Gold Fields Limited
Q2 2013 Earnings Call Transcript

Published: 22 Aug 2013

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Without any further ado, I'm going to ask Nick to do the presentation. Thank you.

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Thank you very much, Willie, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. I'd like to extend a special welcome to our Chair, Cheryl Carolus, in the front over here; and also Gary Wilson, Chair of our Audit Committee, who is here today. We are really grateful you could make the time and appreciate your presence here today. There's quite a lot to talk about. Let's talk first about what's happened in the quarter and the review. As you can see, our gold production on a managed basis has declined to 470,000 ounces in the quarter. And the main reason for that really is the well-publicized industrial action we had in Ghana, which meant that we lost our Tarkwa and Damang operations for a number of days. And it took some time to get them back to steady-state thereafter. In fact, if you adjust for that one anomaly, all of the other operations have done reasonably well. Our revenue has been negatively impacted by the gold price. We've had a very significant decline in the gold price in the last quarter, so our revenue is down from $805 million to $637 million. Notwithstanding that, our costs are well controlled. In fact, we've managed to reduce our costs, helped in some part, of course, by the exchange rates in South Africa. But as you would all know now, we don't benefit or suffer that much from exchange rate movements because most of our assets are dollarized now. Operating profit, down to $240 million, and then we've incurred a loss for the quarter of $129 million, principally because of some impairments we've made in Ghana. And I'll talk about those a little later. If you strip those out, however, we still incurred a loss of about $36 million, the normalized loss you see there. And that's principally, again, because of the 5% drop in production, really all in Ghana, and of course, the gold price dropping around about $250 per ounce, as you can see there. Cash costs are still well-controlled, $857 per ounce despite the lower production, and that's still within guidance we gave. Remember, at the beginning of the year, we said we'd be about $860. We're still within that. And the NCE significantly below guidance, $1,239 for the quarter, that's below last quarter but importantly, significantly below the guidance for the year, as we've continued to look for ways to rationalize our costs. I think by and large, other than the industrial action in Ghana, the operations have really hit their stride. As I've said, the gold price is down 16% to $1,372, and obviously, the combined effects of the revenue drop -- the production drop, rather, and the price drop means that revenue has declined to $637 million. I think some key highlights in the operational performance is that South Deep is still cash negative. That obviously is a key objective for us to get away from that and get the operations back to, initially, breakeven and start generating cash over time. We're making good progress at South Deep, and I'll talk about it later. But at this stage, we've not yet got to breakeven. Damang has been hurt by a number of challenges, particularly as we had to close the original Damang Pit during the quarter because of safety concerns. We had a couple of rock falls on the east wall of the pit, and we decided that we're going to close the pit 3 months earlier than normal. That meant we had to go and get our fleet redeployed into lower-grade areas because we hadn't yet opened up higher-grade parts of the ore body. We had to use lower-grade stockpiles to fill the plant, and we still have some challenges, too, on a very old plant that we're fixing. So that's another opportunity for us to harness into the future, is to turn Damang around, and I think we can. Tarkwa, I've talked about. So those are the key highlights in the quarter. The impairment we've seen, $127 million for the quarter, is all related to Ghana and there's about $16 million related to stockpile write-downs at Damang, given that the price has declined. But the rest of it really relates to writing off the assets on the South and heap leach operations. We made a strategic decision to stop heap leaching in Tarkwa. And we've also made a decision not to build the new so-called TEP6 plant. We were thinking of another 8-million-tonne-a-year Carbon-in-Leach plant, and we've decided not to do that either. So essentially, what Tarkwa will become in the future is a CIL-only operation. And one of the reasons for doing that is that the dissolutions we're getting on the heap leach pads have been declining. We've been flagging that for some years. We're now down to about 55%, and we think that there's a much better scenario for the mine to take that material, instead of leaching it and getting 55% recoveries, taking it through the plant and getting 97% recoveries. That means we're going to pull back the mining, and that means we're going to stop those operations. So that meant that we had to write off all of those assets. And that's really a structural change in the business. We have not yet assessed the carrying value of our underlying operations. That exercise will be done at the end of this year, and the principal reason for that is that we need to rerun all of our life-of-mine technical models on a bottom-up basis at $1,300 gold price, which is what we're going to use for our declaration at the end of this year. Last year's declaration, if you can recall, was done at $1,500. This year, we'll do $1,300, so we have to wait for those technical models to be done. And we expect that, that work will be completed towards the end of the year. Then we'll rerun the gold price against that, that we determine is appropriate, and we'll see what that