Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome. I think it's a real pleasure to have you with us today as we present our operating and financial results for 2025. So thank you very much for joining us today. I think just in terms of the agenda that we've got, I will start off with a few high-level of salient points. Then we'll move into the Performance Excellence, which will be presented by a number of the team. We'll then move into growth and just touch briefly on the resources, the mineral resources and reserves that we've recently published. Charl will take us through the financial performance and Ken to touch on how we're interpreting these very volatile markets we're seeing and a little bit of the outlook in that regard before I wrap up with the way forward. I think there are several forward-looking statements in the document. So would urge you please to just take note of the safe harbor statement. Thank you. I think when we reflect on December 1, 2025, I think certainly during the latter half of the year, it was at a time of significant change at Sibanye, we, of course, have the leadership transition. And with that, we also undertook a refresh of our strategy. This was something that we presented to the market at the end of January. But for anybody who was not able to make that, if I could try and summarize our strategic refresh in one word, it would be simplification. Specifically, what we're really focusing on in the short term is around maximizing and driving our operating margins. We're doing that through a keen focus on operational excellence and simplifying the operating model that we have and then further simplification through our portfolio such that we're focusing on the highest…

Thanks, Rich. Hello, everyone. As Chief Operating Officer of our South African operations, my focus is on delivering performance excellence through safe production, operational efficiency and holistic improvement, our strategy insures, we consistently improve delivery across our portfolio. So let's take a look into our 2025 results for the South African business. Turning to our SA PGM operations. we've maintained consistent delivery, meeting or exceeding guidance each year since 2017. More specifically, for 2025, total 4E PGM production reached 1.8 million ounces including attributable production from Mimosa at 117,000 ounces and third-party purchase of concentrate at 73,000 ounces and all aggregated aligning with our 1.75 billion to 1.85 million ounce guidance and stable year-on-year. Since the Lonmin acquisition in 2019, production has remained steady between 1.73 million and 1.83 million ounces annually, reflecting our operational resilience and ongoing progress towards the second quartile of the industry cost curve. Breaking it down, underground production increased 2% to over 1.6 million ounces supported by improvements at Rustenburg's mechanized Bathopele shaft and more stable output compared to 2024s disruptions at Siphumelele and Kroondal operations. In Marikana, output was affected by safety-related stoppages at the high-performing safety shaft, but this was partially offset by K4's ramp-up where production rose 41% to almost 100,000 ounces, contributing to Marikana's improved cost position. Surface production was lower by 29% at 108,000 ounces influenced by higher first quarter rainfall and the commencement to transition feed resources, such as Rustenburg's Waterval West TSF and Marikana's ETD1 to ETD2 tailings facilities. We are evaluating long-term service opportunities at Rustenburg to support the sustainability of the surface business. Purchase of concentrate volumes were reduced by 24%, in line with contractual terms. We remain focused on cost discipline Operating costs increased by just 7.3% in absolute terms. All-in sustaining costs rose 10%…

Thank you, Richard. The U.S. PGM operations have had a solid year with production of 284,000 3E ounces and an all-in sustaining cost of $1,203 an ounce beating our guidance, combined with a strongly improving safety performance into year-end. The significant downsizing in late 2024, while turning around the cash bleed at the time in the context of depressed prices also sow the seeds of improved mining productivities and cost efficiencies that we have built on through the year under review. Certainly, with improved PGM prices later in the year, we returned to profitability. And when you overlay Section 45x benefits, you have a competent outcome. During this period of getting our operating performance right, albeit at lower volumes, the team led by Kevin Robertson has also done a significant amount of work on setting up the Montana operations for long-term success. You have seen in the earlier global cost curve that we are now sitting in the middle of the pack and have been for 2 consecutive quarters. But our drive towards $1,000 an ounce is aimed at being a lowest quartile PGM producer on a sustainable basis through price cycles. In the Montana operations, we have a legacy of semi-mechanized mining with narrow headings and small stopes using a range of small equipment such as 2-yard LHDs and CMAC bolting, which ultimately constrains you with lower tonnes per cycle and a higher cost per ounce, notwithstanding the fact that our miners are incredibly good at what they do and bring significant skills and experience to the process. Through last year, we trialed mechanized bolting with success, and we are not right now rolling out a significant transformation program, which will see amongst many changes the stepwise introduction of mechanized equipment, a progressive increase in heading size in advance…

