Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Gold Fields' 2021 financial year results. With me during the presentation today is Paul Schmidt, our CFO, and Avishkar Nagaser, who is our Head of Investor Relations. As always, we provide a forward-looking statement. This time, the forward-looking statement includes comments around ESG. This is the agenda for today. I'm going to be talking through a little bit about our purpose, vision and strategy, highlights for the 2021. I'll talk you through some ESG components, then operations. I'll hand over to Paul, who will take us through the financials. And then I'll do an update on Salares Norte and then provide a conclusion, also our guidance for 2021 and beyond. So I thought I'd share with you an update on the company's purpose, vision and strategy that we concluded during the course of last year. So first opportunity I've had to be able to share some of that with you. Firstly, we got feedback from our staff, from our executive team and our Board to land on the new purpose for Gold Fields. In essence, why we exist and what we've -- what our purpose is, is creating enduring value beyond mining. And I think that talks to what Gold Fields is all about. What society would expect of us is, yes, we expect it to make a profit, we expect it to run a profitable company, but we also expect it to make a difference and to make a lasting difference beyond the lifetime of our mines in the areas in which we operate. What we've been able to do on our vision is build on the vision that was the vision of Gold Fields before. And our vision is to be the preferred gold mining company delivering sustainable, superior value. And…

If we can go to my first slide, normalized earnings up 6% to $929 million, free cash flow of $463 million, net debt down to $969 million. Pleased to announce final dividend of ZAR 2.60. Total dividend for the year ZAR 4.70, down from ZAR 4.80 in the previous year. However, you need to remember that we are a dollar report. And in terms of dollar, we have increased from USD 0.29 to USD 0.32, a 9% increase in the dividend. If we look how the free cash flow was made up, $913 million from the operating mines. Of that, we invested $327 million into Salares Norte. That left us with $582 million from our ops after Salares. After paying interest and other corporate charges, we ended up with $463 million free cash flow. As Chris said, our all-in costs are up 20% to $1,297 an ounce. That is below the guidance we gave at the beginning of the year from $1,310 to $1,350 an ounce. The main reason for the increase is $109 per ounce due to the increased capital expenditure at Salares Norte and $53 because of the strengthening of the rand and the Australian dollar to the U.S. dollar. My last slide, key highlights. As I said, net debt down $100 million to $969 million. Net debt to EBITDA down to $0.4x from 0.56x. And in conclusion, what did we do with the cash flow that we made. We invested $730 million into capital at the 8 mines that we operate; $369 million went to dividends to Gold Fields' shareholders as well as to minority shareholders, mainly in Ghana; we spent $375 million of capital at Salares Norte; and we still managed to do $100 million debt reduction. And with that, I'm going to hand over to Chris to take us through Salares Norte.

So thanks, Paul. Yes, as Paul said, I'll take you through an update on the Salares Norte project in Chile. Already mentioned a bit earlier, this is one of the best gold projects anywhere in the world at the moment. I won't go through this entire slide, but I will say that -- a couple of highlights. We managed to increase from 27% at the start of the year to 63% roughly completion at the end of the year. We spent $375 million on the project itself generate -- so now we've spent overall $472 million on Salares Norte in Chile. We did have a very significant impact from COVID on the project. So for example, we had to de-densify all of our accommodation at the project so we could add, at one particular time, only 1/3 of the planned people on site. The government was paying actually very lucrative sort of allowances for people that had COVID or to offset the impact of COVID. So they actually pay people who stay at home. Seaborne logistics were impacted by COVID. Transporting of equipment from manufacturers to the sites was impacted by COVID. And then the manufacturers themselves were impacted by COVID. So the team at the site were very, very deliberate about making sure that we focused all of our efforts on making sure we sustain the critical path. So noncritical path items were postponed into this year. So we're still on track, even with these difficult scenarios, these difficult circumstances, unlike almost any of the other major projects who have not been able to maintain their target completion dates. We've been able to maintain our focus for delivering and our commitment solely is to deliver first gold at the end of first quarter of next year. You can see…

Okay. Well, thanks, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back. I think let's first start by seeing if there's any questions on the conference call.

[Operator Instructions]. Yes. And the first question comes from Patrick Mann of Bank of America.

Chris, I just wanted to ask about how you guys are thinking about reserve prices now that we're seeing quite high cost inflation coming through. I mean I imagine if you hold reserve prices flat and we start to see this kind of double-digit cost inflation, that might start to impact mine plans. So if you could just give us an idea around where your reserve price is going or what impact the cost have on that.

