Good morning and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Sasol interim financial results conference call. Today’s call will be hosted by David Constable, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Paul Victor, Group Financial Controller. Following the formal presentation by Sasol management, an interactive question and answer session will take place. A copy of today’s slide presentation is available at www.sasol.com. I would now like to turn the call over to David Constable. Please go ahead, sir.

Thanks very much, Operator, and good day everyone. Thank you for joining us for our interim results conference call today. Joining me here in Johannesburg from Sasol are Bongani Nqwababa, our new Chief Financial Officer who started at Sasol on March 1 - a warm welcome to Bongani. Also on the call is Paul Victor, who has been an outstanding and extremely dedicated acting Chief Financial Officer, who will support me on today’s call. We also have with us other members of the Sasol Group executive committee, who will support us in responding to any questions you may have. As you would have seen today, we announced a resilient group-wide performance, notwithstanding an extremely tough macroeconomic environment. Despite the implementation of major corporate restructuring, our colleagues throughout the world have maintained their focus on safety, volume growth, increased sales and key strategic projects. Turning to Slide 4 in the pack, we’ll cover the following key messages today. I’ll begin by providing you with a high level overview of how our optimized operating model is providing Sasol with a solid platform to weather even the most severe of storms Next, we’ll spend some time reviewing our key performance achievements during the first half of the 2015 financial year. I’ll then provide you with an update on one of our most important initiatives, our business performance enhancement program. Of course, it’s clear that the current crude oil price presents challenging times for us. Instrumental to our ability to ride out the storm and maintain our momentum is our response to the low oil price environment. In December, the management team launched our oil price response plan. Today, we’ll update you on the cash conservation levers we are actioning as part of this plan. Paul will then go into more detail on our…

Thanks David. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I’m pleased to present the 2015 half-year end results to you today, which are well within our guidance earnings range provided for in our trading statement. We continue to deliver an overall strong operational and cost performance despite a highly volatile macroeconomic environment, as signaled by the 19% decrease in crude oil prices for the period under review. Before moving to the details of the results, I would like to emphasize the following: first, management’s continued focus on factors within our control has resulted in a strong operational performance with overall increased volumes, cost containment and margin improvement despite a very challenging operating environment. Second, we have made significant progress on reducing our cost base through our business performance enhancement program and have increased the target to deliver at least R4.3 billion in sustainable cost savings by the end of the 2016 financial year. Finally, mitigating the challenges of the low oil price and continuing to deliver maximum sustainable value to our shareholders remains one of our top priorities. Moving to Slide 12, the macroeconomic environment driven by the significant decline in crude oil prices remained subdued and uncertain, thus creating conditions expected to continue in the following two years. We are expecting a lower for longer oil price environment, and as David has indicated, we have taken decisive actions to minimize the impact on our business. The average rand-U.S. dollar exchange rate was 9% weaker with a 19% lower Brent crude oil price. Chemical prices and margins, on the other hand, have been much more resilient during the period under review. The Sasol business, however, remained sensitive to significant movements in the rand-dollar exchange rate and oil prices, and we do remind you of our sensitivities to each of these variables. We…

Thank you, Paul. To reach our overarching goal of delivering shareholder value sustainably, it’s important that we maintain focus on our dual regional strategy here in Southern Africa and North America. This approach complements our other important business activities in Eurasia, the Middle East, and the rest of Africa. Looking at the U.S. specifically and turning to Slide 24, we’re proceeding with the construction of our $8.9 billion ethane cracker and derivatives complex in Louisiana, as all of you know. In December 2014, we established a $4 billion credit facility which will be used to finance the project. We’ve already secured 80% of the funds required through a combination of project finance and our own equity contributions. The robust project economics benefit from an advantaged site location which expands on our existing operations, economies of scale that improve our cost structure, and upgraded infrastructure and utilities which drive further efficiencies. The new cracker complex will roughly triple the capacity of the Lake Charles site. Furthermore, our product slate distinguished our investment from most of the other crackers that have been announced. Our project combines commodity and specialty products which will leverage low-cost U.S. ethane feedstocks, and note that specialty chemicals produced will deliver high value returns even as chemical markets fluctuate. To oversee the execution phase of the project, we have an extremely experienced owners team in place and have progressed several key milestones. Site work is proceeding safely and efficiently and we expect that the plant will achieve mechanical completion at the end of calendar year 2017. Beneficial operations are on track for the first half of calendar year ’18. Slide 25 summarizes our broader contributions in Southern Africa. This slide is self explanatory, so let me just make a few general comments here on air quality and carbon…

[Operator instructions] We’ll take our first question from Caroline Learmonth with Barclays.

