Greetings, everybody, and good afternoon. Good morning. Not sure what time zones everyone is in, but a warm welcome to our Year End Results Presentation for the year ended December 31, 2022. You will note from the subtitle, we've called this a decade of shared value. And that is because we've just had our 10th anniversary. And we see this as a decade of having shared significant value with our stakeholders and our shareholders. And then, of course, the balance of that subtitle, we’re well positioned for future value creation. And I'm sure you will see that as we proceed through this presentation. Please take note of the Safe Harbor statement. There are forward-looking statements in this presentation. I'm going to proceed with the first part and I will wrap up the event at the end after having invited other colleagues to join. Let me pick up on the salient features for the second half of 2022 and the year end 2022. Very pleasingly, I can really be proud of the achievement around safety. We continue to show very substantial improvements in all safety indicators with a fatal injury frequency rate having improved by 75%. Yes, 75% from 0.133 for 2021 to 0.033 for 2022. It's our best performance ever and it's something that we as a team are very proud of. As I mentioned in the beginning, this is our 10th anniversary. It's been a remarkable journey of evolution and growth, resulting in us having established a more sustainable business, which is currently pivoting to remain relevant due to the ever changing environment we found ourselves in. And of course, we will remain relevant in the future as well. We’re in a robust financial position. We generated positive free cash flow. Our net debt -- correction, sorry, our net…

Thank you very much, Neal, and good afternoon and good morning, ladies and gentleman. As we talk through the operating results of the Southern African region, they were certainly two impacts that significantly hit our business last year. One, of course, is the ongoing failure of Eskom and the significant load curtailment that impacted not only us, but the entire industry. We saw significant impact on not only the levels but also the duration of load curtailment during the last four months of last year. As a business, we've become quite accustomed to being able to manage the load curtailment well historically, and it hasn't had a significant impact on our revenue line. And this has largely been managed through a working capital approach, whereby we keep our key operations and rock breaking going. And through a stockpiling strategy, we are able to process that ore during off periods and holiday periods. Unfortunately with a significant increase that we saw during the last four months of last year, this became difficult to maintain and did start having a direct impact. That impact was small over the course of the whole of the year at our gold operations, we lost 38 kilograms. But I think importantly that 38 kilograms was lost as a result for the first time having to actually stop shafts for a few shuts. At our PGM operations, we suffered a loss of just under 23,000 ounces. And that was despite having spare processing capacity where we were able to completely catch up the stockpiles that we had over the December period. I think what is increasingly concerning is the forecast for 2023. If we take into account what we saw in the last four months of last year, what we've seen in the first two months of…

Thank you, Richard, and good morning and good afternoon to participants. I think you're all familiar with the research we did mid last year when we revised our plan and gave a series of presentations as to how we saw the medium-term and long-term optionality of the Stillwater ore bodies and all the work needed to reposition the business for long-term flexibility, cost management, and to do justice to a world class ore body. And I think you're also all familiar with the fact that we had a significantly disrupted 2022 with flooding and other weather events. And we've had to manage the business accordingly in the short term, so obviously a frustrating 2022 year outcome. But I think the critical focus has to be on what we're doing to reposition this business long term. So you will have seen what we believe is a prudent response to the changing environment. I think one that is impacting all the companies that you follow, and certainly us in Montana is a very tight U.S. labor market. So you have a 3.4% national unemployment rate and you have a 2.8% unemployment rate in Montana specifically. And so we've been battling that all year. And I'll talk both to the macro impacts and then what we're doing specifically to address that. But I think importantly, we've had to manage through the year significant employee turnover. So average volume turnover has been 18% across the business in Montana in 2022. But much more importantly, when you go to specific job categories and key roles in the operations, you see 24% miner turnover, 20% mechanics turnover, 24% supervisory turnover, 25% geologist turnover, and 24% planner turnover. So that's not an issue that we’re complacent about, but it is a reality of our work environment both…

