Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our 2023 H2 and Year End Presentation. Please take note of the international piggyback. We gave considerable thought as to what would be the appropriate way to signal our focus on the balance sheet and we thought this was the most appropriate way to indicate our focus. For a challenging 2024, we are not trying to create a silk purse out of a sow's ear. So let's move on. First of all, please take note of the safe harbor statement. There are lots of forward-looking statements, especially around what the markets may or may not do. What we intend to cover today is, I will go through the salient features of 2023. We want to start with it all starts and ends in the market. We really just want to focus on the PGM market. I think that is the priority. We want to share with you our proactive focus and our protection of the balance sheet. That is definitely our priority for 2024. I will also discuss a concept that I introduced, at the last presentation, a little bit more on resource stewardship. I will then hand over to Charl Keita, our CFO, who will do the financial review. Charl will hand over to the Chief Regional Officers, Richard, Charles, Mika, and Robert for the operational review. And then I will pick up again to conclude today's presentation. So let's, just look at the salient features, for the year ended 31 December, 2023. I think in terms of embedding ESG as the way we do business and work, we certainly can celebrate a record low serious injury frequency rate. Unfortunately, we did suffer regression in fatalities year-on-year, predominantly due to the Burnstone Conveyor contractor incidents -- incident, where we unfortunately lost four human lives.…

Thank you, Neal. Good morning and good afternoon to all participants. Having now spent almost 30 years in the mining industry, you very quickly learn that summers are short half of 2023, financially speaking, we enter a period which is beginning to feel like autumn as we saw a pullback in commodity prices, specifically PGMs. This has had a significant impact on our results, as you will see during the financial review. Our balance sheet remained strong and we maintained our financial flexibility. However, for the first time in four years, we moved into a net debt position. Net debt to adjusted EBITDA increased to 0.58x and this was driven predominantly by lower commodity prices, capital expenditure and timing of year end payments. Now debt maturities, as can be seen on the slide, remains manageable. Gross debt, including borrowings, increased by approximately R15 billion and this was due to R4 billion drawn under the Rand revolving credit facility due to earlier payments in December 2023 associated with the South African mines closing around '23 December. We also issued the convertible bond at the end of 2023. Cash on hand was at R25.5 billion and net debt was just under R12 billion. Liquidity still remains very strong and we have headroom of just under R50 billion which is split roughly half cash and half available facilities. Our North Star remains the capital allocation framework and the decisions taken around cost cuts and production rightsizing base testimony. Looking at project capital, Burnstone has been slowed down and we will continue to review this based on the financial position of the group. For now, we will continue with our two major projects, K4 and Keliber. If we look at stakeholder shared value, as stated and based on the financial performance and in line…

Thank you very much, Charl, and good afternoon or good morning ladies and gentlemen. It gives me real pleasure today to share with you our operational update. I will specifically be sharing some of the group safety and South African regional update. I'll then hand over to Charles to talk us through the Americas region. Grant will update us on the recycling, and then Mika on the EU region, and finally Robert will pick up on the Australian region. Thank you very much. So I guess just starting off with what is our number one priority both on our operations and as a group in terms of safety. 2023 was really a story of two tales. I think it was very regrettable that we saw an increase in the number of fatal incidents that we had from five in 2022 to eight in 2023. Very sadly, one of these incidents was a multiple fatal where we tragically lost four contracting colleagues when a conveyor belt that was under construction at Burnstone collapsed. Our sincere condolences go to the families and friends of all of our lost colleagues. I think while the number of fatal incidents experienced is deeply regrettable and I think it was took a hard toll on the team. We have since 2022 been implementing our fate elimination strategy. And I do think that there are many underlying trends that show us that we are progressing well along this journey. This strategy at its heart really looks at eliminating high energy or high risk incidents, and we mitigate against those risks through our critical controls of behaviors and also through our management routines that make sure we enable safe work. Some of the trends that we have seen that tell us we're on the right journey would be…

Thank you, Richard. We've obviously come off a challenging year with production just over 427,000 ounces. We lost almost 25,000 ounces due to the shaft incident at Stillwater Mine, which impacted the West Mine in particular. The average basket price declined 33% year-on-year to $1,243 an ounce. And we're obviously very focused right now on a 2E basket price in the 900s, which means that we have to continue to both meet the new plan that we've put on the table and indeed move beyond it where we can with an ongoing focus on costs in particular. Importantly, we did significant restructuring late last year. We restructured the leadership team. We took out the CEO position with the GM's reporting direct to Kevin Robertson. We strengthened the central technical function in the [indiscernible] and we did a number of other streamlining adjustments to the leadership spans of control and accountabilities. More than adjusting the leadership team, we revised the mine plan significantly with a lower for longer production profile and we constrained near-term growth and deferred growth capital, knowing that we can come back at this as prices permit. We also did a workforce restructuring. We took out 270 contractors and 100 employees for a workforce reduction of around 16%. This was well executed by the teams. And I want to thank all employees for their responsible approach to this reality and in particular to the United Steelworkers for the professional manner in which they dealt with a difficult situation. The revised plan is starting to see an estimated $400 an ounce benefit on all-in sustaining costs. We are continuing to work on ways to improve this with every cost element currently in focus. We have already seen a reduction in gross mining costs of around 19% over the past…

