Gold Fields Limited (GFI) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to Gold Field's H1 2024 Results Market Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this event is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Michael Fraser. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good day, everyone, and thank you for joining us to this call to discuss our operational and financial results for the 6 months ending 30th of June 2024. You will have noted that we have taken a slightly different approach to the results presentation and the use of our time today. The results were released on SENS at 7:05 this morning. And at the same time, we also released a prerecorded presentation of the results on our website. We thought that this might make it more convenient for everyone to watch the presentation in a time that suits you and also to enable us to provide equal access to all of our investors and partners across the globe. With me today in the Goldfields team is Alex Dall, our Interim CFO; Martin Preece, our Chief Operating Officer; Francois Swanepoel, Chief Technical Officer; Jongisa Magagula, EVP of External Affairs; and Thomas Mengel, VP, Investor Relations. What I'll do today is provide a couple of high-level remarks and then move straight on to Q&A. It is with deep regret that we reported 2 fatalities in the half year. I again extend our deep condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of our 2 colleagues who lost their lives. I believe that a fatality-free mining business is absolutely possible and that we can deliver on our promise that everyone who works at Goldfields goes home safe and healthy every day. In response to the fatality in January at South Deep, we commissioned DSS+, formerly known as DuPont, to conduct an independent review of our safety culture, processes, systems and practices. This review was completed in May and has formed the basis of a multiyear safety improvement road map as well as some short-term interventions in our higher-risk areas. In terms of delivering value to our host communities, earlier this month, our St Ives mine signed a landmark native title agreement with the Ngadju People who are the determined native title holders of the lands and waters surrounding Norseman, where St Ives mine is located. This is an important achievement given the importance of St Ives in our portfolio and will contribute significantly to the upliftment of that community. We also continue to make strides in our decarbonization journey as we commence construction of the renewable energy plants at St Ives and at Granny Smith. Moving on to our operational performance. We were disappointed to be reporting a 20% decline in production. This was also a major contributor to the sharp increase in both all-in cost and all-in sustaining costs, which came in at $2,060 per ounce and $1,745 per ounce, respectively. We do expect a significantly stronger performance of the second half of 2024, particularly for South Deep, Tarkwa, Gruyere, St Ives and Cerro Corona, where we are anticipating a step-up in production in H2 in 2024. It is important to note at this point, whilst we have had challenges in a number of our operations, there are a number of our operations, in particular, Granny Smith, Agnew, Damang and Tarkwa who have delivered accordance with their operating plans in the first half. With just over 1.2 million ounces of production expected in H2, we also expect to see costs to improve to approximately $1,580 per ounce all-in sustaining cost and $1,750 per ounce for all-in cost at the upper end of the guidance. And it just shows that it demonstrates the operating leverage in the portfolio. Given the operational headwinds experienced in H1 of 2024 as well as the delayed start-up to the ramp-up at Salares, we are also now downgrading our '24 guidance to a range between 2.05 million ounces to 2.15 million ounces. This is around 150,000 ounces in the mid of the range compared to the previous guidance, and most of this has contributed from Salares delayed restart of the ramp-up and South Deep reguidance. By way of an update on Salares Norte, our ramp-up was impacted severely by the onset of the severe winter weather conditions in April, which we shared previously. This led to a freezing of material in the process plant pipes causing a temporary shutdown of the plant. During the winter months, the team have worked very hard and undertaken significant work to advance the safe restart of the plant. But due to ongoing challenges, we have not been in a position to restart that plant safely. And on reflection over the past few weeks, we believe that a delay in that start-up to the end of September is the most -- the highest confidence way of delivering a safe and reliable restart of that plant. What we have also seen over the past few months is some really deep and low temperatures, which has slowed down progress on these restart activities. This winter has been one of the most severe winters in Chile in almost 70 years, and we've had significant low temperatures, which have really caused some challenges in the restarting. The Restart Plan now scheduled for the 30th of September will result in a production guidance of between 40,000 to 50,000 ounces for 2024, and this will also mean that ramp-up now goes into Q2 of 2025. At South Deep backfill, rehandling challenges and poor ground conditions constrained access to stopes resulting in slower stope turnaround. And whilst the backfill rehandling added complexity to the planning and mining processes, that meant that we were slower to access some of the high-grade areas. South Deep has developed and implemented a recovery plan to address this, which has been closely monitored and supported from our team. With that, I now propose moving over to Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Catherine Cunningham of JPMorgan.