Thanks, Charles, and good day to all. In 2021, recycled production was 755,000 ounces. Last year, that dropped to 600,000 ounces. And we believe that two key factors have really played into those declines. One, the market dynamics including Russia's invasion of Ukraine, rising inflation and sort of tightening financial conditions or financing conditions, and availability of new vehicles and high used car prices, which simply translated to all the cars or vehicles being kept for longer. And second, our principled approach to ensure a solid chain of custody for recycled material. In this regard, we are working with the International Precious Metals Institute in the auto cat 5th committee to promote policies regarding the prevention of copper cable theft. The average 3E PGM basket price for the recycling operations decreased by 13% year-on-year to just over $3,000 or just over R50,000 per 3E ounce. And with that, we delivered an adjusted EBITDA number of $78 million. On a net profit basis, after financing income, the recycling operation delivered a healthy $92 million. In the longer term, we see recycled supply being a key source of total supply growth [indiscernible] auto cat with high loadings, and that given the historical jump in emission standards begin to increasingly into the recycling refining pipeline. That is why we are advancing the autocat recycling facility at our Sandouville nickel facility or refinery in France where we are currently concluding an extensive test work study on typical European feed, autocat feed to conclude a prefeasibility study by the end of the quarter. And then by the end of September, we would have a definitive feasibility study to go with that. I guess with our large existing metals recycling footprint and our attractive growth opportunities, I think we're very well positioned to take on that green premium that we chasing. I'll leave it there and hand over to you, Mika.

Thank you, Grant, and hello, everyone. My name is Mika Seitovirta, and I'm the Chief Regional Officer for Europe. We did quite some progress in the region last year. We finalized our European strategy work and we started to deliver on that one. We also advanced with our European organization and strengthening our capabilities in battery metals with several top recruitments. So we start to form the European leadership team running the businesses. European region is currently our Sandouville nickel refinery in France and it's the lithium hydroxide project at Keliber in Finland. We are building our strategy around France and Finland for the time being and around those ecosystems that are to be created and developed. Why this? Because in both countries, the governments are very much demanding that we should have control over the critical metals, not only in France and Finland, but also when it comes to European Union. And obviously, this is supporting our efforts in those regions to develop our future business. Let me first briefly comment on Sandouville. Actually we acquired Sandouville last year and we got the keys in March. The year has been two folded. First of all, the H1 actually really did have good production volumes. And we did improve our profitability as well. However, during H2, we had technical challenges, which led to prolonged maintenance break and we lost a lot of the production dates. You can actually see it in the adjusted EBITDA picture. For H1, we were positive on the EBITDA, good progress; H2, because of the reasons mentioned, was disappointing. However, we're also planning to make losses there and we are well aware what we need to do and what kind of action we need to take in order to improve this year and for the coming…

Thank you, Mika. Good afternoon and good morning to all participants. Despite the challenges that we have endured during 2022, I'm pleased to present a very solid and may I say a resilient set of financial outcomes. Starting with the capital approval framework, I can report that we have delivered on all constituents of the framework. On project capital to date, we have spent approximately R2.2 billion, which is roughly R1.1 billion each on both Burnstone and K4. Our Board also approved the capital expenditure on Keliber of €588 million. We have maintained our cash reserves and at year end, the balance was R26 billion or $1.5 billion. Dividends for the year amounted to R7.4 billion and the establishment of the Sibanye Foundation nonprofit company is in the last phase with a few regulatory hurdles still outstanding. This fund will go a long way to ensure social upliftment in the areas where we operate. Net cash to EBITDA came in at 0.14x despite our investments into battery metals. The refinancing of the $600 million revolving credit facility is nearing completion and we are targeting an upsize of a minimum of $800 million. Again, this will be on a three-year plus two optional one year extensions as a tenor. And finally, just to repeat that we have increased our holding in Keliber to 85% and our further investment in New Century resources is now at approximately 53%. Turning to the income statement. Revenue was down 20% year-on-year to R138 billion and this was driven by lower volumes and commodity prices across all our operating segments. Pleasingly, despite above inflation increases across almost all input costs, driven by global [indiscernible] on inflation, cost of sales before amortization and depreciation was down 6%. And here all credit has to go to our operational…

