Our international audiences good morning, and good afternoon. Welcome to our H1 2021 results presentation. And very importantly, to me, a group strategic update, which I believe you will enjoy and, in fact, hopefully, find class leading. I'll be assisted by Richard Stewart, our Chief Operating Officer, who will provide operating results and update for the quarter and therefore, the first half of 2021. And then Charl Keyter, our CFO, will provide the financial results for the same period. Post the presentation, there will be a Q&A session where you will have full access to the corporate executive. And for those of you who may be wondering what is and obviously, those of you that have visited our operations in Montana will know that is the robotic arm that is part of our world class recycling business, which we will be talking more about later. So let me get on with the highlights of the presentation. But of course, our safe harbor statement, I'd ask you to take note of. Starting with people and people are clearly the most important asset in our business, and the safe and health is -- the safety and health, I should say, of our people and workforce is absolutely the first priority. We did see a regression in safety and Richard will talk you through that in more detail, but I'm very pleased to say that we've reenergized our safety strategies, implemented new strategies and we've actually already seen a reversal in this regression. So I hope that continues. We've made very good progress with the COVID-19 vaccination rollout. We've vaccinated more than 40,000 of our employees and we look forward to extending that to a significant number more. And of course, in conjunction with the Department of Health rolling that out into our…

Thank you very much, Neal. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and good morning to US colleagues. I think it's a real pleasure to be able to present to you today an update of our operational performance for the first half of 2021. As is customary at Sibanye Stillwater, we start all of our engagements with the safety moment. It is disappointing that during the first half of this year, we have seen a continued regression in our safety statistics. A trend that started after the COVID lockdown impacts we experienced last year, and our deepest condolences go to the friends and families of eight of our colleagues who we have lost during 2021. We have a safety strategy that has proven its success in the past. It is underpinned by a cultural transformation program, a program that drives the culture of values based decision making and is complemented by real risk reduction initiatives. Following the continued safety regression that we experienced into 2021, in June, we rolled out our rules of life campaign, a campaign that targets addressing high-risk behaviors through a zero tolerance approach. This initiative underpins our Zero Harm safety strategy, a strategy that includes the pillars of empowered people, an enabling environment and fit-for-purpose systems. It is extremely pleasing that we've seen a significant improvement in all of our safety statistics across the board since we rolled out this initiative and during the third quarter to date. Our South African PGM operations have delivered a stellar performance over the last six months. Compared to the same period last year, we've seen 42% increase in production at just under 900,000 ounces. Equally pleasing is that we managed our costs well and seen a 10% reduction year-on-year in our all-in sustaining costs, maintaining at below ZAR17,000 per 4 ounce.…

Thank you, Richard, and good afternoon, and good morning to all participants on this call. It again gives me great pleasure to share our financial results for half one 2021 with you. If we start with revenue, revenue increased 63% to just under ZAR90 billion compared to the corresponding period in 2020. The improvement stems from very solid operational performance and strong commodity prices. Costs increased by 28% period-on-period and this was mainly due to the normalization of the cost base following containment measures implemented during the hard lockdown period in 2020. We also saw an increase in recycling material treated, remembering that the cost of our recycling business are directly proportionate to changes in platinum, palladium and rhodium prices. The basket price for our recycling business averaged $3,200 per 3E ounce for half one 2021 compared with $2,200 per 3E ounce per half one 2020. We reported record adjusted EBITDA of ZAR40.5 billion compared to ZAR16.5 billion in half one 2020, which at the time was also a record. The ZAR40.5 billion represents a 45% margin. Moving on to finance expenses. Net finance expenses reduced from ZAR1.2 billion in half one 2020 to ZAR640 million in half one 2021, and this was due to lower outstanding debt and higher cash balances. And following the early settlement of the 2022 bonds, we expect this number to decrease even further. Share of results of equity accounted investees after tax increased from ZAR484 million to ZAR1.4 billion, and this was driven mainly by the performance of Mimosa following the strong commodity prices that we experienced during half one 2021. Royalties was up fourfold to ZAR1.6 billion and mining and income tax up 4.5 times to ZAR9 billion. And this was driven largely by the increase in profitability for the business. Profit for…