Okay. Yes. Thanks for the question, Patrick. So we are not adjusting our reserve and resource prices. So resource, we're still planning a $1,300, reserve at $1,500. You're absolutely right, is that inflation may, over time, start putting pressure on those prices. But at the same time, we get the question the other way sometimes is to say, well, with the high gold price, shouldn't you be lifting the price for reserve and resource. And our answer to that is no, because then we start bringing marginal production into our asset -- into -- in our asset portfolio and into our production base, and we don't want to do that because then, of course, when prices drop, you have uneconomical production. So at this point in time, Patrick, for both of those reasons, we think that a $1,300 resource and a $1,500 reserve price, I think, are appropriate prices. But I think -- perhaps one other comment, what we are seeing though is that some of -- in the reserves, and that was the particular case at South Deep this year is when we had some of the production sort of around the edges, with costs increasing, we did see a reduction in some of the reserve and resource at South Deep.

Okay. Interesting. Yes. I was just wondering whether it was going to start having a material impact or -- but it sounds like it's, at the moment, just at the margin. So -- yes.

Yes. I think that's how we see it at the moment, Patrick.

The next question comes from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities.

Chris, I'm very curious on the profile you've given -- the growth profile. I think you're probably the most significant producer on the senior gold cost curve that's going to show such growth of some 20% over the next couple of years. I'd like to ask you where do you see Gold Fields positioned on the cost curve in 2024? And how do you intend on staying there? With that in mind, I've noticed your reserve replenishment isn't near where you're currently producing at 2.2 million ounces. So how does that strategy play out for you? And what's your view on greenfields exploration? Because I don't think you have much. And is that really just not something you see much opportunity globally for your company?

Do you want to talk a little bit about the costs? I'll talk about exploration.

Yes. Adrian, I don't think we're going to be giving long-term cost guidance. We gave production guidance. We had to get over the hump this year of the inflation. You saw on the last page of this presentation, we did give indications of the inflation we are facing this year. In terms of the reserve replacement, I'll get to that before Chris goes. Remember, we did talk about South Deep and that we got caught in some of the costs bringing down. But in most of the other ops, we did have reserve replacement. Chris?

I'm sorry, just remind me what the second part of the question was, Adrian?

So just curious to know like where -- not so much what the cost would be, but where your position would be on the global cost curve and how you intend to hang there, Chris, because your growth is incredible, some 20%. And I don't think any other miner has that. But of course, we are aware that you've got some mines coming off. I just like to sort of understand your strategy to -- for Gold Fields to sustain that?

Yes. I mean, thanks, Adrian. Look, I personally haven't looked at the global cost curve for a bit to see where we're going to be in 2024. We do know that we are going to move materially down the cost curve when we add Salares. When Salares coming in at sort of $550 an ounce or something to that effect, that's going to materially move us with a big chunk of production down the cost curve. With time, we expect to see South Deep moving down the cost curve. Of course, we've got pressure in Australia moving up the cost curve and there's a lot of work underway to see how we can mitigate some of that. So I think other than to say we are going to be moving down the cost curve and our high-cost producer in South Deep is already starting to sort of beat inflation, but with a 10% inflation in South Africa, we've got to work really hard to do that. And for example, that's why we see the investment in the ESG component like the solar to help us reduce those costs. So yes, it's got benefits for decarbonization, but also reducing costs. So we will be moving down the cost curve. And that's really what our focus is. At the moment, we've got those assets. They are fairly low-cost assets, and we believe that if we continue with Salares, we'll be coming down the cost curve. But when I mentioned the third leg of our strategy is to focus on the quality of the portfolio. So whatever we do, that is very, very important to us, both quality of jurisdiction but also quality of all-in cost is very important for us. So this is very foremost in our mind. Exactly where that puts…

The next question comes from Leroy Mnguni of HSBC.

My first question is around the chinchillas at Salares. It does seem like you have it under control, and it -- based on what you can foresee, it's not going to have a material impact on your mine plan. But could you maybe articulate for us a worst-case scenario? So if you do not agree with the environmental authorities on an effective way of moving the chinchillas successfully, how would that impact your mine plan going forward and maybe your ramp-up profile as well? And then the second question is perhaps just for my understanding, the Agnew power solution seems to include batteries. Now I understand the issue at South Deep was you -- it's not really possible to come up or not cost effective to come up with a battery storage solution for the solar power. Is there any possibility that you can apply some of the learnings of what you're doing at Agnew at South Deep and maybe reduce your reliance on Eskom Power?

