Good morning to all and a very warm welcome to our Results and Strategic Update for the year ended 31 December 2021. There are forward-looking statements in this presentation. So please take note of the Safe Harbor Statement. The agenda for today is Safety and ESG first, those are our single and most important priorities. I will be assisted in presenting that section by Jevon Martin and Grant Stuart. I'll then do a strategic update, which is titled Positioning for Positive Impact. And I think you will find that very interesting. We do use our year end results, to provide strategic guidance to the market and our shareholders. I will then hand over to Dr. Richard Stewart, our Chief Operating Officer who will present the results of the operations in detail, as you can see, we've called it operational excellence, we've had an outstanding year considering all the challenges of COVID and safety and so on, Rich will then hand over to our CFO, Charl Keyter, who will then conduct the financial review, which I think you will also enjoy an outstanding year from a financial perspective, as well. And then I'll wrap up with a brief outlook and conclusion. So as I said, let's start with safety. And it gives me absolutely no pleasure to talk about fatalities. We've had a very, very tough year, where we've lost 20 of our colleagues throughout the group, tragically in 15 incidents, majority of those happened in the second half of the year. And we really stepped in and took very decisive actions, including in October, a five-day suspension of all operations across the group to audit workplaces, refreshed safety focus. And then in December, we actually shut down portions of our operations in the gold sector, at Kloof 1#, Beatrix 1…

Thanks, Neal. Sibanye Stillwater believes climate change to be the most pressing threat our planet and global challenge of our time, as recognized by the Paris agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. As a force for good Sibanye Stillwater has a role to play in the urgent global response to the threat of climate change. And as such, we have aligned our governance strategy, risk management and targets across the group to line with the recommendations of the TCFD. First and foremost, we produce green metals as Neal’s indicated that supporting the reduction of greenhouse gases and the reverse of climate change. In 2021, we committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2040 in advance of the requirements of climate science. Over the last year, we have refined our pathway and supporting interventions, and grown in confidence in our ability to deliver on this commitment. In graph depicted here, we have forecasted our greenhouse gas emissions profile over the life of our mines, based on a bottom up analysis of the production profiles and energy requirements. In terms of business as usual in we expect a short term increase in emissions through production growth, followed by a decline from 2025, through life of mine closures include decarburization. If we overlay a size based pathway, we're able to understand the operational decarburization required to contribute to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and adhere to science based targets, which we plan to update in 2022, including Marikana and Scope 3. Through the introduction of demand side energy management, renewable energy electrification and fuel switching opportunities, including hydrogen, we are able to demonstrate an active decarburization pathway. This pathway will be converted to internal annual carbon budgets prescribed at a group and segment level to inform our-long term incentive planning. Recognizing…

Thanks, Jeff. Water stewardship is the use of water in ways that are socially equitable, environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial, and are strongly committed to comprehensive and transparent water governance, effective management of our water at site level and collaboration to achieve responsible and sustainable water use. We have been recognized for these efforts in 2021 by the CDP. In 2021, South African gold operations purchased 8% less potable water. Our reliance on purchased potable water at our gold operations reduced by some 1,278 million liters or 17% year-on-year, and 344 mega liters or 2.8% in our South African PGM operations year-on-year. This despite an increase in 4% and 15% in tonnes treated at the SA Gold and SA PGM operations respectively. As we move forward into 2022, we have committed to further reducing our reliance on the integrated water [ph] resistant. The economic muscle [indiscernible] by 15% from 2020 base year. During 2021 we remain true to our cause of water independence and our gold operations. More holds to supply the cook plant completed in Q1 of 2020 and boreholes to supply Cooke 2 and 3 shaft in Q4 of 2021 have rendered that complex entirely independent of municipal supply. Ezulwini has also been independent of rainwater since Q1 of 2021. Although Driefontein has already 90% independent of rainwater and extension to Driefontein’s 20 million liter treatment plant per day by an additional five mega liters per day, we'll see Driefontein’s independent from municipal water supply by Q3 of this year. The Kloof water treatment plant which forms part of the Phase 1 of the operations independence drive has reduced by -- has reduce the reliance of the [indiscernible] by a third with full independence envisaged by Q1 of 2023. Our efforts to reduce water independence have not only…

Thank you, Jevon and thank you Grant. As I indicated at the beginning of the presentation, we do use our annual results presentation to provide you with further strategic updates. I want to just start with our existing strategic focus areas, or pillars, as we referred to them. You see them in the diagram on the right hand side. They are well known they have been consistently applied. And being strategically managed in my mind is very important for success. And of course, if you have a good strategy, you should have exceptional success. And I'm very pleased to report that the strategy you see on the right hand side has resulted in record annual adjusted EBITDA of $68.6 billion or $4.6 billion. We've achieved 80% higher adjusted free cash flow of R37.4billion or $2.3 billion. And that ultimately or predominantly I should say, by focusing on safe production and operational excellence. And having made the moves that we did make into commodities at a point in the cycle that was very beneficial to our shareholders. I think, in addition, our capital allocation model has been a good guy, and in, we redeemed our 2022 and 2025 bonds, we replaced that was 1.2 billion notes during 2026 and 2029. And important, that was done with $169 million of lower interest burden. So it was done at much better rates. You will also see from this results, and Charl will cover this in more detail. We've declared an additional dividend, but the total dividend for the year will amount to just under R14 billion or $866 million for the 2021. Yes, and that is a 9.8% dividend yield. So that is certainly clause leading. In addition, our capital allocation model also refers to share buybacks and some of our shareholders do…