Thank you, Charles, and hello, everybody. Sibanye Stillwater has a substantial life of mine and solid project base, focusing only on the precious metals. We've got 356 million ounces in the resource category, of which about 16% 58.2 million ounces has been converted into the mineral reserve category. SA PGM operations contributed about 50% of the resource base, 177 million ounces. And again, about 16% of that has been converted into reserves, 29.4 million ounces. If you look on the right-hand side of the slide, you can see that these reserves serve very, very significant operations. Some of the Rustenburg operations have in excess of 32 years life. The Marikana K4 project, for example, has a 45-year life of mine and the Marikana East 4 project has a 34-year life of mine. As Richard said earlier on our gold operations are mature. They are bid to the gold price, but I would likely -- they are very insignificant. We have a 43 million-ounce resource and a 9.4 million ounce reserve. The Beatrix operation in the free state is a solid operation. The Driefontein operation is a very solid operation. And our DRD operation is our world-class tailings retreatment operation. And we also have the Bernstein project, which is there still to become a very efficient, shallow, low-cost, 25-year life of mine operation. The second biggest category of our resource base is our U.S. operations. Here, we have 80.9 million ounces in resource, of which only 19.4 million ounces have been converted into reserves. Again, these assets are highly leveraged, they are high grade, they our quality assets. And again, if you look at the right-hand side of the slide, the Stillwater mine has a 26-year life of mine and the East Boulder mine has in excess of 30 years, actually 35 years life of mine. We'd also like to add that this year, we have included a maiden reserve for the Marikana East project in the SA PGM region. We have also included a maiden reserve for the Cooke TSF and I made a reserve for the Mount Lyell copper project in Tasmania, Australia. In closing, I'd like to leave everybody on the call with a message that next year, '26 and 2027, Sibanye Stillwater will be focusing on converting a large percentage of the abundant resources into reserves. With that, I'm going to hand over to Melanie. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to all attendees. Our renewable energy program remains central to our journey towards carbon neutrality. Having set ourselves a target to reduce our emissions by 40% come 2030. And now with the conclusion of the new agreements with Etana and NOA, our renewable pipeline has expanded to 765 megawatts, delivering nearly the same capacity as a single Kusile unit and thus strengthening our energy security and accelerating progress towards carbon neutrality. Naturally, this positions us as the largest contracted private renewable energy offtake in South African mining. And with this portfolio and come 2028, it will supply more than half of our South African energy needs -- it will generate over ZAR 1 billion in annual savings and avoid 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 each year, a 41% reduction from our 2024 levels. At the same time, our operations, high water demand and presence in water stream catchments make strong water stewardship critical. Through disciplined management practices, and our investment in advanced water treatment plants, we've significantly reduced portable water reliance and increased resilience and also contributed to margins. 4 of our operations are now fully independent of municipal portable water with our gold assets at 94% independence. Importantly, though, the water liberated through these efforts is equivalent to the needs of a midsized city and an essential social contribution in a water scarce country that's currently grappling with water challenges. Our commitment to communities remains equally strong. And through the Marikana renewal process, we prioritized addressing the needs of affected families and rebuilding trust. And a key focus was closing the housing gap for families, not supported by the AMCU Trust. I'm pleased to share that we delivered the final 2 of 17 houses, honoring our commitments to the widows. As a business, we remain committed to shared value with all stakeholders as we earn trust where we operate. Thank you, and handing over to you, Charles.

Thanks, Melanie. At Keliber, we are looking forward to hosting a Market Day in a couple of months and then a deep dive on the operation. When you get there, you will see a really impressive build and the team on the ground led by Hannu Hautala has done an incredible job in completing the build program on schedule. and where changes to spend were related to revised permit requirements late in the process. This is Sibanye's first greenfields project build and it has been incredibly well executed. The financial investment decision for the refinery was made in November 2022. In October 2023, the scope change for the effluent treatment plant was approved along with authorization to begin construction of the concentrator. Mechanical completion has been achieved for all components of both the concentrator and refinery with the exception of the rotary kiln at the refinery. As you may be aware, mining activities were delayed due to postponing contract signing until the completion of the deep dive analysis in the second half of last year. Commissioning of the concentrator crusher, conveyance system, sorting plant and laboratory is scheduled to be completed ahead of plan. The phased approach is a direct outcome of the deep dive work conducted by the corporate technical team. The guidance is that we will produce at least 15,000 kilotonnes to 20,000 kilotonnes of spodumene this year either for direct sale or as a feed into the refinery, if approved late year and subject to market conditions. Let me unpack the stage approach in a little more detail. Stage 1, EUR 783 million is the initial capital and excludes any other preproduction SIB costs. 237 kilotonnes of stockpile is required by year-end and counter the limitation put in the Syvajarvi mining permit being kept at 540 kilotonnes.…

Thank you, Charles. Good morning to all participants. It gives me great pleasure to share the financial results for the year ended 2025. If we start with the key highlights. Headline earnings per share for 2025 increased 281% to ZAR 244 cents per share. During the same period, adjusted EBITDA increased almost threefold from ZAR 13 billion to just under ZAR 38 billion, 189% increase. As a reminder, we have set a target of reducing gross debt by 50% from the current ZAR 2.2 billion level over the next 2 to 3 years. But through the cycle, net gearing target of below 1x net debt to EBITDA remains consistent with our financial policy and has served us well during periods of constrained commodity prices. If we look at our net debt to adjusted EBITDA at the end of 2025, it is down 1.77x at the end of 2024 to 0.59x at the end of 2025. As a reminder, the dividend declared for 2025, as you would have heard, is ZAR 131 cents per share or 2% yield. Turning to the income statement. The revenue increased by 16% and costs were down 8% However, as highlighted on the previous slide, this translated to an increase of almost 200% in adjusted EBITDA. Noteworthy items for 2025 include the following: the loss on financial instruments of ZAR 3.8 billion was mainly due to the impact of the protective gold hedges that amounted to ZAR 1.7 billion as well as a revaluation of the Burnstone debt. With the sharp increase in the long-term price of gold, the Burnstone debt is now expected to be fully repaid, and that meant that we had to increase this liability by ZAR 1.7 billion. Another big item that impacted this period. Impairments for the year at the U.S.…

Thanks, Charles, and good morning, everyone. Markets were characterized by tariff uncertainty and geopolitical tensions throughout 2025 and into 2026. And this has driven the precious metals rally. Gold spot prices brought the $4,500 mark during December, up 73% since the beginning of the year and driven again by geopolitics, wars and a weak U.S. dollar. Gold ETFs were up 25% year-on-year to 4,000 tonnes and Central Bank buying continued. The platinum price rally has been driven largely by tariff uncertainty and was exacerbated by primary supply disruptions during the first half of the year. 3E recycling volumes were up 9% year-on-year. However, this is still below the pre-COVID levels despite better prices attracting hoarded stock. The tariff uncertainty has resulted in significant platinum flows into both the U.S. and China. Over 600,000 ounces of platinum was imported into the U.S. in July compared with normal levels of around 200,000 ounces. Between July and October, 1 million ounces of above normal levels moved into the U.S. And overall, platinum imports were up over 50% year-on-year. NYMEX stocks quickly reached a peak of about 650,000 ounces in April and then dropped back to 280,000 ounces in July. This as reciprocal tariffs were delayed and then PGMs were on the list of goods not subject to tariffs. Stocks then jumped back to around 700,000 ounces in October. As the outcome of the Section 232 investigation was delayed due to the government shutdown. Since then, the outcome has been announced as negotiations not tariffs. So uncertainty still lingers. Imports of platinum into China also increased steadily during the first half of the year and then fell back in the second half as prices became too high. Investors and jewelry manufacturers switched into platinum as gold just became too expensive. Overall, platinum imports into…

