Good day. A warm welcome to our financial year 2021 annual results call. Thank you for joining us today. I hope that you and your families are staying safe. I am joined today by Paul Victor, our Chief Financial Officer, and members of my group executive. Our results for the period ending 30 June 2021 were published on our website earlier this morning. For the purposes of this conference call, we will highlight the salient features only. Financial year 2021 is underpinned by a strong overall business and operational performance, despite the significant headwinds of a prolonged pandemic and destructive weather events in the U.S. Against this backdrop, given where we were a mere 12 months ago, our performance is quite phenomenal. We not only met our short-term targets, but indeed exceeded many of them. Our balance sheet is deleveraged, with notable early wins in our transformation program, Sasol 2.0. This lays a strong foundation to progress a credible pathway to future Sasol. Next month at our Capital Markets Day, we look forward to sharing our long-term strategy and outlining how we will deliver on our triple bottom line outcomes for people, planet, and profit. The safety, health, and wellbeing of our employees is our highest priority. I am pleased that our interventions resulted in improvements on several key safety indices. While we maintained robust COVID-19 protocols and practices in all our workplaces, which supported uninterrupted operations. We also support the view that accelerated efforts in vaccination remains the best way to slow the pandemic, save lives, and drive a truly global economic recovery. Our people focus extends across our communities and stakeholders, as evidenced by the billions of ZAR we continue to invest in social impact programs. We have a firm commitment to deliver on our sustainability ambitions. We are acting with urgency to chart a path forward to decarbonize our business. We will share significantly improved climate change targets at our upcoming Capital Markets Day. For financial year 2021, our business results both met and surpassed expectations. This was underpinned by a strong operational performance exceeding our balance sheet objectives, with the needs for a rights issue now completely taken off the table. We managed liquidity well above target and delivered value through our strategy-led asset divestment program. Our balance sheet is now substantially de-risked compared to a year ago. With our Sasol 2.0 transformation program now ramping up, we are on course to restore our investment-grade metrics. This is a huge achievement. To highlight some of our operational performances, our Secunda operation volumes were up 3%, benefiting from innovative shutdown planning despite some operational challenges experienced during the year. Mozambique production was 2% higher. Mining productivity was down by 1%, mainly due to the introduction of a full calendar operating shift system, which will significantly improve our productivity going forward. The chemicals business achieved strong cash flows during the year. In our U.S. business, normalized sales volumes were 2% higher after taking the adverse weather events into consideration. As a reminder, we now have the joint venture with LyondellBasell in place for three of the seven LCCP units, namely the ethane cracker and the two low-density polyethylene units. Sasol has full ownership and control of the U.S. specialty chemicals business and the legacy ethane cracker. I'm pleased to say that the JV units running at high rates and our Ziegler, alumina, and Guerbet units are all operational and ramping up well. Mozambique remains core to Sasol as the country is central to our feedstock transformation strategy. The PSA project allows us to continue delivering on our commitments to Mozambique and to access additional gas supply to South Africa. Key commercial agreements have been signed, and the exploration and infill well drilling campaign resumed earlier this month. Our asset divestment program has been very successful. Since March 2020, we advanced divestments to the value of $3.8 billion, and as we conclude these, the program will draw to a close. We now have a focused portfolio positioned to deliver competitive returns. In closing, financial year 2021 was the positive shift we needed for all our stakeholders, and we believe that we now have a strong foundation for future Sasol, which is underpinned by a deleveraged balance sheet and a new operating model that allows for greater agility, faster decision-making, and enhanced customer simplicity. Our response plan has stabilized the business. Now we will ramp up our Sasol 2.0 implemented transformation program, further delivering gross margin uplift of up to ZAR 1.5 billion, cash fixed cost savings up to ZAR 3 billion and maintenance CapEx of between ZAR 20 billion and ZAR 25 billion in financial year 2022. Looking ahead next month at our Capital Markets Day, you can expect to hear more on our resilient and focused strategy to deliver value, our revised greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and more clarity on our delivering pathways. Customer centricity is a key theme for us, and we are guided by our purpose, innovating for a better world. I again thank our shareholders and other stakeholders for their patience and support during the past year. Moreover, to our global customer base that continue to trust Sasol as their supplier. We are truly grateful for the business we do now and into the future. I believe we are now on a sound footing to deliver competitive returns for our shareholders, all of which will be better for the planet and for people. I will now hand over to Paul to discuss our financial performance for the period in more detail. Thank you, Fleetwood, and good day, ladies and gentlemen. Our 2021 financial results underpin a remarkable turnaround in our financial position, despite the headwinds we faced. Our EBITDA increased by 38% year-on-year to ZAR 48.4 billion, with a massive improvement of 75% in our free cash flow. The rand per barrel price increased by 4% during this time, which really speaks to the fundamental improvement to the underlying business performance during financial year 2021. Earnings were impacted by the non-cash adjustments, most notably the remeasurement items, which includes the impairment of the Synfuels refinery and the wax value chain. In 2020, I spoke about our need to deleverage the balance sheet and the steps we were taking to improve our position. This plan was clear and aimed to generate enough cash flow through self-help measures and asset divestments to reduce our net debt to an acceptable level. We have delivered against this ambitious plan in spades. Net debt to EBITDA at the end of the reporting period was 1.5 times, well below our covenant of three times, reflecting a significant reset of our balance sheet. Our gearing has decreased from 117% in financial year 2020 to around 61% at 30 June, and the net debt to EBITDA is at ZAR 5.9 billion, all without executing a rights issue. Normalized cash fixed costs were 4.2% lower in real terms, reflecting continued discipline in cost management for the reporting period. We delivered on our ZAR 6 billion response plan announced to the market in March 2020 and again significantly exceeded our ZAR 1 billion savings target for financial year 2021. Furthermore, our Sasol 2.0 transformation program is achieving early results, which will be ramped up to deliver sustainable improvements. We have completed our workforce transition process, and our future cost base will include the benefits of this initiative and therefore have a positive impact on our cash fixed costs for financial year 2022. Sasol 2.0 will ensure that the company is competitive, highly cash