Thank you. On Uzbekistan GTL, I see in the detail that it used to be classified as an asset for sale and now it’s been brought back into use, based on the group’s intention to further develop the asset. So could you give us some background on that? I see there’s been a provision taken against it as well. Then secondly just on the U.S. GTL, and I note the study cost clearly causes an impact on cash fixed costs for the energy business. How much has been spent on U.S. GTL studies to date, and how much was spent in the first half? I see as well in the detail that land acquisitions in the U.S. continue for future projects. How much of that relates to U.S. GTL? Then just finally, you mentioned the Mozambique one-off social growth development cost of R443 million. Could you just give a little bit of a flavor of what that entails? Thanks very much.

Thanks for the questions, Caroline. I’ll kick off with Uzbek GTL and have Paul chime in on GTL study costs and land acquisition, and we’ll get to Mozambique as well. Uzbek GTL, as you know, we were sitting at 44.5% shareholding in that project and looking to sell down and spread risk on the project down to 25.5%. Right now, we’re looking at a revised business model. It has moved from held for sale back into in use, and that business model that we’re looking at would envision Sasol not spending any more capital on the project but looking at a business model where we would be licensing our technology, deploying catalysts to the project, and providing technical services, including project management and technical support to get the project up and running. So that’s where it stands right now. We’re busy in negotiations. Things look very positive from our perspective - like I said, a business model, we’re working on it, it looks very favorable to Sasol and gets us into licensing, which is something that has been of interest for us in that space as well. So that’s Uzbek GTL. U.S. GTL study costs spent to date is in the neighborhood of $300 million; but Paul, can you give us the details?

Thanks Caroline. So basically if I look in terms of what we have spent thus far in total on the U.S. GTL, it’s just over $300 million in total. Then obviously not all of the costs one can capitalize, so roughly R160 million of GTL’s study costs that you cannot carry on your balance sheet, that really relates to business establishment top off cost and marketing cost. That R160 million, that will be the growth on the period to period, that’s a portion that we could not capitalize and that we expense, and you will also see that as part of the cash fixed cost declaration and exploration under the energy bucket. Focusing on the land, David, if I can address that question, ultimately--and we also shared that when we were overseas during the visit in Lake Charles, is that there’s two components of land. The first basically acquiring of the land and then also the voluntary purchase program that we have. Now in total, the land, buying the land is going to cost us roughly $240 million, of which $120 million has been apportioned to the cracker and $120 million has been apportioned to the GTL. Of the $120 million that’s allocated to the GTL, we have spent $90 million thus far, and ultimately there’s a remaining $30 million that still needs to be spent. We do however plan to continue and to acquire all the land, notwithstanding the fact that we have delayed the U.S. GTL decision.

Thanks Paul. Then the Mozambican development fund that you were asking about, that is a downstream gas market development fund that we are contributing to through our partners in Mozambique to hopefully get additional downstream projects off the ground which can obviously benefit our oil and gas development activities in the country, so that’s where we’re working with the IFC and E&H, our partners, to put that fund together and, like I say, help develop the downstream gas markets in Mozambique.

Okay, thank you very much.

Our next question will go to Jarrett Geldenhuys with Investec.

Hello everyone. Thanks very much for the opportunity. I’ve also got three questions, please, firstly on maintenance capex. I realize you say that your volumes are paramount. I just would like to know where exactly and in which business units the maintenance capex savings seems to be coming through. Then the second question just relates to the chemical volumes, so good performance from chemicals. I just want to know if you can fill this out of what is the contribution from--positive contribution from EPU5 as well as the C3 stabilization plant, and I suppose operations in general relative to market demand. Then the last question is just in addition to these additional R1 billion worth of cost savings which you mentioned is sustainable from 2018. I just want to understand the scope difference between this and Project Phoenix, or is this just more efficiencies coming out of Project Phoenix? That’s about it, thanks very much.