means in terms of the operations. So unlike some other companies that have made large write-downs on their existing assets, we have not done so at this point in time. And all I can say to you is I can't predict, at this stage, what the outcome is going to be. But it certainly is an indicator that, at the year end, we'll have to complete this assessment and decide if the carrying values of our assets are still appropriate. One of the key focuses over the last year has been on cost control. And one of the highlights of that is the fact that if you look at our all-in costs -- remember NCE is operating costs plus capital expenditures, we've managed to keep that at the same level that we reported 18 months ago. And that's despite inflation, which in the mining industry has been somewhere between 12% and 15% per annum over the last 2, 3 years. We've managed to absorb all of that and keep our costs flat. So I think that gives you an idea of what has been achieved. Our dividend has been deferred, the fact that we've made a loss in the quarter, and I think the concern also that the board has expressed about the volatility in the gold price. And we're not really sure where the gold price is going in the short term and predictions are all over the place. So the best thing for us to do is hold our fire and not declare a dividend at this point. We'll reassess that again at the end of the year and see what happens. But we've always said it's our policy only to pay dividends out of earnings. We've got to make the earnings to pay the dividends, we haven't made the earnings. Look at our guidance for the year, we're still reaffirming our production guidance of between 1.83 million and 1.9 million ounces, which we gave you in February of '13. We believe that we can come in at lower costs, and we believe that we can come in significantly below the target on NCE. We're targeting now about $1,240 per ounce. In our guidance, we told you it's going to be $1,360 per ounce. So that has helped us to offset some of the impacts of the lower gold price. The exchange rate has had some impact, but the bulk of this is real savings. I want to look at where we've come from almost a year ago to where we are today. And on the 31st of July last year, I did a presentation to the Melbourne Mining Club in Australia about what I thought the status of the gold industry was at that time, and I think a lot of you may have seen it. But in essence, I felt that the way the gold industry has performed over the last 20 years was not conducive to investor returns, and that we needed to move away from just growth targets and production to actually getting back to putting money into the bank. That got us thinking about well, "What does that mean for us as a company?" And we engaged in an extensive review of our entire portfolio on the basis that no holy cows[ph] will be assumed. We'll take a fresh piece of paper and look at the business. That also culminated in a decision for us to split our business and to demerge Sibanye and create a separate company that could actually then drive the best possible value out of those assets. And that deal was consummated and completed in February of this year. And if I look back on that transaction, I think all of the rationales for doing it exist today, probably even stronger than then. And it's really good to see that the Sibanye operations are starting to really gather momentum, and they themselves are improving their own performance. I think by letting them free, by liberating them, we've incentivized that team to do a much better job. And I think the outcome is very clear. And for us, it's meant that we had to relook at our own business because Gold Fields now has changed from one of the top companies to a mid-tier company. We're about #10 or #11. And that's meant that we've had to move away from just ounces of production, which I think a lot of people in the market are still stuck with. If they ask me, "What is your production? Why is your production going down?" What they should be asking me is, "What is your margin per ounce?" And that's what we've been focusing on. A new business plan has been put together for this year that focuses on how do we improve the margin per ounce, how do we improve our cash flow. And that's meant that we've cut ounces. We've not been afraid to say we're going to reduce marginal ounces. And I guess I'm pleased that we did a lot of the stuff that we did do at the end of last year because I didn't know the gold price was going to drop so much. And the fact that it has an effect that we've done what we've done has helped us to be prepared for where we are. Nevertheless, $1,300 or so is a reality today. We don't know how long that's going to be around, maybe it's going to go lower as well before it goes higher. We have to be prepared for all eventualities. So there's still more for us to do. We rationalized our head office over the last 3 or 4 months. We've cut our staff down to around about 56 people. Our corporate cost is about $10 per ounce for the group. It's been streamlined and it's not just a question of taking people out of the system, which we don't enjoy doing, it's a question of refocusing our operations on what they need to deliver. And our regions now are virtually fully empowered to operate with the minimal amount of interference from us, but in accordance with very clear strategies that are pre-agreed, in accordance with business plans that are rigorously approved and reviewed by us. So we're looking at a very different Gold Fields where we're empowering our regions to deliver. Having said that, we won't compromise the 4 key important issues in our business, which is

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Okay. If you could just indicate whether you want to ask a question and then they'll get the microphones to you. Let's start right there with Allan. Just say your name and your company.