Okay. And Paul, do you want to talk -- why don't you talk chinchillas, seen as a core component of financial?

Yes. I'm a little animal lover. So the chinchillas are in the area of Agua Amarga, and we only start stripping Agua Amarga in 2025 and first ore from Agua Amarga is only in 2028. For the foreseeable future, as Chris showed, we have mining Brecha Principal. So it's not -- in the next 3 years, we have no issue. It's only in '25, where it will start affecting the stripping. I hope that answers your question.

Yes, it does.

Yes. So Leroy, just to add on to what Paul is saying, I mean we are spending. One of the questions I got this morning was you seem pretty relaxed about it. So no, we're not relaxed about it. The team in Peru are spending -- the team in Chile are spending a huge amount of time engaging with the authorities. We think that there was, during the election time, that's not normally the time where you get the most progress with government officials. But now that we're sort of stabilizing that, we think that, hopefully, in the near future, we'll get now some traction. Our team in Chile have got good relationships with authorities. We've got good relationships with the NGOs and the other specialists that are helping us to come up with a plan that really works for relocating the chinchilla. So as Paul said, we don't have a risk in the next couple of years, but we're working very, very closely with the authorities. And hopefully, we can get approval pretty quickly so that we can start moving the chinchilla so that, in the fullness of time, that issue is resolved. What is the second one? Yes, Agnew. So the battery storage solution in Australia at Agnew is still quite small. So the kind of scale that we're saying to make it to move the dial at South Deep, we are going to have to have a much bigger storage solution. But you're absolutely right. I mean our teams are talking to each other around what has worked, what hasn't worked. Wind is already now a solution that's in place at Agnew. So our team, for example, at South Deep is engaging with the team in Australia. We are one team after all. And so, yes, we're learning from that. But actually, at the moment, the storage solution that we're looking for at South Deep is a much bigger solution. And so, yes, that's still unresolved, but we are looking at a whole range of options as to what that looks like. But then also under our technical team in Australia, to make sure that we are still not operating as a whole lot of little individual units, we have our central technical team that has got some oversight in making sure we do learn from each other and that we implement the best practice. So Leroy, yes, so work in progress, but it is something very high on our radar screen, so we can take the next steps of both solar and wind at a number of our operations.

The next question comes from Scott Macdonald of Scotiabank.

Just a couple of questions for me about your revised strategy to preserve value beyond 2024. Just firstly, on M&A, you talked a fair bit -- in a fair bit of detail on your Q2 '21 call, I think it was, about the types of external opportunities you might consider in terms of asset stage, geography and other sorts of parameters you're looking at. Just wondering whether there are any changes to how you're thinking about this in light of the revised strategy review process you undertook recently.

Yes, Scott, thanks very much for the question. The answer is no. There's been no change in the strategy. I think just to reiterate for perhaps other folk on the call who may not recall what we discussed at the interims. So what we said is having built the value of the company up to where we're going to build it up in '24, '25, we think that having built that value, we think we can maintain that. But I think very importantly, we use -- we really are focused on the value and not on the volume. I mean we think that's a bit of a proxy for that value if we can get the right quality production. But very interest -- very importantly, if we can't find the right solution to stop that potential drop-off, although it's not a cliff drop-off, but a gradual drop-off of the company's production beyond 2024, '25 when we peak at the 2.7 million, 2.8 million ounces. If we don't find the right solutions for value, then we are okay to let the volume drift off a bit off that number, because what we don't want to do is add value -- add volume that actually reduces the value of the company. So that's the first point I'd like to make. The second point I'd like to make is we've got a bit of time to do that, and we don't have to rush out by Friday and try and do something. So in a very high-price environment with high-valued assets, we want to be very careful that we don't overpay for something that we can't create additional value for. So we still maintain that we've got some internal options. One of them, for example, that I mentioned earlier is Damang. I mean we may find an internal solution for Damang. As we start dropping off production at Cerro Corona, we know that there's some regional solutions around us. So internal focus is still absolutely always first price, having a look at the early production assets or assets that are in production. So anything along that continuum, we'd be quite happy to look at. We've got some time to do that. The team are looking at that. But it's not like we've got nothing to do, and that we're going to be chasing things that devalue the company because we want to stay at some production number that's preordained. That is not our strategy. So we think that we can -- as we grow the value of the company, we think we can maintain that. We've got some time to do that, and we're going to be looking at a range of options that can make us, we believe, sustain that value that we have created.

Great. And just to confirm, geographically, would you be -- have a preference to stay within the regions you are currently operating in?

