Good afternoon, good morning to our international investors. Welcome to our second Investor Day, and as you can see, it's our PGM Investor Day. First of all, like all our presentations, please take note of the Safe Harbor Statement. There are forward-looking statements, and I'm not going to ask you to read this like Richard did last time. All right. Today, I will again be assisted by a number of executives and senior managers of our organization. As you know, I rate the importance of people, and specifically our people, very, very highly. Today you will again get significant exposure to both the competence and the depth of management within our organization. I'm pleased to kickstart the session with a brief introduction on our PGM journey. Let's have a look at that on the next slide. Just a bit of a refresh. To me, it's always important to remember where you've come from. In 2014, we announced our intention to enter the PGM business based on the fact that our core competency at that time being medium and deep-level underground mining. Of course, rock breaking was very similar in the PGM business. Of course, you cannot move into another commodity unless you fully understand the fundamentals related to the supply and demand of that particular commodity. We conducted a very thorough and detailed analysis of the PGM market and, of course, the fundamentals that underpin the PGMs, which led us to developing a leading PGM business at a low point in the cycle. That was not the only thing. I think we, being new entrants to the market, looked at things very differently. We very specifically for a period, have built up a large exposure to palladium and rhodium. That was not by mistake. That was based on some of the fundamentals that we understood at that time. The net result is that we have built a leading global, and I want to emphasize the word global, PGM mining and recycling position. We established that between 2016 and 2019. Of course, that was very swift and decisive action. We always represent our strategic thinking in sigmoid curves. You can see how we built off our gold base, which we had discussed at the last Investor Day, and you can see how we first acquired Aquarius Rustenburg. In fact, Lonmin was meant to be the third acquisition, and it moved up to the fourth because we recognized the changing palladium market dynamics, and we also wanted to become global. That's a critical point. We're not just based in Southern Africa. We're not just based in Russia. We're a global PGM company, and we acquired Stillwater as our third step, which also gave us a very significant exposure to recycling. It was rapid, well-timed, and obviously external and acquisitive growth. If you look at the timing of these acquisitions, and I also at the same time wanna cover how they were financed because we tend to forget. If you look at these graphs, and we used to use them often in our results updates. As I said on the previous slide, Aquarius and Rustenburg transactions were announced within six weeks of each other. Aquarius was a very vanilla transaction. It was designed to give us a basis of a PGM management team, and it did that very well. The second transaction, being Rustenburg, was very specifically targeted to be done based on the synergies of these two assets. Of course, that was one way of reducing the risk. Let's not forget about the synergies between the assets that we bought. It was well considered and part of the rationale and reducing the cost base. We acquired Stillwater. As I said, that was actually gonna be the last transaction, palladium, we recognized was going to increase in price substantially. We moved that forward. We also realized that Lonmin was gonna get cheaper. There was no appetite to buy PGM assets at this point in the cycle. That is all now history. If you look, it was a total investment of ZAR 44 billion or $3.3 billion. That amount of investment was covered by our 2020 adjusted EBITDA. One year of adjusted EBITDA has paid for all these transactions. I think that's unsurpassed in any recent or any exposure I've had to the mining industry. I cannot remember such a successful M&A strategy. Very important, as I said, that these transactions and acquisitions were all identified and done in a very strategic way. As I said, Rustenburg and Aquarius were done to realize synergies. Lonmin was done at a low point in its history and again, is on the boundary of Rustenburg, and you will get more of this today from other presenters. What that's allowed us to do is build up a PGM business, okay, which is large material, but actually sits on the right side of the cost curve. As you can see, many of our operations are moving into the lower quartile. The Stillwater operations, once the CapEx is completed, once we've had the ramp-up, will move definitely into the lower quartile. These acquisitions, which I think are often perceived as non-core assets to other companies and second-rate PGM assets, are clearly not. They are material in size, they are low cost, and they are long life. That is a key message that I hope you see and understand and buy into today. As I said, the acquisition strategy was unparalleled in terms of value creation, with short paybacks. Many of you will sit there and say, "You were lucky, you had the wind in your sails from the increase in commodity prices." Remember what I said right at the beginning. We actually took a very conscious decision based on the research that we had done to move into this market in a very aggressive way, so that we could capture what we could see as looming deficits. I'm not going to go through this table in detail, if you follow it line by line and really just go to the last column, payback on investment, you can see Aquarius has done it 4.3 times in five years. Rustenburg, 3.8 times in 4.5 years. Stillwater, because of the heavy capital expenditure, 0.7 times if you exclude the stream, 0.8 times including the stream in four years. It's nearly paid for itself. Lonmin amazingly has paid for it six times in the two years that we've owned it. The payback on the total investment is just over two times during this period. Again, let me recap what made this successful. It was a rapid delivery and execution of a clearly defined strategy. This was not speculating. This was well-designed and carefully considered. Each transaction was carefully considered, and the risks related to each one of these steps had to be explained and covered with our board. We used quite dynamic financing and disciplined financing approaches to ensure that both the acquisitions were successful and it created value. You would remember that Rustenburg was based on a structure where we paid for the assets out of future profits. You would remember a substantial part of Stillwater was paid back through a stream. We are very happy with those structures that we put in place. We have proven through the acquisition sequence that we can integrate, and today we can certainly engage with just about any company and talk about a track record of proven integration. The move down the cost curves, we've shown that there's been significant cost synergies which were identified, and many of you will know that we far exceeded our original intentions. This was a very agile and decisive approach, and that approach is a competitive advantage. I want to go to the next slide and just also cover off on what is the relevance of that statement. Although today we're not going to talk about a green metal strategy or go into too much detail, but it's a clear evolution of exactly what I've just presented. It's a natural evolution of our value creation strategy. Again, I want to say, just like we did in PGMs, before we made our first move, it's been in planning for at least two years. That strategic intention was announced more than two years ago. It started with the acquisition of SFA (Oxford), in Q1 2020, when it was closed. Remember, we'd already done some of our own work, and that acquisition was really based on getting assistance and capacity to determine the most likely battery chemistries. That we've done, we have confidence in our selection, and you've now seen it starting to play out. We're expanding our exposure to green metals through the battery metals as a start. Of course, I had mentioned the latent uranium potential that we discussed in the first Investor Day. We are also expanding and diversifying our existing recycling and tailings treatment business. Today of relevance, there will be a discussion on recycling. I remember there were some questions at the previous Investor Day on recycling. We can certainly pick that up with today's session. We have made three battery metals related acquisitions in 2021. The very strategic acquisition of Keliber in Finland, the very strategic acquisition of a nickel refinery in France. Then more recently, the joint venture with Ioneer on the Rhyolite, excuse me, Ridge project. We will in the not-too-distant future, as we add on a few more of our intended acquisitions, we will have a very specific focus on an Investor Battery Day, perhaps even at the next announcement. Again, nothing different to what we did in PGMs. I think the track record is established. We will be very disciplined in moving forward in this area, but I have the same good feeling about our entry into battery metals and building a green metals portfolio that I had when we made the entry into PGMs. Strategy is a consequence of conscious planning and positioning. Thank you. With that, I am going to hand over to Richard Stewart, who will take us into the PGM market outlook. Thank you, Richard. Thank you very much, Neal, and good afternoon to all our listeners, and good morning to any of those who might be abroad. I think really looking forward today to sharing with you what I certainly believe is a world-class PGM business that we have built over the last few years. As we know, it all starts with the market outlook. Thank you. Our presentation does have several forward-looking statements, so I would urge you all to consider the safe harbor statement at your leisure. I guess just to kick off, when I reflect on when we got into the PGM industry, we were always asked why we were getting into it, and there were three fundamental answers to that, which we'll address all of today in one form or another. The first answer was that we had studied extensively the PGM market. We're firmly convinced of the fundamentals of this market, not only for the immediate few years ahead, but in the longer term. That is certainly what we look forward to sharing with you in this initial presentation. When we consider the PGM market, I think we've said it on many occasions, PGMs are unique in so many ways. In this particular instance, as it relates to markets, PGMs are by far the most precious of the precious metals. It's a very small market. In total, primary PGM production is less than 15 million ounces a year. When we compare that to the next most precious metal of gold, primary gold production is about 109 million ounces a year. If you compare that to silver is over 900 million ounces of primary production a year. PGMs really are a small market, but what makes them even more unique is it is underpinned by industrial uses. These are such special, such unique metals that play such a critical role in the world that we live in today, that it is a small market driven by industrial uses. Those two facts is what really drove the way we wanted to position ourselves in the markets and in the supply chain. In particular, our approach to our metals is not about just being a supplier and trying to trade our metals for a small premium of a couple of dollars here and there. It's really about embedding ourselves into the supply chain, working closely with our customers to help them manage their or solve their solutions, but also about managing the overall balance between such rare metals. Not only the balance of total supply, but also the balance of the basket as we've discussed on so many occasions. What this has meant from our side is that we've developed an extensive customer network and base we work with. It's a global network, it's a global customer base, and it crosses many different industries. We deal with OEMs, car OEMs. We deal with autocat fabricators and manufacturers. We deal with electronics and fuel cell companies. This will continue to grow. I think as we've also seen more recently, we've recognized that part of solving our customers' solutions is also looking at battery metals, and that too is a market that we've studied extensively and drives some of our thinking around the PGM markets as well. How all of this thinking translates into our marketing and sales strategy is that we have really focused on longer-term contracts. Most of our sales is done with our customers on a long-term basis, and that again, is done specifically so that we can jointly manage a responsible supply. We do short-term spot sales as well on some of our metal, and that is critical both to provide us with a level of operational flexibility, but also so that we can keep our finger on the pulse of what is going on in the short-term tactical markets. Really what these long-term contractual relationships have done, and the value it brings to us, is that we do work closely understanding from our customers what is driving their long-term trends, their long-term strategies, and where demand is likely to go in terms of the strategies they are working on to deliver to what their customer bases ultimately require. Of course, we are sitting on the supply side of that curve. Supply is something we understand well. We understand the barriers of entry to this market. We also understand the barriers of exit to this market and what it takes to bring a new project online. I dare say, when we look at our markets, we look at the fundamentals. A year ago, we were asked how did we see COVID impacting on PGM markets, and the conclusion we came to was that we saw some extreme risk for volatility in the short term. That outlook was driven by the fact that we saw differentials in the way supply was coming back online due to COVID lockdowns. We also saw differentials across the globe in terms of how demand was reestablishing itself in different regions. Our concern at the time was that if you had a mismatch between supply coming online and demand coming online, that could lead to extreme volatility in the market. I dare say that has been even more extreme than what we thought could be the case at the time. There have been additional drivers I don't think anybody anticipated. That led to a perfect storm earlier this year in terms of a shortage of supply, and a significant increase in demand. The pendulum has now swung the other way. I dare say, when we look at what is happening in the market today, we have some of the most resourced research houses who are changing their forecasts on a weekly basis, who do not all agree with each other's outlooks. This is not a time when you can use what's happening in the market today to make long-term fundamental predictions. Our positioning in the market, our relationship with our customers, our fundamental review of the markets and what drives the long term, we do not think has changed significantly, and that is what underpins our long-term thinking and strategic drivers. Look forward Kleantha Pillay sharing with you what some of that fundamental analysis is. Thank you very much. Thank you, Richard, and good morning and good afternoon to everyone. I'm Kleantha Pillay, and I'm responsible for PGM sales and marketing. We are quite careful to distinguish short-term volatility from longer-term sustainability. Let's first address the short-term volatility in the market. Since early 2020, there's been a number of disruptions. On the supply side, we had the Anglo ACP outage, as well as COVID-19 related shutdowns impacting on South African supply. Earlier this year, we also saw the flooding and concentrate incidents at Norilsk. During these periods of supply disruption, we had producers in the market as buyers driving up prices. On the demand side, we saw COVID-19 impacting on auto, industrial, and jewelry demand. Supply chain constraints and the global chip shortage continued to impact auto production even today. Producers are flooding the market with spot metal, pushing prices even lower. We've also seen unprecedented number of changes to the vehicle forecast recently, which indicates to me a really high level of uncertainty, certainly around the short term. Short-term volatility requires very tactical responses. We've navigated this well with insights and intelligence from our strong customer relationships. This has informed our short-term inventory planning and placement of metal into the market. Changing gears to the much longer term. We believe that the internal combustion engine does not disappear come 2035. In fact, will still make up the lion's share of the light vehicle car park. Announced bans by various cities and countries will impact just over a quarter of the 110 million light vehicles produced in 2035. What does this mean for battery metal demand come 2035? Our long-term balances for these critical battery metals suggests that battery electric vehicle growth may well be tempered. By 2035, lithium demand will be 900%+ higher than this year's levels. Current deficits will continue to deepen. Nickel demand grows from 250,000 tons this year to over 1 million tons by 2035, with nickel deficits forecast from the end of the decade. Cobalt demand grows fourfold from this year, with deficits forecast from 2026 onwards. In contrast to the short-term dynamics, our 10-year PGM market outlook is underpinned by solid fundamentals, which in turn informs strategic decision-making for the business. We understand primary and secondary supply very well, given our positions in these markets, and we also understand the auto market well, supported by our strong customer partnerships and insights. Let's dive into our 10-year forecast, starting with supply. Given the lack of investment in South Africa, primary platinum supply drops from 6 million ounces in 2019 to 5.7 million ounces by 2030, with just our K4 project and some very modest plateaued volumes coming to market in the second half of the decade. Although secondary supply is expected to see some modest growth of 200,000 ounces over the period, overall supply declines by a CAGR of 0.1% per year from 2019 over the decade. Moving on to palladium. We expect primary palladium supply to remain fairly flat from 2019 levels, with North American and Russian supply compensating for declining South African supply. Palladium recycling is expected to grow from 2.9 million ounces in 2019 to just over 4 million ounces by the end of the decade. Overall, supply grows at a CAGR of 1.4% per year, driven by growth in recycling. Recycling is expected to make up 40% of total supply by the end of the decade. The primary rhodium supply mirrors that of platinum, with primary supply declining 9% over the period. Growth in secondary supply results in recycling making up around 40% of total supply by the end of the decade. Recycling supply is impacted by a number of factors, but particularly by PGM prices and steel prices. Palladium and rhodium, both largely auto metals, are most sensitive to price. Platinum, less so currently. As substitution of palladium with platinum and gasoline auto cats gains momentum, prices will shift, impacting incentives to return different metals to market. Because of this, we see some downside risks to our palladium and rhodium recycling forecast. Moving on to the other half of the market equation and looking at demand. Palladium and rhodium remain largely dependent on auto demand, which makes up close to 80% of demand. Historically, 20% of palladium was consumed in industrial uses, and this has reduced over the years as a result of deficits and higher prices. As demand for palladium in autocats is reduced through substitution, industrial demand could well return. 