So that will come later on and then obviously we can also tell to you much precise numbers concerning the CapEx demanded and, also the profitability numbers and the returns on that potential investment. Concerning Keliber, we need to remember that, as it is today, so most of the CapEx is already either used or committed, at this stage. We are constructing in three different places. So that means that the work goes on, and we shouldn’t have too high expectations that there are possibly a lot of CapEx that can be reduced for cash, we are assessing the full impact, if any of these new permitting decisions and we will come back to you and update to market as we are a little bit more advanced in that work. It came so recently, the court ruling that we still do need to do our homework first.
Thank you.
James Wellsted: Rob, will you go ahead on New Century?
Robert Van Niekerk: No, I will do that and [indiscernible]. I would like to say that the flooding we had last year at New Century is very, very different to the albeit difficult start we’ve had this year. Now last year, we had a flood which took our operations out totally for about 21 days, and it took almost a full month to recover from that flooding event. And at the same time, a lot of the infrastructure at the Century operations were damaged this year. We have had excessive rainfall in January. We’ve had excessive rainfall in February as well. So the start of the year has not been pleasant at all. Having said that, the terrain and the infrastructure has not been damaged nearly to the same extent as what it was last year.
And I am able to report that we are up and running again. And like I said, we didn’t go and lose 21 full days of production the first two months of this year. We did put a lot of call it anti-flood mechanisms in place. We put additional pumping capacity in place. We put additional access in place, and we made it possible to protect the water required for the operations and the infrastructure to dewater flooded operations a lot easier than what it was at the same time last year. Raj, I hope that answers your question.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay, thank you.
Neal Froneman: Perfect. Thanks Rob and Rich, if you can answer Raj’s question on the stickiness of the gold costs.
Richard Stewart: Raj, thanks. And yes, let me comment on it like this. I think so firstly, so I don’t think that these operations we’re targeting a cost at the moment of close to 1,600. I think what we are really looking at getting down to is probably closer to about 18 [ph] at the moment. Let me say that the first one of the first issues that we’ve got to get right in gold, we’ve had a couple of years with real disruption. So we had a strike impact in ’22. Last year, we had the two significant incidents as I’ve described at K4 and D5. All those incidents besides losing production, which obviously ups units costs, comes with their own costs and build up again. So getting stable production is one of the first keys to ultimately being able to manage your costs.
I’ll then say we’ve got a few levers that we are still looking at pulling to get the cost down in gold. The one that I did describe earlier was energy. And that’s been a big driver of the cost over the year that’s driven some of the stickiness you’ve referred to. With incoming some of our own energy sources, as I say, that should benefit some of that. I think the second big lever that we are looking to pull is you would have seen that the restructuring that we’ve done so far has really been on an operational basis. So we’ve been addressing loss making operations, restructuring those and operations that have come into the end of the life closing those. Clearly, with a slightly smaller operating base through that restructuring, we are also looking at how we can optimize our central and support services to those operations, which would reduce ultimately allocated costs and overhead costs that those operations are currently carrying.
So that’s the lever we’re pulling. And then I think the final one where gold carries quite a significant cost relative to most is on all care and maintenance assets where we have been battling to get closure of those assets for various regulatory and other reasons. And those costs continue to be carried by the Gold ops. There again, we do have a strategy to address those costs over the next year and two years and get those down, and that should again benefit the bottom line. So, Raj, I hope that helps. As I say at the moment, I think sort of 1800 is what we have in our sights. So it’s clearly not what we’ve guided to. Those are our plans that we have this year that we’d like to implement to get that down there. Thanks.
Unidentified Analyst: Thanks, Richard. That’s it from me. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from Nkateko Mathonsi of Investec. Please go ahead. Nkateko, your line is open. You can ask your question. Not getting a response, going on to the next question, which comes from Arnold van Graan of Nedbank. Please go ahead.
Arnold van Graan: Yes, good afternoon, Neal. Yes, I’ve got an overall question. So you’ve been very clear on your strategy and your outlook for commodity prices. But looking at your asset base, you’ve got lots of different assets, different commodities, different jurisdictions, different life cycles, capital needs and nuances as we’ve heard from a lot of the questions on the call already. So for me, it seems as the business is becoming large and unwieldy especially in a down cycle environment. So do you believe that the business is still fit for purpose in the current environment — to cause lots of attention, lots of management time. So generally, when you see this in companies, they tend to move away from this, move away from these large unruly asset base. Maybe just comment on how you plan to deal with this especially in this environment. I guess it’s much easier in a higher metal price environment. Yes. That’s it for me. Thanks, Neal.