It has been a cause for concern. PGMs from recycle totaled just over 310,000 3E ounces, 48% down on 2022 and influenced by a relentless and complex set of factors within the U.S. auto industry. Towards the end of 2022, a notable dip in the U.S. auto sales became apparent, driven by compressed disposable income levels, heightened financing costs and near record vehicle prices that deterred potential new vehicle purchases. Today, buyers grapple with the same impact of interest rates on car loans with average vehicle prices hovering around $48,000. These factors have no doubt contributing to various recyclers in the value chain. Beyond the macroeconomic complexities, lifestyle changes post-COVID, including increased remote work and reduced driving have led to a shortage of end-of-life vehicles. Consumers are running their vehicles for longer periods and our customers are confirming average scrappage rates moving from averages of 12 to 15 years to beyond 20 years. In 2022, our adjusted EBITDA stood at $78 million whereas in the current period, it's been adjusted to $33 million following a 24% drop in the average realized 3E dollar price received and a 45% decrease in the volume fed. Despite encountering volume challenges over the past three years, we maintain an optimistic outlook grounded in the resilience of our recycling platform to facilitate sustained growth within the circular economy. Several factors bolster our confidence, including palladium and rhodium in the short term. Additionally, the dissipation of China's destocking cycle downgrades in battery electric vehicle sales, potential Fed rate drops, recategorization of hybrid sales as ICE vehicles, and IRA credits applicable to both battery electric vehicles and plug in hybrid electric vehicles, all contributing to this positive outlook. Moreover heightened auto catalyst loadings to mitigate emissions and supply cutbacks further reinforce this position. Our outlook is underpinned by a comprehensive assessment of the order catalyst recycling landscape, with upside potential anticipated following Reldan's integration as we explore consolidation opportunities, the integration of collector and logistics networks and anticipated resurgence in volumes. Over to you, Mika.

Thank you, Grant and hello, everybody. In Europe, we continued to implement our battery metals strategy during 2023 and our battery metals strategy is concentrated actually to two ecosystems for the time being. One of them being in France and the other one being in Finland. And when we talk about what we have achieved so far, we talk about mainly two assets, which are the Sandouville nickel refinery in Sandouville, France and then the Keliber project in Finland, in Kokkola and in Kaustin. If we start what was positive in Sandouville last year was actually the safety development. So in recordable incidents, we did better than '22. That tells a lot about the employee's discipline, and I'm really happy about that trend, what we have there. Operationally, it was a big disappointment, Sandouville last year. We were badly hit by the decline. We started our hedging only in the mid of the year and also related bad market conditions when it comes to product pricing. We also had a big impact in our variable cost mainly due to inflation in the post war market. And also, we had a lot more maintenance than we thought we would need in order to stabilize the production during last year. However, we decided already in the beginning of the year to do a strategic review of the asset and the different options we have. So we have been doing a lot of work with the different visions for Sandouville including the current business model which we didn't find long-term viable. Also we have been looking into a possible closure of Sandouville and then we have been looking into alternatives where we have a different feed and different end products for Sandouville. What has been encouraging is that, we decided that the most…

Hello, everybody, and thank you very much, Mika. I'll talk to the Century zinc retreatment operation and the Mount Lyell Copper Project. We acquired a majority interest of New Century Resources in March 2023 and 100% ownership of New Century Resources on 15 May, 2023. Since then, we have restructured the company to optimize both the regional as well as operational efficiencies. And I can report that the integration is progressing well. As of March, we have produced 76,000 tonnes of payable zinc metal and an all in sustaining cost of less than $2,000 per ton. Over the same period, we have sold 77,000 tonnes of zinc metal. As we've reported previously, adverse weather, in fact, the worst storms on record for that particularly -- particular area strongly affected production in H1 2023. Having said that, assisted by good cost control measures, adjusted EBITDA are returned positive by Q4 2020. Capital expenditure over the period was $9 million. This included $6 million sustaining CapEx and $3 million growth project CapEx. We have now also acquired 100% of the Mount Lyell copper project in Tasmania and are busy conducting a feasibility study, which will be completed by the end of the first half of this year. Having said that, I'll hand over to Neal to conclude. Thank you.