80% of platinum demand is split pretty much evenly between auto and industrial uses, with the rest used in jewelry. There have been a number of revisions to light vehicle forecasts since early 2020, just as the impacts of COVID-19 and supply chain constraints began to be felt around the world. In the space of just a short year, between quarter three 2020 and quarter three 2021, absolute light vehicle production forecasts have in fact increased, driven by upgrades to light commercial vehicles. However, looking at the chart on the right, in the same short 1-year period, battery electric vehicle market share forecasts have increased significantly. Take 2027, for example. Battery electric vehicle market shares have increased from 9% up to 17%. Although during this period, there were many political announcements around banning of ICE vehicles and OEMs responding with aggressive electrification targets and investment targets. We haven't really seen any fundamental changes during this period to warrant such significant changes to battery electric forecasts. There's very little variance in absolute light vehicle forecasts over the decade, and this is in fact the key driver for auto demand. However, as you can see in this chart, there's a significant divergence in forecasts for battery electric vehicle market shares from around 2023 onwards, with some forecasts as high as 40% by the end of the decade. Our forecast in the dotted turquoise line is not too dissimilar from others. We're looking at 12% battery electric vehicles by 2025, up to 22% by 2030. Let's step back though and just put this into perspective. Last year, battery electric vehicle sales were 15% higher than they were in 2019, largely driven by incentives and subsidies in China and Europe. Going even further back, battery electric vehicle sales grew at a huge 82% CAGR between 2010 and 2020. Of course, off a very small base. Our forecast implies a sustained annual growth rate of 26% every year for 10 years in order to hit these battery electric vehicle forecasts. This won't be easier to achieve, and therefore we actually see some downside risks for BEVs as well. Our light vehicle production forecast grows over the decade, and despite the growing battery electric vehicle market share, internal combustion engine production peaks at 88 million cars in 2027, much higher than even the 2019 levels of 85 million cars. Internal combustion engine vehicle production remains stable over the decade in the light vehicle segment. Heavy vehicle production is also forecast to grow over the decade, with ICE continuing to dominate the engine mix. 6.2 million combustion engine vehicles are produced in 2030, compared to just 5.8 in 2019. We are also quite bullish on fuel cell vehicles towards the end of the decade, forecasting a 7% market share by 2030. With longer driving ranges that heavy vehicles require and comparable refueling times to diesel vehicles, fuel cell engines are much more suitable in heavy-duty vehicles. Recent announcements on deployment of fuel cell buses and truck fleets, as well as hydrogen refueling infrastructure rollouts and further targets. Particularly in China, Japan, South Korea, California, and the EU, have also been very encouraging. Hydrogen refueling infrastructure is deployed to support route-bound heavy fleets, light vehicles will also be able to take advantage of this infrastructure. Overall, the number of ICE vehicles remains robust throughout the decade, supporting PGM demand. Tightening emissions legislation in both heavy and light vehicle segments is also supportive of PGM loadings and hence demand over the decades. You can see from these graphs, average loadings rise to meet regulation, followed by periods of thrifting to reduce costs while still meeting emission standards. It's expected that Euro 7 will be the last set of internal combustion engine emission standards around 2027. It's also expected that the U.S. and China will also follow suit. Moving on to substitution. Following a very successful project with BASF to substitute palladium with platinum in gasoline autocats, uptake of the substituted autocat was faster than expected, and this was largely driven by the ability to self-certify catalysts in China. Substitution levels of 20%-50% are being requested by OEMs. We're forecasting 1.5 million ounces of platinum added and palladium removed from auto demand by mid-decade. In the medium term, this creates a far more sustainable 2E demand that is far better aligned with the supply basket. Of course, having the pendulum swing too far is not ideal. Our project with BASF took three to four years from research and development to commercialization. The resulting tri-metal catalyst has been approved and certified such that tweaks to the ratios of the three PGMs doesn't require recertification. Going forward, the time frames to adjust catalyst composition are more likely to be in the six to 12-month range, which will allow for far more controlled substitution in the latter half of the decade as price incentives change. I also mentioned earlier that we're a lot more bullish on our fuel cell electric vehicle forecast in the heavy vehicle segment, and this drives platinum demand, moving up to just over 1 million ounces by the end of the decade. I think the most important thing to point out here is that auto and stationary fuel cells can be fueled by gray and blue hydrogen, as well as by hydrogen-containing fuels such as methanol. Fuel cell demand is not necessarily coupled to green hydrogen and electrolyzer demand, and certainly not in the next decade while green hydrogen costs remain high. Demand for green hydrogen and hence PGMs in electrolyzers becomes relevant post-2030. Similar to our approach on battery metals, we're doing our homework to understand the entire green hydrogen value chain and identify opportunities for us. Overall, platinum demand increases as a result of substitution as well as growth in fuel cell electric vehicles. We forecast declining platinum jewelry demand while industrial demand grows at a steady 1% CAGR over the period. Palladium demand declines almost 2 million ounces over the period as a result of substitution and as ICE vehicles begin to taper at the very back end of the decade. Tightening emissions legislation is supportive of rhodium demand through the period, despite thrifting in both the auto and industrial segments. Similar to palladium, demand tapers at the very back end of the decade as battery electric vehicle market share increases. Putting our supply and demand together, let's look at our market balances. Taking into account the ability to more closely control the rate of substitution in shorter time frames and our view of the downside risk to recycling, we present our base case as well as these two scenarios. Looking at the chart on the left, the gray columns show our base case with platinum moving into deficits through the decade. As substitution rates respond to changing PGM price incentives, we expect to see a more sustainable deficit for platinum from 2026 onwards, and you will see we've modeled this in the turquoise columns. Similarly, we showed both base case and controlled substitution for palladium balances on the right-hand side. Here you'll see palladium surplus is reducing as substitution is more controlled on the turquoise bars. We also show our scenario where palladium recycling forecasts are reduced by just a small 10% from mid-decade onwards, which results in a further reduction to the expected surpluses towards the end of the decade. Moving on, looking at our 2E balances, we forecast a sustainable market balance in our 2E base case. Taking into account the downside risk to palladium recycling results in a much tighter 2E market balance with more modest deficits from 2025 to 2028 before moving into small surpluses post that. Looking at the chart on the right, the rhodium market is forecast to remain in deficit from 2022 to 2029 in our base case. Our reduced recycling scenario, however, results in deeper deficits through the second half of the decade, with rhodium moving closer to balance by 2030. Putting all of this together and just summarizing what we've looked at, we understand supply extremely well given our position in the primary and secondary markets. Primary PGM supply declines over the decade, particularly for platinum and rhodium. However, supply is supported by forecast growth in recycling, but downside risk does remain. The internal combustion engine underpins auto demand throughout the decade. ICE vehicle forecasts remain well supported over the decade due to a growing car park, despite increases in market share for battery electric vehicles in the light vehicle segment. In the growing heavy vehicle segment, ICE continues to dominate the engine mix. Adoption of fuel cell engines in the heavy vehicle segment will accelerate in the second half of the decade, supporting platinum demand. Tightening emissions regulations support PGM loadings over the decade. Over the medium term, out to mid-decade, substitution of palladium with platinum in gasoline vehicles helps balance the two-year basket. Overall, we forecast a sustainable 2E balance over the decade, with palladium moving into surplus and platinum moving into deficit in the second half. Rhodium remains in relatively small deficits through to 2029. Time frames to change metal ratios in tri-metal catalysts have reduced significantly, and this will allow for faster responses to catalyst formulations as metal price incentives change. Ultimately, this will result in an even more sustainable 2E balance over the second half of the decade. Modest reductions in palladium and rhodium recycling in the second half of the decade will reduce palladium surpluses even further, better balancing the 2E basket while moving rhodium into deeper deficits after 2029. Our operations are ideally placed to deliver into this PGM market that we understand well. I'll now hand us over to James for questions. Thank you. Thanks, Kleantha. Thank you, Richard and Neal. We're just going to go through a couple of questions before we have a break. The first question, directed to Neal, I think, is from Arnold van Graan at Nedbank. Do you believe you can get the same type of leverage from battery metals as you did in PGMs, which you bought for knockdown prices at the bottom of the cycle? Is it not harder to deliver value in battery materials given that many other companies are chasing the same assets? Neal? Yep. Thank you, James. Hello, Arnold. Your point's spot on in that I think it'd be very unrealistic to assume that we'll achieve exactly the same type of returns. Recognizing that with the PGM strategy, we had very little competition. I have to say that there's many similarities, and I would go as far as to say we will create value. How much value we will create remains to be seen. You've just heard from Richard and Kleantha that a 900% anticipated increase in lithium is enormous. Of course, we don't believe that the penetration rates of battery electric vehicles are as high as others might say. I think we have a very realistic view. Also, when we acquired Aquarius Rustenburg, we used current spot prices, which were depressed. We've been very conservative on our battery metal assumptions, which I again believe are conservative for the very reasons you've seen in the supply and demand analysis and some of the comments that Kleantha specifically made. When we acquire, we make sure that even under those conditions, we have a suitable internal rate of return to ensure that we create value. I dare say we will create value, but I think the PGM strategy and the net results of that is unsurpassed and will be very difficult to beat. Thanks, James. Thanks, Neal. The next question is from Wade Napier at Avior. I think it's directed to Kleantha. Is there not upside risk to loading forecasts if OEMs focus more R&D on electrification instead of thrifting? Kleantha? Thanks, Wade. I think the fabricators are still going to focus on autocat thrifting. Getting the loadings down as much as they can impacts their margins. I don't think there's going to be too much risk to that. I imagine that the OEMs actually will tend to, as they do now, rely on the fabricators for that. Thank you. The next one is from Chris Nicholson at RMB Morgan Stanley. Could you run through the strategic partnership with Johnson Matthey? What are you aiming to achieve? What are the financial benefits to Sibanye-Stillwater, and are there any costs? I think, Richard, if you'll take that one, please. Sure. Thank you very much. Chris, good afternoon, man. Chris, I think as mentioned in the introduction, a lot of our strategy really goes around how we work in the supply chain, ultimately, working with our end customers. This strategic relationship talks directly to that. To answer your question directly, it's not aimed at financial benefits, and there are no costs to us. We obviously have a commercial relationship with Johnson Matthey on many fronts, particularly in the U.S., where they do a lot of our refining for us from Stillwater and recycling, as well as various market development initiatives that we've worked on. This is really a relationship designed around market development initiatives, new product development, and again, understanding long-term supply and demand dynamics and how we can work together to manage that. It's not a cost or financial benefit. It's more of a strategic benefit for both of us in the supply chain and industry as a whole. Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Richard. The next one, again from Chris, is for Kleantha, I think. Could you explain what drives your downside risk to palladium and rhodium recycling scenarios? Is it collection chains in Asia, recycling capacity, or other factors? How likely is this? Thanks, Chris. I think just first I have to explain that it is a downside scenario. It's not our base case. Also just to note, we're seeing supply come off. We can't expect to see recycling growing at a significantly higher rate than supply over a long term. That's just one point to note. In our downside scenario, really what's driving this is the price incentives. If we think or assume that palladium and rhodium prices decline over the decade, just given the slight drop in combustion engine vehicles, we would expect to see that platinum starts coming back to market faster, just given how that's expected to grow, and that gives us the downside risk on palladium and rhodium. Thanks, James. The next question is from Ntuthuko Sithole, from SBG Securities. Given tighter emissions requirements expected in the future, could you please explain why average PGM loadings per light vehicle are expected to decline towards the end of the decade? I think that's for you again, Kleantha. Thank you. Look, as you would've seen from that chart, the loadings will increase up to 2027, when we expect Euro 7 to come into play. I think as soon as that happens and the emission standards are reached, all of the fabricators and OEMs are going to start thrifting out again, and that's what causes that little tail at the end. Thanks. The next question is from Bruce Williamson at Integral Asset Management. I hope I pronounced that correctly. Hi. Have you done any research into the thawing of the Arctic Circle permafrost, and have you taken any disruptions into Norilsk future PGM production into account? Neal, I think, could you maybe answer that one? Yep. Thanks. Hello, Bruce. Look, we factor into our supply, I want to say, a realistic forecast of all projects. Of course, mining is our core competency, and we are able to assess the likelihood of many of these projects coming online. Yes, I don't want to be very specific and be critical of any specific projects, but yes, they're factored in. I think most of these projects are ultimately too late. That's all I'll say. Thank you. Thank you. The next one is from John Williams at Rezco. Do you think auto OEMs have been stocking PGMs over the last few months, which would represent a short-term supply and demand headwind? Kleantha. Thanks, James. I don't think there's been too much stocking up. We've seen the fabricators continue buying at normal levels and normal contract levels. From what we're seeing in the market, I would say there's very little incentive for the OEMs to stock up. They're very focused on working capital. They would have to hedge out quite long term if they're keeping this for next year. I would say we haven't seen that, and where we have seen fabricators or OEMs taking perhaps more metal than they need, they often take this in ingot form, so less of a stocking up and more of holding that as an investment for the shorter term. Thanks. Thanks, Kleantha. The next one is from Raj Ray at BMO Capital Markets, I think for Neal. Do you have a target with regards to commodity mix within our portfolio between PGM, gold, and battery energy metals in the medium term? Oh, okay, that's a couple of questions. Let's just deal with the first one on the portfolio mix, please, Neal. Yeah. Hi, Raj. It's a good question, because if you want to get the benefit of any portfolio of metals, they've got to be material to your revenue line and your income statement. I would say that in the medium term, we would target something like a third gold, a third PGMs, and a third battery metals, something in that order. Of course, it's not an exact science. We'll have to see how it evolves. Certainly, each one should be material to our bottom line. Thank you. Thanks, Neal. The next one, I think, for Richard. It's also from Raj Ray. That's the second part of the question. Based on your PGM market research, do you see PGM prices going back to record levels seen in H1 2021 once the semiconductor issue gets resolved? Thank you, James, and good afternoon, Raj. I think as mentioned upfront, what we think we're seeing in the market at the moment is extreme volatility. Some of those record prices were driven by the disruptions in supply that we saw both at Anglo and at Norilsk, coupled at the time with demand coming back online a lot stronger than I think most of the market expected. Currently, we're seeing exactly the opposite. That supply that was constrained is now really coming out of the bottleneck and coming back into the market. We've seen demand being constrained due to the chips. I think we still have a risk of volatility over the next 12 to 18 months. I think we're still going to see some disruptions to supply chains as a result of COVID as we work through the rest of the pandemic. Therefore, I think volatility to prices remains something that we need to live with and deal with in the short term. I wouldn't like to speculate as to exactly the levels that could go to. Like I say, I think the levels we've seen was driven by a perfect storm towards the beginning of this year. Could we have more of those short-term storms? Possibly. For us, the fundamentals are really what do the fundamentals look like 3, 5, and 10 years out. That's really the key for us for planning our business, and I think that's where we're a lot more confident. Thanks, Raj. Thanks, Richard. Given the time constraints and the agenda that we've got, there are a few more questions, but we'll hold those over to the end of the session, if that's okay with everyone. We'll just go to the dial-in lines or phone lines to see if there are any questions there, please. Thank you. Just a reminder for the participants that dialed in. If you would like to ask a question, please press star, then one. The first question comes from Dominic O'Kane from JP Morgan. Please go ahead, Dominic. Thanks, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Just a quick question on sort of your long-term contracts. You say that the majority of your sales were on long-term contracts. Could you just maybe give us a bit of visibility on how that's split across platinum, palladium, rhodium? Critically, I guess, given the volatility that we've seen over the last six months, are you seeing any change in customer behavior for long-term offtake? Specifically, what I mean is platinum. Given you've got a bullish outlook for platinum, are customers looking to increase their sourcing requirements long term for platinum? Thanks, Dominic. I think, Richard, will you take those questions? Yeah. Dominic, thanks. In terms of our contracts, obviously, not going to go into the details of it, but I guess to broadly say, our contracts roughly reflect the basket that we supply in. We try and match that basket, of course, with the needs of our customers. Again, I think this is what's so critical in terms of the longer term strategy we adopt and how we engage with our customers and how we drive the market development we're working on. Broadly speaking, those contracts reflect our supply basket. In terms of have we seen any differences, no radical changes. Again, those are contracts that are designed for longer periods of time. We do look at them and tweak them occasionally to work together with our customers. We constantly see small changes given dynamics in the market. Obviously, we also try and balance that with the spot sales we have available. No, we haven't seen any fundamental changes yet coming into those contract discussions. Thanks. Thanks, everyone. I think we'll take a break now, and then we'll start the next session at two o'clock our time sharp. In about seven minutes. Thank you. [Break] Good afternoon again, and welcome back to the third session. Today, we'll be looking at our South African PGM assets. I dare say it's such a cliché to refer to a phoenix. Just thinking back five years ago, so many of these assets had largely been written off by the market. I think today we will show you that in the form they are today and what we have achieved with these assets, these will really underpin a leading business as we move forward with our PGM assets for a long time to come. Again, I'd ask you please to consider the safe harbor statement. There are several forward-looking statements in the presentation. Thank you. Just to kick off with on a high level, the location of our assets and operations in Southern Africa. The big base of our operations are, of course, the Western Limb in the Rustenburg area. That is where our three big operating mines sit in Rustenburg, Kroondal, Marikana, and of course, they all have surface operations. In the Eastern Limb, we have two operations that are on care and maintenance, being the Limpopo or Baobab operation and Blue Ridge, and we have several greenfields projects as well. In the Northern Limb, we have the Akanani project that sits in between Ivanplats and Mogalakwena. We have a 50% shareholding in Mimosa that is operated independently in Zimbabwe. A good spread across Southern Africa. I think critically, and this is really the slide, I indicated to you when we started our last presentation that when we got into PGMs, we were asked why, and there were three answers to that. One was understanding the PGM markets. One was the fact that we were comfortable with PGM mining insofar as it was narrow tabular ore bodies, very similar to where we had achieved some significant success in our gold business by applying a new operating model to those mines. The third aspect was we recognized the opportunity for consolidation in PGMs. Many of our operating team had been through the years of consolidation in the gold industry, where, quite honestly, without consolidation, it would have been questionable whether or not that industry would have survived. Putting operations, putting companies together does provide the ability to cut costs, and that enhances the overall sustainability of the operations. That was fundamental to our entry into PGMs. When we look at the slide in front of us, what we see is a set of assets, where five years ago, we would have been looking at three independent companies. We had Kroondal or the Aquarius company, the Kroondal operations. Contiguous to that was the Rustenburg Platinum Mines and by Anglo Platinum, and adjacent to that, the Marikana operations owned by Lonmin. Effectively what we had on this slide was three companies. That means three management teams, three sets of overhead costs, three different ways of operating, three sets of surface infrastructure, three completely different approaches. When we look at the slide, what we have is one ore body. Technically two in terms of the UG2 and Merensky, but practically one continuous 60-kilometer ore body. The way to optimize value through that is by treating it, planning it, mining it as one ore body. By being able to put these together, we have been able to demonstrate the value of that quite successfully. Thank you. The best way to demonstrate this is through the synergies that