Good afternoon or good morning, everybody depending on where you are in the world today. We'd like to take you through the highlights of our first half year results for 2020, that is up to the six months to June. In the presentation here, you can see, I've shown you a slide of some wind turbines and a solar farm, this comes from our Agnew Gold Mine in Western Australia, where we've recently completed a micro grid, which on a good day it gives us almost a 100% of energy from renewables. So a great project for us and it's going to enable us to reduce our carbon footprint to make an impact in terms of climate change. And I think it provides a very good working model for us to consider elsewhere in the Group. Given the fact that ESG issues are now fully incorporated into business planning and integrated into decision making. We thought it would be good just to again share with you what has been widely regarded as one of the most successful prototypes of what a renewable project could be combining gas, wind, battery and solar. So that you can actually integrate them all and work out what is the best configuration in a particular time of the day. So thank you for that. Can we move on to the next slide, please go ahead. All right. So going on to the highlights for the first half. We've been in a very unusual period as we all know because of the COVID issue. And we've been able to weather the storm much better than what I thought we would. And so far, we've largely contained the impact. We did give updated guidance for the year in May that indicated our production would be between 3%…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Shilan Modi from UBS. Please go ahead, Shilan.

Good afternoon, team. Congrats on a good set of numbers given the circumstances that we've been dealing with for the last few months. Couple of questions from my side, Nick, I just saw in the media this afternoon that you're going to be stepping down in September 2021. Maybe this is a bit of an unfair question, so forgive me if it is. What would you have done differently looking back at the last 13 years as the -- I mean, we've been having debates for about 10 years but maybe tell us -- maybe tell me what you would have done differently? And then, I kind of touched on this earlier, but I mean, you're changing your gold price assumption for your reserve from $1,200 to $1,300 an ounce. Maybe a follow-up on that was, what is your expected all-in sustaining cost margin at the new reserve price? So would it be the same margin as it was before or is it higher? Given your dividend policy of I think it's 25% to 35% of normalized earnings, and with gold prices are now, could we expect something higher in the nearer term? So maybe at the top end of it band or even higher than that? Thanks.

I'll ask Paul to deal with all the back-end questions then I'll come back to your earlier question. Paul, do you want to have a crack?

Yes. If I can also on the dividend policy, obviously it's 25% to 35% and we went at the bottom end of the range for the interim one, but an Nick stated, it was equivalent to the full one from last year. Let's see how the rest of the year plays out. We don't know what's going to happen with we COVID. We could still have further issue, but assuming the rest of the year goes according to plan, we should have another good dividend at the end of the year. What was the other question? Sorry, it was on the dividend? What was the other one?

Reserves. The margin on the reserves.

The margin is still 15% at $1,300. And as we discussed with you earlier this morning, we've raised that to $1,300 to take into account inflation, you'd said we're at $1,200 for many years and that's why we're using $1,300. But at the minimum, we would still be the 15% margin. We did state that in the glossies earlier in the year, where we said 15% of $1,300 is our free cash flow margin target. Hope that answers your question.

That's good. Margin just -- now it's just at a higher price.

Correct. But we did state that already in the glossies at the end of last year. That's what is the target. Yes.

I think you -- just to add, we have to remember on a look through basis, there's probably 35% to 40% of our costs that are labor. When I say look through, including the contract as we use and those labor rates are going up every year. And we can't always contain that through productivity and efficiency improvements. So -- and the gold price never comes for free. Generally, when there is an increase in the gold price, the cost base doesn't stand still. I think coming back to your earlier question. I would say, where we are today has surpassed my expectations of where the Company would be. If you went back and you bought a Gold Field share just before we unbundle Sibanye, back in 2012, and you held those two shares, I think you would get a compound annual rate over the period of over 15%, I think. So that's real shareholder value for us. And I think the one frustration I've had and the management team have had is, South Deep has been a tough nut to crack. We've had a number of false starts here. But I do think it is different this time and feel that we're on the right track. And I guess one thing that gave me the the determination to continue is that the ore body is there, it's not like the ore body is not there. So we got something to work with here, it's just a question of improving the portfolio. But thanks for asking me to reflect on the history. Okay. Other questions.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek from Scotiabank. Please go ahead, Tanya.