Thank you, Richard and Charl. I will now proceed with the strategic update. I think as the slide headed our role in the greener future is on your screen, very important for us to acknowledge that we take this our role in a greener future very, very seriously, and I think you will see that from the next few slides. As I mentioned in the highlights section, we have done a lot of work on our ESG focus areas. And that work has resulted in us developing a sustainability strategy. And in my mind, this is the higher level of ESG commitment. These are now the actual themes and plans that will underpin our commitment to environmental, social and governance. And I'm not going to go through this slide in detail, except to say that if you look at it, there are four themes. Firstly, developing a climate change resilient business, and you will see how that unfolds in the next few slides. And essentially, that's based on building a green metals business. We are not going to become involved in commodities and metals that are not environmentally friendly or produced in an environmentally friendly way. And as I also said in the highlights section, our operations need to be carbon neutral. And we have a very granular plan now in terms of how we're going to get that. The second element, just to complete the themes, is entrenching long-term economic stability in the areas in where we operate. And there are underlying plans highlighted by the book points in that area that have underpinned embedding human rights and ethics, absolutely critical in terms of sustainability, and you can see the focus areas there. And then, of course, you can only make proper decisions if you are data-driven, and this…

Thank you, Neal, and welcome, everybody. I'm just going to ask a few questions from the webcast first. The first one being from Warren Riley at Bateleur Capital. Let me just take this off for this section, please? Have auto manufacturers continue to buy PGMs despite the semiconductor shortages, eg, i.e., have they been stockpiling?

They have continued to buy. But I would say that there's been a reduction in purchases, so I don't see it as a stockpiling event. And again, despite the chip shortages the differences in vehicles that are being manufactured is really a few percentage points. So no, I don't -- I wouldn't suggest that you're going to see ongoing demand disruption due to this. Certainly, the chip shortages will go on into next year, but I don't see it as a stockpiling. Thanks, James.

The next one is from Catherine Cunningham at JPMorgan. First question, on the SA gold cost provisions. How much of this is electricity driven and how much is the other costs? And then secondly, what other costs are seeing above inflationary increases?

Richard, why don't you field that question?

In terms of that question, probably about 25% of the increase that we have changed our guidance by or forecast increase is due to electricity, and then the balance really due to other inflation factors. The key other inflation or above inflation increases we've been seeing commodities driven. So anything that relates to steel support structures, draw rods, et cetera, that's definitely gone up quite significantly and then other industrial chemicals, et cetera, that we're using in our plants. Those would be the three big drivers.

The third question is from Arnold Van Graan at Nedbank. How long would it take to get full flexibility back at Stillwater? And could the issues there continue to impact 2022 production levels?

Thanks, James. And again, I think that's best answered by the Chief Operating Officer. So go ahead, Richard.

So Arnold, essentially, what has happened at Stillwater is we have a series of stopes that will be operating at less than normal capacity for a period of time, that will continue for this year. We can catch that up. And at the moment, the forecast we're looking at to get back to a normal level of faces is about 18 to 24 months. So for a period of time we'll be operating at slightly less flexibility than what we would ideally be operating at.

The next question is from Steve Sheppard, shareholder. Well done for the excellent results and the substantial returns to shareholders. Thank you, Steve. Looking at the valuation of the shares, which remain strangely inexpensive in my view, do you think it may make sense to back the gold operations into DRD for new DRD shares and then bundle these shares and ADRs to current shareholders? The name Sibanye Future Metals has a nice ring to it.

I would suggest though that we would probably want to keep DRD, let's say, clean as far as the tailings retreatment business. So I think it may make -- it may compromise that strategy were we to reverse underground assets into it. And we certainly said to DRD we do not want them to grow the underground portfolio at all. It's really about growing their tailings retreatment portfolio based on exactly what I presented in the green metals strategy. But we will give your suggestion some consideration. I like the ring of Sibanye Future Metals. We'll also give that some consideration. Thanks, Steve.