we have already achieved. At our Rustenburg and Kroondal operations, we achieved over ZAR 1 billion of synergies per year within the first year of integrating those two operations. Subsequently, of course, we have acquired the Marikana operations, and in under two years, we've been able to realize almost ZAR 2 billion in synergies from the integration of those operations. I dare say that these synergies have largely been realized through the application of our operating model and the shaving of overhead costs and operating structures, and that there is still significant value to come through the proper optimization of mine planning by dropping mine boundaries, as well as sharing surface infrastructure, including depositional capacity. That is certainly something that we are continuing to work on, and I think will still bring a lot of value in the years to come, in the not so distant future. The other important point to make is that so often the concept of synergies is seen just with job cuts. However, the realization of these synergies, ultimately resulted in the preservation of over 12,500 jobs at our Rustenburg operations that would have been lost had this not been realized. At Marikana to date, we have already managed to preserve just under 3,000 jobs that would have been lost had these synergies not been realized. In total, that's 15,000 jobs and almost 150,000 lives and livelihoods which have been impacted through the successful integration of these operations. Of course, as we know, we have experienced a windfall in terms of PGM prices, I dare say even without that increase in prices, the realization of these synergies would have moved all of these operations from the red back into the black, even if prices had not moved. That was the value of the strategy we undertook. Particularly pleasing has been the integration of Marikana into the company. Over the last 24 months, we have managed to realize a 12% nominal operating unit cost achievement. In real terms, that is more than 20% that we have managed to reduce our unit operating costs by. That is with a 14% decrease in total production output. Essentially, this has been a process of streamlining operating models, of removing unprofitable ounces, of focusing production in areas where it counts the most, getting efficient, and overall integrating this into our broader business. This has been a real success story on how integration and realization of synergies with a focus on your core operating model can make a significant change to the sustainability of an overall operation, and one we are very pleased to have in our stable. Of course, what this has meant to the company as a whole is that where we started off very much on the right-hand side of the cost curve, and previously Neal would have shown you a cost curve that included capital. This is a cost curve just looking at our cash costs. Where we had a business very much on the right-hand side of the curve, and I dare say a perception that still exists today, but the realization of these synergies and embedding that into our operating practices has meant that this is now firmly a second and third quartile business, very firmly sitting in that position. As I mentioned, with the ongoing realization of the longer-term synergies achieved through optimal mine planning, through optimizing surface infrastructure, and through the benefits of the capital investment that we're making now starting to come through, I dare say that we'll see ourselves continuing to move down this cost curve, but a very competitive position relative to many of our peers. The second perception about these assets that we often hear and are discussed is the fact that they are short life. I'd like to just share with you some numbers in the next few slides. Firstly, just to point out the fact that we have a resource base within our South African PGM operation or Southern African PGM operations of over 350 million ounces. That compares to a reserve base of only 46, and critically, that 350 million ounces, the vast majority of that actually sits within brownfields projects adjacent to our existing operations. These are not greenfield projects that require significant new capital, new permitting, new processing facilities. This is within our existing operational base and provides a significant amount of upside to the life of our operations. I dare say the perception of the short life may well have come from ourselves. At the time that we did these acquisitions, we had to be very clear that it was at a time of depressed markets, depressed PGM prices, and then trying to justify capital expenditure at that time and at those prices was very difficult. As a result, we had to make sure that our acquisitions could be underpinned by shorter life of mines that did not require significant capital investment. That had to underpin our fundamental thesis of the acquisition costs we paid. As a result, those are the life of mines that we shared with the market. I dare say that even looking at this slide, that's still a 20-year life, but it is a declining profile. We have subsequently launched and commenced with projects at K4 and Klipfontein, which adds a little bit of life but overall a declining profile. I guess that is what has underpinned the perception of shorter life assets. However, if we take the resource base that we have, looking at the next slide, what we can see is that we've been able to identify just within our current operating environment, some 20 projects that includes over 100 million ounces of potential reserves. 20 million projects that are in our pipeline, three of which that have been through a feasibility study. 2 have been approved for capital expenditure. Looking at the other 20 projects, barring three of those, being Akanani, Blue Ridge, and Baobab, the balance are all brownfields to our existing operations. If we take just five of these projects, and on the next slide we'll demonstrate that just five of these 20 provide us with the ability to sustain our current profile for more than 20 years. That is just 5 out of 20. We have a significant resource base of which we can sustain these operations. As I mentioned, these are brownfields projects, low risk, can leverage off existing infrastructure, have the processing capacity in place. Certainly, at the time, we do not have a concern with the resource base to grow, but rather strategically, when is the right time to be investing in these resources for our company and for the markets that we serve. With that, I'd like to hand over to Dawie van Aswegen, who will take us through the details of these operations. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Good day, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dawie van Aswegen, and I'm the Executive Vice President of the South African PGM segment. Our segment employs 48,500 employees, both own employees as well as contractors. The South African PGM leadership brings about years of experience in different fields of mining, and I would like to introduce the members. Norman Nxumalo, Senior Vice President and Head of Human Resources. Roderick Mugovhani, Senior Vice President and Head of Finance. Kevin Robertson, Senior Vice President, Technical and Service Operations. Floyd Masemula, Senior Vice President and Head of our Rustenburg Operations. Bonginkosi Nqgulunga, Senior Vice President and Head of Mining for our Kroondal Operations. Lastly, Johann Kleyn, Senior Vice President and Head of Mining of our Marikana Operations. The good safety record of the three integrated entities was maintained throughout the various integrations, with a stable safety performance being sustained. Our care values are fully embraced and incorporated into all levels of the segment, which in turn forms the base of our group, Zero Harm strategic framework. The South African PGM segment also ascribes to the ICMM principles of which Sibanye-Stillwater is a member of. The cultural transformation process is currently being rolled out across the South African PGM segment. The focus of this process is in support of the empowered people pillar within our Zero Harm strategic framework. The South African PGM embrace the real risk reduction protocols, which are a set of rules designed as minimum requirements in 16 key processes across all our operations. All risk assessments, standards, procedures, and training material are being revised to ensure that all protocol requirements are fully embedded. Leading indicators are increasingly being utilized within all levels of our segment. This assists us in proactively focusing on high-risk activities and workplaces, and is cross-pollinated by the lagging indicators, taking agencies and behaviors into account. Our safety strategy is fully rolled out across all our operations within the segment. The South African PGM segment embarked on a full ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 integrated accreditation and certification process during 2021. Marikana operations and Rustenburg and Kroondal mining operations have recently been certified, and we envisage that a complete SAPGM segment will be certified within Q4 2021. The ICMM reporting principles were also adopted, and the South African PGM is recording the total recordable injury frequency rate as a new KPI since the start of 2021. As a segment, we also have achieved some significant milestones during 2021, with our PGM process operations recording 13 million fatal-free shifts, Marikana mining operations recording three million fatal-free shifts, and the combined South African PGM segment in the excess of 4 million fatal-free shifts. The underground ounces profile depicted in this graph is based on a 2020 life of mine reserve and resource plan, and also assumes attributable 50% from production from our Kroondal and Mimosa operations. The lower cost K4 and Klipfontein open pit projects, which were approved in Q1 2021, are included, and it maintain a consistent profile. None of the previous mentioned project studies are included in this process, which brings further upside and extension to the profile within the South African PGM segment. The all-in sustaining cost is influenced by royalty assumptions. The reserve price for the 2020 life of mine calculations were based on the three-year trailing metal prices. Included in the cost is the synergies that emanated from previous integrations of Kroondal, Rustenburg, and Marikana into Sibanye-Stillwater, and that equates to about ZAR 2.8 billion. Nersa guidance was followed for future electricity tariffs, and also does not include any upside potential from our strategic energy sourcing projects. Our surface operations are long-life assets which comprise of the Marikana bulk tailing treatment, the Eastern tailing treatment, the Rustenburg Western Limb tailing treatment plant, and Platinum Mile, from which we acquired full ownership in July 2021 from a previous 91.7% stake. Improved methods were introduced within our surface mining areas, which resulted in safer, more efficient operations. Testing of flotation technologies to recover ultra-fine chrome is currently being piloted, with early indications being very successful and can contribute significantly towards our chrome production in the future. Our current surface operations are forecasted to end in 2027. However, current expansion opportunities are being assessed across the SAPGM footprint, which can extend the profile. The average operating cost is just below ZAR 110 a ton with our all-in sustaining cost benefiting from our by-product credits. Due to the homogeneous nature of our ore body and mining mix across the 60-kilometer strike distance, no material differences with regards to head grade are seen within our profile. This also brings about consistent recoveries, and further changes with regards to our operating strategy can optimize future returns, thus ensuring a stable production profile as indicated previously. Our stay in business capital expenditure is estimated at between 8% and 12% respectively for our conventional and TMM operations operating cost, which excludes electricity cost and supports our production profile. Our stay in business capital includes initiatives that support safe operations, infrastructure upgrades, ESG compliance, TMM replacements at our Kroondal operation and Rustenburg's Bathopele mine, as well as our continuous ore reserve development at our conventional operations. The total capital expenditure also includes our growth capital of ZAR 4 billion for K4 shaft and ZAR 66 million for the establishment of our Klipfontein open pit mine that is due to commence in Q4 2021. Also to note is that the current planned capital expenditure excludes any of the unapproved projects as discussed earlier. Our base metal output is supporting our 2020 life of mine profile, and significant quantities of base metals are produced. Through the existing metallurgical process, nickel and copper as primary base metals also support the bigger Sibanye-Stillwater strategy. Our world-class concentrating facilities have got adequate capacity and flexibility to treat both underground, including K4 material and surface material, and is supported by suitable tailing storage facilities to embed our ESG strategy. Through our continuous optimization, which included design enhancements, improved monitoring, and the implementation and adoption of industry best practices, we have seen a substantial improvement on the reliability of our furnaces. We are currently operating below the required SO2 legal limits as prescribed by the South African legislation. Our smelter capacity is also aligned with our ore blend and support our 2020 life of mine profile, inclusive of K4 shaft. Potential creation of additional value through optimizing and increasing throughput capacity at our BMR and PMR, which are currently running at 50% exist and is aligned with future opportunities. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and I'll now hand over to David Kovarsky. Thank you, Dawie. Hello, everyone. I'm David Kovarsky, the Senior Vice President of Chrome. Firstly, for those who don't know it, chrome is the ingredient in stainless steel that provides stainless steel with its corrosion-resistant qualities. Without chrome, there's no stainless steel. Sibanye-Stillwater has a total of nine standalone chrome plants and are all at the back end of our PGM concentrators. Mining costs are not allocated to the plants, and the biggest costs incurred are logistic costs to China. Despite Transnet's poor performance, we are meeting our scheduled vessel bookings by trucking part of our production to Richards Bay, which is our primary export port. In 2021, we will receive full economic value on about 800,000 tons per annum. This includes an increase of 90,000 tons per annum after the expiry of its Samancor contract at the end of 2020. The balance of our production is subject to legacy agreements that yield below full economic value. Since their acquisition, there have been good production increases at the Rustenburg and Kroondal plants. A few words on the proposed chrome export tax. Together with other UG2 and primary chrome producers, we are opposing a proposed tax on the export of chrome ore. The tax is designed to assist South African ferrochrome producers by increasing the input cost of the Chinese ferrochrome producers. The South African chrome industry employs more people than the South African ferrochrome industry. 10,800 people or 70,000 direct and indirect jobs versus 6,900 jobs in the South African ferrochrome industry. Based on detailed economic research, we are of the strong opinion that a tax will result in a net loss of jobs, and South Africa will be worse off. The only way to assure the viability of South African ferrochrome producers is to lower their cost of electricity that has increased by 500% since 2008. South Africa's electricity cost is far higher than China and higher than India and Kazakhstan, who are South Africa's other ferrochrome competitors. Lastly, chrome is well-positioned to add meaningful value to our PGM business, and we continue to strive for greater operational efficiencies that we will achieve. I'll now hand over to Roderick. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, David. My name is Roderick Mugovhani, the SVP Finance for the SA PGM segment. I am responsible for the Finance at the segment level. Looking at the slides on the Finance side, the first slide shows basically the SA PGM operating cost breakdown. How cost has been broken down. The total breakdown in operating costs for the SA PGM consist of labor costs, contractors costs, utilities, stores and consumables, sundries which is actually including the rehab costs, toll charges at the Rustenburg operations, and overheads. However, it is actually excluding the third-party purchases at the Marikana operations. If you look at the pie chart there, 50% of the operating cost is made up of labor cost and contractors, which is largely driven by the wage agreements. Stores and material costs constitute 25% of the operating costs, and that includes normal consumables and TMM maintenance costs. Steel costs that is related to the plant's costs. Explosives, underground support, and chemicals, to mention a few. All these costs are actually, as we speak, above the inflation parameters. You know that now they have actually gone up year on year. Utilities in the segment constitutes 9% of the total basket of operating costs and is mainly derived from the increases as guided by Nersa. This year, the average increase year on year was 12% as per the guideline, which is 7% above the inflation parameter. The overheads costs for the segment constitute 5% of the total operating costs, it actually consists of the group charges and the on-mine charges inside the operations. Bear in mind that now the segment carries 68% of the group charge as a whole. We do have some projects within our segment that we are running to actually reduce costs. Like for instance, the Fit for Growth projects, which is in line with our procurement or contractors reduction of spend. We targeted around, say, ZAR 800 million for the group. Our portion for the segment is basically sitting at ZAR 450 million. That is the Fit for Growth initiatives that we are actually running there. Then one other sort of footprint reduction projects that are actually getting done at the segment under the leadership of Ralph, our VP engineering. If I go basically to the breakdown of costs, in line with our operations. You could see that in the operations as we've got it there, Rustenburg operations are semi-mechanized, and they've got actually the conventional portion as compared to Marikana, which is fully conventional, and Marikana has got downstream processing plants. Kroondal are 100% mechanized. Having said that, Marikana being a conventional operation will reflect higher labor and consumables, at 43% and 28% respectively, mainly due to the downstream processing plants for smelters, PMR and BMR. You will notice that now, in Rustenburg operations, we do have 11% tolling charges which is associated to the Anglo offtake agreement for smelting and refining, which is also part of the cost that Rustenburg operation actually carries. Kroondal operation being a mechanized operation, they are quite actually efficient, with less employees on average, around 5,200 employees producing 113 tons per employee, comparable to conventional operations producing at around 41 tons per employee. Hence, the operations in Kroondal, they are reflecting a lower percentage of labor cost as compared to other operations on the conventional side. If you look at the pie chart, you could actually notice that 4% of the operating cost in the segment are associated to the running expense of chrome plants and the transportation of chrome from basically the mine to market. The next slide shows basically how the breakdown between the fixed and variable costs. From the segment point of view, you could see that now the split is 55% fixed on the costs and 45% variable. However, we should look at the mechanized shafts that are carrying a lower percentage than actually the conventional shafts. I mean, you'll recall that now, the underground conventional shafts have extensive infrastructure to maintain, hence their fixed costs are actually higher than the mechanized. The Kroondal mechanized operations are less expensive by nature as comparable to conventional due to low intensive labor costs and contractors' costs alike. The fixed costs mainly consist of labor costs, electricity, and overheads, and contractors, which is basically across the operations in line with all the operations cost base. However, the variable costs are linked to production output, such as stores, incentives, and overtime shifts. That in a nutshell, give us more flexibility of running these assets, as in we have got mechanized operations with lower sort of costs and conventional being actually the high intensive kind of labor, then that flexibility start to actually kick in. Looking at the next slide, it actually gives you an indication of the definition of our all-in sustaining cost ZAR per ounce. In this case, I'll be excluding the third-party purchases at Marikana. Looking at the definition itself, which was developed by the World Gold Council, generally adopted by the industry on the gold sector, to ensure the consistency and comparable reporting of costs. Therefore, the segment, as in the SAPGM, has also adopted such reporting standards as best practice. When you look at the graph as presented, you'll see that now included in the calculation of the all-in sustaining cost is the credits derived from the sale of by-products such as nickel, copper, iridium, and ruthenium, which is linked to the average market prices. Royalty for that matter, if you look at the graph, was basically significant, and had a very significant impact in the all-in sustaining cost and it is actually deemed as an uncontrollable cost as it's driven by the market prices as well. If you look at the graph, continuously looking, going to your actually end of the graph at the end, the all-in sustaining cost for H1, you could see that now for the segment in H1, the segment reported just below ZAR 17,000 per ounce, as the cost that has been reported and that is actually out there in the market. If we exclude the third-party purchases, Marikana was