Just 2 quick ones for me. So the first one is, could you just possibly expand on what the potential options are for Damang and for Cerro Corona? And roughly over what time line you might be able to communicate the outcome there? And then I appreciate you don't give any 2025 guidance, but would it be possible just to get an idea of where you see South Deep volumes heading next year, say, versus 2023? That's it for me.

Catherine. Look, just a couple of comments. On Cerro Corona, just to recall that we don't have to make any quick decision on Cerro Corona. Whilst we are planning to cease mining at the end of 2025, we've got around 6 years of stockpiles to mine. What is important is that we are doing ongoing exploration around our property at -- and in the region of Cerro Corona. We also have a very strong license to operate, and we believe we've got really strong relationships with communities. So managing whatever transition we take with Cerro Corona has got to be taken in a very sensible and strategic way. So I wouldn't expect that you'd see us rushing out with a decision on Cerro Corona anytime soon. We really need to approach that with a degree of caution and not giving up some of the broader optionality in that region. I would also say that Cerro Corona is going to contribute significant cash to us as we mine those significant stockpiles over the remaining 6 years. So it's certainly not something we want to just give up very quickly. I think on Damang, it presents a slightly different proposition. And I'll ask Francois to comment on it because he's leading a study at the moment. And whilst we know there is significant resource there that we can mine again for an extended period, I think when we first looked at it, we felt that it didn't really meet our capital allocation hurdles. But I think with the study that's underway, which we should deliver by the end of this year, we may have a slightly better way of thinking about this mine. And again, for us, it's not going to be the highest priority long-life asset in our portfolio. But if we can extend life, continue to provide a livelihood of communities, not be a burden on our company and if we can do it in partnerships, there might be something responsible to be around it, which is really what we're trying to achieve. But I don't know, Francois, if you want to comment on that study.

Yes. Certainly, the higher price environment currently has really changed the way that we look at Damang. A number of pits at the mine, what we're currently doing is to see what combination and what sequence can actually drive most value for us going forward. So I think there is significant value on the table, either for us and -- or if not, if we decided to [indiscernible] for somebody who can take that operation going forward.

Yes, and that's the priority. There might be value for us, but it's really about how do we sustain the livelihoods of the community. But Martin, do you want to talk to South Deep. What do you think?

I think certainly, we offer the long-term trajectory that we had spoken about. I think it wouldn't be wise after this year just to step -- have a big step up into next year. We are looking at our plans now and hopefully sort of towards the back end of the year or in February, we'll be able to give you guidance on next year's plan. But it will be better than this year. We've looked at the fundamentals that underpin next year's plan, and we do believe that we will be able to see a step up from where we're forecasting to land this year.

And then just to be clear then, does that imply that the sort of longer-dated targets that you outlined in the past are also off the cards? Or should we still expect to realize that over time?

I think all we've done is we've gotten back a little bit on the buildup curve. But I think the longer-term targets, I'm certainly confident in that, I think we spoke about the 12 tonnes to get up to that 12 tonnes per annum. And that mine as we open up more and more infrastructure and move towards south of Wrench, you've just got more points of attack. And I think longer term, the 12 tonnes remains intact.

Our next question comes from Chris Nicholson of RMB Morgan Stanley.

I've got a bit more of, I guess, a high-level question on shareholder returns versus investments. Clearly, obviously, you had a difficult first half, and we saw [indiscernible] over the half. But just kind of taking a step back, we are at a time of extremely, I guess, elevated gold price versus history. And I guess this is the point in time where I guess shareholders should be expecting potentially greater returns from a mining company. How do you think about that in terms of your dividend payment on a forward-looking basis? So is maybe the 35% to 45% of earnings the best we can expect. And linked to that, I think the key thing kind of that's in my mind, and maybe you can just confirm this is clearly through the second half, you will now be buying Osisko mining. And then from the into 2025 and '26, you've obviously got the CapEx of that project to come, which I think the last time you've updated, it was about in excess of CAD 1 billion. So maybe just confirm that. And against that backdrop, 35% to 45% of earnings the best we can expect over the next 3 years?

