Good afternoon and good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our H1 2023 Results Presentation. Just a few comments upfront. This has been another period of our results being impacted negatively by one-off events, some of them self-inflicted and some such as the extreme weather events in Australia, an Act of God or for those of you who believe in climate change also self-inflicted by humanity. The economy and hence the running of mining operations is in a particularly tough place globally at the moment. And there could well be a downturn as we see it for some time. Remember, we refer to these more as pandemics, and this is where our anti-fragility culture or differentiator stands us in good stead. As you will see from the title of the presentation, our antifragility differentiator is creating significant advantage to our peers, for reasons that I'm going to outline in the first section. Antifragility for those of you who are wondering, what it means, and I took this definition out of Wikipedia, is something that does not merely withstand a shock, but actually improves. Antifragility is beyond robustness and that is the culture we draft within our company. Please take note of our Safe Harbor statement. I'd like to now discuss the agenda. I will continue with the introduction and cover the changing environment, or what I'll call, the Antifragility section. The Chief Regional Officers will present the operating review for each region separately, Charl will continue with the financial review, and I'll complete the formal delivery with a brief conclusion. As you know, our company is all about the people. We've had some changes in the C-suite and some new executive management appointments, Dawie Mostert left us, Themba Nkosi has stepped in as the Chief Organizational Growth Officer, in other…

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you very much, Neal. I think as is always the case at Sibanye, we'll commence this part of the presentation with safety. I think as Neal has highlighted the year-on-year progress in terms of our safety from 2021 to 2022 as being very pleasing. Clearly, however, we are still on the journey, where our ultimate destination is about zero harm. And the first step in terms of -- and the first milestone in that journey is around eliminating fatalities sustainably from our operation. I think it's pleasing that below the momentum from 2022 carried through into the first quarter of this year, but very disappointing that on the March 31 and into April, we experienced three fatal incidents across our operations. One at Burnstone, where we tragically lost four contracting colleagues and two at our Driefontein operations. The way we are addressing eliminating fatalities from our operations is through our Fatal Elimination Strategy. This strategy is a fundamental risk approach that really revolves around identifying the highest risks that can result in fatal incidents, and mitigating these risks through critical controls, critical life-saving behaviors and management routines. I think what does give us a level of comfort is that when we look at the incidents we've experienced by fatal incidents as well as high potential incidents that we analyze. We have noted that all of those could have been avoided with the exception of Burnstone, had our critical controls, behaviors and management routines been effectively implemented all of the time. This does give us a level of comfort that we have developed the right tool box to eliminate these fatalities. I think when I sit back and reflect on it, I see how our safety journey in the company over the last few…

Thank you, Richard. Our first half results in the U.S. were unfortunately negatively impacted by the Stillwater Shaft incident which we fully communicated to the market at the time. In addition, as Neal has noted in his earlier comments, we are experiencing an ongoing skills shortage amongst miners and mechanics in particular. This is due to an exceptionally tight labor market in Montana with unemployment at around 2.4% and those with technical skills been spoiled for choice on new mining opportunities elsewhere in the U.S. as well as non-mining employment opportunities in Montana, such as construction and infrastructure build. We are starting to get some success with new recruitment and retention strategies, and we are also focusing on longer-term initiatives such as in-house training of mechanics and miners to build a skills pipeline for the longer term. At the same time, as you are well aware, we've experienced sharply lower 2E PGM prices, which has reduced cash flows, but we still have been set on maintaining development spend so as to create greater flexibility in our ore bodies at both Stillwater and East Boulder over the medium term. As we lift volumes through the remainder of the year, we will see lower unit prices, while we are also reviewing all aspects of our spend so as to better position the business for potential lower prices going forward. As Grant will cover shortly, 3E recycling volumes have also been sharply reduced through the prior six months in keeping with an industry-wide recycling slowdown in North America. The six months saw mined 2E production of 205,513 ounces. This 11% lower production was attributable to the Stillwater Shaft incident which saw an 8-week stoppage, which largely impacted the West mine, while East Boulder continued to experience skill shortages and some continuing difficult ground…

Thanks, Charles. The Recycling segment continues to face headwinds. The global collections networks contraction exacerbated by the declining 3E PGM basket price, increasing interest rates and lingering recession worries, threatens to impact recycle volumes even into the first half of 2024. Amidst these challenges, however, there is some optimism driven by positive sentiment in the automotive market. The top 15 automotive sales countries have experienced a 12% year-on-year increase to June 2023, a promising leading indicator for Recycling volumes suggesting that the market may have bottomed out. Reflecting on these headwinds, average volumes of spent auto catalysts faded, our U.S. PGM recycling operations were down 55% when compared to the first half of 2022. Adjusted EBITDA decreased by 49% year-on-year to $20 million or ZAR371 million, a margin of 5%. The decrease was due to a 6% decrease in the 3E PGM basket price to $2,735 per 3E ounce and 3E PGM ounces sold declining by 58% for the same period to 153,446 3E ounces. Despite the headwinds, we continue to view the recycle space as critical to augment the increasing demand for green metals in support of the energy transition and the world's net zero ambition. Over to you, Mika.