sitting at around, say ZAR 17,700 per 4E ounce, and then Rustenburg operation sitting at ZAR 18,000 per 4E ounce, and Kroondal actually sitting at ZAR 12,000 per 4E ounce. That is how the definition of the all-in cost has been structured, and we have been utilizing it very consistently for years. Then going to basically the value that the by-products brings to our calculations of cost. Over a period of five years, if you look at the graph, we have seen a significant growth in prices of the by-product metals. You could actually see that now iridium increased by actually 731% over that particular period. Ruthenium increased 1,680% for that particular period. Nickel actually increased by 187%, copper increased by 198%. This significant growth in the by-products resulted in the by-product credits improving from ZAR 815 per ounce in 2016 to ZAR 4,100 per ounce during half year of 2021. That is actually quite significant if you look at the numbers. You will notice that now this is an indication that now the monetary value in the by-products offsetting our cost profile. In a graph, you could see also on the positive impact of the by-products as in on the bar graphs. This is an indication that now, going forward, we have got an advantage as the world is moving to the battery and electrical vehicles, that the demand for our by-product is actually expected to increase, thereby actually improve the value of the by-product credits going forward. That is positive on our side as a segment going to the future. Okay, now I can hand over to Ralph to continue with the presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Roderick. Hi, everyone. I'm Ralph Lombard, Senior Vice President Projects. Now, I'm going to take you through two of our company's significant projects for PGMs. K4, which is an unrivaled PGM brownfields project, will target both Merensky and UG2 reefs. We say it's unrivaled because the bulk of the infrastructure is already in place. This includes functional vertical shafts, a functional 130-kiloton concentrator. Surface infrastructure, which includes offices, change houses, grout plants, and refrigeration plant, and many more. Underground shaft stations and crosscuts are in place, as well as shaft bottom development. We must also note that infrastructure development already started in some of these levels. In terms of the project, I'm glad to say that the project team and the EPCM are on board. Infrastructure and mining early development already commenced, and this will be a major focus over the next nine months. It's also important to note that we already have an operational management team in place, which will not only assist the project, but will also ensure a smooth transition into the mining activities, which will already start as early as Q2 2022. Most of the designs are on track to be finalized with quite a large focus on ESG friendly solutions. With a 50-year life, it is clear that K4 will play a significant role in the region by ensuring sustainability for the Marikana operations. It will also play a significant role in the local economy by creating close to 4,400 jobs and also creating opportunities for local procurement, SMME development, and skills transfer. With a 50-year life, K4 is a top tier 1 project with a very low capital intensity of only around ZAR 350 per 4E ounce. The bulk of the ZAR 4 billion project capital will be spent over the next three years. That would be spent on ensuring the completion of the surface infrastructure, completion and modification of the shafts and conveyances, as well as the infrastructure development that will ensure commercial production. K4 should reach steady state production by 2030 by producing around 250,000 ounces over a life of at least 33 years, and producing at a very low operating cost of only around ZAR 16,000 per 4E ounce. In total, 11.5 million ounces will be mined over the 50-year life. With the commodity price and exchange rate assumption shown here, which equates to about just above ZAR 24,000 above 4E basket, a six-year payback is expected. This ensures superior return on investment of ZAR 3 billion net present value and internal rate of return of 33%. If I move on to the next project, which is significant albeit far smaller, is the Klipfontein shallow open pit PGM project. This is a joint venture with Anglo American under the current pool and share arrangement. Unit 2 will be mined up to a depth of around 45 meters. I'm glad to say that the Section 102 approval was received by the DMRE, the project is now ready for execution. The ZAR 66 million project capital will ensure that 37,000 4E ounces per annum will be produced from 2022 until 2024 at an average operating cost of just above ZAR 8,700 per 4E ounce. A total of just above 118,000 4E ounces will be produced. This will result in an Net Present Value of ZAR 740 million and a very good internal rate of return of 70%. This project will also contribute to the regional and economic benefits by creating 174 jobs. The contractor will source labor from the local communities. We will also create procurement and SMME development opportunities. Rehabilitation to agricultural farm status will happen at the end of the project. It must be noted that rehabilitation will happen concurrently with mining, which means by the time when the mining is completed, 80% of the rehabilitation already would have been concluded. Thank you. With this, I now hand over to Jevon and the rest of the sustainability team. Thanks very much, Rob. My name is Jevon Martin, and I'm responsible for energy and decarbonization within the group. It gives me great pleasure today to deep dive into our energy and decarbonization strategy for our SAPGM operations. The SAPGM operations account for 39% of our group energy demand. Due to their infrastructure and extensive conventional mining methods, energy, electricity is the predominant form of electricity, and as a result creates a very unique emissions profile, with 97% of the emissions stem from Eskom coal-fired and diesel-fired electricity. It's anticipated that this emission profile will decline over time as in line with our PGM production profile, as well as when the renewable energy increases in terms of the national energy mix. We, however, have a number of active decarbonizations currently underway. Similarly to our South African gold operations, we have advanced energy management practices being implemented within these operations, which last year resulted in 60,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions being avoided, primarily through the deployments of digital twins as well as uniquely developing an energy culture. Due to the emissions profile, one of the strongest levers that we can pull is the deployment of renewable energy, and I'll talk to our solar PV project shortly, but I previously mentioned our wind energy projects, which will enable rapid decarbonization of these particular operations. In terms of the remnant diesel that's used at our mechanized operations, we're exploring the use of battery electric vehicles, as well as setting Scope 3 targets for those emissions that occur through the third-party processing of our concentrate. Electricity will continue to remain the focus of this operation, given its predominance in terms of emissions. If I talk quickly to our solar PV projects, given our expanded footprint in the North West, we undertook initially a pre-feasibility study and then later a feasibility study into embedded solar PV generation directly into our operations. The studies confirmed the strong rationale around deploying these projects given its decarbonization and commercial potential. The long life assets as well as the associated demand can support easily up to 175 MW of solar PV across three specific sites. An 80 MW project located within the RPM complex, specifically between Bathopele mine and UG2 and retrofit concentrator. A 65 MW project that will be co-located next to the Kroondal complex that will supply the K4 shaft, the K4 concentrator, the K3 shaft as well as the K3 concentrator. Lastly, on the eastern portion of our footprint, a 30 MW project that will directly inject power into the Rowland Smelter. The assessment included an extensive land study that confirmed that we have available Sibanye land that can accommodate solar PV. There were no critical flaws in terms of engineering, environmental, geotechnical, regulatory, social, or security aspects. We also confirmed that we have adequate substations that will allow the solar PV projects to be directly interconnected into our operations. The total cost of the projects will be in the order of ZAR 2.5 billion-ZAR 2.8 billion that will be funded through third-party PPA structures. This results in us having minimal capital outlay, access to renewable energy at a 30%-50% discount to grid supplied electricity from day one. This generates a significant NPV for these operations, as well as has a significant decarbonization potential and anticipation of pending carbon taxes for Scope 2 will also offset these liabilities. We're currently targeting financial close in the first half of 2023 with commercial operation in early 2025. The project schedule is currently being driven by the permitting activities, of which the environmental impact assessment, the rezoning, and the subdivision of land have already been initiated. I'll now hand over to Grant who'll take us through the balance of our environmental considerations. Thank you. Thanks, Kevin. Good afternoon, and pleased to be with you all. I'm Grant Stuart, an SVP for Environment as part of our sustainability and ESG focus. Our closure vision for the SAPGM operations is an agreed safe, stable, regional post-closure mining solution that will deliver clean water to local and regional catchments, enabling sustainable post-mining economies and ecosystems. Critical to the success is going to be meaningful stakeholder engagement and collaboration. We are guided by our ESG policy, where we make specific reference to the following: design and implement a closure plan that incorporates concurrent rehabilitation and post-mining land uses in conversation with local communities and government. A group position paper that states on post-mining socioeconomic sustainability and closure, which sets out our approach towards planning and execution of an integrated, responsible mine closure where latent and residual liabilities are well-defined and provided for. Integral to aligning to the closure vision over the remaining life of the mine is concurrent rehabilitation. As of 2020, we own some 17,000 hectares of land around our SAPGM operations. We have evolved a footprint reduction program as part of our concurrent rehabilitation drive to sustainably close mining impacts, a vital component of reducing our closure liability. As part of this program, a simple example are the before and after pictures that you can see on the right-hand side of your screen, where we have successfully concluded the demolition of the Klipfontein concentrator with rehabilitation of the service area, reducing our closure liability by some ZAR 40 million. This is a good example of how a collaboration with local communities can achieve a desired outcome with local skills development and deployment, a peripheral benefit. We are also looking to leverage our equity interest in DRDGOLD and extend the successful tailings retreatment and reclamation and environmental cleanup into our SAPGM operations. Another opportunity that we have well advanced in consultation with the regulator is the opportunity to backfill old pits with tailings. Marikana pits and West Wits pits currently have a liability of some ZAR 1 billion. Deposition into these pits will not only see the ZAR 1 billion closure liability reduced substantially, but will provide an end land use that does not pose a risk to environmental community. An international and independent third party is commissioned on an annual basis to align our closure plans and rehabilitation obligations with the requirements of GNR 1147 for submission to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. A closure report per operation is completed and includes the unscheduled and scheduled closure costs for each mining operation at site level. This report is used for external auditing purposes and eventually for submission to the DMRE. We have set aside some ZAR 4.7 billion, which is the unscheduled closure liability for the management, remediation, and rehabilitation of the environmental impact on our SAPGM footprint. These are independently reviewed and adjusted annually as mining occurs and as mining plans develop. The unscheduled closure liability of Marikana, with a life of some 20+ years, is some ZAR 1.9 billion with Kroondal and RPM ZAR 1.4 billion and ZAR 1.2 billion respectively. The unscheduled liability is funded through a combination of trust and guarantees, or cash in trust and guarantees, and the cash contributions are made annually to a dedicated rehabilitation trust over the planned life of the operations. Any shortfalls in closure provisions at the end of the period are funded by guarantees. These provisions serve to assure the DMRE that the mine will enable or be enabled to fund the rehabilitation and costs in accordance with our closure plan. Thanks. Since 1965, there have been some 120 reported failures of tailings facilities with some 2,300 fatalities and significant environmental damage. Substantial advancements have however been made in the past decade in technologies and engineering practices in design, assessment, and management of tailings storage facilities. We are very cognizant of our obligations to ensure that we mine responsibly and minimize our harm to the planet. This is very evident when it comes to the way we manage tailings and hence our very strong group tailings governance framework. As a member of the ICMM, we are committed to implementing a group tailings management system in alignment with the group industry standard for tailings management. The global standard stipulates increased accountability to owners with an elevation of accountability to the board and executive committee. Further, we have committed to comply with all the requirements of the global standard by the 5th of August 2023. The SAPGM operations have 23 tailings storage facilities, of which 21 are classified as having a high hazard rating in accordance with SANS 10286. 24% of these facilities are dormant, and 2 of which are classified as having a medium hazard. We intend to be fully compliant by 2023 to all TSFs regardless of the consequence classification. We are in the process of confirming the classification of all facilities in alignment with the global standard consequence classification matrix. We have added a tailings module to our private platform, which is a management reporting tool, and any known conformances against the group tailings management standard or global industry standard conformance roadmap are identified, tracked, managed, and closed out. The establishment of the SAPGM Tailings Working Group has raised risk awareness and created greater TSF management understanding in the operating entities. A good working relationship has encouraged operating entities to escalate tailings issues to the VP Tailings Engineering for resolution. Outstanding matters are now receiving a higher level of attention, reducing overall tailings risk. During the balance of this year, we will be rolling out an internationally recognized best practice tailings management technology currently used by 4 members of the ICMM, including Rio Tinto. This technology will enable improved and proactive risk identification, management, and mitigation across the PGM footprint. The module will include deformation monitoring and side slopes by satellite. All data points are geo-referenced, allowing for integration of environmental and social data, providing additional business opportunities for managing and reporting against our ESG requirements. Implementation of this module will assist in closing several gaps with the GISTM requirements. Thanks. Our Marikana, Rustenburg, and Kroondal operations are located in an area which is recognized as water-constrained area. The operations are dependent on Rand Water Board, the Rustenburg Local Municipality, and Rustenburg Water Services Trust for approximately 65% of their total water demand. With a growing demand for water in the region due to a growing population, a backlog of augmentation and water security schemes by local authorities, and unpredictable weather patterns, it is important, more so than ever before, to design and implement measures to improve the water security for production purposes. Through effective implementation of such measures, we will reduce our impact on surrounding water resources and improve water security in the region over the longer term for the benefit of our operations, those who depend on operations, as well as the surrounding communities. Securing and protecting local water resources will also serve the region post the closure of the operations. We are therefore focused on a water security strategy to secure and sustain safe operations. There are a number of focus areas that drive our security strategy, one of which is the effective and smart continuous monitoring. The flow technology that we have decentralized across all of our sites enables a defined and consistent approach to the site-level accounting, which is fundamental to adequately capturing a diverse range of operational contexts, water practices, risks, opportunities, and management responses, which occur across our operational footprint. This technology is the foundation for accurate and consistent external reporting for the minimum commitments. Since the implementation of this technology in 2016, we've expanded the system to include more than 400 monitoring sites across our operations. Through the successful implementation of this strategy, we have managed to reduce our reliance on the integrated Vaal River system by some 18% in 2020 when compared to 2018. Other demonstrable progress in water security strategies include the integrated Marikana water balance across our SAPGM footprint, which has introduced a great deal of flexibility and enabled the water to be transferred from the water-rich areas during the wet season to storage areas and water areas known to be water-stressed. The Pandora pipeline scheme has enabled the Marikana operations to transfer up to 6 megaliters of water a day from the eastern wet operations to the Kroondal operations. Water harvesting, this has allowed us to access more than 1,000 megaliters of capacity through the utilization of old open-cast pits and cleaning up the process water dams. This 1,000 megaliters is able to sustain the SAPGM operations for more than 2 weeks without any other potable water supply. A focus on tailings and density management and control with a target of 1.6 tons per cube by 2025. That is an optimal tailings density management and maintenance of our tailings facility that we are aiming to achieve. We recognize the fact that more than 50% of the water lost over the tailings facility due to seepage, evaporation, and initial interstitial lockup. Is a critical success factor to our water security strategy. As part of our drive to water security and water independence and responsible water management, we have also climbed on board and have a clear target and support transparent disclosure, which is why we have also reported and joined the water reporting to the CDP. As we all know, that meaningful change can only happen through collaboration. Thabisile, over to you. Thank you, Grant. My name is Thabisile Phumo. I'm head of stakeholder relations and community development. As a company, we are making real changes to transform and create value for all our stakeholders. Reflecting on empowerment structures. At Marikana, we've had to restructure the empowerment structure because the previous one was non-beneficial and had substantial debt burden. The new sustainable BEE financing structure provides for immediate access to distributable cash flow and ongoing transfer of tangible value to the beneficiaries. This enables us to secure the social license to operate for these operations. We recognize the need for social relief, and to that extent, we have unlocked it via our BEE structures and employee profit share scheme. We are pleased to advise that we have paid ZAR 145 million to the Rustenburg BEE structure and ZAR 64 million to employees via the profit share scheme since the acquisition. In Marikana, we've paid ZAR 91 million to the empowerment structures and ZAR 521 million to Marikana employees via the ESOP for the 2020 year. It is important that we continue to invest in these operations so that we can increase their life of mine, and also secure jobs. To that extent, at steady state, K4 and Klipfontein will employ 4,500 people at steady state. We continue to contribute to the fiscus and social imperatives by paying royalties and taxes. In the first half of 2021, we have paid ZAR 10.3 billion. We continue to deliver on Social and Labor Plan programs for each of the mining licenses. Our employee volunteering scheme, where we partner with our employees to unlock value, ensures that we continue to create value in areas where they live. We also continue to sponsor universities, bursaries, and provide for learnerships for the youth in all our operating environment. Across the PGM segment, we have contributed to close to 80 social and labor plan programs in the areas of skills development, infrastructure development, and income-generating projects. In the health sector, we have partnered with the North West Province Department of Health to improve health services. In this case, we are involved in the construction of clinics, forensic mortuaries, and we have also contributed mobile clinics so that they can access areas that are far from social services. In the areas of education, we have partnered with the North West Basic Department of Education, where we have rolled out early childhood development programs comprising the upgrade of facilities, teacher training, learning infrastructure, and material. We have constructed new schools and continue to be involved in the extensions of several schools so that we can improve the quality of learning. The key issue that everyone is engaging