Thanks Jarrett. I’ll ask on the first one if Paul can talk about the maintenance capex savings, and I’ll talk about chemicals volumes, and then I think Paul has got the R1 billion answer as well. Go ahead, Paul.

Good. Thanks Jarrett. Yes, so basically when we look in terms of the maintenance capital expenditures, we were obviously now thinking a lot of non-negotiables in terms of tapping future cash savings from. So specifically the shutdown in Secunda, the renewal program, and specifically all the maintenance work on the GLs and the boilers and so forth that we haven’t optimized. But there is a big portion of, let’s say, other sustenance capital projects that we’ve looked at across the value chain and where we’ve either delayed or stopped a project, so the whole value chain was however impacted by the reduction of the optimization of the sustenance spend, and ultimately we have provided those ranges, and ultimately certain non-negotiables that are specifically ensuring long-term sustainability, reliability, and availability of the plants.

Thanks Paul. Jarrett, you’re exactly correct on chemicals volumes, certainly in polymers. EPU5, which has been up and running since last year now, added an additional 47,000 tons annually and reduced flaring. I think we’ve talked about the flaring that was reduced from 7% to 1%, based on that installation. C3 stabilization reached beneficial operation just at the very end of our last--I guess at the start of this financial year, and added another 58,000 tons per year. So those are two key areas that we see coming through nicely in polymers, and then keep an eye out for the C3 expansion which has beneficial operation in June of this year with a capacity of 105,000 tons per year. So those two existing and one coming on shortly will be very nice for part of the base chemicals business. Paul, R1 billion sustainable savings response plan FY18?

So the question is on the sustainability and whether it’s just a further extension of Project Phoenix. We don’t see it. We really drive the response plan of such additional project in our business. In terms of looking at the sustainability, yes, from a theme perspective it’s actually levering further efficiency improvement in our overall cash cost base, who while Project Phoenix is very much focused on the cash fixed cost base and limited to other cash costs, the response plan is actually looking at the overall cash cost basis to really open up, let’s say, the size of the prize a bit more. In terms of the general themes that you are looking for, we are further optimizing our structures as we previously communicated to the consolidation of international energy and South African energy as one example. We also saw in our savings announcement, we are also levering not filling certain non-critical vacancies, and we plan to see whether we can actually continue with that right-sized establishment going forward. David also spoke about the 250 managerial staff that we further optimized as a result of the response plan, and then generally we’re also looking quite differently at our supply chain and also renegotiating contracts quite more diligently as part of this process in order to save cash costs on a sustainable basis. So definitely the theme is on much more efficiency but taking a little bit more focus on a wider cost bucket as opposed to Project Phoenix.

Thanks Paul. Thanks Jarrett. We’ll take the next question.

Next we’ll move on to Alex Comer with JP Morgan.

Hi, [indiscernible]. Firstly, you extended the life of your plant--

Sorry Alex. Operator, we can’t hear the question.

Can you hear me? Hello?

That’s a little better. Thanks, Alex.

Yes. You extended the life of your plant to 2050, and that helped boost earnings a little bit. I was just wondering what--did you include any sort of carbon tax in the assumption when you did that, given that if you look at the IA, you have some very significant carbon costs going forward - that’s the first question. Secondly, historically you’ve given out U.S. profit, so I would assume that the ports chemicals business did very well on the back of the existing Lake Charles cracker. Maybe you could give an indication of what U.S. profits were and also how that’s panned out in the first few months of this year. Also, I noticed that overall electricity costs seem to have gone down, which I’m surprised at given SCOM’s [ph] hikes, so I just wondered what the situation was there. Those are my three questions.

Thanks Alex. I think we’re going to give these all to Paul. 2050 strategy, obviously you need to take CO2 into consideration. Let’s start with that one, Paul.

Good. Alex, we have taken carbon tax into account. We have taken certain assumptions and we were conservative in terms of the impact of carbon tax in our 2015 modeling; however, we haven’t take a cliff into account in our modeling due to the uncertainty of exactly how the long-term legislation will play out in terms of carbon tax. So to answer your question, yes, we have included that. In terms of the U.S. profits from our business there, it saw healthy profits in the region of R4 billion-plus for the six months under review, being contributed from our U.S. assets. Then on the electricity side, there is also some benefit in terms of the short term PPAs that gets offset against the cost of your electricity, and we have seen good stability also in our plants that reduces the requirement to import electricity from SCOM.