Hi, Nick, how are you. I guess, congratulations on your retirement. Maybe I could just start on that. Just to confirm that it is a mandatory retirement in South Africa based on ages. Is that correct?

It's part of our employment policy as retirement is 63. This has been disclosed, actually in our annual report for some time. So this is not something new, it's not a surprise. It's an internal policy issue that retirement is at 63.

Okay. No. I just wanted to confirm that. And I just wanted to ask how the succession planning will go from now until your retirement, is this a plan to have someone overlap you over this next year? Or how are you seeing this play out over the next year?

Yes, look, the Board will obviously be in control of this situation. There is a search process that will commence. And we will work out the timing of all of that with the Board. Obviously, we've got to get someone first. And I'll do whatever is required in terms of providing a seamless process. But there is a very good management team in the Company. Paul is also being with me for a long, long time. So I don't think there's going to be any issue of continuity factors or anything like that. We want to do this in a way that is least disruptive for the organization.

Okay. No, that's good to hear. Anyway, congratulations on that. I'm just going to move on to the mining operations, if I could and exploration, which was very interesting on some of those slides. If I could just start on the mines that were impacted by COVID and I didn't get to hear all of them, unfortunately, my line was a bit fuzzy. But just on Cerro Corona, I think you said that we are up at about 70% capacity, and we will be within the next month or so at normal rates. So does that mean that Q4 is a more normalized quarter for us at Cerro Corona?

Yes. I think Q4, we would expect to start getting back to where we were. Obviously, we've had to prioritize our mining with ore to try and keep the process plant going. So the waste strip is a little bit behind and we won't cash all of that up this year. So some of that will go into next year, but we don't have an overriding concern on it. But I think, quarter four will start looking more like quarter one, but not entirely, because we haven't fully exposed all of the ore we would have done, had the waste been running at the extent it was. But closer to normality, and then next year, I think we'll be better. So we factored all of that into the updated guidance for the year.

Okay. And then ore at South Deep, I understood again that we're up to about 70% capacity or so right now. Does that -- is this a similar scenario that on Q4 is going to be a more normalized quarter and we're just ramping up this quarter?

No, we're actually, we're ahead of the game. We're up to about 80% now. And we're expecting quarter three to be closer to normal at this stage. So we're not going to have the same impact there, because we're up to 80%, we're bringing back the lot of the people from the neighboring countries who couldn't get back after the shutdown. So I think quarter three should be more reasonable, not quite there but not too far off. And in quarter four, I think it should be pretty normal.

Okay. And just to confirm that you mentioned the Australian operations are performing well, you haven't been impacted by COVID neither on the second wave that hit Australia?

The second wave has been on the eastern states. It hasn't got to Western Australia. But I must just give the caveat on all of the operations, Tanya, is that if we get a second wave in South Africa, we give a second wave in Peru, if all of a sudden, Western Australia starts reporting whole lot of cases, all bets are off. And we can't predict that today we can only give you where we think we're going based on what we know today. The bank could be very different in a month's time. So that's just the overriding caveat.

Yes. I appreciate it was on the East side, just to make sure that nothing has impacted you supply wise, or are other things getting to the mine site.

Yes. It's being...

And then just the...

Sorry, go ahead.

Yes. And maybe just on the exploration. I just wanted to make sure I understand when you were talking about Tarkwa, I think I heard a 11 million-ounce potential resource number. I just wanted to check that. And my understanding is that at a two-year envelope around your existing deposit, if you were to just project the existing grade and depth out 200 meters, that's sort of your potential. Is that a correct assumption I made?

Yes, it's correct. It's also based on very limited drilling that we've got, which is indicating we're seeing the same geological structures. We're seeing the same number of packages. We're seeing the same sort of grades, the same thickness. And that's the magic of Tarkwa is the continuity of the structure and width of the ore body are very, very consistent. So it's not like, you got to do a whole bunch of closely spaced drilling to understand where you go. And again, it's only 200 meters down dip around that entire perimeter. That perimeter is obviously, -- it's large perimeter around all these pits of the 20 kilometers. So that gives you an idea, and that's resource, additional resource, not beyond that.