around in Marikana is what we have launched earlier in the year, which is called the Marikana Renewal. The Marikana Renewal focuses on honoring, engaging, and creating a new reality in Marikana in partnership with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that we honor the legacy of Marikana and facilitate healing for families and the injured. We pursue justice and restitution for the affected and impacted. It became evident when we were working on this aspect, that you cannot do healing and restitution without looking at issues of social redress. To that extent, we are working together with various partners, government included, to ensure social redress through the delivery of social infrastructure that benefits communities. We are one of the contributors to the district development model and continue to promote, together with other stakeholders, the development of alternative economic streams in the region that can continue to create jobs during and post the life of mine of our operations. That is how, as a company, we are creating superior value for stakeholders in the Northwest environment. Over to you, Richard. Thank you very much, Thabisile, and also to Dawie and the rest of the team for those extensive presentations and deep dive into our operations. I think to bring it all to a conclusion, and certainly it is not my intention to repeat a lot of what has been said, but just to zoom through some of the key points that hopefully you have been left with from the discussions today. These are quality world-class assets. They are contiguous in nature, which has really allowed us to realize and achieve the synergies that we set out to achieve and has reset the cost base of these operations. They are competitive second and third cost quartile operations, which has set them up well for sustainability. These are long life assets. Although we commenced the life of them in a downturn period of the PGM markets, where it was difficult to justify capital, they have the resource base to sustain not only current production, but the production that the market requires for an extended period of time. We are developing the strategies as to how best and most responsibly realize that value and long life, for the value of all of our stakeholders. We have a very competitive position in terms of the processing capacity that we have. We have spare capacity in our refining facilities, and that certainly provides optionality, not only to assist third parties, but also in terms of our own growth plans. Many of our capital projects do not require extensive capital to be spent on processing. Similarly, as we mentioned, our strategy has been very much about integrating our business with our customers, with our supply chains. Likewise, as you have heard today, we very much focus on integrating our business with the surrounding communities in which we operate, and the environment within which our mines are created, ultimately with an objective of leaving a legacy when we leave one day, that is better than when we started. I think we've demonstrated that we managed to very successfully execute our entry into the PGMs to execute our growth strategy. We have already created significant value for our stakeholders through these operations, and look forward to continuing to do so for a further 20 years to come. With that, once again, thank you to the team for the presentations, and we would look forward to taking any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thanks, Richard, Dawie, and Roderick. Thanks for that. We do have a number of questions. We've got fairly limited time, so I'll try and get through as many of them in the time available as I can. First of all, I think for Richard, I'll put two together here. There's a question from Dominic O'Kane about our reserve profile. Has Merensky and Rustenburg roughly flat until 2025? The question is that given the current reserve price being below spot at the moment, is there elasticity to increase output at Merensky and Rustenburg without significant new growth capital? In the same sort of vein, from Chris Nicholson is, do any of the potential projects on slide 12 meet your hurdle rates under the long-term price assumptions set? Thanks, James, and thanks Dom and Chris. Listen, I think in terms of Sorry, getting a bit of feedback. In terms of the elasticity question, I think importantly where our underground operations are at the moment, those are fairly stable grade profiles and really changes in prices do not significantly impact the ability to increase output without capital growth. Of course, we do have extensions to many of those that don't require significant growth. It's not so much a price question. On our surface operations, which are more sensitive, increases in prices do allow us to tweak and optimize our surface output a little bit. I think in terms of the, I almost want to call it the capital strategy with the projects, which perhaps is to some extent where Chris is going. The short answer, Chris, is yes, most of those projects meet our hurdle rates at our own reserve prices and of course at spot prices very comfortably. As I mentioned in the conclusion, for us, where to spend capital, the rate at which we spend capital, the projects that we invest in, I think is very much driven by our long-term view of the markets and what the markets are going to require, including the metal mixes that are going to be required. While I demonstrated that we've got plenty of projects to be able to maintain our current profile, if that was what we wanted to do, and arguably grow it if that's what we wanted to do, the actual decision to invest is not just about meeting a hurdle rate, but really about strategically considering what we think the markets are going to need for the next 5, 10, and 15 years out. Ultimately that will drive our capital allocation framework. Thanks. Thanks, Richard. The next two questions I'll ask Neal to answer, if you could. First from Wade Napier. With the consolidated S.A. industry, several of your peers have similar capital-light brownfields optionality. Paybacks are typically four to seven years, with no one carrying any debt on their balance sheet. Where is the disincentive for producers not to green light one too many of these projects? In a similar vein, when do you start approving new projects or spending capital to keep the production profile roughly flat to the end of the decade? Neal, could you respond to those, please? Yes, certainly, Wade. I think Richard basically provided the answer. I think those producers that are responsible will remember the oversupply situation of just a few years back. It's not smart to produce more just to be a bigger producer. That's point number one. I think, when we talk hurdle rates, that's one thing. Making an investment in a country that is not going in the right direction requires another level of decision making. We've said it often, and we've said it publicly as well, that we've got many projects that under normal circumstances would be good projects, provide good returns, but we cannot with hand on heart commit to those projects under the current conditions in South Africa. We need more economic reform. We need stable electricity. We are moving in that direction. When some of those stars align, there can be much more significant investment. Again, the market is going to dictate how much supply we bring onto the market. If we see a shortage, we will certainly do it, because we value our customers. Just to produce more, to be bigger is not smart. Thanks, James. I think I answered all those questions. Yeah, I think so, Neal. The second one was just about when we'd approve projects to keep that profile flat, but I think you've pretty much answered that. The next one is relating to Kroondal. There are two questions that I'll ask Richard to respond to. The first from Nkateko at Investec. Kroondal life of mine, 11 years per the slide that you presented, Richard, the reserves and resources. Planned ounces and cost slide that Dawie van Aswegen showed shows essentially no output beyond 2025. Why is this? From Dale Munro, Metal Focus, given the industry trend of allocating capital to shallower, more mechanized operations, can you talk to how you view the priority of a Kroondal life of mine extension project relative to other deeper conventional mining projects in our portfolio? Richard? Thanks, James, and thanks, Nkateko and Dal for those questions. I think just to address the graphs, what we saw in the second graph that Dawie presented was very much what our current reserve base is. That underpins our reserve base in terms of it has a cutoff because of a tail. That's the reserve life as we have it at the moment. What you saw in the slide I presented actually was a slight tail that exists. Without modifying the operation, that tail on a standalone basis would not currently be economic. However, I dare say when we look at the Kroondal operations, the fact that they are contiguous to Rustenburg, there is still significant opportunity to realize value and extend the life of those operations by dropping the boundaries between what has classically been known as Kroondal and the Rustenburg operations. Obviously, that is something we are in a partnership at the moment with Anglo, we will continue to explore the optimal way to develop those assets going forward, such that it can extend the life. I think that goes to the heart of the point I mentioned, that we have not yet optimized the value out of these assets. Certainly with further refinement around dropping boundaries and optimizing infrastructure, I think there's still significant potential and value that can be had for all stakeholders there. I think in terms of the question regarding the priorities of shallow surface mechanized versus underground conventional, look, again, I think it just comes back to the same capital question that we've been debating in the last few questions. Ultimately, brownfields expansions, much of that doesn't require significant project capital, they are just extensions to existing mines. We'll look at optimal ways of doing that. Anything that requires significant capital will be reviewed as we just discussed in the last questions, both around hurdle rates, market requirements, and of course, as Neal mentioned, looking at the climate within which we're investing. Thanks, James. Thanks, Richard. The next two questions are similar from Steve Shepherd and Chris Nicholson again. Chris has been very active today. How much longer do we expect to have to make use of Amplats' smelting, converting, and refining assets? Is it commercially sensible to go it alone? Chris' question was, you say BMR and PMR are currently operating at 50% utilization. Are you still considering canceling the toll on Rustenburg with Amplats and processing these ounces yourselves? What other options do you have to utilize the capacity, i.e., Ivanplats, recycling, and other POX? Richard? Yes. Yes, sorry. Yeah. Thanks, Chris and Steve. I think a lot of questions there which, to be honest, I'm not going to delve into in a huge amount of detail, because clearly those are quite strategic questions. What I will say is that obviously the contract that we have in terms of the toll processing with Amplats at the moment, it was initially set up as a 10-year contract when we concluded the transaction, so that goes out until 2026, and can be extended by both parties at the time if that's what we want. Where we are at the moment is that spare capacity, as I say, has got significant strategic value for us. As mentioned, I think we're probably one of the few parties in the industry at the moment that has got spare refining capacity, especially on the base metal side, which gives us flexibility with regards to our own projects. It gives us flexibility to assist third parties. Of course, there is obviously the flexibility by having some of our material going through two facilities. As we know, there are challenges with Eskom. That is not a risk that we currently face on the Rustenburg side. Having that flexibility, as I said, is a big risk mitigator for us. There's several different aspects to this question. I think at the moment from our side, it's a level of flexibility that we enjoy having, and that I think we will retain for now and evaluate what the optimal route forward would be for when the contract comes to an end. Thanks, Richard. The next question from Arnold. Do we have plans to reopen Baobab or Blue Ridge? I think we pretty much answered that in terms of the other projects. These would obviously fall quite far in the back of the queue. Maybe we'll let some of our peers who are looking for answers open them up at another point. I think that we've already responded to that, Arnold. Steve Shepherd, question for Dawie. Have you evaluated your surface dumps in the Rustenburg, Marikana region? If so, what is your thinking regarding their possible exploitation? Dawie? Thank you, James, and thank you, Steve. I think like I mentioned in my presentation, that we are busy assessing all our surface dump areas. Yeah, there is definitely opportunity for increase in output. I think further to that, it also brings about two other opportunities, which will show us a potential saving in terms of CapEx on TSF. Further, maximizing our current surface operations, where we will definitely see a reduction in terms of unit cost rand put on those. Yes, there is definitely opportunities. Thank you. Thanks, Dawie. Next question, I think for Roderick. Arnold van Graan. How do you intend keeping operating costs and AISC flat, once production starts to decline as per slide 16? Roderick? Okay, thanks, Arnold. The way we have actually modeled our life of mine, Arnold, is that all those expensive shafts that we are actually going to drop, will be leveraged basically by the less expensive shafts. The shafts that we are talking about is primarily if you look at the life of mine, they've got a shorter life of mine, and then where it drops, basically, the less expensive shafts actually coming in. On top of that, you'll pick up that now when we actually close that particular shaft, fixed overheads, we assume that those costs has to go. The only cost that most probably to actually be minimal is actually the head office costs, where you pick up a very small%. That is a leverage between basically your lesser expensive shafts, versus basically the mechanized shafts that are coming actually at a lower cost. That is basically where you see that your unit costs will remain flat. You will have expected if the profile is the same, then that unit cost will actually go up. On the same time, you will actually realize that this cost that we are showing here, they are actually exclusive of basically the inflation, so it is actually on real cost. That is basically where we are on that profile. Then if you compare it with basically the surface, you could see that now the surface has got a different sort of curve, which is basically going the other way. That is basically what has happened on that particular one. Thanks, Roderick. The next question from Chris Nicholson again, is how much CapEx is required to meet the new sulfur dioxide emissions regulations of 1,000, and I can't remember if it's milligrams per NM squared, we'll just leave it at that, by 2025. Is it in your CapEx profile on slide 19? Grant Stuart, could you maybe answer that one? Is Grant Stuart available or maybe Kevin Robertson? I'm here. Can you hear me now, James? Thanks. Of course, sulfur dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that we as responsible miners need to manage and fight the good global warming fight. As Dawie mentioned, we already compliant to that local legislative limit of 1,000 milligrams per cubic meter. We've also set some internal benchmark targets that we need to do in order to sit alongside our benchmark U.S. colleagues. The target is really to improve our SO2 capturing and cleaning efficiency from 80% to 90% by 2027, and then by 99% by 2030. Those are the subject of a pre-feasibility, which is looking to really test the logical and most cost-effective outcome. The pre-feasibility will be finished by the end of the middle of next year, and then we'll, following a successful outcome, then embark on the feasibility study. Thanks, James. Thanks, Grant. The next question from Pearson Mururi, from AfriForesight about whether K4 will be mechanized or conventional. I think from the slides that Ralph presented, Pearson, you would have seen that there would be about 4,500 jobs created. It's similar to the existing Marikana, other shafts which are conventional. It'll be a conventional mine. From Nkateko Mathonsi at Investec again. Can you update the CapEx profile for processing infrastructure and asset reliability? Peers are increasing stay in business spend on processing infrastructure. Is SAPGM also experiencing the same CapEx demands? Kevin, I'm not sure if you're available to answer that one. Kevin Robertson. Again, yes, we have. We actually our peak funding is in 2023, and this includes obviously for compliance, the structure in our processing environment. On the concentrate environment, again, it is just SIB capital, and they are pretty at steady state and in very good nick as well. It is just on the processing side that we have increased our capital, and as I say, it peaks in 2023. Thanks. Thanks, Kevin. Appreciate that. Arnold van Graan, question for Roderick, I think. The big difference between contractor cost components at Rustenburg versus Marikana, is this something that will normalize over time? Thanks, Arnold. You will recall that now at Rustenburg operations, we do have mechanized and also the conventional shafts. Mechanized sections are actually at Bathopele shafts, whereby we are actually utilizing Epiroc as one of our contractor that is actually maintaining our fleet at Bathopele. That's why you will pick up that now the Rustenburg operations contract costs are quite higher than actually the rest. That is actually quite expensive maintenance. You will recall that now the mechanized section, when it gets to contractors' costs, are actually slightly higher with less labor. That is where the mix is comparable to basically where Marikana is sitting at the moment. The only contracts that we have got there is actually for vamping and sweepings only, which is basically normal. That's where the differences are in terms of the contract cost between the mechanized as well as the conventional actually shafts. Yeah. In terms of normalizing it going forward, it's two different sets of actually mining methods that the guys are actually doing there. It couldn't be normalized because Bathopele is purely mechanized, and the other one is conventional. Thanks, Roderick. Just a last question then before we take a quick break, was around the CapEx guidance in the slide, or the slide shows ZAR 6 billion for 2021 versus ZAR 3.9 billion that we guided for at our results. Could we just explain the difference in the slide versus the guidance that we've given in the book? Yeah, look, on the graph that you are actually seeing there, we are using a life of mine as per the plan, original plan that we had, and that was actually including the K4, and then also the open cast original plan as we had it, and a couple of the refineries, and the PMR CapEx that we had originally on the life of mine plan. Due to delays in terms of COVID, when we get to actually the year, found that now some of the actually CapEx has been delayed, but it's going to actually be spent next year. You could pick up that now a lot more has been moved basically to actually 2022 in terms of how we actually are pushing our CapEx. That is basically the only differences between where we are at ZAR 6 billion down basically to ZAR 4 billion. That is basically that time delay of the projects as well. The last one is basically more sitting on the ORD side as well, which is basically on an expense basis at this point in time when you look at the graph. Dominic, if you want to go into a bit more detail, we're happy to take it offline and go through the numbers with you as well. On that note, I think let's take a quick break. We've got the last session ahead of us, so we'll come back in about six minutes, and then we'll start the final session of the day. Thanks very much for attending so far. [Break] Good afternoon, welcome back to the last session of the day where we'll be looking at our U.S. or Montana Stillwater operations. Truly a tier 1 asset that in many ways is a big differentiator for our PGM business. As per previous, please take note of the forward-looking statements and safe harbor statements. Thank you. I think when we consider global PGM markets and where PGMs are produced, they largely come from three operating districts: Southern Africa, being South Africa and Zimbabwe, Russia, and North America, most of which comes from the United States, from Stillwater itself. Clearly, each of these countries have got their own political and geopolitical risk, and certainly having the opportunity to have a diversified asset base that considers Southern Africa and the U.S. is unique in terms of the opportunities that having such a base presents. We will share some of those opportunities with you as we move through the presentation. This was a very strategic addition to our PGM portfolio in the form of Stillwater. The operation itself is an outstanding deposit. As you can see from the picture at the bottom, currently to date, less than half of the total operation currently sits within our reserve base. Just over a third has actually been mined, and there is still extensive known resources that could be exploited for many years still to come. Looking at the Stillwater acquisition itself, this was made in May of 2017. It was a big acquisition for our company at the time and certainly did raise some eyebrows. This is truly a world-class operation. It is by far the largest primary palladium producer in the world, one of only two, and significantly larger than any others. It is a long life asset base, which we will share with you. Also equally important, this particular acquisition came with a recycling business that came with Stillwater, which is a very strategic business, especially when we look forward in the world of ESG and green metals. We will share with you how recycled metals is substantial