the upliftment of the speed restrictions within a particular section. We remain on track as I look at the additional work that they need to do in the second half of the year. This work will actually continue for a couple of years, and this links back to, I guess, the question where people typically ask us, why are you not increasing your sales guidance? We always say that, let's remember, we started off with the independent technical assessment, which identified all the work that needed to be done. We are excited by the volumes of work that are essentially taking place, and as I said, we as Kumba are part of the Ore Users Forum, which includes all the users of the line, and we collectively work with Transnet on the Ore Corridor Restoration programme that they are busy with. Heading up into the second shut, we'll plan the shut with them and, as a result, make sure that the execution of that shut will also be done properly. Then on rain. One, it rains every year in the Northern Cape as well as other areas of the country. The difference here is that our rains typically go to March, and then we have very limited rain post-March. Here we had both the extension of the period, it went to the early parts of May, it was also the massive amounts of rain that we essentially had. I guess to put it in context, it's typically what you'd call a one in 100 year flood that we are talking about. It does, however, link back to the impacts of climate change. What we have essentially thought about is that we've taken learnings from this period. Clearly, during the period, we increased our dewatering capability and infrastructure in order to make sure that we actually dealt with the actual rain. We are looking at applying those learnings into the next rainfall season, and that will only help strengthen our capabilities going forward. Do I expect us to have the same volumes of rain that we had? I guess it's unlikely, we won't leave it to chance. We'll still work on increasing our capabilities and, as a result, deal a little bit better with the rains. David Fraser from Peregrine Capital. Spot freight rates. You mentioned, I think, $22 in this half. What are they at the moment, and do you have any hedge position at all in forward freight rates? Thanks, David. I'm actually going to ask Ibrahim, who's standing in for Timo from our sales perspective to add to this. We don't hedge, number one. It wouldn't be the right time to hedge if one considers the elevated freight rates. Ibrahim, thanks. Hi, David. To answer your question, well, spot freight rates have been very volatile. They've been bouncing around to as high as $30. However, they've been linked with a few factors. When we look at that spot freight rate, it's made up of both the bunker cost and then the chartering cost. What we've seen is, of course, with the Strait of Hormuz or the war in Iran, with the closure of the strait, that bunker cost went up. However, we've also seen very strong demand for vessels in the Pacific, and now more recently, some congestion in China due to adverse weather conditions. That's been impacting on the chartering rate side. That said, we have seen freight rates once the war was for a short period, we had a ceasefire, we saw bunker costs come off quite considerably, and in that period, spot rates fell to as low as about $20. Okay. What we've seen subsequent to that is we've gone back to about $24. To answer your question in terms of what do we expect? A little bit difficult. What we do see that congestion should clear. It's a little bit seasonal in terms of where the weather patterns are. However, we do see the bunker effect that comes in. Are we hedged? No, we don't really take a hedged position. However, as Anglo American, we do have some vessels of our own. There is some ability to manage some of this year. Thanks. We have a question from Tim. Thank you. It is Tim Clark from SBG Securities. Let us just start with UHDMS. It is clearly an enormous project. It looks like there is about ZAR 6 billion still to spend. We have seen quite a lot of CapEx increases across the industry in the last six months. You guys seem to have secured a lot of the engineering and a lot of the steel. Where are you most worried, Mpumi? Obviously, this is a huge project. It puts the whole mine and plant at risk. Where do you think the sort of, maybe compared to where we were six months ago, where has the risk moved to? Where do you see the greatest concern or risk with the plan? Yeah. Thanks, Tim. I guess a couple of things. You would recall that we previously paused this project, and at the time, from an engineering perspective, our engineering was only sitting at around 30%, and I am very pleased when I look at the fact that this is now sitting at 96% at this stage of the project. The other thing that is good for us is that all procurement for the project is complete. As I have said, we were not really impacted by what is happening in Iran. The rest of what remains is actually the construction side and balancing both