Thank you, Charl. And let me conclude by saying as I've said right at the beginning that we are very well positioned in 2023 and even looking forward to create further value. And let me tell you why? The South African gold business has been through the industrial action which was necessary to establish an acceptable wage agreement. The next wage negotiation is only in July of 2024. And hopefully, it'll be a different type of wage and negotiation. But the phase production build up is now complete and that was completed in November 2022. And we should have a pretty normal year in gold. The South African PGM business achieved a five-year inflation-linked wage agreement, which was settled in late 2022. So we have a period of stability and focus, which also bodes well for good volumes and good safety and low costs. The one aspect that may have been missed by the market, the Rustenburg acquisition payments to Anglo American were completed late last year and that results in an incremental 35% of Rustenburg’s free cash flow flowing through to the bottom line. So that is something that you must consider when you look at your valuations for Sibanye-Stillwater. The U.S., hopefully we'll not re-see extreme weather events. We are certainly where we've been able to make repairs, have ensured that we can cater for extreme weather events with the infrastructure that was damaged. But more importantly, the U.S. is well on its way to delivering on the reposition plan, attention and attraction of personnel is well in hand. And we can look forward to a phase build up over the next two to three quarters. It will not be smooth sailing. And in fact, that's why you will see there's a slightly smaller tick with a sign…

Thank you, Neal. Just got a couple of questions from the webcast. We do have limited time, I'm afraid. So I'm going to try and consolidate some of the similar questions to make the response quicker. We've only got about half an hour before we have to close down the Q&A. So the first question I think is on recycling, so probably Grant or Kleantha. Why are you guiding lower volumes for your recycling business when you expect global recycling volumes to increase by 8%? The second follow-on is can you maintain historical 4% margins at the U.S. recycling operations with declining volumes? And then the third is the recovery rate of auto catalysts in Europe. In the U.S., that's about 40% of the auto cat's demand eight years ago. Do we have an idea of what the comparable European recovery rate is given the strict intercompany export and import rules for spent auto catalysts? Thank you.

Yes, good. Thanks, James. Appreciate that. I think in respect of the 8% in the growth, I think what we need to appreciate is that these recycling growth forecasts are very regional, with China being a big growth story after the Day Zero COVID rules ended. I think chip shortages have also been less of an issue in China, meaning that they use cost scrappage rates are a lot higher in that region. In contrast, the U.S. market, which is a relatively mature market, has been characterized by reduced volumes over the last 12 to 18 months for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. But you're also seeing I guess as a result of the lower price environment and thinner margins holding [indiscernible], so less flow. We have also taken a very principled and measured position to responsible sourcing in the customers with whom we engage. By no means should you see us as being complacent in this space. We do see green shoots, and I think we're well positioned to welcome that growth when it does come in and we anticipate that sort of towards the middle of this year. James, in respect of the answer to can we maintain the margins? I think the short answer to that is yes, our business model is not heavily geared or sensitive to price given our limited sort of commodity exposure. We do have a hedging policy in place. We have a relatively low fixed cost base and with our treatment charges largely aligned to the volumes that we process, I think I'm fairly confident to say that we can maintain those margins as we have historically done. In respect of the recovery of the European market, I think there's a huge opportunity there. I think that that market is largely, and it's not as mature as the U.S. market. I think the silicon carbides and the diesel cats that are going to come through are certainly going to increase those volumes. So I would -- and I'm not the expert in the field, but I would certainly hazard a guess that those numbers would be similar to what you've quoted there, James. Thanks.

Thanks, Grant. The next question has also been asked by quite a few people, and maybe Neal or Richard can tackle it. It's about really our assumptions for this year, given the ongoing load curtailment and what we've anticipated for the year ahead?

