A very warm welcome to all joining this call today. The full set of results was published earlier this morning on our website; and for the purposes of this conference call, we will highlight the key salient features only. Our full year results are characterized by a story of two halves. Despite the challenges we faced in the first half of the financial year, Sasol delivered a sound operational performance. The second half saw the COVID-19 pandemic cause a seismic shift in our operating context, underscored by significant volatility and uncertainty. This financial year was also our peak gearing period as we approached the near completion of the LCCP. Geopolitical dynamics in the latter half of the year saw the Brent crude oil price collapse, while the onset of the pandemic placed even greater pressure on our balance sheet. These external shocks impacted Sasol dramatically, requiring us to act swiftly to stabilize the business in the short term through decisive actions. One of the early decisive steps we took was to conserve cash in the order of US$1 billion. We exceeded this target in less than four months; regrettably we experienced six tragic fatalities this past year. Investigations into every fatality of my priority with the aim to fastrack these investigations to quickly establish the root causes and implement corrective measures. Core to our safety focus is the world class process systems and tools we use to embed these as second nature in the hearts and minds of our people. The focus on safety became heightened with the state of the Coronavirus globally, and we promptly put measures in place to curtail its spread within our business. This includes revised shifts and work schedules to support social distancing, anti-crowding at all our operations, increased screening, disinfection, and contact tracing and…

Thank you, Fleetwood. Good afternoon ladies and Gentlemen. Today, we outlined a set of results that were delivered during a volatile and challenging economic environment. The oil price collapse and COVID-19 crisis came at a time when our balance sheet was already at peak getting -- placing a significant strain on our liquidity position. While oil prices have since recovered to about US$40 dollars to the barrel, the pricing outlook for energy and chemicals indicate a lower for longer environment going forward and this together with all the fee value adjustments that we had to book in a record resulted in impairments totalling R112 billion. Since March of 2020, we also took immediate steps to implement a comprehensive response plan to stabilise the business in the short term, targeting to raise cash of up to US$6 billion by the end of financial year 2021 to repay our debt, which I’m sure we’ll talk about in a couple of minutes. I’m also pleased to report that we exceeded this 2020 response plan target for self-help measures conserving cash well in excess of US$1 billion and the ultimate target achievement was roundabout 25% higher than the US$1 billion, also intensified our focus on cost containment and successfully managed to keep our cash costs fixed costs flat in nominal terms for the year at R58 billion, and in real terms a reduction was roundabout 5% on a year-on-year basis. This is despite a 10% first half increase, so effectively we've reduced that in six months’ time and also nullified the inflation impact in the last six months. Also successfully engaged our lenders to [indiscernible] our covenant at year end, as well as lifting the December 2020 covenant from 3 times to 4 times net debt to EBITDA to support our balance sheet to…

Thank you Paul and Fleetwood. We have a number of questions that have come through on the webcast facility. So the first set of questions I’ll be able to relate specifically to the rights issue and [Indiscernible] around the rationale for the rights issue as well as the signing of [Indiscernible]. I’ll just run through a few of the specific questions we’ve received. The first one is from Harsha Pappu of HSBC. And the question is the subject on the rights issue has gone from last result to a voting rights issue in the second half of FY21. Could you please detail what has changed, and what management feels that the last result is now the base case? The second question again, the rationale for the rights issue is from Herbert Kharivhe of Investec. And the is, do you still need a rights issue if you're expecting to receive R79 billion from assets held for sale. It will tell you if it’s around US$6.8 million, and with as far as the working capital and asset disposals. So, is a rights issue more about accelerating the imaging process to restructure the company to a point they are delivering process to restructure the company to Sasol 2.0, also around the rational on Chris Nicholson of RMB. And the question is, are we doing the right issue regardless of the results of the process. So the amount of uncertainty outcomes and the accessible do a rights issue. That's just the rational and the difference is computed on the size and the timing is a question here on me. And, again, how would it be determined? Otherwise what sort of damage on the property post the rights issue and lastly from Tom Wrigglesworth of Citibank. When will Sasol provide an update on the potential [Indiscernible] I’ll leave it there for all the questions related to the rights issue.