Thanks, Grant. Hi, everyone, and greetings from the region, Europe, and from Helsinki. I'm going to go briefly through the key milestones and the key messages from H1 2023 with you. The strategy as we call it, battery metals or green metal strategy, for Europe, was approved last year in May. Since then, we have started to deliver on this strategy. And now I can tell you that our European leadership team is almost complete and we can 100% concentrate on the delivery of this strategy. If we start from Keliber, which is the lithium hydroxide project in Finland, in Kokkola, and in Kaustinen. So, the key milestone obviously is that we started the construction of the refinery this year in March. And we can say that we are very much on track with our timetable and with our budget in building up that refinery. We also think that we can in the very near future start building and we target for that still this year, also the concentrate, meaning that everything actually for the ramp-up of the refinery is ready for 2025 this year and for the concentrate, a bit more than a year after. We start with the external feed and then later on with our own ore as the concentrator is ready-built. We can also conclude that we are very much in plan when increasing our headcount. We get good manpower here. We are about 60 right now, with the target that by the end of the year we are going to be closer to 100 persons. It means also that we are attractive employer and I think not only Sibanye Stillwater, but also the industry we are representing here with battery metals is something which is very attractive for most of the skilled people in the…

Thank you very much, Mika, and good afternoon, everybody, and good morning, everybody. My name is Robert Van Niekerk, and I'm responsible for the New Century zinc tailings retreatment operations in Australia. Sibanye Stillwater acquired 100% of the Century operations effective 1 March 2023. Now, New Century is an Australian tailings management and economic rehabilitation operation, which essentially undermines (ph) 8.5 million tonnes of zinc tailings on an annual basis, and it pumps approximately 250,000 tonnes of concentrator for a distance of 300km to the Karumba port. The acquisition of the New Century resources complements very well our investment in DRDGOLD. Since acquiring the organization, we've reorganized it significantly. We've de-listed the entity. We've reconfigured the Board of Directors and we've put a more appropriate management structure in place as well. I'm sure you all know by now that we've had a challenging first half of 2023 because of regional flooding coupled with lower zinc prices. And to put the flooding event in perspective, in the first nine days of March, the mine experienced heavier rainfall than what the region has ever experienced for an entire year before. The operations were brought to a close on the 3rd of March. The team did exceptionally well and restarted the operations up by the 27th of March, and the operations resumed steady-state production again by the 20th of April. Safe to say though, during that period, we sacrificed more than 11,000 tonnes of zinc production. Since we've owned the operations or since we've acquired the operations, we have sold 27,000 tonnes of zinc and we produced the zinc at an all-in sustaining cost of $2,418 a tonne. Together with the tailings operation, we also got an option to purchase or to acquire Mt Lyell mine, which is a copper-gold mine on care and maintenance in Tasmania for which our technical team are busy completing a feasibility study now to re-explore and open on those operations. I think now, I'll hand over to Charl. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert. Good morning and good afternoon to all participants. Turning to the financial results and starting off with the now familiar capital allocation framework. We continued to deliver on capital allocation using the framework as our North Star. On project capital expenditure, spending on both Burnstone and K4 were in line with plan. The Keliber lithium project was approved in November 2022, and spending for the half year was EUR65 million against a fully funded plan for 2023 of EUR230 million. Our cash position at ZAR22 billion is still in a very healthy position. We continue with our dividend policy of returning between 25% and 35% of normalized earnings and returned ZAR1.5 billion in dividends for half one 2023. As reported by Neal, gearing at 0.01 times is extremely low despite our ongoing investments in battery metals and strategically, we will continue to optimize throughout the cycle. During this period, we further bolstered our liquidity by refinancing and upsizing our U.S. dollar revolving credit facility from $600 million to $1 billion with a three-year maturity plus two optional one-year extensions, or effectively a five-year facility. Taking into account our cash position and our committed and uncommitted credit facilities, available liquidity is approximately ZAR48 billion or roughly half a year of operational expenditure. If we now move to the financial results for half one 2023, revenue was down 14% to ZAR60 billion and this was driven by lower production from the PGM operations, and a 15% and 22% drop in the 2E and 4E basket price at the U.S. PGM and SA PGM operations respectively. Recycling receipts remained under pressure and volumes were down 58% for this period. The good news was that gold output following the strike in 2022 improved by 109% and the rand gold price was up 22%. Cost of sales at ZAR45 billion was down 4% year-on-year. This was due to lower volumes, but also due to very good variable cost control. Royalties and taxes for the six months was ZAR3.4 billion, approximately half for the same period in 2022, due to lower overall profitability. Profit for the period was ZAR7.8 billion and as reported resulted in a dividend of ZAR1.5 billion for half one, 2023. If we investigate the balance sheet, it is clear that we remain in a very robust position with very low gearing. This is not only evident in absolute terms, but also by analyzing standard balance sheet ratios. The foundation of our strong balance sheet remains our diligent and disciplined capital allocation. Additionally, timeous debt repositioning and an upsized U.S. dollar revolving credit facility provides us with significant financial flexibility. As a final message, the financial health of the business is very good. Gearing remains very low and shared value creation continues through a 35% dividend payout ratio. I will now hand you back to Neal, to conclude. Thank you, Neal.

Thank you, Charl. And I will conclude and I'm going to be very brief, starting with some adjustments to guidance. So, next Slide, please. There are three areas where we've had to revise guidance. In terms of U.S.f recycling, the market continues to remain depressed and it would be inappropriate to assume it's going to change. The South African gold operations have been impacted quite severely by the Shaft incident at Kloof 4 and there have been adjustments made to take account of that. And we've also had to adjust the -- the EU battery metals output at Sandouville. So, you can compare that to previous, let's say, guidance, and you will see the differences. In terms of concluding in a little bit more detail, I want to make the following points. I think we've clearly showed the ongoing benefits from commodity and geographical diversion -- diversification I should say since 2016. We are positioning ourselves and have been for some time for a lower price environment. We've got a resilient financial position and a ZAR22 billion or a $1.12 billion cash buffer should we -- should we ever need it. We are assessing all our operations to optimize for longer-term sustainability and constantly optimizing to improve performance. We are driving and being a catalyst for change in the challenging South African environment and I think the trends are -- are improving, still some way to go. Critical metals, as I explained towards the end of my section, is a niche market and we're well positioned in it at niche for us as a player, and that could enable medium to long-term value creation. We are definitely in the right metals and we are in the right global ecosystems, and as I pointed out, we've made these entries at the right time. We will continue to look for value accretive opportunities to increase our global portfolio, but in a downturn like this, we will be very prudent, but certainly there will be very significant opportunities. So, with that, I'd like to just advertise our Battery Metals Day on the 27th of September, 2023. Please save the date. These have been particularly successful using SFA and alluding to what our thinking is from a Company point of view, I think provides a lot of good strategic insight. And then finally just to say, let me conclude this formal presentation by asking if there are any questions. So, James, over to you.