The next one is from Campbell Parry at Investec Wealth & Investment. Very concerned about the fatalities we've experienced at Sibanye since 2016. What real changes are you making to alter this unfortunate record and to what extent are the improvements baked into compensation?

Parry, thanks and a very appropriate and good question. I can assure you that safety and health and specifically safe production is our first, second and third priority. So it features before anything else in our discussions, in our business, in our considerations. I think it's important to note a few things and it's very important to me not to make safety a statistic. But our safety strategy that we introduced more recently has been very successful. As you know, we built up a record number of fatality free shifts in our ultra deep level gold mining environment, which is our highest risk environment. So our strategy does work. I think we have noticed and I'll try and draw the link. We have noticed that COVID-19 and the return to work has created a major disruption with respect to safety performance. And the link is really that a lot of our initiatives to achieve those record fatality-free shifts were based on getting teams to work together, getting teams to -- members of teams to associate with their team members and look after their team members, including themselves. Unfortunately, in bringing people back to work post COVID, we had to bring people back to work based on where they lived, not based on the original team. So we've had to rebuild those team dynamics and we don't do that overnight. So that's been the primary driver. I also need to point out that if you look at absolute numbers, you're probably, in a way, treating us very harshly, although, you have to look at absolute death and fatalities, but we do employ 85,000 people. And when we look at rates, we are certainly performing better than most of our peers. However, we've still got a long way to go. We have made commitments to get down to industry levels related to the ICMM group, which really includes a lot of open-pit mining operations in jurisdictions that are a lot less risky. So we've taken on that and we are working towards that, and we have a strategy that takes us there. It is incorporated into our remuneration, both short-term and long-term remuneration is impacted by these very unfortunate events. Again, just to summarize, it's our key focus and it's our most important priority. Thank you.

The next question from asks good day. Thanks a lot for a great initiative on renewable energy. Any plans to share the energy with the public if the capacity allows or if it's all focused on the business?

Absolutely. I think the way it's been designed out it would certainly be mostly focused on the business. But certainly, if there was spare capacity and our plans could include doing more on the renewable energy side with a view to supplying the public, because that could go away some way to assisting us in getting to carbon neutrality as well. So if there is spare capacity and we do amend our strategy, certainly, we would look to do that.

Next one, again from . On PGM markets, do you see increasingly rampant autocatalyst impacting supply from this recycling source given the recyclers’ ESG imperatives, in brackets, can they risk buying stolen PGMs?

Steve, it's a major concern of ours. And we have commitments and we are bound by assurances we give to various regulatory bodies in this regard. And I'm going to ask Justin to comment in more detail. But I specifically undertook a visit to a number of recyclers in the US. And each question -- well, at each visit, I asked exactly this question. And I was comfortable with the amount of effort that goes into the regulatory controls that are in place and the absolute, let's say, sincerity with which these collectors and other recyclers look at catalyst. Justin, do you want to add to that?

I think as Neal has mentioned, it is critical focus area for us. We are subject to, obviously, good delivery requirements by Johnson Matthey and the LBMA and LPPM, which obviously requires us to source catalysts responsibly. And we have various subcommittees internally that obviously monitor this. And we also are part of the IPMA with regards to their initiatives on catalysts and catalyst theft and avoiding obviously those being processed. As part of our KYC process, we only deal with sizable, obviously, collectors. As Neal's mentioned, we do undertake regular site visits to understand their processes. And we do push down those responsible sourcing requirements to our collectors. And that is part of our contractual agreements as well as part of our KYC process. And then finally, we also undertake a variety of -- we are looking at technology really around the blockchain area to trace and track catalysts. It's in its infancy but it's certainly an area that we keep a lot of attention on. And the entire industry is in fact, focused on this. As Neal mentioned, it is a critical area for us to manage and mitigate. So hopefully, that's enough.