Yes, we are comfortable with the regions that we operate in. So yes, we'd be happy to look in those regions. But likewise, there are still other good mining jurisdictions that we don't operate in. So we would be also keen to look at some of those regions. So again, what we're not going to be doing is sort of spray and pray and just sort of look all around the world. We still want quality jurisdictions and quality production to make sure that we do deliver that third leg of our strategy that focuses on quality. But there are 1 or 2 other jurisdictions that we would consider.

Would you care to mention them specifically or...

No, I think it's a little bit early at the moment. But I mean, there is other -- there are other good mining jurisdictions other than the ones we operate in. We only operate in 5 countries. I think North America is still interesting to us, just as an example. There are 1 or 2 other -- 1 or 2 other South American countries that are interesting. So no, there are still some other good mining jurisdictions. And those are the kind of things that we'd be interested in.

Right. And then you mentioned the third leg of your strategy was focused on quality. On the flip side, are there any opportunities, perhaps, to prune portfolio of maybe assets you consider lower quality? Particularly, as you mentioned, in a higher price environment, the value proposition might be more interesting on the sell side, any thoughts on that?

So we don't have a lot of those that are not contributing very positively. For example, in the first half of the cost curve, there's not a lot of our production assets that are like that. As we improve, South Deep is always improving. So that's great. We've got Damang that, in the fullness of time, if we can't find a solution, then that might be something that we may consider in improving the quality of the portfolio. But the Damang team still believe that they're going to find the right solution. So let's see. I think there is a question mark around Asanko that we need to think about what comes up with when Galiano do their presentation at the end of Q1. I think that's probably the asset that's got the biggest question mark next to it.

At this stage, we'll handover for questions on the webcast.

Okay. Great. Okay. Chris, we have a whole lot of questions from the webcast. I'm going to ask them one at a time so we can get through them as quick as possible. Firstly, Peter from Mergermarket asks, at what point will Gold Fields start considering options for the 2024 debt maturity?

That's for me. I think we will start looking at it towards the end of this year. We'll start looking at refinancing some of our group facilities, the bank debt. And in 2023, we'll start having a look at the bond. At the moment, it makes no economic sense to do any kind of maturity management on the bond.

Thanks, Paul. Sandile from Umthombo Wealth has a few questions. Firstly, it doesn't look like Gold Fields attracts the multiples it deserves relative to its peers, given its production profile and quality of assets. Does this concern you? And do you have any plans to address the gap?

So yes, we would agree with that, that we don't believe that we get the full value just yet. This has been improving over the last while, which is, I think, very positive. But there's sort of 3 key areas that we think we still are not getting the full value. Most of these are still in our hands. So for example, South Deep, we know we don't yet get the full value for South Deep. And we must just keep delivering. And as we deliver, we're seeing the increase in value for South Deep. So that's the first one, and it's in our hands, and we're doing something about that. Secondly is Salares Norte. Really, when -- in a construction phase, you never get the full value, and I think that's understandable. We have seen, though, also over time, as we get closer to delivering the project, we are starting to see the values increase from Salares and -- but we have to deliver. And when we deliver that project, we think that you're going to see a very nice kick up in the value of the company. And then thirdly, we think that there's still assets in Australia that some of the analysts, some of the shareholders don't really understand the assets. If you look only at the reserve life, they look like they're short life assets, but they've sort of had that kind of life of mine for the last 20 years, and we still keep going. We can absolutely still see life of mine for all of those assets in Australia, more than 10 years. So we've got, we think, the right solution. When time allows us, we're going to take more people out to our Australian assets to see how we've been investing in those assets, to see what the future looks like, to engage with the teams and they'll really get a sense for the quality of those Australian assets. So yes, we would -- we have been increasing over the last number of years. Our multiple gap has been decreasing. We've still got some potential. Most of that is in our hands. The plan is to deliver and you're going to see that continuing -- multiple continue to increase. And then we start seeing premium multiples for the quality of company that Gold Fields is.

Thank you, Chris. The next one, we have seen a significant rise in left wing forces in the Lat Am region. Does this concern you from a capital investment decision point of view?