Yes, Chris, and good to chat you. Yes, look, I think this is something that we are very mindful of because as you can appreciate, we're dealing with solving for a couple of things. One is that we do not believe in terms of our strategy, what we're trying to grow is growing cash flow per share. So when we think about reinvestment back in our business, all of those reinvestments have to come in a way that they're improving the quality of our underlying cash generation and underlying margins. So when we think about our investment in things like Salares Norte, when we think about our investment in Windfall, these are all projects that are going to come in at a significantly lower cash operating cost and better cash margin than our current portfolio. So it should be in the longer run, creating optionality for us to increase that margin of cash return back to our shareholders. So how do we think about it in the next few years? As you rightly say, with the acquisition of Windfall, we've got the -- sorry, of Osisko mining, we've got the acquisition cost of Osisko mining. We've also got that capital build, which the anticipated capital build is, I think, around CAD 1 billion, as you rightly called out in the feasibility study. But what we also acknowledge is that if you look at our current portfolio, even if you look at the consensus pricing over the remainder of this year and into '25 and into '26, we will be generating significant cash, and we will deleverage this balance sheet at a fairly rapid rate, which will give us the ability to both fund the future optionality and the future growth in a project like Windfall and also ensure that we appropriately reward our shareholders. So one of the things that we are talking about is if you look at our dividend policy today, which is that range of 30% to 45%, it's kind of a wide range. I mean today, we announced a 40% payout ratio, which is kind of towards the top end of that. But I always think that we need to be quite clear about how do we separate what we think is a reward for being part of our journey during periods where we've got elevated prices and higher prices and what is our just core base dividend. So I think we'll come back and just talk about how we can be a little bit more precise around that conversation or splitting a base dividend and a high return and a higher recognition. But I do think that over the coming years, if prices stay even if it's slightly below this and in line with consensus, given the cash generation that we expect, we should be able to be at least in the pack and if not a little bit higher on overall yields to our shareholders, and then we've got to decide what is the best way of returning that. And if our share price stays where it's at, obviously, that will be a good opportunity of [indiscernible].

The next question comes from Tanya Jakusconek of Scotia.

Yes. Great. I have two. One to do with Salares Norte and the other one to do with guidance. So maybe if I could start with Salares Norte. If I heard you correctly, it looks like we're going to get to nameplate capacity now in sort of like mid-2025. Is that correct?

Yes, Tanya. Look, I think -- so what we're saying is that we should be at our ramp-up by the end of second quarter of 2025. And just one thing because I think we need to understand the nuance of the curve as well is that you probably would expect lower yields and your lower production in our winter months. We have planned for some of that. So you probably see, if you're really talking about nameplate and running at its potential, it's probably more into the third quarter, I would suspect, but you're right. I mean it's probably second half of 2025 where you would be expecting to achieve our annual production rates.

Okay. And base now, and then I will get to what you're doing and appreciate working in cold temperatures because we have a lot of that here in Canada. So I just want to talk about then where do you see commercial production? I know we had first talked about the end of Q3, which probably is not the case; Q4, probably not. Should I be thinking sometime in 2025, you go in commercial given this ramp-up delay in your plants?

I'll ask Alex to answer that one.

Thanks, Tanya. Yes. It will be some time in the first half of Q1 next year that we will reach our commercial levels of production -- I mean, in the first half. Yes.

And that, again, assumes that -- and the dates and Francois always tell us this is that the date of the starting up of the ramp-up is so important because the curve is the curve. And so if we can achieve that September start-up date, which we now feel quite confident about, that we'll deliver that in H1 of next year.

Okay. And then just for myself to understand, I appreciate you have a frozen plant with pipe. And I'm assuming material that would be a stockpile of frozen as well. So can I kind of just get an idea of how you see it at September 30, maybe sort of what the temperatures are so we can understand how we're getting to. Because obviously, things have to unfreeze and then you can start that plant up. Have you looked at any impact to this plant in its state? And do you have -- have you assessed it? And have you assessed what has to be replaced if anything? And do you have that on inventory? I'm just trying to understand, once September 30 comes that we start it and then we are missing pieces and/or other. So maybe just give us an idea of how you're going to September 30 from now and kind of what have you seen on site and preparing for?

