Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Gold Fields' Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2006 Conference Call. My name is Carlo, and I will be your coordinator for today's presentation. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will be facilitating a question-and-answer session toward the end of today's presentation, at which time, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone. If at any time during the call you require assistance, please press star zero, and a conference coordinator will be happy to assist you. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today's conference, Willie Jacobsz, head of Investor Relations. Please proceed, sir.

Thank you very much, Carlo. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us for this conference call. We've got five speakers today. Ian Cockerill, our Chief Executive Officer, will kick off with an introduction. He will be followed by Nick Holland, the Chief Financial Officer, who will talk about the finances, followed by Mike Prinsloo, the head of South African Operations, who will give an overview of what happened in South Africa. Terence Goodlace thereafter will talk to the international operations, after which John Munro will give a brief overview of business development. Ian will then conclude. After that, we will take questions. May we please at this early stage ask that when we get to the questions-and-answer session, you limit your questions to one question per person so that everybody gets an opportunity. I now hand it over to Ian.

Willie, thank you very much indeed. Welcome, everybody, today, and, firstly, let me apologize for the state of my voice, but I hope you'll bear with me. Today, I have the pleasure in welcoming Terence Goodlace, as he will be reporting on international operations for the first time, having recently taken over that role from John McDove. Now, for all those fans of John out there, don't despair because he's still with us, and he'll be giving us some feedback on our growth projects. So how did we do last quarter? Frankly, much more at the performance you've all come to expect from Gold Fields and totally in line with previously stated guidance. All out, our operations performed well, particularly in South Africa, off the back of the previous quarter's wage strike. Our margins have been restored not only due to a better but also due to output improvement, as well as continued good cost control. I'll leave a more detailed explanation of operations to both Mike and Terence. Overall, a safety performance of improvement, was much improved. Gold production was up 5% to 1.04 million ounces. Cash costs were down 2% in dollar terms to $341 per ounce. Net operating profit was up 73% to $147 million. And net earnings were also up six-fold to $40 million. And if that's expressed in U.S. cents per share, that equates to $0.08 U.S. per-hare earnings. We also successfully completed the Seoul, Korea transaction, and certain mobilization is now underway, and John will give us some more details on that. And, finally, it's a great pleasure to announce that we will be giving an interim dividend of 40 South African cents per share, and that is a dividend, which has been declared for the first half year. With that brief introduction, let me hand you over to Nick for more details on the financials.

Thanks, Ian. You heard earlier that production is up from 993,000 ounces to 1,040,000 ounces. Virtually all of that increase has come from our South African operations. The price achieved for the quarter went up substantially from $437 an ounce to $482 an ounce, with the Rand virtually steady at 6 Rand 53 as against the previous quarter. As a consequence of this price increase and with the 5% higher production, we're pleased to report that our revenues increased by 15% to $533 million for the quarter. Our operating costs increased by 3% to $390 million. However, there are a number of factors behind this increase. Three-quarters of this increase came from our South African operations and related mainly to the impact of the strike last quarter, whereby we lost a number of shifts, somewhere between four and six shifts depending on the operation. And together with the fact that we have four number of shifts at work this quarter and the impact of the 6.5% wage increase, that contributed to most of the increase in South Africa. Briefly, though, we've also increased our volume by 16% in South Africa and our development by 18%, and you can see that investment also coming through these cost increases. In the Australian operations, we had an increase of some. That was mainly due to higher volumes and also the impact of the power credits of 3 million Australian dollars received in the previous quarter. Other than that, costs of all of the other operations were pretty flat. Operating profits, as a consequence of the higher revenue, increased substantially from $85 million to $147 million, and net earnings for the quarter increased to $46 million from the quarter. And there is really no more funnies in our earnings, as opposed to in previous…