Yes. Paul, happy that -- why don't I just talk in general, and you talk to us a little bit about the stability agreement in Chile. Yes, it's not just -- traditionally, we've always complained that, that's the prerogative of African governments to sort of scare investors away. But we have seen, as you correctly mentioned, over the last number of years, increasing left wing governments, particularly when they're electioneering, saying all sorts of strange things that worry us. Yes, we are worried about that. But our teams in Peru and Chile give us the assurance that, number one, it's a lot harder to make some of those things happen than just a statement. And that actually, there's a lot of sense prevails in the congresses where there's a much more, I guess, fair and even distribution of views. So yes, we don't think that these things are about to happen overnight. Governments all over the world are under tremendous pressure at the moment, particularly because of the impacts of COVID. So we're seeing, not just in South America but all over, actually, governments seeking to raise taxes, raise royalties, get money in different ways. So we're under a lot of pressure in different areas. But we're not overly concerned, but we -- it is -- of course, the moment somebody says something like that, it is of concern to us. But we think we've got additional protections that perhaps many other mining companies don't. Perhaps, you can...

Yes. I think in Chile at Salares Norte, we have a stability agreement that protects us from all mining taxes. So we don't see any move in that in Chile.

And some of the recent comments about water. We haven't seen anything. We haven't been approached. We have -- our water rights are still in place, and we're not under any pressure in that front -- on that front.

Okay. The last one from Sandile. Are there any specific tax benefits associated with decarbonizing the operations? If so, is it material?

At the moment, we haven't factored any tax benefits into our modeling. The benefits are in terms of lower costs. That's one of the reasons we've done the South Deep project. It's not only about decarbonization, it's coming off Eskom that's getting between 15% and 20%. We see the benefits coming through lower costs of operating green energy.

I think an additional area, Sandile, that you may see is what we may avoid is some of these extra carbon taxes that are being talked about, particularly in the eurozone. So I think by -- whilst we won't get tax benefits, we think that we could avoid some of these very material taxes that people are talking about because of the good work that we're doing, in addition to the point that Paul make is actually this is reducing our costs in all the places that we're putting this in.

Okay. The next one is from Mark at Oyster Catcher. Are there any one-off costs at South Deep? Or is the current cost run rate for the mine?

For the 2022 year, there's ZAR 550 million associated with completing the solar project. They have got approximately ZAR 1.5 billion sustainable capital this year. That should drop to ZAR 1 billion, and that's the number you should be using for sustainable capital for South Deep going forward. That's the big outlier this year.

Thanks, Paul. The next one comes from Laurence at Atlas Peak Investments. Do you foresee the gold price carrying on its upward trajectory in the future? And how will the company sustain its earnings and value should the gold price start to slow down or decrease?

Look, I think, firstly, we don't manage the company for the existing gold price. We manage the company for a much lower gold price and that's -- and then the gold price will be with the gold price be. We are focused on making sure that we can generate good margins at much lower prices. Then when you get high gold prices, we will benefit and our shareholders will benefit as a result. So that's the first comment I'd make. Secondly, it looks like most commentators are feeling that, yes, there's pressure from inflation. Traditionally, that puts some pressure on the gold price. You're not seeing -- sorry, interest rates -- interest rates being the talks of rising interest rates, particularly in the U.S., that normally puts pressure on the gold price, but that's not a global phenomenon yet. What we are seeing, which is a global phenomenon, is the increasing inflation, and that's normally good for the gold price. I think if you sort of put these different forces and many others against each other, I think you would say they're probably sort of -- they sort of even each other out. And I think we should see, for the next period of time, a fairly strong gold price and even slightly increasing gold price. Hopefully, the geopolitical risks don't escalate because that's not what we want to see gold prices rising on. You want to see it rising on actually proper fundamentals. And we think those are in place and we think that, largely, you should see a strong gold price for longer.

Okay. Then Jared from RMB has a couple of questions. Firstly, how much of the reduction in Damang's production from 2022 to 2025 is due to lower expected grades relative to the Damang Reinvestment Plan? And what does a lower grade mean for potential reinvestment into the asset, i.e., is it not NPV accretive to sell the asset into frothy asset valuations while there's still some life left in it?

I mean that is one of the options available to us. But at the same time, we still have underground potential at Damang. There is still a potential for another cutback. There could even be a combination between those. So I think for -- until we are sure that there's not much better valuation in our own hands, we would not want to sell it now. And -- I mean -- yes, we wouldn't want to sell it when everything is finished. So we don't have a lot of time to make that decision. But we want to be very sure that this is actually still not a good asset in our hands. So that -- I guess, that's the first point that I would make. Second point that I would make, to date, both because of volume and grade, we are -- have got slightly more ounce production than we had anticipated at this point in time. By the time 2025 comes, we will generate more ounces than we've originally commissioned -- committed to the market from the Damang Reinvestment Project. We've had times where we've had a higher grade than planned. We are in an area where it's got lower grades. That certainly was the case in 2021. We are seeing a slight reduction, and that's why we have about 220,000 ounces for 2022 because of lower grades. But overall, the grade and the anticipated volume that we were planning to get out of the asset, we've got out of the asset. Some of the extra mining that we've done that we haven't been able to treat is on stockpiles. And then at -- in the last 2 years of the mine, we'll be treating that through the plant. So overall, yes, we are in a lower grade area now for the whole project. We're still there or thereabouts on the grade and -- but we have got more ounces than we've originally planned.