Thanks very much, Kleantha. And then I guess, just heading into the last section to wrap up with. So I think just starting off with our guidance for 2026 and the outlook. Starting off with our South African PGM operations, I think a very slight decline in terms of our production guidance in line with the overall life of mine profile that many of you will be familiar with, but no significant changes across the South African PGM operations. guidance of the South African gold operations is slightly lower than what we achieved this year or during 2025 and that is driven largely by the reduction of output at the Kloof operations, as Richard touched on earlier. I think in terms of the U.S. PGMs, we do see a slight increase in terms of output at the underground operations that is coupled with the ongoing work towards reducing the overall unit costs down towards $1,000 per ounce and associated with that, we do see an increase in some of the capital as we start making those investments. On the recycling, we have quoted our production guidance as a gold equivalent to ounces. So you'll see 400,000 to 420,000 ounces there. Please note that is gold equivalent, we produce a range of metals. But I think when looking at it on this basis, it does just demonstrate the significance of this business, almost 0.5 million equivalent gold ounces that we have built over the time of a, as we mentioned, low capital intensity, very low capital base. On Keliber, the guidance we are providing is we are anticipating producing spodumene concentrate as we ramp up the concentrate at this stage, whether or not that goes into refinery, of course, will be dependent on the decision that is made on the commissioning…

Thanks, Richard. Thanks, gentlemen. I've got a couple of questions here. I think we'll start with the Kloof questions. I'd say Keliber questions, sorry, missing my Ks up here. At Keliber, you note that initial value realization depends on producing and selling spodumene concentrate. It's a specified grade during the concentrator start-up. How do you assess the risk of achieving specification grade the early stages of ramp up? Can you give us some comfort around achieving these initial targets that's from Arnold Van Graan.

I'll ask Ralph to come in and join me on some of the details. But just on a high level, let me make just unpack the sort of what we've spoken about the stage ramp-up and life mitigate risk. I think a lot of the work -- initially, the feasibility study for Keliber was, of course, based on mining all the way through to a final battery product. A lot of the work that we did in the second half of last year was around looking at these independent steps. So both the costs associated with them, the commercial liability associated with them and almost if you were to optimize, for example, just up to a spodumene concentrate what would that mean? What's come out of that work is essentially we are confident that we can look at this in different stages, that we can have an initial stage that in its own right is commercially viable. And of course, that gives us the option to remain at that point. But we are also aware of a lot of the work that's currently going on in the EU as well as Western economies generally things like Project Bolt, but also EU looking at sustainability and supply of critical minerals. And we think that this will have an impact on what the ultimate sort of pricing layout looks like in time to come. And that, of course, is a key aspect of how we look at the refinery and when and how we turn that on. So I'll let Ralph answer some of your more detailed questions. But I think just on a high level to note that, that was a lot of the work we have done and out of that, very confident that we can look at the project in different stages, each being commercially viable in their own rights. But Ralph, please feel free to add anything there.

[indiscernible] So just to give you confidence, we always visit the spodumene grade even during the feasibility. And we're quite confident we can push a grade in the high limits of more than 5% based on those test work. Also, the concentrator is very traditional technologies. So obviously, we test the recovery versus spodumene grade. So we're quite confident, and we're also confident in Syvajarvi, which is our first pit. It's quite high grade with the lithium oxide percentage of close to 1.1% and even more at certain stages which will also assist us in getting that higher grade. So from a Keliber perspective, we don't see any new risks because we are pushing a higher spodumene grade initially. Thanks. I hope that answers your question.

Thanks, Ralph. Second question is on impairment due to the longer-term lithium price forecast, stage start-up to preserve flexibility. Question is what long-term lithium price assumption underpins the revised recoverable amounts at Keliber and at what price level does the project fail to meet our hurdle rate?

Let me maybe pick up on the hurdle rate question. And Charl, if I could ask you then to pick up just on the prices that we used for our impairments. So I think in terms of hurdle rates, let's put it this way. I think what you see in terms of the total project as we've shared with you, we currently have an all-in sustaining cost of about $12,000 odd per tonne. That is if we go all the way through to a battery grade. So we've always said we would obviously like to see prices I guess, well in excess of that in order to meet our internal hurdle rates. So looking at a region of 14,000 to 15,000 is where we'd want to see it sustainably at least going forward on that basis. I think importantly, of course, what we are assessing as part of this is also the opportunity on the earlier stage concentrate. And of course, that then is driven by volume in concentrate prices. I think critically, the long-term opportunity of this project is about supplying battery grade into the European ecosystems. We never built this ready just to us what you mean concentrate into more broader Chinese supply chains. So I think that's the opportunity that we've really got to this particular project. But Charl, would you like to pick up on the long-term price for the payment models?

Thank you, Richard. So the average price that we've used over the life of the mine but obviously, I appreciate that the price falls up over the duration of the life of mine. The average price was just under USD 17,500 per tonne and that equates roughly to a long-term price of about USD 20,000 per tonne.

In a further question on what the remaining book value for Keliber is?

Yes. So the remaining book value is ZAR 9 billion or just under EUR 460 million.

And Richard, for you, what are the next steps in the battery metal strategy?

