Greetings, and welcome to our 2020 Year-end Results Presentation. It is a long presentation as we have much to share with you, a lot of good news. I trust you will find the content enlightening. Let me say, please sit back and enjoy. I'm just going to share my screen with you. As I said, this is our 2020 year-end results, obviously, incorporating some focus on the second half of the year. There's also a substantial strategic updates that will be included. As always, please take note of our safe harbor statement. In terms of the content of the presentation that really followed through the following key strategic [indiscernible] I think you will find in the ESG section a good demonstration of ESG excellence and some exposure to what we see coming from the hydrogen economy. And certainly, we believe that the products we produce are making a difference, 1 PGM, and we will also demonstrate very significant social and economic and environmental impact. And of course, good exposure to the future hydrogen economy. It's important to share with you our journey on improving and developing a value-based culture. I'm going to share some detail the organizational structure transition, which includes concepts such as holacracy, stratified systems theory and we talk of global competence. In terms of operational delivery, you will see, probably from the announcements already this morning, that we had stellar operational delivery despite the challenges around COVID-19 disruptions. Certainly, I think we've proven our ability to rapidly respond to these challenges. The good underlying operational performance has resulted in record financial performance and so our CFO will take you through that at the appropriate time. Very pleased to say that we have declared a dividend at the top end of our dividend policy. And again, Charl will…

Thank you, Neal, and good morning to everyone on this call. 2020 was written against the backdrop of the global coronavirus pandemic. The events of 2020 brought new challenges that I believe very few people were prepared for. It changed the way we live and how we connect with each other. 2020 was as sobering as it was defining for Sibanye Stillwater. And all credit must go to our operational, medical and support staff for the exceptional results I'm about to share with you. Starting with our income statement. Revenue increased 75% year-on-year to ZAR 127 billion. Production was maintained in line with 2019 despite the challenges imposed by COVID-19 and that afforded us the opportunity to take advantage of elevated commodity prices. On a per unit basis, revenue for our South African PGM operations was up 83% to ZAR 36,700 per 4E ounce. For the U.S. PGM operations, up 53% to $1,900 per 2E ounce. And for our South African gold operations, up 43% to ZAR 925,000 per kilogram. Cost of sales was up 35%. However, the inclusion of Marikana for 12 months compared to 7 months in 2019 accounted for ZAR 5 billion. Secondly, as the prices for platinum, palladium and rhodium increased, it has a direct impact on the U.S. recycling costs. This price and exchange rate movement accounted for ZAR 10.5 billion of the additional costs. Adjusted EBITDA for 2020 was up 230% to ZAR 49.4 billion, or $3 billion. Interestingly, the adjusted EBITDA for quarter 3 of ZAR 15.6 billion and for quarter 4 of ZAR 17.3 billion, on its own, exceeded the adjusted EBITDA for the entire 2019. I'm also happy to report that we closed out the 2023 convertible bond well ahead of time, and this has assisted us in the downward path…

Okay. Thank you, Charl. And for those of you listening to us, we are on the last part of the presentation. And I'm just going to share my screen again. Just to recap, we started with our primary focus area of embedding ESG excellence as the way we do business. We then moved on through our strategic focus areas of building a values-based culture. We looked at focusing on safe production and operational excellence. Charl has just completed the financial results and has shared with you the optimizing of capital allocation. If we continue to look at our last 2 strategic focus areas, the one that I will start with is prospering in South Africa's investment climate. So we've seen a lot in recent presentations about our concerns. I think we're now able to show some very specific examples of where the country may be, not maybe will be missing up. So I think it starts from -- first of all, we need to recognize, and I don't think anybody disputes us that the state of the South African economy is very fragile. And the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to reap havoc. So economic recovery, in our view, is absolutely necessary to alleviate poverty and inequality. And our concern has been that current policies and ideologies inhibit investment. There are critical needs to address these investments various to drive economic recovery. Right now, we here talk of a commodity super cycle. So with that positive outlook, there's an opportunity for the mining industry to significantly contribute to the economic growth of South Africa. And in fact, the Minerals Council has recently estimated that ZAR 20 billion of potential investment opportunities are available in a supportive environment, but the environment is not supported. And why is it not supported, there's uncertain…

[Operator Instructions] Do we have any questions from the webcast at the moment.