Okay, thanks Paul. What charge per ton did you include in for the CO2, then?

Alex, we’re not going to disclose that. We have said previously in terms of the mechanism that there are certain reductions and rebates that we are taking into account, and we’ve previously signaled between a 60 to 70% offset, and within that range we applied the carbon tax.

Yeah, that gets you the answer. We took the thresholds into account, and then built it on top of the main price--or took it off the main price.

Okay, thanks.

Thanks Alex. Operator?

Next we’ll go to Gerhard Engelbrecht with Macquarie.

Good afternoon. Just a couple of questions. Just on the costs that you’ve spent on gas to liquids, I guess the two elements is you’ve capitalized some of the GTL costs in the USA after concluding your feasibility study. What’s the situation there - are you looking to impair those costs? Do you have any idea of how much money you’ve spent on gas to liquids and total liquids projects, let’s say over the last decade of projects that haven’t materialized? And then I see that you increased your drilling budget in Canada from $369 million in 2014 to $389 million this year. Is that--would you say that’s prudent in the current environment, and do you have control over this capex? Can you cut back if you need to? Lastly, maybe just try and explain this reclassifying the company as a specialty chemicals company. Surely that’s not in line with your production profile.

Thanks Gerhard. We’ll start with the USA, the feasibility study costs and moving into feed and the capitalization of same. Paul?

Yes, as I’ve said before, ultimately what’s on the balance sheet is in order of $300 million. Basically we--at half year-end, we had a look at it and the accounting rule that you apply is if you--we haven’t cancelled the project, we just delayed the project, so if we can use those engineering studies going forward, which we plan to do based on future economics and FID discussion, then you can carry it on your balance sheet. It’s only when you’ve made the decision not to continue with the project and to cancel it officially that you have to impair it. You will also notice that we have written off around about $2.5 million of that cost, which is certainly not substantial, but our auditors also feel comfortable that given accounting rules that we are actually allowed to capitalize and continue to capitalize until such time as we make a future investment decision.

Thanks Paul. On Canada on the drilling costs, we are, as Paul said earlier, de-risking that asset, spending minimal amounts of capital. We have two rigs running. We did have two rigs running in the first half of the year, one on Farrell Creek, one on Cypress A, and we want to look more into the Cypress A asset so we’ll be adding one rig, and in fact we’ve just added a third rig, so we’ve got two rigs working on Cypress and just one at Farrell Creek. That’s a very low rig count to just continue de-risking the asset. I think we’re at 5% complete, so it’s a long, long way to go as we work through that drilling program. By the way, the drilling costs have come down below our investment case, which is also positive. The average well costs in the first half were down to $7.8 million for drilling and completion, so that’s very good news, well below the investment case. Do we have control? We definitely have a say in the capex funding and the development plan there, which is done on calendar years, and participate--certainly have a voice and a say in how to proceed with rigs. So we’re comfortable that we’re sufficiently involved with the operator there, who I should say we’ve seen great performance from Progress Energy on the operations of that asset. Chemicals company, the JSE has advised that we’re a chemicals company. I will also say that 56.2% of our revenues generated in the first half were from chemicals and 44% of our profits, so certainly that helps in that regard. I’m not sure how JSE does it. Paul, can you give us--?

Yes, so basically they look at your assets, they look at your earnings, and based on that profile and also in terms of the previous segmental information that we’ve presented, we have been now classified as part of the INDI 25, and in similar vein the [indiscernible] will do exactly the same, and we also expect a rewriting from--or reclassification, apologies, from them in terms of the industry sector in which we’re going to be consolidated in.

Thanks Gerhard. Operator, we’ll take one more question today, thanks very much.

Okay, next we’ll hear from Nishal Ramloutan with UBS.