Thanks, Neal. Yes, we do have some questions. I think we'll start on the website first, ask a few questions, and then we'll go to the phone line. So, first of all, there are some questions around which shafts at the SA PGM are currently producing at costs above spot and what optimization work will be implemented. And then also if the PGM prices dropped further, would we consider cutting production or canceling projects? If so, which would go first, and is closure cost a significant impediment to closing mines or shafts.

Thanks, James. I think I'm going to ask Rich to deal with the details. But just to say that it's been my experience over many years that you've got to take a long-term view. You've got to through cycles. It's important not to make knee-jerk reactions. For instance, projects are committed to in the longer term. They've got their own capital base and economic returns. So, you don't go and start -- you don't really start and stop projects. Of course, you can, if you really get into a very tight situation. So, we're mindful of all those things, but we don't see it as a major constraint in terms of the phase we're entering into. I would also say that mine closure costs are not prohibitive. If necessary, we will do it. But Rich, your specific view on -- on the South African PGM aspect of that question?

Yes. Thanks very much, Neal. I think -- and maybe just to pick up I guess specifically on the project side, obviously the major project we're currently developing is K4 at Marikana. Worth remembering that that's a project that's got a 50-year life and certainly one of the higher margin projects that we've got when we forecast going forward. So, certainly that's very much a through-the-cycle investment and that wouldn't change. I think in terms of what shafts are currently operating above the spot price, listen, I'd rather not go into absolute specifics on that. Clearly, there is a process that we are looking at there, but what I would say is that for many of those shafts and I guess also the question to would we cut production, in many of those instances, these are shafts that can really be rightsized in terms of focusing on higher margin and really getting the size versus the output versus the overhead cost structure right, to improve those margins. So, it's less about will they remain open or closed, but more about structuring them appropriately, which would have an impact on production, in line with I think what the market would require, but more about how we optimize those shafts rather than open or close. I think when it comes to closure, clearly, that's often more driven by reserves rather than just price. And I think with pricing, you have to look through the cycle. As we know with any shaft, there are very high barriers to entry, but also high barriers to exit. So, of course, that's managing it. When shafts come to end of their life and the reserves are gone, that is clearly when they would ultimately be closed. At present, we do have some shafts that were due to close in 2019 that we've been able to operate for a further four years. And over the next three years -- three, four years, we do have a few shafts particularly at Kroondal that have also been scheduled to close. So -- and that's due to reserves coming to an end of life rather than a price decision.

This question on the U.S. PGM business, what palladium long-term price do we use and how should we think about potential impairments at the U.S., if the prices continue decreasing?

So, James, I think we should pass that one to Charles that's his focus area.

Thanks, Neil. Firstly, our reserves are done at 12.52 yarns and what we'd be doing right now is spot prices in and around 1,200 to 1,300 is think about our business at breakeven on current spot prices. So the plan that's going in next year is doing a lot of trade-offs right now on how to make that work. I don't want to preempt where we came out on that because we've got good work on the go and we're still trying to track to our longer-term intent which we conveyed in our best last year, which is by 2027 to be up and around 700,000 ounces at around $1,000 an ounce. So we've got to get back on that track and we've had a difficult first half, but we are confident about the second half. And then when we think about the trade-offs with lower spot prices to current plan, we're well below our planned prices right now on spot. We've got a number of levers, we're obviously favoring development on an ongoing basis because to get to the 700,000, you've got to invest in these ore bodies, you've got to create the mining flexibility, primary and secondary development very critical, that's coming in at a sizable costs. So one of the levers that we will look at in the ongoing plan reviews is how to think about contractors on development, which some of them quite specialist roles but quite expensive. So that's one lever we can pull on how to favor our own people, but it's got a buildup profile that's slightly different to using contractors, but we do have that sort of lever. And then we've got a lot of cost tributes on the go right now. So obviously in a plan, you would look at your gross capital and how to phase that with lower pricing, but right now, we're looking at all spends across the business to pull back where we can. So our intent is to be making money in lower price environments like we're currently experiencing. The first half, we -- in the second quarter of the first half that was tough because it takes time to sort of turn the machine to a lower price environment than what we had planned. But I think we're in good shape on that. So, I don't know, if that answers the question, but let me pause there. Thank you.

Thanks, Charles. Some questions on the outlook for Palladium, and I guess PGMs in general. Do we see the downturn in PGMs is cyclical or structural? And what -- again on the impact on -- of a long-term downturn downcycle and extended downturn, what are we more worried about that as a market we are not thinking about? So I guess given what is our actual long-term view on PGMs and Palladium, I guess specifically, and is it cyclical or structural? I guess Richard would you be able to take that one?