generative, and sustainably profitable even in a low oil price environment. Our capital expenditure of ZAR 16 billion was a consequence of ongoing focused capital spend while ensuring the safety of our people and maintaining the integrity of our assets. Despite the significant progress, there's still the risk of a prolonged period of economic uncertainty. On this basis, the board has taken a decision to continue with the suspension of the dividend at this stage. This is a prudent step until the debt levels are reduced. More detail on our capital allocation framework will be shared at our upcoming Capital Markets Day in September 2021. Our energy business benefited from higher export sales volumes at mining, higher external gas sales in Southern Africa, and a strong recovery in liquid fuels demand following the easing of lockdown restrictions in South Africa. In chemicals, a combination of higher sales volumes in Africa and Eurasia and a higher average price across most markets resulted in a strong cash flow contribution from this business, despite the weather events in the U.S. and S.A. and divestments. The higher prices were due to a combination of improved demand, stronger oil prices, and tight supply resulting from the weather-related events in the U.S. and global supply chain challenges due to the continued COVID-19 pandemic. The LCCP, which is now 100% complete and ramping up to plan, delivered a meaningful contribution to profitability and is expected to continue to be a key contributor to the business cash flows in future. We will continue to prioritize deleveraging our balance sheet and debt levels in the coming financial year, sustaining net debt levels to EBITDA of below 1.5 times and a net debt to below ZAR 5 billion by the end of financial year 2022. We believe we are now very well-positioned and have the flexibility to execute our future Sasol strategy in an ever-changing macroeconomic environment and ultimately restore our investment-grade credit metrics and our blue-chip status. Thank you. We can now open the call for questions, which will be facilitated by our investor relations officer, Tiffany Sydow. Thank you very much. Good afternoon to all participants on this call. My name is Tiffany Sydow, and I'll be facilitating the Q&A session this afternoon. Thank you for the questions already submitted. We've captured those, and we will continue to capture your questions as they come in. The questions will be grouped into themes, and I will try to cover two to three questions at a time to make this flow more efficient. The first set of questions centers around the financial results, which we published earlier this morning. I'll start off with the first question, which is directed to Paul on the mining business. Mining costs were guided for ZAR 340-ZAR 360 per ton, yet ZAR 376 per ton was achieved. What caught you off guard, and can you expand on what sort of cost inflation you are seeing and why you expect the cost to decline to ZAR 370 per ton in FY 2022? The question comes from Adrian Hammond. Perhaps if we can start off with that one, Paul. Good afternoon, Adrian. Good to see your question. Yeah, you're 100% right. What caught us off guard, I will say, is not so much caught off guard, but more the progress in terms of the full implementation of the FULCO system. We have rolled it out mostly according to plan, but the change management was really lagging our own internal expectations in the sense that, effectively, we didn't see the productivity improvement as we originally envisaged. Today, when we look back, the whole FULCO system has been implemented on all the mines. The change management is progressing quite well, and we do believe we now have the full support of the organized labor behind us to actually drive this quite hard in the new financial year. The second issue that we also picked up during this past year is some deterioration of coal quality that was against our expectation. Again, as I've mentioned earlier today in the presentation, we are taking these two matters quite seriously. From the results in July, we do see a month-on-month continuous improvement in the productivity rates for our mines. You can only get your cash fixed costs down if you are successful in addressing your productivity and your run rate, so to say, in mining. If we are successful in achieving those, we do believe that that will be a very positive catalyst in us getting our cash fixed costs lower to the values as we guided towards. We do believe that the previous financial year, from a cost perspective, is a little bit suboptimal from a mining cost per ton, and hence the contribution of FULCO as well as Sasol 2.0 ramp-up initiatives, both will contribute to us delivering this cost guidance as provided. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you, Paul. The next two questions, one around the assumptions underpinning our impairments from Gerhard Engelbrecht, and one around capital spend. You've increased your five-year rand/oil price assumptions for impairments, yet you impaired the Synfuels facility. The PPE in the fuel segment is now only 1% of the group value of PPE. Have you changed your longer-term oil price assumption, and how does this impairment reconcile with your goal to be cost competitive at oil prices below $35? That comes from Gerhard Engelbrecht at Absa. The second question around capital spend, how did you manage to bring your CapEx spend below guidance in financial year 2021? Did some CapEx slip into 2022, or should we expect CapEx to fall towards the lower end of the range, thanks to improved efficiency? That comes from Henri Patricot at UBS. Thank you, Gerhard. Let me deal with your question first. When we look in terms of the impairments, as you know, we look at the full deck of prices that we receive, most notably on the oil side from IHS and WoodMac, we effectively look at prices right up to the end of the useful life of our facility. On the rand/dollar exchange rate, we do take a combination of the bank's view, which only is X amount of years out, and then our own analysis of where we see the rand playing out. In terms of the oil price, the beginning years do have a higher oil price, but the end or the latter years beyond the five-year period, based on those decks, which we need to consistently use to fulfill also the SEC requirements in terms of price assumptions. Those significantly saw a decrease in longer-term oil prices that on an NPV basis had a negative impact. However, by far, the most significant impact was the view on rand/dollar exchange rates. I guess from your perspective, sometimes it is hard to understand how a drop in rand/dollar exchange rate can cause such a significant impact. In this instance, unfortunately, it did. The rand was strengthened to a range of between ZAR 14 and ZAR 15, and on average, probably, we applied a ZAR 14.50 rand/dollar exchange rate, real rate through the cycle, which was a significant strengthening of the rand compared to the previous period in how we assessed the NPVs. The combination of these two factors ultimately resulted in us booking the impairment. You may argue, I think I did see some of your commentary that indicated that we are very conservative, maybe in our approach in terms of booking impairments. I always caution and say, where we booked impairments, you must always look back and see how much of those impairments we really reversed. We are realistically conservative when we look at the long-term assumption, but we are not overly conservative in terms of our long-term assumptions. We do believe that between our own assessment and the assessment of the auditors that was performed individually, and also by the strength of the price decks that we've used, that this impairment was just. In terms of