Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and good morning. On behalf of the C-suite, welcome and thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules. At our 2023 year-end results in February, we made a commitment to focus on our balance sheet. Today, I hope you will recognize the tremendous effort from the Sibanye Stillwater team in doing just that. And hence the theme of the H1 2024 presentation is reflected in the presentation title, and let me read it. It says, delivering on our commitment to strengthen the balance sheet while also increasing liquidity. Please take note of our safe harbor statement. The agenda for today includes a brief strategic context. That will be led by myself and essentially it all starts and ends in the market. And you will see what I'm referring to when we get into that. I will also cover the salient features for the first half of 2024. Charl Keyter, our CFO, will then complete the financial review, after which he will hand over to our chief regional officers who will each cover their regions. We have Richard Stewart doing the South African region, we have Mika Seitovirta doing the European region, Charles Carter will do the US region, and Robert Van Niekerk who's also our Chief Technical and Innovation Officer is also the Chief Regional Officer for Australia and he will cover the Australian region. So our 3D strategy is well known to the market. There's just a few points that I want to make, and I'm not going to go through all the detail on the slide. Our Board, together with the executive, have recently been through an extensive strategic review. And we remain confident that our strategy is relevant and delivering on shared value remains a keen focus for us. Our…

Thank you very much, Neal, and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Discussing commodity markets at the moment, I guess many are asking many questions about where these markets are going, and PGMs are certainly no exception. And the way we look at the markets at the moment to drive our business is really across three different time periods. So we look at a short term, generally less than two years, tactically how do we respond to the current market? We look at a medium term, generally after about 10 years, where I think we have some confidence in terms of the way we forecast. And then slightly more speculative beyond 10 years. So certainly our view in terms of the short term and what we're seeing is that there has been a distinct dislocation between the fundamentals that we see. Fundamentally we believe the 3E metals, PGMs are very much in deficit. And the price trends that we've seen, which of course have been falling a lot faster and a lot further than I think many imagined. Of course, the question is, why is that the case? We don't see a silver bullet or a single reason for this. It really has been a coming together of multitudes of factors. We have mentioned in the past things like de-stocking, several OEMs did build up stocks post-COVID, and that has been coming out over the last few years, although we do think that that is declining. We have also seen in the market some significant disruptions to supply chains and changes to supply chains, in particular, a lot more Russian metal finding its way into China. And then we have some in the PGM market, probably about 80% of the metal trades as physical metal under long-term supply agreements with a…

Thank you, Richard. A few words about leading supply and demand balance and the outlook, how we see that. First of all, behind there is obviously the growth of the electric vehicles. Many of us have revised downwards the forecasts and the volumes of the EVs and so have we. Even in the downwards scenario though we believe that during the next five years, by 2030, the volumes are going to be double against today's volumes. This is obviously something that is going to impact the lithium demand a lot. So, despite of the short-term surplus in the market, we see a very strong outlook long-term for lithium demand. Meaning that actually during the next five years, consequently we believe that lithium demand is going to double as well. It is also to be noted that the deficit starts ‘26/’27, which is a perfect timing for our Keliber project when we start to commissioning with our own ore. Over to you, Neal.

Thank you, Mika and Richard. Let's now move ahead with the salient features for the first half of 2024. So, the picture on the right hand side of the slide is actually the first slide in the year-end presentation which was delivered in February of this year. As I mentioned in my introduction today, we committed at that point in time to focusing on our balance sheet. And the piggy bank was also used to reflect the cost savings we intended to achieve from the large amounts of operational restructuring that we intended undertaking and had undertaken to preserve our margins through this lower price commodity downturn. I am particularly pleased with what we have achieved to date on both of these. Richard will cover the cost benefits of our operational restructuring in his section. But let me start with the impact that we've made on the balance sheet. So I'm very pleased to advise that we've increased our balance sheet strength and liquidity by more than ZAR25 billion or $1.4 billion. And we will in the following slide show you how that amount has been calculated. But first of all, what did we do? And the H1 balance sheet initiatives are listed there, and I intend to go through them in some detail. We announced the uplifted agreements we had on our covenants. The debt covenants have been uplifted to 3.5 times until June 2025 and 3 times until December 2025. We have a currency geared collar that we've implemented at our South African PGM operations to protect the margin in a strengthening ZAR environment. That was done on the basis that we could see the potential of an improving climate in South Africa. And I dare say the appointment of a government of national unity is a first…