And next question from from Excelsior. Well done on a great set of results. You mentioned that automotive manufacturing rebound is expected to satisfy pent up demand during 2022. Are you seeing this currently from OEMs? Which metals are OEMs worried about in terms of demand? What would signal to you that we are on top of the cycle? And then when will you consider increasing the dividend payout ratio? So there's a few questions there. So maybe let's just start with the pent-up demand and what we're currently seeing from OEMs and what metals they're concerned about.

And essentially, I do believe we will get back to normality in 2022. The chip shortages are being addressed in various ways, manufacturers are moving to get vehicles out with the highest profitability. So they continue to deliver. They're also delivering vehicles with our chips to be retrofitted. So while it's a bit of a crisis, it will resolve itself as the COVID disruptions become something of the past. And of course, that becomes something of the past mainly due to vaccinations but it also becomes something of the past due to additional chip supply coming onstream. So we do see things normalizing somewhere in 2022. In terms of the metals that remain critical and again, we'll give you more detail on this at our Investor Day. But it's the same metals that are in deficit rhodium and this was with respect to order cuts at rhodium and palladium. And I think suffice to say that even under these conditions, we see the 3E basket being deficit even in this period. Thanks, James. The second part to that question, just to repeat it again.

What would signal to you that we are at the top of the cycle? And then the next question was, will you consider increasing the dividend payout ratio?

Yes, let me get to the dividend payout ratio. I think we worked hard today to put to you and the investors that we believe and based on our track record that we can certainly create value through cash that is not earmarked for returns back to shareholders. And we've laid that out in a way that shows how we can create superior value. If we are unable to deliver on that strategy, we will certainly increase our dividend payout ratio. But I think we've demonstrated and very much in line with our capital allocation framework that we've put money aside to deal with volatility around debt and create a bit of flexibility there. We've paid a dividend at the top end of our payout ratio and we've implemented a share buyback. Yes, we do have some excess cash. But I also think that shareholders will back us to continue creating value and sustainability. In terms of the top of the market question, in my mind, I don't see a top of the market. I see a transition from good current fundamentals and a transition as the PGM usage moves from predominantly order cuts into the high region economy. The only metal that I see at some risk in that process and it will be dependent on developing other uses is palladium. And that's not a new view, that's a view we've held for some time. But certainly post 2025 with additional supply and the transition we're talking about, from a mobility point of view, palladium could well come under pressure. And essentially, what I'm saying is projects, palladium rich projects that come into production around are probably high-risk projects. Thank you.

Neal, I think for -- there are a couple of questions that have come in recently on the web. But let's just go to the phone lines and pick up some questions people holding there.

We have a question from Patrick Mann of Bank of America.

I just wanted to ask you on the green metal strategy. So we understand that you’ve started this a while ago and you incorporated SFA Oxford and you kind of have done your homework. But at the same time, there has been a kind of -- it's a bit of a feeding frenzy at the moment with everybody trying to pivot towards these green metals. How do you think about the kind of risk of overpaying or maybe a kind of winners curse here, where if you win an auction or you win a bid for an asset that given how desirable they are at this point, there's a risk of really overpaying to get your hands on it? Again, I understand you've done all the homework and that but everybody seems to be fishing in the same pool, right?

Yes. Patrick, great question. And I'm going to ask Laurent to comment briefly as well. But certainly, I think it's a two years of work that puts us in a very good position to know what the future markets look like. We generally do not participate in competitive processes. And we have a very good idea of what value is based on our view of the markets and the fundamental underpins in a resource and cash flow models. Laurent, who heads up our business development will tell you as tools. The one is, the first one, most important one, is do not use money and the second one is to make money. The fact that we've got a strategy doesn't mean we're just going to buy assets in this feeding frenzy. We will be very disciplined. And I'd rather come back to shareholders and say we couldn't implement the strategy but watch there's going to be a lot of mistakes made. And we will, in the meantime, return cash back to you because we couldn't do what we wanted to do and we will buy assets in the future and probably even better numbers because a lot of mistakes are going to be made. So that's a discipline. And unfortunately, we can't tell you how many we turned down either. But I can assure you, we turned down more than what we buy, a lot more. Laurent, would you like to add to that?