your second point, in terms of the cost break even, yes, we do have the objective and ambition to maintain our cost competitiveness at that ZAR 30-ZAR 35 to the barrel. We also have to take into account further sustenance spend beyond this period to ensure that we meet our future sustainability objectives. Although those values are not significantly out of kilter, they do weigh in on the kind of value in use or the net present value of the asset currently. We still have all the objectives to finish or to ensure that the cost break even is in with these levels. Again, as I've mentioned, that there are some other factors at play. We will share more of our objectives for the future with you at the Capital Markets Day, such as sustenance capital, but also such as the impact of carbon tax on our profitability going forward. In terms of Henri's question, Henri, yes. Every year has its mixed bag of projects that is deferred, or you do not spend all the money as at year-end in terms of what you plan, which we refer to as the capital uptake factor. I think to be quite simple about this, year on year, the number is lower because this year we did not have a shutdown. We also delayed the shutdown in the U.S. on the ethane cracker. The combination of those things, ultimately, if you normalize for those, will bring us back in line with the guidance that we previously provided. There is a flow over of some capital, but we've seen that happening every year, and it is at a rate that is no different than any other we've seen before. Hopefully, I've answered your question, Henri. Thank you, Paul. The next theme of questions is around operational performance. Pieter, if I could ask you to answer these, please. The first question comes from Chris Nicholson at RMB. Chris, could you explain how the drilling campaign leads to lower gas volumes from Mozambique? What is the key driver behind increasing the long-term gas price assumptions? The second question around mining. When you built the new mines, a lot was said about the potential positive impact on costs. That has never materialized, and productivity and production have been issues for a number of years now. A meaningful portion of Sasol 2.0 depends on improved mining. How confident are you that you can actually achieve that? The second question comes from Thank you so much, Chris. Let me start with you in terms of the drilling campaign. In terms of our PSA gas field in Mozambique, we have planned and we have started to execute exploration and infill well drilling campaign already in FY 2019/2020. We commissioned the drilling rig. We had to postpone, or we had to idle it through the COVID pandemic in Mozambique because most of our drill operators was outside the country, and it was not good to keep them during the COVID pandemic there. They've left country. We have now remobilized that, and that will help us to get the flow of the infill well drilling in the PSA field to open up more lines to our processing facility. That means it will restore all the gas as we think that the field can deliver and has been delivering would be restored. We've taken into account on our modeling base that there would be an impact, as we've indicated in the outlook of that volume of gas. As we sit here today, the drilling campaign has restarted. We believe that we would quickly get back into the program, and thus normalizing the output from the gas field. That's the main driver for that blip. It was actually caused by the delay in the drilling campaign when we paused it due to COVID reasons. Now it is restored. When I look at the mines to the question that Herod is asking, the comment was, the mines has not had a positive impact on costs. When we look at the FULCO system, which is a Full Calendar Operation system, 24/7, it means that we will be able to increase productivity. What has taken us longer, we started to implement it at the first mine in January, February of this year. As we speak now, all five collieries have been converted to a FULCO mining shift system. This is not a small task because you have to change all the logistics. You need to get the change management going. You need to really rejig the way that you operate your mine on a 24/7 basis instead of just the week and weekend overtime for productivity improvement over weekends. This has taken us longer. We had to pre-invest in terms of additional labor to help us implementing the FULCO system. We believe when I look at the periods of very good results that we've already seen as a result of the FULCO implementation, we need to now get those output ratable at that high level. That will then flow through to our 1,200 to 1,300 tons per continuous miner per shift, which we are now targeting. I think, that is also just while we're on the topic of mining, we mooted the impact of coal quality. Coal quality is an issue that we have to deal with. We have specifically in two of the five collieries, we have experienced some Some coal quality issues. Of course, there are ways to mitigate it, the teams are really working very hard as we speak on those. That is to reposition some of those sections into areas where we know the quality of coal would be better, maybe even to look at other sources where coal quality can be derived from in a better quality volume. Those would take a couple of months to redirect, but it's not that we out of being able to mitigate that only next or the year thereafter, but it will take a bit of time, and we are dealing with that quality issue at the two collieries that I mentioned. Thank you, Fleetwood. We've got a question on the asset divestments and where we are with that. The two questions around Canada, I'll read them out together, they're both from Herbert Kharivhe at Investec. What is the impact of the Canadian asset disposal on the gas division OpEx and CapEx? Secondly, what price was realized for the Canadian assets? Paul, if I can ask you to answer that one, too. Hello, Herbie. Let's take the easier one first. I think we all, maybe if I say all, but definitely from our side, quite delighted with the divestment of this asset, which really brings this whole saga to an end. In terms of the sales price, it was around about just over $30 million that we received effectively for our portion on the Montney. I do think that if you look in terms of that asset divestment, all for some others, such as the West African investments, there's a heck of a lot of contingencies, guarantees, albeit performance guarantees, and onerous requirements that effectively you also remove from your company or from the corporate, which I think shouldn't be underestimated in this regard. In terms of your second question, I'm not going to ask or provide any specific details on OpEx, CapEx. Safe to say that when we provide the guidance on CapEx, the $20 billion-$25 billion band, we've already modeled in there that we are not going to have any exposure on Canada due to the progress that we've seen last year on this asset in terms of the divestment process, hence, no capital or operation expenditure for operating that environment have been taken into account in our forecast outlook or our capital guidance for that matter. Thank you, Paul. A question around our response plan and Sasol 2.0 transformation program. Within the ZAR 2.1 billion of financial year 2021 realized savings, what element of the working capital and EBITDA benefits should we think of as being once-off and therefore reversing in FY 2022 from Wade Napier at Avior? Thank you, Wade. I think there are three elements that make up the ZAR 2.1 billion. With respect to the working capital, that was a tranche of about ZAR 200 million that was a once-off that lowered the waterline there that we realized. I think that would be going forward, we would look at