Thank you, Neal. Good morning and good afternoon to all participants. Starting with the financial performance for half one 2024, revenue was down 9% due to significantly lower PGM prices. Although production volumes were up at the SA and US PGM operations, the 4E and 2E basket price were down 28% respectively, and the 3E basket price was down 53% for our US PGM recycling operation. Pleasingly, the gold price was up 18%, but this was almost fully offset by lower volumes. Cost of sales increased period over period, but this half year includes six months for the new Century operations compared to four months in the previous period and it includes the newly acquired Reldan operation from 15 March, 2024. Normalizing for the Reldan acquisition, costs in absolute terms only went up by 2%. Adjusted EBITDA came in at just over ZAR6.6 million, almost half the number for the same period in the previous year, and this was predominantly driven by lower revenues. During this period, we also re-performed our impairment assessment and based on consensus low of future Palladium prices, an impairment of $400 million was recognized at our US PGM operations. The loss for the period was ZAR7.2 billion, but after backing out the US impairment and the associated taxes, the profit would have been approximately ZAR550 million rand. In line with our dividend policy, no dividend was declared. This slide shows our debt maturities and liquidity. Net debt at the end of the period was ZAR18.7 billion, and the repayment profile following the refinancing of our rand revolving credit facility remains very manageable with the 2026 bonds being our first significant maturity. Liquidity headroom is just under ZAR40 billion, which is roughly 2.5 times our requirement. And that is having two months of operational and capital expenditure in available headroom. Liquidity headroom was extended through the refinancing and upsizing of the rand revolving credit facility, the conclusion of the Keliber EUR500 million green financing and the execution of a ZAR1.8 billion gold prepay. Just a few words on the cyber-attack that we experienced post half one 2024 and also the reason for the delay in results. In July, we experienced a cyber-attack that impacted our global ICT systems. On discovery, the group ICT team acted swiftly to isolate our networks and systems across all regions and business units. The operational impact was limited but I think very importantly, safety of our employees were prioritized in all instances. The biggest impact was at our US metallurgical complex impacting smelting and recycling processes that resulted in increased stockpiles that will be processed over the rest of 2024. All credit has to go to our ICT team that restored the majority of our ICT environment in just over three weeks. I will now hand over to Richard Stewart to take you through the results of the SA region. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Charl. And again, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll work through the regional operating updates. Thank you. I guess just to kick off with our first and last priority is safety. I think it's been very pleasing over the last few years as we have shared with the market we implemented a Fatal elimination strategy in 2022. And I think it's been very pleasing over the last few years to see the positive impact the strategy has had in reducing risk across our operations. Over the current period, we saw our best ever serious injury frequency rate and a continued decline in the high potential incidents that we measure across our operations. These are all leading and lagging indicators that suggest that high energy incidents, which can result in fatal accidents, are being mitigated and reduced on a sustainable basis. Despite that, tragically, we did have a significant improvement year-on-year, but tragically still lost three colleagues during the reporting period. We lost a colleague at Beatrix Operations, Kloof operations, and Bathopele. And on behalf of the management team and Board, our sincere condolences go to our lost colleagues. Over the past 18 months, and in particular in the South African region, we have undertaken a significant amount of restructuring of our operations, specifically to position ourselves for sustainability in the current price environment we find ourselves in. Across South Africa, that's included the closure of unprofitable operations. That's included four shafts that we've closed and two processing plants. We've also restructured operations that were marginal. That included the Marikana Rowland shaft and the Rustenburg Siphumelele shaft. And then to meet that downgrade in terms of production or restructured production, we also have restructured our regional overheads and services to align with that new operating footprint. We…

Thank you, Richard. In Sandouville, we have had focus on two things mainly. First of all, reducing the losses. Secondly, building up the future through our GalliCam project. We have been rather successful in reducing the losses in Sandouville. H1 is clearly less losses than it was last year. There is a 57% improvement. However, we are still loss making. And therefore, we have also decided that with the current feed and with the current products, we are going to stop the production. It means that there will be no more feed after the year-end and we are ramping down consequently Q1 ‘25. GalliCam is moving forward and it is a project which is now in the pre-feasibility study phase. And we believe that we are going to finalize that by the year-end. And then we are going to do the decisions about the definitive feasibility study and a possible demo plant in Sandouville, provided that the results are as encouraging as they have been so far. The good news are that we have actually produced pCAM in our lab, and our innovation is working through the chlorine route. Secondly, we have also patented this one to protect ourselves. So we see a good future for GalliCam process and the next time we can tell you more about it is definitely when we have the results out of the pre-feasibility study. Coming to Keliber, Keliber is moving forward and there are no changes when it comes to commissioning the refinery H2, 2025. You can see from our CapEx number the latest forecast for this year. It has been changed from EUR360 million to EUR300 million and we are in some of the installations a bit late which means that the CapEx is going to be spent on the next year's…

Thank you, Mika, and hello everybody. The Century operations again had a very tough start to the year. They received about 1,100 millimeters of rain in the first three months of the year, as compared to a historic average of about 550 millimeters of rain. That said, I'm pleased to say that the lessons learnt from last year and the rain protection precautions that team put in place will enable them to produce 16,000 tons of payable zinc in quarter one. The operations recovered very nicely in the second quarter of the year. They produced 26, 000 tons of zinc. So, all in, we have produced 42,000 tons of zinc for H1 2024. It's very difficult to compare the first half of this year to the first half of last year as we didn't own these operations for the whole of the first half of last year but I can tell you that quarter two this year, the production was substantially better than quarter two last year. Our all-in sustaining costs improved by 8% to $2,228 per ton of zinc compared to the same period last year. This is largely due to improved production, but also in part due to very tight cost control measures the team on the operations have introduced. Our EBITDA loss has reduced from $28 million in H1 last year to $19 million in H1 this year. A substantial portion of that $19 million is directly due to the [yearly] (ph) maintenance of our transshipment vessel. I can confidently report though that all of our deliveries will be filled before the end of this year. In conclusion, I am looking forward to a good finish to the end of this year. I'm looking forward to a good H2 2024. And in fact, I'm looking forward to a good 2025 as well. In part assisted by two tailwinds at the moment, the first being metal prices are substantially more than we anticipated and better than what we budgeted for. And spot treatment costs are also lower than the current benchmark spot treatment costs. You can see on the slide that we have hedged approximately 20% of our production for the next 18 months. So that is about 2,000 tons per month of playable zinc from July of this year through to December next year. So, I think I will leave it there and hand over to Charles. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert. As we turn to the Americas region, what you'll see in these results are the benefits of the restructuring we did late last year. We had a 16% increase in mine PGM production to 238,139 2E ounces, which is the highest production rate since H2 2021. We also had a 23% decline in all-in sustaining costs to $1,343 an ounce. Operating unit costs remain stable at $1,067 an ounce despite inflation year-on-year, which was due to improved production. Both production and costs were ahead of plan and I want to recognize our operating teams for that strong performance. All-reserve development was 42% lower at $65 million and sustaining capital 51% lower at $21 million, a combined saving of $68 million. Project capital declined by 63% to $8 million. However, during this period, the average 2E PGM basket price declined 30% to $977 an ounce, which has now led us to take more significant restructuring steps that I'll talk to in a moment. Adjusted EBITDA of $27 million, as you are aware, includes EUR43 million insurance payout from the ‘22 flood. As Neal has outlined with a with a PGM basket price below $1,000 an ounce, we are now needing to do further restructuring in our Montana business. This will see us reducing next year's production by approximately 200,000 ounces or some 44% of current run rates. We are doing this by placing the Stillwater West mine on care and maintenance while keeping Stillwater East going where we intend to increase production to approximately 130,000 ounces next year. At East Boulder, mine production will be reduced to 135,000 ounces. We will be mining four ramps instead of the current six, which in turn allows us to defer expansion capital in the tailings and rock dump facilities. We are…