Thanks very much. I think as we shared at our Strategy Day, I think our long-term strategy as a company still remains to be able to supply metals that ultimately will support decarbonization and an energy transition. So that remains the long-term strategy. I think it's broader than perhaps just battery metals. But in the short term, our strategy is very much around optimizing the current portfolio. So as it stands today, we have our core operations of our South African gold, our South African PGMs, our U.S. PGMs, recycling and Keliber and that is where our focus will be and certainly our investment into our organic projects there. I think we will continue to assess the various projects, and that is where I did share with the market the growth framework that we've developed, which talks about the different metals we will look at in the jurisdictions we will consider. That will ultimately drive how we think about it. But as I say, our sort of immediate focus, our short-term strategy is very much on delivering from our core operations.

Thank you, Richard. Thank you for this wonderful presentation, well done IR team. Thank you. Can one expect this level of financial performance going forward, should the commodity prices hold? Richard, you can take that or Charl.

Yes, happy to just take that more generally. I mean, I think as we mentioned on a high level, of course, I think the benefit of the prices that we saw coming through, gold, of course, we saw coming through throughout most of the year but the really big -- all of these prices ramped up towards the end of the year. PGMs really only started recovering in H2 with a significant ramp up in December. So of course, I think the type of financials that you've seen were based more on a back-ended portion of the year that delivered most of the value. But I think what we would look forward to prices remaining exactly the same. I think as I mentioned, we've had a noisy set of numbers and quite a few one-offs that we've had to deal with. So if anything under this environment, everything else the same, I would expect to see slightly improved financials with that noise out the window. But as Kleantha mentioned, the approach that we're adopting for the year ahead, I think we've got great tailwinds with the commodity prices. I think we see new bases being set, I think this market is being grown by a world that's scrambling to secure critical metal. So that's likely to remain. But it will be volatile. And certainly, that's the way we're positioning it and looking at our business for the year ahead.

Given the record gold prices, to what extent are the reserve reductions at Kloof, structural geotechnical constraints versus price-sensitive. Would a sustained higher gold price justify re-extending the mine life?

James, let me take the first crack at that, and Rich, if you'd like to add anything. I mean I think critically, so of course, as has been noted, I think we do have slightly conservative prices that we use for reserves and the reason for that is we look to do our long-term mine planning and capital allocation based on what we still see as through cycle prices, ultimately, making capital decisions for really long durations. I do ever think Kloof is important to say that I don't think gold price was not a factor at all in terms of the decisions that we made. The decision to reduce Kloof was a safety decision, first and foremost. We did have some shafts that were coming to the end of their life. Anyway, that was part of the plan during the course of last year Kloof 7 shaft in particular, was planned to close. But then we lost volume due to safety and that decision, I think when we make a decision to stop mining areas because the safety, price is not a factor that gets considered in those decisions at all. So what we are looking at is Kloof for safety on operation that today is producing a lot less than it was obviously designed to. That means it's got a very high fixed cost base. And fundamentally, that means your unit cost goes up. According to the reserve price we use, i.e., through the cycle, we do not have long life reserves at Kloof, but we fully recognize that at these prices, Kloof remains profitable, and we can continue to mine it as long as the prices remain where they are. So we have put a year-to-year plan in place and we will continue to assess Kloof at those prices. And I think that brings significant benefits, as Rich mentioned, not only commercial and cash flow for the company but of course, also is a large employer. So we will keep Kloof going for as long as it is profitable and makes sense, but we won't be declaring or changing significantly the life of mine and reassessing capital at these numbers.

I guess a related question, but can you give us a sense of your gold operations, excluding DRDGOLD environmental liabilities? And how much of this is funded through environmental trust that, so I guess that's rehab. I'm trying to get a sense of the longer-term cash flow impact, should there be further closures or rationalization?

Charl can I perhaps ask you to pick that up or Rich?

Happy to pick that up. Thanks for the question. So we do have a liability over the gold operations of ZAR 5.4 billion and of the ZAR 5.4 billion, ZAR 4.7 billion is funded and the balance then is with guarantees.

Charl, anything you'd like to add to that or...

No, Rich full cover. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I've got a question for you, Charl, actually. So I'm going back onto you. How should we model the benefits of Section 45 ex credits in '26 and '27 in particular, and how this relates to cash flows. And then related to that is when are we expecting to receive the credits from 2023 and 2024's cash. And is the higher CapEx -- okay, that's a separate question. It's just a Section 45 ex.

Yes. So in terms of 45 ex, the '23 and '24 payment should -- sorry, the '23 and '24 credits, we are expecting that in 2026. And then thereafter, we expect it to flow in the year following the claim. So the '25 claim to flow at the back end of '26 and some early '26 towards the back end of '27, give or take a few months.

Just on when do we expect in '23 and '24?

Yes. So '23 and '24 claims we expect in 2026 due to the large amounts, and this being fairly new. And those amounts are subject to examination as it's referred to in the U.S. or as we refer to an audit. But again, we are working closely with our tax advisers, and we are continuously following up.

A question on the higher CapEx at SA PGMs in 2026. Due to some deferral spend in 2025, is it because of that? Or what other factors?

Thanks, James. So I'll ask Rich to pick that up. I don't think it's so much a deferral in 2025, but we do have an increase in SIB around some specific projects. But Rich, perhaps I can hand over to you, please to pick that up.

Thanks, Rich. So there is a little bit of extra venture within our precious metal refinery as well as some trackless mining machinery. But largely year-on-year, it's the same except for those extra pickups in trackless mobile machinery and in the precious metal refinery.

So the related question to that. I'm not sure if it is relevant. But is capital spent on ore reserve development what type of development is funded from this CapEx and what type of development have funded from working operating costs? And in terms of the Kopaneng deeps project, Will it be a similar layout in arrangement to Siphumelele mechanized section and which words shaft would be used to transport mainland materials?