Right. Let me deal with the rights issue. I’ll try to kind of provide some context in the way that we are thinking about the rights issue. So to Harsha’s point, Harsha, we did highlight on the 17th of March, kind of the order in which we think about the rights issue. At this point in time, we still feel very comfortable with the self-help measures. I think the big decider here will be to say how big the asset disposals range can be. We did provide a range of between $2 billion and $4 billion. And it also depend exactly how the U.S. play out. The U.S. will, of course, be sizable in this decision. So based on our assessment of the right issue, sorry our system of the self-help measures, the sizing and anticipation of what we can kind of deliver in terms of the asset sales, it didn't form, ultimately, most part of our thinking in terms of whether we need a rights issue or not as a last resort. But also quite importantly, we need to look at the date labels in terms of Sasol 2.0, to say in a $45 world and effectively, how will kind of what, what date tables can we actually maintain, manage? How will the value be delivered? When can we return to a dividend paying scenario? And we've also taken that into account. So the combination of both which they also kind of touches a little bit on Chris's question is a sense of the right issue must be able and position us to sustainably add value going forward to weather the storm, and to leave us with a date label and a set of assets that can ultimately draw value for shareholders over the medium to long term. So…

No Paul, I think you summarized it very well. And so I think we, we are going to the responsible way to exhaust all options we as management have before we tapped into shareholders. But I do think we are following a trajectory that is well thought through, and that will be calibrated towards the end of the year.

Yes. And there was one last, but if I can just add that -- maybe ask what level of gearing are we targeting with this right issue? I think that's a fundamental equation. So ultimately, our objective is firstly to get to the below three times covenant, because that is our immediate priority as at the 30th of June of financial 2021. And the rights issue and the shaping of the rights issue will focus on that, but also to kind of get us reasonably below that level. So for us to pay dividends, I think we want kind of the covenants more closer to two times and we are some long way away from that. So ultimately, we do want to kind of go for extended periods of time below that two time covenant over the medium to long term. And the rights issue will also inform that thinking to say, how long will it take us? How can we get there and what is the pathway of the rights issue and thinking as specifically they. And I think, Harsha also coming back to your point earlier, what has changed, is really kind of that thinking of 2.0 and that gearing label of below two times that will also kind of where the rights issue also played into that. We really have one option, and one time to really position the balance sheet now well, in order to have a sustainable balance sheet, and also a company that can add value going forward.

I'm going to move onto the next set of questions. And these specifically deal with the balance sheet, both covenant and liquidity. On the liquidity side, first question is from Gerhard Engelbrecht. And the question is your South African banking facilities have been lowered from 12.3 billion at the end of the first half, currently 9 billion. Why is that? The next question is from [Indiscernible] of Bank of America. And the question is, how do you break down the $2.5 [ph] billion in liquidity? I see 2 billion in cash, but I’d like a clarification on the remainder, also here, any undrawn lines at this stage and if so, what are the maturities on those? And then a few questions dealing specifically with the covenant. The first one is from [Indiscernible] and the question is concerning the first half FY 2021 covenants, are you planning to move most of the CapEx in the second half, working capital, even capital in the meantime, these are the three-year low or oil prices, possibly most likely behind us. So what are you planning to do to achieve additional cash -- on the funds in the first half of FY 2021? And then the next question is from [Indiscernible] without further asset sales or cost savings at current oil prices and with our exchange rate, are you concerned that the exchange rate is – maybe at risk of the breach, and the last questions on the covenants and this is from [Indiscernible] at Barclays. There was a note in the financial statements that certain conditions, in relation to the covenants waiver require a further classification of $1 billion as short term debt on top of the $1 billion due in June 2021. What debt does this additional $1 billion relate to, and why is this the case?

Well alright. Thank you very much for that spread. I will do feature to the service to deal with those details. But he's getting waiting to also motivate other questions and hopefully we'll get just now. On the on the South African bank facility, Gerhard you are right. We did -- debt reduced from 12.3 to 9 billion. As you can appreciate, during this whole covenant renegotiation process, the South African banks also had kind of vague concerns and credit committees and evaluation of our credit lines. I can say that precisely the way we find ourselves now is that all but one banking partner was coming to the fall, and assisting us with, maintaining our credit lines, and helping us to kind of get the guy covenant waiver going. Unfortunately, one bank, a South African bank, unfortunately, at a review of our credit profiles to the subject offset the credit downgrade, and decided to cut the facility online by R3 billion. We had to disclose this to our Banking Group internationally at the time that we renegotiated the facilities. The Banking Group weren’t quite comfortable that they -- and the reasoning was for this bank to do this was based on their assessment of risk, and not something that the other banks are missing. So, yes, it is sitting at R9 billion. We are actually quite comfortable at early onset of oil being the kind of below $20 a barrel. We were concerned that and the South African banks that we may be utilizing these commitments. Today where we stand is we've paid back all our kind of facilities that we’ve used from our South African banks. So we have no -- we haven't tapped into any of the facilities. We operate the through our cash buffer. And we…