Yes. Okay. No, that's how I understood it. And my final question just on capital allocation, at higher gold price, what are you intending to do with this incremental cash flow?

Well, we've got three main areas we need to focus on. One is we've got to build Salares Norte. Rremember, we did a $250 million equity raise, but the total project spans $860 million before inflation. Number two, we want to continue delevering. Number three, we want to make sure that these higher profits translate into higher dividends using our payout ratio. Fourthly, we will be looking at how we can add organically to all of the mines in the group. Every mine in the group has got potential to add more. And this is really good business for us because we've got the infrastructure, we've got Sun Capital, it's lower risk, so we will be looking carefully at that. And things like a Wallaby underground mine. As we're getting deeper, one of the ways to offset the increase in costs is another decline. And we can actually debottleneck the deeper part of the mine for example. At Agnew, given the significant exploration potential, we want to look at upgrading the crusher and increase the plant throughput from 1.2 million tonnes a year to probably 1.6 million tonnes to 1.7 million tonnes a year. So these are all projects that we're going to be thinking about over the next couple of years in addition to obviously, continuing our exploration and of course, the Salares project. So we've got a fair number of things to do with the money. Let's make it first, of course.

Okay. And just -- I understood that you've set the policy of 25% to 35%. And you're going to remain that intact, you're at the lower end of the range, you could potentially move yourself up to the upper end of the range with this excess cash, would that be a fair statement?

Yes. Well, if you look at the average over the last five years, we've been about 30%. So Paul and I've discussed that, and we're not averse to that. Maybe Paul should jump in and give his thoughts.

Yes. Tanya, it's Paul here. As I said earlier, we paid at the lower end. We're just worried that we may not -- we still may be caught by the second wave of COVID, but assuming that we don't and the operations run in the gold price state, I'm sure we'll be playing a good dividend at the year and then maybe higher than the 25% that we paid in the interim.

Okay. And last, how much cash do you need to keep on the balance sheet, your minimum cash that you're comfortable with in terms of running your operations and before you pay out all the excess that we've talked about?

Tanya, we would like -- we normally keep around $400 million, we've discussed this as well. I would never -- at the moment, we still in a net debt situation. Assuming we get beyond that, I would still like to keep a bit more than that on the balance sheet. Because you never know what's going to happen in the future, it would be silly to pay out a extra dividend pay out all your cash and the next year prices drop and you actually then have to go and borrow. Our aim is to delever the Company and keep probably between $500 million and $1 billion of cash in reserve once we've got all our debt of the balance sheet. But the minimum requirement for the mines is around $400 million to $500 million that we keep at any time.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tanya.

The next question comes from Patrick Mann from Bank of America. Please go ahead, Patrick.

Hi, and thanks for the opportunity. I thought -- I just want to follow up on the reserve side again, and apologies for kind of beating the [indiscernible] on this constantly. But -- at first more philosophically, how do you think about this because we've obviously have a pretty flat gold price for the last 10 years or so. I mean, if you were starting with a clean sheet of paper, and you went up to $1,200 today, what would be the methodology to pick the NPV maximizing the best value answer for the reserve price. So I'm just trying to understand really Gold Fields' philosophy around this and how it could -- because at the moment, it seems like we're anchored to $1,200, will move up because the gold price has gone up and costs have gone up. But if you were starting from scratch, what should it be -- what could be the best value-maximizing reserve price to use? Thanks.

Patrick, a lot of it -- it's not only our view. It's based on the long-term view. Remember we decided on this number it was probably March, April. And at that stage, the long-term gold price for most of the consensus analyst was just above $1,300. It was about $1,300, $1,400. And if you check our financials, that's the number that we used in our impairment calculations. So, that guided us to a large degree as to what we should be using for based on what the market and that is analyst consensus as to what the long-term price was going to be. So, that was the science behind it. It was based on forecasts and looking at what the market is telling us the long-term prices should be.