I will be brief on the two rules just for everybody's understanding. The first one, don't lose money, is about, are we the right owners for our business. Like how do we derisk the integrations? What is the ESG footprint? It's about being very, very disciplined with all the due diligence work and beyond just looking at assets, it's about making sure that we are going to be able to retain the very good people who are coming alongside with these assets. So that's one. And when you're looking at some of these potential investments that we're considering, it can be acquisitions or it can also be under the form of smart partnerships make sure that we derisk as much as we can the deployment of capital, which we’re doing, investing not only in assets but also in people. And there is very strict financial discipline that we're also applying, because it's important to be able to work towards having an investment grade balance sheet. The second rule once you want to be the owner of a particular asset or to invest in a partnership with a company is about attracting the right returns, because we are very financially disciplined and we actually want to rerate the company as opposed to getting into some difficulties with the market for making the wrong types of investments. So as Neil said accordingly, although ,I have joined the group towards the end of last year, it is true that we have looked at a few things, which we've decided to pass on even because they were not the right assets or because we have the right assets, but would have demanded too higher price where we could not have achieved the right returns. So we are still working very hard. There are a few opportunities available in the space of battery materials and we hope that we are going to be successful over the coming months to build a great battery material strategy. But I think that if you look at who we are and how we want to internationalize our group, it's really important to be able not only to look at good assets but to be able also to attract great people. And that's true for the first that small but important acquisition of our potential acquisition because it's not closed yet of the .

Our next question is from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities.

I have a couple of questions for you and your team. Just curious to understand a bit more about how the European governments and OEMs that will be certainly the governments, the SECs have changed towards battery manufacturing given the lead China has and does this offer you support in terms of funding and partnerships? And while we're on that strategy around battery metals, would you consider partnering with an OEM as part of your strategy? Second question is really for you, Neal. I mean I'm interested to hearing your comments around your view on the valuation. It's certainly not sell-side contrary to your comments given the consensus target price of ZAR92 a share. But you've done all the right things, given improved earnings, dividends, share buybacks, debt reduction, strong ESG focus, et cetera, et cetera. So I guess the question still remains, why do you think your stock is trading at the discount versus peers? And the third question is for Richard around Stillwater. This mine has been experiencing some annual cost inflation of 9% in dollar per ton terms and curious to ask around the outlook for Stillwater, whether the guidance. If you can remind us what the guidance is and whether that's still intact and whether these issues have consequences?

Richard, I'll do the first two and if you would then pick up on Stillwater specifically. So what we have noticed strategically, and I'm sure most of you have seen this is that COVID and the lockdowns, -- and because they didn't all happen at once, they were almost sequential, put OEMs in very difficult positions in that part of their supply chain, which came out of China or Korea got severely disrupted before they even went into lockdown in the US. So right from the beginning of COVID-19, there was a move or a consideration by OEMs to regionalize their supply chains into regions that they trust and can manage. And we saw that and got that feedback and it was actually quite visible just through reading. I think the other thing that has happened is there's been a significant move around nationalism and the threat posed by the focusing of resources or production in one area of the world that has put other areas of the world at risk, and China and America is a good example. So this regionalization of supply has actually resulted very fortuitously for us being able to market, let's say, North American Palladium for North America. And that resonates with the OEMs, it resonates with governments. And of course, governments have stepped up to the plate and are providing incentives, are engaging with mining companies, well certainly ourselves, as to how we can assist in the national interest all over the world. Our entry into Finland was essentially with the Finnish Mining Group, which is state owned, our entry into France had a component of the French government who's the shareholder in . And of course, these all had approvals at very high levels but it also has us as a company committing…