Yes. Okay, thank you. Fleetwood before I go through the next set of questions that largely relate to asset disposals. The first question, could we please get an update on the asset sales process by asset and LCCP and ROMPCO are specifically mentioned and also to provide the potential timelines, and the question here makes the point that RX was not mentioned in the asset disposal program and whether this is the best possible sell. Then around the financial impacts, also, under broadly speaking, under disposals, what is expected EBITDA and earnings per share impact from all the disposals we have announced so far. And can you give us the EBITDA/earnings per share impact by asset if possible an essence the same? And then Adrian asks, how will the sale of the ethoxylates separation units and of ROMPCO impact EBIT? Then from -- when is the held-for-sale, in a view the amount of money expected to be received? And then the last question, when can we expect, I guess, the large portion of asset disposals to be complete?

Okay, thank you, Elton. I will start off with the update on the disposal program and with respect to the financial impact; I'm going to pull us both to right indeed. So we have indicated that we are well advanced with our base chemical U.S. asset partnering a process. This is the case we had very strong international interest, both inside and outside the U.S. I think we we've indicated that we in at the moment, in final commercial discussions. We don't want to allude to anything more than that suffices to say, that we believe, we would come to a conclusion, not months from now, but rather weeks from now. So if that could calibrate the timing, it is probably sold within the next month that we would come back to market and, and really announce where we are with that program. With respect to ROMPCO, that is also a process that's unfolding as we have expected. So it is also not months, but maybe within a month, we will come to some decision making in that, in that assets. And now, you need to always take into account that these things may swing a week or two that there's always complications with respect to some of the final terms and conditions, but not -- nonetheless we've got a very focused team, various teams running these divestment programs in parallel. Yes, we haven't put everything on the list. We've done a very gritty, complete and focused asset review program. So we've got a long list that we've prioritized those in terms of complexity, impact, as well as ROIC and other measures. So there are a number of asset disposals that's running still in parallel that might be not at this point in time visible. ORYX, yes, that's still on the cards. I just think we don't see it as a current priority to really push for that one hard, but it's still on the rider, and we will still continue to focus on that. A number of others that we haven't really highlighted, but we're also making good progress with some of the smaller divestments for example, our phenolics business in the U.S. and the like. So, so I think pretty much still working the program for the base of our asset review.

Alright, then the question that's been asked, I'm not going to keep all the details. I think on some of the details, I'm going to hold back in terms of the impact of all these asset sales. And I will tell you why as well. They just quickly get a sense of, I'm just going to give you the EBIT event. I'm going to ask for those, because it shouldn't be anything sinister about this assets that we sold in the past. To give you more of the details on the working capital, the capital impact because you cannot only look at the EBIT impact, you must actually look at the total impact that ultimately flows through into our free cash flow when we sell these assets. But the ones that we sold and the ones I'm going to refer to now is Sasol-Huntsman. The explosive business is scrabbled, as well as Sasol Wilmar, industries in China, those were the full assets that we sold. I’m not going to talk about the pitlane [ph] optimal joint ventures because those relate to the previous period. And, and we've already spoken about those. So we -- let me speak about these four, and ultimately for financial 21, it will have a positive impact on our earnings. It's not a -- but the positive earnings is around about R500 million to R600 million. And why is that? Ultimately the investment enhancement, as well as the Vulmar had positive impacts on our EBITDA that will is an EBIT, which will effectively lose next year. But the explosive business as well as EGTL in terms of the forecast that we had, ultimately had a negative impact on our on our EBIT. And the combined impact of that is, I would say roughly R500 million to…

Thank you Paul and thank you Fleetwood. I will come to the next set of questions and this is really dealing with the self-help measures. The first two questions are both from Chris Nicholson at RMB. And the question is, first one at least I understand that this may be hard to determine at this point, but at a high level, what percentage of cost reduction do you think are possible or achievable or necessary for the South African liquid fuel value chain to remain competitive? Chris's next question, also dealing with self-help. So on the response plan, how much of the cash fixed cost savings components should we expect to be sustainable over the long term or that eventually reverse. Similarly on the working capital savings, how much is sustainable? How much will reverse? And Chris saying here, I would inventory for example, has helped by low -- has been helped by lower prices. And then the next question from Faisal AlAzmeh of Goldman's. As per the release cash fixed costs was flat year-on-year despite a 10% increase in the first half of FY 2020. What were the measures you enacted and how does some have the risk of reverting back next year? And the last question on self-help measures, this is from Adrian Hammond, Standard Bank. How do you intend achieving a 15% cost savings target by 2025 for SSA, and that will be assessed in South Africa.