the pressures of construction and the pressures of production. Now, how we fundamentally decided to proceed with the strategy was different from how we initially thought about it, as if you recall, and that was to actually de-risk the project. The modular construction approach does mean that if you just look at the cost DMS plant, it does mean that we can actually work on a module whilst running production. Even with the first couple of modules, they took a little bit longer because we were learning, but that did not actually have an impact on production, and that is part of the strategy that we applied. The most critical part of this project has not changed. It is the tie-in period, because clearly during this period, we will stop the production in the plant as we do construction within the materials handling elements. The approach of our project team, and they're a fantastic team, was to actually bring work forward, and that's why I wanted to show you the gray steel structures, because I was initially worried about the level of work and the amount of work that was going to take place. As we go into the tie-in, and it will start in August, we've done a lot of reviews by both our various teams and external teams to figure out if we have any unknown unknowns, and we've made sure that we actually try and do as much work as possible ahead of the tie-in. There may be remaining unknown unknowns because we are actually constructing within an existing plant, but what gives me comfort is that we've actually reduced the scope quite significantly. What am I thinking about going into the shut in August? Firstly, as always, it's the safety of our teams. Becasue, that, for us, comes first. There's a lot of additional measures that we are going to be putting in place for the period of the tie-in because we'll have the maximum number of people during this time. Secondly, I am thinking about the actual duration of the tie-in. I like the fact that the team, in terms of their own schedule, has got a slightly shorter number of days than the days that we are looking at, but clearly, we need to go through the tie-in to finally get to that. The third element is we've spoken about stock and the fact that we'll maintain our sales even during the duration of the tie-in, which is why we've carried the elevated levels of stock. Something else that I'm thinking about is the overall balance of that stock and the number of days from a tie-in perspective. That's, I guess, the thinking that we've applied to the strategy of how we are approaching this tie-in. It is construction, and we always know that there are sometimes some unknown unknowns. We've just done our best to uncover those ahead of the actual tie-in. Thanks. That's really helpful. Xolani, just a question for you on the financial impact of the shut. Presumably, there's a fixed cost of the DMS plant that won't be operating. There'll be cash flow statement impacts as well as income statement impacts. I've thought about it a lot, and I was trying to work out what the net impact is, because you're going to be selling more out of stock. That stock is older stock. It looks like your WIP was quite big in this first half. There was quite a big increase in WIP, which then will carry on building because your stripping is higher in the second half. What I suppose I'm asking you is, you've obviously done a lot of work on the balance sheet and on cash flow around the dividends, and maybe you can give us some indication on, say, working capital impacts or any income statement impacts that you see from the shut, particularly. Obviously, the market itself is uncertain, right? What happens to freight and lump and all those things, that will happen. Yeah. That's correct. Let me start with the working capital. There will be a build-up on working capital in the form of the WIP as the mine will continue to operate, even though the plant will be shut during the tie-in. That in the income statement will come through as a credit, of course, in the income statement, but on the cash flow, it's an outflow. With that, there will be finished goods drawdown because we'll continue to sell and we'll continue to rail whatever is currently at the mine and which continues to be produced by the Jig plant as well as Kolomela. My expectation is that for as long as the timelines are met, we should be coming out square on the working capital side of the balance sheet. In terms of the cash flow and how we see the cash in the balance sheet, of course, this is a working capital which is very short term in nature. Whereas we're looking at the impacts in terms of the volatility on the Middle East issue, which is more longer term. Coupled with that, we've got the high capital intensity in terms of the ZAR 13.2 billion-ZAR 14.2 billion capital commitment. All of those factors were key in our decision around the dividend level that we have proposed. Okay, thanks. That's also helpful. Just my last question, just quickly, your breakeven's up quite a lot. It's up from what, $68-$81 