Yes. I've got some questions. If I will just relay them. That's okay. And the first one is from [Martin Kremer]. And it’s, asks whether Sibanye Stillwater is considering green hydrogen generation? And the use of PGM hydrogen fuel sales to provide mobility on our sites? And then an effect on the progress on the 50-megawatt solar PV plant. And then the investigation to the 200 megawatts of additional PV storage wind projects, when do we expect those to complete?

Thanks, James. And Martin, good questions. Certainly, it's early stages for us in terms of the hydrogen economy. And the answer to your questions regarding that is this probably all of this. But we probably have another 9 months to a year of work to get to a position where we can actually outline in more detail our hydrogen strategy. And as you could see, that's put Sigmoid curve and here, and we've only just completed the fourth Sigmoid curve. So certainly, the hydrogen economy, I mean in general, we think, is you have to say, we think it's going to be very exciting. It offers a number of opportunities, but we are still assessing them. In terms of the balance of your questions, the 50-megawatt PV plant is the one that we've been working on for some years now. That's on the West bits next to live on that was a really going to be a 150 megawatts. But because of the uncertainty around reeling and some of those issues, we are going to rather keep it at 50 megawatts, and then we are looking at a 200-megawatt plant in the Rustenburg area for our Rustenburg operations. Yes. I hope that answers your questions, Martin.

The second question, again, from Martin is again related to the hydrogen economy. [indiscernible] what is the projected value of the hydrogen economy and when is the impact on PGM demand likely to reach a significant level? And then also what roles will PGM plays in the hydrogen economy and what has been done to ensure adequate PGM supply, which I think we've answered in some part of the project.

Yes. Yes. Thanks, James. And certainly, we also covered the PGMs that will certainly play a role in the hydrogen economy are platinum, Iridium and rhodium. We are starting to see feed demand forecasts being impacted by the hydrogen economy in the second half of this decade. I think that's conservative. I think you're going to see that moving forward, there is no doubt that the hydrogen economy is going to be very disruptive and something that we, as I've said, would want to be associated with. Thanks, James. Any other questions?

Yes. I've got a couple more questions. I'll -- the next one comes from [Mega Mino] If you don't mind, I won't, trying to pronounce right now. Just views on the rhodium revenue contribution going forward? [indiscernible] given that it seems to be at an unsustainable level currently.

Yes. But it's -- I think you've got to ask the question, is it really unsustainable. It seems like a lot of money, it's not really a lot of money when it comes to the end users. It's used in relatively small amounts within automobiles. So that's the first thing. I don't think there's any alternatives. in the past, there were alternatives because the environmental and regulatory environment had a lot more flexibility in it. So certainly I don't think they are really alternatives. And when you say not sustainable, I assume you're referring to demand construction. So I do think that it's that it's here for now. I think what we have to do to be responsible is to assist the end users to find alternatives. And as I alluded to in the presentation, we've been very successful in assisting end users to reduce their costs through the substitution of palladium with platinum. And of course, the next step is in that approach is actually substituting rhodium, and you can't substitute all of it, but some rhodium with palladium. We would also note from the presentation that substitution in the last industry is already in place. So there will be moves. And that's why you actually have to look at these PGMs basket because a move to avoid an increase in the rhodium price is really just going to drive up another price and so on. So the fundamentals remain very good for all the PGMs, in fact. Thanks, James.

And the next question is from Nkateko of Investec. Asking what the probability of paying a dividend significantly above the 35% of normalized earnings threshold in the near term, it's considering organic growth investments and other projects whose potential is still being assessed.