I suppose to address your inflation question of worth, just stepping back for a second. At Stillwater, over the last couple of years, we fundamentally had two objectives. The first one has been about increasing flexibility at Stillwater West, so that's more development. And the second one has been about ramping up the Blitz project. So in both cases, what we've seen is an increase in the amount of capital that we've been spending year-on-year. Particularly, I mean, you would have noticed in our results that just over the last half year, it was the highest level of capital we’ve ever done for in terms of development, some 17% higher than we've ever done before. And that has continuously been building up. So obviously, that buildup in terms of capital does reflect in the all-in sustaining cost. I think the second aspect of the all-in sustaining cost is critically important is the fact that higher prices do lead to higher royalties and taxes. As we've stated before, the rough guide, $100 in price change is about $5 on our cost curve. And given that that's gone up by almost $1,500 since we bought the operation, you can imagine that's also had a significant impact. If we look at it very simplistically, our cash cost today at Stillwater, in other words, excluding all of the capital still remains in the low 500s, which, in fact, is better than it has been over the last two years. It still has leverage to volume. So as we ramp up that number comes down and not too different from where it was a few years ago. So the extra 450 that we've seen on top of that is pure capital, of which half of that is project capital. So just that without any benefit of future ramp-ups where we guided to long-term cost in the region of $700 per ounce at current prices. At lower prices, that number would be significantly lower. And of course, we would still expect the leverage on those prices from increased volumes as we deliver Stillwater East. So in terms of long-term guidance, there's no change to our long-term guidance. The recent incidents at Stillwater West has impacted flexibility and that flexibility impact will remain for about 18 months to 24 months, as mentioned earlier, as we get additional faces back online. But that's really the only impact. There's no change to the long-term guidance or plan for the operation.

Our next question is from Raj Ray of BMO Capital Markets.

I just got a couple of questions. First one is on the gold business wage negotiation. If you can give us some color as to when we can expect any updates on that? And the second question is on your -- the potential to leverage the uranium assets. Just wanted to get a sense of how soon can you expect those assets to be up and running? And also, does that fit within the Sibanye portfolio or do you think there's better value to spin it out with value keeping a majority portion of the SpinCo? How are you looking at it?

Let me ask Richard to deal with the gold wage negotiation, and then I'll pick up on the uranium question. Rich, so you go ahead first.

We're obviously still in the middle of gold wages. I think we still have a way to go. Fundamentally, as you would have seen from the presentations we've given, our underground operations are running on fairly thin margins given the cost today. Ultimately, all stakeholders really need to come around the table to protect those margins and make sure that those businesses survive through the tougher times so that we can all reap the value from them during the good times. This is a process that requires all stakeholders to come to the table. We've had some constructive discussions so far but those discussions are continuing. I wouldn't like to commit to an absolute time right now. I think it's more important to allow the process to run appropriately.

And Raj, on the uranium question, we haven't made a final decision on what the structure would be. We've got a couple of ideas. Our structure with DRD has worked very well where it remains a separate listed entity where we have a controlling stake. We could do exactly the same with our uranium business. We certainly need to retain the credits from, let's call it, the exposure to green metals. So that's under consideration. If you talk timing, I think you will see movement in terms of, let's say, more definition and perhaps even an announcement as to exactly how that will take place within the next quarter or so. In terms of actually producing uranium, it's probably still two years away. The Base uranium mine or Beatrix 4 Shaft has got an operating shaft it would require some predevelopment, some processing facilities. But on the West, we actually have those processing facilities. There's no doubt some refurbishment. And then there's the biggest challenge on the Westwood is really their position capacity, which is where we work closely with DRD. So that's a couple of years away but it's certainly much quicker than starting a complete new mine.

Just one last question, if I may, with respect to your SA PGM, the 175-megawatt solar project. You mentioned that you have completed the feasibility study in Q2. Is it possible for you to give us an idea about what the capital and what the cost reduction you might see as a result of this?

Rich, would you have any idea, you or Charl, of that. We haven't really approached it from a cost reduction point of view. But I have no doubt that it will have a positive IRR and therefore, we'll have a cost reduction. But I don't think we've done enough definition on that. Rich or Charl, can you add anything to that?