from a green perspective and really provides a lot of flexibility to our market, to what we can offer our metals to our markets and to our customers. Of course, the U.S. is a stable mining jurisdiction that has a different operating cost base, all of which provides us with flexibility and strategic advantage when looking at our total PGM operating base. You will see the capital that we have invested in this project, that is for the long-term investment that will ultimately make us one of the lowest cost producers in the industry, a first quartile cost producer. Of course, Stillwater is one of the leading ESG operations, I would say, globally. Many of their practices, I think, set the benchmark not only within the PGM industry, but within the global mining industry. Many of the processes and initiatives that have been embedded, such as the Good Neighbor Agreement, certainly serve as a guiding beacon for much of the industry across the rest of the globe, and one we are looking to embed within the rest of our operating businesses. Thank you. These are long-life assets, as I mentioned. The total resource base is about 87 million ounces. We have increased that slightly as we have expanded towards the east of the deposit in the so-called Blitz area or Stillwater East area, as we refer to it. Our total reserve base is only 27 million ounces. As highlighted, still a significant portion of this ore body that remains available to consider in the future. Thank you. I think the next slide really just outlines what a significant and special ore body this is, particularly from a grade perspective. Anybody who has mined high-grade ore bodies would know the benefit that it brings to you in terms of the flexibility of operating during tough times when prices are depressed, and certainly the flexibility it gives you as well to manage yourself on a unit cost basis, unit cost per ounce basis. This really is a standout operation relative to any other PGM deposit across the globe. The life of mine, as we know, we acquired Stillwater with a solid and stable operating base at our East Boulder and Stillwater West operating areas. These had steady life of mine productions at a total of about 550,000 ounces per year over a period in excess of 20 years. When we acquired the operation, there had been a scoping study and the commencement of a pre-feasibility study on a project known as Blitz. Today, we often refer to that as the Stillwater East area. That is shown in blue. It's a project we continued with, subsequently completed a full feasibility study on. That project will see these operations ramp up to around 850,000 ounces in total, for more than a 20-year period. Thank you. I think on top of that, again, just to touch on the recycling. The recycling base adds an additional 800,000 ounces of production, albeit secondary production, to these operations. That is a substantial one and a half million ounce production that we have coming out of the U.S. A strategic location, the only producer of PGMs within the U.S., certainly an asset that is deemed to be very strategic globally. I think just moving on, what you'll hear throughout a lot of the presentation today is looking forward as to how we see these operations, how we see Blitz or Stillwater East coming online, how we see the build-up in flexibility at our Stillwater West operations, and the continued steady state of East Boulder, which has been a steady producer for us over the years. I'd almost like to just take this opportunity to briefly reflect back. Neal has shared some of the payback periods on our operations, just to briefly reflect back, we will look forward, where have we come from with this operation? As I mentioned, we paid $2.2 billion for this asset back in 2017. Fairly shortly thereafter, we did undertake a streaming transaction with Wheaton Precious Metals. That has been a partnership we have greatly valued and has added a lot of value to both parties. That brought in an additional $500 million worth of funding. These operations together, over the period of time that we've owned them, have generated just under $1 billion in cash, of which we have reinvested about $600 million into capital, a portion of which has, of course, gone into the Blitz or Stillwater East project. As it stands today, we have just shy of $1 billion worth of advances in the recycling business. To try and cut through what that means, basically, it means that if we were to stop operations and stop our business today, we would have $1 billion worth of cash flow that would still come into the business. Looking at that largely means we have already paid back what we paid for the Stillwater operations just over the last four years. Small amount left outstanding there, about $350 million, which subject that coming back, we have broken even already on the significant investment that we made. Everything you will see on the slides coming up that look forward, the opportunities that we have to further reduce our costs, the long life nature of these assets, that will all be additional value that we have created for our shareholder base and look forward to creating and enhancing the value for all our stakeholders with the long life of this asset. Thank you very much. I will now hand over to Wayne, the EVP of the U.S. Operations and his team to take us through the details. Thank you, Wayne. Thanks, Rich. Good morning and afternoon to everybody on the call. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Wayne Robinson. I've been heading up the U.S. segment since the beginning of the year. Rich has already covered some of the key highlights of the U.S. PGM business. What I'm going to do is run through a bit more of a detailed overview of the operations, covering aspects from safety through to production. I'll also be giving some cost and financial forecasts. I'll also provide a bit of an update on the Blitz project, which we now refer to as the Stillwater East project. As you've seen from the photos, these operations are based in a pristine environment in the foothills of the Beartooth mountain range. We've got two operating mines, the Stillwater mine, which has been in operation since 1986, and the East Boulder mine, which started in 2002. These operations produce around 300,000 and 250,000 ounces of 2E output respectively. The Stillwater East project, which was initiated in 2016 prior to the acquisition by Sibanye-Stillwater, targeted an additional 300,000 ounces of 2E production, which would have grown total underground output to about 850,000 ounces by 2022. Following a review in 2020, this buildup has been revised to the end of 2024, and I'll provide a bit more detail on the rebased plan in the coming slides. Each of these mines has a dedicated concentrator and tailings facilities, and concentrate is trucked to the metallurgical complex in Columbus from the mine sites. In addition to being a world-class metallurgical function, this facility is also one of the largest autocat recyclers in the world, with output able to match the 850,000-ounce underground production. The nature of our environment and the surrounding communities compels us to be a leader in terms of our ESG practices, and we'll cover this in a bit more detail later. Unfortunately, not all the members of my team will be presenting today, so I'd like to quickly introduce them. I've inherited a very strong and experienced team who have a great understanding of operations and the operating environment in North America. Dee Bray heads up the safety for the segment, and Dee has deep operating experience from the Stillwater operations. He spent many years at these mines, and a key focus for him and his team is achieving ISO 45001 compliance by year-end. Ryan Morris, he's worked for the U.S. operations since graduating, and his focus as head of HR is ensuring we have people who are engaged in our business. More recently, he's dealing with the challenge of ensuring we've got critical skills to grow the business in a very tight U.S. labor market. You'll also hear from Heather McDowell a bit later when she shares our approach to ESG. Her portfolio is quite diverse and also includes legal and governmental affairs. Corne Strydom was brought into the team earlier this year as an additional resource to provide technical support, as well as project management support to the Stillwater East projects. Until recently, I think you'll probably be aware that he was heading up the S.A. Gold operations. I believe most of you know Justin Froneman, who has been ably supporting the team as a CFO for the U.S. operations for the last few years. He'll also be sharing a bit more detail on our costs and give a detailed update on the recycling business. Ken Maxwell has been the SVP of operations for a number of years, and he also provides extensive experience in this operating environment, as well as a high level of energy to the team. Despite an improving trend over the long term, the team continues to strive for safety metrics which are comparable with those of our peers in the ICMM. Delivery against the pillars of our group safety strategy, which was presented in a lot more detail on the 9th of September, will support continuing improvements in this trend in the short term. A notable setback in our safety journey was the tragic incident at the Stillwater mine in June 2021, when a small utility vehicle collided with a train on one of our main rail levels, resulting in a double fatality. Aside from the significant emotional impact on the entire workforce, the operations were disrupted by a 10-day suspension of all operating activity by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. There were also subsequent short and medium-term impacts on production as operating procedures were revised, and the U.S. segment continuously looks at new systems and technologies to create a more enabled environment. I'd like to share three key takeaways from this slide. Firstly, operations will build up to 850,000 ounces of 2E PGM production by 2025. There is a decline in production from Stillwater West in 2021 and 2022, and this then resumes to planned levels by 2023. The Stillwater East project also reaches optimal production rates by the end of 2024. As I've said, by 2025, we expect to experience the full benefit of this growth in output, together with the finalization of the expenditure on the project. The completion of the project and the growth CapEx by 2025 results in a convergence of the all-in costs and all-in sustaining costs. This then reduces total operating costs together with associated lower planned stay in business capital expenditure over the next two to three years to around the $750-$770 per ounce level. The decline in output from Stillwater West over the next two years, before reaching the 300,000-ounce level again, is not really clear in this graph, but is mainly as a result of mining flexibility challenges which have been exacerbated over the last few months by the operating restrictions following the rail incident. I'll cover this in a little bit more detail in the next couple of slides. The main areas I'd like to highlight in this cross-section of the mine is the Stillwater fault, which is that dark line on the right-hand side, and the depression zone, which is that gray zone on the left-hand side of the cross-section. Mining flexibility at Stillwater West became challenging as mining fronts approached the Stillwater fault and the depression zone, which is a known area of low mineralization. Other levels on the mine have successfully traversed both of these features in the past. Following the incident, the safety incident in June, however, certain mining blocks were stopped and some of the restricted areas have had further impact on reducing flexibility. This has had a short-term impact on development required to traverse these features. To address the flexibility challenge overall, additional investment into the development will be made at Stillwater West to improve our level of developed state, which will ensure more predictable and sustainable production going into the future. Current estimates, as I've said, show that it will take us around two years to get back to the planned levels of flexibility, which will support optimal production over the long term. Key point on the Stillwater East, or Blitz project, is that the revised build-up plan remains on track. This plan was developed last year following a number of fundamental changes to the original planning, including flooding of the Benbow decline, challenging ground conditions in the project area, and then delays to capital projects in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. A revised approach to orebody development and developed state was also incorporated. Additional upgrades and enhancements were also included into this revised or the rebased plan, which were not included in the original scope of the project. As a result, the estimated capital to completion is now $375 million. I'm pleased to announce, though, that the Benbow decline has reached its planned elevation, which allows for the development of critical ventilation infrastructure for the whole of the Stillwater East project. On this slide, the information shown really just highlights the quality of the Stillwater East ore body. As you can see, in terms of grade, it clearly surpasses what the Stillwater West ore body has delivered to date. There are also early indications that there'll be a number of mining areas that can be highly mechanized with transverse stoping methods. This forecasted capital expenditure outlook shows what I've already touched on in one of the previous slides, where you can clearly see the completion of the capital projects expenditure by 2025, as well as a reduction in the non-development capital over the next few years as fleet replacement and environmental expenditure is completed. The investment into the development of the ore body is pretty clear. This will ensure that we can commit to more predictable and sustainable levels of production. I'd like to hand over to Justin to run into a little bit more detail on costs as well as on the recycling business. Thanks. Thank you, Wayne, good morning and good afternoon to everybody, and thank you for making the time today. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Justin Froneman, I'm the Senior Vice President and Head of Finance for the U.S. I'd now like to turn our attention to the financial and capital aspects underpinning the U.S. PGM business with the aim of providing some clarity on our historical cost performance, coupled with an outlook on what the future holds, particularly as Stillwater East ramps up and reaches steady state production levels. Since acquisition, we've seen relative consistency in the working cost profile of our U.S. business, a noteworthy achievement given the step-up in growth activity across our business during this time. Stillwater has historically been very well controlled and managed, it's pleasing to note that this trend has continued post-acquisition. As a component of total unit all-in sustaining costs, working costs have trended at approximately 60%, which I will expand on in further details in the upcoming slides. Given the significant PGM price appreciation since acquisition that was noted earlier in this presentation by Richard, the gearing of the PGM business to royalties and taxes is significant and bears some focus. As is reflected above, royalties and taxes have increased to about 21% of total all-in sustaining costs in 1H 2021, up from about 12% in 2017. As such, although this is a very good problem to obviously have given its impact on our revenue, the gearing of our business to high price-driven royalties and taxes is certainly notable. Based on elevated rhodium prices, we are using this opportunity to now guide our revisions in our tax and royalty guidance. We now estimate that every $100 change in our PGM basket price results in an $8 per ounce increase in our unit all-in sustaining costs. Finally, as I will expand on in subsequent slides, our absolute capital investment made in our business since acquisition is substantial and underpins a drive towards modernization, mining flexibility, and sustainability. This was deemed obviously appropriate given the relatively high price environment that we find ourselves in and ultimately supports future production volumes, efficiency, productivity enhancements, and fundamentally crystallizes the long life potential that our U.S. business holds. Drilling into our underlying operating cost breakdown, it may be of interest to you that our U.S. PGM business has a very similar cost split to that which we've noted at our SA Gold and SA PGM businesses, despite only having about 2,000 employees. On a 12-month time horizon, approximately 66% of our costs are considered fixed, with labor and contractor costs making up about 60% of total operating costs. Utilities, which in this case would include electricity, natural gas, and propane, accounts for about 5% of our total operating cost. From a pure variable cost perspective, consumables in the form of supplies, maintenance parts, and other warehoused items, accounts for the majority of this flex spend at approximately 30%. Given the somewhat remote location of our operations and the strict operating conditions under which we govern our operations, which is obviously, as Heather will touch on, underpinned by ESG requirements and the Good Neighbor Agreement, transport costs are also noteworthy, and these would include the management of employee busing and material deliveries to and from our site. Looking ahead to where the U.S. PGM segment's unit cost profile is expected to settle, it stands to reason, given our relatively high fixed cost component, that our unit costs are significantly geared to production. With Stillwater bringing on high quality, more efficient, and lower cost ounces, the continued ramp-up of Stillwater East and the steady-state-ing of Stillwater West and East Boulder should see the U.S. business' unit costs begin to revert from 2022 onwards back to more normalized levels. The tragic events at our Stillwater operations had a material impact on production, as Wayne mentioned earlier, and this now reflects in our 1H 2021 unit cost performance. As you would have seen in our recent market guidance, we have given a revised outlook for FY 2021 due to this. As I've mentioned earlier, our royalties and taxes are forecast to remain at an elevated portion of our unit all-in sustaining costs over time, and the profile in front of you assumes a $1,680 per 2E ounce basket price. Any change to this basket will have a direct bearing on our cost profile, with our costs obviously flexing up or down by approximately $8 for every $100 per ounce move in the basket. Current U.S. corporate tax rates approximate 21% before allowances and deductions. There have been some utterances about this rate being increased to 26%-28%, and we continue to monitor these developments closely. Any change in our federal corporate tax rate will have an immediate impact on our deferred tax balances as well as the profiles shown above, and more guidance will be provided should this change occur. For modeling purposes, after allowances and deductions, we estimate that the U.S. business' cash tax rate at approximately 15%, based on current federal and state tax legislation, and that also assumes obviously the allowable deductions that we are allowed to take. Development capital or ore reserve development spend is expected to approximate $150 an ounce on a forward-looking basis, up from about $100 an ounce historically. This is a clear investment providing better flexibility and quality face availability, thereby supporting the ounce profiles shown throughout this presentation. Although material spend, this should see the U.S. business' unit cost profile improve over time as we are better able to leverage and support our mining operations. Staying business capital, which would include investments on fleet modernization and optimization, that's obviously given the mechanized nature of our operations, is material over time, as is our spend on environmental, which would include tailings and water management. This spend is expected to approximate about $180 per ounce in 2022, reducing to $140 per ounce in 2023 and 2024. Thereafter, this spend is expected to reduce to approximately $30 per ounce, and that really is a reflective of more historical norms. By 2025, it's anticipated that our fleet will be fully optimized and will be underpinned by modern and proactive maintenance practices. In addition, in accordance with our focus on safety, we are also looking at using this opportunity to enhance our operations during this time with the introduction of battery-powered equipment and proactive safety initiatives being rolled out. Finally, as Wayne Robinson discussed earlier, we do anticipate a reversion in our unit all-in sustaining cost and all-in cost as Stillwater East continues to ramp up and reach steady state. This should see our business move down the industry cost curve over time, and will see us leverage better of our quality ore body and the ore body that we have available to us. Crucially, and this is an important point, we do plan our business on materially lower PGM production prices, and we do not bake in current prices indefinitely. This ultimately drives our cost control levers and our capital investment strategy. Turning our attention now to recycling. As you would've seen from our 1H21 results presentation, we've recently segmentalized our U.S. recycling business, underpinned by a strategic focus on expanding our recycling business across commodity lines and further upstream. Before delving into the specifics of the recycling network, some context is required around our current metallurgical complex footprint in Montana. This is a world-class facility and is arguably one of the lowest-emitting PGM processing facilities in the world. The complex houses our smelter, which contains two electrical furnaces, and within those furnaces, we co-mingle our mined concentrate and spent autocatalysts, which are then ultimately smelted. After that smelting process, the resulting matte is processed through our base metal refinery, which is also ultimately responsible for the production of filter cake, which is processed and outturned by a third party