And we also did accomplish quite a lot of growth capital through last year at the East Boulder tailings building the like. I think the shift really is also within ORD. So that’s R211 million down to R94 million. So our flag that we’ve kept the total development pretty much the same year-on-year. However, we’ve changed the mix within the development. So, we’ve reduced primary development, and we’ve weighted heavily towards secondary. Secondary, it’s really like comparing your cross cutting a South African operation. So it’s giving you access into the ore. And we’ve really created the flexibility to do some of that through last year. And now we’re really pushing on that, and we’re also favoring grade. And obviously, there’s a cost component to that.
So that’s really the key shift there. I think to go back to Neal’s question, I mean, nobody in Montana is complacent about a two year ounce price reality in the 950 or thereabouts. So we’ve got lots of work to do, but there’s no silver bullets here. We — I’m looking forward just getting to Q1, and you’ve been able to see that we’ve done quite a lot of heavy lifting from Q4 to Q1 to get production on track and to get our costs moving in the right direction. And obviously, we have more work to do. But, ultimately, you need that longer term lift towards higher volumes over the medium term to get your unit cost down. But we are already moving in that direction. And we pull in every cost lever we can. And the challenge is to get to breakeven. It’s very, very difficult in the 900.
But you will see the directional shift and you’ll see the delivery, and I’d rather have the runs on the Board and talk to that outcome than speculate. Thank you.
James Wellsted: Thanks, Charles. The next set of questions has to do with free cash flow generation, and what the annual cash burn of the group will be for 2024 at current spot prices. And then linked to that, have we done enough to curtail loss making operations? And, would we consider rights issue, or can some CapEx plans be deferred?
Neal Froneman: Yes. So, again, let me just lead into that. And, Charl — sorry, if you wouldn’t mind picking up. I think that the restructuring we’ve done is appropriate for where we are. I think if I didn’t get the message across in terms of the market, I don’t believe that the current depressed environment is an environment that’s going to be with us for a long period of time. Having said that, doesn’t mean that we’re betting the farm on improving or increasing basket prices. But I think, we’re in this for the long run. We are not going to damage our business by taking, knee jerk reactions. I think in terms of the question on, let me call it other levers or perhaps even when you refer to a rights issue, Of course, we’re very familiar with rights issues.
We’ve done them. But I would say that’s something that is, well down the line and something that, if we are wrong on the fundamentals that underpin, the PGM markets, we may have to resort to, but it’s not something we are considering now. Charl will share with you a number of levers that we can still pull on the revenue side, which we will do in the next probably three to six months. But, Charl, over to you on some of the more specifics.
Charl Keyter: Yes. Thank you, Neal. And, yes, I mean looking forward to 2024 and using our budgeted assumptions plus the guidance that we’ve put out today. We estimate the cash burn somewhere between R8 billion and R10 billion for the year. So if we look at our budgeted assumptions, PGM prices are slightly lower than what we had in our budget. But the gold prices are significantly higher. I mean, in fact today almost 28%, 29% higher. So I mean, we are well aware of the challenges with that amount of cash burn. But I mean, the levers we can pull and I think that’s been evident through the levers that we’ve already pulled, is obviously looking at how we allocate capital, how we spread capital, and possibly how we defer capital.
Historically, we’ve also looked at other sources of financing, and there’s a couple of vanilla ones, and those would typically be looking at. And that’s more sourcing liquidity, but those can come in the form of prepays. Historically, we’ve looked at streams. But as Neal says, rights issue, as I said earlier to somebody, that’s probably the fourth or the fifth parachute that you want to pull. Thanks, James.
James Wellsted: Thanks, Charl. The next set of questions are related to the Rhyolite Ridge and Keliber. So how do we plan to fund the equity injection to Rhyolite Ridge and what structure would funding at Keliber take and then do recent developments in Finland change the timeline for this funding needed for Keliber. And then similarly question on, the refinery at Keliber coming online before the mines. Do we have plans to process third-party materials and the status of Rhyolite Ridge? So perhaps we can just…
Neal Froneman: Let me kick off and Charles, you’re welcome to add to Charles and Robert. You’re both intimately involved on Rhyolite Ridge and Mika, obviously, on Keliber. So let me just say very broadly, as Charles said, we’re not hell bent on growth. We are not hell bent on acquisitions this year, and the message that, that I tried to convey, through the presentation is that our balance sheet takes first and foremost priority. So when it comes to Keliber or [indiscernible] for Rhyolite Ridge, it’ll be very carefully considered, at the right time. However, let me say that the Keliber project is well on its way. It was always intended to fund the initial portions of Keliber using equity, which is being done and will carry us through probably to the middle of the year.