Thanks, Nick. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As Ian mentioned, the South African ops had a strong quarter, lifting gold production by 8% to 21.7 tons, or just short of 700,000 ounces, compared to 647,000 ounces in the September quarter, performed largely as expected with slightly lower underground offset by improved underground ore volumes. As predicted in the previous quarter, Kloof and Beatrix experienced a much improved performance mainly due to the increased underground volumes as a result of the shifts lost due to the industrial action in the September quarter. Development was up at 18% at 27.6 kilometers. We maintained a strong grip on costs, which resulted in a 4% decline in title cash costs from $381 an ounce last year to $366 an ounce this quarter. Net and operating profit up nicely to 71 million U.S. dollars compared to 26 million U.S. dollars in the September quarter, with a margin more than doubling from 9% in September to 21% this quarter. That's at these price levels, capital expenditure amounted to $26 million compared to $20 million in the September quarter, and a significant portion of this expenditure was directed at the major projects and key development at the long-life shops. This increase was in line with our policy to increase capital expenditure and the revenue stream increases, so overall, a strong quarter. Now, turning to Driefontein, Driefontein's gold production was steady at just about 9 tons, or 290,000 ounces. Operating costs increased 3% due to lower grades and increased volumes and was fixed at $343 an ounce. Driefontein's costs increased sorry, our Driefontein property increased 31% to 36.4 million U.S. dollars, 25 million in the September quarter, giving Driefontein an operating margin of 36%. Capital expenditure was higher at 9.3 million for the quarter. In terms of Kloof,…

Good afternoon, everybody. The international operations have provided a consistent overall performance for the December quarter, with attributable gold production at 342,000 ounces and managed gold production at 407,000 ounces. Costs for the quarter were $299 per ounce and 3% higher at $124 million. The production in cost performance, along with the 10% higher gold price of $482 an ounce, has meant a 29% increase in operating profits to $76 million. Operating margins are good at 39%, with Tarkwa and Agnew both in excess of 42% and Damang and St. Ives at 32 and 34%, respectively. Capital spend for the quarter was $34 million, and the primary spend was at Tarkwa and St. Ives. Tarkwa had a recently good quarter with a solid operating margin of 42%, albeit that gold production decreased by some 4% to 167,000 ounces. This gold production was affected primarily by changes in gold in process at the heat bleach facility, partially offset by increased gold production from the CIO plant. There were two main contributors to this change, the first being the commissioning of the Blue Ridge heat bleach, and the second, the speccing on the forklift at the North heat bleach facility. I must say, however, that over the last six weeks, it looks like this has changed, and we have had very good gold production coming out of Tarkwa. Operating costs were in line with the September quarter at $49 million, and total cash costs increased by 1.8% to $282 an ounce. Insofar as the March quarter is concerned, the mine will reflect an increase in gold production, along with lower unit costs, to below that reported in the September 2005 quarter. Damang continues to perform well, as seen by the 5% increase in gold production to 60,000 ounces. Gold production improved through…

Good morning, and good afternoon. Moving on to the area of growth within Gold Fields. Obviously, we'd like to talk about the body of our transaction and the asset itself, but given the litigation that is pending in Canada at the moment, it's prudent that we don’t go into too much detail there. So then moving on to Cerro Corona, which has clearly had some exciting developments at the end of the December quarter, you'll be aware that we announced that we both received the final permitting for this project in December, it was from the Peruvian authorities, as well as the Gold Fields' Board committing to proceed both with the final acquisition of the project and with the construction of the new mine. The acquisition of the project was completed in January, and just to be clear, so far, we've acquired 80% of the economic interest in Cerro Corona at a total cost of 40 million U.S. dollars. That's the deal we had struck two years ago with the Gubbins Family. They still remain another single private shareholder out there who also has a voting interest, and then they are there are the investment shares that are traded on the Lima stock exchange that have a 12% economic interest but no voting interest in this project. That corporate structure for this project is on our website. So moving on back to the timeline then, with the acquisition complete, we expect to start construction of this project in the month of February, and with the construction timeline of around 18 months, we'll complete this through the latter part of calendar '07. And that timeline remains very much on track. Earlier last, or late last year, we proceeded with the ordering of the mold and the crusher and some other heavy-duty…

Thank you. Now, all of you know through time Gold Fields has followed a three-prong strategy of operational excellence, growth, and securing our future. I hope that from what you've already heard today, you get a sense of a company that has delivered on its promise to make existing, grow organically where we can, and acquire and develop new assets that will certainly add value Gold Fields shell. Whilst we made good progress on the cost-containment front, the sense of the project team is there are many more opportunities that can and must be exploited. On the South African productivity project, we have gone a long way, so we have a long way to go, certainly before we can say we're happy with the results. What I am convinced of, though, is there's a passion at the operating level to deliver the necessary improvements that will drive profitability and enhance the life of these truly world-class efforts, irrespective of where the gold price is. You've heard from John the good news about Cerro Corona and of the start-up project that start-up of that project and also the progress that we've made in Bukino Faso. Also during the quarter, we did make to the shareholders of Bolivar Gold so we could acquire the majority interest in the Choco 10 mine in Venezuela. Now, a significant majority of the common stockholders, at 77%, as well as 82% of the warrant holders, voted in favor of this transaction. However, one shareholder, Scion, voted against and has followed suit in the Ontario and Yukon courts against the transaction. A status hearing that was due to be heard on January 19 was adjourned until February 7, 8, and 9 as a result of the filing by Scion of further claims. Though obviously we're disappointed by…