Thank you very much, Neal. And good afternoon. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's a real pleasure today to be able to share with you our operating results from the second half of last year. Because many of you would have been aware, we recently published our updated mineral resources and reserves as of the 31st of December. Think just to highlight before we get into the details that we have had a change in the way that we report our mineral resources and reserves. And this has specifically had an impact on our South African operations, where historically we reported attributable resources and reserves based on an effective financial interest, whereas now we are basing that attributable number on an effective legal or equity interest, as of course the financial liabilities do change year-on-year. I think very important to highlight this has got absolutely no impact on the underlying resources of the reserve numbers for their operations, neither does it have an impact on the financial exposure. Sibanye has to these assets, is just the attributable portion that changes. I think very pleasing in the numbers is that both our South African PGM and our US PGM operations, we saw a slight increase in reserve numbers, which effectively means our ongoing exploration more than replaced what we depleted during 2021. In our gold operations, we saw about a 700,000 ounce decrease in total reserves on a 100% attributable basis, so marginally less than what we depleted during the course of last year. 72.5 million ounce reserve base that we have, underpins a very sustainable portfolio. Our South African gold operations have lives of mines that vary from four years at Beatrix to in excess of 10 years at Driefontein and Kloof, and our gold projects have lives well in…

Thank you, Richard. Good afternoon and good morning to all participants on the call. Once again it gives me great pleasure to share the excellent financial results with you for the year ended December 2021. Next slide. Starting with the income statement, revenue increased 35% from R127 billion in 2020, to R172 billion in 2021, following the continued strong performance of PGM prices. Interesting to note compared to 2019, revenue increased by R100 billion, or 136%. Cost of sales were up 33% from R76 billion in 2020, to R101 billion in 2021. Most of the cost increases excluding the year-on-year above inflation increases in labor, electricity and consumables related to an increase in recycling costs of R14.8 billion, which is directly linked to the increase in the recycling PGM basket price. The recycling PGM basket price increased from $2,200 per 3E ounce to about $3,500 per 3E ounce. The balance of the cost increases was due to the very profitable, albeit higher cost of purchase of concentrates at our SA PGM operations amounting to R3.2 billion. The result of the aforementioned is that EBITDA increased 40% year-on-year to R69 billion rand. If we now turn our attention to the standard items for the year, net finance expenses were down from R2.1 billion to R1.3 billion rand in 2021, mainly due to lower average debt for the period and higher cash balances. For the period, we recognize the loss on financial instruments, which were mainly made up of the following a 4.7 billion loss on the Rustenburg deferred payment was realized. The loss is primarily driven by the significant increase in the 2021 actual profitability. The balance being changes in the future consensus PGM input prices used to value these liabilities. Just as a reminder, this liability is calculated at 35%…

Thank you, Richard. And thank you Charl. I'm going to just complete the presentation with a brief outlook and conclusion. So, they are experts in PGMs. They are experts in battery electric vehicle forecasts, and I don't intend to try and portray myself as an expert, we understand the supply and demand side of these metals very clearly, and I don't want to repeat what is obviously good work done by many other people. But I do want to provide you with our view at a high level regarding perhaps a slightly different view, and we believe PGM demand will remain well supported well into the 2030s. And it's predominantly because internal combustion engine vehicles have a substantial future much more than what I think is being given credit to. And it's because the forecasts of the penetration rates of battery electric vehicles, is, in my view substantially overstated. And yes, I do know that a lot of this has been legislated. But when we are not able to provide the metals required for batteries, I do suggest that governments will revisit their legislation to take account of that. But in addition, they are tightening emissions regulations, which will support PGM demand. And I would also say that I do believe that technology regarding internal combustion engines will also improve. The growth in heavy duty fuel cell electric vehicles will also underpin PGM demand. And then of course, in the longer term, the hydrogen economy will really provide that demand underpinned post 2030. So the outlooks for PGM remain constructive and robust. As I've said, on the battery metals, there's a very aggressive market forecasts, and those are going to be tempered by battery metal supply constraints. I think we talk generically about lithium and nickel, but they are very…

Thanks, Neal. As usual, we'll start with the questions over the webcast. And then we'll go to the phones once we've been through a couple of questions that come through online. The first one, I think for you, Neal is Wayne. With the current lithium price at its all-time high, is Sibanye likely to exercise its option to increase its current investment in Keliber. And if so when?

Yes. Thanks, James. And Wayne, good question. As I said in my presentation, even though some of these commodities are getting to all-time highs. The shortage -- the future shortage or constraints in these commodity markets means that these are not the highest and there is very significant upside, especially for the right quality of these metals, in other words, if they produced in the right form and in the right market, so we will certainly be progressing our route or process to control of Keliber. And I would suggest that would happen as we complete the feasibility studies and probably within the next six to nine months that should be complete.