[Allan J. Cooke:]

It's Allan Cooke, JPMorgan. Nick, just on South Deep, this is another delay, and I appreciate you're still doing more work there. But could you give us an indication as to what changes you're envisaging there. Is it just to fill -- or a longer time to 700,000 ounces, or does that 700,000 ounces perhaps change in the future? And then help us with an understanding, are you just having teething problems there? How far behind plan are you currently? And what are the issues that make you concerned that you will not get to free cash flow breakeven and achieve the original mine buildup plan view?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Yes, I think it's a combination of issues, Allan, in that just to de-stress the ore body to get all of the project areas ready, it just takes longer. The logistics, I don't think they're as good as we'd like to see. Our equipment availabilities are below what they should be. We have a dedicated focus on improving equipment. We're looking at the layouts on the ground, and as I've mentioned, we need to bring forward the addition of new ore passes. That's meant we've had the accumulations underground. And the accumulations underground now are probably getting to levels that are concerning. And as always, what you find is a lot of this has come out of the long-haul steps and the grade in there is typically higher. So we're sitting with what we believe to be reasonably good grades on the ground. So we've got to get those out. I think the plan to get to 2016 is probably too aggressive given the level of buildup. I look at the trajectory where we are today and where we need to be, and we're just not quite there. How far are we under plan? I think in terms of reef tonnes broken, we're very close to plan. And now we're around about 92% of plan. In terms of de-stressing, we've increased significantly. You've seen, again, we've had another 40% increase. So we're at about 90% of plan. That's looking good. If we get our grade issues sorted out, which is, we believe, a function of accumulations, getting them out on the ground, I'll be able to give you a better feel as to what I think the long-term profile will be. I don't think we are far away, but I think it's late enough in our buildup stage to flag that we're probably not going to meet our target. But I don't think the model is fundamentally flawed, and I think it's just a question of more time required. Now, in terms of what does the future profile look like, we are running a whole lot of scenarios. And I'm sure that by the end of this year, we'll be able to give you a better feel as to where we are and that's -- I wouldn't want to comment on what specific production profiles will be, whether 700,000 ounces is still achievable. We're reviewing all of that.

[Allan J. Cooke:]

Okay. Good then. Sorry, just one more, if I may. On Far Southeast, the strategy is evolving and changing quite a lot, and it occurs -- what sticks out, the Far Southeast project, because you're still going to invest a significant amount of capital there to exercise your option, explore, et cetera. Could you give us an indication of how much more you need to spend at Far Southeast within your current planning? And why that is, when you're slashing or cutting or selling other projects in your project pipeline piece? What makes the Philippines special within the project pipeline [indiscernible]?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Yes. We haven't got any definitive news yet on Far Southeast. But importantly, we have to get through the FTAA process. Now that's -- I should probably stand -- we have to get through the FTAA process first. We think that's going to take us to about the middle of next year. And we're looking at different options to access the ore body. Now can we get a high-grade starter operation, and what would that look like? We're running all the numbers on that. But in the meantime, what we are doing is we are cutting the burn rates on the project. Now the project burn rate is going to be maybe $0.5 million to $750,000 a month, and that's going to be way down. We're not going to be incurring big money until we make a decision. And if we find down the road that our strategy and Far Southeast doesn't gel, we'll consider other options. There's no definitive views on what we should do with any of the projects today. We are still all under review. I think it is a great ore body. I think it will be built sometime in the future, if not by us, by somebody else. But we're trying to figure out what is the value proposition, and at the same time, let's get the FTAA in place so that we've got permission to have a majority ownership in the project as a foreigner, and we'll take it from there.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Thank you, Allan. Let's go to Derryn in the back there, and then we'll come to you, Johann.

[Derryn Maade:]

It's Derryn Maade from HSBC. Just a quick one on the Yilgarn acquisition, Nick. In terms of the regional synergies that you highlighted, would you be looking out a little bit further as well, potentially Sunrise Dam, would you see that as attractive, bringing that into your portfolio, and given that it's only around 5 kilometers from Granny Smith?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

I think our main task at the moment is to integrate these. I think this is going to keep Richard Weston and his team busy for quite some time. We got to make sure that we apply our mines to what we've done here, that we come up with a cogent new plan for these operations, how we integrate them with the rest of the assets in Australia. And I don't want the team really to be distracted from that for now. Down the road, anything is possible, but not for the short term.