Yes. And I might ask Francois to talk to that. He can probably give a much better answer. Over to you, Francois.

I think what we've achieved up until now was we've successfully ran the crushing and the milling circuits. So we know that's functioning as planned. We've also been able to continuously provide circulation throughout the leach circuit and all the thickness. So we also know that, that infrastructure is required. The next step of the [indiscernible] and really the final piece now is to perform the functional testing of the filtration plant, and we're actually in a good position to commence those tests as early as next week. So we believe that all the main equipment is fully functional, obviously, pending the functional tests next week. The visual inspections are not getting any indication of any issues. What we found and really, the damage that we've sustained, we've largely repaired already and that was mainly related to some pipelines, a smaller diameter pipelines, which we've changed. And in some cases, we've actually installed bypass lines. So for us, in certain cases, it's easier to install new pipelines than it is to actually unfreeze these pipelines or let them unfreeze by themselves. So I guess the biggest sort of impact we've seen was really on instrumentation and that we're currently finalizing the replacement of those instruments that were in the pipeline. And we're also doing the final testing on the control system. So we do not expect any significant issues when we start up at that date.

And for example, one of the key issues that we -- that resulted that we would delay the restart, which we were kind of aiming for that end of August restart was that we felt it was appropriate to have additional comps on-site to ensure that if we had any failures, it wouldn't actually affect the ramp-up. And that's -- and we should be expecting those on in the next week, 1.5 weeks or 2 weeks, sorry, I should say. So those are the only other one that I would have thought, yes.

And I may just add that the average temperatures are certainly starting to -- or slightly to increase throughout September. So it's unlikely that we'll see temperatures really below minus 5. And highly unlikely that we'll see temperatures below minus 10 from that point onwards. So that actually gives us some quite good operating conditions going forward.

Okay. So from what I understood, and again, just because I've seen it at other mines, so it looks like your instrumentation has been changed or control system, and all of that is now operational. You've got some backup on pumps should we have some additional issues or the backups are coming shortly. But everything else is looking like a restart as long as we're within that minus 5 to minus 10 in September. Would that be a fair assumption?

Yes. That's fair.

Okay. All right -- and okay, well, that's good. And I guess I just want to finish off with the little chinchillas. Is there any update on those little animals? Have you -- your interactions with the government, are we still looking at that 120 days to go through and then restart or where do we stand on that?

Yes. So Tanya, just to recall that we were never going to do any relocation or captured relocation activities during the winter months. So we'd always plan to suspend from May through to October any events. So it just happened that the environmental suspension kind of overlapped with that period. But we have used that opportunity to engage quite deeply with them. Remembering that the program, the plan for the relocation and capture was approved, was designed with the -- probably the premier environmental consultancy in Chile and endorsed by the SMA. So it's really been getting ourselves and those -- the experts as well as the environmental agency to align on. Once we've gone through all the monitoring and once we've gone through all the processes and we haven't identified any chinchillas, can we then start with the dismantling of the rocky areas, which is where the real kind of concern came in. And at this stage, we are planning with the alignment to recommence the monitoring program in October, in line with our plan.

Okay. And one other question I forgot to ask from the just Salares Norte and maybe someone can help me on the capital side. We had quite a number of delays, and I'm quite surprised that this capital has not moved up. So my question to you is if we get -- if we are online to start this mill up at the end of September and ramp up, are we comfortable that this capital cost is not going to move? If we have another delay, are we at risk? Because it's just -- I'm very surprised that we are still on target in that band?

Yes. Tanya, look, I'll ask Alex to add some color on that. But one of the things that does kind of move around is the move between ramp-up and project capital. So -- but Alex, do you want to bump in on that?

Yes. So Tanya, when we refer to the project capital that hasn't moved, that's the actual cost incurred to construct the plant that have stayed pretty fixed. The number that is moving and we've disclosed in the book is the ramp-up capital, which is now USD 71 million. And the longer the delay has gone, that ramp-up capital goes up as we classify operating costs back to capital expenditure. But -- and every month, sort of holding costs is about USD 35 million to USD 40 million. So that's sort of what would get capitalized on that ramp-up phase until we reach the commercial levels of production.