Yes, I could certainly have a crack at that, and I guess in -- look in my mind, certainly, cyclical rather than structural. The long-term forecast for PGMs are well known. I guess the story around the BEVs versus ICE vehicles et cetera is after in the market. I'd almost say, I think there's more bad news in the market for PGMs than good news at the moment in terms of what we're worried about. Ultimately, PGMs I guess just at a philosophical level are such unique rare metals in terms of what they can do in catalysis, demand comes and goes, in terms of uses, often they're price-driven. So, fundamentally, I firmly believe that it's cyclical. In terms of the short-term or how we are positioning ourselves for it. As I said, I think you can see that we are taking a proactive approach, and to some extent, I guess it will be kin to Noah's rule try not to forecast the short-term where to build the ark, and that is what we're doing with our operations at the moment. But as you saw from the life of mine profile that we put out, I think we have several opportunities to be able to turn projects on quickly should that cycle turn. And I do think, as we've mentioned, that there is downside risk to the BEV penetration rates. I also think, as Neal highlighted, that there are some real downside risks to primary supply. And I think when we put that together in the medium-term, we've got quite a different outlook. In the short-term, a lot of what we've been seeing in the PGM market has still been destocking and volatility associated with return demand post-COVID, longer-term contracts that autos companies have maintained. So I think we're still seeing a lot of volatility that needs to wash out in the market over the coming few months. Neal, not sure if there's anything you'd like to add to that.

Yes, Rich. I agree with you fully. It's definitely cyclical. I think very important that we state publicly that the long-term fundamentals for PGMs remain very good. We've done a lot of analysis on what are the forms -- of how the forms of energy are going to change, and the big one is hydrogen and electricity in general, and electricity is generally -- the growth is driven through renewables. And all of those underpin some of the PGMs. Of course, we've always said Palladium has the highest risk but we're doing quite a lot of market development work on Palladium in terms of its longer-term future. But Rich, I agree with your assessment.

Thanks, Neil. And the next set of questions are around EBITDA and debt levels. So how should we think about net debt to EBITDA evolving in the next 12 to 18 months if current spot prices hold? And then on the same kind of theme, what is our net debt to EBITDA threshold should we need to gear up as a result of M&A? And also, how much net debt would we be comfortable taking on? Charl, would you take that one?

Happy with that? Thank you, James. And the evolving picture is effectively that we'll maintain our net debt to EBITDA position at a marginal net debt position. As expenditure on the projects increase, there might be some movement where the net debt to EBITDA slightly moves up, but nothing to lose sleep over. I mean, we've enjoyed a very, very sunny summer in terms of our net cash position. And clearly, we've tapped into a small net debt position now, but I think the long-term fundamentals for us is still our own internal target or our own internal comfort level, not necessarily a target because it's not something we aim for. But the comfort level sets at around one times net debt to EBITDA and that's a number we've always quoted and we've stuck to that number, and said that, we feel comfortable that that's a number that we can manage throughout the cycle.

Thanks, Charles. The next question just around the IRA credits that we got at the U.S. PGM operations, can we explain what we mean about our comments on the IRA expected to benefit the U.S. PGMs through credit of 10% of qualifying production costs for 10 years. Do we mean the government is paying for 10% of our production costs or is it the 10% loan, and assume that the Canadian mines would not benefit from this? So maybe if you can give us a bit of detail on that, Charles?

James, I'll pick up that one. So I think in short, yes, the government's effectively paying for 10% of our qualifying production cost Inflation Reduction Act was enacted in August 2022, and that did introduce several new tax credits to encourage production and sale of critical minerals of which platinum and palladium are two. In the Inflation Reduction Act was the 45x advance manufacturing production credit and that includes a credit, as we've said, equal to 10% of the qualifying production cost. Now guidance on this is still not firm and we're awaiting final guidance, but effectively government will be returning 10%. So they will be paying back 10% of our qualifying production costs. So this is not alone, and this will be in force for a period of 10 years. So if you think about this more as a grant, then that's the way to think about the advance production credit.

And Charl, as far as I know, it's really only applicable to the U.S.

That's correct. Yes, apologies. It's -- the Inflation Reduction Act is U.S. legislation and that's why it's only applicable to the U.S. at this stage.

Thanks, Charl, and that obviously aligns with the positioning ourselves in favorable ecosystems and the DOE loan that we spoke about as well at Rhyolite Ridge so that comes together quite nicely. A question probably for Richard, what drove the decrease in gold AISC given that production was lower this half than December '22 second half of '22?

Thanks, James. I think that's actually just a bit of a technicality, our produced number is obviously what is produced over the period, our all-in sustaining cost number, I guess gets calculated on sold gold and we did have some goal that carried over at the end of H2 last year into early this year. So in fact, we sold more gold in the first half of this year, which gave us a slight be slightly lower all-in-sustaining costs, an absolute cost terms between the two halves, the costs were actually quite similar.

And then some questions, and probably for you Neal is around Mopani. Do we, sorry just give me one sec, is our interest in Mopani opportunistic or do we believe it can be a great asset?

Well, it's actually both. I think, as I highlighted, Africa is becoming more and more interesting. Mopani is a great asset and has really, really high-quality resources. Copper is a metal, which we've alluded to before. Mount Lyell is an option we will most likely exercise. So we will hopefully soon have two copper assets. The Mopani process is still running as far as we know, there's really only two companies left in the process, one of them which is us, and of course, it's an opportunity to partner with the Zambian government. And you heard me speaking earlier about the importance of partnerships as opposed to buying assets from shareholders and the old adage of the pleasure's mine and the baby's yours is something we've experienced where you do that. We like to invest or earn in two projects by investing in the actual project itself form into the assets. Richard, do you want to add anything to that? You are close to the process, you're actually running it?