Thanks, Neal. I've got a couple more questions. Just these two are really similar on the Appian transaction. I'll ask from Tyler Broda, first, can you provide some color on what's happened with the Appian transaction? And why you decided to not complete it? And then what closes did you have in the sale and purchase agreement? Maybe you want to answer first and then I'll ask the rest?

Yeah, certainly. Thanks, James. And Tyler simply put, most M&A transactions have closed, that if there's a material adverse change or effect, post the signing of an agreement, it's your right as a buyer to exit the transaction and that's exactly what happened. There was a geotechnical event which we deemed as material. And because Serrote and Santa Rita we're joined in the same transaction, we exercise our right on a material adverse effect close to exit the transaction.

Then the next part of Tyler's question, do you see this affecting your ability to transact with other companies in future and then link to that now with prices running, do you see more potential for M&A and if not do you expect excess cash to come back to shareholders?

So, first of all, I see absolutely no reason why this should affect our ability to do further transactions. These things do happen. And of course, I think from our shareholders, we will have full backing because the valuation considerations were very disciplined. In terms of pricing, I think I answered that in the previous question and they alluded to it in the presentation. The low prices commodity prices are high, there are going to be severe constraints and I think we can look forward to much higher commodity prices. That does not mean we will assume much higher commodity prices in making our decisions regarding whether something is value accretive. But the perception that we had all-time highs, and this is the peak of the market in battery metals is completely wrong. And sorry, there was a third part to that James.

I have just deleted the question. I think it was about returning excess cash to the shareholders?

Yes, look, I think we have presented our capital allocation model and we've shown that we've applied a very disciplined approach to returning cash back to shareholders and stakeholders. Now, we are not going to declare exceptional this or extra ordinary dividends at this stage, we have a useful proceeds. But if we get to a point where we cannot find, let's say external growth opportunities, we cannot create value through organic growth within our business, of course, we will return it to shareholders. But we believe our current dividend yield is industry leading, we believe we are providing a fair return to shareholders. And if we have excess cash, we will use it for other purposes until we hit a dead end on those processes. So there will be no additional returns at this stage.

Thanks, Neal. This is from Ahmed Hakeem. He was just asking with, in view of the recent claims and statements by Appian, could we provide more detail on the geotechnical event? And then I guess more importantly, what is your confidence level that you are legally secure?

Ahmed, thanks for that question. Look, the one thing I want to state up front is we are not going to litigate on this issue in the public domain. That's not proper, it's not appropriate. So I think, first of all, we've got a high degree of confidence in our rights in the fact that that was material. And really that is the amount of detail that I am going to supply. So just to summarize, we have a high degree of confidence. And we believe the geotechnical event, was very significantly material. Thank you.

Then the next question from Wade Napier. And, Neal, I guess you could or perhaps Richard as well, what levers do the SA gold assets have to reduce costs in the event that demands turn free cash flow negative? And then the second part is related to the share price having increased by 50% year-to-date. Does this change how management might think about funding M&A. That is would be willing to issue shares to fund future M&A?

Yes. So I'll ask Richard to answer the gold question. Let me deal with the share price increase and whether we would use that as let's call it currency, in any M&A? Certainly we acknowledged the increase in our share price, it's pleasing. I would also suggest though, we still significantly undervalued. So the use of shares at this stage is highly unlikely. I think there's substantially more upside in our share price and perhaps higher values. That may make sense. Now, I need to quantify that and say it depends also on the target. If our relative share price is trading at a higher premium than the target, then of course it makes sense to use our currency, but in general, I would say we are still significantly undervalued. Rich, do you want to deal with a gold question?

Thanks very much, Neal. And, Wade, I guess there are a couple of triggers, you can pull in these circumstances. What I would say the key ones are obviously having a stable production output is critical. And I think that is a base that we started establishing, again, last year, after many years of disruption, be at strikes and COVID. But that that's the first critical one. Secondly, we obviously have a capital profile that is designed to support the current life of mines, which as I highlighted earlier, Beatrix 4 years and Kloof and Driefontein 10 years, under a very depressed environment, those life of mine we have looked at. And of course, then capital is a lever you can pull. But that is a long term decision. I think in the short term, the two key aspects we need to focus on is one, we have a very aggressive overhead costs focus at the moment. And we do have several programs in place to try and reduce that. And then the final one is really managing our operating footprint. We do have many of our footprints, Cooke is a good example, with the care and maintenance and pumping costs of Cooke are currently costing us around 600 million a year. And that is really a regulatory process to go through to be able to close those and managing and reducing our operating footprint can have a substantial impact on costs, and therefore on sustainability of jobs as well. So certainly managing our footprint and rehabbing together with other stakeholders is a key element to keeping those costs down.

Thanks, Richard. And this question from Adrian Hammond. Well, two questions really potential size of claim from Appian, can we provide that and then will we need to make a provision?