Thank you, Chris. The next one, what is preventing you from giving cost guidance for 2023 and 2024?

I think, as I said earlier, we've got a very high inflation year ahead of us. We don't believe it's necessarily going to be long term. We need to see where we end up at the end of the year -- at the end of 2022. And then we'll have to give firmer guidance. I wouldn't want to be giving guidance for 2023 based on the inflationary numbers we are seeing for 2022.

Okay. The last one from Jared. If the ramp-up at Salares goes according to plan in 2023 and 2024, should we think of the longer term production profile as disclosed in 2029 as still being intact?

Yes. I think that -- look, there's nothing at the moment. We haven't got into production yet, so there's nothing that changes our original view. At this point in time, we're just starting to do the regional exploration. So the original guidance that we gave of the 7 years at the higher production but 11 years life of mine, I think that's still -- that's the plan that we've given. And there's nothing that we've done that would change that plan. But there's nothing that we've seen that should undermine that plan either. So yes, we're starting to do the exploration. I mean the plan and the reason for doing the exploration is because we do believe that -- because this is how these things work with mines, that you're likely to get extra -- we're likely to find extra ore, but until we find it, we haven't found it. So there's nothing to undermine or inflate the previous guidance that we've given the market.

Okay. Thanks, Chris. The next one comes from Arnold at Nedbank. He asks, could you quantify the potential unit cost savings associated with your solar plant at South Deep? Could you also comment about the broader impact associated with less production disruptions? How much production was lost due to Eskom outages in 2020 and 2021? And how much of this could be offset by your own solar projects?

So cost, I mean, just take 120,000 -- ZAR 120 million roughly. I mean as Eskom prices increase, we're going to save more than that, but just take roughly ZAR 120 million, divide by the ounces, and that will give you a sense of the unit cost saving. I think this is -- this project initially, we thought we would pay back in 7 years. Now it looks like we're paying it back in 5 years. And the way Eskom's going, we're going to pay it back a lot quicker than that. We did have some production losses in the first quarter of about 10,000 ounces. I don't think I'd want to just bake it in on top of what we had. We did have some really good production. I think the guidance that we've given you is the right guidance, Arnold. So yes, I mean we do see another increase between, I think it was 9.6 tonnes to 9.7 tonnes of gold this year. That's a very nice increase year-on-year. So I don't want to go beyond that. We didn't have any Eskom loss.

Yes. Sorry, the 10,000 ounces Chris referred to was COVID. In terms of Eskom losses, we didn't have any. Remember, the way Eskom does it, it's about load. We don't have load shedding. We had load scheduling. They tell us when we're going to be off because of the excess milling and hoisting capacity at South Deep. We actually -- they tell us when we need to be off. We defer and then a day later, we'll catch up on the hoisting and the grinding. So we had no production loss this year due to Eskom interruptions.

Okay. And then the last one comes from Herbert at Investec. Please confirm if all your gold hedges have matured and if there's any appetite to hedge going forward. Does the lack of hedging communicate you're comfortable with the CapEx commitments given where the gold price is?

Yes. I can confirm that all our hedges in terms of commodities, both copper and gold, were completed at the end of 2021. The only hedge, we have a small oil hedge in place. And obviously, we have the remainder of the Salares Norte currency hedge taking place. Remembering the philosophy for Gold Fields behind the hedging is when we have high capital investment or we're protecting high-cost operations. So at the moment, we are comfortable that we're over the hump with Salares Norte in terms of the spend. So yes, we're comfortable, no need to hedge commodities at the moment.

Thank you, Paul. Chris, over to you for concluding comments.

Yes. Thanks very much. And thanks for all the interest shown on the line and on the webcast. So thank you, guys. And yes, I think we've had a solid performance. Again, just a big shout out to the Gold Fields team for a great job -- a job well done. Of course, it's a new year. We've got new challenges to face, but I'm sure the Gold Fields team are up to it. Thanks very much.