it against our target of 14%. Deviations would then go up or down from that level. The rest was basically a gross margin and cash fixed cost that comprised the ZAR 2.1 billion. Thank you, Fleetwood. Moving back to some questions on the balance sheet performance that are coming through. I am going to ask two or three questions to Paul in this section. The first one around achieving investment grade credit rating again, and how does this influence our ability to pay a dividend? If spot prices persist, how soon could we reinstate dividends from Adrian Hammond at SBG Securities? Another question, perhaps in the same category. At current spot prices, Sasol could buy back its entire market cap in about five to six years, given the current CapEx outlook. Instead of reinstating the dividend in the near future, would the board of Sasol consider share buybacks given the stock is trading below net asset value from Becky Mat wet at Batlhale Capital? Good afternoon, Adrian again and Becky. Let me deal with the questions separately because I think there are definitely two different nuances between the two. Let's just talk about investment grade, because I, even myself, read some media feed on that creates the impression that we as Sasol are pursuing investment grade at all costs. We accept that when S&P or Moody's look at the company and determine our investment grade, there is basically two key factors. The one being your own metrics, such as your gearing, your net EBITDA, and your free cash flow to date. Those measures are quite important that we are quite flexible, quite cash generative, and very low on debt, at levels which make sense. There's the other two factors that is very country specific and industry specific, which Sasol can really do nothing about unless it moves its assets or its exposure to its assets or operate in different jurisdictions or in different industries. Our take is that we will always pursue making sure that from a good governance, robustness, balance sheet health, and just health of the organization, that we steward our assets safely and sustainably. If that realizes investment grade metrics that's applicable to the company, that will do, because I think that's quite important, and our peer group is pursuing that per se. When it comes to industry risk as well as country risk, there's only so much that we can do, and hence we cannot pursue investment grade in those instances at all costs. We may land up in a situation where our own control measures or criteria indicate investment grade, but by virtue of our exposure to the industry and the country, we may not be investment grade, and then so be it. We really cannot unless we change the fundamentals of those. I should really just make sure that this is the way that we look at managing investment grade going forward. Hopefully, all will combine in harmony, and we will be able to get to investment grade where all of these factors align. That's hopefully we will eventually end one day. In paying a dividend, the investment grade in its overall achievement is not necessarily the criteria for you to pay or not pay a dividend. I will say that, in terms of the capital allocation framework, which we'll present to you at the Capital Markets Day, we had to take the changing environment, the industry into account, our balance sheet position, our absolute debt levels into account, and really recommend to a board a set of triggers that will provide quite clarity to the market to say, when Sasol starts to hit these triggers, a dividend will be considered by the board for approval. Those triggers will be communicated to you at the Capital Markets Day. I think we've done a lot of good work to get our balance sheet debt levels down. It's not there yet, and we need to be able to give you a sense of what will be those trigger levels where a dividend will come into play. If we can afford to pay a dividend on a sustainable basis, the balance sheet allows it, so we must. The second point is, where do you make the trade-off between a dividend or buying back shares? I think that is really a very good question. Again, you will see in terms of our capital allocation framework, where we do differentiate in our allocation of capital, of paying a minimum dividend, and where we need to trade off to say, if we want to step up the dividend or buy back shares, what are those differentiating factors and considerations that we will take into account. Becky, I do believe that once we get to the Capital Markets Day, the framework to specifically answer this specific question that you posed. I think at the end of the day, the intention of the capital allocation framework is to distribute value on a sustainable basis to shareholders, and we must look at all levers possible to achieve that objective. Thanks. Two more questions, Paul Victor, around dividends. Then I'll combine them. The first one from Henri Patricot at UBS. Do we have to see both net debt below ZAR 5 billion and gearing less than 45% for dividend payments to restart? Could that possibly happen in the first half of 2022? Second question from Grant McGillan at Project Director. If peer companies are declaring dividends, why is there nothing for long-suffering shareholders? Yeah. Thank you very much. Two very good questions. Let me again go for the first one, Henri Patricot. No. The question is, in the way that we think about it, you don't have to meet your gearing and your net debt requirements. I think net debt for us is a very important metric because, you can have a net debt EBITDA today of 1.5 times, and if oil prices goes down to ZAR 30, and your absolute debt level is high, it may expose you still from a covenant level. Ultimately, covenants for us is important in this, but absolute debt levels are equally important for us in all of this. The gearing is negatively impacted by the fact of the asset impairments, as Gerhard indicated earlier. I think we need to really have to open mind in terms of the cash flows that we generate in the business that will ultimately pay for the dividend and whether that can be sustained within a bank covenant level as well as the absolute debt level. I think that's what our thinking is all about. Let us then come back specifically on this point, I don't think gearing is going to be the decider. Of course, the board will need to look at all the factors before declaring a dividend, I think the triggers are more specific, in terms of around cash flow, debt levels, and what levels to take the decision on the dividend. The second point is then just nicely flowing into this. Yes, we do know that some of our value longer term investors haven't taken a dividend. I think it's quite important that the first step is to delever the balance sheet to get it off risk. We're still sitting at net debt levels of $5.9 billion. We do believe that the balance sheet can still be vulnerable at those debt levels, and hence we have to get it down. Hopefully, our shareholders don't need to wait too long for their dividend, because I do believe that it's a good catalyst to incentivize our shareholders through the cycle. Let's share that details with you and our current run rates things do look promising over the next 12 to 18 months. Thank you, Paul. Moving over to our business outlook and how we expect things to pan out in financial year 2022. We have two questions around a similar theme. Do you expect Synfuels volumes to be about 2% lower year-on-year, yet coal production is likely to rise? Is this all due to gas, or can less gas not be offset with more coal feed instead? That comes from Adrian Hammond. The second question around a similar theme is, you flagged feedstock issues as a hindrance to Synfuels in financial year 2022. Is the poor coal quality a once-off or are there longer