The financing of Keliber through alone is also well advanced, and on Rhyolite Ridge. It’s a great project. We the ioneer team. It’s a project that deserves to be built. There is an impending record of decision, towards the end of the year. We will consider our role based on the economics of that project just like any other partner would. And I’ve always maintained that the funding of a good project, even in tough times is achievable based on good economics. You can fund just about everything, as long as the economics are sound. And we expect the economics of Rhyolite Ridge to be sound. So it is financeable. And again, we will make those decisions, towards the end of the year. Mika and Charles, Robert, anything you want to add?
Robert Van Niekerk: Thank you, Neal. I think you covered it well. But maybe I just add there that concerning this permitting situation, I just want to repeat the fact that we are doing this overall assessment whether it has any impact on the Keliber project timeline or not. And that is ongoing work. And at the same time, I just want to highlight to everybody that we have the permits. The crude rolling didn’t have any impact on the [indiscernible] mine permit nor on the refinery in Kokkola permit. So those are all valid. So there we can move according to the plan. And I think there was also a question concerning the external feed and that’s right. We are starting with the external feed as from 25 to ramp up to production. That plan is still valid and we have a couple of alternatives where we are going to get that feed from. Thank you.
Neal Froneman: Yes, spot on. And I think it’s important just to note that, that was in my mind a very smart and appropriate decision to use third-party concentrate to prove up the technology, debottleneck, debug what will inevitably be a challenging start up. But it’s also profitable to start up that plant in that way. So that third-party concentrate start-up was a very, I think prudent approach to starting up Keliber. Charles, anything you want to add on?
Charles Carter: No, Neal. I think you’ve nailed it and important decisions late here. We’re excited about what we’re seeing and we have a good partner. So time will tell. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next, I think let’s go to the phone lines to Chorus Call, please for the next series of questions and we’ll come back to the webcast questions.
Unidentified Analyst: You’ve taken quite an watering impairment at Stillwater, R38.9 billion. I see from the notes that you’re assuming a $1,281 an ounce basket price, which is quite high than spot. Could you give us some details around what you have assumed around production volumes and level of CapEx relative to today into the future in that calculation? That’s the first. Second question is PGM costs, I see you’ve guided this high 9% to 12% year-on-year. I’m surprised by that. You obviously restructured those four shafts this last year. I would have expected that to be lower. And then the final one, I guess maybe perhaps less a question than just a comment, is that ultimately, we have probably market has been quite disappointed, I think by the level of net debt both free cash flow burn.
I’m not quite convinced that enough further R8 billion to R10 billion of free cash flow burn this year is really good enough. And from what I can see, I think the market’s primary concern is that you will actually have to raise more capital later this year. Welcome to comment on that. I think you already have. Thank you.
Neal Froneman: Yes, thanks Chris. So let me start at the back and I’ll ask Charl and Charles to comment on Stillwater, what was considered in the impairment. And then, Rich, if you can comment on the cost increases in the South. I can say that we are going to raise additional capital. But this perception that it’s going to be rights issue is completely wrong. I think let’s talk some nuts and bolts. We have very successfully used streams in the past. We have very successfully used prepays. None of that is debt. None of it is a dilution to shareholders. So the figures quoted by Charl are certainly our view. But I can tell you, we’re not going to wait until we see whether Charl is right or wrong. We’re already progressing some of those issues, and they are smart, they are smart ways of raising capital on assets, especially those that are difficult to find partners for or difficult to sell.
So please don’t think we’re sitting on our hands and not doing anything to further strengthen the balance sheet, but it’s also not. And I’ll try to explain that right at the beginning. This is not about a rights issue. That’s as Charl said, that’s maybe the fifth or sixth parachute that you pull. So I wanted to just answer your third part to that question and then perhaps we can go first to Charl or Charles on Chris’s questions around Stillwater and the impairment?
Charl Keyter: Yes, so Neil, I’ll take that one. Chris, so what we have assumed is a production profile similar to what we’ve guided for the next three years. And then over a period of two years, it builds up to around 600,000, 650,000 ounces. And then we’ve kept it at that level based on the production profile, basically into the future. In terms of capital expenditure, again looking at this year, what we’ve guided that is the level of capital expenditure we aim to keep going forward. There might be some slight investments in ’25, ’26. But thereafter, we’re probably looking at R170 million to R200 million. So significantly down from what we’ve got now. I think the number you are seeing there, although it’s expressed as a per 2E ounce, it does include the 3E ounces from recycling as well.
So that was just expressed as a 2E ounce. But yes, I think that’s the numbers, Chris. Flat profile next three years, slowly building up and then basically a flat capital profile for the remainder of the life of mine.
Neal Froneman: Yes, thanks Charl and Rich, would you please pick up, Chris’ question on the 9% increase in unit cost at SA PGMs? Thanks.