Thank you, Elton. And thank you for the question. So I will just kick off the various topics that was raised in terms of the questions. So I think we are very clear as management that the measures that indicated for our self-help in terms of the $2 billion cost savings, that they are some of those that is not sustainable on its own. So for example, we've had salary sacrifices, we had no salary increase, we had no bonus payments. So, that is not sustainable. So we have to think differently about how to make it sustainable. And therefore, when we did make the announcement of those targets, on the 17th of March, we did indicate at the same time, that we have to fundamentally reset the business in Sasol 2.0 to make those savings sustainable. And then how do we think about that? So we are not yet ready to give you specific targets or specific percentage of cost reductions. But it's important to be mindful that we will have a very holistic approach to Sasol 2.0 and it will look at fundamentally the cost packet, it will look at where we can improve gross margin, it will look at how we can deal with sustenance, capital, and how do we think about working capital to be more sustainable? So if you look at the cost packet, of course, it is about operating costs, labor and other operations cost, but it's also about our spin, our procurement on our products and services, and how can we receive that in the future Sasol. There are opportunities, I definitely think when I look at our peer group and how the top quintile is performing, in terms of cost improvement, we can follow suit, there are opportunities there. There's also opportunities to improve, throughput and gross margins through digitalization. I think that would be a key part of what we will be able to leverage in Sasol 2.0. And as I've said, sustenance CapEx, predictive maintenance, all of those play into an area that you can improve yourself. And is there a specific ratio? I think, we think of all three of these main buckets, as equally important to realize our targets and those targets which are mentioned in much more detail as we get to the November date, we will give you an update. Suffice to say, the program is well underway. We are having consulted with the organized labor, we have now reached the point where we can announce that next level of the group structure this week, and then they will be a cadence of four to six week following to the point where we are November target to go live in our new operating model. And therefore we are well on track to get into the Sasol 2.0 and Sasol future, Sasol of the future as we sit here today. Paul?

Thanks, Fleetwood. There’s a couple of questions that requires color, and I think Fleetwood had indicated some color will be provided more towards November as we work through it. I think, again, to re-emphasize the point that Fleetwood made is that, in March and April of this year, we have been quite diligent in identifying plans to make the cash to solve the cash issue for us, in terms of the self-help measures for 20 and 21, that we feel very comfortable with. So even if we don't get increases of duties increases next year, all of those have been planned into our plan. So we feel very comfortable that the $1 billion, that we or more than $1 billion that we achieved and the $1 billion that we plan to achieve this year can be achieved. We have received our July results, and our July results is ahead of our run rate. And again, that gives us reason to believe that if we can just sustain this, that will -- does quite well for us from all dimensions, capital costs, gross margin and so on and so forth. And yes, the world is volatile. And it can change on us quite quickly. And I think, I've said it in the outlook, we are very kind of vigilant about the fact that the world is, is not normal yet. So hence, we do need to stay close to these items. But we do believe to deliver the $1 billion for financial 21 will be very much achievable. And we have provided you those guidance on EBIT and EBITDA as well as capital in analysts book as well for financial 21. The other point that Chris makes, which I think is a very important one. Chris, you've asked this question a…

Thank you, Paul. The next set of questions deals with CapEx and these come from Henry and Adrian. I'll just read one of them out because they are quite similar. So CapEx is the $19 billion as guided for FY ‘21, the new level of sustenance/maintenance CapEx, or are you still postponing some spending into FY ‘22? And then any indications of CapEx for FY ‘22 would be helpful especially around your greenhouse gas emission reductions.