Yes. And just to be clear on that. So from a cash point of view, it's pretty much square because it's a reallocation of operating costs in '24 into what we call ramp-up capital.

Okay. Got it. Okay. So I'll have to look for that. And then if I could just ask my final question on the second half guidance. I mean pretty much every mine has to go up in production, except for demand, I think, in order to meet that 55% coming in versus the 45%. Where are we? Are you comfortable on your grades? Are you seeing grades improve? Are you seeing throughput improve? And at South Deep, when do you think you will resolve the issue with the [indiscernible] plant? Because that's obviously not giving you the flexibility to open your stopes and mine and then close -- [indiscernible] back up to give you that development ahead of production and ability to make your numbers? So maybe a bit of clarity on that.

Yes. Thanks, Tanya. And I'll ask Martin to talk about the -- about South Deep because he's well placed than any of us to answer it. But I think if you just look at the guidance, I mean, I think all of our operations outside of South Deep and Salares, we have a degree of comfort on how they're tracking. I'm probably the one that has got more of the higher relative risk just because of the [indiscernible] weighting of production at St Ives because quarter 4 for them is a very, very big quarter. So that does, just from a timing point of view, place, a bit of risk. But I think all the others are pretty much back on track for that. But Martin, if you talk exactly...

Tanya, we're expecting a 15% uplift in H2 at South Deep. So I think we've been conservative because of the challenges we've had. I think the problem is less about the backfilling. It's about the leakage that we've got to clear. So we've made significant inroads into that leakage, which is going to allow us to move back into some of the better-grade areas of the mine and get the mine running per the original sequence you envisaged in the year. Also, the other thing that's lifting grade in the second half at South Deep is our development to put infrastructure in use back into reef. So we see a bit of an uplift from that in the second half. I think in terms of resolving the backfill problems, we've been working on different solutions. One of them is the gelatin solution to start minimizing the leakage through the crushed ground in the pillars. We're getting some positive results on that now. We've also worked on improving the barricades we've put in place to hold the leakage. And then there's a polymer product we're working on to further improve the leakage to the actual pillars. We're also looking at options to increase the density of backfill close to where we place it. So I think the combination of all those things, we're not waiting for the perfect solution. We keep on working on those solutions as we go along and refining them. And I -- there's not, I think, a definitive date that we'll have no leakage. I think the reality is the kind of mining we do, we'll always have an element of leakage. It's about getting that to the minimum and then rehandling it as efficiently and as quickly as we can, and as I said, minimize the leakage and rehandle it. So I think during the second half, we will get on top of the rehandling or we're fairly on top of that now and then start minimizing leakage. But we got a definitive update and we've got the perfect solution, not yet, but I think it's getting better every month as we go along.

Okay. Great. I really appreciate you taking my questions and look forward to seeing you guys at the Colorado Springs.

The next question comes from Adrian Hammond of SBG Securities.

Mike, if we just stand back for a second and look at this portfolio, I'd like to get a better sense of how Goldfields is going to fare in the next 5 years. So if you take 2030 as a target, how many ounces are banked in the portfolio relative to current production that can be delivered. We've done Windfall to bring in 300,000 ounces. How many more ounces does the group need to acquire to keep the base steady?