Thanks very much, Charles, and good day to you all. Yes, important to note that the Columbus recycle business remains largely unimpacted by the restructure. We will continue to receive material and differentiate ourselves in the market through our positioned approach to responsible sourcing, our strong assay turnaround, time capability, and our long-term relationships built on experience, knowledge, and trust. Despite the sustained macroeconomic pressures on spent autocat volumes, the US PGM recycling business remains solid with volumes stabilizing around 155,000 3E ounces. Gross margins have remained stable at between 4% to 5%, despite the 54% decline in 3E prices from the first half of 2023 to the $1,252 that we have received this year. The PGM recycling segment contributed a solid $8 million, that's ZAR147 million in adjusted EBITDA for the first half of 2024, again, underscoring the strength and stability of our operations. In mid-March of this year, we also concluded the Reldan transaction, marking a strategic milestone in our recycling strategy beyond our traditional focus on PGMs from autocats. We have expanded beyond solely relying on PGMs from spent autocats and tapped into high margin industrial waste streams, which open up new avenues for growth. Reldan specializes in processing industrial and electronic waste, offering a significantly less capital intensive alternative to traditional mining operations for producing a suite of green metals. From March to June 2024, Reldan processed 6 million pounds of mixed scrap and sold 42,000 ounces of gold, 850,000 ounces of silver, just under 15,000 ounces of platinum palladium and 1.1 million pounds of copper. The resulting combination of Columbus and Reldan industrial and precious metal suites presents a natural hedge reinforcing the sustainability of our business model. The acquisition further enables us to leverage Reldan's network sales team and metal logistics routes to capitalize on existing territories and relationships within the US, Mexico and India for the benefit of the Columbus Met Complex. Reldan's strong early performance contributed $300,000 in the adjusted EBITDA and adjusted free cash flow of $9 million for the initial four months under our ownership. Having recently visited both operations within Mexico and India, I'm deeply excited about the growth prospects in both of these regions, so please watch this space. Neal, over to you for the conclusion. Thanks.

Thanks, Grant. And two slides in the conclusion. The first slide is really about guidance. And let me say, other than our South African gold operations which have been severely disrupted through the restructuring and seismicity, we are having to adjust gardens unfortunately on that. The Keliber lithium project, we won't quite spend all the capital we intended this year, so the revision is really a revision in spending. There's no other revisions to that project to date. We are not changing the US guidance, but I do want to say we should expect significant, well there's the potential for disruptions due to the restructuring that we hope to have completed by the end of the year, but I think that is just a bit of a warning or a heads up. So the anti-fragility journey continues. And in my mind, the key aspects of becoming anti-fragile are the bullet points set out below. So first of all, let's recognize the record safety performance that has been achieved with a continuous focus on eliminating fatalities and reducing high potential incidents. As I mentioned right at the beginning of the presentation, ESG will remain embedded in the way we do business. We think it's appropriate and it leads to sustainability. As I also mentioned right at the beginning, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging will remain an integral part of our strategic differentiation. The fundamentals as elaborated on by Richard and Mika indicates that from the metals we produce, we have exposure, we remain positive regarding that exposure. We've also shared with you significant strengthening of the balance sheet with more non-debt initiatives well advanced and we look forward to including those when we deliver our year-end results. We have sufficient liquidity to ride out an extended depressed commodity price environment and…

Thank you, Neal. The first question comes from Andre Luis Alves Catenani asking about the company's outlook on increasing allocation of gold assets, specifically in terms of expanding gold share of the total asset portfolio through investment in additional mines.

Let me pick that up, James. I think, as we've said previously, we like gold. We still think gold has got quite a bit of upside, but we are not focused on external growth at the moment. I thought I made it clear right at the beginning that our focus is on the strategic essentials, focusing on the balance sheet and of course delivering good operational results. So perhaps sometime in the future but certainly not right now.

Thanks, Neal. Then a series of questions from Arnold Van Graan from Nedbank. You've proactively and prudently shored up the balance sheet to ride out the storm, which should be commended. How much time has this given you? And in other words, how long can you run at current metal prices before further action is needed?

Well, certainly I'd like to ask Charl to give his view as well, but in my view, as long as the commodity prices stay the same and Arnold you made it clear at current metal prices together with the restructuring that we've done and the additional strengthening that we're going to still follow through with, I think we can run a very long time, whether that's three years, five years or 10 years, we certainly will not consume our balance sheet and all our debt. We will get to a breakeven position and then have sufficient reserves in our balance sheet. Charl, I don't know if you want to add to that.