[Derryn Maade:]

And then just one last one on South Deep and the review of the BEE deal that was made this year, maybe highlight some of the outcomes of that review, please?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

What I'd like to do, maybe, is -- I have our Chair here today, Cheryl Carolus, and maybe I can ask her to deal with that particular question.

[Cheryl Ann Carolus:]

Thank you. The board has finally concluded its investigation. It's been quite a learning curve for us, and I think we've just become quite mindful that, in so many ways that it relates to the environments in which we work, just requires much ongoing training, familiarization of our staff. And we are comfortable that we've done a year-long investigation. We spent quite a bit of money on it, and we think that was the right thing to do. We're not going to rush it, and we are happy to draw a line under that chapter. We have spoken with management, because we think that we need to revisit some of our own internal communications, particularly in procedures. And management has taken that on board. We will take a number of steps, but I don't want to steal the thunder of Nick's wonderful initiative that is outlined here, and I'll be happy to take questions outside. But perhaps one of the things that I should say is that management and Nick, in particular, has taken on board fully the fact that this has been quite a difficult period for the company, that the company has been exposed to, and he has offered to, in fact, sacrifice his bonus for the financial year ending 2013. We didn't think it -- that was not on our radar, but we think it was a very decent thing to do to, to in fact, acknowledge the fact that it has been a difficult time and that there's much work that would need to start, pretty much that has in fact started in the company. So we're very pleased to say that we can a draw line under that. We think it's still a fantastic transaction that was concluded. We're mindful of the fact that 60% of the value of the transaction affects certain broad-based education trusts for the benefit of our communities adjacent to our operations and our labor-sending areas. And we're just much wiser. I have a few more gray hairs, but I think we're much wiser and much more comfortable about the way going forward around.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Can we come to Johann standing in the front here, please?

[Johann Steyn:]

Johann Steyn from Citi. Just quickly on the acquisitions. On Page 47, for instance, you show on Slide 47, you show those reserve charts, et cetera, for Granny Smith for instance, how you cumulatively produced more, but the reserves basically stayed flat. My question is how much was that helped by the gold price? Because clearly, over the past 10 years or so, we've had a very good gold price. So that's the first question. The second one is then, with the gold price now going to $1,300 an ounce, have these reserves taken inside Barrick been impaired? Or do they still need to be impaired at a lower gold price? Will there be impairments or not? And then just thirdly, in terms of accessing some of those deeper reserves, what kind of capital commitments are we looking at?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Yes, first of all, they have undertaken their own impairment on these assets before we acquired them. So they've already done that. In terms of how much capital it's going to cost to extend the ore body down further, we don't even own these assets yet. We've done some preliminary work in our models that we used to value the assets. We've taken a very conservative approach in terms of what we have valued, and that we haven't valued a huge amount of blue sky for example. We've operated by-and-large within the envelope, so we've truncated it in a very conservative fashion. But the job now over the next 3 to 6 months will be to look at all of those things. But I don't necessarily want us to start spending a whole lot of money today. What I want us to do is figure out how we can actually run these assets for cash, first and foremost, and how we can actually look at what they have today to run for cash. And we have to remember, these are operations that are run by Barrick in the past. They've got very good operating philosophies. It's the largest gold company in the world. We have done site visits of the assets. And I was speaking to my counterpart at Barrick last night, very late in the evening just before we signed, and I said to him how pleased we were of the state of the assets and the way that Barrick has operated them. And he, in turn, thought our current practice in Australia would really come into good effect here. So we're excited, but we're keeping our feet on the ground. And first and foremost, we have to try and run these assets for cash flow, which is in line with the philosophy in the group. And given the fact we've just shelled out $270 million, we've got to make sure that we get a return on our capital. That's the name of the game, not like the past, where people spend money and they never get it back. We can't be in a situation like that. And I think this is a unique opportunity for us because, if you go and look at how the market was valuing these assets, if you look at consensus valuations of these assets over the last couple of years, now then the values the were being attributed by the analysts, yourselves, to these assets at only slightly higher gold prices in Aussie dollar terms, they were attributing a higher value. Now that's well in the public demand, you can see that. So the fact that we have an Aussie dollar that seems to be a little bit weaker, that's obviously helping us. I think we can generate some good value out of these assets. To be honest, it's going to take time.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Can you please pass on to Adrian behind you, and then we'll come to you in the front here.