term concerns? That question comes from Wade Langley at Avior. Thank you so much, Adrian. I'll start again. I think I've started to address the coal issue in the first couple of questions I've answered. Yes, the volumes would be impacted by the quantity of synthesis gas. Now, you have to think about synthesis gas either coming via coal and gasification into our facility or via our Mozambique gas. The two drivers for gas, we've touched on the reasons for the natural gas and what is driving that, and that we've started to commence our infill well drilling campaign to normalize that over time. On the coal side, yes, I think it's a valid question also what Wade is asking to say that if you improve your productivity and you can get more coal out, will that not offset this reduction that you ascribe to coal quality? The answer to that is not necessarily, and that's why we've taken a very prudent, maybe a conservative approach to say, if we don't feel that we have addressed the coal quality issue, that means that the amount of synthesis gas. That we can get out of that ton of coal, which has deteriorated in these two collieries that I've mentioned. If we can't address that properly, we do run a risk for the same volume of coal to get less availability of synthesis gas out of the system. That not only impacts the availability of gas, but the quality of coal with higher ash content and the type of lower quality coal that has not got the same hydrocarbon content, does impact then these levels, and therefore we flag it, and we focus on that. The question if this is a once-off or a longer-term thing. As we have gone through our coal reserves in Secunda, we sometimes run into areas where the coal quality is poorer. Sometimes it's better. We've got the lever to relook at where to put in new sections, and that's staying away from the lower quality coal ones. I think we will have to live with this and navigate that as we go into the future as well. I can't say this is a once-off. It is part of the coal reservoir that we need to always optimally mine for the best quality coal. Thank you, Fleetwood. Another question has come in around the guidance around commodity chemical prices. Commodity chemical prices reached unprecedented highs in Q4 2021. In 2022, we expect chemical commodity prices to moderate as supply normalizes and the market rebalances. Could you please provide more color? What do you think could be a correction? From Dmitry Ivanov at Jefferies. Thank you so much, Dmitry. I'm going to ask Brad also to weigh in here. In essence, our outlook, whilst we had a very strong period in earlier this year due to the just system constrained on supply in the U.S., the Arctic storm. Let me give you an example of what transpired out of the Arctic storm. We had a very fortunate position that our cracker, the big cracker, was running, and we could run just soon after the Arctic storm. It was actually never shut down during that period. At that period, commercial ethylene or traded ethylene spot, ethylene rather, merchant ethylene, as it's also called, was in very short demand, and prices spike up to about $0.60 per pound. After the Arctic storm, when things normalized and cracker came back on after the impact of the storm, prices are receding, and we see now prices on merchant ethylene around $0.30-$0.35 to the pound. That's what we believe would be more the prevalent pricing going forward. Let me ask Brad also to weigh in on this question. Come in, Brad, please. Yeah, thanks, Fleetwood. Thanks. Sorry, getting some feedback and keystrokes. I think you'll need to mute there, Paul, while I'm speaking. Sorry. Thank you. I think, Fleetwood, you described it well. I think what we are seeing is that with the oil prices staying in this $65-$70 range, we're expecting prices to be more in what we saw prior to the buildup in Q4. Nothing of a significant reduction. Sashank, you asked, what is the impact of lower volumes in Chemicals Africa? There are two things driving that, Sashank. The one is that we have the shutdown, and we've indicated the Synfuels volumes between the 74-75. Of course, chemicals are integrated in that. There's also a commensurate reduction in volumes around that. That feedstock availability is also flowing through to our Sasolburg operations, where the output there would also be slightly a bit lower. That's basically the reason for the lower Chemicals Africa lower volume output. Thank you, Fleetwood. The next set of questions around financial performance. I'll read out all three coming from different people. EBITDA in 2021 was around $300 million-$350 million from the segment. I assume that's Chemicals America. How much of this was from LCCP? Can you talk about your Chemicals America EBITDA outlook for financial year 2022, and how should we think be looking at LCCP EBITDA contribution to the overall segment? That comes from Sashank at Voya. What was the carbon tax you paid this year from Alex Comer? The last question in this category is, notice the lack of leverage to higher prices in fuels business relative to chemicals in half two compared to half one. Can you expand on why cash costs in the gas and fuels business increased so materially in half two compared to half one? That comes from Adrian Hammond. Good. All very good questions. Hello, Sashank. Ultimately, the EBITDA of the North American chemicals business was, as Brad indicated, quite positively impacted by the contribution of an expected chemical process. It was really a positive kind of alignment of process that was unprecedented due to the factors that we've seen. The question is, just from here. I would say that the quarter four run rates that we've seen the On average, the ZAR 75 million-ZAR 80 million of EBITDA per month was probably expected. It was still not being expected to continue for the remainder of this financial year, and there will definitely be some softness in that price setting in, as we say, ethane prices, but also we see chemical prices going down. There is some form of margin contractant. We did say in the past that we are not going to reflect this separately in terms of the LCCP results, in terms of the North American results. Basically, just broadly, I think year-on-year, we have to take into account, as we indicated in our outlook, that our ethane cracker will be down for more than 50 days for its one in eight year. That in itself will have impact on the profitability over the year. Needless to say that, we will anticipate that run rates on a monthly basis will still be quite healthy for the North American business. I think in our outlook in terms of polyethylene indicated ZAR 1,000-ZAR 1,100 per ton for Northeast Asia, LLDPE C4 kind of pricing. That really sets the base. We also anticipate that on the specialty side, the ramp-up will occur further during the year to more decent volumes and margin contribution of the specialty business. We don't per se provide you a month-on-month or annualized, kind of EBITDA for North America. We do anticipate year-on-year that with the plants running up, with the specialty chemicals coming into account, normalizing for the shutdown impact, we expect a very decent performance by that asset for financial year 2022. In terms of carbon taxes, for those, I just want to make 100% sure that was rounded out ZAR 800 million, if I'm not mistaken. ZAR 800 million, just want to check that one. Alex, tomorrow we can give you the very specific number on that one. In terms of the lack of leverage and the higher prices between fuels and the chemicals business, first half, second half, and also why the cash cost in the gas and fuel business increased so materially in the second half versus the first half. We did see a very good run rate in terms of our cash cost performance towards in