Thanks, Rob. And, let me wrap up with some brief conclusions. So with the photograph of the Keliber refinery well progressing in Finland. Let me, just bring up what I think the key messaging you should take away from today's presentation. So, we have delivered on guidance. We had a solid operational year. Financially, of course, we were impacted by lower commodity prices in fact all around. But we ended up with a net debt to adjusted EBITDA of just under 0.6x. And I think that that was a good operational outcome under the circumstances. Hopefully, you've seen the proactive austerity measures that we implemented, essentially over the last 18 months, recognizing the potential for a global economic downturn. That has resulted in savings on both the costs and, of course, rescheduling of capital to date of just over R6.6 billion or $375 million. Very, very significant. Doesn't mean we've arrived. There's continuous ongoing assessment of all operations and projects and investments to further ensure longer term, sustainability. I do hope that the analysis on really just the PGMs, show that the fundamentals remain sound. And we've been very consistent in our view over the last few years about these fundamentals, about the fundamentals that underpin, battery metals. And today we didn't cover lithium. But lithium also has in our view, good long term fundamentals. But we need to batten down the hatches for this year and work through this, destocking phase. But lots of positive signs on the horizon. Strategically, we're absolutely convinced be in the right metals at the right time. We're in the right global systems. We've chosen the right partners. Also, at the right time, having identified multipolarity as a gray elephant. We are prepared for lower earnings in 2024, predominantly due to current commodity prices. And we are being very circumspect about M&A. But it's also prudent to ensure that we do not miss county -- countercyclical opportunities to diversify and grow our global portfolio. I think it should have come across that we are disciplined. We are focused on the strategic ascent essentials. We are very transparent in capital allocation and in fact, in terms of our strategic thinking. And, I want to finish with saying, the antifragility journey continues. And the strategic essentials and the focus on the balance sheet remain our priority for 2024. So with that, over to you, James, for Q&A. Thank you.

Thanks, Neal. I'll try and find similar questions together just to save a bit of time. We'll first ask from the webcast, and then we'll go to some of the call questions on Chorus Call. So first of all, first up is, it's about Stillwater. At what level -- which level of palladium price will the still water operations be forced to cease production? When are you looking to turn positive from a bottom line point of view at Sandouville? Are you still looking for acquisitions? And at what level of price so let me just keep the Stillwater ones first. So what level of palladium price will the Stillwater operations be forced to cease production? CapEx is being guided to decline by 50% year-on-year. Can you specify which initiatives are behind this decrease? And then all in sustaining costs are far higher at in the U.S. and in South Africa. Why are the PGM costs in the USA so much higher than in SA? And it looks like a bad investment to me. So I guess the question is, what's our sense on costs at Stillwater and perspective on the future and on the value of the investment there, please?

So, James, let me start. And, Charles, if you could also come in at the right time. Listen, first of all, it's absolutely not a bad investment. I think it's pretty well known by now that, Stillwater has paid for itself. So we've got a high quality ore body with 50 years of life. I mean that's not a bad investment. So I think the challenges in the short term to get the cost structure down to a level where the operations are at least washing their face. And I believe that is possible. And certainly, I think, with the -- with enough time, Charles and his team could get that cost structure down to $1,000, a two-year ounce. But, Charles, you can you can comment on that. Just in terms of your question on the very different cost structures between South Africa, and the U.S., that is real. They're two very different operations. The workforce is different. It's less labor intensive. It's more mechanized, and that is the nature of the cost structures in the U.S. I think it's important to realize that that higher cost structure is also offset by a grade that is roughly 3x higher than what we mine in South Africa. So it's horses for courses, and none of the fact that it has a higher cost base shouldn't be seen as a business that is not well run. But, Charl's, over to you on some of the other aspects, and perhaps you can confirm, your planning, to get the cost even lower and [indiscernible].

Thanks, Neal. Well, let me just pick up firstly on the capital shift question year-on-year? So I touched briefly in the presentation on the fact that we put in a lot of infrastructure through last year. These were big capital items. So the vent infrastructure at both operations, we did the met furnace rebuild. And those kinds of things are behind us. So the stay in business capital has moved from a $118 million down to $54 million. And so that's a good set of decisions for this plan for this year. So we're not really shortchanging anything there, but we've been very prudent on what we want to spend on this year. The growth capital, we have pushed out without sacrificing future growth, and we can do that for a year or so. And we also did accomplish quite a lot of growth capital through last year at the East Boulder tailings building the like. I think the shift really is also within ORD. So that's R211 million down to R94 million. So our flag that we've kept the total development pretty much the same year-on-year. However, we've changed the mix within the development. So, we've reduced primary development, and we've weighted heavily towards secondary. Secondary, it's really like comparing your cross cutting a South African operation. So it's giving you access into the ore. And we've really created the flexibility to do some of that through last year. And now we're really pushing on that, and we're also favoring grade. And obviously, there's a cost component to that. So that's really the key shift there. I think to go back to Neal's question, I mean, nobody in Montana is complacent about a two year ounce price reality in the 950 or thereabouts. So we've got lots of work to do, but there's no silver bullets here. We -- I'm looking forward just getting to Q1, and you've been able to see that we've done quite a lot of heavy lifting from Q4 to Q1 to get production on track and to get our costs moving in the right direction. And obviously, we have more work to do. But, ultimately, you need that longer term lift towards higher volumes over the medium term to get your unit cost down. But we are already moving in that direction. And we pull in every cost lever we can. And the challenge is to get to breakeven. It's very, very difficult in the 900. But you will see the directional shift and you'll see the delivery, and I'd rather have the runs on the Board and talk to that outcome than speculate. Thank you.