through its precious metal refineries in North America, and it also has a global footprint. The BMR also houses our base metal recovery circuits, during which time nickel and copper are produced as valuable byproducts. If you refer to your appendix, you'll find some more details around these byproducts and the credits associated with these production profiles. The Met complex also houses our assaying laboratories and testing facilities, which are responsible for the testing of about 300,000 samples per annum. These samples would include, obviously, samples for the mine, but would also include the testing of recycling lots for customer autocats, as well as assaying to support hedging, carbon, and quality tests on the product that we are being shipped. With regards to the strategic work that we've undertaken across our recycling segment, it should be noted from the outset that the recycling value chain is incredibly complicated, fiercely competitive, and requires specialist skills and relationships. The North American and European recycling networks are efficient and opaque, being mostly privately held. The upstream network starts with scrapyards, it extends to specialist collectors, processors, and decanters, and extends to where we currently sit in our smelting and limited refining through the Base Metal Refinery that we spoke about earlier. The refining of matte and PGMs, as mentioned, is relatively specialized, and there are about 14 participants globally who undertake this activity. That is the downstream portion of this industry. It is also worthy to note that although we focus on PGM recycling in this value chain, ancillary products are produced during this process, including batteries, scrap steel, oxygen sensors, alloys, and plastics. There is significant value in the upstream value chain that extends well beyond the PGMs. This area of the value chain is crucial when one considers the need for efficient scrapping of batteries and fuel cells in the future. We believe we are one of the largest recyclers of PGMs from spent autocatalysts globally, with the business having 20+ years of history and operating experience behind it. During this time, our recycling process and procedures have been evolved and adapted to changing market conditions, improving collector requirements, and also implementing responsible sourcing. That extends across the value chain. Given our history in this area, this is not necessarily a new or high-risk endeavor for the group, and also avoids accusations of greenwashing. Our ability to leverage from an already excellent ESG underpin at our U.S. business provides further impetus in this area, with premium pricing and low-yield green options available to us should we need them. Net-net, we believe our involvement in the recycling area is crucial to closing the loop on a closed economy. Overall, our recycling operations are set to deliver more than 700,000 ounces of 3E this year and beyond. That is utilizing our existing capacity. At a smelter run rate of about 28 tons per day, which is about 12% higher than what we reported in the first half of 2021, the recycling business accounts for about 17% of the smelter's capacity. We believe we can grow our recycling feed rate by about 25% before capacity considerations need to be undertaken. Given current turnover rates, the recycling segment is forecast to deliver a US dollar return on capital employed of about 11% this year. Given our well-established customer relationships, risk controls, and hedging strategy, this is a relatively low risk and well-managed return. Despite this, and despite these positives that I've mentioned, quality improvement efforts which focus on real margin accretion and increasing our inventory turnover rate are being investigated and implemented as we speak. Given the active management of customer shipments, particularly around shipment timing, volume delivery, and carbon content, our recycling business has managed receipt rates to about 25 tons per day year to date. Feed rates have been very well maintained at the same level, aiding an inventory reduction at 432 tons for the half year. One benefit of this strategy has been a reduced exposure to high carbon content material, which is governed by our contract limits and ensures appropriately supply volume and supply support, and those remain key for us because, as mentioned earlier, this is a relationship-driven business. As is reflected in the top right-hand slide of this chart, our advance rate per 3E PGM basket price remained elevated during the first half of 2021, this caused a substantial increase in the quantum of advances made to suppliers, ultimately approximating about $1 billion at the end of the half year. This was principally on the back of high PGM basket prices, which has seen our recycle advance rate per ounce increase from about $2,000 per ounce at the beginning of 2020 to well over $4,000 per ounce at 1H21. This was primarily driven by rhodium's price, of course. Despite this advance rate and the amount of money that we've been forwarding up, the recycling business is self-funded from internally generated cash. The recent dip in PGM prices is seeing our net receipts turn positive, this is aiding a recoupment of working capital. We're currently advancing approximately $10 million per day, while our receipt rate will reflect pricing from three months prior, which is about $15 million per day. It is important to note that our advances are secured by asset inventory, and that's done on-site, with predetermined settlement dates for these advances. Consequently, these funds are largely risk-free and attract a very favorable interest yield of about 5% per annum. This positive interest carry is therefore absolute, and it is material, and has seen the recycle business generate an additional $15 million in net interest income during the first half of this year. Overall, the recycling business has generated bottom-line earnings of $65 million at the end of the half year, which implies a net income of well over $100 million for the full year ahead. Although this represents a margin of approximately 5%, our ability to turn these advances over four times per year results in an annualized return of greater than 20% and the aforementioned return on capital employed in US dollars of about 11%. Thank you for your time. I'll now hand over to Heather to brief you on our ESG performance and outlook. Thanks so much, Justin. Hello, everyone. My name is Heather McDowell, I look after the legal, environmental, and external affairs functions for our US PGM operations. I grew up on a cattle ranch near our Montana operations, and I'm quite passionate about responsible rural economic development. That's something we're really proud to be doing here in the U.S. The communities near our facilities, as Wayne mentioned before, are rural. The areas around our operations are pristine, and they're amazingly beautiful. We see it as a great privilege to operate where we do. We live and recreate here too, and we really take great pride in working with our communities to protect our environment and really our way of life here in Montana. We're uniquely situated in our community engagement here in Montana. Montana's Hard Rock Mining Impact Act creates a sophisticated economic and a social regulatory environment where developers of large-scale hard rock mines are actually required to prepare an impact plan that then identifies the local government services and the facilities needed as a result of the mining development. The developer must identify and then commit to paying the resulted increased local government capital and net operating costs. This structure really creates vibrant communities at the outset of mining operations, and that's what we have here. In essence, there's really no need for mining entities to build infrastructure, schools, et cetera, that you see in other jurisdictions, because here the taxes from the mining operations are reallocated to a sufficient local government tax base. The overall economic impact of this system, coupled with highly capitalized work and highly compensated jobs, is really profound. Ultimately, the Montana operations contribute over $3 billion to Montana's economy. It makes our operations just over 3% of Montana's entire economy. In addition to this regulatory structure and tax allocation, we also have really significant community giving engagement here. We engage directly with local nonprofits to support, as our pillars, environmental stewardship, local emergency and health services, educational efforts, especially STEM-related ones, and other local community activities. We've been really fortunate over the last few years to partner with Wheaton Precious Metals on a number of these projects. In the last year, just citing a few examples, we've helped an adult group home, which is just down the road from us, from our corporate office, build a recreation center. We've sponsored sophisticated emergency training for our local volunteer and ambulance services. We partnered with a high school environmental club to install solar at its school, and we've helped a local college do a river cleanup, among many, many other projects. Here in the U.S., we're really fortunate to have newer facilities and a quite friendly ore body. We're also fortunate to have collaborative relationships, such as our Good Neighbor Agreement, which is a binding legal contract with three local environmental and community organizations. This Good Neighbor Agreement gives these groups a seat at our mine and our business planning table, along with their consultants, which the agreement funds. Through this collaboration, we're able to take our community concerns into account at the very beginning stages of projects, whether the concerns be capital compliance or operations-based. We often change our plans and our course because of this interaction and this feedback. I think a real true collaboration. In the appendices, there's a lot of additional detail on the Good Neighbor Agreement. I encourage you to look there. From a compliance standpoint, we're a water positive environment. Our constituent of greatest environmental concern is nitrates that mix with water encountered underground. When that happens, we use a biologic denitrification process to remove well over 90% of the nitrates, and we consistently discharge less than 30% of what we're permitted to discharge from a nitrogen standpoint. We dispose of our treated water, which is actually treated well below drinking water requirements, through land application, which consists of irrigation and then cattle grazing, percolation to groundwater and deep well injection. We don't actually discharge directly into our rivers. On the air side, as Justin hit on well, we truly have a world-class smelter. It's fully scrubbed. It emits less than 5% of our permitted limits of SO2. We think we're probably doing the best in the world there. Our tailings impoundments are fully lined. All of our new waste rock impoundments are lined as well. Moving to tailings, we're very proud of our tailings design, our tailings construction, operation and monitoring, and the community engagement that's gone into our tailings facilities over the years. In addition, we believe that our regulatory structure here in Montana is likely the most robust in the world. In 2015, Montana enacted a law that requires a three-member independent review panel to approve all of our tailings designs. Our tailings construction is downstream, which was originally for highly seismic and highly precipitative areas. We just want that downstream construction because it truly is the best form. We operate under a robust tailings operation maintenance and surveillance manual. This includes strict inspection procedures, monitoring requirements, freeboard in the facilities, there's specific freeboard requirements, and a tailings placement strategy. There are specific daily, weekly, monthly inspections by both the engineer of record and the tailings management team. Right now, we're well-positioned to achieve compliance with the GISTM, the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management. From design and operation standpoints, we're there right now. We've also begun a series of community engagements on our emergency preparedness plan, which is required by the GISTM. These emergency preparedness collaborations allow our local emergency responders, many of whom are actually volunteers, to get experience in emergency preparedness exercises locally. We're really proud of doing that as well. We're well-situated here to advance on our carbon goals here in the U.S. We've been employing a solar array to power a portion of our Met Complex since 2018. We're exploring other renewables, self-generation for our portfolio. As Justin discussed thoroughly, our recycling operations are the future of metals usage. That is how we get where we need to go by having to mine less metals in the future through recycling. In addition to our unique recycling position, we're also uniquely positioned from a power supply standpoint. As Justin mentioned, our utilities are about 5% of total costs. When you take that and you take our carbon goals into consideration, we're fortunate to have the regulatory scheme we do here in Montana. As a product of Montana's attempt to deregulate its power supply in the late 1990s, we are now afforded the opportunity as what is called a choice customer to choose our electricity supplier for both the Met Complex and the Stillwater mine. This essentially removes us from utility monopoly risks, at least on the power supply side, and it gives us unique opportunities to package renewables directly with our power supply. Montana, as many of you know, is rich in wind and hydro, and solar and battery storage projects are also beginning to emerge. While we still consider the carbon market, we're really especially excited about these direct carbon reduction opportunities. We're also exploring carbon management through forests that surround our mines and are part of a carbon sequestration through mine tailings study. With these initiatives, combined with our community involvement and our engagement philosophy, I think we're positioned really well on the glide path to carbon neutrality. We're thrilled to share our operations with all of you today. We're proud of our journey to embed ESG in our operations and in our communities. With that, I'll hand it back over to Richard Stewart to conclude. Okay. Thank you very much, Heather, and once again, to Wayne and the rest of the team for the extensive presentations and unpacking of what I mentioned is truly a world-class and tier 1 asset that we have in our portfolio. Just moving through very briefly without going through what's been mentioned already. I mean, clearly, as we've said, this is a strategic asset. It's the largest primary palladium producer in the world, and it's situated in a great jurisdiction. A unique asset in its own right. I think we've outlined the significant payback. We have already largely paid back the asset that we acquired, and as you've heard from today, a very positive outlook and looking forward, all of that value to be created for our shareholders and for the stakeholders in the environment within which we operate. I think reflecting on the capital investment, that has been a critical decision that we have made. We have invested in the capital in these operations at a time when prices have been supportive. That has really allowed for this capital investment to be funded from internally generated cash flows. What this capital investment has done and has really provided a resilient business, towards future price cycles, and will facilitate an overall reduction in our operating unit costs in the future. As mentioned, this is a lower cost quartile producer, on an all-in cost basis, looking at the capital we've been investing, it has been sitting in the second to third cost quartile, as Neal mentioned. As that capital comes to an end, this is very clearly, particularly with the grade and the quality of this ore body, a first quartile cost producer. The recycling, I think we've touched on the strategic benefit that the recycling brings to us is immeasurable. It differentiates us from our colleagues, it provides us to provide different solutions to our customer base, and certainly a base that we would like to go off going forward in moving into the future. In addition to that, it does deliver some significant bottom-line profit to the overall operations. Finally, I think as we have heard from Heather and the team, Stillwater does provide a benchmark operation for ESG practices, not only within our company, not only within the PGM industry, but I dare say, within the mining industry globally. To try and very briefly sum up what we have presented today across all of our PGM business is, I dare say that over a short five years since we've entered this space, we have built a world-class PGM business, a leading business that I say competes extremely well with the balance of our peers out there. I think what we have managed to show is that we've positioned our business well into the market, into the supply chain, to work closely with our customers and really help us understand that market. It is a market we believe is underpinned by solid fundamentals and still has a long way ahead of it into the future. We have long life assets. These are assets that have got significant brownfields extensions, and the fact that they are brownfield expansions mean they are low risk, low geological, low technical risk. They can leverage off existing infrastructure, off existing people, which means that the cost of bringing these assets into production is significantly less. We have flexibility with our processing capacity, and these are all positions, I dare say, that makes us very competitive against the growth opportunities of our peers. We are competitive on the cost curve. Perception of these assets being on the right-hand side of the cost curve, I think we have shown through our strategy of integrating contiguous assets, of realizing synergies, of applying new operating models. We have been able to move these operations down the cost curve and are very comfortably a second and third cost quartile producer today, with further upside on that cost as we continue to realize the synergies that can be brought about through contiguous assets. We have a completely unique geographical diversification. There's no other company that has the spread of assets that we have, certainly in terms of the volume of which it's produced, neither the mix of primary and secondary production. The opportunity to understand the recycling, to deliver a more ESG-friendly product, to complement the primary metals that we produce, is unique in the industry. Finally, and I dare say a critical point moving forward strategically, when one looks at where the market is going over the next, not only five and 10 years, but also over the next 20 years, is we have a unique metal mix. Given we have primary palladium producers, given our South African operating base, we have the ability to optimize that metal mix and that prill split for what the world wants at the time when it wants it. This truly is a world-class business. Once again, thank you to the teams for sharing their knowledge of the assets with us, I hope we've left you excited about the future of our business, as certainly we are. With that, I'd like to hand back to Neal and the rest of the team to take us through a conclusion on the balance of the day. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Rich. I'm Laurent Charbonnier, Chief Commercial and Development Officer. Neal asked me to present two slides on value considerations. For me, I joined the group a year ago after 20 odd years in London in investment banking. I was a sector banker, I worked on M&A deals, but also on quite a few IPOs and rights issues. I've had a chance to interact with investors and research analysts. I would just like here to provide you with some thinking around valuations. Clearly, the market is always right and the market knows best, which is what you learn in London in the city. We just want to give you some perspectives around the value considerations. If we look at the investment banking way of looking at valuation, I just wanted to start with a comparison of Sibanye-Stillwater and Anglo American. I'll start with a conclusion first, which is that you can summarize this space by saying that today, one Anglo American Platinum is worth two Sibanye-Stillwater. That's an interesting equation, isn't it? I'm not saying that Anglo American Platinum is the best peer for Sibanye-Stillwater because our group is also active in gold. You have seen this year that we have started to make significant progress with our battery materials strategy. Anglo American Platinum is a great company. When we are looking at valuations, we actually look at the competitive landscape. What strikes me from a value point of view is that if you were to look at who we have become today after the completion of all these acquisitions and the very success, duration, and turnaround of all the businesses acquired, the last one, Lonmin in 2019. I think that this group today is fundamentally different from what it used to be on the back of a successful acquisition campaign. If you look at Sibanye-Stillwater today, the numbers which you've seen and the story you've heard from, the PGM team, but also during the last Investor Day on gold and safety, shows you a group who, in terms of positioning on the cost curve, in terms of revenues, EBITDA, is actually today, in terms of size, not that different from Anglo American Platinum. When you look at this slide, what I find quite interesting is that Sibanye is so much more. What excites us as a management team is not the picture from the last 12 months. It's the growth optionality which we have over the next five years to actually accelerate our inroad in the battery material space and create a gold and green metal diversified company. When you think about the discipline and the shareholder returns, and the fact that this group over the last 12 months has committed $1.9 billion in dividends and buyback, it's a phenomenal story, but it's more than just a dividend play. It's a company with quite a track record in successful acquisitions and transformation. Hence our question: should one Anglo American Platinum be worth two Sibanye-Stillwater? This applies, if you think about it, about our peers within the PGM space or gold. If you look at this value equation here, what we would like to do is to help unpack this question by looking at the sum of the parts analysis. Again, having been in the city for 20 years, I've seen many times companies who are not happy with their share price, and they can come up with a business plan and the theoretical value of a business plan with a DCF is higher than the share price. You have a management team who is not happy with its share price. We've seen it many times. The market is always right. Here, what we are trying to do is something different on that page. The market is always right. The last time at the H1 results presentation, when Neal mentioned that there was a valuation opportunity with our business, he also said that there were four fingers pointing back at us as a company. What is important here, and that was the point of these two very important sessions of Investor Days, it was to ensure that the market has all the necessary information to be able to adequately model our group and come to its own view on valuation. When I look at this, and for me, the purpose of this page is to really ask some questions around valuation methodologies. What do I see as interesting on this page? I think that first, our current market cap is about the size of our SAPGM business only, which I find interesting. I think that if you look at the PGM business between South Africa, the U.S., and the interesting growth embedded in the projects we have, and we try to be conservative here in terms of work, there is already a phenomenal story coming out of the PGM business. I think also that the SA Gold business is an interesting success story by itself. If you remember at the time of the spin-off of this group in 2013, it was presented as a business with a very limited future. I find it amazing to look at this business and how it has been transformed so successfully over the years to be able to still have so many years of future ahead of it. In particular, when you look at the gold projects NPV, it gives further life to this business. It's something worth thinking about from a sum of the parts. You can start seeing that now we can add Keliber in terms of NPV, and right now it's valued at 27% holding, but we will get more of it and the building is on track. We also need to add the market cap of the DRDGOLD. If you think about our assets, our group strategy is certainly to grow the business, but we don't only grow by acquisitions. The partnership with Ioneer announced last week is precisely a 50/50 joint venture. We will continue to consider smart partnerships, and that's why when you think about our assets, we have half a billion dollar of value right there with our successful investment in DRDGOLD, which is easy to monitor. When you look at our NAV, I think that what we are saying is that it's only half of a story. As you heard today, and that's why we have these dotted boxes, there is a question to the market about what should be the right value for the U.S. recycling business. Clearly, this business today is not the size of a Umicore of an American Recycling, but in itself, it cannot be a business that is valued alongside or within the U.S. PGM business, with a straight mining NPV. This is a business model closer to capital goods. We've also explained that within our assets in South Africa, there is a significant value right there associated with uranium. If you look at the rise of uranium, there is an option value that was not recognized before in our share price, and we've provided significant information to be able to demonstrate that you have these hidden gems within our portfolio. We are also seeing that if you are looking at Ioneer, and Ioneer has a market cap, and yesterday the market cap of Ioneer reflected 100% of the project. From now on, it becomes actually 50% of a joint venture which has cash in it, so it's no longer a simple project. It's a project that we are confident is going to be built and is being financed, and we are delighted to have partnered with Ioneer. The point of this slide is to highlight the fact that over the past few years, there has been a material transformation of the business. We are now providing significant information to the market to break the neck of previous stereotypes which existed around the group. If I hope that we have been able to convince you that we do have long life assets, that we do generate cash, that we are financially disciplined, we do pay dividends. There is a lot of hidden optionality which we are trying to bring in front of the market in terms of disclosure, that's why we so strongly believe that there is a very attractive investment opportunity at this time with Sibanye-Stillwater. Thank you very much. I'll hand over to Neal for his conclusion. Thank you, Laurent. This is the very last slide of today. What are the key takeaways? Well, first of all, right from day one, and I hope you appreciate what you saw today about our people. You've had a good exposure to our management team, and as I've said, they're important. It's all about our people, and you've seen the depth and the competence of our managers. In the very first session, I do believe we presented a class-leading sustainability strategy, and it's all about building a climate change resilient business, and that flows through into very clear commitments to ESG. It certainly is a higher level of ESG commitment all the way through to sustainability. Today, you should have got a good feeling about the PGM asset base, both here in South Africa and in the U.S. It's high quality, it's long life, and certainly those assets that may not be in the lower cost quartile will certainly be moving there. We are not moving into the battery metals because we've lost confidence in the PGMs. You should have come away with a view that we certainly have a robust outlook for PGMs. There is short-term volatility. Of course, there is. We see it. In the medium to long term, the PGMs have a great and sustainable future. We are committed to our capital allocation framework. It's all about sustainability first and foremost, managing our debt, paying dividends, using share buybacks when appropriate, and then if we can create further value for our shareholders or stakeholders, we will certainly do that. That's normally in the form of M&A. If we can't, we will return that in the form of special dividends. We've given you some taste, especially on day 1, of our green metal strategy. I believe personally that is class leading. I believe it's at the front of risk diversification and creating value. Last, but certainly not least, you heard from Laurent and he put it across in a way that was better than I can ever have put it across. There's a clear value proposition for investing in our company with very significant upside. Again, as I said on day 1, what makes a good business? Well, first of all, great people. I think you've seen that. A good strategy. I think we're at the fore end of good strategic thinking. Of course, quality assets. We have all 3. Thank you for your time and attention. I'm now going to hand back to James to manage the Q&A session. Thank you, James. Please go ahead Thanks, Neal, and thanks everybody in the U.S. for the presentation. The first question specific to the U.S. PGM operations is from Arnold van Graan. The question is, "Was there already a backlog in development at Stillwater West, which was exacerbated by the safety incident? If not, why will it take two years to get flexibility back to the required levels? Is there an increased risk of missing production targets at Stillwater due to the lack of flexibility at Stillwater West? Yeah, Arnold, thanks for that question. I guess, the way I would respond to that is to say, to be able to, I guess, more predictably and sustainably manage the production going forward, we want to be at a developed state of around 24 months, and we weren't in that position. As I've said, this was exacerbated by the fact that we had the shut, due to the fatal incident, which resulted in a number of blocks of mining being stopped and a number of blocks and development also being constrained, in the short to medium term. This has obviously made matters worse. The timing on that development is of developing through the Stillwater fault as well as through that depression zone. As I've said, it is going to take us two years to establish mining fronts ahead of both of those areas. I think just to respond to your question around whether it's going to have any impact on our outlook, I think the revised forecast or guidance for the year, as well as the numbers that we've shown today, I think take into account what we've already spoken about regarding this level of developed state. Thanks. Thanks, Wayne. The next question's from Nkateko Mathonsi at Investec, again for you, Wayne, I think. Blitz project timelines were affected by difficult ground conditions. Should we price in zero difficult ground conditions when this operation reaches steady state and thus consistent at 850,000 ounces of throughput? Question is, have we adapted to those ground conditions, or do we expect further issues? Yeah. James, I think that was really the purpose of doing that rebase study. The revised outlook takes those ground conditions into account. Again, it also links to the previous answer regarding the amount of development that we require to do to make sure that that level of production is sustainable, taking those ground conditions into account. Thanks, Wayne. The next question's from Eckhard Gutknecht at BlackRock. Do you expect strong demand for cars to weigh on industry PGM recycling volumes in H2 2021 and next year? I'm not sure if Justin or Kleantha would like to respond to that one. Justin? Thanks. That's Richard. How's it, Eckhard? I think, from a demand point of view, we're not expecting that to weigh on the recycling of spent autocats. Obviously, there is pent-up demand for vehicles. I think the critical thing for new vehicles is that the age of vehicles on the road is actually extending, even though we are seeing obviously huge offers and incentives for new vehicle acquisitions. People are holding onto their vehicles longer. I think the critical thing to note, particularly in North America, is that the network for recycling is actually fairly constrained. Because it's a cash only, a cash on delivery business, you are going to find that any collection of autocats will be pushed through the system as quickly as they can be, despite what prices or incentives may be doing. I do think you're going to find that it's going to be pretty steady. We are having to turn down a fairly significant amount of new supply or offers, just purely because we don't necessarily have the capacity for it at this point in time, and neither does the industry. There are natural bottlenecks that I think will result in recycling growing at a fairly steady state as Kleantha mentioned in her presentation. Thank you. Thanks, Justin. Next question, I think for Neal, from Emil Lester at Société Générale. Neal, you mentioned that your target for the asset portfolio was one-third gold, one-third PGMs, and one-third battery metals. What is your time horizon to achieve that? Yeah. I would think it's probably a three to five-year time horizon to get there. I think we are being super disciplined in not buying everything that comes across our desk, and being quite selective. It's not something that's gonna transition, in the next year or two. I would say in 3-5 years, we should be there, both in gold and battery metals. Thanks, Neal. I'll get to the questions that we weren't able to ask earlier. From John Williams at RisCura. Can you explain the surge in rhodium recycling in 2020, which wasn't seen in platinum and palladium? Kleantha, maybe you can answer that one. Sure. Basically, the primary supply reduction in 2020 due to COVID shutdowns and then the Anglo ACP outage actually affected rhodium more than it did palladium and platinum because rhodium's got a longer timeline or processing timeline. If you actually look at the percentages, sorry, rhodium recycling would have made up about 32% of total supply in 2019, and just moved up a little bit to 35% by 2020, and we expect it to be back down around the 32%, 33% 2021. Really the impact there is the reduction in the primary mine volumes. Thanks. Thanks, Kleantha. I've got another question from Nkateko about our short-term response to prevailing metal price volatility. Maybe, Richard, you can handle the general approach to metal price volatility, how we deal with that, and then I can maybe ask Justin to respond on particularly relating to inventory levels and recycling. There's another question also that came up earlier, Richard, which maybe you can answer at the same time, was relating to the CapEx differential from our guidance and then what we had in the slide, which I think wasn't directly comparable. Maybe if you can just do that reconciliation for us again. Perfect. Thanks, James. Hopefully not looking like a deer in the headlights as I was just now where Justin jumped on. Sorry for that. I think in terms of price volatility, as mentioned, I think that is something obviously we manage on the marketing side. It does direct some of our thinking around our spot setting. From an operational perspective, price volatility really doesn't come into our thinking. I think we fundamentally, and that's one of the reasons why we have reserved prices where we pitch them, because those are the prices we base our long-term thinking on, and those are certainly prices we think are defendable and sustainable through the cycle, and it's on those prices that we base our capital decisions and our operating strategies. The volatility from an operational perspective is noise, and we really look at the long term. Clearly, on the marketing side, Kleantha will take that into account in a short-term sales strategy. I think just in terms of the capital question, and apologies for the confusion there. The capital that was included in the earlier presentation, was in fact based on our initial life of mine studies. For this year, that included 2 things. That included a full catch-up of ORD leading over from 2020 during COVID, and it also included the K4 project as a full year's worth of project. When we look at what actually happened over the course of the year, and that's what's included in our guidance, firstly, the K4 project only started midway through the year. It did go through a full board approval, and therefore for this year, we only forecast about ZAR 350 million worth of spend on both that and Klipfontein. Whereas in the slide that we included here, there was over ZAR 1 billion rand worth of spend. That entire cycle has just been shifted as the project started later. Then, of course, with ORD, while there was a catch-up required from last year, obviously there also wasn't stoping. That entire ORD capital profile shifts out. It is not like there is a sudden buildup next year when this is caught up. The entire profile shifts out, and that shift was also by about ZAR 1.1 billion on the ORD side. That largely explains the difference between the capital presented and the guidance that we've provided. Thanks, James. Thanks, Richard, and just to let you know that we've actually adjusted that slide in the pack. We've aligned it more with guidance in the current pack on the website. Just following up on the second part of that question, maybe for Justin, relating to inventory levels in the recycling business, and I'm just trying to interpret this question. I think it means relating to working capital, and the increase in working capital that we've seen with prices increasing over the last little while. No, thanks, James. It's a very good question. I think, as we tried to show in the one slide, because we've generally got about a 3-month lag between when we are paying for recycled production and when that metal gets returned, what we are finding is that obviously that metal, the advance rate that we're paying to the collector is obviously elevated, and that would really reflect prices of 3 months back, and we saw a peak of almost $4,500 an ounce 3 months ago on a 3E basis. With the recent decline, obviously, that does mean that we are unwinding that position because we are now advancing at a rate, and we are receiving the money back from 3 months prior. Net-net, we are actually gaining, and we are drawing down our working capital at an accelerated rate outside of actually feeding more recycle into our processing facilities. There's 2 levers, I guess, to us managing our working capital. It's the rate that we pay at, the rate that we receive, and then ultimately what we are able to feed at. I think to expand that question a little bit further down the value or up the value chain, I should say, from a collector network point of view, the collectors are all about turning their inventory as fast as what they can. As soon as they receive a spent autocatalyst, they basically want to get that inventory out their door. Although they are sensitive to prices, even with the current volatility in the price, they are churning their product out as quickly as they possibly can to companies like ourselves to process. We haven't really seen any short-term change in collector behavior because of the recent price dip that we've experienced across the three-element PGM basket. Thanks, Justin. I think a question for Neal from Tobela Bikita at Emergence. In your view, where does the required supply growth in green metals, lithium, nickel, and cobalt come from? I think we did cover it that we do see shortages, going forward. Neal, maybe you can just give a comment on that side. Yes. Listen, I could be facetious and say it's going to come from us, but that'll create a huge capital overhang, I won't do that. Clearly, there's a lot of projects around the world, despite that, there is still going to be a serious shortage of these particular metals. Hence why we keep on saying the estimates for battery electric vehicle penetration rates are very much overstated. It's completely unrealistic to assume that so much of these metals will come to the market. There will be shortfalls. I think a lot of the deficits will also start coming from recycling. Our announcement to grow our recycling business is not just for PGMs. I think everybody needs to understand that we understand the PGM recycling business. A lot of recycling needs to be done on the battery metals as well. We have the skills to do that. If we expand our business, as Justin said, upstream, for good reasons, those are the same collectors that will be collecting the batteries. Of course, on top of that, being part of the circular economy is exactly right, and that's fundamental to our strategy. The bottom line is, despite many projects, even if they're all developed, there's going to be a shortage of these metals. They're not all going to be developed because some of them don't pass the required grades and hurdle rates. Recycling will be a big contribution, but the bottom line is there's going to be a serious shortfall in terms of what's required unless you adjust your targets in terms of battery electric vehicle targets and penetration rates. Thank you, James. Thanks, Neal. Then from Chris Nicholson, I think I'll ask Richard to answer this one, is, "Could you explain why the new Marikana BEE deal was struck on such favorable terms to the BEE parties?" I'm sure they're mostly favorable to BEE parties, but it looks like close to 20% dilution for Sibanye over two to three years. Richard, I don't know if you can respond to that, please. Sure. Thanks, James, and thanks, Chris. I'm not quite sure how to respond to the percentage you've mentioned there. That is certainly not the type of dilution that we see through this. Chris, we'd be happy to try and work through it with you. Obviously, there are several assumptions that go into that. Perhaps I can just share the principle around this. Listen, that BEE transaction, I guess, to many ways really talks to our vision, which is about all stakeholders. Of course, in this instance, we had empowerment partners, and we also had shareholders. In completing the Lonmin transaction, we engaged extensively with our empowerment partners. They were good partners to have. They were very supportive of the business. They had a history in the business, and they were partners we wanted to move forward with. Obviously, it was important to recognize that due to various historical factors and detail, that structure was well underwater. The reality is there was no real value for the empowerment partners in that looking forward. I think very fair to say that as Sibanye-Stillwater as the time completing that transaction, if those empowerment partners had not have stayed in, we would have had to re-empower those assets. The way we looked at it at the time was to say, if hypothetically we were to re-empower it using a similar structure to Rustenburg, what would the ultimate commercial cost of that been to our shareholders? Using that as a base, we structured this transaction with our empowerment partners. We got the benefit of keeping very supportive and long-term partners with us in the company. It wasn't an extra cost to shareholders that they wouldn't have had to incur in any event. The existing empowerment partners see value, and obviously that's good for all stakeholders, which is precisely what we targeted to do. Chris, we'd be happy at any time to try and help you. It is a complex transaction. It's a vendor finance transaction, and perhaps that's the key to consider. I'd be happy to sit with you and work through it in detail. That's the principle of how that transaction came about. Thanks, James. Thanks, Richard. I think on that note, let's wrap it up for the afternoon. I really want to thank everybody who participated this afternoon, all of the presenters who put a lot of time and effort into this, and all of you for really sitting through 4 hours of presentations in South Africa just before a long weekend. Really appreciate your interest. If you've got any further questions or follow-up questions, we are always available to answer them. Thanks a lot, and be safe.