Yeah, thank you, Neal. And, Arnold, I mean, to answer your question is, we always had a three-year hump ahead of us, which was associated with [indiscernible], so it was the occurrence of the debt and the financing and then building the project and once that started ramping up, our forecasts showed that we would be in an equal and even financial position, in other words operating well below our covenants. So effectively what we did was just to be proactive in this process and to make sure that we can get over this three-year hump. So, I'm saying we -- it sounds like we bought three years, but it's really a hump that sorts itself out from ‘27 onwards.

Thanks, Charl. Again on the debt, you referred to the possibility of adding a further $600 million to $700 million in non-debt financing to the balance sheet. Is there not a risk that you're paying way too much of the future upside and value with these alternative funding structures, the tenure and impact of which invariably outlast the down cycle? Equity dilution is never great, but isn't it cheaper than some of these alternative deals? Neal?

I think yeah. So did Arnold ask that question?

Yeah.

So, Arnold, listen, we're very aware of, let's call it the long-term impact of a stream arrangement as an example. But I can assure you that, first of all, we don't stream primary products. There might be very small streams on primary products. Secondary products actually have very little value or they attract very little in terms of valuations by analysts. So as long as you're streaming a secondary product and as long as you're streaming a byproduct at a significant high in the price cycle, I think it's smart. We are very well aware of the cost of capital related to equity and the cost of a stream. So we don't go blindly into streams, but the work we're doing on it at the moment, we are quite comfortable that it's the right decision.

Thanks, Neal. I think these two will be for Charl. Does the Keliber green funding loan have recourse to the Sibanye balance sheet or is it ring-fenced to the project first of all and then what concessions did we have to make to the lenders for the covenant uplift?

Thanks, James. So in terms of the Keliber green financing, yes it has recourse to the balance sheet to the extent that it's drawn. So, obviously Keliber being a very important part of the company going forward, they signed up as a borrower and a guarantor under our facilities and hence the reason why they will be included. But I'd just like to make the point that to the extent that it's drawn, that amount will be included. So, fast concessions to the lenders. It was a voluntary concession that we as a company offered, but it's effectively 20 basis points or 0.2% at the top end. So should we go over three times leverage, there's a 20% basis point additional on the margin. So no major concessions or any restrictions from our lender side.

Thank you, Charl. There's a couple of questions on the US PGM restructuring. I think we've answered most of them. Looking at 2024, we haven't changed guidance. So obviously what we look at is the 200,000 ounce reduction in production coming through in 2025. In terms of all-in sustaining costs, I think that was covered as well. It won't be immediately down to 1,000 but certainly we will be working to get costs down to 1,000 per ounce is the target. I think the specific questions which may be of interest is, and Neal or Charl, how quickly would we be able to reopen Stillwater West should prices recover? And what kind of prices would drive that decision?

So, I think reopening any mine is probably a six to nine month sort of process. But, Charles, would you like to come in on that?

Yeah. Thanks, Neal. Look, we're not in a rush to do that because we've got work to do, as I alluded to, on the underground infrastructure at Stillwater West mine that particularly relates to the haulage systems. We have multiple handling at the moment. It's not cost effective. So we've got to look carefully at that and we've got to look at the infrastructure around our shaft just on some upgrades, et cetera. So, you certainly need higher prices, but we just need a bit more time to work on improved efficiencies because it's a very spread out mine. It's old infrastructure. It's long travel times. And that doesn't change, but within that we have work to do. And we're not rushing to do that spend through ‘25, but we are going to be doing the planning and the thinking and the optimization trade-offs. So, I've got no doubt we will get higher pricing through 2025, but this is not an on-off switch that you trigger very quickly, but so it's more about the work to do. And then, once we have the efficiencies identified and the mining cost efficiencies daylighted, then we would make that decision. I think the other parameter that's not an on-off switch is simply getting labor back. So this takes time. And we'll have to work that in. So I don't see this as a 2025 option realistically but I do think it's incumbent on us to keep the option developing, work on the underlying issues, that means that when it comes back, it's a much more productive operation with a better cost profile. Thank you.

Further to that one from Arnold Van Graan, just you mentioned that you would be increasing output at Stillwater East and East Boulder and increasing grades. Is this akin to high grading and what impact would this have on the flexibility of these operations in future?

Yeah it's not -- sorry, go ahead.

Yeah. Go ahead, Charles.

No, it's not about high grading. So, what, as I've just mentioned, why are we putting the West mine on care and maintenance, which has good grades in patchy areas, is the underlying infrastructural cost issues, handling issues and constraints around that. On Stillwater East, we have good grades. We are selective because of ground conditions on those grades, but we've got very new infrastructure. And we've got very clean haulage systems and handling systems and very efficient systems. So the grade switch is really just a function again of infrastructure and modern infrastructure. And we've opened up a very good set of options there that we can just continue to leverage going forward. So that's not about high grading. That's just about the quality of the infrastructure and the ore body. And within that, we've got selectivity, but again, not driven by grade. It's more driven by ground conditions at the moment. But as we solve for that, that new East mine has significant leverage long term. And then at East Boulder, again, it's not about high grading, the decision to go from six ramps to four, within which we are selective on those ramps on the base of cost and efficiency is more about the fact that if we go flat out on the current six ramps, which we can do, we then accelerate the spend on the enhanced tailings facility and the extended rock dump facility. And that means a big capital spend in ‘25. So we have the latitude to push that out of it. And that's why we are reducing volumes. We are favoring the volumes at East Boulder on more efficient stopes and better cost profiles. Again, not high grading. So those are some of the trade-offs we've been doing. And I think it solves for multiple things, but it allows us at any point to switch back to bringing that, now that we've got the permitting on all of that expansion, we've got the time to decide when we trigger and that'll be driven by decisions around capital spend timing and I mean that gives us choice. So I think the flexibility is in our hands there. Thank you.