Yes. Certainly, what we've -- what we've started with, as Charl explained, is a predictable and a sustainable dividend. We've taken a 5-year view. So I would suggest you can consider this as as a base or perhaps a minimum. We also have done significant research and paying dividend or having dividend yields much above 40%, doesn't often result in value to the shareholder. So we would like to see our share price go up. And once our share price is up, we may have to raise the policy level to ensure that we remain an industry-leading dividend payer. And certainly, I think there's going to be a lot of one-offs in the industry. We are looking to be sustainable, predictable and quite consistent. So as our share price rises, we will assess whether we need to increase the -- or change the policy or pay dividends in excess of the 35% of normalized earnings. Charl referred to that in our capital allocation model. If we cannot create more value by investing in our project, why doing value-accretive M&A growth, we will certainly return that cash back to shareholders. But I'd suggest as management, we would have partially failed if we do that. Thank you.

The next one is also from Nkateko. Just asking you to get a bit more color on the South African PGM production profile for 2020. What will the Marikana and [indiscernible] contributions to you?

Yes. If I could suggest that, that information is all in the slide. And probably, if there's more detail required, we'd be very happy off-line to provide that information, James. I'm sure there's lots of other questions. I don't want to get into the nuts and bolts. So if that's all right with everybody, I would propose we do that off-line. But it is in the document [indiscernible]

Yes. I'll follow-up offline, Neal, but I think the profile is pretty stable at least till 2024. So I'll follow-up on that. The next question is from Adrian Hammond. Just ask, given plans for share buybacks. Will future M&A be made with cash only? Or will you still consequent?

Adrian, that's a good question. I think that at very transaction dependent. There's no doubt that we've seen a rerating of our share. And certainly, I think equity could be -- could be part of that, but I also want to say that utilizing a bit of cash can improve the transaction from a metrics point of view. So it will be [indiscernible] for courses. What we are not going to do is we are not going to take on excessive debt. We know that our debt raising capacity is probably around $12 billion to $13 billion. I can assure you, we're not going to [indiscernible] $12 billion to $13 billion of cash and take on that sort of leverage. A few billion dollars, absolutely no reason why that would not make sense. But it will really be very dependent on the target and the value accretion metrics related to that specific target. But certainly, we can consider equity looking forward from that.

A follow-up question from Adrian, he's got 2 more. In H1, the U.S. PGM operations recorded free cash flow of close to ZAR 5 billion. But then in the second half of this year, there was about a ZAR 2 billion loss. Can you clarify what drove this? And how much working capital unwind is expected in the first half of this year? [indiscernible] Charl's response to that.

Charl's review, would you pick that up? I'm sure some of the answer is related to working capital? Please go ahead.

Yes. So Adrian, really, that the big swing there is the change in working capital, specifically with our recycling facility. You remember that in Half 1 of 2020, we actually slowed it down specifically to preserve liquidity for the group as a whole, and the second reason was also because of COVID-19, the feed material wasn't coming through as previously. However, in the second half, we have ramped that back up to normalized levels. And the simple max there is the price of platinum, palladium and rhodium has got a direct relationship with the inventory. And if you look at just use -- and remember, they treat the 3 metals. So if you use the SA PGM prices as a proxy, prices went up by about 70%. And so that will have a direct impact on the working capital contained in that facility. That has normalized now. It has stabilized. Again, it's full pricing dependent, but what I can say is we are looking at alternatives to see how we can free up that working capital that is tied up in the facility either through some inventory financing or some other ways of releasing debt. So at this point in time, we don't accept -- expect it to continue and assume any further, but we also don't expect a massive release without us looking at some form of financing.

Thanks, Charl. James.

Yes, again, from Adrian. At spot, free cash flow [indiscernible] CapEx project requirements. What will you do with all the leftover cash? Is the dividend fixed at ZAR 9 billion to ZAR 10 billion this year, while you see the M&A opportunity?

Okay. Thanks, Adrian. I wouldn't say the dividend is fixed at absolute number. Certainly, if you look at how commodity prices have moved, if you consider that we should produce more for this year because we should not have the disruptions of a lockdown in the start-up. We are at normalized levels of productions, so good production or more stable production, coupled with improved commodity prices even with reference to 2020 is going to result in more earnings. And remember that our dividend policy pays out as a percentage of normalized earning. So the absolute numbers should go up if you believe there's going to be an increasing earnings profile. And I do believe that there will be. I think as our capital allocation model shows, we're not adverse to paying cash that is in excess of our requirements. In fact, we would be happy to do that. But I would also argue that there are a number of value accretive opportunities in the pipeline where we believe we can create more value by just paying out of big [indiscernible] of dividends. And we do want to be an industry-leading dividend payer, and that will certainly drive our thing [indiscernible] Thank you. Thanks, James.