Thanks, Charles. The next set of questions has to do with free cash flow generation, and what the annual cash burn of the group will be for 2024 at current spot prices. And then linked to that, have we done enough to curtail loss making operations? And, would we consider rights issue, or can some CapEx plans be deferred?

Yes. So, again, let me just lead into that. And, Charl -- sorry, if you wouldn't mind picking up. I think that the restructuring we've done is appropriate for where we are. I think if I didn't get the message across in terms of the market, I don't believe that the current depressed environment is an environment that's going to be with us for a long period of time. Having said that, doesn't mean that we're betting the farm on improving or increasing basket prices. But I think, we're in this for the long run. We are not going to damage our business by taking, knee jerk reactions. I think in terms of the question on, let me call it other levers or perhaps even when you refer to a rights issue, Of course, we're very familiar with rights issues. We've done them. But I would say that's something that is, well down the line and something that, if we are wrong on the fundamentals that underpin, the PGM markets, we may have to resort to, but it's not something we are considering now. Charl will share with you a number of levers that we can still pull on the revenue side, which we will do in the next probably three to six months. But, Charl, over to you on some of the more specifics.

Yes. Thank you, Neal. And, yes, I mean looking forward to 2024 and using our budgeted assumptions plus the guidance that we've put out today. We estimate the cash burn somewhere between R8 billion and R10 billion for the year. So if we look at our budgeted assumptions, PGM prices are slightly lower than what we had in our budget. But the gold prices are significantly higher. I mean, in fact today almost 28%, 29% higher. So I mean, we are well aware of the challenges with that amount of cash burn. But I mean, the levers we can pull and I think that's been evident through the levers that we've already pulled, is obviously looking at how we allocate capital, how we spread capital, and possibly how we defer capital. Historically, we've also looked at other sources of financing, and there's a couple of vanilla ones, and those would typically be looking at. And that's more sourcing liquidity, but those can come in the form of prepays. Historically, we've looked at streams. But as Neal says, rights issue, as I said earlier to somebody, that's probably the fourth or the fifth parachute that you want to pull. Thanks, James.

Thanks, Charl. The next set of questions are related to the Rhyolite Ridge and Keliber. So how do we plan to fund the equity injection to Rhyolite Ridge and what structure would funding at Keliber take and then do recent developments in Finland change the timeline for this funding needed for Keliber. And then similarly question on, the refinery at Keliber coming online before the mines. Do we have plans to process third-party materials and the status of Rhyolite Ridge? So perhaps we can just…

Let me kick off and Charles, you're welcome to add to Charles and Robert. You're both intimately involved on Rhyolite Ridge and Mika, obviously, on Keliber. So let me just say very broadly, as Charles said, we're not hell bent on growth. We are not hell bent on acquisitions this year, and the message that, that I tried to convey, through the presentation is that our balance sheet takes first and foremost priority. So when it comes to Keliber or [indiscernible] for Rhyolite Ridge, it'll be very carefully considered, at the right time. However, let me say that the Keliber project is well on its way. It was always intended to fund the initial portions of Keliber using equity, which is being done and will carry us through probably to the middle of the year. The financing of Keliber through alone is also well advanced, and on Rhyolite Ridge. It's a great project. We the ioneer team. It's a project that deserves to be built. There is an impending record of decision, towards the end of the year. We will consider our role based on the economics of that project just like any other partner would. And I've always maintained that the funding of a good project, even in tough times is achievable based on good economics. You can fund just about everything, as long as the economics are sound. And we expect the economics of Rhyolite Ridge to be sound. So it is financeable. And again, we will make those decisions, towards the end of the year. Mika and Charles, Robert, anything you want to add?

Thank you, Neal. I think you covered it well. But maybe I just add there that concerning this permitting situation, I just want to repeat the fact that we are doing this overall assessment whether it has any impact on the Keliber project timeline or not. And that is ongoing work. And at the same time, I just want to highlight to everybody that we have the permits. The crude rolling didn't have any impact on the [indiscernible] mine permit nor on the refinery in Kokkola permit. So those are all valid. So there we can move according to the plan. And I think there was also a question concerning the external feed and that's right. We are starting with the external feed as from 25 to ramp up to production. That plan is still valid and we have a couple of alternatives where we are going to get that feed from. Thank you.