Thank you. I think this one is for Richard Stewart. I think some market participants are now saying that PGM loadings in China have fallen over the last two to three years more than previously expected and thus current deficits are overestimated, hence the low prices. What's your view on that?

Thanks very much, James. I think there's no doubt that the Chinese sort of loading in terms of their vehicles has been lower and has been declining over the last couple of years relative to Western markets. So, I think that's quite well known. I also think that is built into the existing deficits and current deficits that have been forecast. I don't think there's much of an impact on current. The reason for those lower loadings is largely driven by less stringent controls, less stringent testing that needs to be done, specifically real world driving testing. So the real question I think that needs to be asked, the current deficits I don't think are impacted, it's well-modeled, but what does that mean going forward? One of the concerns that's been raised is if Chinese OEMs start getting an increasing market share relative to Western OEM companies in the rest of the world, would that result in an overall lower PGM loading globally? I think that's more the concern that's been raised. I think it's important to recognize those, that if you are going to be selling cars into global markets, they would have to meet with the requirements in those markets. So we have looked at the lower loadings, particularly in China, we've built that into our models and our forecasts, and quite comfortable that the deficits we’re forecasting have got that in account. So well-known number, I think it's in a lot of the numbers already. I don't think it's a huge surprise.

Thanks, Richard. We'll ask one more question then go to the phone lines if that's okay. Neal, I think this is definitely for you from Arnold Van Graan. Is your business not spread too wide? Lots of moving parts, businesses at different life cycles, markets, commodities and capital cycles. Sounds like he's quite confused. Can you really manage this effectively?

Yes. Arnold, it sounds like you and I are having one discussion today. Absolutely, we can manage it effectively. I think what you see today through the presentation is chief regional officers totally in control of their regions and actually making positive impacts. It is complex, but we thrive on the complexity and we certainly have the skills base to deal with it. I would also say that certainly it provides a platform and we probably haven't made this as clear in this presentation, other than saying we're in the right metals in the right ecosystems. We are very well produced to work through this commodity cycle in PGMs, which is affecting probably 90% of our revenue at the moment. But as Keliber come on stream, as we move from zinc into phosphates in Australia, as we develop Mount Lyell, as we increase our exposure into other metals, we become a very different company. The environmental credentials and the business opportunities from secondary mining and recycling are just fantastic. We are unique in that combination and very well positioned to create value in the long term. The one thing that is very certain to me is this company will not become a dinosaur. So you can see I'm certainly very well aware and our Board continuously checks with us that we have the capacity and competency to manage a business like this and we certainly do. So I remain very positive about our exposure and the breadth of the business. Thank you.

Thank you. Operator could we now take a couple of calls from the course call line please.

Thank you, sir. First question comes from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon, Neal, James and team. Thanks so much. I'll limit my questions to two please. Could we, first question is on the US PGM assets. So, it looks like obviously you've reduced production there from around 450,000 to about 250,000 ounces. So it's about a 40%, 45% cut to production. I got the comment there from Charles that you cut some CapEx by more than 50%. So I guess my key and I think you gave a number, I might have missed that. But my key question is how long can you actually maintain that current production run rate at that reduced level of capital spend? Should we expect that you still have a life of mine out to 2040, 2050 at 250,000 ounces, or does production start dropping off below 200,000, say, by the end of the decade? So that's the first question. Then the second question, just going back to a question, I think, Charl answered earlier, I mean earlier this year you talked to on your plans to having maybe a free cash outflow somewhere between ZAR8 billion to ZAR9 billion this year. I see that your free cash outflow was ZAR7.3 billion in the first half of this year. So, obviously, probably pretty disappointing maybe against your own plans there. Just from the comments, clearly you're taking action in the US, you're taking action at Sandouville. Can you get this business to free cash flow breakeven by 2025? It just seems that the way you talk about the CapEx hump that maybe it's only ‘26 or ‘27 that we only get to free cash flow breakeven under current prices. Thank you.

All right. So, Chris, I'm going to ask Charles and Charl to comment directly to your questions, but we have to get to free cash flow breakeven. It's not just about a capital hump and certainly I don't think it's just about cutting capital in the US. It's about deferring capital just to make it clear. The plan to get to $1,000 an ounce is a plan that is sustainable in the US. There's no doubt that our South African business will be cash flow, at least cash flow neutral, if not positive, and our Australian business will be cash flow positive. Europe, post the Keliber construction, will of course also move into a cash flow positive status. So listen, the cash outflow this year is recognized. I do think it will be less than doubling what you saw in the first quarter. But let me first ask Charles to come in on your US PGM question. And then Charles, if you can just hand over to Charl to deal with the cash outflow.