odd. Are you guys worried about that or is it sort of out of your hands, non-controllables and you're more just focused on the controllables? Are you starting to think about plans, in case iron ore comes down a little bit? Because it does seem to be under a little bit of pressure in the short term. Are you sort of accelerating concern plans or not? We are concerned about the level of our C1. In fact, if you look at it, 72% of the movement is coming from external factors. That includes your lump premium, your currency in the main, which is the key driver, as well as the freight costs. Those ones would probably be difficult to manage. The controllables in the form of the stay-in-business are there for us to explore and within, outside the commitment on UHDMS, there is flexibility on the remaining stay-in-business as well as HME replacement CapEx that one could look to explore. As part of the Full Potential exercise, we will be looking at capital expenditure in terms of how do we optimize it, how do we lessen the capital intensity for every ton that you produce. The other item that we'll be looking at is OpEx. How do we rationalize the OpEx such that our overheads continue to support at a lower level, the existing business? Those are levers that one would be able to pull into the system to ensure that our C1 is kept in check. We are concerned. Yeah. Tim, just one additional thing. In addition to this, we've spoken about the benefits of the UHDMS. It will allow us to actually treat the C-grade material, we'll reduce our cut-off grade from 48% to 40%. As a result, as we've said before, material that would typically go into the waste stream will go into the plant, and that will be quite supportive when it comes to our operating costs going forward. The second element or benefit of the UHDMS is actually the increase in our premium products, which will also be on the controllable space, helpful when it comes to our price premiums. In thinking about the capital for the UHDMS, we are also considering the benefits that this will have on our C1 as well. Okay. I don't see any Oh, there's one. Please go ahead. Hi, it's Steve Friedman from UBS. My question's around the increase in waste mining at Kolomela. I know this is something you guys have guided to, but just trying to see how we should think about this from a medium term perspective. I mean, is this largely temporary pre-stripping or does this signal any sort of structural higher strip ratio and cost base going forward for Kolomela? Thanks, Steve. We spoke a little bit about our resource and reserve statement in February, and we spoke about the stripping for this year for both Sishen and Kolomela and the long-term stripping for Kolomela as well. We spoke about the fact that if one looks at last year coming into this year, the increase in stripping at Kolomela is linked to us starting to strip for the next phase of Kapstevel South, Kapstevel South number two. That overall, if you look at just the overall strip ratio of Kolomela, it will actually be lower than the strip ratio that we are looking at right now. In addition to this, I guess how you should also be thinking about Kolomela is that in February, we also spoke about additional areas that we are looking at, so starting to talk about Bloemfontein and Heuningkranz. We spoke about the fact that we actually declared those and they essentially increased our resource base, and that we're going to speed up the exploration side simply because we want to ultimately convert those from resources into reserves and actually bring them forward early on into our mine plans. If I look at just Bloemfontein, it's actually got a lower strip ratio, and that should actually assist with the pressure in the short term. Quite a few things, but exciting things that we are looking at from a Kolomela perspective, and that's why we continue with the exploration work to actually get further information on the resource base and clearly convert that into reserves. Okay, thanks. Okay. I don't see any further hands. We can now go to the webcast. Okay. Don't think there's anything. We'll go into the online side. We have some questions on the marketing side as well. From Rudi van Niekerk from Merchant West. He's asked, how do you see Simandou affecting premiums and seaborne iron ore market supply, demand and pricing? How will it affect Kumba? That's the first marketing question. Thanks, Penny. I'll ask Ibrahim to take this. Thanks, Ibrahim. On Simandou, I think first important to understand what product Simandou actually produces. They are producing a high-quality fines product. At the moment, they still remain in a ramp-up phase. I suppose guidance is somewhere around 15 million- 20 million tons for this year. How do we see this impacting us? If we compare directly with Kumba as a business, well, Kumba is predominantly a lump producer, so there isn't any direct competition with our product. That said, in general, if we just park Simandou for a moment, what we've seen is that the general