Yes, spot on. And I think it's important just to note that, that was in my mind a very smart and appropriate decision to use third-party concentrate to prove up the technology, debottleneck, debug what will inevitably be a challenging start up. But it's also profitable to start up that plant in that way. So that third-party concentrate start-up was a very, I think prudent approach to starting up Keliber. Charles, anything you want to add on?

No, Neal. I think you've nailed it and important decisions late here. We're excited about what we're seeing and we have a good partner. So time will tell. Thank you.

Thank you. The next, I think let's go to the phone lines to Chorus Call, please for the next series of questions and we'll come back to the webcast questions.

You've taken quite an watering impairment at Stillwater, R38.9 billion. I see from the notes that you're assuming a $1,281 an ounce basket price, which is quite high than spot. Could you give us some details around what you have assumed around production volumes and level of CapEx relative to today into the future in that calculation? That's the first. Second question is PGM costs, I see you've guided this high 9% to 12% year-on-year. I'm surprised by that. You obviously restructured those four shafts this last year. I would have expected that to be lower. And then the final one, I guess maybe perhaps less a question than just a comment, is that ultimately, we have probably market has been quite disappointed, I think by the level of net debt both free cash flow burn. I'm not quite convinced that enough further R8 billion to R10 billion of free cash flow burn this year is really good enough. And from what I can see, I think the market's primary concern is that you will actually have to raise more capital later this year. Welcome to comment on that. I think you already have. Thank you.

Yes, thanks Chris. So let me start at the back and I'll ask Charl and Charles to comment on Stillwater, what was considered in the impairment. And then, Rich, if you can comment on the cost increases in the South. I can say that we are going to raise additional capital. But this perception that it's going to be rights issue is completely wrong. I think let's talk some nuts and bolts. We have very successfully used streams in the past. We have very successfully used prepays. None of that is debt. None of it is a dilution to shareholders. So the figures quoted by Charl are certainly our view. But I can tell you, we're not going to wait until we see whether Charl is right or wrong. We're already progressing some of those issues, and they are smart, they are smart ways of raising capital on assets, especially those that are difficult to find partners for or difficult to sell. So please don't think we're sitting on our hands and not doing anything to further strengthen the balance sheet, but it's also not. And I'll try to explain that right at the beginning. This is not about a rights issue. That's as Charl said, that's maybe the fifth or sixth parachute that you pull. So I wanted to just answer your third part to that question and then perhaps we can go first to Charl or Charles on Chris's questions around Stillwater and the impairment?

Yes, so Neil, I'll take that one. Chris, so what we have assumed is a production profile similar to what we've guided for the next three years. And then over a period of two years, it builds up to around 600,000, 650,000 ounces. And then we've kept it at that level based on the production profile, basically into the future. In terms of capital expenditure, again looking at this year, what we've guided that is the level of capital expenditure we aim to keep going forward. There might be some slight investments in '25, '26. But thereafter, we're probably looking at R170 million to R200 million. So significantly down from what we've got now. I think the number you are seeing there, although it's expressed as a per 2E ounce, it does include the 3E ounces from recycling as well. So that was just expressed as a 2E ounce. But yes, I think that's the numbers, Chris. Flat profile next three years, slowly building up and then basically a flat capital profile for the remainder of the life of mine.

Yes, thanks Charl and Rich, would you please pick up, Chris' question on the 9% increase in unit cost at SA PGMs? Thanks.

Perfect. Thanks, Neal. And Chris, good afternoon. I think there are three aspects to the SA PGM costs that are worth noting. The first one is that when we do our forecasts and budgets for the year, we do build in our budgeted price parameters for byproduct credits. And as you would know at the moment, some of those byproducts, chrome in particular is at quite a high price. So our assumptions in terms of the credits we get from byproducts are a little bit lower based on our sort of through cycle pricing. That's probably got in the region of about a 3% impact on those costs if spot prices were to persist. So that's the one. I think the second point is just we obviously do quote all-in sustaining costs, not cash costs. So those all-in sustaining costs do take into account development, and we are investing significantly in the development of our assets, especially around K4, where we're seeing a ramp up in development at those assets during the course of this year. So ORD costs do feature. And then I think the final one which you touched on, yes, the benefits of the restructuring are considered in those cost forecasts. Importantly, of course in this year, there are some one-off costs that do come with that restructuring that we had to incur, and that gets built in. Benefit that we referred to is the annualized benefit we'll see going forward, but that does need to be offset this year or some of the one-off costs with the restructuring. So overall, our base number was in fact still below or very close to inflation in terms of what we're looking at.

Adrian Hammond of SVG. Please go ahead.