Perhaps we'll ask Rich just to pick up on Kopaneng and Charl on the capital.

Okay. So in terms of ore reserve development, it is effectively underground development work that's undertaken to open up access and prepare the cave mineral reserves for mining in the future production periods. But I have to specify here that the amount that gets capitalized is specifically in the off-rig development to open up those ore blocks. The reef plane or on-reef development is expensed in the period that it's incurred. I hope that answers it.

Position on the Kopaneng deeps layouts, et cetera.

I'll take that, James. So Kopaneng is a concept study at the moment. It's a very attractive downdip extension. So the strike is over 5 kilometers. And that has been the challenge of how to gain access, so a very good question. So initially, we will gain access on one of the flanks through a down-dip extension of the Bambanani asset. And then Khomanani offers a very attractive into the ore body. However, Khomanani 2 shaft doesn't have a rock pass. So we have to look at other down dip extensions and then possibly even a down dip development of a decline from Khomanani as well. So man and material probably through Khomanani and Bambanani in initial phases. But I think in the long term, there are other more attractive options for bigger volumes. We will be doing a pre-feasibility study in 2026 to sharpen up those carryforward options.

Question for Kleantha. How will the GFEX impact prices this year? Should there be physical delivery for May and June?

Thanks for that question. Look, I think essentially, we're going to see heightened metal flows into China at least up until settlement date. So we've got a good price underpin their for platinum. And I think we're also going to see East rates moving up a little bit as we get closer to that date. Once that settlement date is reached essentially, you're going to have a very nice cleverly made platinum stockpile in China. And I think post that, you will get some price correction. But yes, that is the nature of investment demand, unfortunately. So I think we will see some underpin, and then we'll see a bit of correction post that settlement date.

Turning to the U.S. now. In the U.S. PGM operations, repositioning now for optimize, for currently -- sorry -- basically, the question is are we repositioning for current 2E PGM prices? Or is there further downside risk if prices soften?

Thanks, James. So I'll pick that up initially. I think as we have shared and as trials unpacked, our objective in the U.S. is ultimately to get our cost base down closer to $1,000 per ounce. And again, the reason for that target is that because that's where we see sort of through cycle I guess, being a low point, and therefore, that operation being able to wash its own face sustainably for significant option to the optionality to the upside in terms of palladium prices. So we -- I think in terms of have we positioned it for the current palladium prices, I think right now, our objective, we restructured that operation 2 or 3 years ago to position it for the downturn that we saw. And our focus right now is on achieving those cost levels. Once we've achieved those then we will be able to assess the operations going forward and understand what a new base could look like. As Charles mentioned, we do have the opportunity to relook at Stillwater West in time. But today, that's not currently part of the focus. The focus will be on East Boulder and Stillwater West, so largely in line with the current production levels.

Thanks, Richard. Questions on streams and hedging. Could you give us an update on the streaming deals? I guess that the details of streaming deals and then unpack your hedging book for us, ounces per year and at what price.

Thanks, James. So let me maybe take the streaming question. And Charl, if you could then follow on with some of the hedge questions. So I think in terms of the stream, we fundamentally have 2 streams within the company at the moment. One is at the Stillwater operations. That stream largely considers a palladium stream of about 4.5% and most of the gold that comes out of that operation. So that -- and that is a sort of evergreen stream. I think it does step down at some point to 2.5%, but that's still quite a bit out. So that's the one stream that we've got in place. The second stream that we have in place is on the South African PGM operations. That stream again considers all of the gold that is produced from those operations, which is about 1% of the total metal. And then if I recall, it's about 2.5% on platinum, which also steps down and that is there for the life of the current mine that does not include any extensions beyond that. So the platinum is limited to the current life of mine.

Thanks, Rich. If we look at the gold hedges, so in December 2023, we entered into some hedging arrangements for our South African gold operations. These hedges were put in place to protect the downside, specifically around our legacy assets. They have -- all of the hedges have now been concluded at the end of December 2025. So there are no further gold hedges in place at the current moment.

Thanks, Charl. Charl, probably one for you again. What are the plans with the convertible bond due 2028, given that it is now in the money from Lorenzo Parisi...

Yes. So we'll keep an eye on the convertible bond. It's got a 2028 maturity, but it's got a call option. So we can call it towards the end of the year. And we'll just monitor it carefully to see what we do in terms of the convertible bond. Based on current prices, it is in the conversion territory. But for now, the focus is on refinancing the 2026 $675 million bond, and we'll just carefully monitor the convertible bond going forward.

The value of that convertible bond on the balance sheet...

That's $500 million.

In terms of simplification, Richard, might we think about the Finnish and possibly the Australian assets being potentially available for sale?

Thanks very much. I think we've been sort of quite clear at the moment that the Keliber lithium project certainly forms part of our strategic priority assets. I think we see that as a very valuable asset. So I think the short answer to that is no. I think when we look at the Australian assets today, the new Century Zinc operations have been very successful. We remain very committed to those operations until the closure of those and then the completion of that particular project. In Australia, we have a couple of projects that are being assessed. We have the Mt Lyell project. I think as we mentioned, certainly, copper is a metal that we would be interested in if we could see value accretion in those opportunities. So Mt Lyell will currently be assessed, as Charl said, and understand whether or not that meets our hurdle rates and our overall capital investment criteria. And then we do have opportunities as well with the Phos 1 project to extend the New Century or to utilize the New Century infrastructure post mining of zinc. I think it would be a wonderful opportunity to see that infrastructure continue being used. Phosphate likely does not fit in with our sort of strategic focus going forward. So our priority would be to look at how we could maximize value, try and ensure the sustainability of that project going forward, but how we could get value from that unlikely to be a core investment thesis on the phosphate side from our side.