Yeah, thanks, Neal. So, what we've been talking to today is really the 2025 plan that's work in progress, which has a lot of moving pieces that I think we've touched on to give you a sense of the significant shift. With year-end and early next year when the company guides to the full planning cycle, we will be talking also to the three-year plan which we're busy working on. So it's not that we've backed ourselves into a corner and now it's cut, cut, cut and then there's nowhere to go. We have made, I think, some very good choices around constraints facing us right now that we are taking head on and the flexibility we need to retain as we move forward. So we've -- the development pullback, the capital pullback is to match the current production run rates which we replace with development. The capital, as Neal said, and I've illustrated is about short-term deferral that doesn't back you into a corner but we do have sizeable capital in the three to five year window. So those are the choices which would have otherwise been triggered if we were going full bore on current run rates, we would be triggering that next year. So we've freed up next year to do a lot of work on costs, a lot of work on asset optimization and we expect in that three year window. So, to bring it to $1,000 an ounce is not simply about lifting the ounces, it's about lifting the efficiencies. And we believe as we get that right, we then can lever up really good free cash flow and then we have the flexibility to decide on volume. So East Boulder you can switch back to six ramps very quickly. They're there, they develop, they're active. We are doing the development to protect all of that. Stillwater East, as I've illustrated, it's new infrastructure. We can further develop, which we're doing. We can further open up. We've got significant leverage there. Both of that protects reserves and it protects life. And then Stillwater West, it's care and maintenance for now, which I see going through next year. We will do the work during that year to decide when we bring it back. That'll be as much about price as it will be about infrastructure optimization and getting it set up properly. So I don't see any impact on life. I don't see any impact on reserves. I don't see any impact on flexibility to lift this game when we decide to. And that'll be very much free cash flow driven as a decision point. So I think we're setting out the store for next year and you should have comfort in what that looks like. Year-end, we'll be setting out the store for the medium term. I'm actually quite excited about what that starts to look like. Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. And, yeah, to Neal's point, there's definitely, if we look at 2025, if we look at current commodity prices, because I think that's a big determinant in whether we will be cash, free cash flow neutral. But definitely, looking at our operations, South African gold, SA PGM, Australian zinc retreatment, I mean, clearly there we will be at a cash flow breakeven position and I would even go as far as to say that we would be putting some money in the tool. There are two outliers. Clearly, Stillwater needs a slightly or Stillwater US operations needs a slightly higher 2E price. So based on current estimations, albeit a much significantly lower cash outflow, there will still be a moderate cash outflow for 2025. And then Keliber is the other big outlier. We need to spend about $600 million in CapEx there, roughly $300 million this year, $300 million next year. So, those would be the two that would be consuming cash over that period. But the operations themselves will fully fund themselves and as I said, will put some money back into the bank.

Thanks. Just maybe point out to Chris as well, if you look at that cash flow statement or cash flow, free cash flow table, the SA gold operations show H1 2023 free cash outflow of ZAR1.25 billion. And then it increases to ZAR2.4 billion for H1 in 2024. But remember that we consolidate DRDGOLD as well and DRDGOLD's CapEx has gone from ZAR657 million in H1 2023 to ZAR2.5 billion in H1 2024. So that's about a ZAR1.8 billion impact on the free cash flow, and that does explain quite a bit of the increase in the free cash outflow from the gold operations. Could we have another call from the line please?

Thank you. Next question comes from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks Operator. Hi, Neal. So firstly, I'd like to know about mobile levers you can pull should you have to continue to fund the balance sheet, would you consider selling assets such as your interest in DRD, which is very cash generative, right, quite a valuable asset or any other opportunities you can cough? Or are you prepared to keep cutting costs off the business to fund your offshore strategy? That's the first one. Perhaps for Charl, an indication of what we should be modeling for the restructuring costs for Stillwater this year. And I do notice you sold a lot more metal than you produced out of SA PGM business. Do you have quite a bit of stock there? Could you give us a bit more color as to how much you might draw down for 2H? And then just maybe for Richard, you've obviously got quite an insight into recycling. I noticed that the flows there are quite weak still, yet the market seems quite optimistic about a recovery. But, could you perhaps share some insights there? Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Adrian. And clearly, Charl and Richard will pick up the relevant portions. We're not anti-selling assets. In fact, our uranium strategy specifically includes considerations like that. I also want to say there's a limit to cost cutting. And I know you can always cut costs further, but at a point it does cause damage. I personally am a lot more upbeat about the restructuring flowing through in the right way, and 2025 will hopefully be a year where there's no negative impacts from restructuring and reorganization. And as Charl said, as long as commodity prices continue at this sort of level and let me also be clear that we do want to complete the balance that we refer to of the $600 million to $700 million of balance sheet strengthening which is non-debt and non-equity just to be clear. Once that's in place and commodity prices remain roughly where they are together with the savings that we've already shared with you and that flowing through into 2025, I think we are well positioned with the current projects. I'm not talking about new projects, but our current projects. And we will be prudent. We are really very negatively disposed towards using equity. As I said earlier, we know the cost of that and it's not something that we're going to resort to and I don't think we have to resort to it, even over a two to three year period. So, Adrian, we'll keep a balanced view, but I don't know that post the additional streaming and prepay that we're intending to do that we'll actually need to do anything more. Thanks. Charl, will you go next and then Rich, you can follow Charl.

Thanks, Adrian. So, Adrian, the retrenchment costs to be modelled I would say is in the order of about $12 million to $15 million dollars. That's by our own calculations the number. So not a big or massive outflow from a restructuring perspective. On the stock buildup, I'll also take that question. So we had a furnace rebuilt at our PGM refineries, and that has resulted in us building up additional stock at the end of 2023. Clearly, we take a very keen eye on working capital, and we asked the team to work that through the process, and a lot of that came through in quarter one of this year. And that's why you'll see a higher metal sold than a metal produced. But I would say we are now back to historical averages. So, there's not a lot of metal that we can accelerate through the process. Thanks. Rich?