And then the last question on the webcast or from the webcast from [Chris Nicholson] And he asks how should we think about K4 production and what it means for the overall SA PGM profile over the longer term. So from 2025 to 2030, do we consider replacement or growth? And then the second question, which I think is similar. But talking about how much working capital we expect to be released in 2021. I think on the overall group and if we can give a dollar or rand amount in terms of what's going to come up from [indiscernible]

So yes. Okay. I'll ask Charl to pick up the last part of that question. But in the meantime and listen, I'm aware that the webcast grows and probably some of the slides that we presented actually covered these areas. So I understand why we're getting the questions. But Chris it's a ready replacement ounces. It does ramp up to about 250,000 4E ounces [indiscernible] is it at steady state, but the details of that in those graphs are contained within the presentation, which are [indiscernible] So again, we would be very happy to take the analysts off-line through any of these details. But at a high level, replacement ounces providing steady state for our group looking at quite far. So perhaps with that, Charl, you could just pick up on the working capital?

Yes. Thank you, Neal. And as I've said, in the U.S., our inventory position has stabilized. So we're not expecting any major swings in all out. I have said is that we are looking at some form of inventory financing, and that should release some working capital. But again, that's a work in process. And once we have clarity on that, we can start sharing it with you. At our South African operations, specifically at PGM, the inventory increased by just under ZAR 2 billion and a lot of that is expected to come out in the first half of this year. So we can expect about ZAR 2 billion from South Africa. But as I said, until we have a sustainable solution for the U.S., that's where the number will stay.

Thanks, Charl. James, any further questions?

Not from the webcast, but I believe there are quite a few questions coming in from the pool. I want to apologize upfront for the technical glitch on the webcast and to let people know that we will have a link to the complete presentation set up on our website and on YouTube very shortly after this [indiscernible] day. [indiscernible]

The first question we have is from Dominic O'Kane from JPMorgan.

Two questions from me. You talk extensively about the value proposition and specifically, with regards to kind of M&A ambitions? And I just want to just to understand what you mean by the value proposition. So you mentioned you have aspirations in the gold sector and also battery metals. And if we look at the valuation characteristics of those 2 different sectors, they are -- they're very, very different. And specifically, you have a number of maybe close to home gold producers that have smaller market caps than Sibanye and comparable trading multiples, near-term trading multiples that trade at significant discounts to that NVV. Would that not represent a better value proposition to Sibanye than maybe more expensive overseas battery metals type entries. So that's my first question. And then my second question relates to [indiscernible] Could you maybe just articulate what you're doing differently, if anything, versus the original Lonmin mine plan? Are you able to extract significant synergies at K4? And if so, could you quantify those synergies? And also could you just maybe articulate what the longer sensor processing strategy is with K4 up and running.

Okay. Thanks, Dominic, and good questions. Let me deal with the value proposition question first because it's a very good question. Certainly, I think we can say that we do not want to buy gold companies that generally have assets in jurisdictions that are not going to improve our geographical diversity and hence, our risk profile. So certainly, that excludes companies that have a predominance of South African assets or predominant of assets perhaps in Central Africa and so on. Those are concerns for us. That's not going to help our discount. You're spot on in terms of the trading multiples of certain gold companies, domicile in South Africa. They clearly are part of the group we look at. I think that we certainly look also for opportunities in terms of North American listed companies. But of course, we have the challenge of trading multiples. So they all form part of the universe. And of course, it's a matter of identifying where you where you can do the right thing in the interest of all shareholders. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that consolidation is necessary. It is going to happen. You're either going to be consolidated or you can drive consolidation. You have to become relevant even at $13 billion, we're still not relevant. We need to be at least $20 billion-plus. Of course, we can get thereby sitting on our hands and letting the earnings of this company flow through. But we're not a management team that sits on our hand. The value proposition is that we have created exceptional value through M&A. We've done very smart M&A. And of course, what's only visible is what we've done. We've walked away from many opportunities as well, which are not well known. So we do want to use…

The next question we have is from Patrick Mann from Bank of America.