Thanks, Richard. Just some questions on renewable energy. Can you remind us what is feeding into the operations currently, volume, solar versus wind? Listen, I don't think we can give that breakdown right now, but we'll be able to get it. we got it. Okay. And what's in the pipeline? And when will it start feeding in? And then secondly, Sibanye Stillwater is advancing well on the clean energy front. What is the overall renewables ambition and what are the targeted deadlines?

Thank you very much. Perhaps, Rob, if I could maybe ask you to pick up on some of those.

Yes, Richard. I can talk to the renewable energy. At the moment, we've got Castle wind farm as well as the solar project, the Springbok Solar project, providing electricity into our operations. The Castle wind farm was commissioned in March. The Springbok Solar project was commissioned in September. And to date, they've generated 293 gigawatt hours. In 2026, we're going to have another 2 plants coming into play. They are both wind farms. It is Umsinde wind farm and the Witberg farm. And then by the end of '26, we'll be receiving more than 400 megawatts on an annual basis. This will exceed 700 megawatts in '27 and '28. So [ Les ], I hope that answers your question on the renewable energy.

Thanks, Rob. That's pretty comprehensive. Did you give the overall target. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that.

Overall target is slightly about 700 megawatts, James. By the end of '28.

That's as big as the Castle unit. I think Melanie mentioned that. Pretty interesting. Let's get on to some of the SA PGM questions. What are the key drivers of the lower SA PGM volumes and the much higher costs?

Thank you very much. Let me take that one. So I think the slight reduction in volume, our underground operations are, in fact, largely stable year-on-year. So we aren't seeing significant change there. Much of that downgrade of about 100,000 ounces comes from a combination of surface as well as some lower third-party assumptions on lower third-party [ pop Kloof ] processing material. So that's a predominant driver down. I think in terms of the costs, the operating cost base, I think, is actually pretty stable. We're seeing that coming in, in line with or, in fact, below inflation. The big increase is largely around, I think, as we mentioned a bit earlier, the sustaining capital, in particular, which is being driven by the new projects in our refinery, specifically our OPMs or other precious metals plants in our precious metals refinery as well as some upgrades to mechanized equipment. That's a really big driver on the cost side.

A question from Nkateko about production guidance being lower and then also a reduction. Is it the reduction related to third-party volume of own metal. I think Richard just answered that there's quite a big decline in the surface. And then we have got lower third-party metal. So I think that's pretty much been covered. A question on the Appian settlement, how it's been accounted for in the cash flow statement, Charl?

Yes. Thank you. So the Appian settlement is in the cash flow from operating activities. So the number has been effectively paid or deducted in that number. So if you want to normalize cash flow from operating activities, excluding Appian, you have to add that back for the year 2025.

The cash flow table that we've got in the book, that would be under corporate audit.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Question on uranium assets. When will there be a value unlock, Richard?

Yes. Thanks very much. I mean I think we've got the 2 uranium sort of assets at the moment. The one is the old Beatrix 4 shaft or Beisa as it's known. That is an asset where we are still in the process of a transaction with a junior company, Neo Metals, who is looking to develop that asset, and we retain an equity exposure to it. That transaction is still in process. Unfortunately, still tied up with regulatory conditions and licensing that we're looking at there. But once that is closed, I think then we'll start seeing the opportunity to develop and get exposure to that project. The second big one is the Cooke Tailings project. That is the Cooke Tailings dam that is both a co-product gold and uranium opportunity. We have recently or in the process now of completing the feasibility study on that. It's going through assurance that will also be reviewed in the second quarter of this year towards a financial decision or looking at various ways that could potentially be taken forward. So that would be the second one. And again, during the next quarter, we would come up with a decision on how to move forward on that. So those are our 2 current exposures to uranium.

Thank you. I guess sticking on the growth theme, what accretive investment opportunities do we see in South Africa amid the strong gold and platinum group metal price environment and with Burnstone update. And then some questions on collaboration or other with DRDGOLD.

Yes. Thanks very much. I think as mentioned, right now, our focus in terms of opportunities on our current resources. That's where we see best returns. I think any M&A in the gold space at this point in time is probably, I would suggest high risk depending on how you're looking at doing that, but given where the commodity cycle is, so that's not one we're looking at immediately. And again, on the PGM side, I think we've said we're very happy with our portfolio as we look forward to the commodity markets of PGMs and how we see that playing out. And we think we've got some of the best brownfield opportunities to develop. So that's where we see our best value coming through. In terms of further collaboration with DRDGOLD, been quite open in that regard. I think it's been an excellent collaboration. I think we've seen real value created for both companies. And certainly, as we look forward to the future, we are building -- continue to build a significant secondary mining business. We are doing a lot of surface mining and projects on our PGM side. We still have some gold opportunities in South Africa, and we'd like to see that business growing. So moving forward, I think we'd certainly be keen on more collaboration with DRDGOLD and see that as a long-term partnership and future with the company.

Yes. Just another angle on the DRDGOLD side. I guess from a gold bull or a gold bear's perspective, it's obviously worth about ZAR 25 billion now of 50% -- are we looking to dispose of the stake in time and what would trigger a sale? Or are we looking to buy -- increase our position in DRDGOLD in juice?

We're definitely not looking for a sale, as I mentioned. I think that's -- we see a long-term opportunity to continue to grow with DRD and add a lot more value between our resources, their skills and the ability to grow together. So no, we're not looking to sell. I think in the long term, we would love to increase our stake in DRDGOLD but again, clearly now is not the time for that. I think we have different opportunities to invest capital now. But down the road, if that opportunity is right and we can do it in a value-accretive manner, certainly something we would consider.

And then I guess -- yes, another growth question, I guess, on copper for Sibanye, more copper exposure or not?