So, Charl you can answer the provision part of the question. Adrian, I think that's a question you must directed at Appian, we are not aware of a specific claim as of yet we've swapped letters, but I would ask you to address that to Appian. I just wanted to just come back to the gold question that Wade asks, and just add on to what Richard said, is, we will not to run out gold business and bleed to death, should we have large negative cash flows? I just wanted to make that point. But Charl I believe there is a note in the financial statements, but over to you.

Thank you, Neal. And Adrian, at this point in time, there is no requirement to raise a provision. I mean, there's just still too much uncertainty. The only time that you do raise a provision is where you have certainty. So if this gets to a position where we have certainty on a claim or judge makes a decision on that, at that point in time, we'll consider raising anything, but for now, nothing.

Thanks Charl. For Richard from Adrian, the last question, can you expand on the new strategy from Kroondal? What is the life extension and will it remain a mechanized mine?

Thanks, Adrian. Yes, it will remain a mechanized mine. So certainly, there is no intention to change the mining method, the infrastructure still remains as is and of course, that is to support that mining method. Essentially, what the strategy is, as Kroondal sort of mine down to the extent to the depth extent of what that mine boundary was, and in some cases, also to lateral extents. And really what we have the ability to do is now to drop those boundaries, continue down with a bit of depth, as well as continue laterally into the adjacent Rustenburg Grande. So really, what the strategy is, is to optimize the mine plan, seeing the Kroondal property or the old PSA property, and the Rustenburg property is one. So that is really the strategy. In terms of extending the life. Most of those shafts without having done this transaction, most of those shafts would have come to an end of their life in around about 2024 2025, we just wouldn't have been able to carry itself as a standalone unit. By doing that, but completing the transaction, a lot of those shafts will now continue well into the latter part of this decade. 2028 2029. As I mentioned with some of the shafts, from the mine in particular, actually been able to continue for 16 years. So it is about our original strategy with putting contiguous assets together, dropping mine boundaries, allows you to optimize surface infrastructure, underground infrastructure, and therefore mine plans.

Thanks, Richard. I'll just ask one more question. Then we'll go to the phone lines and then we'll come back to the online questions. Just a question from Luyolo Mkentane from Business Day. He's referring to the Strike Ballot [ph] Report that the CCMA produced, that's been distributed to the media. And just asking for a response on that, Neil.

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that if you look at those numbers, and I'm not familiar with exactly what's been circulated to the media. But certainly as you've seen, Solidarity is not in support of the strike. When I look at the numbers, I don't see UASA in support of the strike. When I look at the split across NUM, NUM [ph] Beatrix is not in support of a strike, within the West, BITS [ph] is in support of a strike. And of course, the AMCU is in support of a strike. But I must also point out that if you consider balloting process fair when people stand in a stadium and raise their hands and the sample is somewhere around 15%, maybe 20%, I don't think that's indicative of a fair balloting process or representative of the workforce. Irrespective of the balloting process, we will not be changing our offer. Our offer is final. And really the union or this coalition needs to decide whether they're going to strike or not. We are not raising our offer. And that needs to be very clear. Thank you.

Thanks, Neal. And just to point out to what Neal's referring to, there were 8,224 employees who voted in this ballot process, and we employ about 31,000 people at our gold operations. So it's a very small segment of that population. Maybe if we could go to the phone lines for a couple of questions.

Thank you very much, sir. The first question comes from Catherine Cunningham of JP Morgan.

Thanks, guys. So just two questions for me. The first one is just could you perhaps talk in more detail around the sources of customization across the group? And maybe just elaborate on the way that differs between the SA gold operations, and then the SNU and PGM operations? And then the second question is, in the event of tighter sanctions, explicitly impacting Russian palladium exports, how do you see the supply picture panning out in that scenario? And are you aware of any disruptions to palladium exports to date? And then I guess linked to that, to what extent if at all, would you anticipate that ongoing conflict in Russia, Ukraine could negatively impact global auto supply chains and therefore impact demand for metals from the OEMs?

Okay, thanks, Catherine. And Rich, if you can pick up the inflation point, I'll just start off on the issues regarding Russia and the Ukraine and sanctions? Catherine, it's a good question. And I think let me start by saying, I think you're going to see a lot of volatility initially with a lot of speculation. However, I think the facts are that Russian palladium, which is really, I think the metal that we should focus on because it's significant in the Western world, Russian palladium is mostly used in Europe. So if they are sanctions or sanctions specifically imposed on Norilsk Nickel I think the impact will really be in the short term on Europe. Having said that, I also believe that there will be alternatives to someone like Norilsk Nickel in terms of supplying metal to friendly countries, which means that you will probably see a change in market dynamics. And of course, what is short in Europe will probably then flow from countries that take Norilsk’s palladium that are being supplied by the Western world. So I think supply will sort itself out in the shorter term. I think I'm much more concerned with the second part of your question, which is about supply chain disruptions. We are aware that the Ukraine supplies a number of car companies with wiring harnesses. And there's been major disruptions to companies like Porsche and Volkswagen and of course it'll increase. And those are the obvious ones. Just like COVID, I think there are a lot of hidden supply chain disruptions that unfortunately, probably going to impact on demand, more so than supply being constrained. But of course, as I've said, you will get speculation and volatility in the initial phases of something like this. From our point of view, our heads are down. We have our customers, North America is, is pretty much independent. We produce North American palladium for North America. And of course, our other palladium goes to our other customers around the world. Thank you. Rich?