So basically, $19 billion is at this point in time for us the marker for financial ‘21. We put in a lot of efforts to make sure that this number is, kind of representing our plans. It does take into account some deferrals as I've indicated, and it will not take into account our long term sustainability if it's towards a 10% CO2 reduction, but also, the $19 billion also does not take into account the impact of asset disposals going forward. So Henry, that's why we are super sensitive not to provide a target yet for financial year 2022 we have to complete our asset disposal program. We need to kind of get all the details sorted on our sustainability roadmap on CO2 as well as on -- on environmental compliance project, and as well as clean fuels too. And the combination of that would put us in a much better position to ultimately provide meaningful targets for year -- financial ‘20 to ‘25 when we do speak to you at the Capitol Markets Day. These target need to be robust, but they need to kind of ensure business sustainability. So we’ll provide more details. Hopefully you can, you can understand that. At this point of time, the financial year ‘21 number is where we feel very comfortable with to share that with the market.

Thank you. Thank you for that response, Paul. I'll move on to the next set of questions. This relates specifically to LCCP. The first question, very similar from both Faisal and Tom Wrigglesworth. So what is the current long term run rate you're expecting for the U.S. EBITDA? And what about the U.S. Base Chemical’s business? Then under status of operations, this is [Indiscernible]. At the end of the first half, you guided that the LCCP cracker would be operating at nameplate capacity. If you only achieve 80% in Q4, are the operational issues impacting production and ramp up? And then Tom Wrigglesworth are there any longer term contract prices in the organics business. And then lastly also from Tom, do you see any raw material benefits in the period for Performance Chemicals or Base Chemicals that have not unwound [Ph]? Thank you.

Thank you, Elton. I'm going to start off, and I'm also going to ask Brad to talk to the one on organic business that Tom asked. But let us recap a bit we’re all with LCCP. So what we know is that we had a very, very strong ramp up in the last quarter or two, where we have the indication that the cracker ran for the last quarter had 80% and above, it was driven more by the merchant if the lean demand rather than anything else. So as of July, we when demand picked up a bit, we are running about nameplate capacity on the cracker. Our LL unit is running above nameplate capacity. So I think all our other units are running at targeted plant so, so overall we are very satisfied with the throughput of the major and the big commodity units in Lake Charles. And therefore all of those are really going as planned. Now you ask us why don't, can’t we give you a guidance? I think it is very sensitive period right now when we into the discussions on the partnering concept. So rather than give you an indication now and you read something in there that could be good or bad or indifferent in terms of those discussions later on that just waits for that. But what you can take is that we do not see any impediment to still continue the ramp up as we've indicated in our initial plans that needs to be fully at nameplate capacity consistently over a period of two years for our commodity units, and we see very, very clearly we making good progress on that. As I mentioned, LL and the cracker is running above nameplate. The question is you need to do it consistently throughout the year and therefore, we indicated the two year ramp up to 100%. But I think we are seeing everything remains on track to just achieve that. So if I reflect on the question with respect to the LD business. The LD plants we are we are seeing that we are basically through the remediation process. As far as construction go, we've started with pre commissioning activities. So I think we still very much on track to get that unit back by latest, the month of October. If everything and tailwinds go as it now is, it could even be earlier than that. So I'm really excited that we will have that unit back into the fold very soon, in the next month or so. So I think I'm going to stop the and just ask Brad to go in, and then maybe Paul if there’s anything finally that you'd like to add?

Thank you. So with [technical difficulty] for the organic business, we have a mix of short, medium and long term contracts. And those are all then based on prices according to those products in those particular markets. So most of the time, we have them tied directly to some indexes that relate to the underlying cost elements for those product lines, and then of course, the rest of the pricing is built on the market needs for that pricing. So if the question is around, do we have the ability to recover? And do we follow the pricing trends? The answer is yes, we do have that and so none of them are tied to a long term pricing that we would then be exposed positively or negatively to the volatility. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you for that response. Brad, can we move on. Alright, the next set of questions relates to sustainability and that covers guest supply. First question is from [Indiscernible]. Have you made any progress in prolonging these five guests into your African operations? And can you give more detail, why they increased the long term guest price assumption in the impairment calculation by 46% in U.S. dollars? Our next question is from Alex, and this question is with regards to writedowns. Have we assumed a higher price for peer guests, and heavily written down Sasolburg? And when do you expect your upstream supplies of guests to Sasolburg will be depleted? The next two questions relate to Carbon, also in the other theme of sustainability. And this is from Henry, lower carbon growth options. What do you have in mind here? And then also from Alex, I'm surprised by the relatively small write down at Synfuels' compared to that of your other assets. What carbon price are you assuming? Are you still assuming an asset life to 2015? Do you think actually put the asset life assumption is sustainable [Ph] for the world's biggest 40 minutes of CO2? Given an increasing shift to net zero assumptions amongst your peers? How does your auditor feel about the 2050 asset fund assumption?