Good day, everyone. Question for Charl. Just a bit more understanding about your balance sheet, please. I would like to know what your working capital needs are for the entire business. And could you clarify what debt facilities you have, including the U.S. dollar RCF and what you've drawn down of that? And then in terms of your covenants, it's quite obvious you're going to get close to that covenants by June. What mechanisms do you have in place with your lenders regarding extension of those covenants please? And then, I think a bit I'd like to ask a question around the gold business, massive free cash flow loss of R10 billion in 2H. How do you get there? I'm just trying to understand what's happening within that business. And then on Stillwater, the cost that you've given us, is that IRA credit included in that stipulated cost? And if so, how much? Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Adrian. And obviously, I'll start. I just missed your first question. Sorry, there was just a slight dip on my side. It was something on the balance sheet. Would you just mind repeating that?

Yes. Sure. Just your working capital needs, so much cash you need at all times and then on the debt facilities?

Yes, so Adrian, our financial policy is to have liquidity or working capital for the business of two months of operating expenditure plus CapEx. So if you look at our liquidity headroom sitting at R50 billion, that is probably between 5x and 6x or five and six months of operating cost and CapEx. So but on the numbers is two months. So you know just working back from that it's probably in the order of about R20 billion that could be a safe number. In terms of facilities, we've got two facilities. We've got the $1 billon revolving credit facility that was fully undrawn, so we've utilized zero of that facility. And then we've got the R5.5 billion facility and at year end that was drawn R4 billion and that was mainly due to timing of payments. We have an early closure in December, which does bring that working capital need earlier. Those payments would normally either flow month end or immediately after month end. So you have a little bit of a skewed picture over year end. And then we also at any one time have available facilities which are uncommitted lines, overnight facilities, roughly about R1 billion, R1.5 billion. So we also have the ability to utilize those. On the covenant side, our covenants are I think the two main ones are the leverage covenant, which is 2.5x net debt-to-EBITDA, and then the interest coverage one, which is EBITDA divided by our net finance charges and there we have to exceed 4x. So Adrian, I mean running the numbers and assuming that these prices stay where they are, we are probably getting to a number that starts with a 2 by year end. But as Neal said, for that reason, that is why we are looking and that assumes we run the business full tilt, spend all the CapEx, do everything that's required. That's without pulling any levers. We know we have the ability to flex certain elements within CapEx. So that's a big lever that we can pull. But we are looking at what are the other forms of bridging that covenant. So yes, as I said, we've been here previously and we'll definitely make sure that we don't go into breach. But it's a number we'll continue to keep an eye on. But I think probably by our August results, we'd be in a much better position to say how the world has moved on and then we can provide you with an update and the planning accordingly.

Cool. Thanks.

Based on the, 45.

Sorry. Go ahead, Charles.

Yes, sorry. Sorry Neal. Just on the 45x credit, we've made no assumption of that credit in the guidance we've given for the costs range for the year. So we'll lobbying hard to try and get that credit. If that comes through, that's an opportunity, but it's not in the guidance.

Okay. Cool. And then on the gold?

Yes, that's where I was going. Adrian. Charl, can you just comment on the free cash flow from gold? Adrian, maybe you just want to ask it again.

Sure. Just a bit confused about the large loss in 2H.

Neal, do you want me to pick that up?

Yes.

Thanks, Adrian. Yes. Look, I think in the second half of the year last year, we had those two significant events that I mentioned. So in July, we obviously had the incident at the K4 shaft and we had the fire at Driefontein. So effectively, what it meant for H2 was that we carried the full cost of K4. That restructuring was only completed in December, but essentially carried pretty much the full cost of that shaft for six months without any revenue. And at D5, we carried the full cost for a quarter and then ramped up during the fourth quarter. So production was significantly lower. In total, the impact from each of those, Driefontein fire was just over 900 kilos of gold that we didn't produce, so basically lost revenue. And at [indiscernible] was also just under a tonne of gold that we lost there. So I think that drives the major discrepancy with those two incidents I referred to earlier in the presentation.

It just seems larger than what you're saying. But if I can just ask Neal question. Neal, you're sitting on one of the significant uranium resource. What would it take to monetize that in terms of bringing it to market?

Yes, so Adrian and again, Richard, stay online if I can put it that way. Adrian, we've been working for some years on how do we monetize the uranium assets that we have. The Cooke dump is a spectacular asset that is the primary reason we actually acquired Cooke, not for the gold business. So we've explored many options. It's been difficult not being able to process the Cooke dam until more recently with DRD having now done. I think in line with protecting the balance sheet and being careful in terms of where we spend money. And what I can say is we're not going to bring these assets to account using our own balance sheet. Richard has had a lot of inbound calls. We've got a couple ideas we can't really share with you now and we will make a decision over the next probably quarter, two quarters on exactly how we're going to take that initiative forward to realize value. It'd be let's say instantaneous cash. Value for those assets, by doing some smart things. Rich, I don't know if you want to add to that.