My question has to do with this change, actually, I’m not going to ask that question since I only have one. I have a question on the progress of some of your development projects at existing mines. When your reserve numbers came out, you suggested that Driefontein deeps would be going to the Board for consideration in November 2005. I'm just wondering what any decision was. The second one is KEA. How's the feasibility going? And the third is at Tarkwa. Is there any thought to increasing the throughput at the mill? And, also, we noticed that the guided CapEx has increased at Tarkwa, and we're wondering if you can then tell us why.

Yes, on the deep line project at Driefontein and I'll answer the Kloof one as well, we've done further work in terms of pre-feas and towards feasibility on these projects. We've revised the costs on these. And with the increased gold pricing and kilogram terms, we are now at this page where the teams are looking at whether there are any other options that might suit that deepening project. More specifically at Driefontein, we're reviving the exercise we'd done about two years ago on the deepening of number nine shop to see if that's feasible or more feasible at these price levels. So, yes, a lot of work is going into those projects, and a lot of renewal in terms of costs in those projects will be taken forward to a point where we will take it to the Board in the near future.

And KEA?

Similar to KEA. It's, KEA, I would like at the two options. The first option was to deepen the sub shop with the work that was done at Driefontein within a deep plant option on the KEA project, and that shows that we'll cover less answers but much more profitably. So it looks more like the KEA would be a deep plant option, and at this stage, we're testing a vertical option on Driefontein.

Did you have any revised sort of CapEx arm-wave number for it?

The last numbers we shared with the market haven't changed much in terms of the deep plan options. At Driefontein, we're looking at about 2.1 billion for phase one and two of those declines, and at KEA, slightly higher, about 2.5, 2.6 billion Rand straight over a period of between four and five years. In terms of the capital at Tarkwa, the increases really that have been shown were due to one of the problems that we expressed last quarter was the flaming of oil as we supplied into the moat. We've gone ahead and repurchased some vehicles to do that, and that's probably the prime reason why we've had an increase over the last quarter. Next question?

Our next question comes from the line of George Lequime, RBC Capital.

Heather asked quite a few of the questions I was going to ask about the expansion. Michael, you said in due course it's going to go to the Board. Can you just get a little bit more precise on the timing of it, and if the Board does approve these projects, how quickly are you going to be spending the CapEx on KEA and at Drief?

George, I think within the next two quarters, we'll probably be at a position where we can take a full proposal to the Board. And then in terms of start-up, initially a project like that would probably take three months to put the whole initiation together. And because initially by the projects we'd start up with just development of the mine decline and other infrastructure, it will be a slow start-up. It's not going to be an overnight, you know, a lot of money thrown at the project. That's why the two deep decline options look attractive at this stage because in a rising gold price environment, you can accelerate them. In an environment where the price drops, you can slow them down or even switch them off. And the decline options are explained in phase one and phase two. We've been necessary taking it in level, you know, two-level intervals as we did the extend, so you would sink down for two levels, go out on development, and start before you start at the phase two, which is sinking the next two levels.

That's not really going to impact the FIO-7 numbers that much, maybe at the tail end on the numbers?

No, yes. Look, a lot of that five shop, one shop different than in the four shop projects and three shop projects. They all start getting to conclusion over the next four to five quarters, and then a lot of CapEx is then freed up a bit because those projects are complete. So it wouldn't be at any levels of CapEx higher than what got it. Thank you.

I just want to ask Nick just one question. Just to clarify on the CapEx, you mentioned the CapEx numbers for the three projects. What is the total CapEx for '07 and '08 FY, rough estimates at this stage?

Are you talking about capital or growth projects, George?

Total capital, Nick.

Okay. Total capital in our operations this year, you can work on about 1.5 to 1.7 billion Rand. That's capital on our ongoing projects. The projects, as John mentioned, will start construction now at $277 million that has to be spent over about 18 months. That's superimposed on top of that 1.6 billion Rand, which is roughly 400 million Rand a quarter.