Thank you very much, Catherine. Look, I think generally there's been inflationary pressures across the board, but to highlight some of the bigger ones. Clearly, in South Africa, electricity’s been a big one. Steel has been quite a big one which impacts for example, on a lot of our stores, materials, our support, as well as our engineering infrastructure. Labor of course, we are still operating under historic agreements. Those increases have been above inflation. Of course, that's built into our forecast, but it does still result in above inflation increases, and hence the need to bring that in line with inflation. Then finally, chemicals that we use in our processing and also fuel to distinguish between the gold and the SA PGMs, the gold operations are far more exposed to power and steel in particular, deeper level vertical shafts, big electricity exposure. And our PGM operations, in particular have a higher exposure to fuel price given that a lot of them are mechanized operations. I think important just to note, and I'm not quite sure if that was part of the question, but part of the -- or the reason that we managed to contain costs in the SA PGMs was not so much around the fact that they were not impacted by inflationary pressures. They most certainly were. But through the realization of synergies, and through the cost cutting initiatives that we've had, we were able to work out those above inflationary cost pressures. So it wasn't that the two operations were differently exposed, but more that we had more of an opportunity to cut the costs on the PGM business. Thanks.

Awesome Thank you. Take all.

Thank you. The next question comes from Leroy Mnguni of HSBC.

Hi, good afternoon, guys. I've got a few questions, please. The first one is, if I look at your reserve assumptions, they've gone up 23% for the basket price. But either than the current [indiscernible] additions, your reserves haven't really gone up by much. If you can maybe unpack that. I'm wondering if it's linked to cost inflation. And then for the Brazilian acquisition that you walked away from, would you be open to settling on a lower price than what you had initially agreed, if that goes down that road? And then my third question is a cheeky one, but I'll try my luck. Norilsk Nickel underperformed quite significantly and could potentially be in your reach. It certainly has the metals that you are looking for from a battery perspective. Is that something that you would expect if there’s an acquisition?

Rich, why don't you do the reserves first?

Perfect. Thanks very much. And thanks Leroy. Listen, on the reserve side no, it hasn't got to do with costs. We have revised our pricing assumptions and perhaps just to unpack or explain that a little bit. Historically, reporting under the SEC, we were bound to report to a three year trailing averages. Under the new Guide 7 that's come out, we allowed to -- we can now look at setting our own price base as long as of course that's justified and realistic. And as a result we really looked at through cycle prices to guide our resources and reserves. And the key for that is we of course want to make long term decisions on those price sticks. So it really is about trying to optimize prices through the cycle. The reason it doesn't have a specific impact on the PGM operations is the reserve price that we used previously and that we're using now, there's still significant margin in those operations. As you would know, the PGM assets have got a fairly constant grade. So it's not like you can -- unlike gold, for example, where different prices allows you to mine lower grades, you can mine it selectively. PGM’s the grades are far more consistent. So just the fact that we still have that margin really means that doesn't have a significant impact on your on your reserves. Where there was a small impact is when we get right into the tail of these operations, and then slightly higher prices might allow you to continue for a little bit longer, but it's not a material increase in reserves for that reason. Thanks, Leroy. Thanks Neal.

Thanks, Rich. Leroy your second question on APN, I just want to say again, we're not going to litigate in the public domain. But I don't want to say no comment all the time. But we walked away. We didn't take the decision lightly. There's been a material adverse event. So we've walked away. So the answer's no. Is Norilsk a target? Listen, Norilsk is a wonderful company. But it doesn't sit in a jurisdiction that is of interest to us. We have really targeted building our ecosystems or our presence in ecosystems in Europe and North America. So no, it is not a target.

Thanks for the responses. Appreciate it.

Thank you. The next question comes from Nkateko Mathonsi of Investec. Nkateko, your line is open. You can ask your question.

Oh, good afternoon. Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Thank you.

All right. I have two questions. The first one, the background is around the SA PGM operations which continues to outperform, and Marathon has proven to have been a great acquisition and so is Rustenburg. But in contrast the output out of the US PGM and cost is not anywhere close to the initial expectation. So my question is what has been important [ph] as far as the [technical difficulty] operations are concerned? And I mean, when I look at some of your peers, I think they also still going through teething issues as far as international operations are concerned. And your growth and groom strategy, probability is it will likely be in international grounds, as you've just highlighted now. So how do you avoid this wide gap in particular on operational assets between expectation and actual reality once on the graph? So that’s first question. The second question is around recycling. I noticed that tons declined by 3% year-on-year, and the feed tons declined by 10% year-on-year. And so I just want to know if there are capacity limitations on your side as far as recycling is concerned, and also just to get your outlook as far as global recycling is concerned. Thank you.