Neal, thanks. I think you've summed it up well. Sufficed to say, I guess in many aspects, just technically it's also a project that in many ways fits the skills and capabilities that we've developed, most notably at medium to deep level operations labor intensive. I think that's exactly where we've cut our teeth in the South African environment. And also operating in a political, social environment that is sensitive and I think it describes well to our values or our purpose of value for all stakeholders, again something we've really developed well amongst our existing operations. So it is an opportunity that fits well with our strengths and capabilities.

Richard, while we're on the topic there, just some questions on the markets, how long will OEMs destocking take place before we see prices stabilizing and improving? Do you have any views on weaker rhodium prices? And then the other question around the near-term read on PGM market demand from customers? Are we seeing incremental changes from customers requesting to take more or less material than contracted and how do we assess PGM inventory levels across the value chains? I guess, a similar question around destocking potential.

Yes. Thanks, James. I think -- I think quite difficult to give absolute numbers in this regard, that's obviously not something that's easily published and clear see-through. What we've really been seeing is that sort of contractual volumes have remained fairly steady and that has been all the way through -- through COVID, the dip in terms of demand post-COVID and into now. So, what that's telling us is that the base sort of uptake in terms of PGM remains, but what we have been seeing over the last quarter, few months, has been that the spot sales have certainly significantly weakened amongst the OEMs. And that tells us that they are currently utilizing their spare stocks ultimately to manage the volatility, which they would often normally manage through spot -- spot sales. Exactly how long it will take to washout, not a 100% sure. I think we're probably looking at a couple of quarters probably towards the end of this year. I think more specifically on the rhodium side and what impact that that was really the substitution of platinum into glass given the higher rhodium prices we've seen. And with that, a lot of stocks that were held by glass manufacturers particularly in China, that were put in -- put on the market in one go. And again that will sort of washout as part of the destocking as well. So, difficult to give an exact answer, but I guess in a couple of quarters to go.

Thanks. Neal, probably for you or maybe Grant as well can come in here. What's our view on the global PGM recycling business, and I guess how does that time with our strategy? And then the legal challenge against the Appian transaction, what's the status at the moment on that? Maybe if you can just update us on those.

Yes, perfect. And Grant please come in with your views as well. But certainly, let me start with Appian. Appian is a process that's ongoing. You may have seen that they sold the assets again. The buyer is finding difficulty in -- in funding a portion of the -- the purchase. In terms of our legal process, we are in the phase of preparing witness statements. So, we don't expect this to go to court until probably sometime next year, middle of next year. Again, we remain really confident of our -- our position, in terms of our position. In terms of global recycling, it's a business we really like, Autocat Recycling is only one part of this business, it's the part we know, and that's the part that we're going to expand, should the feasibility study in Europe turn up to create the right value. Recycling strategically, as I've mentioned, is a very important part of being a responsible miner and acknowledging the stewardship of these critical metals, that's part of the solution, if you can't get enough from primary supply, certainly, that's our responsibility as an industry to recycle what we can to add to the supply side. Of course, in certain metals that are haven't been in circulation for long, that takes time to establish. But a country like the U.S. is almost completely independent of primary supplier from outside of the U.S.-based on what's produced in the U.S. from primary supplier and of course recycling. So it's a very important part of sustainability, and as I've said, stewardship. But Grant you've been doing a lot of work on recycling in a broader context. So perhaps you can share with the audience some of your views as well.

Sure, Neal. Thanks. I think first and foremost is to address the direct question in terms of the volumes and the low volumes that we see moving through the furnaces as we speak. Our focus within the recycle segment is to remain flexible, to remain competitive and to attract additional waste streams like petcats into those bonuses. There is no doubt that the order catalytic converters that are the foundation of the business as we see it today will remain in circulation, they are in circulation and they will return to those bonuses and we are more than prepared to handle those volumes when we come. I think if you look at the business as it exists today and we recognize the opportunities, the sustainability, the certain economies that exist around the business and the importance of geographic diversification, the importance of not only relying on a sole waste streaming to be part of that energy transition going forward, you quickly start to see how the opportunities can grow and develop in this space. So we remain excited about it. I think we've got the flexibility, we've got the foundation, we know the business and we're ready for the growth and development in the segment. Thanks, Neal.

Thanks. I think let's go to the phone lines for now and then we'll come back to webcast. I see that there are some people who've got questions queuing.

Thank you. The first question comes from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities.

Yes. Thanks for the detailed presentation. Just curious a bit more about the lithium prospects. Certainly, the price outlook for lithium looks very prospective, but could you give us some idea when Sibanye-Stillwater will produce and then cost to highlight and sort of EBITDA efforts that generates that's up? And then for Charl, just curious do you consider what you think about the balance sheet going forward spots carrying will rise, and given the level been so high good year and can change very quickly. So I was just wondering that where the [indiscernible] are at please? Thanks.

Yes. Thanks, Adrian. And I'm actually going to ask Mika to comment on the lithium market. Just so everybody knows within the company, we have commodity champions who are responsible for ensuring they understand the supply and demand. Richard is our commodity champion on PGMs, Mika is our commodity champion on lithium, and Nicole, he runs those parts of the business and Charles is our gold commodity champion, also note Mika has done some, let me say, very preliminary estimates of what the EBITDA could look like from Keliber, Rhyolite Ridge it's a little bit early, Adrian, to give you any sort of guidance there. But Mika please comment.