Yes. I think as we shared in our framework that we'll use to assess external growth opportunities, copper was definitely a metal that I think we would like exposure to. But I think the critical question is less around what we want exposure to or not. The real question when we look at any form of growth is going to be, is it value accretive? So yes, copper is a metal we would look at. But if we're going to do it, it would have to be done in a value-accretive manner. And I dare say, where could we -- where do we see our strengths and opportunities? I think there are some niche opportunities, where we could really create value from copper, and we will continue to look at those. But that will be the underlying driver is it value accretive and where do we think we can unlock value.

Thanks, Richard. And then a question on our chrome strategy, I guess, production and revenues. Does chrome now play a negligible role given the rise in PGM prices? Not. And I guess maybe just touch on the deal with Glencore.

Thanks very much. No, Chrome is definitely not negligible to us. I think it's clearly a byproduct in that regard, but it's a very important byproduct for us, one we've given a lot of attention to over the last 5 years and continue to look at going forward. So of course, in different commodity cycles, the relative impact of chrome is important. I think we've seen over the years how chrome has gone from being about 2% of our revenue basket almost as high as 15% during downtimes. At the moment, it's probably sitting around 10% to 12%. So it's still a very material number. And of course, even though it's relative to PGMs, that number in our earnings and bottom line is material. So we will continue to focus on all value opportunities and chrome is certainly a very important one. I think critically, the transaction that we did with Glencore, what that really looked around, I guess, was 3 big opportunities. The first one was at our Marikana operations. Historically, that chrome was sold to Glencore under, I guess, onerous terms for us. And that prohibited the potential expansion of some of those resources. And I think in recognition with Glencore by opening up those resources, we can all benefit. And that was the first opportunity from that transaction. So that really unlocked some of the value from the new projects that we have announced as part of our strategy. I think the second benefit was by looking at our chrome operations across the board at Rustenburg and Marikana. We think there's some real synergies that can be derived there. And then we have substantial chrome in surface tailings, which, again, I think with our combined skills, we've got an opportunity to unlock that. So no, not at all. I think we will be -- we are already, I think, if I'm not mistaken, the third biggest chrome producer. And I think with this going forward, we'll be a substantial chrome producer. So that's absolutely part of the strategy going forward.

And just first estimate for gold from Burnstone.

I think perhaps before then, I need to say our first step is really to get an investment decision from our Board. So that we would be going to in quarter 2 or towards the end of the first half. So let me just make that clear. We do still need to go through that process. I think first gold from Burnstone would come relatively quickly. But I think the thing with Burnstone is it is a long ramp-up period. So while you access the ore body quite quickly and can get first gold quite quickly, it's about a 4- to 5-year period before you reach steady state of about 120,000 to 130,000 ounces. So that's sort of what that profile looks like. But again, we'll unpack that in more detail at our Capital Markets Day sharing those profiles with you.

Thanks, Richard. There are a couple here that I'll just answer myself, I think, before we go to the call. Any further payments due for this Appian settlement? No. they're done. A question on surface sources and projected life for Rustenburg PGM surface tailings. Again, that's been subject to a study, and we'll come to the market with all of the detail later this year when we have our Capital Markets Day. So if you can hold on for that, we'll be able to give you all that sort of detail. And then a question from Steve Shepherd about development assay results are no longer included in the disclosure. One wonders how analysts are able to forecast future head grades and yields without this crucial information. We'll speak about that offline, Steve, I have my opinions. Can we go to the call, please?

We have a question from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley.

I've got a number of different questions, believe it or not, after all the ones you've been on the webcast. I'll just limit it to a couple. Just the first one, just on Burnstone, are you in a position where you could guide on what CapEx for that project should be? It looks like your group CapEx this year is ZAR 17 billion roughly. So I'm just kind of adding what we should add on top of that to get the 120,000 ounces. Otherwise, we can't really credit you with those yet. Second question is just on costs. I think you've done a good -- I think to understand what's happening in the gold and SA PGMs. But just in U.S. PGMs, I see CapEx is up. But even if you strip that out, it does look like the underlying unit cost is up. Is this just a case of a bit of catch-up in forward development? What's driving that? Clearly, you still want to move down towards $1,000 long-term target, but it's going up in the short term. And then final one, I think you've lost over it a bit, but just on Keliber, that extra EUR 100 million over and above the project CapEx this year, that just seems strange given the project is now finished. What actually is that? Is this a working capital build? Or is there a working capital build in addition to that? And if it is, can you actually capitalize all those ore stockpiles?

Chris, thanks very much. Good to hear from you. Let me -- I'll take the Burnstone and the Keliber question and then ask Charl, if he can pick up on the U.S. cost in particular. So Chris, just on Burnstone, we haven't actually released a full capital number. So as soon as we've got that feasibility done, we'll do that. But what I can share with you is that the large project capital at Burnstone has already been spent. So when we turn that project off, the underground infrastructure is developed, most of the surface infrastructure is developed. The plant is largely done. So the capital that will really be required on Burnstone is essentially opening up that ore body. So it's development capital predominantly. So what we're really looking at is the cost from going from start-up to steady state. For those who are familiar, it's a Kimberly ore body, which means there's a lot of development required if you really want to set that mine up for the long term, and that's our intention. So it's not a big slug of capital that will come through. It's essentially opening up and development capital. So if you were going to think of a mine ramping up its ORD style capital that will be capitalized preproduction. So it's not big project CapEx, Chris, but we'll certainly look to give you the profiles on that as those studies are completed and made public. I think on Keliber, so let me just unpack that and so we can be absolutely clear on those numbers. So we always said -- or the project CapEx for Keliber was EUR 763 million. That number has not changed. The last portion of that number, i.e., the EUR 90 million that I quoted gets spent in 2026. So -- and that gets spent during the first quarter of -- first quarter and a little bit into the second quarter. So the total project capital remains at $763 million. It hasn't changed, and the last $90 million is being spent in Q1 and Q2 of this year. The balance to get us to the $180 million, so the balance, let's call it, of $90 million, that is effectively preproduction costs as we start up. A large amount of that will likely be capitalized as preproduction, but it's preproduction and sustaining capital type costs, Chris. So the project capital remains as is. We're just spending the last $90 million now, but it is part of that original $763 million and then the other $90 million preproduction. I hope that clarified it for you, Chris. Charl, do you want to pick up on the U.S.?