Yeah. Thanks. So I can take -- Rich, would you deal with the recycling? I'll deal with the -- and I couldn't quite hear your question. But the point you made was that our South African acquisitions, PGM acquisitions appear to have done very well. And you're quite right. They were smartly structured, they were acquired at the right time. Your concern is that the US operations don't look like they've worked. So let me let me correct your perception. We have not met, let's say our plans. That is very true. There's been a couple of headwinds, but the US operations are exactly what we bought. They are no different to our -- let's say, initial assessment. I haven't recently done a calculation but I do believe they've paid for themselves and again the acquisition was done at a point in time, similar to the South African PGM businesses. And we've had a real benefit of profitability and obviously based on commodity prices. So the quality and the attributes of the U.S. PGM business are exactly what we would have expected. I think our changes to the plan are really taking account of, let's say conditions that are very, very different to pre-COVID conditions. Yes, there have been some technical issues in terms of flexibility and ramp up. But they are very different issues regarding the availability of labor, which is something more recent, and the costs associated with using contractor. So we will apply a very different business model, and I have no doubt that it will be extremely profitable. And it will continue returning value back to our shareholders. Operating in the US has been an absolute pleasure. And I have no doubt that operating anywhere else in in in Europe, Finland and France will be an absolute pleasure. So I don't foresee -- I wouldn't I wouldn't put all these challenges we've had in or perceived to have had at Stillwater in one basket and say, working internationally is hard. I can tell you, it's much harder to run our operations in South Africa. And yes, they've performed well. And that's good. So we remain -- let's say bullish on our ability to operate in all areas around the world that we will obviously choose. Rich.

Thanks, Neal. And in particular, thanks very much for your questions. If I understood it correctly. The decline that we had in our recycling numbers during the second half of the year wasn't capacity linked. It was more driven by supply chains, being able to transport CATS, truck driver shortages in the U.S., etc. And lower scrappage of cars. So it wasn't a capacity constraint. As it stands, we not capacity constrained at our processing facilities. There is a mix that we do need to consider with recycling. In other words, we blend our recycling material with our primary material. And we do manage that to optimize recoveries and costs and throughput. So there is a link there, but it's not really a capacity constraint. And that is obviously a link we can play with. But that is a blend issue that we do address. I think in terms of your question regarding our views on global recycling, listen, I think during the pandemic there -- combination of both the pandemic and supply chains being disrupted globally, combined with the lowest scrappage of cars that’s been a global event with new car sales being done as a result of chip shortages. We do see that recycling recovering over the next year or two and building back up to some of the levels as it was prior to COVID. So it has been a depressed secondary market for the last two years. But we see that recovering from this year going forward.

Okay, thank you.

The next question comes from Robert Sinat [ph] of [indiscernible].

Yes, this question is directed to Neal. Neal, what is your position on silver? Sibanye Stillwater has every card in the deck to form a royal flush but silver and I wanted to find out from you, your thoughts on pursuing and getting involved in the other precious metal that you don't have interest in right now.

Yes, thanks, Robert. And good question. We do like silver. And silver is not only a precious metal, it's a metal that has, in my view, a strong technology and industrial underpin. We have looked at silver. In fact, we've looked at silver as a way of entering the North American Gold business. As you know, many of these silver opportunities have gold bar products. It is something we'll continue to look at. And it is a metal we like. We like its fundamentals. So Robert, perhaps I can just leave it there. Yeah, but it is of interest to us. Yes.

Thank you for that information. Yeah it's very much a green metal, Neal, very much. And I just appreciate all the good work you folks have been doing with your M&A and how your business is turning out and really appreciate the dividends that you're paying to shareholders. Thank you for your good work.

No, thank you for those very common comments. And I agree with you 100%, on silver being a green metal. Thanks. Robert, we'll look further into that.

Thank you. The next question comes from Rene Hochreiter of NOAH Capital Markets.

Good afternoon, Neal and team. Thanks very much for taking my questions. Just two quick questions. What is the progress on K4 Shaft? When do you think the extra production will come in? And would it be -- will it be expansion or would it be replacement? Those answers? And then secondly, I hear what you said about palladium and eventually the supply sorting itself out and the price sorting itself. But what if it doesn't, and the palladium price now stays up, at 27.50 or wherever it is now? And then it doesn't come down. Do you think that will be a trigger for really starting to substitute platinum for palladium?

So Rene, yes, I think they may deal with palladium, we're going to just try and get Robert Van Niekerk on standby, who's running K4 project to give you definitive answers. Rich and I can do it, but probably at a higher level. But on your question on palladium, absolutely. If palladium prices stay high, you will definitely see substitution taking place, I have no doubt, I suppose that is good for us on both sides. As you know, we have a 50-50 palladium platinum pool split, if I could call it that in our company. So yes, I do see substitution becoming a reality if the palladium price stays high. My view is that it’ll as I said earlier, it'll wash itself out in terms of alternatives, in terms of markets that are not, let's say, sanction constrained. Rob, if we could get you online just to answer a nice question on K4. And I trust you heard that.

Neal I did hear you. I just want to confirm that you can you hear me.