[Adrian Hammond:]

It's Adrian Hammond, BNP Cadiz. And I have two questions, I think the first one for you and the second one for Paul. Just, I think, is an extension of what Johann asked you. I appreciate the detail you've given us to explain the longevity of these assets in Australia, considering the reserves stated. But currently, your reserve life for these assets are relatively short term and clearly, you're in for the long term. Could you just then clearly indicate what level of capital you need to spend to bring new reserves into account, or just give us an all-in cost? And maybe I'll move on to the second question after you answer that one.

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Now look, the best proxy I can give you for that is how much have we spent at St Ives and Agnew in adding to the reserve base every year. And over the last 10 years, we've put back around about 7 million or 8 million ounces at an average cost of about $50 per ounce. So if we use that as a proxy, that's probably the best indicator I can give you for us to add to the reserve base. The other important thing is our work to date indicates, as I've have demonstrated in the presentation, not so much at Lawlers but [indiscernible] grades get better at depth. So that's the other benefit that we're seeing here. Although it will cost more to mine at depth than it does shallow ore bodies, the indications are that the grades are improving at depth as well. So use $50 as a proxy and use St Ives, I think, and Agnew is the best analogue to figure out what sort of cost structures we'll end up at. Clearly, we have to bear in mind, at $1,300 an ounce, that's going to be our planning assumption for next year. I need to get a plan from Australia that can do more than just wash it's face at $1,300, and I need a plan that can generate value for the group. So that's the way we're going to be looking at this.

[Adrian Hammond:]

And Paul, could you tell us what level of debt you've taken on, or if any, in this acquisition and any environmental liabilities?

[Paul A. Schmidt:]

[indiscernible] We've got to pay the bulk of it out of this -- of this out of cash resources in Australia at the moment. As you read, the option here is that this could be settled half in shares issued today or a full cash deal. And if we do cash deal, we could look at ways of financing part of the cash purchase, if we make them[ph] . In terms of environmental obligations, it's about $86 million that we're taking on board.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Thanks. Thank you. Any further questions? Sorry, we've got -- sorry...

[Richard Hart:]

Richard Hart from Macquarie. Nick, you indicated that Barrick have already impaired these assets, but on Slide 29, you're still using $1,500 an ounce. I assume that you'd have to take a look at those at $1,300 an ounce as well, so at 2.6 million ounces it would obviously be a bit less than that.

[Nicholas John Holland:]

We're not sure yet. We obviously have to go and rerun this through our own methodology at $1,300, and we'll see what the outcome of that is.

[Richard Hart:]

But if Barrick could impair them to $1,500 an ounce, or have they impaired it [indiscernible]?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

What Barrick did is they impaired the carrying value of these assets to basically the $300 million that we've offered them. So if you look in their June accounts, you'll see there was about $114[ph] million impairment of the Yilgarn assets down to the carrying value that we offered in the purchase price. But there may be -- you're right, there may be a need for us to look again at the reserves at the end of the year, as we look at everything else. And if that's the case, and I will look at it, that doesn't change in any way our view of the assets, because what we've done is we have estimated what we think we can mine over the life of these assets at a $1,300 gold price, taking into account the cost structure that exists. And that's worked out for us what we think the assets were worth. So even if there is an impairment, that's already factored in to how we value the assets. It's not that we're valuing the assets at $1,500 and all of a sudden, now we redo the reserves and then we -- half the purchase price gets impaired. No, not at all. We've taken a conservative valuation through at $1,300 to come up with what we believe is a mineable profile. And it's within the envelope of the reserves and resources already declared. That ignores the fact that I believe that these mines will continue for many years to come. Our team believes that more strongly that even I believe that. We haven't even taken that into account. That's been a conservative view that we've taken into account what you just mentioned.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Thank you very much. In the back there?