Can we move to the next question now, please?

Our next question comes from the line of Barry Cooper, CIBC World Markets.

Yeah, a few questions for John Munro. John, could you just give us an idea what the actual copper and gold production individually will be for Cerro Corona? And then you talk about locking in some of the smelter terms. I'm assuming that's on volume? You've not lined up anything on costs? If you have locked in on costs, what kind of numbers are those?

Barry, in terms of gold and copper production, the best way to look at it is that over the life, it will produce 2.3 million ounces of gold and 412,000 tons of copper. So to give you a round number, you can divide that by 15, and then you can work it out in whatever ratio you want, depending on if you want to do gold-equivalent or not. Obviously, we've indicated previously that at the front end of this mine produces slightly more than the back end because there's some higher grades, so you could take it up about 10, 15% in the front end and 10, 15% of that average at the back end. My reference to smelter terms obviously was in the space of volumes judiciously manage to make sure we don't commit more than we can possibly produce. But it's also in terms of terms or actual smelter terms, TCs, RCs, the bulk of which, though, have been done a percent-of-copper-price basis. And the reason for that is that it provides a relatively natural hedge against copper price movements. So the higher the copper price, the more we can afford higher terms and vice versa. We didn't want to get into a situation where we were negotiating annually TC terms, being a small player in a very big, very rough market and with the danger of those markets, particularly the early years of Corona's life, being in favor of the smelters. That's why we opted for the percent-of-copper-price-type term, which, when you look at the economics, is quite favorable because you get the terms moving with the copper price.

Right, okay, so that's wise. Can you share with us what that percentage is?

No, we can't, Barry. It really is the commercial, significant commercial term between us and the smelters and something we'd like to avoid.

Right, okay. Fair enough. And then on Essakane, sort of what I sense, a good news/bad news story, good news in the sense that it sounds like there's more gold there in terms of grade, but bad in the sense that this is taking a year. I'm just wondering, that seems like an excessive period of time for re-assaying. Maybe you can just tell us why and what have you found to date in terms of what the potential upgrade is there?

Barry, first of all, on the time, that's driven by two things, first, on logistics in that part of the world, given that into a decent laboratory, but it's also driven by the way we are now having to do this assaying. Because of the incredibly high nugget effect, we effectively have to pass a very large sample from each into core intersection through a mini-fault and concentrator or gravity concentrator to remove the gravity components and then use conventional assay techniques in the balance. So not only are we having to handle very large volumes, but as you're aware, the more you do splitting, the more you may risk exacerbating the nugget effect, which is what we've seen before. So, first of all, we're handling very large volumes of core and then in a fairly time-consuming process. But I guess we wouldn't be committing to this level of work if we didn't think it was worthwhile. I'm not going to tell you the extent of the upgrade and the downgrade because it's not at a level that is of enough confidence to talk publicly on it. But, generally, what we are seeing, because we've done limited re-assaying using this technique, is that the high grades came down but the low and very low grades came up, surprise. But it really requires a complete rework before we'll get some decent numbers out of this thing, Barry.

Would you be forced to do redrilling?

No, because we've got more, we've got the sample, and it's generally in the right place. So it's not the availability of sample; it's the way the first was handled, and as a result, we are rehandling the other half of the core. You know, they normally split core in half. So it's not so much a re-drilling exercise. The bulk of the exploration going forward will be to target extensions to the Essakane main zone, as well as satellite to the Essakane main zone.

Right. Okay, thanks a lot.

Next question?

Sorry, I had a second question, double-dipping. Are you going to be increasing your exploration spending at Tarkwa and St. Ives to catch up with what reserves might be at these higher levels? I think you last did them at 375.

Heather, this is John. I'll field this, your curveball…. The level, I'll deal with the two mines separately. The level of exploration spend at St. Ives is pretty much driven by what makes sense in terms of a need there, the size of the human results space, and what you can practically do, so I don't see that changing in this environment. At Tarkwa, that reserve is pretty much proven. There's an odd bit of drilling that we do each year to gradually extend the results into reserve as we move to it. So I think one of the, just to put the whole, the bigger question in context of how our reserves will respond to these much higher prices, I think two points to make. The first is that our annual declaration of reserves is determined by the average for the last three years, and that's in terms of SEC guidance. There's no discretion on that. But I think, more importantly, we're also being quite cautious about ensuring that we don't have an explosion of our effective reserves on particularly mines like Tarkwa, where we can see at 555. You know, we can see a much bigger reserve position, but it would be at a much higher strip ratio and a much lower average grade. We're not convinced that that's the optimal way to exploit that ore body. So, first of all, in terms of near-term reserve needs, you don't need to do that, and Tarkwa's largely drilled out, and St. Ives has the right sort of schedule of drilling program.