I just wanted to ask a question around the acquisitions in the technical sector. You said there might be 1 or 2 on the cause this year. Are you able to give us kind of a sort of size position that you're looking at making? I mean, are you looking to kind of acquire a Tier 1 asset and really become a big player? Or is it more a case of kind of dipping your toe in the water or picking up something for value. And then I had another question for Charl. Just on the 130 -- I think it was $130 million to $200 million in free cash flow range over the next 5 years cumulatively. I mean does that range include spot even with 20,000-plus rhodium? Or could you maybe give us a bit more indication around that range? Because I think at spot prices, it looks like it could be north of that. I just want to triple check that?

Thanks, Patrick. And Charl, if you can take the last part of Patrick's question, once I'm finished. Patrick, in terms of the high-tech metals strategy, we're not going to -- we're going to be dipping our toe in the water. And there will be a few, I would say, medium-sized acquisitions, in my view. So it certainly has to fit in with our capital allocation model. If there's going to be a number of acquisitions. We have to -- clearly, we can't affect our ability to pay dividends and so on. So they're going to be, I would say, medium to small, perhaps with some real just, let's say, early stage entries won't be greenfields. That's not our business model, but it would be projects that are close to sort of development and so on. So it's smaller acquisitions, smaller, more affordable acquisitions. If I give you the numbers, the exact numbers, you will probably be able to pinpoint the targets. I can't do that. But I hope that gives you some guidance as to I think [indiscernible] Charl?

Patrick, I go to your second question. Obviously, you have to peg spot at a point in time. It's difficult to start pegging rhodium was just 15,000 the other day, now it's 21,000. But to give you some color in terms of spot, when we looked at these numbers, gold were as it is today, roughly about ZAR 850,000 a kilo. Our 4E basket for PGMs was about ZAR 40,000 per 4E ounce. And for our U.S. operations was about $1,900 an ounce. Now clearly we are already above that. Looking at today for 4E PGM, 47,000, 2E PGMs 2,200. So yes, we just took a number at a point in time to inform what the priorities will be in terms of capital allocation. But I think it's important that we just show the careful thinking and as I said to our Board earlier, it requires a steady hand now, specifically when you are cash generative to make sure that you do make the right decisions based on what's ahead of you. So Patrick, your numbers are not wrong. But what I'm saying is we just need to peg it at a point in time and then working back and see what those priorities will be.

Thank you on the next question we have is from Wade Napier from AVO Capital Markets.

Just a couple of questions from me. Firstly, with reference to your statements now that you've got several sort of more value-accretive opportunities sort of organically, I mean, having announced sort of K4 and Burnstone today, how many more projects do you -- would you feel comfortable sort of undertaking simultaneously? Because I mean as we announce sort of more projects means sort of more execution risk. And I mean, I think from blots, that project is also sort of not necessarily gone to plan. So what is the sort of appetite to do projects internally? And then second one is just in terms of the cost -- the unit cost numbers out of SA PGMs. I mean you're looking for production growth of circa 10% to 15% in 2021, but you still got sort of fairly substantial unit cost inflation. Can you just sort of unpack that for [indiscernible]?