Thanks, Neal, and hello, Adrian. Maybe just to start with some comments about the general market, as you have heard already couple of times so we are not as positive as the most positive outlooks are stating about electric vehicle volumes, and the reason being that there is just not enough metals. And this outlook is going to give a little bit different growth than in most of the forecast. However, the growth is still significant. Right now, we are having 40% growth in the EV penetration in different markets. Lithium is obviously a key for the current technologies, and we believe that lithium is also key metal in the future technologies. We see a very strong position for lithium and nickel, there will be other technologies as well. However, they are going to be very complementary in this situation where we need to go down with the CO2 and we need to help this transition to the electric vehicles. Keliber is the project in Europe, as you know, and Keliber is aiming to a 15,000 tonnes production ramping up '25. Now this is only a small part of the production and supply that could be used by European customers in the future. So there is a lot of more demand in lithium hydroxide than what we can produce, but at the same time, I can say that we can grow in lithium as well. So we are doing a lot of exploration, and first, we need to get Keliber right which we will do, and then we can grow in this space and there is a lot of good room for that and coming synergies as well. Concerning the numbers, we have good EBITDA levels there and obviously, everything is depending on the price. If we look at the current forecast towards 2030, so the consensus is everything between 40,000 and 20,000, we believe that it's going to be 30,000 plus the price of lithium, and in our own model, we have been using flat 26,000, so we have been very conservative in this one. And in all the cases, we can clearly produce EBITDA in absolute terms clearly more than ZAR200 million in the future as a yearly when we have full production in the current class.

And Mika, just to confirm, that's EUR200 million or $200 million EBITDA. And Adrian, Charl is probably best placed to pick up the second part of your question.

Yes. Thank you, Neal. And. Hi, Adrian. Yes, Adrian, obviously, if we just continue to manage the business as is and just take into account the effects of spot prices, then clearly that will have an impact on our gearing. However, this is a position that's not unfamiliar to ourselves, and clearly as we move forward, we will reevaluate what our triggers and our levers are, that we can pull to preserve that balance sheet flexibility. But as we've said, we've got significant liquidity, Adrian, at this year probably sitting at around half a year of operating expenditure, but not a position that we'll just sit on our hands. We will actively manage it. You would know that as a mining business, there are different levels of cost being production-critical, and then as you move further from the shaft head, there are costs that we can start addressing. So, we will actively start managing that, but also not to the detriment of the operations. So, it's more watching brief and careful planning going forward.

Thanks. Are there further questions from the phone lines?

Yes. There are, sir. The next question comes from Raj Ray of BMO Capital Markets.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, Neal and team. My first question is, looking at your portfolio, Neal, I mean there's a PGM which accounted for close to 84% of your Group EBITDA. I mean that part of your portfolio is really working well. The remaining part of the portfolio seems to have an out -- like outsized impact on your shippers' performances going by happening today. I mean how do you address that? I mean you had highlighted steady state costs for the U.S. PGM and SA Gold operations, you are still far off from there. I do understand some of those external factors including Keliber shortage, not only in the U.S., I mean one of your peers in the gold operations, Goldfield, put it -- highlighted the skill shortage at South Deep. I mean, what's the timeline -- or sort of timeline you have in terms of, let's say, reducing your cost and can you even go back to the cost that you had highlighted 12 months or 18 months ago for these operations? And the second part is, at what point, specifically for the gold operations, do you look at other strategic options? I understand you -- you see that as a kind of a cyclical part of your portfolio. But if it doesn't perform as you expect, what are the strategic options are you willing to consider? So, that's one, first of my question. I understand there is multiple parts to it. The other, I'll ask on your green metals portfolio after this.

Okay, perfect. Thanks, Raj, and good morning. Look, let me say that, if you look at some of the graphs I presented earlier, sorry, let me take a step back, you're spot on in that our South African PGM business is the mainstay of our business and is a very solid producer, but the fact that it's based in South Africa creates its own overhang with all our eggs effectively in one basket, we fully understand that, and our aim -- our strategic aim is to get a more geographical production base contributing to earnings to reduce the dependency on the South African PGM business. And let me say, we're working towards that and we believe we can get there. Let me talk about some of the time frame, so you would see -- we've looked at many strategic copper options where our gold business and the one that we are proposing that is in the best interest of shareholders is based on the graph that I showed right at the beginning of my section. We assured that the majority of our gold business is actually very profitable, and with some minor restructuring or minor optimization, I think we can deliver a very different, let's say, value proposition, and we can do that, and Richard is working on it probably within about six to nine months, nine months on the very outside, six months I think is doable. And that's not just, let me call it, the marginal sort of changes you think about maybe cutting out our non-profitable production, it's a complete change in philosophy in terms of how we run that business because you've got to address the overheads and we've got some ideas there, and Richard is working on that. In the U.S., we are absolutely convinced…

Further questions from the line?

[indiscernible] portfolio. One is just a clarification on the appeals at Keliber, also the understanding that while the future outstanding, you cannot stop the mining or the growth development of the concentrator. Can you comment on that? And the second question is on Mopani, do you have a sense on how long does government's process is going to take before they announce who the winning bidder is going to be? And then again, assuming Sibanye is the winning party, are you looking to partner with somebody on that project or are you going to or are you looking to go ahead with it by yourself?