Neal, thanks. I think you've covered the key aspects. I mean your point on the DRD unlocking it through the deposition, that was always one of the problems of that project. So that's really been solved for now. Just to add, the Cooke Dam itself is really a co-product project. It's got a significant amount of gold. So of course, there we've got the relationships with DRD. And as Neal says, I think we've got several opportunities to look at how we can optimize value with that through that asset. With partnerships, I think some of the other uranium assets are not assets that we would look to develop ourselves, but they certainly may have opportunity within broader strategies and groups. And we are engaging with various parties to explore what could be possible there. So Adrian, is receiving attention, but we have to give more detail in the future. Thanks.

If I can just come in quickly, Adrian, and I'll give you we'll talk offline on the cash flow issue. But if you look in the book, under the cash flow table, there is an explanation. And the big amount big part of that R10 billion you mentioned is due to intercompany working capital accounts payable. So it's actually money flowing from the gold operations to the SA PGM operations. It happens every period, and there is an explanation, albeit a bit confusing, underneath the table, but we can cover it offline if you wish. And then just, I just wanted to ask at the SA PGM operations. In 20 or last year, we guided for, all in sustaining cost from the SA PGM operations of 20,800 per ounce to 21,800 per ounce. And this year, it's 21,800 per ounce to 22,500 per ounce. So that's only a 5% and 3% respective increase in costs year-on-year in the in the guidance. And actually, we came in if you look on the front page, the actual all in sustaining costs came in well below the 28,000 bottom of the range that we indicated coming in at 20,054. So, yes, as Richard said, it's a bit complicated due to byproduct credited movements. Can we take the next call?

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, Neal and team. My first question is a follow-up that Adrian asked on the gold operation. Your all in sustaining cost is sitting around $2,000 an ounce. Is there even a possibility to get it closer to $1600 or lower? Because remember two years ago, we were presented with this plan to get the cost down, it seems to be pretty stickier on the 2000. So we can talk to that. Other questions related to battery metals portfolio, one, caliber depending on that delay, how does it impact your CapEx? Second on Sandouville, is there a timeline like tentative timeline on when you make a decision? Because looking at losing $70 million in EBITDA, that was last year. We don't know what this year is going to look like? And then third on new century, the flooding event last year seems to have repeated this year as well. What steps have the company taken to kind of manage the operations around them? Thank you.

Yes. Thanks, Raj, and good morning. So I'm going to ask my Chief Regional Officers to step up and talk about why don't you start with, Keliber? And to, let's say, protect the assets against these extreme weather events. Mika, if you wouldn't mind starting.

Thank you, Neal, and thanks for the questions. If I start from Sandouville. First of all, we are doing a lot of work in order to reduce the losses at Sandouville, and we can do a lot of things there. So, we are moving forward. However, I want to emphasize that what we have said is that as an outcome from our strategic review, so Sandouville is not going to be profitable enough. So, therefore, we are doing now the feasibility study. The timeline is a good question, but it's a little bit too early to give you a timeline. I'm absolutely sure that we can give the timeline of, the transition, when the feasibility study and the transition plan are ready, and that's going to be later on this year. And then we can also say that the transition will take this time and then the ramp up of production provided that it's as encouraging as the scoping study results have been. So that will come later on and then obviously we can also tell to you much precise numbers concerning the CapEx demanded and, also the profitability numbers and the returns on that potential investment. Concerning Keliber, we need to remember that, as it is today, so most of the CapEx is already either used or committed, at this stage. We are constructing in three different places. So that means that the work goes on, and we shouldn't have too high expectations that there are possibly a lot of CapEx that can be reduced for cash, we are assessing the full impact, if any of these new permitting decisions and we will come back to you and update to market as we are a little bit more advanced in that work. It came so recently, the court ruling that we still do need to do our homework first. Thank you.

Rob, will you go ahead on New Century?

No, I will do that and [indiscernible]. I would like to say that the flooding we had last year at New Century is very, very different to the albeit difficult start we've had this year. Now last year, we had a flood which took our operations out totally for about 21 days, and it took almost a full month to recover from that flooding event. And at the same time, a lot of the infrastructure at the Century operations were damaged this year. We have had excessive rainfall in January. We've had excessive rainfall in February as well. So the start of the year has not been pleasant at all. Having said that, the terrain and the infrastructure has not been damaged nearly to the same extent as what it was last year. And I am able to report that we are up and running again. And like I said, we didn't go and lose 21 full days of production the first two months of this year. We did put a lot of call it anti-flood mechanisms in place. We put additional pumping capacity in place. We put additional access in place, and we made it possible to protect the water required for the operations and the infrastructure to dewater flooded operations a lot easier than what it was at the same time last year. Raj, I hope that answers your question.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect. Thanks Rob and Rich, if you can answer Raj's question on the stickiness of the gold costs.