Yes we can hear you clearly.

Okay. Good afternoon, Rene. K4 project means round about the middle of last year after the internal authorization process and so on, we went through in our organization. I can report that the project team is fully staffed up, the EPCM contractor is in place and performing in accordance with expectations. The work schedule, or progress is as per schedule for the last six months and development will commenced in quarter two of this year, we've been very fortunate with K4 because K4 is supported by a very, very large PGM base and the base being Rustenburg the base being Kroondal and the base being Marikana. So you haven't had to go out and recruit people and train them up for K4, we've been privileged in the fact that we can actually take for what of a better word the best from the other platinum operations and deploy them at K4 and for the positions they leave at the other operation. So that is really been that the approach we've taken to date. But the K4 operation is progressing as planned, in a nutshell.

And how many ounces could we expect us expansion ounces, and by when?

At steady state K4 is going to produce approximately 250,000 ounces a year. That is from both the Merensky and the UG2 and that would be in four years from now.

Great, thanks very much.

Thank you. Thank you, Neal.

Yes, thanks, Rene. Nice talking.

Thank you. The next question comes from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the call. Couple of questions for me. And the first one is just on your Marikana BE structure. I understand that you've got kind of two components in [indiscernible] from the other Marikana of shareholders. Could you confirm with the Marikana shareholders are now unencumbered, and fully participating in dividends and that operation? And then the second question, just to follow up on the Kroondal profile. I understand you've given some guidance in life of mine, which we appreciate. What does the decline rate look like? I would imagine that post 2023, it's not going to be producing the 450,000 ounces at CAD B [ph]. How do we anticipate those ounces running? Thank you very much.

Thanks, Chris. And hi. Rich, and Charl, can you deal with the BE? And Rich probably with the Kroondal decline rate, in terms of output?

No problem. Chris, thanks very much for some the absolute details of that BE transaction we can get to you. It wasn't that during the restructuring, they were all completely unencumbered. But the liabilities were completely restructured. So some of the other parties did still have liabilities associated with it the exact numbers I don't have offhand or where they sit at the end of end of this year. But it wasn't that they were all completely unencumbered? No. There were still some but the exact numbers I could get to your Chris. In terms of Kroondal, you're 100% correct, that there is a roll off. I think Kroondal sort of peak production is 450,000 ounces, there are one or two shafts which will still come to an end and we will optimally mine those from other areas. We will in the next couple of months be putting out our detailed resource and reserve statements together with our annual report. And that also shows a full profile for those operations on the back of the new life of mine. And the Kroondal life of mine has been done with this transaction in mind. So Chris I’ll be able to share those details with you in the very near future as we publish those numbers.

The next and next is upon that question from Adrian Hammond of SVG Securities.

Thanks very much for taking my follow-up question, Neal, just a bit of strategy you mentioned in the past targeting battery metals and PGMs and gold equally in terms of EBITDA, is that still the case? And as you've been aggressive with your M&A in the past year, and largely shifted more to manufacturing, is there a scenario in the future where you think you would separate or unbundle the South African mining assets from your endeavors offshore? And then just on safety, which is obviously a sore point. What it appears is recently close to shaft bumping on to duty seismicity. Is this sort of potential options that you're facing as well? Thanks.

Yes. Thanks, Adrian and good to talk to you live. Yes, so listen, ideally, we would like to have an equal split in earnings across battery metals, PGMs and gold. Obviously, we've got a long way to go in achieving that. That would be very nice to triple our earnings based on what's happening with PGMs. But that that is certainly still our broad intention, which means we need to grow our battery metals business, it also means we need to grow our gold business. Unbundling, certainly is something we consider or are familiar with. I think there's a right time to do that, but it's not something that's under consideration. Now we understand the value release was something like that. But the benefits of a large balance sheet. The flexibility we have with different commodities allows us to really consider building something that is unique and very sustainable. In terms of safety. Absolutely, if our safety incidents were due to seismicity. And with the difficulty of predicting seismicity, we would certainly close the shaft. Our safety incidents have not been due to seismicity. But let me say whatever they are due to, we will have no hesitation if we are unable to produce safely, we'll have no hesitation, but to close shafts and we showed that last year, but it's not due to seismicity, Adrian. But if it was absolutely the answer is yes, we would close them. So I hope that answers your three questions.

Yes. Thanks Neal.

Thank you. There are no further questions from the lines.

Thanks. We'll go back to the webcast then. Question from Craig Martin. I think for Richard, could we elaborate on the mineral resources report where in the group overview, we show PGM answers, as well as PGM at 100%. So the attributable and the 100%. And the same with other minerals? Which column represents mineral resources as they apply to Sibanye Stillwater shareholders?