Yes. Okay. So let me come back to your first question in terms of the number of projects that we would take on at any one time. Look, first of all, I think that the message this morning was that at this stage, none of the other projects will probably meet the hurdle rates that we require to address the risk -- the investment risk in South Africa. So that's the first point. And it's actually said in that we really need a change in policy and invest the friendliness to commit much more of the projects just don't give us the sort of, let's call it flexibility to deal with some of the issues. So that's the first thing. There's an automatic constraint. I think you're absolutely right. Project management, which was a place where I spent the first part of my career is tough. It is very difficult to deliver on projects on time and in budget because there are so many factors outside of this. I would say that [indiscernible] and K4 and Burnstone, [indiscernible] that is a small project that would probably be sufficient for us to manage. I wouldn't like to see a whole lot more project implementation in that area. Having said that let's acknowledge, and we've always been very open about this, that Blitz was started by the previous owners on a pre-feasibility level. I have started projects on pre-feasibility level. And every single time are being burned. And that is the risk and the nature of doing a project off the wrong base. And sometimes, there are reasons why you take that risk. And Blitz is a good example of where that risk was taken because of the commodity trends we're seeing now. And if they had not started it, we had…

Yes, Neal, I can also just maybe add. We are seeing higher unstained business CapEx, which is a carryover from 2020. So that will also come into that number. It is an unfortunate situation that we had to carry over from 2020. And then just bear in mind that we still have operations, albeit small, where we still carry a pock like [indiscernible] So as you see higher prices, obviously, that has got an impact on that unit cost as well. But to Neal's point, inflationary pressures is steep. Eskom is not helping us with their recently announced increase. So yes, I think those are the high level reasons for that increase.

Thanks for adding the [indiscernible].

The next question we have is from Tyler Broda from RBC.

Sorry about that. Now, I'm here. I was having trouble connection. Most of my questions have been answered. I guess just 2 quick ones. Just to confirm, I guess, is that if you look at the capital allocation slide, the residual beyond the $40 billion -- ZAR 40 billion, sorry, that is being held for the various buckets. The theory that could be put towards acquisitions. So in the ZAR 200 million or whatever the number would be at a spot price. Is that delta sort of where we should be looking for acquisition firepower, I guess? And maybe just secondly, I guess more for [indiscernible] The business at the moment PGMs in gold, you'll be potentially adding material gold as well as batteries. Do you see any issue at all with sort of nullifying any premium in all businesses, if you guess, co-mingled with the more pro cyclical batteries and PGM businesses? I guess, how do you look at the potential for gold equities to trade at a premium from a structural basis?

Yes. Thanks, Tyler. And sorry, I was just right and down your question. The -- certainly having cash reserves, that does give you the ability to use them when appropriate. And one of our shareholders recently pointed out that if we had cash reserves as we went down into the COVID lockdown, we could have implemented a great share buyback program. So what I'm saying is special serve, whether they are there to cover debt and achieve, an improved investment rating is 1 thing, but they are there to use when we can see opportunities. So the simple answer is yes. That excess cash can be used for things like that. In terms of the gold premium, I think that's something that's disputable. I don't think that as a gold company, we ever had a gold premium. And I don't think we ever lost the premium when we moved into PGMs. And I know I'm on thin Ice because I also know how the North American analysts generally use a lower discount rate because it's gold. I must say I don't really understand why you do that. But I'm not in all my relationships with gold companies, whether they are listed on the TSX or the ASX or even in Johannesburg, have I recently seen a real premium to a gold company. So that's just my view and my experience. Having said that, I think your point about how do we investors think about it because they like to diversify as opposed to companies is fine. I understand that need. But I would also argue that we share more strategic thinking with our shareholders and the general market very openly, so that our shareholders can engage with us and share their views, which they do. And as long as they are supportive, we move forward. And we do have a supportive shareholder base to enter the battery metals. And the actual metals are not related to lithium and nickel and copper are not related to platinum, palladium and rhodium, as an example. But what is related is the intelligence that we have built up about these markets. And it's very complementary, both feeding to the same end users, and that's almost using some of your core competencies. And then I would argue that the combination of metals has commercial benefits in that if your investment thesis is about paying an industry leading dividend, and you can create less cyclical exposure to one commodity, your dividend should be more predictable and sustainable, and that's beneficial, and I think you'll get a recognition for that. So it's really -- I suppose it's just different views, and we've chosen a path that is the one that I've explained, Tyler, which is different. I know to the way the pure gold companies think about it. But I -- certainly the ones we look at, we don't see these gold premiums. We -- but this is a matter of opinion.

The next question we have is from Stella Cridge from Barclays.