December. If you look at total cost, you must take into account that we paid an incentive for the full year that ultimately had a higher impact on your cost first half versus second half. That I will say. We also had some more instabilities during the second half and coal quality issues that ultimately resulted in higher maintenance on half. I will say that those are probably the two major reasons for us for the cost being higher on the one half versus the second half. If I look at the forecast for financial year 2022, we do expect a very robust cost performance for both sectors in financial year 2022 versus 2021. That continuation of Sasol 2.0, and on a normalized basis, we do expect the cost to follow and even beat inflation for the forthcoming financial year. There shouldn't be anything sinister in terms of that. Thank you, Paul. Moving over to our strategy and some questions around our sustainability targets. It was mentioned that you intended positioning your FT technology as sustainable solution in the production of fuels and chemicals. Can you expand on this? Does your CapEx guidance factor in any ESG related CapEx, including hydrogen, SO2 abatement and clean fuel? Can you update us on the expectations around phase of the draft Carbon Tax legislation? That all comes from Adrian. Then I think a second question on a similar topic is, can we expect a revision in your GHG emission reduction target for 2050 as well, versus what you have earlier provided to us from Sashank Lanka, Sasol. Okay. Thank you very much. I think we'll start with Adrian's question. The part on the draft Carbon Tax legislation, we'll deal with in more detail tomorrow when we engage. The positioning of our FT technology really is in terms of its ability, like we've positioned our gas to liquids technology to monetize stranded gas into fuels at the time. We are able to position a optimized Fischer-Tropsch gas technology offering that is using green hydrogen and green or I would say carbon sources that is classified as unavoidable to produce sustainable aviation fuels and chemicals. That is what we focus on, and we will give more granular detail at our Capital Markets Day. Fischer-Tropsch are really well-positioned to play into the space of sustainable aviation fuels, and this is the area that we would be focusing on. Similarly, our existing assets can also take a percentage of biomass, which is renewable biomass in that sense, as well as if we introduce that with green hydrogen, can then on a attribution model principle Do a portion of the slate on sustainable aviation fuel. That's what we mean with that part. As I say, much more color we would give as part of our strategy at Capital Markets Day. If you ask the question, does your CapEx guidance factor in any ESG-related CapEx, including hydrogen? We have indicated that our sustenance capital up till 2025 does include the aspects of replacing or the PSA, which is feedstock renewal. It does include our air quality projects that we have been working at, that we have to complete by 2025. On the SO2 abatement side, that is the area where we've only got the specification clear. We are working up technical solutions to address that. We also hope that we will conclude that by the end of this calendar year, to be able to give quite a clear delineation of what that capital will entail and what are the type of projects that we will have to implement to be able to see all the parts of that. Your last question on clean fuels was to get clear clarity on, is that part of the capital guidance? Yes. Clean fuels are part and parcel of that ZAR 20 billion to ZAR 25 billion that we see up to 2025. That is included in that guidance. Much more detail we will also provide at our Capital Markets Day in that sense. Can we expect a revision, Sashank, to our ambition? Yes, I have indicated now that we will have a significant increase of our greenhouse gas reduction ambitions by 2030, that we will communicate at the Capital Markets Day, as well as we would indicate the pathways we will take or we have options with to our 2050 ambition, both of which we will give color at our Capital Markets Day. Thank you, Pieter. One more question from Gerhard Engelbrecht. Could you be more specific about your SO2 emission reductions plan? What are the solutions? How will they be implemented, how much will it cost? Can you comply with the regulatory limits if you cannot address the boiler emissions? Thank you, Gerhard. This is the point I've just touched on. We have a couple of options that we are currently exploring, and remember, we are engaging with government, with the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, to really also take them along in the options we have. Coal beneficiation is a typical solution to address SO2 matters. As you know that if you take all the rocks and stones out of your coal, you would reduce the SO2 coming out of the process. That is one options we're looking at, but we're also looking at other options that could almost address two issues, SO2 and greenhouse gas. As I say, we are not yet ready to publicly make those outcomes visible because we are working those solutions and we're also working with the department to come up with the understanding and support of how we would like to tackle that. Much more detail will be shared when we are ready to deal with that, Gerhard. Thank you, Pieter. Two questions around the life expectancy for Secunda. Do you still have a 2050 life expectancy for Secunda? If so, how much coal feedstock do you assume you'll be using in 2050 from Alex Comer? Then I think another question to conclude this section. Is there a likelihood that you will unbundle the energy unit? How do you think of these as part of reducing your GHG from Siphelele Mdudu at Sasol Capital? All right. Two great questions. Currently, we have said in the past that we've got coal reserves that will last us into the 2040s, and hence that gave rise to the 2050 useful life expectancy. There is a lot of work that we are doing currently to see ultimately how the coal profile will effectively play out in the next 15-20 years, but ultimately also what will replace it. At this point in time, Alex, there's really no reason for us to change the useful life, because we do believe that ultimately, as you reach the tail end of your coal reserve, the volumes will in fact reduce in terms of its input into your business and hence be replaced by the green feedstock that we potentially prefer to introduce. I think there may also be a quite case to make once we kind of get there to extend the useful life of Secunda if you do find a feedstock and reason to operate beyond that period. For now, based on the facts to our disposal, there's really no reason for us to change the useful life, and we'll make informed decision once all the facts are on the table in terms of in which shape or form we want to continue to 2050 and even beyond. By that, I'm not saying also extended beyond 2050. I just think that 2050 is still a very reasonable life expectancy given the different moving parts that we are dealing with, and we need to very carefully consider a change to that, either shorter or longer. In terms of the unbundling of the energy business, I think others have done it in South Africa, to unbundle. I think you really have to understand what's your reason for doing so and how does it play into your business model. In terms of our work on the gas and coal landscape, I think it will be premature to take any position in terms of any unbundling and what value that may offer. I'm not saying that it will not be considered, but I just think it's very premature. We have said in the past that we will consider the different components of our coal business, and what that contributes into our overall