Yes, thank you very much, Craig. And I actually don't have the table in front of me. But what I can say. So the 100% column you see, is essentially the resources the answers of the resources or reserves that sit within the project or the operation that they refer to. So that is essentially 100% and year-on-year, that makes the comparisons easy. What we previously looked at was, we declared our attributable portion of that. So where we have minority shareholders, and as I say, it's most applicable in South Africa, where we have empowerment partners, we have an equity stake at a project or a company or a mine level. We previously declared our effective economic interest in that. So if we had financed one of our minority shareholders, and half of that had been paid back on a 26%, we obviously then would have declared they would 30, less 87%. What we saying now is what we declaring is the 74% in that example. So we are only declaring attributable to ourselves, the actual equity interest that we have directly on those resources and reserves. And those are the balance of the columns that you see in the statement. As I highlighted up front, and just to stress again, that doesn't change the resources or reserves within a project neither does it change any economic interest we have. I think the shareholdings and the various empowerement structures, et cetera, that we have in place have obviously been disclosed, none of that changes. But just for simplicity's sake, we now declare our resources and reserves purely on our equity. And that shouldn't change year-on-year. I hope that is okay, Craig, but would be happy to take it offline and walk you through it if easier.

Thanks, Richard. And just for your information, Craig. So the column to the left of the 100% column is the attributable portion to Sibanye Stillwater shareholders in that report. So just to clarify that. Question from Richard Hatch. Can we quantify what kind of production impact we can expect at the US ops versus the original plan? I think Richard, or do you want to cover that.

Yes, Rich, go ahead.

Sure. So Rich, I think listen, that is clearly still work in progress. I mean, I think the guidance we put up today, and I'm sure if you if you looked at the math compared to what we put off to what we achieved during the second half of last year, you will see that really that is just flat guidance. So at the moment operating under all of the constraints that we currently have, and all of the excess costs that we have incurred with extra contractors, et cetera. That almost, I guess, to an extent paints the bottom line, the worst case scenario. Our regional targets through ramping up the Stillwater East project was to attain about 850,000 ounces per annum. And what we're really doing is saying what is the optimal output which will be between those two lines to really operate within the constraints we have, but also set our cost base up to deliver in line with that output. So I wouldn't like to speculate right now and what the outcome of that work is going to be. It is work that is being undertaken at the moment. And as mentioned, we do we are looking to have that completed around about the middle of this year. But I guess I can share with you what those boundaries are, that's really been the guidance we given, which is as we operate today under those constraints, and it's precisely about dealing with those constraints and the new plan that we're looking at. Thanks, Richard.

Thanks, Richard. This is more of a statement from Dominic Elliott. This was a very exciting presentation. Thank you. The clarity of strategic focus, and laser sharp implementation and delivery is truly commendable. Keep up the good work, Mr. Froneman, and team.

Thanks Dominic, and we pride ourselves on being very strategically managed and strategically focused. And I think, all credit to the team on the delivery of the results. I think the results are the ultimate measure in whether you've been successful in your strategy, but we appreciate the comments, and I'm sure the rest of the team has heard it as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Neal. A question from Abhi at Deutsche Bank. Have you seen any change in the behavior of PGM customers? Are they new inquiries from the customers? Also? Is there any slack you have in the system? Thanks.

Yes. Let, Richard, answer that.

Any change in customers? I think not on a sustainable basis. Of course, there's a lot of volatility in the market. And yes, we do get short term, short term inquiries based on market volatility. I think importantly, our sort of overall marketing strategy is less about trying to be a trader in the market and more about building long-term relationships with customers in supply chains. And that inherently means that we do have slightly less exposure to the volatility. James I apologize could you just say what was the second part of that question.

It was about any slack in the system, Richard?

In any slack in the system, I'm assuming you mean around demand and supply at the moment? No, listen, I think at the moment, certainly, they're still strong demand for all of our metals. Second terms of having excess metals. I think at the moment, we certainly finding that the demand remains high. If that's what you're referring to. Thank you.

We just going to an end of the presentation. I'll just quickly deal with a question from [indiscernible] asking about the litigation process timelines. There is no litigation process at the moment, as Neal said, we've exchanged letters, but there's no formal process in place. So hope that answers the question. Neal, this one's probably valid. Is uranium dead in South Africa? Or are you involved in project assessment work?

Yes, uranium is definitely not dead in South Africa. We sit on probably some of the best reserves, I would say in the world, when you consider that some of our uranium reserves are on surface and are part of a dump where we can extract both the gold and the Uranium. Uranium is still a target for us, it's not a high priority, it is still being worked on. That’s more complicated, because it forms part of a broader base of assets. So that is introducing some complexity. But we remain very bullish about the long-term future of uranium and its classification of -- well the classification of nuclear energy as green energy and the very disruptions you've seen with renewables. As baseload energy just doesn't work. And we've always been proponents of nuclear energy as a place. So we continue to work on that it's not dead in the water. It's just not a high priority.

Thanks, Neal. I've got a couple of technical questions, but I think let's leave it at that, it's 10 past two, we'll respond to those questions by email. We've got your email addresses, so we'll respond directly to you. So I think on that note, I'll pass over to Neal just for some closing remarks.

Yes, thanks, James. And again, thank you to all of you that took time to join us listen to us. I hope you found it interesting. And we look forward to more delivery. And of course, I'd like to thank my team as well, an exceptional set of results. And really I'm very proud of what has been achieved. So, thank you very much and enjoy the rest of your day.