AI wondered if I could ask about the comment on Slide 29, which discusses the deleveraging achieved and then plans around debt. And so you say that there's potential for consolidation of term debt in 2021, a better interest rates. And you referenced $500 million in refinance bonds. So I just wondered if I could clarify, does this mean you have the intention of calling both bonds in 2021 at the call date and potentially combining these maturities into one? And the second question is just in terms of your long-term outlook. Is your intention to stay in the debt market to kind of keep options open for the future, you're referencing earlier your comments around potential future fundraising? Just wanted to get a sense of your thinking around that. That will be great.

Charl, do you want to answer that?

Yes. So I think the first thing to consider is, obviously, we had record low interest rates. At the time when we issued these 2 bonds was exactly on the day that then mining Minister also made some pronouncements in terms of the mining charter. So I believe that our bonds was somewhat priced up in terms of what happened on the day. So we really want to just take opportunity and look at the record low interest rate. So the plan is to collapse the 2 bonds into one. Currently, there is about $700 million outstanding and then to issue a single bond for about 7 to 8 years of about $500 million. So that is the thinking. We really want to take advantage of lower interest rates. So yes, happy with that. I just wanted to check the second part of your question.

Staying in the debt markets?

Yes. No, I mean, we're always. We will always keep our options open. We do believe that the debt market is good, and it's been good to Sibanye. And that's what I said as part of capital allocation, we need to have a steady hand. I know we are seeing record high prices, but we have to take a forward-looking view as well and just make sure that our balance sheet is appropriately structured. So no, we will definitely look to the debt markets on a go-forward basis.

Thanks, Charl. Go ahead, Stella, if you've got something more.

No, no, I was just actually asking it. Do you plan to keep this target to keep $1 billion debt on average through the sake? [indiscernible]

No, I think that's a comfort level for us. So that was almost a first hurdle. We -- and if we do nothing, we would be happy for that number to stay at about $1 billion or ZAR 15 billion. However, if we are seeing these commodity prices and we believe that they will remain strong going forward. It would be prudent to start allocating some of that cash to debt. We have said is we almost want to create a debt reserve to match what we have in terms of debt. So yes, it would be prudent for us to continue looking at our debt. But as I said, in the absence of doing nothing, we're still comfortable with where the debt is currently sitting.

Thanks Charl. And Stella, just to put on my content hector, we went through quite a long period of building up what I'll call a mature balance sheet. And it took a lot of hard work. And I don't think we just want to give it up. I think it's at smart to retain proper bond debt on your balance sheet. So just wanted to add that in. Thank you.

The next question we have is from Arnold Van Graan from Nedbank CIB.

Neal. I know it's late in the day, so I'll keep it brief. There's been a lot about your strategy in M&A. But there seems to be a clear focus now on organic growth and smaller M&A away from the big deals. So -- and again, you talked a lot about valuations, but is that driven by valuations? And I guess, ultimately, my question is, is it a big deal off the table? Or is that something you would still be keen on evaluations realign because I do get a sense that there has been a bit of a shift in your strategy? And then secondly, the initial question I had was, how did you get Blitz wrong from an operational perspective, your metal price call was spot on. And you sort of alluded to that when you answered one of the other questions talking about the feasibility stage. But were there other operational red flags that you overlook, given your strong view on the metal prices. And I ask this, given your M&A strategy and given that you are looking at other metros and other sectors. Yes, if you can just comment on the last one, and then the first one is just the question.

Yes. Thanks, Arnold. And listen, we haven't really changed our strategy, to be clear, our M&A strategy. I think battery metals requires a different approach. So that is smaller acquisitions and perhaps some of them slightly earlier stage. It also requires in our view, being exposed to the supply chain. And therefore -- and because these are chemically complex issues, you need partners. So battery metals is a different strategy, M&A strategy to what we did in PGMs and what we would perhaps do in gold. So I just wanted to clarify that point. Gold -- gold, our view is if it's not material, it's not -- that's probably not worth doing. So I'm not saying it is going to be a big target or it's going to be a small target, but it's got to be material. So just to -- if I came across us creating a different impression around M&A, it's only in the bakery metal space, where I think we are talking smaller bite-sized chunk as we enter it. It's not our intention to become #1 in battery metals. That was our intention in PGMs because it only took four steps. Battery metals is a completely different cattle efficient about quality. It's about location in markets. And obviously, the quality of your products. So just wanted to say that. I hope that clarifies that point. In terms of, let's remember, it's a project we merited and we -- it was already. It was already being implemented of a pre-feasibility study, and we continue with that project. And one of the first things we did is we redid the pre-feasibility study. But you've got to look at it and see. We've had a number of challenges, which were related to some geotechnical issues, which put us on…