Rich, why don't you respond to that?

Thanks very much, James. And, yes, I guess firstly, I should perhaps place in context the 15% possible production loss that we put out there and what that forecast actually means. If we take a look at what happened last year, there was a significant change in load curtailment levels from September onwards, both in terms of the levels we experienced and the duration. I think the second factor you've got to take into account, that is if we look historically at Eskom, we've seen over the last five or six years a constant decline in terms of the energy availability factor, which is essentially how much power they can generate. And we've seen that decreasing by about 4% or 5% a year, currently sitting below 50%. So if you take the base off last year and you extrapolate a similar continued decline in the energy availability factor, that is where the potential for up to 15% production losses comes. And I think the key message to take away from that is that is a downside scenario. But a scenario we should all be very aware of. Because if we don't do anything different or don't address it, that could be the situation that the entire industry faces. I think, of course, as management, our job is to mitigate against that and we do have plans in place to try and mitigate against that. Part of it is, of course, how we manage our business. But I guess increasingly, it's also becoming how we manage it on a regional basis which does mean your more marginal shots are going to be impacted rather than the higher margin one. So you’re managing not just to output, but ultimately managing to profitability. In terms of what we've included in our guidance, that is largely based on what we saw in the last quarter of last year. That is what we can forecast forward. That's what we've seen in the first two months of this year. So that's what's incorporated into the guidance. And that obviously makes the assumption that we will put plans in place to mitigate the downside scenario. And that we'll see all stakeholders including Eskom trying to at least maintain, if not better, that energy availability factor, but it will require all parties to come to the table. Thanks, James.

Thank you, Richard. A couple of questions on the U.S. PGM operations, asking about the costs this year when we see them coming to breakeven, et cetera. I think Charles covered that in quite a lot of detail in the presentation. So I don't think we need to really go through that again. As he said, there's a period where costs will be relatively high as we develop -- trying to increase the developed state of the ore bodies. And as we build the cemented backfill plant at Stillwater East, but then as the production builds up, we expect cost to come back down to below $1,000 per ounce. Maybe an additional question though is for you, Richard, is gold mines are free cash flow negative at spot prices and guided AISC costs. What is the plan to get costs down at these operations, the timeline involved and where we see the costs coming?

Thanks very much, James. At current spot, they’re actually marginally positive but I think we are definitely focusing on those costs quite extensively. Over the coming months, I think obviously we'll realize the benefits of the restructuring of Beatrix 4 and KP1 which will come in. They don't come in immediately. That does take some time to realize those. I think there's also a lot of work going on, on how we can streamline our operational footprint. The two big ones that do come into the gold aspect as we move forward are our care and maintenance costs which we are managing across the footprint and we have plans in place to reduce those. There are quite a lot of investments going in there to minimize that. And then, of course, also Burnstone ramping up and contributing to overall unit costs in terms of adding on or assisting with that fixed cost base. So we are, of course, also looking at how we can, across the entire region of South Africa, optimize our total overhead costs as we have initiatives regarding integration of some of the overheads across the gold and PGMs. So those are all initiatives that we have on the go and we believe can drive that guidance down further, but not currently included in the guidance.

Thanks, Richard. And then Neal for you, I think some questions on Mopani Copper. What is our interest in those mines? How do we see the process unfolding? And if we are selected, how would we likely finance this deal? And then what is the potential we see in Mopani given that it's previously been a high cost operation? So that's quite a few questions, and my apologies.