Thanks very much. And yeah, hi, Adrian. Just in terms of the recycling I guess, the reason why we are possibly a little bit more bearish on the recycling I guess is three things. So firstly, we do think that recycling is impacted by margins. We often hear recycling is a fixed margin business, so it's price inelastic, but at low prices even fixed margins become less money. A big part of recycling is obviously how you finance it, so it's working capital. So a combination of small markets and high financing costs where we're sitting at the moment definitely impacts on those businesses. And then the final one is spare capacity. So over the last four or five years we've seen a significant amount of spare capacity, processing capacity for recycled materials being built up during the high cycle. A lot of those facilities are running well below where they should be or designed to be, and that increases unit costs. So overall, the recycling market is currently under a lot of pressure, and we need to see that changing. I think importantly, what do we put into our models? So when we showed our sort of house view, what our model is based on is, we look at history, how much of the metal that went into automobiles ultimately finds its way back in terms of recycling. And when you look over an extended period of time, that number is actually pretty consistent over the last sort of decade or so. So it becomes quite a good benchmark to use going forward. Yep, you might get volatility in the short term, but overall that should be the metal we see coming back and that's what we've built into our models with some short-term pressure. So, Adrian, that's how we get to our numbers, thanks. Hope that helps.

Next caller from the lines please.

Thank you. The next question comes from Rene Hochreiter of Sieberana Research, NOAH Capital. Please go ahead.

Hi everybody, thanks for taking my question. Just two quick questions from me. How much did Chrome contribute to revenue at your SA PGM ops, just in percentage terms or in rand billions or whatever? And then in terms of the Keliber project, what long term lithium price are you using for the valuation of Keliber and is it giving you a decent IRR at current lithium prices?

Thanks, Rene. And I'll ask Mika to go first just to comment on the assumptions regarding the lithium prices and then Charl or Richard if you can just pick up the Chrome question. Thanks Rene.

Thank you very much for [Technical Difficulty] Thanks, Neal. We are actually not disclosing the prices we are using in our financial model, but I can assure you that our prices are very moderate, they are flat, and they have been there since the definitive feasibility study and we have kept them the same. So we feel that we are quite safe actually against the forecast that we showed a bit earlier in this presentation, where we can clearly see that if you take whatever consensus forecast, you can see that they go right towards 30,000, reaching first 20,000 probably during the next five years. And against that picture, we are sure that we can keep our costs and breakeven levels well below those levels. So we are confident that we are on the right side of that. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Rene. So Just on the Chrome side, for the half year, the revenue was about ZAR3 billion. So full year annualized closer to ZAR6 billion at current prices. That's about at the moment running at about 7% to 8% of the total revenue basket for the South African PGM operations. So in that sort of ballpark and that's about 1.3 million tons that we see coming through there. So that is a significant portion of the total revenue basket.

Thank you. Next caller please from the lines.

Thank you. Next question comes from Nkateko Mathonsi of Investec Bank. Please come ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my call. My first question is on Stillwater and the restructuring all-in sustaining cost of about [$1000 to 2E] (ph). And I mean, I think Charl did say that at current prices or at current environment, you need higher prices to actually generate positive free cash out of that operation. And then based on your supply demand numbers that you presented, maybe in the medium term, we do get those higher prices, but longer term as some of the commodities actually move into a balance and surplus, we may not have those higher prices. So my question is, and I think Neal talked about, said you consider the full closure of this operation. And my question is, why is the restructuring the most optimal solution versus a full closure when you consider the long-term headwind as far as a commodity like palladium is concerned? And then my second question on the gold side of things, Burnstone, you put it on care and maintenance at these record prices. Why not closure or is the care and maintenance the first stage before you actually go for a full closure of that operation? And then also still on gold, seismicity seems to have increased quite a bit. Is it fair to say as far as the cost structure of your gold operation is concerned, you've made a step change on the cost curve as far as positioning is concerned? I'm going to leave it there and yeah.

Okay. Thanks, Nkateko, and I'll try and just lead into the Stillwater and palladium question and then Charles come in afterwards. In terms of, these are not just commercial decisions. We employ people and there's a balance in our decision making looking after social impacts as well. So, it's not simple we close and we displace, in this case, 1,500 or 1,600 employees. That's not the sort of company we are. However, let me say we're also very commercial. And putting the operations on care and maintenance is actually a higher cost option. You have a continuous negative cash flow with no possibility of recovering those costs. Now, your point, Nkateko, of in the longer term, current indications are that palladium will face headwinds, but if you look a little bit deeper into our market development strategy, there are lots of initiatives that are focused on the market development for palladium. But also, I would suggest that the reason we produce a 2E graph that shows what it shows is because of the almost the ability to substitute platinum with palladium. So, yeah, we have a slightly different view of the market and the long term. I just want to make a point on Burnstone as well. Burnstone is not a project that, well, let me say the reasons for what we're doing with Burnstone is to preserve capital now. And it's a good project. And when we have spare capital, we will certainly develop it. And, Rich, you may want to say more when you answer the gold question. But let me just see if Charles, if you want to add anything to the decision-making around Stillwater, and then we can hand over to Richard to deal with gold as well.

Yeah, Neal, not much to add to what you said, which I think captures it all. But just to reinforce, we made lots of trade-off analyses and looked long and hard at the best outcomes. And I think the takeaway should be that this is a world-class ore body. The geology is exceptional, but it's not easy. It's very fickle. It's not a linear reef pattern. It requires quite an adept mining approach. And over the last couple of years, we've been working hard to improve efficiencies around that. Now, I think we're in the game of getting that right. And as we get that right, and we bring that cost structure down, and we bring the optimization up, you have a very levered option here, and you still have choice. Care and maintenance might remain for a while. It allows you to bring it back, it allows you to later on say, on balance, we have a long-term bearish outlook and therefore we make a choice. We don't have that outlook by the way, and I think Neal's made that very clear, as has Richard. So you want to protect optionality here and you want to protect a world-class long life asset that in anyone's portfolio is a Tier 1 asset when optimized and when mined efficiently. So I think we have all of those choices on the plate. And we have a game plan for getting it right through next year. And then we have a game plan that gives us optionality beyond that. Choices can be made either way as market circumstances dictate. Thank you.