And so, I mean to push a little bit on that. So, if the market or mark-to-market and we all start using closer to spot prices. Does that change -- does that drive Gold Fields' strategy around reserve pricing?

No, I think we would like to keep the $1,300 fairly consistent for a couple of years. I mean this is the first time we've moved it in a while. $1,300 has been around for a while, the long-term price but we decided let's mix it based on the inflation maybe it's time to move. But it's not that every year when the long-term forecast changed, Gold Fields is going to change its reserve price, no. I mean, $1,300 is going to be around with us for a while I think as a reserve price. And we'll look at it again in a couple of years but I wouldn't expect anything in the next two or three years if we change reserve prices, no.

Okay, thank you. Thanks, guys.

Most companies -- Patrick? Sorry, most companies that we've surveyed have been around $1,200. So, I think the peer group has been around $1,200 and we think $1,200 for a couple of years. But at some point, you need to flex the gold price because costs don't stand still. Wages, as I said, make up a sizable component of our cost base. And we have to have a balance between NPV and margin today. One thing we got to be careful about is not being too conservative, but also not being too aggressive. If you're too conservative, you got to leave money on the table. If you're too aggressive, you're going to be in a difficult position if prices come back. So, $1,300 we believe give us 15% margin comfortably and it leaves a lot of flexibility for margin expansion on higher prices.

Yes. I mean, we've been debating this internally and with clients, which I think -- and I'm sure that other analyst have as well, that's why these questions are coming up. But it's kind of -- if it was a brownfield expansion, which have $1,700, $1,800 dollars amount gave you a 20%, 30% IRR. It seems we have to keep your reserve price of $1,300 and not go for it. But with the benefit of hindsight, if you do go further, the gold price comes back again and you impair it, then you'll be accused of making the same mistakes as the last cycle. So, just interested in your thoughts on how you asses it because it's a very difficult one to have an answer to.

Yes. I was running this company in the last cycle, when the gold price collapsed. And we had done exactly as you indicated, across certain operations. And we have scheduled a massive restructuring exercise. And the one thing I've learned is when you let cost in the business, cost are quite easy to get in, but very difficult to get out. And it's better not to relax. And we don't know where the gold price is going to go. It could come back significantly. I remember in 2013, people told me gold came to $2,000 and two months later, it was down $1,300. So, it can change. Experience has taught Paul and I to be cautious and conservative on this one. And certainly, that's what we've heard from investors, too.

Got it. Thank you. Thanks.

The next question is a follow-up question from Shilan Modi from UBS. Please go ahead, Shilan.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking further questions from me. On one of the slides, it shows that your discovery cost of ounces in Australia is about AUD80 an ounce. I just want to confirm, this is per ounce found? And then the second thing is you're talking about looking for about 2 million ounces at Agnew. That implies about AUD160 million that you'd have to spend. And assuming you'd spend over four years, it's about AUD40 million a year, does that kind of make sense and should we be baking those into the numbers? And then the second thing was how should we think about your capex, your overall group capex numbers to stay in business and growth over the next three to five years? Thanks.

Yes. So just the AUD80 per reserve ounce, so you have to look at what you convert and typically you convert between 40% and 50% maybe, if you look at the averages. So that will scale it back somewhat. And we see the potential to bring those ounces in within the envelope of what we're currently spending in Australia. Wouldn't want you to go where I think somebody is going to be spending a whole lot of extra money. In terms of same business capital, I think we've said probably somewhere between $250 and $300 per ounce is a good number. If you take into account the need to replace mines in the group that need to obviously continue exploration, replace tailing dams, ventilation, drives undergrounds, there's a whole heap of things, replacement of fleet when you're doing in operations. That seemed about the right number to us and probably the right number for the industry at large. I don't know if Paul wants to add something to that?

No. I think you're right. It's around -- this could be just over $600 million. And if you look at our guidance for this period it was around $650 million and that included some capex for Salares. But I would say if you want to model same business, a bit around $600 million. And that ties up with Nick saying, the $300 on 2 million ounces circa. So that's a fair number.