So you won't be changing your mine plan at Tarkwa, is that what you're saying, to drop the cut-off grades?

Not substantially, Heather, because what we would rather do at this stage, and obviously, we've got to watch this market and get a feel for where it's going, but at this stage, we'd like to stick with the current stripping ratio level, similar sorts of head growth, which gives you similar total cash costs, but obviously at $500 an hour and 550, a much bigger operating margin. And we are trying to walk that delicate balance between producing more gold over the life but also making much more profits today. We're concerned about making copper into a 30-year mine when it's already something like 22 years and just making it a low-margin asset over that entire life. So it's a balance that we've been working on for quite some time, in fact, long before this market took off, recognizing for, well become a challenge for us. And we're trying to find a judicious balance between loss of mine answers and near-term profits.

And then that actually had the last part of my earlier question had been is there any thought to increasing the mill throughput at Tarkwa? Again, I had mentioned in the past.

Yes, Heather, we have. We said when we designed the original mold that it was specifically designed on a base case to be doubled in size. Now, that work has been underway to look at the best options there. What has complicated that is, in fact, the mold being a lot better than we thought it would and so is the heap. And so some of the trade-offs that are being done is what's the optimal size for Tarkwa in terms of total throughput with its heap or mold, and if we were to double the size of that mold, would we shut down the south heat bleach? So that work is underway and hasn't gotten a definitive answer, but the one rule of thumb you can use is that the higher the gold price goes, the more sense you have in having a mold available to you because you make more money at these prices by fixing things through the mold than through the heat bleach, with the recovery trade-off against the unit cost.

Okay, thanks very much.

Next question?

Our next question comes from the line of John Duty, Gold Stock Analyst.

Good morning. Thanks, and great quarter. I've got a couple of questions that relate to the basis on which you're reporting now and will be reporting in the future. The first has to do with this peer group basis reporting. Are you able to give us some back data on how your numbers would compare to how your peers are reporting? And I assume by that you mean the Gold Institute's standard?

Yes, John, what we've done in the results is given you the current quarter and then the previous quarter benchmarks against how we understand the peer group to do it. But we haven't gone back further than that for the simple reason is that we haven't actually made the decision to adopt a change in policy. We're purely giving pro forma information for those analysts and for those fund managers, etcetera, who want to try and model the numbers on a more comparable basis with the peer group. So we're not going to go back further than that unless we decided to change the policy, in which case, we have to go back and restate the whole of 2005 and do an opening balance adjustment as well. So it's quite a lot of work and probably not for a lot of benefit. So what we will do, though, going forward, we'll continue to give you the comparison, and then you can use that as you wish. But another thing that I would just warn you against is that if you want to actually model the full impact of this, you need to actually pick up the extra capital expenditure because over this quarter, we would have capitalized about an additional $30 million of capital expenditure, which, in turn, has the spin-on effect in terms of the amortization that comes through. Now, we haven't done all of that modeling. We've merely just restated our cash costs to give you an indication of what it would look like. So I think that's all we're going to give going forward, and at least it gives people an idea on a cash-cost basis what this means. I think, bottom line, over the longer term, there's not going to be any difference in earnings because this has to come through earnings over time. It's purely a timing delay. And instead of coming through earnings as working cost, if you capitalize all this development, it comes through your earnings and your amortization line.

Okay, thanks. I'm sure that you're well aware when investors go to pick a gold stock, they do it on a comparative basis. And if everybody else is using a standard that makes them look bigger or better on a cash-cost basis, you're at a disadvantage. And I appreciate knowing what your numbers are. I appreciate your reporting it at this time, and I hope you'll make that change so that we can compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

Well, at least you could compare the cash costs, which previously you couldn't do, so I think we've given you more information. But now, we'll take your comments on board, and I have to say this is the first quarter we made the change, and we'll see how it goes heading forth.

Okay. And one other question, if I might, and that has to do with how you're going to report Cerro Corona going forward. Gold equivalent, putting the copper in gold terms, is not what most people do. Most would take it as a co-product. Are you going to record your cash costs on a gold-equivalent basis or a co-product basis?