Thanks, James. Look, it's very early days in the Mopani process and it's unfortunate that it's become quite public. But let me start from the top. We think we refund contender wide because, a, we have deep level mining skills which are absolutely necessary in that environment. I think we're a company that has demonstrated its ability to deal with difficult situations and are referred to, to London. And there's no doubt that Mopani is a difficult situation, perhaps not as difficult as London, but we also a company that I think can implement quite intrapreneurial structures such as the Rustenburg structure where the commitment is upfront or relatively low and you can focus on looking through the ore body and investing in the ore body. So we see the opportunity to leverage those attributes probably ahead of most people that would be interested in Mopani. I personally think that the commitments will really rather be in terms of capital, and as Charl showed you the capital profile of the company is relatively light. So we have a lot of flexibility. Timing is not driven by ourselves. It's really driven by the people running the process. We like what we see. We still got to conduct significant due diligence. So I really don't want to speculate on potential. But I can assure you that if Sibanye Stillwater moves forward with Mopani, it will be in a value accretive way. Otherwise, we won't do it. Thanks, James.

Thanks, Neal. The next question also related to M&A. It's about higher capital requirements in the next two years. Persistent inflation, softer PGM basket price, although in Rand, it's not significantly softer, I think we've pointed that out. And then 15% potential impact on the SA operations due to load shedding. What does this mean for our M&A ambitions in 2023 and I guess 2024?

Yes. So clearly what you heard Richard describe is a situation that we need to manage in the next couple of years. Of course, we are also working towards solutions. We're not going to, let's say, remain dependent on Eskom and its poor performance for forever and a day, and most companies you would know are probably driving renewable energy projects primarily to reduce their carbon footprint but of course it will make them less dependent on Eskom. The problem with renewable energy is that it's not base load. We are looking at some base load projects. And once we've got more definition around those, we will share it with you. So I would suggest, although load shedding or load curtailment may be with us for a long time, as South Africans obviously as a business, we are making plans to reduce our exposure over the longer term. So I wouldn't fact in a 15% reduction forever and a day. That is significant and that is something we need to acknowledge in the next year or two. In terms of our capital profile, I think Charl demonstrated that our capital profile drops off very significantly, and in fact drops from roughly 19 billion to about 10 billion. And that includes things like Keliber and so on. And that's Rand per year. So there's lots of flexibility in our ability to fund and manage. Software PGM prices I think is short-term volatility. And where I'm leading to with all of this is that the company remains in a very robust position, remains in a position to progress that strategy without betting the farm. But let me come back to PGM process. That short-term volatility that we're seeing, the fundamentals for PGM, especially if you factor in a 15% plus supplier risk and you factor in a lower or a shorter recession, the downside risks are more on the supply side than the demand side. So I think we're moving through a period of weakness, but the medium and the long-term remain very good, which is also what I tried to present. So our M&A, let's say, strategy, it's not the primary focus of the group. But I do think as I've said before, you'll probably see some more movement this year than you did last year. And I think that's off a base where the underlying strength of the company remains very good. Of course, there's many ways to finance these. These acquisitions, it's not going to be through our equity. We understand our equity is undervalued because we in a pivot, but there's many ways to fund M&A without resorting to your own currency. Thanks, James.

Thanks, Neal. And then last question from the webcast is just on the Keliber decision on the permitting decision for the mine, the second mine and the concentrator, question on details on submission for changes and clarification and the two external appeals? Mika, could you provide some detail on that please?

Yes, absolutely. Thank you, James. First of all, I can confirm that there are two appeals on top of our own one, this appeal from private persons. And it goes without saying that we take all the appeals very seriously. So also in this case, we have studied them and analyzed them carefully. And what we can say is that as per today, there is no new information or any particular reasons that we would change or adjust our already disclosed time plans for the mine. So we believe that the authorities are doing the normal work. And yes, we will hear about them. But today, absolutely our time plan sticks.

Thanks, Mika. That's the last question from the webcast. I think if we can just go to the calls and see if there are any questions on the calls.

Thank you. The first question comes from Chris Nicholson from RMB Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question, Chris.