Yes. That's a good question as well. So let me start with Mopani and Mika if you can just ready yourself for the question on the permit. In terms of Mopani, yes, we are looking to partner with a company. One thing I should have pointed out, when I mentioned this tug of war that's occurring between the east and the west and the role that Africa is going to play in terms of providing solutions. The one thing -- the one competitive edge, and I think it's probably the only competitive edge we have as South Africans at the moment is that we can be this bridge between the east and the west. So although, we're a western-facing company, I do think we can involve eastern companies as partners, and to some extent, that goes a long way to resolving a conflict that the Zambian government are probably dealing with because they also have relationships with the east and the west. So yes, we do have a partner and we think we've put in a very good offer, it's probably not the best offer, but as Richard said, our ability to -- and our track record of handling these difficult socioeconomic type of situations stands us in very good stead. In terms of the timing, I think we are pretty close probably in the next, I would say, two to three weeks of having an outcome. Now, when I say an outcome that would be an outcome of then negotiating, let's call it, the stability side of an arrangement with the government. To date, it's really been a focus on the actual assets. We haven't had the stability discussions that are absolutely necessary to provide us with the appropriate comfort and the right commercial environment to conclude the transaction. I think we found the process good, fair and our relationships with the government and ZTCMO are very good. So Raj, that's about all I can say on Mopani for now. Probably one thing I should say, because I don't want to create an overhang on our stock. I tried to allude to the type of transaction structures that we consider when we do transactions of this nature is that we prefer working with partners and we prefer working with partners and we prefer earning in. So, please don't factor into your thinking a large capital outlay upfront. These assets require significant capital investment, but it's going to come over a good number of years. So, please keep that in mind as well. Mika, do you want to just comment on the permitting and the fact that we can continue construction even with the small permit dispute.

Yes, with pleasure. The thing is that we have those appeals, but we have also an enforcement order in place and these processes how they normally go forward, is that the Administrative Court if they see a reason to take it away, they take it away after the appeals. Our dialog with the Administrative Court has been very professional and they are not planning to take the enforcement order away. So, actually, we see that we can do the construction of the concentrator and the mine and the refinery and the whole project exactly as it was planned. Thank you.

Are any further more?

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

Hi. Good afternoon, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for the call. I'll make it brief, because I know it's gone on for a while. Just two questions from me. Just to go back to the balance sheet and the earlier comments around the net debt to EBITDA positioning. I know that there is a potential large payment that would be triggered on the Rhyolite ridge when the environmental approvals come. I think it was last guided to around $500 million, potentially higher than that. That or any other acquisitions you're looking at, would you look to equity fund those rather than fund them through debt? That's the first question. And then the second question is, just New Century, $28 million EBITDA negative in the first half, and over $600 million in -- ZAR600 million in free cash flow, sorry. Clearly, we had some one-off incidences. So, could you just give us a bit of guidance on kind of the, what the glide path this year to kind of free cash flow breakeven or profitability or if you can't really give that, I mean, just what kind of a zinc price do you require for that business to be able to stand alone? Thank you.

Perfect. Thanks. Thanks, Chris. And Charl, please come in. I'm just going to -- to make a general comment. I think, Chris, it's highly unlikely we will use equity at these levels. I did see on the webcast a question about share buybacks, that would be a much better use of proceeds. But I also don't want to create the impression that there is an endless supply of debt. I think we will be prudent, as you know, there are a number of ways also funding these without resorting to vanilla debt, if I could call it that, but Charl -- and then Rob, I think it would be prudent for you to comment on New Century Resources. But again, let me just make a general comment, we are acutely aware of the one-offs that of course the pain, but as we all know, this is mining, and if you keep on having one-offs, they cannot become excuses. If we are serious about preserving value, we will not hesitate to close down underperforming assets. Now let me make that general comment, the same can be said for Sandouville, we went through a phase of issues beyond our control such as riots, such as, well, riots and the socioeconomic issues in France were beyond our control, but they were maintenance issues that resulted in electrowinning cells not being available. There's only so much we are going to accept and a number of our operations have been put on notice that by year-end, if these one-off events or if there is no reasonable prospect under these depressed commodity prices, they will be put on care and maintenance. So we don't take that lightly, but we are not going to burn cash and we look at it, we actually know exactly what each one of these operations cost us in, let's call it, dividends, we could have paid a higher dividend. So we understand that fully, but that's a general comment that applies not only to New Century Resources, not only to Sandouville but could even apply to the U.S. PGM business. I'm confident in all of them having been, let's say, addressed and having plans that get us much closer to at least a breakeven situation. But Rob coming on New Century, but Charl just pick up on the balance sheet and the use of equity as well, please.

Yes. Thanks, Neal, and I think you've summed it up. I mean, obviously, equity is not a currency for us at this moment and we have factored in the Rhyolite ridge payments and Chris, just to remember that, I mean from when we receive the permitting, that $500 million will obviously be phased in roughly over a two-year period. So, it's not necessarily a bullet payment, so it can be funded from a combination of depending on commodity prices and where they play out, but it can be a combination funded through earnings and then vanilla debt. Thanks, Neal.

Thanks, Charl. Rob?

Thank you, Neal, and hello, Chris. The Century operations have come out of a particularly difficult period of the month, also absolutely they have little bit of cash. Going forward, are seen possibly to actually stop and we've run our numbers at future consensus price and just as a matter of interest, that's about $1.30 per pound, and that's [Technical Difficulty]

Is that just Rob that we've lost?

Hello, Neal, are you still there?

Yes. We're still here. James, are we still online?

Yes. We are online. We can hear Rob.

Okay. James, I'm sorry for that. As fate would have it, as soon as I started talking, we had lightening, so I was actually cut off and I had to go onto an alternate system. I don't know if you got that message. But my message was that, at consensus pricing, the operation shouldn't really mean more and the operation should wash their face currently, the operations will wash their faces going forward.

Thanks, Rob.

I believe we've got two more calls on the line. Two more people asking questions.

Correct, sir. The next question comes from Cameron Needham of Bank of America.