integrated value chain. I think for the next couple of years, coal will still be part of our future. We will not magically change our intake of coal, we know at what cost that coal comes. Hence, all of a sudden restructuring that, you really have to be quite sensible about it. Of course, there's other parts of the coal business that one can potentially restructure in other ways or forms. We have considered in the past. It didn't prove to have any significant value at that point in time, doesn't mean that we will not continuously evaluate that. At this point in time, we do believe that the current CTL integrated value chain into our energy business is still the best positioning of that asset from a cost perspective, efficiency perspective, and a management of the asset, and from a risk perspective. As we progress going forward, continuously, we will evaluate our asset portfolio to see what is the best fit and what fits shareholders best. Thank you, Paul. A question around the JV with LyondellBasell. Were all KPIs met with the JV with LyondellBasell, and is the JV considered advantageous to Sasol and therefore its shareholders? From Grant McGillivray at Project Director. Perhaps the second question for Fleetwood as well, around the Sasol 2.0 program. Have you concluded your headcount reduction program, and are there more redundancies after the 530 indicated in FY 2022 from Gerhard Engelbrecht? Perhaps, sir. Thank you. Let me start with Grant's question. When we motivated and concluded the joint venture with LyondellBasell, we of course looked at many offers that we received, and at that time, also the ability of LyondellBasell to be a prudent operator, a prudent and a well-established marketer of polyethylene. All of that weighed in into our decision at the time. The six months passed, I believe that all of those expectations that we had with LyondellBasell as an operator and marketer of the products have been met, and we are very happy with our joint venture partner, LyondellBasell. Looking at the question that Gerhard asked, as you can imagine, Gerhard, we are concluding the program through the final structures, and all the benefits will basically start realizing in FY 2022. In terms of the steady state numbers, and I don't want to talk on any specific number at this point in time, but suffice to say that our steady state numbers will conclude through the period in FY 2022, and that is also part and parcel of our cash fixed cost saving that we moot now for FY 2022. The ZAR 3 billion that we show there, a big part of that is our workforce transition benefits that will be concluded in this year, but the full benefit of that will only ramp up in FY 2023 when most of that will then manifested for a full run year in our books. Yeah, there is more to come, and it will settle in FY 2022 there. Thank you, Fleetwood. Another set of questions on balance sheet performance. It's very clear that the company has placed a huge emphasis on deleveraging its balance sheet by reducing its cost of funding. Given the rates that are still relatively low, should we expect the company to refinance its U.S. dollar bond, which matures next year? That comes from Michael Overmeyer at DebtStire and Edward Bottomley at REDD Intelligence. I think another question for Paul would be, does the company have any plans for ESG instruments such as green bonds? From Edward John Bottomley at REDD Intelligence again. Michael, let me deal with your question first. It wasn't easy to engage and ensure that we continue with our bond issuance at the rates that we've obtained. I think a lot of those rates, even being sub-investment grade, have been quite favorably achieved and supported by the market on the back of the progress that we've made with Sasol 2.0 and the crisis response plan. The capitals market from a debt perspective was quite positive, in terms of that progress, and we saw that coming through in the margins in terms of the rates that we effectively paid. From our perspective is to say that, now your question is do we early settle the bonds? There's really no reason to do it at this point in time. The bond that comes up next year carries a rate of around about 4.5%. We do believe that that is a good rate still in our mix of instruments. We don't want to trigger any action to pay that off quicker, because we know that there is still some further debt that needs to be refinanced in time. The moment that you take action in the debt markets that's not expected by the market, I think you pay more so later on in the process. We're going to honor, we're going to let that bond run out. We have full intention to settle that bond through our cash resources and cash flows. We will not do another bond issuance per se to pay off that debt. I think the debt maturity that's in 2 years' time deals with the remainder of the RCF and the banking facility. There, we probably need to consider further debt market instruments at a later stage, as well as potentially re-engaging with our bank partners to see how we can reshape the RCF or a RCF going forward. That's really future music. At this point in time, we are not going to early settle. We don't believe that there's any value in doing so. We rather want to be a consistent issuer of paper as expected by the market, because we've seen really in the past that that kind of plays into our favor. I do believe in terms of the interest rate cycle in the U.S., it will probably take some time for that to start meaningfully picking up, which still gives us more enough time to consider our options when we go to the debt capital markets in future. In terms of the second question, Edward. Yes, absolutely, we need to consider the different instruments that deal with ESG. Let me be quite clear, and last week we actually had a very good discussion at the board on this. Other than donations and grants, there's really no magical green funding that will ultimately magically reduce our weighted average cost of capital because the borrowing rates are so low. I just think that the shift fundamentally in the market, in the debt markets, are one of ensuring that when the bond issuance takes place, that the green criteria in terms of the business carbon footprint is very clearly specified in terms of KPIs criteria that a company commits to. Failing which, I think companies will find it very difficult just to raise the old vanilla bonds in terms of managing their capital structures going forward. From a Sasol perspective, our first priority is, as and when we go to the markets and issue new paper, even on a vanilla basis, the ESG undertone of those will be significantly amplified, and our commitments need to be quite clear in support of a sufficient uptake at the right margins for our paper going forward. It doesn't take away that we will consider all the various suites of options in the form of potential grants, donations that we may be able to receive. That, of course, makes a big difference in your cost of capital. I think the access to that is very limited by our own assessment. It doesn't say that they're not there. The largest component will be still the old formal vanilla bonds, but just with a very strong association with ESG measures. We also will consider asset-based finance. Of course, those can have specific ESG requirements associated with it. Usually, there are some incentives, but there are also penalties if you don't achieve those KPIs associated with the asset-based finance, and we are very much open to consider those as well. I think the world going forward on this and what rates you eventually achieve, will be depending on the instrument as well as the KPIs that you will be committed to and also what you will be financing, whether you will be financing the corporate or whether you will be