Hi. Good afternoon, Neal and team. Thank you for the time. I'll ask two questions, please. The first one, if you could go back to the U.S. PGM operations, it does look like there has been some slippage if I look at your guidance for FY '23 relative to what you disclosed in August this year. Many of those factors that Charles mentioned in his presentation I think you would have known back in August. Could you comment specifically on maybe what's caused a little bit of slippage cost do seem higher? And then the second question really looks onto renewable projects in South Africa. Appreciate the comment that it doesn't give you base load. It does seem that certainly that gold solar project has slipped in its timelines by 12 months, maybe the PGM one has to. Specifically, could you comment on some of the permitting requirements and where you are in the process of those and where the potential delays in these could be? Thank you.

So Charles, why don't you pick up the first one? And then James [ph], if you can prepare yourself to answer Chris' second question on renewable sets.

Yes. So I think short term, what we've had to do in the start of this year is slightly more heavily on contractors than we planned in August. This is mainly around maintenance and development. It's at both operations and more maintenance contracting at Stillwater and slightly more development contracting at East Boulder coming in at a slightly higher price, but we will pull that back through the next couple of quarters. And then obviously unit cost heavily dependent on volume, so slightly slow start to the year. But again, we'll pick that up. There's no dramatic swing on what we have planned, but it's a skills pressure short term that still shifting us more towards contracting to try and keep on the mine plan.

Happy to jump in here on the renewable energy projects. Unfortunately, we have experienced delays on our solar PV projects. The primary today stems from land claims to unearth on the sites we intend to use. The first was on the South African gold operation site historically hadn’t quite [indiscernible] but identified a second land claim through inquiry through the National Lands Claims Commissioner. Through a legal process and an investigation, we overcome that issue now progressing the project due to financial close and hopefully in the first half of this year. It did, however, create a significant delay. On operations within the SA PGM, we have three solar PV projects we're also pursuing across the three projects that were two land claims across two of the project sites, we're following a similar legal process and investigation. And we are confident that we will overcome this. Unfortunately, in South Africa, we are not alone in the delays on our renewable energy projects as we look to the same struggles our peers are encountering. On our South African wind projects, the primary delays they have stemmed from good access, although it has been secured. And those projects we are looking to close within the first half of this year as well. Thank you.

Thanks, James. Any more questions from the calls please?

Yes. The next question comes from Adrian Hammond from SBG Securities. Please go ahead.

Hi, Neal and team. Two questions, please. First one is about the balance sheet. And first of all, there's a lot of CapEx that’s been guided for this year. My estimates are 24 billion. It's up some 60%. Is it fair to say that Sibanye is entering an investment phase? And I'd like to understand how you think about the balance sheet going forward in terms of funding specifically around Rand and dollars. So with Stillwater and the gold business seem like they just mildly positive with spot. What do you think about funding for the business with debt, particularly given interest rate environment [indiscernible] can feed in here and what are you seeing in the debt markets? And what do you think about funding the Keliber project in dollars when you don't really generate much dollars? And then secondly for Mika, you talk about a green premium for lithium. I'm curious to know how realistic that is given much of the new production coming on will be produced from renewables and it's very unlikely an OEM will want your lithium if it's not green? Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, Adrian. And I'm going to ash Charl to deal with the capital one. And then Charl if you can hand over to Mika on the green premium. But, Adrian, I want to say I actually met someone yesterday that is getting a green premium, a major player. So it is happening. And amazingly here at OEMs, we have every major car manufacturer at the BMO conference, except for one. That tells you what's happening in this market. But Charl, if you'll pick up Adrian's question on the balance sheet and the debt markets, and then hand over to Mika. Thank you.