Okay, thanks for those questions. I'll start off with gas and the low carbon, and then I think the other questions relate more on the financial side, and now that was looked at. So Paul will deal with those. So, Harak [Ph] with respect to the gas, we have structured already in 2019, a group to look at alternative gas supply into South Africa. Of course, we are actively busy with our own exploration of gas in Mozambique and that activity continues. But we also realistic to say if we are not as successful as we may be aiming to be in southern Mozambique with respect to our own exploration. We also need to be live and planning for how else can we get gas into our value chain. And there, we've done a lot of work, we, we've got quite a good result in terms of how we developed and, and interacted with all the relevant parties from cyclists and Rovuma to general suppliers of LNG to people that that want to invest into LNG and set up kits in terms of Mozambique and other places. So, I can give you an assurance that we have had quite a number of activities that we have scrutinized and looked at. And we've got a pretty good understanding how that might play out. And I've got clear targets in the next year of how we want to progress, those options that we have. Suffice to say, we believe that LNG will play a role in the period up to 2030. And longer term, I think it's clear that we must look at how can we monetize further through infrastructure development that are Rovuma gas fields, and how can that be brought in terms of affordable gas into Southern Africa and Mozambique,…

Thank you Fleetwood. Harak [Ph] so your question is a super balance. We – when we looked at our guest landscape, there is a little curve and then a depletion curve, that we need to consider in terms of the BVI and PSI in terms of gas fee to Secunda and more so in terms of Sasolburg. We know that the current pricing dispensation cannot be sustained with new volumes required to run these facilities until 2015, 2034 for that part of the gas mix. And hence we’ve considered it a kind of a suite of alternatives in terms of gas pricing. Other, you explore more, you find if you have more gas fines, you look at LNG, and so we really consider it a suite of options. And that kind of give us in a kind of a, also a range of gas prices, which effectively to your point, which I think is a very good, good catch is that the gas prices they did increase quite significantly. And then ultimately, that had an impact in terms of the significant [ph] of the assets. Of course as we’ve developed our gas studies and plans, roadmaps. As Fleetwood indicated, we’ll get better clarity, and these assumptions will need to change in terms of that. I think it would have been wrong to assume that the current gas prices possession continues. In future, we know that cannot be the case. I mean, this is purely based on that assumption of the various options, defining a range and then use that as an assumption. And the question that Alex asked Alex, that's a mouthful of questions. But again, I think the one thing is to say that our base assumption at this point in time is that gold will be bought off…

Thank you. Thank you for that Fleetwood. And the responses Brad and Paul. The next set of questions, we going to theme around Sasol 2.0. The first one from Tom Wrigglesworth, any updates as to how executive management compensation will change with the new structure? Then from Herbert Kharivhe what is the timeline to execute on Sasol 2.0? And the last one on the 2.0 is what is the difference between future Sasol Accessible 2.0? Sorry. Yeah, sorry there is another question that comes through. Will you report the results of the old structure of Sasol in tandem with the new Sasol structure for the new financial year to allow comparisons? Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Elton. So I'm going to deal with a couple of questions and Paul will deal with a 14:1. So Tom, with respect to the question on executive management compensation, I think it is a board remit, but the boat will take into consideration a couple of factors. First, I think that it is always a matter that we will have to calibrate our peer group with respect to executive compensation. So I'm aware that the board is reviewing that regularly and it will be reviewed, because the Sasol of the future will perhaps look into a comparison of a different peer group, so that that is first and foremost. Secondly, incentives will also be more representative of the sustainability portion of what we need to deliver on. And I think they would also be some further clarifications and announcements towards the end of the year when that will be very clearly articulated in terms of how do we get also balance incentives, addressing the sustainability roadmap and the implementation hereof. So when we revert to the question around what is the timeline for Sasol 2.0? Basically, there are two phases to it. And let me also address what is the difference between Sasol of future or future Sasol and Sasol 2.0. Basically, you have to see it that Sasol 2.0 is the program that will deliver Sasol of the Future. So Sasol 2.0 is about, what are the targets we need to achieve? How are we going to achieve it? How do we implement it? And when will we reach that? So we've indicated Sasol 2.0 will comprise all of those targets, it has already commenced in terms of the conceptualization, the definition and the creation, creation of what the targets are, we've started with the, with the structure already. As I've said, we will announce the next layer of the structure now this week. So Sasol 2.0 has already commenced in the design, and some phases of execution. That will continue to the period of 2024, 25, which we have said is the full delivery when we see steady state. And so Sasol of the Future will be really the continuous running, what Sasol 2.0 have delivered in the next year or two. So that's how you need to think about that or that’s how we thought about it instead of calling the program Phoenix like we did in 2014, we call the program, Sasol 2.0, it will define the targets. And we will then pursue it and then hopefully get to Future Sasol. So that's how we think about it. And the go live date of when we will run the operations in that form and fashion is targeted for November of this year. And I think we still don't track to deal with it. And I think that raises the questions maybe on the reporting, Paul?