The last question we have is from Leroy Mnguni from HSBC.

I'm quite interested in the Marikana reserve life of 16 years, excluding K4. And just trying to understand how much of that life sort of is under infrastructure? How much of it would require life extension CapEx because I was always under the impression [indiscernible] and say, for example, need a bit of down to expansions and declines in that in order to sustain production beyond 5 years or so. So If you can maybe give a bit of clarity around that or a bit of a breakdown on the different shafts, lab. And then the other question is on Slide 34, you talk about a 13% decline in rhodium supply -- primary supply over the next 5 years. But I look at all your reserve life of mine profile, then it looks like it's not coming from you. None of your peers are really signaling a decline in production. So maybe just an indication of where you see that rhodium supply coming out or which mines you think will close in the next 5 years? And then lastly, did you get all your rhodium from Anglo platinum, while they had their shutdown? Or did you sell some rhodium to them? And also, have you been getting all our odium from them post December as well, please?

Okay. Sure, Leroy, you asked some questions that would be confidential. So that we may not be able to answer them, but they mean let me suggest the following. Can we offline give you all the information you want on the Marikana operations, the 16 years and what the capital requirements are and so on. Because it's a detailed answer that I think may not be of interest to everybody on the call, and we'd be happy to do that. The 13% decline in rhodium supply, you would remember for -- well, in fact, one of the bases or the reasons for our entry into PGMs is -- and specifically related to platinum was that we saw a declining supply profile because from the global financial crisis in 2008, there's been a lack of investment into the PGM sector. And we can't side exactly where it would come from. I think we've got a good idea, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put it out there. I think there's been like a lost side from certain operations, which because of the move in the commodity price, but that lack of investment will automatically lead to a block of in supply. And that's factored into the impact on rhodium, also remembering that there's a bias towards rhodium in UG2 reefs. So we don't -- you're right, it's not going to come from us, but from other producers. And it's general PGM supply decline, which is going to exacerbate the increase in demand. I would prefer if we didn't answer your rhodium question because I think it's market-sensitive and relationship sensitive. So I would prefer we didn't answer that on this call. I apologize, Leroy, but we'll get back to you on the 16 years and shaft for Marikana.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I think I'll reach out to James or off-line to get some of the details.

Perfect. Thank you. And yes, we will provide whatever you need. Thanks. All right. Operator, I understood that as the last question.

Yes, sir?

All right.

Sorry, I've got one more from the webcast, if that's okay. Last.

Go ahead. Okay.

So this is from [Steve Sheffert] Congratulations on an outstanding set of results. He would like to know about the [indiscernible] area and/or at Marikana. And share a bit of our thinking about this high-value shallow and vast UGT mining area. Given the high channel, this will probably be an opportunity for [indiscernible] And I can imagine that you might be looking for capital projects at Marikana to improve your tax efficiency. Is that correct?

Yes. Steve, thank you. Yes. Listen, Pandora definitely features in our plans. I would suggest again that because of its strategic nature that we don't give you the exact answers, but certainly, a feature prominently in our plans, and you can work out the rest of that. Thank you. All right, James.

That's all, Neal. Yes, thank you.

All right. Good. Listen. I know it's been a long session. And again, apologies for the webcast freezing. As James said, the presentation and the webcast will be provided on our website in the form of the YouTube. And of course, we've put out very detailed notes and the presentation. Please feel free to contact any one of us should you have any specific questions. And again, thank you for your time. We appreciate your support. Thank you very much.