Thanks very much. I think just maybe just to comment on Burnstone, I think, Neal said the crux of it. It's a project we like very much. It's a good project. A lot of the capital has been spent and it's really now about the ramp up. Yes, it's a high gold price environment now, but clearly that is still a project that needs to ramp up. Those sort of profiles are obviously long-term decisions we make as opposed to where we think the gold price is going to be 6 to 12 months and it is about looking at the region as a whole. So we do look at the capital we've got, what can we turn off or slow down now that doesn't have a big impact on the rest of the business and turn back on again at the right time. So it's a combination of factors, but certainly Burnstone is not a project we would put into full closure given where it is and certainly the value of the project that we still see there. So that would be that reason I think just to add to Neal's comments. In terms of the gold costs, I think important to recognize obviously the gold operations we've got are very operationally geared and what I mean by that is it is a high fixed cost base. These are assets that originally were expected to close more than five years ago and we've still got 10 years’ worth of reserves on it. But that means it needs to be carefully managed. And there are two ways to manage that. The one is obviously volume and output. And the other way is managing fixed costs, which is a lot of the restructuring we've done, predominantly through infrastructure and overheads. So where do we see this business based on where we've got it right now? I think our outlook for a steady state in terms of the big three operations, Kloof, Beatrix and Driefontein, so I'm excluding DRD, is probably somewhere in the region of about 550,000 to 600,000 ounces per annum. That's where we see the current steady state. And that would be off a cost base of between ZAR1 million and ZAR1.1 million per kilogram at those sort of output levels. Today, Driefontein is operating there. Beatrix, we expect to see getting there towards the end of the current half. And then of course, as I mentioned, Kloof, we needed a bit of opening up to get that flexibility. So if you translate that into a dollar per ounce number at those output levels, it's in the region of about $1,800 to $1,900 per ounce, which is roughly the cost structure we would see for these operations. Thanks.

We're getting short of time now, so could we just take the last two calls on the line, please? First caller.

Next caller comes from Leroy Mnguni of HSBC. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, Neal and team. I'd like to ask about the fixed costs in your US PGM business. So you've got a business that was by design, sort of designed to cater for 750,000 ounces to maybe a bit more and a much bigger recycling business as well compared to what it's delivering at the moment. You're now cutting that to about 250,000 in terms of the mining side. How are you ensuring that you can take out the fixed costs so that it doesn't drown your unit costs at your reduced production rate?

Yeah. Thanks, Leroy, and a very good question which we apply all the time when we go through a restructuring, especially on the basis of reduced outputs. There's a very significant cost reduction based on taking out 800 employees. Some of those you may argue are variable because they are production people, but as Charles explained, simplifying the management structure to one GM across the entire operations effectively taking out a whole level addresses your question and certainly we can give you some more detail on that but it has been addressed. Charles, do you want to add anything to that?

Yeah, I think, putting Stillwater West on care and maintenance had a significant fixed cost component because of the aged infrastructure and the travel times and the shaft setup and everything else. So that is a big swing on getting a lower operating cost structure for the rest of the business. And then the met obviously has a higher fixed cost component. But the met also has flexibility. So we are currently running one furnace. We have two furnaces available. You can scale up or down and you have the backup furnace as needed. But that gives you a residual fixed cost structure that really needs this kind of operating profile and that operating profile also protects your recycling profile. And we have some upside on that recycling volume as it currently sits at the met. So you've got to get the mix right and I think this plan that we put in on the table today does that. Obviously as you get volumes up at the right times, your unit costs drop and your cash flow opens up significantly. But I think we're moving now to a place where we've made some very hard decisions on the organizational structure. And talent in the US is very expensive. So, -- but for good reason, because we pay prevailing wages, we are well regulated. We have exceptional ESG, environmental, and other performance, which is very costly. So, we're running the business now on a scale down basis that protects all of that, but that gives us optionality going forward. And I think the mix of the mining and the recycling and the grain recycling platform and the grain mix within the metals and the sourcing, et cetera, that's a very interesting business long term and that's the one we're protecting right now.

Thank you very much and I'm afraid we've run out of time. We do have details of the people who have sent other questions in. So we'll make sure that we respond to you by email most likely. So we will try and deal with all outstanding questions. Neal, if I can hand over to you for a last word please.

Yeah. Thanks, James, and thank you everybody for attending and those that asked questions, I hope we answered them in a way that was understandable. And yeah, look, I think I want to say we've worked very hard. This has been a tough six months for us. We did commit to address our balance sheet, which I think is the issue that has caused the most concern more recently. And I dare say we've done a good job of doing that. And there's more in the pipeline, and I'm pretty confident we will close it out before the end of the year. In addition to that, what can go very badly wrong in a phase like this is the restructuring and the wheels coming off your operational engine room. And of course that just depletes the balance sheet in a much quicker way. I'm again very pleased with the regions in delivering the results they've delivered. Clearly there are some areas of disappointment. We're well aware of that, but I think if you look through those, there are lots of good results. And if you understand and see the cost savings that are going to come through with the restructuring, you see a business that even in a low price environment is going to be essentially sustainable. So, very pleasing achievements which I do believe will lead to the creation of value. In addition to that, I think we have a wonderful strategy, we're in the right metals at the right time and certainly in the ecosystems that we participate in, we are well supported. So this company is actually very well positioned and I think we can look forward to a rerating now from the bottom. So, thank you again all for your time and we look forward to sharing our year-end results with you early next year. Thank you very much.