Yes. Look, Adrian, a really good question and something that -- if you just take a step back, that certainly, I think, has been raised in the minds of a lot of the investors because when we went into Yamana, I think there was a lot of uncertainty created on the belief that we didn't have a portfolio that could actually deliver a sustainable production profile. So what we are looking to and 2030 is actually not the way we should think about this portfolio. We should be thinking about it or what does 2035 look like? Because that's the kind of horizon that we want to keep ahead of ourselves. And from a strategy, I guess, what we want to build into the market is a confidence that we've got this rolling 10-year horizon plus of reserves that allows us to hold the production profile of between 2 million to 3 million ounces, but we'll only replace those ounces if we can continue to grow cash flow per share. So that kind of gives you a bit of a sense of how we're thinking about portfolio evolution. But to 2030, which is 6-odd years out, all of our current operations with the exception of probably Cerro Corona, which we'll start seeing lower production coming because we're going to be processing stockpiles, demand probably comes out unless we do the additional reinvestment there. But then you get kickers from Salares, you get the kicker from hopefully the Tarkwa/Iduapriem JV, which we get some additional volumes out of. And you hopefully start seeing the ramp-up out of South Deep. So I look at the portfolio today and then say -- you don't want to ever say this, but it feels like we add a bit of this inflection point and probably what's hurt us is that we haven't had Salares ounces coming in as soon as we would have liked. But certainly, if I look through to 2030, I think there should be no reason that we're not in that 2.5 million ounce rates. So I think -- and that's without having to do anything different and that excludes even the addition of Windfall. So I think there's definitely things that we have to do. And I think what that does is, again, if we think that the kind of [indiscernible] for us is between 2 million and 3 million ounces, that maybe that then does force our hand in making decisions around assets that may be on the title of our portfolio in terms of contribution.

Sure. No, that's clear. And I appreciate your fresh eyes on the assets. Just secondly, on Salares and I hate to labor it as you had many already on this topic. But I think my concern is really you had an independent assessment done and the conclusion there was that the steady speed, the ramp-up was intact. Obviously, it's been delayed with bad weather. And I wonder what are they saying now about the steady state if you've had any conclusions from that? And then secondly, what happens next winter when operations get disrupted all the time. I mean are you confident to say today that should you have a disruption next winter that, that plant can continue unaffected?

Yes. And I'll ask Francois to comment, and I can add in at the back end.

Yes. Firstly, from the independent review. Their focus was really on the ramp-up. And just -- nothing in the ramp-up has changed. So we still believe when we recommence ramp-up that we will continue to follow that curve. At this stage, we don't have an independent -- or an additional independent review on the steady-state conditions. But what I can say is that the events that lead to the delay and what we experienced here in April was we were really gearing in totally abnormal operating circumstances. We were in the process of commissioning the plant. So the plant was stationary during significant periods of time. And we suffered an unseasonable event and causing the plant to start to freeze up. So that's -- I need to -- just under normal operating conditions, what you have is you've got a milling circuit where you're injecting a significant amount of fleet into the circuit. So 6 megawatts of power goes into your system. The slurry and solutions continue to circulate and that was definitely not the conditions we had during April. So if we look forward towards next year and if we continue with the ramp up, we would certainly -- we don't expect to have similar conditions. The question might be what happens during a shutdown. During a shutdown, obviously, the team needs to tighten the required operating precautions and stop or circulate or drain the lines. So there are operating procedures in place for that. So we're definitely not foreseeing a similar event taking place. What we are, however, doing as a precautionary measure is, obviously, we're looking at everything very critically and assessing where we should apply additional measures. But what we believe is that those measures are incremental in nature. So we don't think it will require significant additional CapEx. There might be a small portion of additional heat tracing and installation to be done. We are definitely planning to put specific protection for some of our pumps, but again, very incremental in nature. So the operating conditions will be vastly different next year when we're already in steady-state conditions when we get into winter, and we will also have some additional protection against those conditions.

Yes. Thanks, Francois. And I think the real thing that's hurt us at Salares is the fact that we had that early winter event in April, which really put us on the back foot and we probably then just were always going to be struggling. But I think getting -- as Francois said, once we ramp up steady state, next year is going to be a lot easier.

But maybe if I can just add to that, just to support that. What we've been doing as part of our preparations for the restart up, we've been circulating solutions in the plant in the whole of the fitness circuit, the leach circuit. So we know it's working. We've had the coldest day in nearly a decade on-site and then the circuit was able to operate continuously through that. So yes, that is obviously underscoring our belief that we can maintain this during the following winter.

The next question comes from Leroy Mnguni of HSBC.

I've got 2 questions. So I'm mindful that you guys revised your guidance in May. I think some issues at South Deep and again in June because of the Salares issues. And in both instances, you said you were quite conservative in your guidance or you gave a wide range to account for contingencies. And yet again, you're seeing the same assets kind of feature and the justification for a further cut in guidance 2 months later. Is this just an unfortunate set of incidents that happened to coincide or is there a need to review some of your planning processes and management supervision? My second question is just on labor issues across the group. I remember a few months ago, you're considering moving a labor force from Ghana to Australia to relieve some of the pressure there. We've seen your PGM peers along the eastern limb having some challenges with labor shortages. I know those are often some of the skills to South Deep. So if you could just give a bit of a summary of how that's going across the group?