I don't have the exact numbers at hand. I think the only comment that I can make is obviously the financing model that we look at to approach these would be through -- it will be potentially built off our balance sheet with a third party, and we ultimately sign up to a PPA. So it's not a direct capital on us, it's a long-term commitment. And what I can recall is cost parity was attained within the first year or two. So that's a number I can give. But the absolute side, I can't recall what the absolute capital number was. I can get back to you on that.

Congrats on the strong cash flow and the robust shareholder return that you're providing.

Our next question is from Leroy Mnguni of HSBC.

I've got a couple of questions, but really just around two topics. The first one is just your thinking around dividends versus buybacks or special dividends versus buybacks. Are we to assume that you'll continue to do buybacks with the excess cash for as long as the share price is well below what you think is fair value? And then the second topic is the growth around your US recycling business. And I'm just reflecting on your comments, Neal, about the one PGM that may be at risk being palladium largely because of the growth of palladium-rich projects that's coming online. Would this -- how do you see this as different to one of those assets? I'd imagine it's also predominantly a palladium asset. And then could you maybe give us a sense of whether this growth will be limited to North America or would you look to expand capacity elsewhere? And then lastly what are you currently running at in your recycling operations compared to your capacity?

And Justin, you need to come in on the recycling numbers. But let me answer both those. And then Justin, you can top up. In terms of dividends versus buybacks, we have always said that dividends have to be consistent, predictable and have to be industry-leading. And industry-leading at the moment is probably around 10%. But under normalized conditions, anything in a 4% to 5% dividend yield range has been industry-leading. So we have a target of even when we rerate of trying to achieve that at least 4% to 5% dividend yield. Now that wasn't quite your question, but buybacks are far more opportunistic. And there's no doubt that the research and the work we've done, and we actually got to help us with our capital allocation structure and positioning of our dividend and buybacks. But in terms of buybacks companies that, let's say, do regular buybacks and maintain good quality dividend payments traded a premium to others, that's a given. So the buybacks will continue to be part of the, let's say, the return of value or the creation of value for shareholders. But of course, if you are at high levels, the decision becomes a bit more difficult. In terms of special dividends, I think we would have no problem in paying them, but I would see that as fairly of a strategy or fairly of management to create value. And part of management's job is creating value. So I can't give you an exact recipe. But even the way you frame the question, Leroy, you basically have our answer. It's going to depend on the share price and so on. But we would like to -- we will not compromise on our dividends. We will try and do regular buybacks. But we'll also be opportunistic with…

From a capacity point of view, we don't really have a volume capacity constraint per se. You would have seen in the results book, we feed about 25 long tons per day through our process, and that's pretty much where we are comfortable. And our biggest challenge in the recycling area is managing quality of feed. So we could easily ramp that volume up if needs be. But really we are focusing on low silica carbide low-carbon bearing material, which to the point you've raised Leroy really pushes you to palladium-rich catalysts over diesel catalysts. So the quantity of the absolute volume that a recycling catalyst takes in our smelter in Montana is fairly small versus the concentrate. Obviously, as Stillwater East ramps up that capacity will become potentially a constraining factor, but that's in a few years' time. So we have the ability but it really is a quality focus for margin accretion rather than volumes, given as I say, the silicon carbide constraint that the industry is dealing with.

Our last question is from Tyler Broda of RBC.

So I just had two questions. One, just on the battery metals business and the new push in this direction. How much CapEx do you think this will take per year once you get to your strategy towards steady state? And then I guess the second question is just more a bit of a philosophical one or I guess, maybe strategically from a sense that it seems like there's a lot more focus now versus 12 months ago on the battery metals business. We haven't seen anything happen in gold and M&A. Do you implicitly at this point see better returns as you kind of point out there's nothing that kind of has made sense yet, do you see potentially better returns from this battery metals business than through gold M&A?