trend in the iron ore market has been a reduction in grades. By and large, the input Fe has decreased to steel mills. Does that mean that steel mills actually need lower Fe's? No, it doesn't. Overall, we believe that a higher Fe always makes sense. In the overall blend, there's definitely a growing space for higher quality Fe products. From that perspective, we don't believe that Simandou has a material impact. Next, it all does define how the overall supply to the market comes on. Well, I've expressed it. We believe it will be somewhere around 15 million tons for this year. That would not have too material an impact on the overall iron ore price. We would, of course, monitor how the ramp-up of Simandou progresses beyond that. Thank you so much, Ibrahim. Louis, you would have noted that, in terms of the Pilbara, they actually moved from the 62 or the flat 62 to the 61 index, and that's linked to the quality reduction that Ibrahim's talking about. Even for Brazil, they actually introduced a slightly lower quality product. What one needs to look at is just the overall balance. Thanks. Okay, we have another marketing question for you, Ibrahim. Could you confirm, this is from Matt Greene from Goldman Sachs. He's asked if you could confirm whether Kumba has reached a supply agreement with CMRG. If so, can you provide some detail on the scope of the agreement, including whether it applies only to fines, and what proportion of your fines volumes you expect to market through the CMRG under this arrangement? Great. I'll answer the second one first for Ibrahim. Actually, I'll answer the second one. Just cover the first one. Thanks, Ibrahim. All right. Yes, we have reached an agreement with CMRG, but that's the outcome. It's important to note that in dealing with China, well, you will be dealing with CMRG. We've had very constructive engagements with CMRG. We've got an agreement in place with them as of the 1st of April, and that does impact our products that we sell to CMRG member mills. It's important to understand what we actually sell into China without giving out more details on this. This is always confidential. What I would want to say is that our product portfolio is split China, ex-China. We sell, give or take, around 54% into China at the moment. Okay. That's point number one. That doesn't mean that all the 54% goes to CMRG. We have some long-term customer contracts, and we also sell a significant volume on spot. The only volumes that are covered here would be what we supply under a long-term agreement to CMRG member mills. That effect is fairly small on our overall portfolio. Actually, thanks, Ibrahim. You've covered it. We won't give the details of the actual conclusion of the sales. I have to say just two things on my side. I joined Ibrahim and Timo in a visit to China a little bit earlier this year. It was actually pleasing to see the, I guess, level of relationship that we have with our actual customers. Looking at the conversations that were taking place, linking back to what we are doing on the UHDMS project and the changes that we expect to see from a product portfolio perspective, was actually interesting to see. Typically people think that our Chinese customers actually want lower quality products, and that was certainly not the case. For me, it was more the discussions that were taking place around the value-in-use element that was quite exciting. Secondly, as Ibrahim said, it's actually not the full volumes of what we sell into China that are covered by CMRG. Thanks, Ibrahim. Okay, we have another follow-up question on freight rates. Do you have a view on what freight rates will look like in H2? That's quite a question because of the volatility. Not easy to answer. If we could look at that, Ibrahim. It's also a question probably more for Xolani. What freight assumption is embedded in the full year breakeven price? Has that changed significantly? I'll also just add the marketing question on more the Chinese property markets in terms of the demand. Property linked steel demand remains weak, but steel production and iron ore prices have been relatively resilient. From your customer discussions, do you get a sense of what's sustaining the current demand? Is it domestic consumption or exports, or more restocking or expectations of policy support? Okay. Let me go with the freight question first. I think the answer there is perhaps a slightly shortish one. Uncertain exactly what the freight rates will do. We expect that they would remain fairly strong in the second half of the year, considering where bunker costs are and the current chartering status. Maybe I go to the next question. Chinese demand. Chinese steel market. In terms of the Chinese demand. Property has been a drag in China. We do see that there has been an offsetting from infrastructure and manufacturing. It's not entirely enough to keep China on a positive outlook, China is partly weak. If we look at the iron ore price, what has been really driving the iron ore price? Well, freight is somewhat