Thanks, Neal. And yes, thank you, Adrian. If you look at the balance sheet, and specifically on the CapEx, Adrian if you look at the slide that I presented, capital there is estimated at about R20 billion. But that includes the Keliber portion of which we've already secured 176 million through our investment into Keliber. So you really have to knit that offer, because that funds have already flowed and we're just showing the total capital, less the Keliber portion. I wouldn't say we're necessarily going into an investment phase. But we need to conclude on our major projects, which is the Burnstone project and the K4 project, which we have guided would be R6.3 billion for those two projects. And that was over a four to eight-year period, K4 being shorter and Burnstone being slightly longer. But as I've said, the profile is really not demanding on the organization. Without plugging in the spot numbers and just looking at conservative numbers that we use for budgeting purposes, this is still a profile that we can maintain. Bearing in mind that if we see softening in commodity prices or anything whatsoever, this is a lever that we will pull if and when required, but business as usual. As we see it going forward, that would not be required. Looking at debt funding, and specifically around Keliber, we targeting a 50% split on Keliber. So the total Keliber CapEx in round numbers is 600 million, 588 million to be precise. And there we’re targeting about 50% equity and 50% debt. On the equity portion, there's a further rights offer that needs to go through. And we believe that we would get proportionate participation, which means we will probably put in about 85% and FMG would put in the balance. So that's a further 100 million or so. We are currently evaluating the RFPs on the Keliber debt. And we've had lots of interest from numerous debt providers. Looking at the market, we are seeing a tightening in credit spreads. If we look at what we could get six months ago if we had issued a bond versus what we're getting now, it's currently already between 100 and 150 basis points lower than what we saw six months ago. So we're not out of the woods yet. But we’re definitely seeing things trending in the right direction. As it stands, there's no further debt that we have to specifically take on considering that our Rand facility and our dollar facility is undrawn. And what I would say lastly is that we are in the process of renewing the dollar facility and we targeting a slight upside there. We're hoping to get a minimum of about $800 million, just to make sure that we have adequate liquidity for the enlarged group. So I'm going to hand over to Mika to take us through the second part of the question.

Thank you, Charl. And concerning your question, Adrian, thanks for that question first of all, about green premiums. So we have analyzed the market a lot and obviously, especially from the European point of view. And we can clearly see that when you go up to 2030, there's going to be a deficit between the supply and demand. So there's not going to be enough lithium hydroxide. On top of that, we can clearly hear from other customers, and as you know, today we haven't committed Keliber to any off-take so far, but we have potential many good customers who we are talking to. And we know that everybody wants to go towards a net zero in their businesses. And therefore, it is important that the less CO2 kilos ton produced product we can offer so the customer is, in our understanding, willing to pay a green premium in those cases. The other thing that we need to remember that especially in Europe, European customers would love to have European suppliers. So we are not yet fully regulated. So there are still some directives in the European Commission under preparation, and that will also drive suppliers to have much greener products than what they had earlier. So those are the reasons why we believe that we can get green premiums from the market after we have ramped up '25. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have time for another question?

James, you’re on mute I think.

Yes, one last question and then we'll have to wrap it up. Thank you.

Thank you. The final question comes from Richard Hatch from Berenberg. Please proceed with your question, Richard.

[Technical Difficulty]

So what I was trying to convey was an incremental build. Certainly quarter-on-quarter through this year, it's going to be -- you're not going to see marks dip changes, but we're working on everything we can to try and reduce cost structures and build volume. But it's a three to four-year build and it's a progressive build. And you'll see that in the graphs that we spoke to last year. And we stand very much on that plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Charles. Thanks everybody for attending. I’m afraid we're going to have to wrap it up now. We do have other commitments. There are a couple of more technical and more detailed questions online, and we will respond to those. If you have any other further questions, please don't hesitate to contact the IR team and we'll get back to you as soon as possible. Neal, if you'd like to say any last remarks?

Thanks, James. I think it's all been said. I know the market’s disappointed with our results. We see the underperformance where it's occurred. I think our message is that we continue to drive operational excellence. We are very well positioned based on not having the same type of disruptions in front of us in this year. Our strategy remains intact. In fact, if anything, we seeing good signs of being in the right place at the right time. We appreciate your time today. And as James said, apologies that we've had to cut it short. But some of us are on the road and we have other commitments as well. So thank you for your time and we look forward to talking to you next time. Thank you.