I does, I does.

Super thanks, Chris.

Chris, on development, we do have quite an expanded development set of activities, particularly at East Boulder. We also have some incremental capital. So we're replacing the bridge at Stillwater East that runs between the East mine and the concentrator and mill. And that was capital we deferred in the last couple of years. We're now getting into it. And then we do have some mechanized bolters starting to come in. So there is that capital. And then we also have the initial spend on rock dump and tailings expansion at East Boulder as well. So all in, you've got -- you do have a sustaining cost number that is higher than you're probably expecting. But I think the underlying run rates that you're getting from the operators is what you can see going forward. And as I outlined in the presentation, you do have a mixed year of activity here. We've got steady-state performance and then we've got a big shift into the transformative work where you really start to see the benefits on a cost basis and a productivity basis probably at the tail end of the year and into next year. So those will start to be daylighted at Stillwater East late in the year, but they will only get into East Boulder next year.

Is there another question on the line...

Can I just ask is $130 million a good stay in business CapEx level then for kind of 300,000 ounces at Stillwater. Is that what we should assume going forward?

Chris, is that -- you're talking on the U.S. operations?

On the U.S. operations, yes.

Yes. That's correct, Chris, broadly in line with the guidance that we put out. That's right, yes.

We like you. We'll give you another go. Operator, is there another question?

Yes, we have a question from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities.

Just a question on your recycling guidance. I know you've now consolidated the ops. But if on my calculations, then Columbus volumes have materially decreased. Could you just unpack that for me? And then for another one on Kloof for Charl perhaps, just the closure liabilities, do they cover the pumping costs that you foresee there? I'm just thinking about the aquifers that Kloof sits on. I know you incur about ZAR 1 billion a year for Cooke pumping. Does the liability you've mentioned cover the pumping that's envisaged for Kloof?

Adrian, good to hear from you. Listen, I'm going to ask Grant, I think he is on the line, just to pick up your question on the recycling breakdown. I don't believe there's been a significant drop-off at the Columbus facility, but let me ask Grant just to unpack that. Just in terms of Kloof, I'll ask Charl if he does want to come in with any numbers. But just high level, Adrian, I think where Kloof is very different to the Cooke operations. So that's ZAR 1 billion you just quoted now, which is the pumping across Cooke 1 to 4. That's very interconnected with other operations. So on the northern side, we have the Harmony shaft. And on the southern side, we obviously got South Deep. And that is why a lot of that pumping has had to remain while we develop stable systems to be able to ensure seal from the surrounding operations as part of a connected basin. Both Kloof and Beatrix are stand-alone operations in that regard. So when Kloof ultimately comes to closure, it's not interconnected to any other operating mines. So essentially, that can be flooded in line with our environmental permits. So the pumping issues and liabilities that we have previously experienced at the Cooke shaft are not applicable to either Kloof or Beatrix. It would, in time, become applicable to Driefontein. And I think that's where there's obviously an important conversation around extending life of mines around Driefontein and what that future liability may look like. So that is one where that's got to be looked at down the line in the future. Driefontein still got 10 years ahead of it. But for Kloof and Beatrix, that's not a problem on the liability. Charl, I don't know, if you want to just add any numbers to that, and then we can -- I don't...

No. Yes, we would not provide for pumping or any liabilities because as you've explained, it's -- we have the ability to flood and it's not similar to the Cooke scenario. So no, well covered. Thank you.

And then Grant, if you are online, do you just want to pick up on the recycling question of Adrian?

Yes, sure, Richard. online. Adrian, good to chat. Yes, there hasn't actually been much of a decline on the ounces profile delivered by Columbus. If you look on '24 and '25, it was a 2%, I think, decline. I think there is a significant shift though in the market. So there is going to be a lot of different industry play coming out and strategic moves and shifts that will have to take place. And I guess we'll unpack that for you during the April '20 discussion, where we outlined some of our broader recycling strategy.

Thank you. Operator, are there any calls on the line still? -- delay. Thanks a lot. I think that's it really. only one more question. There's always one from Arnold Van Graan about share buybacks mixed. Richard, how do you feel about that?

Arnold, that's a great way to end this, and thank you very much. Good to hear from you this morning. No, listen, I think as we shared in our Strategy Day, the capital allocation model we're looking at, at the moment is very focused on the 3 pillars. So we've got our dividend policy that largely talks to about 1/3 of distributable free cash flow going to shareholders, 1/3 going to paying down our gross debt, which I dare say should reflect in our overall share price as we get that down. And therefore, hopefully, we would see shareholders benefiting from that capital uplift and then towards growth. I think until such time as we've got our debt in line, for now, we will be sticking to that dividend policy, and we wouldn't be considering any extra. Of course, if commodity prices stay where they are, and we've achieved those objectives on the gross debt side, then we'd have to look at where that policy or the capital allocation strategy lies. But for now, we'll be sticking to our dividend policy, Arnold. Thank you very much. I guess, is that the last question then? If that's the last question, then perhaps just from my side, thank you very much, everybody, for joining us again. As mentioned, this is just one in a series of engagements we're looking to have with the market. I think we can tell that there are still a lot of questions and a lot of details we need to share around some of the projects in particular that we've got, and we certainly look forward to unpacking that with you during April and June of this year. So thank you very much for joining us again. Please have a good and a safe day. Thank you.