Okay. Thanks. And then, if we added your exploration to be, say, about $50 million to $100 million per year for exploration?

That's -- no, that's in there.

That's included. Sorry. Yes. We include the exploration in our same business capital. So if you want to, then you can take that probably -- it was probably close to $100 million up quickly spinning between Australia and the other regions on the exploration. So, if you want to back scale it, you can look at $500 million, same business capital, $100 million exploration capital. If you want to book that way.

Okay. Perfect. Thanks.

Okay. We got some other questions coming through.

Yes. I'm going to ask a couple of questions from the webcast. Paul, I think you can answer a few of these. Do you expect to book further hedging losses in H2 and into 2021, given current gold prices?

No. I don't think there will any hedge losses in '21, because remember, the only hedging we've got for '21 are the goods that we really paid for. So they are basically done and invested. Obviously, we booked, we mark our hedges at the end of the [indiscernible]. Gold has moved a little bit since then, but at the moment, for modeling, you can return about $30 million to $35 million a month if you're playing out on the hedges and that could be till the end of the year. Again, you need to pick a gold price to work out how much more the loss could move from what the add at the half year end. We were using just over $1,800 gold price at the end of the half year.

Okay. Nick, this one is for you. In your forward-looking statements that contained a less of general risk that shareholders should be aware of, one of the statements, the effects of regional rewashing capacity. Has there even been present event that caused the problem?

No. We haven't got any events that have indicated our problem. At the moment, we are dewatering, so there's no water but it's getting out of line. But it is a risk of operations around us I suppose as a concern. So, that's really part of the issue. But we have been looking at that again and we might uptake that risk into the future based on new information as we evolve that. And if anything, it looks like the risk might be reduced.

Okay. Paul, another one for you. Did you finish the refinance of debt due in October 2020 with cash in the balance sheet or would you look to refinance that going forward?

No. We wouldn't refinance. Remember we did the bonds last year, so we've got cash on the balance sheet and obviously we're making a lot of money this year. So, it will be played from cash on the balance sheet. As we said, we certainly was just over $900 million at the end of June. So we would use that cash to play down the debt -- the bond that's due.

Okay. One more for you, Paul. The Company's leverage has reduced significantly. Under what conditions will Gold Fields consider materially increasing its leverage?

We're not forecasting to increase our leverage at the moment. We've said even if we take into account that -- as Nick mentioned the $500 million that we're going to spend at Salares next year with conservative gold prices around $1,300, we still forecast net-debt-to-EBITDA to be below 1 times at the end of next year even with the capital run. So, that's all what we've got under horizon at the moment with Salares and using the $1,300 gold price, we still stay below 1 times net-debt-to-EBITDA. So we don't see any reason big increase in the debt, in the leverage.

Yes. I think, in terms of just adding to that, we do have a lot in our plate in terms of building Salares. I talked about the organic growth potential, the existing assets, the need for us to show higher dividends given higher profits. And we don't really think we need to do anything beyond that. So, I wouldn't necessarily think that we're going to be out there looking to do stuff. We're quite happy with what we have now. And we think it's going to add significant value even at lower price than where we are today.

Okay. We're done with the webcast. Operator, if there are one or two more questions, we probably have time for -- if there are any?

We do not have any other questions on the audio line.

Okay. Thank you so much. Nick, further comment?

I think just to say thanks for dialing in. I must just say again the Company has been able to produce really good results despite the COVID issue and have shown that it's been resilient, lots of liquidity. We're in pretty good shape. We're ready if things get worse, second waves, etc, but hopefully, we've got the protocols in place. And if you got time, have a read through all of the COVID procedures and protocols we've put in place and we've written a long section in the book because we get a lot of questions on this, so we thought we'd get that. And if you have any follow-up questions on that, feel free to contact us because we've taken this incredibly seriously as you can imagine. And lastly, be safe wherever you are in the world and we look forward to engaging with you again soon. Thank you very much for your attendance today.