Raj, thanks. And yes, let me comment on it like this. I think so firstly, so I don't think that these operations we're targeting a cost at the moment of close to 1,600. I think what we are really looking at getting down to is probably closer to about 18 [ph] at the moment. Let me say that the first one of the first issues that we've got to get right in gold, we've had a couple of years with real disruption. So we had a strike impact in '22. Last year, we had the two significant incidents as I've described at K4 and D5. All those incidents besides losing production, which obviously ups units costs, comes with their own costs and build up again. So getting stable production is one of the first keys to ultimately being able to manage your costs. I'll then say we've got a few levers that we are still looking at pulling to get the cost down in gold. The one that I did describe earlier was energy. And that's been a big driver of the cost over the year that's driven some of the stickiness you've referred to. With incoming some of our own energy sources, as I say, that should benefit some of that. I think the second big lever that we are looking to pull is you would have seen that the restructuring that we've done so far has really been on an operational basis. So we've been addressing loss making operations, restructuring those and operations that have come into the end of the life closing those. Clearly, with a slightly smaller operating base through that restructuring, we are also looking at how we can optimize our central and support services to those operations, which would reduce ultimately allocated costs and overhead costs that those operations are currently carrying. So that's the lever we're pulling. And then I think the final one where gold carries quite a significant cost relative to most is on all care and maintenance assets where we have been battling to get closure of those assets for various regulatory and other reasons. And those costs continue to be carried by the Gold ops. There again, we do have a strategy to address those costs over the next year and two years and get those down, and that should again benefit the bottom line. So, Raj, I hope that helps. As I say at the moment, I think sort of 1800 is what we have in our sights. So it's clearly not what we've guided to. Those are our plans that we have this year that we'd like to implement to get that down there. Thanks.

Thanks, Richard. That's it from me. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Nkateko Mathonsi of Investec. Please go ahead. Nkateko, your line is open. You can ask your question. Not getting a response, going on to the next question, which comes from Arnold van Graan of Nedbank. Please go ahead.

Yes, good afternoon, Neal. Yes, I've got an overall question. So you've been very clear on your strategy and your outlook for commodity prices. But looking at your asset base, you've got lots of different assets, different commodities, different jurisdictions, different life cycles, capital needs and nuances as we've heard from a lot of the questions on the call already. So for me, it seems as the business is becoming large and unwieldy especially in a down cycle environment. So do you believe that the business is still fit for purpose in the current environment -- to cause lots of attention, lots of management time. So generally, when you see this in companies, they tend to move away from this, move away from these large unruly asset base. Maybe just comment on how you plan to deal with this especially in this environment. I guess it's much easier in a higher metal price environment. Yes. That's it for me. Thanks, Neal.

Yes, thanks Arnold. And that's a good question. And it's really a question that is best answered through the strategy that we're pursuing. And remember, we have been pivoting into a producer of green metals, which we've done off a substantial base of PGMs. But the combination of PGMs and let's call it other green metals, which in this case, we have direct investments in nickel and lithium, some in copper now are all part of that pivot. Now again you got to go back to strategically what is the purpose? Well, the purpose of our business is to safeguard global sustainability through our metals. And I dare say that, that is playing out very well for us. So it doesn't mean it's easy. And as you quite rightly point out in economic downturns, it becomes more challenging. But having a purpose like that, having the base of metals that we have and being able to expand into the ecosystems that we identified early on are proving very actually helpful and constructive. Our relationship in both the European Union, and the U.S. is at the highest levels and we get good advocacy both from the U.S. and the EU. And we certainly are seen as part of the solution. That doesn't help the pivot or your specific concern. But if you believe in your strategy, you continue with it, but you cut your cloth to suit, which is exactly what we've been doing. And yes, there might be some smaller assets, but they are smaller assets, that are building blocks in terms of growing let's call it that portfolio. But also, as the operating legs, primary mining, which is normally of very significant scale. So that's hard rock underground, and open pit mining. The secondary mining is a business where…

Thanks, Neal. Listen, we're pushing over time. So I think -- assets given the current boom in the prices. So maybe if you've got a final comment on that, and then I think we'll have to close.

And much more other than uranium is something that, I certainly understand well and in fact, a lot of my team was part of the Uranium 1 experience. So we've got the knowledge. We like uranium. We've consciously held uranium assets. We have been in the background working on what is the best way to realize value portfolio. But under these circumstances, it is most likely going to be brought to account utilizing more appropriate structures and certainly not our balance sheet. We're in a very good position with uranium production available in the short-term and relatively quickly and it's not complex compared to many other projects in the rest of the world. So I can really only summarize and repeat, James what we've been said. There's a lot of hype and be careful of hype in the uranium market. It's a bubble, that can burst, but I would suggest that there's more solid fundamentals underpinning the uranium market at this stage, but these things can turn very quickly. So I'll leave it at that. Thanks, James.

Thank you. And, if there are any more questions, please, direct them to the investor relations team by email, and we'll follow-up online. Thank you very much for attending the presentation today, and have a good evening and a good day.