doing some asset-based financing at asset level. More of the future music, but we're very open to the art of the possible in this instance. Thank you, Paul. I think to conclude the balance sheet line of questions, there's one last question remaining on this. You guys have pretty high visibility on asset sales, cash coming in, and business cash flows for this year. Are you concerned that absolute debt levels will be an issue from this point forward? That comes from Matthew White at 361. Matthew, I think you fundamentally ask such a good question because when we issued the cash response plan or the crisis response plan, we did say that this is going to be an initiative where we go in, we try to save the cash, but we know it's going to be a mixture of probably mostly non-sustainable measures as opposed to sustainable measures. As we were addressing that immediate cash flow need and liquidity for the company, the Sasol 2.0 operating model and initiative program was driven quite hard. Where we find ourselves now is as the sun is setting for us on the crisis response plan, Sasol 2.0 from a reorganization perspective, has already taken place. It's embedded, and we know that those run rates are very much giving us the benefit already from July onwards. That smooth transition has already been achieved. The only thing that it does is it ensures a certain amount of cash flow for us to ultimately service the debt. The other side of it is to say the hedging. That's why when we did our budget, we did see that our absolute debt levels may be around ZAR 6 billion and in a low oil price environment, still keep us vulnerable as a company. That's why we made a decision to hedge FY 2022 at those levels as we communicated to you, to ensure that if oil prices do go below ZAR 60, that on that put option structure that we covered, as well as forward selling certain of our product. The mix of those two hedging instruments give us a very high probability of the amount of cash flows coming onto the balance sheet and effectively further paying down the debt. We've got no reason to believe if we are consistent in delivering the controllable factors such as volumes, costs, working capital, and capital in our business, that sufficient cash flows will be generated now at these hedged out levels, that effectively we can still further pay down our debt to levels that we are comfortable with. Hopefully, the mixture of both of those factors will play well into our favor. I think it's something that the market maybe don't fully understand or appreciate, but I think our FY 2022 from a protecting the bottom line and prevent any negative impact has really been very much safeguarded. Thanks. Thank you, Paul. I think two more questions from Herbert Kharivhe at Investec. Are you affected by the high logistical cost for the chemicals you export from South Africa? I think one for Paul. Hurricane season is here. May you please remind us of the insurance structures for the U.S. business? Also from Herbert. Pieter, if I could ask that you start with the first one. Thanks, Herbert. We have seen increases in rates. Remember, most of these rates are impacted from Asia to U.S. and Asia to Europe. Of course, we also take containers from here to Asia. We do export polypropylene into that route. Yes, there was an increase. We were affected, but I think we have absorbed that within our cost of sales, and it is being managed through that channel. Hopefully, once things normalize, we would see then a moderation of these container freight rates. On our liquid bulks, we have not seen that significant impact, so we don't believe it's a factor to our cost of sales. Herbie, hurricane season is here. It's scary to read it like this. I think, mate, we have to pray a bit. Maybe if our prayers are answered, the Atlantic windstorm will miss our assets. If it doesn't, I do believe that from an insurance policy perspective, we are covered broadly. Let me just be clear about that. In terms of the insurance policy, we do have the Atlantic windstorm coverage, that will cover us for damages caused by events such as that, albeit to a certain level, and I think the level is around about between ZAR 100 million and ZAR 200 million. Obviously, that's on the damage side. On the production interruption side, the North American assets are as on the same principles, exposed to any damage such as the South African assets, which means that for the first 60 days, effectively, you're self-insured. Effectively, after 60 days, the insurance kicks in. Ultimately, it covers you up to a certain mechanism, to ZAR 1 billion-ZAR 1.5 billion. You can then have a really extensive outage beyond 60 days, and have a very broad coverage. We do insure with AAA insurers, we do believe that the counterparty risk in the eventuality of those risks playing out is quite sound. Hopefully that answers your question, Herbie. Questions have slowed down, and I think there is one last question that is coming in, and I think if there are no more questions after that, we can close the call. It centers around remuneration and there's acknowledgment, "Although I congratulate management on the much stronger than expected balance sheet, much of this has been achieved through deep cuts in capital and an aggressive asset disposal program. Both of these items were included in Sasol's LTI program, achieving their respective stretch targets." Two questions on this. Should these have been included in the LTI targets? Is there a malice and clawback policy in place such that bonuses can be clawed back from directors should it be determined that Sasol's future performance has been compromised by the cut in 2021 CapEx? This is from John Aron at Aluwani Capital. John, thank you. Thank you for your question. I'd just like to put in perspective one or two corrections to your statements that you made. First of all, this year's short-term incentive had targets for cost savings and capital savings. It is not a long-term LTI that you refer to. It was on the short-term savings. I just want to take you back to last year when the company was sinking at two meters per second below water level, and the crisis response plan, we had to do certain measures to keep the company liquid and to get a sustainable business and savings going forward. If you would recall, in December last year, we have taken the markets through a comprehensive target assessment of Sasol 2.0 and why we said we can achieve that. The aspects of CapEx on maintenance, we have explained to great detail. It was based on a thorough benchmark of peer assessments, risk approach in terms of how we look at the maintenance programs from a risk basis. Not that we have now, as Sasol, come up with that. That was properly peer benchmarked, and it has taken into account what industry achieved in that sense. I do want to give you the assurance that when we look at the CapEx that we spend at any year, we have that similar CapEx on maintenance. If you look at last year's, the previous year before that, it is more or less in line. It is also reflective of that we didn't have a major shutdown in Synfuels. We had the pit stop in the prior year. I do believe that we have been going around with a very circumspect approach, not to cut unnecessary or necessary spend rather for maintenance. I believe that was all in that context that we've delivered this result going forward. I just want to leave you with that perspective and context. Thank you very much, Pieter. Thank you, Paul. There are no further questions that are coming in through the platform. With that being said, we'll close this call. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. Thank you so much, Stephanie. Thank you for everyone that participated in this call. Until we see you again, stay safe. Thank you.