Hi, good day guys. Thanks for the opportunity. Just in terms of the performance plan, [indiscernible], can you maybe give us some guidance in terms of how we should look at that year-over-year, because if I just look at capex, for instance, so you’re talking about R13 billion to R22 million in the next 30 months, but there’s only about R5 billion in FY15 and then the rest is delivered FY17. So it would be pretty helpful if you can just give us some guidance as to what to expect year-by-year. I know you said 6 to 10 this year. And just that R5 billion capex cost for FY15, can you maybe just give us some color in terms of what is that made out of, and also just indicate what portion of that is the delay in the GTL progress and then what makes up the other components. Just in terms of that R4 billion to R7 billion cost saving reduction, which is also part of the response plan, just examples that you gave, it sort of indicates--you know, my impression is that that should have been something that should be captured in Project Phoenix, so can you give a bit more color in terms of what exactly that is? Why is only R1 billion of that sustainable? And then just--yes, I think I’ll just leave it at that.

Okay. Just on your second question and then I’ll turn it over to Paul for the response plan targets, the R1 billion sustainable savings, as you know, will be on top of the Phoenix savings of R4.3 billion, so that R1 billion of cash cost savings, as Paul went through that, those vacancies of 500 to 1,000 people is going to drive a good portion of that savings. We think we can run the company as a leaner organization going forward, and only fill critical vacancies going forward. So our moratorium on hiring, freezing of hiring is going to allow us to see that savings in addition to Phoenix. That was not the plan under Phoenix. Those positions were going to be filled previously, but from what we’re seeing now and getting into it and analyzing it further, we think we can see a good chunk of the sustainable response plan savings from the vacancies. Then I think--I’m just giving you a couple big ones, because Paul mentioned a lot of dogs and cats in there as well, but the other big one are the 200 permanent management people, further structural change to reduce 200 more senior management personnel. That’s a big change to what we had over and above Phoenix, and we’re comfortable that those are sustainable moves as well based on our new structures. Paul, on targets, response plan, and a little more color on the capital, both capital growth and sustenance?

So Nishal, basically the reason why we have given the R30 billion to R50 billion range is also to take into account, as David also mentioned, that we are watching and seeing where the market is going in terms of finding a new equilibrium. So it’s also important for us as the market picks up that we will start to also execute growth programs that can add future sustainable value, so it’s really depending also on where share prices--or sorry, where oil prices go [indiscernible], and that’s why you see the wider range. Now in terms of guidance for every financial year, we are providing guidance for this year. You can make a call in terms of the remaining portion of the 30 to 50 over the following two years, because effectively these two years, that remains. So we will provide guidance in every financial year as we progress, and also as we see where oil prices go and how the macroeconomics are going to play out. So there’s a lot of dynamics and also flexibility that we’ve built into the response plan to also react quicker or even slower as oil prices pick up or stay at the current levels. So at this stage, we don’t provide any further guidance on that. Your second question in terms of what actually makes up the R5 billion, obviously there’s a lot of projects that you have gone through. The key ones obviously will be your U.S. GTL deferral - that will be the first one. Secondly, we’ve also delayed the swing [ph] on [indiscernible] fields 2, for example. There’s also a couple of other sustenance projects that we’ve delayed that surely later I’ll talk in a little more detail about, and then also in terms of what we originally planned to spend in the Montney versus what we’re actually spending in the Montney is also less. So those are really the four big ticket items making your R5 billion up.

Okay, so just a follow-up. So the 200 for the management positions cut, what would be the cost of implementing that, because I assume there will be a cost for that.

Yes, sure. There will be a cost, but that has already been factored into our response plan activity. You will not see that as being part of the $2.1 billion that we’ve indicated for Project Phoenix. It will be separate to that; however, we do believe in terms of the savings potential of the response plan, even in this year specifically with regards to those 200 positions as well as not filling vacancies and doing all the other things that we’ve spoken about, it will be self-funding and also contributing already in the 2015 financial year.

Good, thanks very much for calling in today. Gerhard, we’ll get back to you on the CTL GTL question and how much has been spent over the last decade or so - we’ll get into that with you as well sometime this week. I want to thank everyone for joining us and look forward to--Paul and I look forward, and Bongani, look forward to visiting with many of you during our upcoming investor and analyst road shows over the next few weeks. So thanks again. Take care, bye bye.

That will conclude today’s call. We thank you for your participation.