Yes on the reporting, the way that we want to approach this is twofold. For this forthcoming half year, we're going to stick to our old model, and in March of next year, we will present you with the updated restated numbers for Sasol 2.0, or Future Sasol as Fleetwood just explained, and we will also provide you with old numbers. So you will have two sets to compare. Back in the day when we did Phoenix, you will recall that we issued a document a separate document, which we call this segmental overview document. We wrote kind of all the rules up, guide you all the disclosure, documents and the IR thing. I'm looking at them right now we are absolutely focused to do exactly the same, because that helped us quite a bit in making sure that the external market understands the change in our numbers and how it will be reported. We will try to do it before we release the results to give time for you to work through the numbers. So very much the same process that we followed with Phoenix, we will also follow that in this regard. Numbers ahead of time, give you time to work it through, but ultimately half year’s still on the old numbers and from there onwards, will take the new restated numbers and then give you time to work through it before we get to year-end which will then be effectively the new Sasol 2.0 results.

Thank you, Paul. I’ll move on to the next set of questions. They're not themed under any specific area. The first one is Sasol uncertain about the ability to operate is a going concern? The next question it’s very optimistic to believe the oil price will remain above $45 per barrel. What happens if it falls back to 35 or lower? And then the last question on in this section, the issue at hand is that Sasol should never have found itself in this highly leveraged position, what is being done to ensure that future governance is improved to ensure similar projects such as LCCP did not threaten the viability of a company.

All right. So ultimately, as you can appreciate in terms of uncertainty about our ability as a guy concerned, that was probably one of the most critical items that the board and management had to consider over the past couple of months. And I can assure you and Fleetwood can also testify to that. The board appointed their own independent advisors, EY to make sure that ultimately that going concern assumptions and the basis on which we derive it is in line with what EY has experienced in other companies globally going through the same circumstances, that the assumptions that management has taken is, is really reasonable and suitable. And EY was also throughout the whole process independently, looking over our shoulders when we negotiated with the banks, and the discussions and agreements of banks and covenant labels for the asset disposal process to review that investments stay off. So, they both really ensured that they are comfortable that yes, first in the first instance, the company is a going concern for that immediate legal requirement, but then also as we move to both Sasol 2.0 and Future Sasol, it is by virtue of the principle of going concern needs to be designed to be a going concern going forward. And hence we do believe with our analysis of 2.0 and taking $45 world into account, that's definitely going to be kind of addressed. And we do see ourselves as a going concern, going forward on the principle of that. And later we also want to add a lot of value going forward. I guess the second question being asked is, is it optimistic that oil price will remain about $45? And what if it happens falls back to $35. In the short term, we do believe that the volatility…

Thank you, Paul. So with respect to the decision on big and similar projects and how to avert that. So first of all, we have already made that decision in 2017 at our capital markets day, when we said we will never do a size like the LCCP project on our own, or a big single investment like that, to expose the company to. So at that time, we also said we will follow a very strict capital allocation framework, which will be biased towards making sure that we don't have an outcome like we have had in when we made the decision to invest in LCCP in the size and in the time, and within the business assumptions that was prevalent at the time. To have a much more robust capital application framework, we would look at many more scenarios in terms of macros, etcetera that is part and parcel of our refocus of our framework since 2017. And I think you will agree with us that we haven't made any, any large enough announcements and we will also not, we will stick to the commitment and look at bite [Ph] sized chunks that is commensurate with the size of company and the risk that we will be able to detect. So I think that that gives you the sense that we have already made that decision and governance is already in place to address that.