So obviously, the acquisition strategy is not a strategy in isolation. And we have made a commitment that our acquisition strategy will not compromise dividend. So our CFO, Charl, is heavily involved in any decision. And of course, we keep a close eye on capital and those costs as they're going to come through. But we also are -- we're careful not to look at too many projects or greenfields opportunities. Of course, in the portfolio, there need to be some. So we are mindful of that. It's a combination of buying, producing assets and maybe some projects. So that's how we consider CapEx. And at this stage, I can't give you a number, but it's clearly considered as we focus on these. You're right. We're not focusing on gold at all. Gold is not at a place where we are going to make a gold acquisition. And we said that probably, I don't know, a quarter ago plus. It doesn't mean we don't like gold and you know my views on the combination of gold and other metals. One is industrial and the one is precious. And gold is a precious metal that -- risk on you, you buy gold but we're not looking at gold now. Our focus is on battery metals. Our strategy has crystallized a lot more, as you've seen. And again, we can't give you much more than what we've given, because it gives away our competitive edge. But you should have got a feeling that we see how all these blocks are going into the puzzle, Tyler. So that's how we see it.

There are a couple more questions from the webcast, but some of them, I think we have covered. And in the interest of time, we do have a bit of a hard cut off at about 5, which is a few minutes away. So I think the last question that I'd like to ask, and I'd just like to again inform people who do have additional questions, please feel free to e-mail us or phone us and will respond or we will be having those Investor Days where we will be dealing with all of the detailed operational and technical and other questions on the 9th of September and on the 22nd of September. So if you can wait until then, we will be covering all of these questions, otherwise just drop us an e-mail or give us a call. But probably one that is probably relevant and has been asked a few times, and I'll ask from Barry Davidson in Australia. He says well done on results, fabulous. Congratulations to all. Don't forget to greet to your shareholders in Australia. Is the South African government likely to manage the country from here on in a manner which will achieve an economic performance, which will maintain social, political and financial stability, so permitting society and business to operate viably. And that's a recurring theme Steve Sheppard asked a similar thing. How do we see the evolution of the business environment in South Africa? So I think on that question, perhaps that will be our last question. And then we'll obviously engage further at Investor Day. Thanks.

You're right, we were miss in not considering day down and as part of the good afternoon and morning, and we won’t make that mistake again. The events of the last few weeks were actually not unexpected. As you know, being a previous director of Sibanye, one of the highest risks we had on our risk register was social unrest because of the various elements that feed into that. And I have to say, I was very unhappy that in fact, that risk eventually arose. But a lot of the work we had done because of that risk and the good governance that was in place meant there was actually a relatively small impact on our business. Looking forward, I think that we've lost a lot of confidence in our government and I know it was low before to do the right things. At times, we see what looks like good reform coming through, but it is not backed up with actions that really are tangible and underpin those reforms. So as business, we continue to, let's say, lobby with government to do the right things and we will continue to do that. But what is becoming very clear to us is that civil society is starting to trust business much more than they trust the leadership of government. And that's not just the South African thing that is something that you're seeing in many parts of the world, I see it a lot in the US as well at the moment. And as business, we try and do things in the national interest. And the lessons learned from the anarchy, and I know that's a word that you considered and spoke of many times. The anarchy that occurred resulted in something very visible, and that was South Africans got together and made a stand that’s not in our name is this going to continue. And the message is that if we are to ensure smooth and sustainable business operations, we've got to do even more. And if we can't rely on government to deliver services and the basic infrastructure, we're going to unfortunately have to do more of that. And we really are in a position where we can do more of that. And we've got to, obviously, teach communities to fish rather and give them fish in the same vein. So it's still a two pronged approach. It's still engaging with the government trying to get them to do the right thing. I do think they are listening more than they ever listen before. But I wouldn't be overly confident that there's a dramatic change about to happen. But we will look after ourselves and we will ensure that we can operate under these conditions and in this environment, which just makes it so much easier to move to other stable jurisdictions in the rest of the world. Thanks, Barry, and we should have a check some time.

Thank you. And I think on that note, we'll call it a day. Thank you all for attending. We really appreciate the interest and the questions, really challenging and good questions. As I said, we will have our follow-up Investor Days where we will be covering the detail in September. So please join us for both of those days. Thanks very much.