Hi, it's John here. I think at a headline level, we would use the gold-equivalent basis. What we find is the co-product tends to make some, you know, the gold production from Corona look a lot better than it necessarily is when you just see the gold production. So at a headline level, we would do it on a gold-equivalent basis given that there's not much copper in our Company at this time. However, we would always provide the detail behind that sort out what's actually happening in the numbers, but we do think the co-product method can slightly misstate gold production costs and give you an artificial sense of profitability.

Okay, thank you.

Carlo, we'll take two more questions, and then we'll wrap up.

Our next question comes from the line of Mark Rohr, MSR Capital.

I hope it's okay to just ask one question still. The question I have is when you put all this together, pro forma for the Cerro Corona and Bolivar acquisitions, can you share with us what you think Gold Fields' production may look like over the next two or three years?

I'll answer that question, and it's not the higher level, if you don't mind. We avoid very detailed forecasts of gold production. The Cerro Corona project and the Bolivar acquisition were part of a very clear strategy of growing the international side of our business by an additional 1.5 million ounces. Now, that strategy included, offered the expansions at our international operations. Now, those have pretty much kicked in. So if you take current sort of production levels, the Bolivar and Cerro Corona would add between the two of them, at least initially, between five and 600,000 ounces per year of gold and gold-equivalent production. Obviously, we've indicated that Cerro Corona can be quite variable, high in the front and low in the back end. It will be in full production in 2008. But, also, we've indicated that over time, we will look to the scale of Bolivar. So order of magnitude, the front end is between six and seven, we'll not say/well, let's say seven and 800,000 ounces.

Just from those two projects?

Yes, that's right.

Okay. But you're not willing to share a broader profile of the company at this stage?

Yes, I'm sorry, just to go back in, that's in the back of the total company being at about 4.5 million ounces per annum at our current sort of levels, and that's after the full incorporation of the international expansion projects, which are pretty much in the bag now.

Thank you very much. That's helpful.

Carlo, final question?

Our next question comes from the line of Sam Robbins, Robbin, Flan and Company.

Thank you for doing such a superb job. I have one perspective question, and that is this. A lot of us are puzzled. We know you have complete understanding of what you're doing. We know you know what you're doing . We know that you understand all the risks in South America. But the question is this. We hear in the newspapers and the media that there is a trend toward the left, toward an anti-capital, towards socialistic perceptions. And, yet, you are undertaking major projects there. Obviously, you have decided that it's safe. Can you spell that out a little bit so that we know you're not treading where angels wouldn't tread?

Sam, obviously, it's all about risk and reward. Let's take Peru as an example. The mining sector in Peru constitutes a very significant percentage of that country's GDP, so the thought that the mining sector is going to get shut down, you may as well close down the country as a whole. So our view is that, sure, there may be a change in political persuasion in some of these countries, but I don't believe that it will fundamentally change the need for those countries to still carry on producing, interacting with the outside world. Frankly, wherever you go in the world today, you're finding that there's risk wherever you operate. And I think what we're doing is that we are carefully positioning this company around the world, such that we don't have undue exposure to any one particular area. And by doing that, you're building a degree of risk amelioration. I think having all of your operations in one country is, irrespective of where it features on the risk profile, is probably more risky than having your operations in a variety of countries. We're driven, first and foremost, with our operations in areas where we think there's good potential. We carefully evaluate where we go. We say, do we believe that we can operate in those areas? Are we happy to have operations there? And if the answers to those questions are positive and we believe that there's a good return, then we will take that. But, clearly, we don't want to have all of our operations in risky areas. And when we have gone in to the new countries, clearly, we take soundings with the government rulers of those countries. We take value judgment. At this stage, we believe that we have not, undue exposure to any one particular area, and we're very happy with where we are, and I hope that in a few years' time, people will recognize that. Just as a final comment, many years ago, when we first went into Ghana, Ghana was considered extremely risky. Today, Ghana provides us with a very significant proportion of our operating, or of our earnings. And we look through the present day, and we try and look over lifecycles of our operations and say, where do we believe this place is going? And that's how we make our investment decisions there.

Thank you, a brilliant answer.

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for listening today. It's been a pleasure presenting these results. Once again, I apologize for my voice. Hopefully by the time I will talk to you again at the end of April, I will have found it again. Thank you all very much, and cheerio.

Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes your presentation, and you may now disconnect.