Yes. Thanks, Leroy. Look, I think just in terms of the first one on guidance. I guess, I'd make 2 comments on that. Firstly, we made decisions based on the information that we have available at that time. So quite clearly, in May, the 2 biggest unknowns were Salares Norte and South Deep. And certainly, on the back of that, we believe that we would be able to get a restart on Salares. And that certainly, we now know has been delayed further. And it's purely that delay in the restart of the ramp-up has meant that we've had to reguide on Salares. And hopefully, when we did the initial guidance at Salares, we were quite clear that, that 90,000 ounces was assuming a restart on the 1st of September. So similarly now, as we go out, if we really can't start on the 30th of September, we're probably going to lose ounces again at the rate of about 2,000 ounces -- 1,000 ounces a day. So it's really important for us to understand the impact, particularly in the early days on guidance. I think as related to South Deep, the team has been working really with a number of partners to try and find a solution to this leakage through a number of products, as Martin has said. And I think it's been probably a little bit -- a little disappointing that we haven't been able to get a solution quicker. And I think what we have now is recognizing the backlog that's created that we really want to do this in a safe and sustainable way. I mean the last thing we want to do is to push that team that continue to operate in difficult conditions and overly stress that operation. So I think those are the 2 things that may have changed from May. And I fully appreciate that this is putting out a change in guidance 3 months later is absolutely not what we stand for, not what we want to do. But again, I think in the context of this, I'd much rather keep people safe and do ramp-ups in a safe and reliable way. And if it means that we create a lot of disappointment to the market, I fully appreciate that, but of our key people safe, that's more important. And then just on the Ghana to Australia issue, Martin, you may want to comment on that.

I think, Leroy, it was with some relaxation with the immigration regulations in Western Australia. We had a number of our staff that have applied for roles at our mines in Australia. So we've -- some of them have moved. Some of them have gone on interview there and I think preferred Ghana. So we have had a few people, but I don't think it was ever envisaged as a mass migration of Ghanaians to our operations in Western Australia. But we certainly have seen a couple of our colleagues move there. Some have accepted roles, some have turned them down. If I go on to your question about South Deep and the loss of -- it's in particular around long-haul drill rig operators as well as the artisans who maintain those machines. There has been a little bit of a slowing, but certainly, we're still under pressure. The window for long-haul stope rig operators sort of training up is obviously a lot shorter because that is almost the apex of our operating skills underground. So what we are doing is we are over training in that category. So we're taking people off jumbos to train up and we're training surplus to requirements with the understanding that we will continue losing operators until the market is saturated. Unfortunately, it's a cost we're going to have to bear to [indiscernible] for the industry. And that is steady, but obviously, there's a proficiency challenge because you've just got new operators on your machines all the time. With artisans, a little bit more difficult to want to sort of get our artists and qualified sort of hydraulic fitter, a diesel fitter is sort of at least a 4-year window. And to get them proficient is most probably sort of 7, 8 years. So we are investing in artisan training, but we are also going to have to look outside to try and attract and retain those skills external to the mine.

Thanks, Martin. And thanks for the question.

It appears we have no further questions in the queue. I will now hand back to Mr. Mike Fraser for closing remarks.

Look, thank you very much for joining our call this afternoon. And look, I fully appreciate there's been a number of disappointments, not just the underlying performance, starting with safety through to production and also the change in guidance. But I can honestly and confidently say that the second half is going to demonstrate a much stronger operating performance. And as you can see with the guidance that, that translates into much a big kicker and improvement in our cash generation and reduction in unit costs. Clearly, Salares Norte restart as a key issue for us over the next 6 weeks. We think that the delay is actually a very sound and safe way to think about a safe restart. But I fully appreciate that the next quarter is going to be an important one to demonstrate some confidence back in our performance. But I appreciate the questions and the engagement today and look forward to speaking to you. Thanks. Bye-bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's event. Thank you for attending, and you may now disconnect your lines.