Thanks very much for the presentation. Just two quick questions from me. Firstly on Sandouville. Just on the back of the cut to production guidance and some of the issues that you've outlined in your presentation, are you still confident in delivering the anticipated improvement of asset performance longer term? And what are some of these headwinds that change the picture? And then just secondly, is the amount of management time that asset turnaround is demanding, is it kind of proportionate to the amount of capital and potential returns you see from the asset that it could generate? Thanks very much.

Perfect. Thanks. Thanks, Cameron. And Mika, you are probably best placed to answer that question. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Neal. And thanks for the question. As we mentioned earlier, we have a completely new management team now in place and actually, they have started to work at the very end of March this year on different options for Sandouville, and as we call optimization of the plant. And that means that the work will be done later this year and we will also come with a comprehensive plan how and what are we actually doing in order to radically improve the performance of the plant. Today, we are working with options through modeling. We are going through the mass balance sheet, we are doing very professional and careful work, which we are taking seriously. So, today we are not in a position to give you an understanding of the long-term returns. But later on this year, we will tell you how and what we are going to do.

Thanks. Thanks, Mika.

Thank you. And the last caller?

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

Hi. Good afternoon, guys. So, I've got a few questions. The first one is, if PGM prices do not recover from these levels, how long would it take in your quest to turn around your Stillwater's operation to reach sort of a free cash flow breakeven level? And then my second question is, I'm just mindful of that slide you presented around this time last year with the restructuring of Stillwater, you gave that sort of balanced outlook for palladium, and I'm just curious as to whether if you could go back in time and face the decision of funding the tri-metallic catalyst, if you would still fund it or how you would maybe change your approach given what it's done to the palladium market? I think I'll stop there in the interest of time.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Leroy. And Charles, if you can just prepare yourself for the -- how long it will take, assuming the PGM price recovery to get to a breakeven price. But Leroy, on the tri-metal catalyst, we had a situation where the -- the demand across the basket was unsustainable. So, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have still pushed for the tri-metal catalyst, the -- the substitution of palladium with platinum. Obviously, the price differential today is less of an incentive for that to happen, but I also want to say that I don't believe that has really been the driver of the decreasing palladium price. And Richard, perhaps you want to just come in on that, but really, we really do approach the business on with sustainability and that's the fundamental in terms of whatever we do. But Rich, your views on palladium price, I don't believe it's driven by the tri-metal substitution, that's probably had very little impact, before you come in Charles.

Yes. Thanks very much Neal, and Leroy. I think to answer your question directly, absolutely, we still would have done it. I think what's critical in PGMs is that ultimately you're looking at a basket. So that basket that gets produced in a certain ratio and the better that you can manage that basket balance is better for both producers and ultimate end users. And essentially what that technology does is gives us flexibility to be able to manage that balance. So, I certainly think that helped when needed. I think what we're going to see is a lot less substitution, because clearly the price differential between platinum and palladium has now come right down. But it does also give us an opportunity moving forward that should we need to reverse, that will go back, that technology now exists. We're doing some of the research and market development in other PGM metals as well, where demand for select of the more minor metals, iridium, ruthenium’s, etc., where future demand is looking like it could be very tight and how can we balance that with other PGMs, that's the beauty of these metals is that they can substitute each other. And I think the more we work on that, the better it is for the overall basket going forward and we always need to look at this as a basket. Ultimately, it will come back to some level of parity. So, I still think that was absolutely key research and I don't think it's been a fundamental driver. I think at the moment, the fundamental driver on palladium is more around the destocking in the short term. And I think people are taking a very long-term view on the down -- sort of downgrade of ICE vehicles, which, as you've heard today, I think we filed as bearish on the ICE vehicles. In fact, I think we're a bit more bullish than most. So, I can see that balance working, but yes, it's a good -- it was still a good investment and one I think we'd still make.

Thanks, Richard. Charles?

Yes. Thanks, Neal. And Leroy to your question, earlier I gave a comment on the sort of medium-term plan work underway and the trade-offs that we're still working through. But I think you should be under no illusions that right now, we're looking to make cash at depressed prices in real-time. So, it takes a bit of time to shift there given what we've planned for the year, but I am encouraged by what I'm seeing July through August and the team is very mindful of a strong second half, so we're not looking to continue to lose cash if we can help it. And I think Neal gave you a very clear sense that every cost element is under review, so we are not just working on the mining tradeoffs and the development tradeoffs and the capital tradeoffs, we are working on all the levers to be pulled across the Montana set-up to reduce our cost profile and -- and to make cash as we have historically done. So, I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing for the remainder of this year. And given the skills shortage, this is not a scenario where you cut labor in the hourly paid, our hourly paid being miners, mechanics, geologists, etc. This is where you pull very different levers and some of those we are still building, so our whole procurement strategy has big levers that will -- that will unlock value longer term. But right now we're moving from decentralized mine-based procurement to centralized regional procurement. Good work on the go and that goes for the HR strategies, it goes to all the support strategies across the two operations. These have historically been fairly decentralized. That has its merits, but actually what we need in depressed prices is bigger levers that you…

Thanks. I think that's the last question that's on the call lines. I think we do have to wrap it up. We have been going on for quite some time. There was a question around New Century, but I think we've said that we're still integrating and obviously doing a feasibility study on Mount Lyell. So, we'll release more information when we've completed that feasibility study. There were some questions on the buybacks, I think Neal, you already responded to those. And then some PGM market questions which we'll respond to directly. So, at this point, I think we'll wrap it up. Neal, I'm not sure if you have any final words before we wrap up the session.

No, just to -- it's been a long session. So, thank you for your patience and we appreciate your time and we look forward to delivering an improved result at year-end. So, thank you and have a good and safe day.