embedded in that price because the price of iron ore is on a CFR basis. That's lended support in H1 to the iron ore price. The second factor is that during the first part of this year, the mill margins in China actually improved. They had improved from the early part of the year, where it was around about 38% profitability. It went up towards the 60s, it started slipping again towards the latter part of Q2, that's why we've seen the iron ore price come down a little bit again. The third point, whilst China is decreasing, what we are seeing is that Southeast Asia has been fairly strong. Japan, Korea, and Europe has been fairly stable. With some of the CBAM and quota imports or restrictions which are now coming into Europe, we would see some effect on that in volumes towards the second half of this year. Overall, that's what the iron ore market has been like and what's driven the prices to where we at. The current decrease in the price is primarily driven by the reduction in the mill margins that we are seeing in China. Overall, we do see support on the iron ore price at around the $95-ish mark, and that's on the back of the increased C90, because of the higher energy cost that we're seeing in the market. On the question around how we see freight. Look, anyone can make an estimate, and the volatility at this stage makes it really extremely difficult. The way I'd look at it is, I'd pick a range between $20 and $25 a ton. Don't be surprised if it goes above $25. Xolani, maybe staying on you. Could you please quantify how much cost reduction you're targeting through Full Potential programme over the medium term? Does the full year 2026 guidance incorporate some of these benefits that's related to the Full Potential programme? That question's from Shashi, from Citi. There's no specific number, but indicatively, we are targeting at minimum 10% reduction in our cost base. That's just indicative at this stage. Remember, the construct around the cost out or the value is that there will be elements that will target the cost out under the current capacity of the business, which delivers around 37 million tons. Added to that is if there is an element of unlock on the rail capacity side, there will then be volume-related value creation, which then talks to the Full Potential of this exercise. That runs between now and then for the next three years. The certainty around the actual number, as Mpumi indicated earlier, will be communicated at the end of the year next year. Okay. Thanks, Xolani. We have a question on Transnet. How much of the rail line has been replaced so far, and when will that be completed? After rail replacement is completed, by how much would Kumba be able to lift sales? Thanks. Mbombi? Thank you for the question. Currently, like Mpumi said, when we did the independent technical assessment, we said that more than half of the rail needs to be replaced. Current estimations are that they have replaced around 170 km of the rail line. The rail replacement program is gathering momentum, but it still needs to be executed over the next couple of years. It is a multiyear program. The program or the independent technical assessment also spoke about refurbishment in the port. There still needs to be work done in the port before we can see an uptick in output. Like Mpumi said, it is maybe too early now to talk about increased performance and lifting sales at the moment. We are comfortable with the levels where we are. Once we have seen that this rail and port replacement process and program really gathers speed, we will be able to reassess our sales guidance. I did just want to add that with that, I know that we've been receiving a question that's saying why aren't we increasing our sales guidance for the three years. It's simply because of the amount of work that actually needs to be done. As I've said before, there were two options. One was for Transnet to stop the entire line and do all the work. That would have taken a couple of months, and it would have required a lot of capital. As you can imagine, that would have had a significant impact on our business, and Transnet would also have had an affordability issue. This approach, which is covered as part of the Ore Corridor Restoration programme, sort of phases the work but starts with the work that actually has the highest levels from a benefit perspective, which is why we are seeing greater stability and slight uplifts in terms of performance there. Thanks. Thanks, Mpumi. One other question from Myles Allsop from UBS. He's also now asked, when is the line expected to be completed? End of September, end of October? A guide, please. It will definitely be completed before the end of this year. Mm-hmm. Short and sweet. Thanks, Mpumi. Okay. Can I check one more time if there's any other questions on the call? At this stage, there are no questions. Thank you. Okay, that brings our presentation to an end. Thank you very much for joining us today, and we look forward to receiving your reports. Thank you. Thank you.