Thank you Fleetwood and Paul. We are near the end of our contracts of time. So we have two more questions that we’ll take at this time. The first one from [Indiscernible] at Standard. How does trading activity in SSR and energy compare to pre-COVID levels? Has they been a material recovery? And if so, has production been able to ramp up to meet any increase in demand? And then our last question for today, can you please quantify the impact of COVID-19 and your FY ‘20 EBITDA? Is your targeted cash breakeven to pair off? What is your targeted cash breakeven prepare for FY ‘21 and [Indiscernible] at ABO Capital Markets.

Alright thanks, Elton. This would be the last questions that we now take. I think we need to look at COVID-19 in fact in the South African value chain through two lenses. One lens, is has there been any impact to run our operations because of our own people been impacted by COVID-19. And we can say without a doubt that this financial year we've concluded that there was no impact to run our operations because of own people being impacted by COVID-19. We have done all the proactive and precautionary measures to ensure safe working practices at work and therefore that one is good. We have seen a commensurate with a pickup in terms of the month of July and August we have been impacted on the mines with respect to some of the sections there. We run at any point in time 62 mining sections. We had a impact to be able to run that of six, seven sections, but we've immediately mitigated it through bringing in hired labor, and also to buy in more coal. As we've seen the numbers coming through in the last couple of weeks, while actually the last ten days, we’ve seen the plateau and the decrease in the COVID cases, also very in line what we observe in South Africa. So I do believe we do not see any immediate further risk with COVID-19 in fact, on own workforce to be able to run our facilities. Now, let me revert back to the question in terms of COVID impact on demand in South Africa. And there we had been throttling Synfuels for just under two months to take care of demand impact and we also did the same by shutting down Natref just over two months to be able to mitigate the demand impacts. We've started up those facilities and Natref we are running for market demand. So, we do not run at the moment at full capacity, and we have to take cognizance of jet fuel that is not fully recovered. So that is an area that we supply into market demand. Specifically, with respect to jet fuel, which is one of the areas that we need to monitor very closely. But with respect to Synfuels, we've ramped up fully to the potential we have, and we can place all of those products both on fuel and on chemicals since the end of the year, since we've started up and ramped up our production So, so we running our facilities as planned, mainly informed by market demand at this point in time.

Wayne [ph] you asked a detailed question on the EBITDA side in terms of a COVID. And I guess it's going to be very difficult to quantify, because one part of COVID brought oil price down. And what part of the kind of the trade wars that have been all thrust down. And how do you translate that into the chemical process? I guess it's, it's super, super difficult to give you like a exact answer, other than to say that, kind of the effect that all processes just moved from the $50 to the $20, that $50 move that it takes for those two months, were quite dire. And I think on the sensitivities, you will be able to calculate that. Then there was a bit of relief on the rent dollar side, because obviously, because of the risk, the rent kind of bottomed out and then provided a bit of relief. So it's very difficult for us to kind of say theoretically, what is the COVID impact for EBITDA, for financial term key in terms of -- in terms of that, hopefully you forgive me for that for not being able and volunteer to give you a specific answer on that one. And on the targeted breakeven level to barrel for financial ‘21. Specifically, I think Chris also asked me this question a couple of times. And so, ultimately of our $1 billion cash sellout -- been introduced for financial to anyone, we will be able now to sustain a breakeven label for the Secunda Integrated value chain on a free cash basis, meaning of the effect, -- capital into account of let’s say round about $35 to the barrel, even maybe lower. This is a number that we are continuously working at to get as low as possible through I will say a myriad of a non-sustainable measures measured in ‘21 terms and then light on sustainable measures as 2.0 kicks in, so we will be relatively pointed out as to sustain authorizers in a 30,35 level for over a year period for financial year ‘21 if you just look at breakeven levels. But we'll also update you more on that in November. But a lot has been done to make sure that we are quite agile. And you probably have seen in our numbers for financial ’20 how quickly we can actually manage our cost structure. We do believe that with those measures that we've taken for ‘21 on the free cash basis, that we have, we've actually been able to get that level of 37 that I've spoken before to get that much lower in finance, utility wise. But like I say, a combination of short term and medium term type of sustainability impacts.

Okay. Thank you, Paul. And I would also like to thank for your participation in the call, and also for all your questions. We look forward to engaging further with you in the coming weeks. Also note, that any residual questions that remains from this call will be dealt with through our IR team, and you can expect that I will be engaging with you to clarify. So, with that, thank you operator, we can now call close the call