[Unknown Analyst:]

Was that why -- sorry, John Crensdoff [ph], without wanting to appear cynical, why would a company like Barrick sell these assets?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Good question. Same question that went through my mind when we were negotiating, what are we missing here? And I had a long discussion with Jamie Sokalsky, their CEO, who I've known for quite some years. And he explained to me the predicament that Barrick is in at the moment. They've got about 36 operating mines around the world. Their production profile is about 7 million ounces a year. Just imagine, to stand still every year, you've got to find 7 million ounces every year to stand still. They've become too big in a world where smaller is beautiful. The other thing is, they're trying to manage Australia from Toronto. How many time zones away is that? The other thing he wants to do -- and this is on the public record so I'm not saying anything out of school here -- he wants to get Barrick to be more of an Americas-style company, let them focus on the Americas, North and South, for a number of reasons. One, it's the same sort of time zone; and two, it's an area they understand. And I think it's no secret that Barrick is also looking to get out of Africa. That's another area they've struggled to understand and operate. Australia is no different. It's an area that they feel is not worth the attention for them in the scheme of where they are, in the scheme of things. So they're looking to bring on new projects in the Americas, they're looking for focus, and I think their shareholders are demanding focus from them. Last but not least, they've got a lot of debt. They've got around about, what is it, $13 billion.

[Paul A. Schmidt:]

Yes. They have a 2x net debt-to-EBITDA [indiscernible].

[Nicholas John Holland:]

They've got about $13 billion of debt, so they have to sell assets to bring that down. Look, I'm pretty sure that, had that not been the case, maybe they would have taken their time on this. I think, strategically, they still want to reposition. But I think given the fact that the gold price has dropped, the need for them to repair their balance sheet, they are looking aggressively to sell assets. And when you are selling, you're a seller. You get the best price at the time. Does that help?

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Good. Thank you very much. Folks, we've got time for one more question and then we've got to wrap it up.

[Christopher Nicholson:]

This is Chris Nicholson at RMB Morgan Stanley. Just two questions. First one is, in terms of the CapEx cuts of $120 million, can you give us an indication of which operations they will be coming out of, and specifically, is any of it -- does that relate to South Deep? And then second question is just the working capital adjustment in the purchase price[ph] . Can you just expand that, too?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Okay. I'll ask Paul to deal with the last question. The capital cuts are really out of the growth projects, mainly. We've curtailed a lot of the spend on the growth projects. If I could talk maybe on the year number, the $230 million is the year, of which $123 million is about 1/2 of it for the first half year. Capital projects have cut by around about $70 million, as we've really pulled back there, given the fact that some of them are for sale and others may well be for sale into the future. At Damang, we've pushed out a new tails dam for now, given the fact that one, the operation is cash negative; and two, I don't want to spend that money until I've seen a new longer-term profile for Damang that shows that we can make money at $1,300. And we might spend all of that money now and find we don't have a business proposition for Damang. That's pushed out quite a lot of money. Some of their strip, we've also pushed out because we're now focusing in the short term on the high-grade areas we've already exposed. So we're not just going to keep on blindly stripping at Damang until we know where we're going. And then I think it's generally good efficiency improvement to try and do the same physical work for less money. Contractors have been pulled back across the board, and it's amazing when things are tough and you go to your contractors and say, "We need a 20% saving." And they give it to you. And yet 2 years ago, they told us, they're only making a 15% margin. So it's amazing how things can change. So it's sharing the pain with our suppliers, as much as we share the benefits in the good times. So that those are the main areas that we've cut. So it's $230 million saving for the year against the guidance we initially have given you. I'm sure that we can do more than that. And we've got time for one more?

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Yes. You want to ask...

[Paul A. Schmidt:]

On the working capital, the bulk of it relates to employee leaving, customers[ph] , et cetera, that we will take over. And obviously, they're giving us an adjustment for that. We will assume the liability and they'll give us a credit for it.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Okay. Final question? Nothing? There's one over there. Can we get a microphone over there, please?

[Kane Slutzkin:]

Kane Slutzkin here from UBS. Just on Damang, I mean, you've outlined quite a comprehensive turnaround strategy. Just out of interest, does it -- was closure ever an option?

[Nicholas John Holland:]

Yes.

[Jan Willie Jacobsz:]

Folks, thank you very much for your time and attention. We do appreciate you coming. We will now in, say, 5 to 10 minutes, convene downstairs with journalists who want to ask specific questions. If you have any questions or further questions of -- for our Chair, could you please contact and Anne Dunn and we'll help set it up for you, okay? Super. Thank you very much.